What is the association between *mood* and behavior? Much of the discussion in this and other 4T forums revolves around the importance of mood. I'm not sure we are precise enough with this concept to make it useful:

1. It seems that we often conflate mood with expectations. Expectations about the future can be generated without regard to mood - it could simply reflect an extrapolation of past experiences or a rational calculation of expected future events.

2. Mood can cause behaviors, but behaviors can also cause moods. I can be happy and thus more likely to purchase stocks, or a stock market boom could cause me to become happier. The 4T could be caused by a mood shift or the 4T could cause a mood shift, but more than likely it is a result of a delayed overreaction in mood caused by a delayed underreaction in mood during the previous turning.

3. Most of the time our moods are quite functional. It simply is a heuristic we use to make decisions that has evolved because of its adaptive advantage over human history. It is only in a minority of situations that our moods are maladaptive. Therefore using mood as a predictor of behavior does not in most cases offer valuable insight. It is only in manias , crises or when operating with dysfunctional social structures that we profit from using mood as a predictor.

I wouldn't dispute some who suggest recent events are more analogous to 1929 rather than 1941, and thus are 4T in nature. Even so, the Crash of 1929 led to people becoming better neighbors. Nevertheless, as I previously mentioned, it seems that -- just like the people of 1929 were too close to the event of the crash -- we are too close to the 911 attacks to objectively analyze those in terms of turnings.

I've seen many very good arguments both for and against the U.S. entering the 4T after the 911 attacks. Whether or not we are in the 4T or the transition between 3T and 4T seems -- at least in part -- dependent on if the rest of the world is in the 3T or 4T. I suggest this as so because of many things, among which are...

[1] Economics between nations are interdependent. Downsliding economic conditions are more survivable today than in previous times of hardship. We can instantaneously move money and thus improve financial stability at the individual level. A 4T catalyst in economic terms would necessarily have to be global in its scale and its reach.

[2] A first-world versus third-world schism exists which may delay the onset of the 4T.

[3] Unlike any previous 3T to 4T transition, mass media as much as anything else is very influential. We still don't understand whether media will exacerbate the catalyst (if that's what the 911 attacks were). If the media does, perhaps we are closer to 4T. If the media softens the edge of the 911 attacks and events subsequent thereto, then perhaps the 911 attacks were no more than a push closer to the 3T-4T transition.

Again, just a thought.

j.w.

Evidence we are in 3T:

Remember the story I told last week of my eleven month old's play group (reminder -- people did not think it was that weird that a two year old was wearing a bicycle helmet in the grocery store.)

Same play group one week later. Topic of conversation is no longer 911 and political/legal/personal/finacial/foreign policy ramifications. This week the topic of conversation was great deals to New York, hotels in Vegas for $29/night, and where are the cheap airfares anyway?

On 2001-10-01 14:44, cbailey wrote:
Bill Mahr (Politically Incorrect)being run out of town for his "cowards" remark....and today's Doonesbury..Boobsie doesn't care what Madonna eats for breakfast anymore. 4T?

Jason Fox told his father he was proud of Dad. And today, acted up in school so he could be sent home early so he could be with his dad. Jason Fox!!! But then, he's a Millie.

Jason Fox told his father he was proud of Dad. And today, acted up in school so he could be sent home early so he could be with his dad. Jason Fox!!! But then, he's a Millie.

Actually, he was trying to get detention so he wouldn't have to go with his dad.

I've seen many very good arguments both for and against the U.S. entering the 4T after the 911 attacks. Whether or not we are in the 4T or the transition between 3T and 4T seems -- at least in part -- dependent on if the rest of the world is in the 3T or 4T. I suggest this as so because of many things, among which are...

As I understand it, our position is independent of the rest of the world. But not everyone posting here agrees on that.

[1] Economics between nations are interdependent. Downsliding economic conditions are more survivable today than in previous times of hardship. We can instantaneously move money and thus improve financial stability at the individual level. A 4T catalyst in economic terms would necessarily have to be global in its scale and its reach.

The economic depression of the 1920's and 30's was global. If I am not mistaken, the rest of the world is already in a recession. The US economy was the one bright spot (although admittedly not very bright.) This would seem to favor a 4T.

[2] A first-world versus third-world schism exists which may delay the onset of the 4T.

Actually, this may be the cause of the 4T.

[3] Unlike any previous 3T to 4T transition, mass media as much as anything else is very influential. We still don't understand whether media will exacerbate the catalyst (if that's what the 911 attacks were). If the media does, perhaps we are closer to 4T. If the media softens the edge of the 911 attacks and events subsequent thereto, then perhaps the 911 attacks were no more than a push closer to the 3T-4T transition.

Actually, mass media was available in the last two (some may argue three) 3T-4T transitions. Newpapers are mass media. And at the time of the Civil War, the telegraph made national news available to almost every major city and town on the continent. The same was true during 1929. Radio was also available, along with motion picture newsreels.

The media "blew-up" the story of the Maine (if not the Maine itself), launching us into the Spanish American War. The also fed the anti-Hun (German) fever to ignite WWI. Just because the media doesn't "soften the edge" does not mean we are in a 4T. However, even if they do "soften the edge", it might not keep us out of one.

On 2001-10-01 13:51, Brian Rush wrote:

Also, I would like to nominate Brian Rush for prez!!

Aaaaaaggghhhh!!!!


Bite yo' tongue, dude!

Amen! :smile:

On 2001-10-01 19:21, DOC 62 wrote:

Jason Fox told his father he was proud of Dad. And today, acted up in school so he could be sent home early so he could be with his dad. Jason Fox!!! But then, he's a Millie.

Actually, he was trying to get detention so he wouldn't have to go with his dad.

I've seen many very good arguments both for and against the U.S. entering the 4T after the 911 attacks. Whether or not we are in the 4T or the transition between 3T and 4T seems -- at least in part -- dependent on if the rest of the world is in the 3T or 4T. I suggest this as so because of many things, among which are...

As I understand it, our position is independent of the rest of the world. But not everyone posting here agrees on that.

[1] Economics between nations are interdependent. Downsliding economic conditions are more survivable today than in previous times of hardship. We can instantaneously move money and thus improve financial stability at the individual level. A 4T catalyst in economic terms would necessarily have to be global in its scale and its reach.

The economic depression of the 1920's and 30's was global. If I am not mistaken, the rest of the world is already in a recession. The US economy was the one bright spot (although admittedly not very bright.) This would seem to favor a 4T.

[2] A first-world versus third-world schism exists which may delay the onset of the 4T.

Actually, this may be the cause of the 4T.

[3] Unlike any previous 3T to 4T transition, mass media as much as anything else is very influential. We still don't understand whether media will exacerbate the catalyst (if that's what the 911 attacks were). If the media does, perhaps we are closer to 4T. If the media softens the edge of the 911 attacks and events subsequent thereto, then perhaps the 911 attacks were no more than a push closer to the 3T-4T transition.

Actually, mass media was available in the last two (some may argue three) 3T-4T transitions. Newpapers are mass media. And at the time of the Civil War, the telegraph made national news available to almost every major city and town on the continent. The same was true during 1929. Radio was also available, along with motion picture newsreels.

The media "blew-up" the story of the Maine (if not the Maine itself), launching us into the Spanish American War. The also fed the anti-Hun (German) fever to ignite WWI. Just because the media doesn't "soften the edge" does not mean we are in a 4T. However, even if they do "soften the edge", it might not keep us out of one.

Well said, especially about how instant communication has been available for longer than most tend to realize.

On 2001-10-01 01:10, Barbara wrote:
Chris, since the Onion is technically pure farce (but *we* know better, huh), hopefully it will get even more popular as we travel down the 4T road. Escapism will be needed! (just cheaper and more domestic methods of it...). I hope it does, it's funny.

Marc, I have to share this: today on some panel of talking heads discussing *what else?*, there sat your 'friend' and mine, Cal Thomas, and guess who he defended? Bill Mahr's right to dissent and practice free speech (aka the "cowardly" remark) without having to lose advertising over it. Hope you saw it, you'd have loved it!

Brian, good article. I always wondered where they expected the gov't to be for us when needed if we devolve it. Further, accountability of past ideology is now not even mentioned to a conservative, for fear of accusal of sparking an argument (a new four letter word). Darn. I enjoy watching a good backpeddle.

Barbara, for the most part, we're not backpeddling. As to where the government would be if we devolved it, we never wanted to devolve _all_ of it. National security and foreign functions are indubitably legitimate functions of the Federal Government. Few conservatives (using the word in its usual modern American sense) ever maintained otherwise. If anything, we complained that the Federal authority was too focused on domestic matters at the expense of defense and security.

On TV I'm seeing a marked practice, among conservatives, where the Clinton Admin is blanketly always blamed for the deficiencies we now find in our gov't. But the cross debater who wants to point out that we should look further back in time and hold the Republican admins accountable too, now does it as a token agreeing with the Clinton-basher, but adding his/her assertion as an additional thing. Subtle, yet technically NOT arguing, unlike what was done regularly pre-911. 3T or 4T? Who knows? What it says more clearly to me is that everything is still very much poll driven on both sides.

Probably true, about the polls. But it remains a fact that Clinton neglected foreign policy and national security. He did this with the approval of the public, so I'm not sure he can be singled out for it, though.

Also, saw the other night on O'Reilly that he was desperately trying to make a huge deal out of CNN's practice of referring to the terrorists as "suspected terrorists" and/or "hijackers" instead of just "terrorists". Next day, Reuter's was included in the criticism. Apparently they do what CNN does. Anyway, O'Reilly was attempting this self-righteous intimation that doing this 1. somehow made CNN an apologist and not "with us"; and 2. he also was trying hard to make it seem that CNN was un-American in that they might be trying to tone down the descriptions because they have such a network of networks over there in Middle East (and employees).

Anyway, it came off as really a miss and just plain funny. O'Reilly should be ashamed; what a stupid thing if he was sincere, and how picky and trite and competitive if he wasn't and if it was meant to be picky and trite and competitive.

I surely hope we aren't about to have to sit through years of the media cat-fighting and thought-policing each other.

Pre-911, I watched them all: Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC. I now see Fox staying 3T somewhat, and CNN moving on. For now, I see CNN and MSNBC being the best chances of finding any real news (as opposed to the usual propaganda). CNN has the years of doing this kind of thing and the infrastructure over there. Plus, I think when they get told they can't know something, they may be more likely to go "oh, yeah? watch me" ( while showing an appropriate self-censure for security's sake, of course).

All the networks remain 3T at the moment, since they don't yet know how to do anything else. Fox leans to the right in its reporting, unquestionably, but no more so than CNN does to the left.


CNN has a history of bias against conservatives in general and the U.S. military in specific. The relatively recent 'Tail Wind' dust-up, with the unbacked accusations of nerve gas usage, was only a particularly glaring example.

I will say, though, Fox's recent expose on what you can smuggle onto an airplane was good. However, I got the distinct impression among their talking heads they wanted some really deep reforms in airline security, so was the expose ideologically motivated? IMO, yes. But it was still interesting, and since I agree we need more of a El-Am (heh) approach, I liked it.

CNN's two expose's Beneath the Veil and Soldiers of God were excellent and much more in depth and representative of 'hard news'. Could one say they promote the "What have we done wrong?" thinking? Yes. But they could also have just represented "the other side" mentality, and frankly we need that. We've suddenly had an important and very big history assignment thrust upon us. I hope everyone does their homework. :smile:

Hey there, Hopeful.

On 2001-10-01 21:17, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Barbara, for the most part, we're not backpeddling. As to where the government would be if we devolved it, we never wanted to devolve _all_ of it.

Agreed. I was being catty with my backpeddle remark. Should have used a smiley. Problem's been, I've wanted it devolved too, and except for Welfare, haven't seen it, haven't seen my federal taxes markedly reduce, and my county and local taxes have gone beserk.

National security and foreign functions are indubitably legitimate functions of the Federal Government. Few conservatives (using the word in its usual modern American sense) ever maintained otherwise. If anything, we complained that the Federal authority was too focused on domestic matters at the expense of defense and security.

Well, I agree except I believe in keeping SS/Medicare and Labor Laws, too. There's a bunch of other stuff I'd cut, like corporate welfare, and I'd like Congress to devise some kind of percentage limits on local spending interests (that often result in pork paid based on the Congress(wo)men's influence) to country-wide or national spending interests, sort of like how Gramm-Rudman was fashioned using percentage calculations and deadlines. We've got to really try to cut out the pork. I haven't yet seen a worthy attempt to do that yet. Hey, in the REAL WORLD, you're fired if you haven't done something on it by now. The Repubs have spent as much as the Dems. Coulda shoulda woulda. That's the results. A pox on both their houses where that's concerned.

Probably true, about the polls. But it remains a fact that Clinton neglected foreign policy and national security. He did this with the approval of the public, so I'm not sure he can be singled out for it, though.

Agreed. I'm not trying to lionize Clinton by any means. I would add, though, that the admins before him went overboard the OTHER way and managed to screw things up, too, so again, lets look at the whole picture. This present problem was started during Reagan, even Carter if you want to go back that far. Just focussing on the last 8 years like it could have been solved, without public support as you say, is quite disingenuous and smacks of petty partisan 3T to me. The Clinton-bashing gets so redundant after awhile that you cannot take what else the person says sincerely.

All the networks remain 3T at the moment, since they don't yet know how to do anything else. Fox leans to the right in its reporting, unquestionably, but no more so than CNN does to the left.

CNN has a history of bias against conservatives in general and the U.S. military in specific. The relatively recent 'Tail Wind' dust-up, with the unbacked accusations of nerve gas usage, was only a particularly glaring example.

Well, that was kind of my point. I respect that CNN was all this in the past. I saw it myself. I'm saying I think they are starting to evolve to the center, or as much as they can. Because Fox has positioned itself so to the right over the last decade, CNN's had to find the centrists and leftists in the audience left over. They used to shoot for the left, but I think that gradually they've been moving to center. I noticed this before 911. They do continue to have people like Greenfield, Press and King for that liberal market segment, but it's thoughtful and centrist. Judith Reagan and Mort Kondrake (in the Beltway Boy fray) are really about all I see on Fox for what I will call a more thoughtful centrist viewpoint.

I imagine that liberals may be more upset with CNN than conservatives should be. This liberal media effect has been a thing of the past for awhile now. Conservatives have won some control over the culture and they own much of the media now. I wish many of them would quit running the defensive attack and start being more statesman-like about it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-01 22:57 ]</font>

On 2001-10-01 13:51, Brian Rush wrote:

Also, I would like to nominate Brian Rush for prez!!

Aaaaaaggghhhh!!!!


Bite yo' tongue, dude!

Now, Brian, you ARE the right age and gen personality. :grin:

who is jason fox?
jamie foxx or jason priestley????
ugh.
let me let you in on something.
I went to clubs all weekend. Europe is still in a very deep Third Turning.
But After my Hash trip was fleeing my brain early Sunday morning I got two images in my head.
One was of all the dead people in lower manhattan.
The other was of a woman I know who just had a baby.
And I started to cry. It was nuts.
I think were still in a Third Turning though.
Thinking on generations right now,
the eldest GIs are pretty much over 77 years old
(In 1929 there were no Civics, in 1860 the youngest civics were 94, in 1773 the youngest civics were 100)
the Silents are between 59 and 77
(in 1929 the youngest adaptives were 70, in 1860 the youngest adaptives were 69, in 1773 the youngest adaptives were 73)
the Boomers are between 41 and 58
(in 1929 the youngest prophets were 47, in 1860 the youngest prophets were 41, in 1773 the youngest prophets were 50)
the GenXers are between 40 and *20*(debatable)
(in 1929 the youngest nomads were 29, in 1860 the youngest nomads were 19, in 1773, the youngest nomads were 32)
the Millennials are between *20* and *3*
(in the 1929 the youngest civics were 5, in 1860 the youngest civics didnt exist, in 1773 they were 9)
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN??????
it means that if were not in a third turning were on Civil War time, and if we are still in a Third Turning we will arrive at our destination when...
the youngest civics are over 80
the youngest adaptives are nearing 70
the youngest prophets are nearing 50
the youngest nomads are nearing 30
the youngest civics are wee children.
Id approximate 2008 ish

The SCOTUS trembles with fear. The E2K election was just one example of the Court taking charge because the legislative bodies of America are just too messy.

So argues Mr. Philip Gold in the 2 October 2001 number of the Washington Times in "The Supreme Court's Fear". Will a Boomer Court, just let go? Do Boomers ever? HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-10-02 07:23 ]</font>

Jason Fox is the youngest son in the comic strip 'Foxtrot'. It's a pretty good strip. I think it's new enough that Jason's always been a Millennial, although I think that (older siblings) Peter and Paige started out as Xers.

Foxtrot started in '88 or '89. Jason has always been 10, Paige 14, and Peter 16. Thus, they were vary-aged Nintendo-wave Xers.

Consider The Simpsons, which was started as a real Primetime show in...1989? Bart is always 10, Lisa is 8, and Maggie about 1 or so. Marge and Homer are, I guess, in their mid-to-late 30s. When the show started, the family was of two late-wave Boomers, two late-wave Xers, and one Millennial. Now, the parents are Xer age, and all the kids, except for maybe Maggie are Millennial. Who was the trouble maker in early episodes? Bart. Who gets into more trouble now? I think Homer does.

Mr marc, say: "As of today, I have yet to have even heard of one "Arab" looking person being injured as a result."

you weren't paying attention then cause it's happened.

"Because the simple fact of the matter is you, Ms. angeli, are a racist."

sticks and stones, mr marc.

" And your demand that I not laugh, that I not sing, that I keep my mouth shut in the face of my advesary because of some racial overtones might offend some certain groups of people, while calling me "white man," is proof of your sickening racial attitude."

you can laugh all you want mr. marc. This is America. you have the right to be as tacky as you want to be.

And I have the right to say, well there goes Marc Lamb, being as tacky as he wants to be.

And you have the right to call me names for it. It doesn't improve my opinion of you.

But basicly, you just have a problem with my lack of political incorrectness and my calling a spade a spade and not walking on wee eggshells to spare your wittle feelings.

You don't like it when people of color call *you* a racist because you disagree with them, but its okay for *you* to indulge in such slander and bad behavior. Right. That's because you want to have it both ways.

"And you have the gall to exclude me, and no doubt my kind, from the clear and present danger. You are amazing, Ms. angeli."

So are you. And tacky. And a politically correct lingo-nazi. So there. Nyah. Done with the fourth grade Mr. marc?

"I will not stop laughing, Ms. angeli. I will continue to laugh all I want to at whatever I want to, Ms. angeli."

And I'll continue to say you're tacky and self-absorbed to do so. Yeah. And the touchiest person I've ever seen on percieved, yea, imagined disrespect to your race, gender, politics and religion. I say again: if you were in danger of being killed for them, you'd howl, not laugh, and take exception to other people laughing, and take exception to other people not thinking what you think!

And no, mr marc, you're not in the same "clear and present danger". Not from your own countrymen.

You're such a flaming hypocrite!

Yes, hypocrite!

And tacky!

You carry on the live-long day about being frank and not being politically correct and calling a spade a spade. Well go buy yourself a grip at the K-mart blue light special!

You can dish it out but you can't take it!




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-02 16:34 ]</font>

"And tacky!" writes Ms. Angeli.



Main Entry: tacky
Pronunciation: 'ta-kE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): tack?i?er; -est
Etymology: 2tack
Date: 1788
: somewhat sticky to the touch <tacky varnish>; also : characterized by tack : ADHESIVE


Get the Top 10 Most Popular Sites for "tacky"

Popular Direct Hit Web Sites for: " tacky"
Search Results 1-20 Ranked by Popularity

1. Pinky's Souvenir Land - Floaty Pens, Snowdomes, and Tacky Tourist Trinkets Floaty pens, snowdomes, state magnets, souvenir spoons, tacky tourist trinkets and vintage collectibles.
http://www.spantz.com/


2. MOBA Museum Shop The museum shop at the Museum of Bad Art is a not-for-much-profit organization that supports our effort to bring bad art to the world. So spend wildly, extravagantly and recklessly.
http://www.nvo.com/moba/displayroom/

3. tackyLiving - gracious living ... with a difference! tackyLiving - gracious living ... with a difference!
http://www.tackyliving.com/

4. Tacky Pages... You'll stick with Tacky Pages Updated April 97 Welcome to Tacky Pages... Have you got a small business (running from home or similar) and would like to get your advertising happening on the Internet??? "Tacky Pages" can help... Tacky Pages can provide...
http://dove.net.au/~maray/Tacky.html


I especially liked this one, Ms. angeli :lol:

5. Etiquette Hell danteandvirgilatthegateofhellblake50.jpg (56657 bytes) .....a special cyber place created for the truly etiquette challenged, the purposely greedy, the ungrateful, and the uncivil members of society. Announcements of New Changes to...
http://www.thinds.com/jmh/ehell/

6. Mister Poll: Tacky Personal Habits This poll may have questions that are offensive to the aint of heart. Enter at your own risk! :lol:
http://www.misterpoll.com/3097493372.html

7. Tacky Tourist - South Strip - Las Vegas for Visitors - Date: 07/19/98 Trip Report - Xtreme Scene, from your About.com Guide
http://govegas.miningco.com/travel/g...y/aa071998.htm

8. The Tacky Postcard Archive Tired of cute virtual greeting cards? Send a TACKY postcard instead! A world-famous collection of the funniest cards ever printed -- all free!
http://www.tackymail.com/

9. Tacky Dot Slides - Particle Size Distribution Analysis by Microscopy - SPI Supplies Use the SPI Supplies Tacky Dot Slides for all powder characterization work using microscopy, including both SEM and LM, using both automated and non-automated systems.
http://www.2spi.com/new/tacky.html

10. Adventures in space and time with tv's Doctor Who Doctor Who, Tardis, Dalek, Cyberman, William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul Mcgann, The Doctor
http://www.pgmoore.demon.co.uk/PMWho/whoindex.html

Marc, do you at least get what it is that you're laughing at when you laugh at the website? What you're laughing at is the real pain of so-called "Arab-looking" people (like Angeli and me), some of whom died last month for simply looking Arab. Yes, people did die. Stop posting for a minute and read the paper. And do you at least understand why some of us really can't muster up a chuckle in this situation.

On 2001-10-01 22:51, Barbara wrote:
We've got to really try to cut out the pork. I haven't yet seen a worthy attempt to do that yet. Hey, in the REAL WORLD, you're fired if you haven't done something on it by now. The Repubs have spent as much as the Dems. Coulda shoulda woulda. That's the results. A pox on both their houses where that's concerned.

Amen!

On 2001-10-01 22:51, Barbara wrote:
(CNN) used to shoot for the left, but I think that gradually they've been moving to center.

Respectfully disagree from the Red seats.

On 2001-10-01 22:51, Barbara wrote:
They do continue to have people like Greenfield, Press and King for that liberal market segment, but it's thoughtful and centrist.

Ahem. Mr. Greenfield is so thoughtful and centrist, IMHO, he's even respected by some in the Red seats. If no one else, me.

Barbara, as 3T as it may be to bring it up, I must take exception to your statement that the "liberal market segment" is attracted by the appearance of "thoughtful centrists" on TV. Is the insinuation here that no one wants to hear unabashed liberalism (if so, there are a few networks losing a lot of money on that kind of programming), and that conservatives only want to hear conservative talk? (So asks someone who regularly listens to NPR and watches PBS.)

Hi, Chris ---

On 2001-10-01 22:51, Barbara wrote:
We've got to really try to cut out the pork. I haven't yet seen a worthy attempt to do that yet. Hey, in the REAL WORLD, you're fired if you haven't done something on it by now. The Repubs have spent as much as the Dems. Coulda shoulda woulda. That's the results. A pox on both their houses where that's concerned.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

Amen!

Good, we do agree on something <g>.


On 2001-10-01 22:51, Barbara wrote:
(CNN) used to shoot for the left, but I think that gradually they've been moving to center.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

Respectfully disagree from the Red seats.


Chris, WHY do you disagree?

On 2001-10-01 22:51, Barbara wrote:
They do continue to have people like Greenfield, Press and King for that liberal market segment, but it's thoughtful and centrist.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

Ahem. Mr. Greenfield is so thoughtful and centrist, IMHO, he's even respected by some in the Red seats. If no one else, me.


Well, Greenfield's a liberal, but he goes thoughtful and centrist for his show. I'm glad you like him, I do too, because he is worth it.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

Barbara, as 3T as it may be to bring it up, I must take exception to your statement that the "liberal market segment" is attracted by the appearance of "thoughtful centrists" on TV.

Okay.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

Is the insinuation here that no one wants to hear unabashed liberalism


No, not at all. The assertion on my part was that there are so few places for liberals to watch nationally that they now have to change their standards to thoughtful and centrist. And I don't mean thoughtful to be 'with thought'. I did insinuate with that word choice that the pundits have to be constantly open to the other side's philosophy so as to avoid being labelled a liberal. That's not cool nowadays. Centrists are labelled liberal nowadays ON NATIONAL NETWORK OR CABLE TV, that is.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

(if so, there are a few networks losing a lot of money on that kind of programming),


Chris, please name them, because I no longer see them. I used to, but not anymore.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

and that conservatives only want to hear conservative talk?


No, I know that's too generalized. But, I'd say most conservatives I know and read/see in media think the media is mostly liberal, which is just no longer true. They tend to think centrists are liberals. You yourself seems to think CNN is liberal. Liberals I know and read/see in media don't think it is, so where's the truth, somewhere in between - centrist.

On 2001-10-02 18:20, Chris '68 wrote:

(So asks someone who regularly listens to NPR and watches PBS.)


Good, I'm glad you are what I call an open conservative, like me (except I'm paleo and third way, don't know what you are). And I don't listen to NPR, so perhaps that's one national liberal news source, I don't know. But PBS is no longer liberal. Paul Gigout and the other pundits there are not liberal. I'll grant you - Mark Shields is, so liberals can get a bit there.

Most national liberal media persons are paired nowadays with conservatives and a shrill argument ensues. Few liberals have their own national show, yet conservative ones are numerous. When you see heads like Sam and Cokie (or Slam and Cookie, as freepers like to call them) grilling a guest, they are doing it for ratings, which is what the whole juxtaposition has been caused by (and conservative ownership - don't like the liberal media? Then buy them, and they have). Sam and Cokie (as examples) have become centrist because many liberals long ago turned their tv's off in digust, but many others are still out there trying to find something to watch. They've turned to more local arenas, print, internet, etc. Or, calloused now by all the arguing, to the usual tv news sources where they wade through the conservative or centrist to get the day's events.

Chris, if Fox considered CNN so liberal, why do they fret and bother about why CNN calls a terrorist a 'suspected terrorist'? Because they consider them competition. Centrist does compete with conservatives, for all but the most rigid conservatives. Paula Zahn didn't just change her paradigms overnight. Rush Limbaugh is negotiating for a CNN show. I mean, you know, is Ralph Nader getting a show? Uh-uh.

My point was that I just get tired of conservatives continuing to cry, The Media is Liberal The Media is Liberal, like the Russians are coming. Instead, they ought to wake up and realize they are the conquering heroes now and rise to the occasion, quit Clinton-bashing through every segway and start being more statesman-like in their presentation. I find it embarrassing as a conservative that they continue to act as if they were in the minority, as if they were a formerly overweight person now trim, but who can't see anything but fat blubber in the mirror. They're living in the past. And, they continue to alienate those who might otherwise shrug their shoulders and start watching, and become viewers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-02 20:15 ]</font>

Apparently I lost a post the other day. I was in New York last weekend; they are still profoundly depressed, and most of the major attractions are still closed.

Now I continue to believe this is the beginning of the 4T, but it's clearer every day that the Administration doesn't get it. The most incredible example is their attempt to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, of all things! Now! By taking the side of the Palestinians! Please, guys, it's not going to work. The economy, meanwhile, is continuing to tank.

I tend to think a Moslem government will be replaced in the next couple of years, after we take action in Afghanistan--very likely Pakistan, or perhaps even Saudi Arabia. I am also very worried that Israel will reoccupy the West Bank and Saddam Hussein will occupy Jordan. And in the end, I think our only option will be to settle down for a kind of Cold War against these new militant Islamic states--because occupying them and conquering them is never going to be a viable option. Meanwhile, we will have a long-term national effort to improve security at home.

The New Republic is also playing this in 3T mode, spending their time taking off after the Left. And wait until they have time to react to the Administration's new Israel policy!

"Marc, do you at least get what it is that you're laughing at when you laugh at the website?", writes Ms. Neisha.

[Mr. Marc] What "website"? One that denigrated my Faith, and the One in whom I believe in?



A while back someone posted:

A vote for 4T at

FEARFORTHEREPUBLIC.com surveys their posters upon the present condition. HTH



To which I responded:
FEARFORTHEREPUBLIC.com

That is way too funny. :lol:

To which Ms. Angeli responded:
[Ms. angeli] laugh it up, white man. If you were Indian - oh, excuse me - "Ayrab" - you wouldn't think that sight was funny at all. Yeah, lets make all the immigrants fight to prove our loyalty, especially the ones born here and never mind if my people have been killed by Muslims for the last 400 years.

Yeah, America at its finest.

["white man"] I detect a bit of racism in your "white man" remark, Ms. angeli.

[Ms. angeli] why is it racist to say you are white and a man when you are white and a man? (you are white and a man, aren't you?)

["white man"] Perhaps Ms. Angeli, would think of "white man" in a different light were she to read some of what "white man" writes?

[Ms. angeli] I'm not saying you're racist. I'm saying you are suffering from profound failure of imagination about a threat that doesn't concern you.

["white man"] Doesn't concern me? How utterly ridiculous.

[Ms. angeli] Oh? And who is going to come beat you up on the El because you might look Arab? Nobody, of course. So its easy for you to laugh.

["white man"] In a previous post, Ms. angeli, you stated that you didn't "say" I was a "racist." I never thought you did. I wouldn't care even if you did say it, think it, or write it.

Because the simple fact of the matter is you, Ms. angeli, are a racist.


Then a big brew hah ha ensued when a "little green thing" called "BoomXer," from my hometown of Columbus, Ohio chimmed in claiming, "Marc, The fact that you are white and the small town you live in is 99% white goes to the heart of your tiff with angeli."

["white man"] Wrong. The fact that she called me "white man," and then ridiculously asserted that, because of my skin color, I have nothing to fear in the clear and present danger "goes to the heart of" my "tiff with angeli."

Then Ms. Angeli jumps back in with:
[Ms. angeli] You're ["white man"] such a flaming hypocrite!

Yes, hypocrite!

And tacky!


[Ms. Neisha] What you're laughing at is the real pain of so-called "Arab-looking" people (like Angeli and me), some of whom died last month for simply looking Arab. Yes, people did die. Stop posting for a minute and read the paper. And do you at least understand why some of us really can't muster up a chuckle in this situation.


["white man"] Uncle! :???:









<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-02 20:44 ]</font>

You know, the sad thing is that there is a perfectly legitimate discussion to be had on the range of "acceptable" free speech and on "political correctness" during a 4T ... and how different it can be from a 3T as Bill Maher learned whent a bunch of people pulled advertising from his show Politically Incorrect ... I don't know why, I didn't see the show, just heard the buzz afterwards.

Marc, I know, still believes that this is a 3T and honestly, were that the case, I would probably manage to chuckle with the best of them. Maybe I feel more 4Tish than he does because I'm closer to ground zero than he is.

The room I'm in now is in on the second floor of a small skyscraper, three blocks from the Sears Tower, two blocks from the Board of Trade and one block from the Federal Courthouse. I live under the flight path to and from O'Hare. I take the subway every day. I get my drinking water from that impossible-to-secure resevoir Lake Michigan. Chicago is far more likely a target for terrorist attack than Franklin, Ohio. And then add the prospect of reprisals, the large Muslim-American (Pakistani) shopping district located not far from my home, and the simple awareness that in the heat of panic people don't always think when they act. That in fact at least one Indian that I know of is dead.

Marc not only wants to laugh at this, he wants to dictate what *I* laugh at (and don't laugh at).

And I sit in my skyscraper, and I think to myself, I say, self, if life is this tenuous, if the world may be snuffed out in a minute or a day, if the shoe is as likely to drop on me as on anyone and a little more than on some ... then why in hell am I letting the like of Marc Lamb raise my blood pressure?

Some people will continue 3T behavior right up into the heart of the crisis. I can't help it if they do, cause they will. Marc certainly is ... but he has the luxury of comparative safety. Again, nobody is going to mistake him for Arab. Nobody is going to crash an airplane into an office building in Franklin, Ohio.

My point is, and was, before it got diverted, is that what is funny when the danger is *not* real is very different from what is funny when the danger *is* real. That's *why* the 3T public discourse got so nasty ... it could because it was *safe*. At least for most people most of the time.

Yes, I chose provocative language when I started this discussion ... I'd apologize if I was sorry, but I can't say that I am. I was deeply deeply frightened and appalled at all of you laughing at jokes about Indians getting mistaken for Arabs. If you were "put off by it" well, imagine how I "put off" I was when I saw this all turned into an internet joke.

At best it was in bad taste. At worst it could be dangerous to me and mine.

Like bomb jokes in an airport.

Like yelling fire in a theater.

Like Falwell and Robertson having their public fugue on the subject of the ACLU.

Like whatever it was that Bill Maher said. (I don't know what he said, except maybe he criticized the military or something?)

Like antiwar protesters being called as much against our way of life as the terrorists.

Like some other things I haven't thought about yet but I'm sure some of you have.

All of the above, like it or not, is now on the table in the debate over what kind of "free speech" is appropriate in a time of crisis. Strauss and Howe talked about this ... a pulling into conformity, the narrowing of acceptable discourse.

Another sign that we've moved into the 4T.

How about a special forum for Marc Lamb and Angeli to continue their pissing fight so the rest of us don't have to skim through their crap

no worries, smcd. I'm pretty much done. Certainly with this subject. Possibly with this forum.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-02 21:20 ]</font>

There are concrete barriers already around the federal courthouse ... a real pain because I have to manouever around them to get to the subway.

One of my friends works in the Sears tower and they've all been issued little flashlights. I think because if the power goes out they might have a better chance of seeing the exits.

You're right about the Lake ... surprising we're not poisoned already :smile: But you do hear people speculating a lot and that was one of the speculations, the right biotoxin dropped into the Lake and there goes both Chicago and Milwaukee ... sigh.