I'm pretty much done. Certainly with this subject. Possibly with this forum.

IMHO, Angeli, that would be an overreaction.


Look, we're all in this together. I understand that you're afraid of the violence being done to people who look Arab, but the truth is that nobody is safe. You can say that Chicago is a more likely target than Whistle Stop, OH or wherever the heck Marc lives, but if terrorists launch a major biological attack that won't mean diddly-squat. The first lesson to be learned in this Crisis is that there is no secure fortress. There will be more lessons down the road, but that's the first one.


The terror attack provokes fear. Fear makes some people lash out stupidly at people who look vaguely like the terrorists. And fear of those people then caused you to lash out at a satirical web site (which was, in fact, attacking the very people who inspired your fear) and a poster on this forum. And although the connection isn't as obvious and direct, no doubt the background climate of fear caused Marc to respond to you with less sensitivity and compassion than he should have.


The fact remains that Marc has never himself committed any hate crimes against Muslims, Indians, or indeed anyone else to my knowledge, nor expressed support for such actions. And your response would have been more appropriate directed at someone who had; such a person would have deserved your outrage. I don't think Marc does, irritating as he can sometimes be.


At the same time, calling you a racist was completely out of line. Shame on you for that, Marc.


Can we declare a truce in the face of a common foe, or several, including the terrorists AND the Americans who attack their foreign-looking co-citizens?

On 2001-10-01 22:51, Barbara wrote:
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.

What is the definition of a local vs a national interest? Further, keep in mind that Congress, in the final analysis, doesn't set most local spending, the State legislative bodies and the county/township/municipal governments do.

Granted, some of their money comes via Federal revenue sharing, but that's another issue (and a worthy one, at that!) Personally, if it were up to me, I change the entire way our public finances are set up, Federal, State, and local.

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.

At the risk of marking myself as a radical right-wing 3T fanatic, I have to respectfully disagree. I grant that Clinton is currently not the issue, but I also personally suspect that many if not most of the charges the Right threw at Clinton were essentially true.

This cuts deeper than Left vs Right. I don't have any deep inherent distrust of, say, Jimmy Carter, or most Democrats. Even Al Gore, I suspect, is probably a decent man personally, or wants to be.

Bill Clinton, to me, scans very much as the most successful con artist (at best ) in the history of American politics. I suspect he might be much worse than a con artist. I'm not certain that even now, he might now have the potential to cause harm.

That's a sincere concern, not an inability to let go. I fear the Clintons, for several reasons, though far less than I did when they had direct Executive power.

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'll grant you Jeff Greenfield. His book on the E2K debacle was one of the better ones I've read. Mort Kondrake comes across as the more reasonable, real-world sort of Left thinker to me. But the overall 'tone' of CNN remains to the Left, in my view.
Further, CNN was Left before Fox News came on the scene. It was CNN that pioneered the 24-hour cable news format, and I grant them their kudos for that success, but they've been Leftish since the get-go.

(With Ted Turner at the top, that isn't exactly a shock.)

In fact, if I recall correctly, the success of Fox News came as something of an unwelcome surprise in the cable news business. The success of Bill O'Reilly has especially unnerved the older channels.

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.

As for owning much of the media, that's one of the peculiar things about the whole matter. Given the nature of the corporations who now dominate the ownership of the TV news, net and cable both, you would expect the media to tilt Right-Captalist. It's true you don't often see stories critical of Disney on ABC, but other than that, the media remains very liberal.

Well, I agree except I believe in keeping SS/Medicare and Labor Laws, too.

I agree there. One of the things that Xer conservatives need to do is bring a dose of reality to the Boomer conservatives' visions. Without Social Security and Medicare, a remarkably large percentage of our elderly would find themselves in poverty.

I do think that both programs will have to be rewired, to cope with the new situations we are facing, but simply pulling the public side of the safety net out without replacing it would be a political, social, and moral disaster, IMO.

On 2001-10-02 20:13, Barbara wrote:


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.

Yes, it's true that many of us in the Red Seats consider what is currently called centrist to be liberalism by a new name. The media tried to paint Hillary Clinton as a centrist, and they have tried to present Tom Daschle (sp?) as a centrist. These individuals are not centrists.

In fact, I rather doubt if there is such a thing as a true centrist. In my experience, when one looks closely at the proposals called centrist, they usually boil down to maintaining the status quo the Democratic Party has set up over the years when they were the dominant party (most of the middle and late 20th century).

Most national liberal media persons are paired nowadays with conservatives and a shrill argument ensues.

Oh, how right you are! The assumption is that the shrill screaming draws in ratings, the the depressing part is that they're probably right. Off stage, the managers are urging each side to 'get mad', or to hit with the sound bite.

One of the worst offenders is Hannity and Colmes. I enjoy listening to Hannity sometimes when he is on his own, but watching the two of them scream at each other is boring. Ditto Crossfire.

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.

I don't know if any of these calculations apply post 911, but the reason CNN was talking with Rush about his own show is precisely that they perceive a need to move away from the Left a bit, to regain some of the viewers Fox has spirited away.

Interestingly, a way to tell that CNN tilts liberal is that liberals want it to stay where it is. See the following article (for want of a better word) from the N.O.W. site:

http://63.111.42.146/news/article.asp?ArticleID=9573

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.

IMO, the media is still very liberal as a whole, and the 911 events have not changed that, though now it manifests more subtly.

Example: the big three American news magazines, Time, U.S. News, and Newsweek, all ran stories immediately after 911 which hit the same high spots.

They rushed to assure us that this wasn't a 'clash of civilizations', that this wasn't a war of religion, that most of the Moslem world did not approve of the attacks, etc.

Now, much of this may well be true. But it isn't fully clear even yet, and it was less clear the week after 911. Yet the big three seemed to echo each other, almost racing to get this particular view of events out.

I have my suspicions why, but I'll save them for another posting.

P.S. We've heard a lot about how the Right needs to stop be so 3T. Maybe so. But let's have a quick look at the front page of the N.O.W. site, if you want an organization still running on 3T time:

http://63.111.42.146/home/

Have you heard one single voice in the media comment on the Left organizations attitudes? Even one?

Hopeful, you say that CNN wants to move away from the Left to attempt to regain some viewership from Fox. Well, that was my point, my friend.

I followed the NOW link you gave and read the front page plea. My honest response was that this is activist strategy. Groups both left and right do this. The Freepers do this. One such activist group initiated the complaints that led Sears and the other sponsor to drop Politically Correct ads, though I forget their name. I'm afraid I do NOT see at all that NOW wanting CNN to remain as "progressive" they call it as they perceive it, is any proof at all that CNN tilts liberally. Over the last few years, I believe liberals have had to lower their standards quite a bit as to their own expectations of the media.

As for NOW's desires about or opinions of CNN, would that really be hard news, in the face of disaster, recession, pending world war? No, maybe why there are no stories on it. right. now. But I tell you what, I have this urge to bet that if you emailed Bill Oreilly with that info, you'd be able to see him rant on it. There you go. Story covered. Actually, I kind of wish you'd do that. But someone's beat you to it, I'll also bet.

Now, were you a liberal and wanted someone to expose some conservative faux-pas that ticks you off but isn't really hard news, where would you go? You would definitely have an extremely hard, perhaps impossible time finding some sympathetic ear or ear piece in national video media.

I would imagine to liberals that Clinton's 2 terms and Whitewater, Travelgate, Fostergate, Flowersgate, Willeygate, Monicagate, Chinagate, Impeachmentgate, and Pardongate, etal were a bit like the Civil War, and it's Reconstruction now. Is this so hard to remember all that now? It was all so traumatic. I think that was when the video and audio media hold was wrestled. Look at Congress today. The Democrats are virtually impotent.

Now, print media does offer a much richer liberal choice. While I still maintain my assertion as you do yours, the conservatism of the media is mainly in the video and audio media. And, you are so correct when noting that conservative media control is a relative new occurence.

You are certainly and perfectly right and good to hold such a visceral opinion of Clinton, but you know, I'm always amazed that such voluminous amounts of hatred are channeled only in his direction when we have other worthy candidates available. Like it would just be too hard or too disillusioning to ferrot them all out, so let's just pick one (and this summer, TWO) and heap it on. That way the others can tip toe by while we are so otherwise engaged. Just my opinion, though.

Again, my interest here is to have a Republican party and conservative basis I can be proud again to be a member of. Letting go of punching bags and moving on to better, more statesmanlike behavior is something that more people than ever before would very much appreciate.

Hopeful, you posted: What is the definition of a local vs a national interest? Further, keep in mind that Congress, in the final analysis, doesn't set most local spending, the State legislative bodies and the county/township/municipal governments do.

Granted, some of their money comes via Federal revenue sharing, but that's another issue (and a worthy one, at that!) Personally, if it were up to me, I change the entire way our public finances are set up, Federal, State, and local.

I'm talking about what always happens, reps with seniority get most of the pork projects for their states and regions. Then they barter the rest out to the lesser juniors. This is one place where I want for example, each one gets so much, based upon some reasonable quotient. And make the total of the projects be a certain percent of the total available to spend. But, my idea is based on the assumption we don't get to do a complete overhaul. Of course, I'd pick that choice first, like you.

10/3/01: Who knows, this might be an indication of 4T.

On this morning's Fox & Friends show with Steve, E.D. and Brian, the John Lennon memorial concert was discussed. Chicago radio host Mancow asserted that Lennon was a Communist, based upon his lyrics to the song, Imagine, citing specific phrases "Imagine there's no heaven", "Imagine there's no countries", "Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too", and "Imagine no possesions".

After he finished, E.D. replied that John Lennon was just a guy who wrote songs to make money and that he surely couldn't have been a Communist because he had plenty of money and possessions that he didn't share or give away, and had lived in the upscale Dakota of all places, and his apartment was filled to the hilt with lots of expensive possessions.

The Onion ain't got nuthin on Fox & Friends! This really happened. Gotta love 'em! They Report - You Decide

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-03 06:45 ]</font>

Ms. Neisha claims, "[Marc], 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.


Can I laugh at this? :???:

-------------------------------------------------------
Setting Fire to the Santa Maria

Tuesday, October 02, 2001


BALTIMORE, Md. ? The group responsible for changing the school mascot policy in Montgomery County, Md., took another jab at tradition Monday night by voting to eliminate Columbus Day as a state and national holiday.


The Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs said the holiday is an affront to minorities. Their vote was quickly overruled by the Department of Housing and Community Development who oversees the commission.

The resolution Monday night was in defiance of Gov. Parris N. Glendening's administration, which said in advance that it is dismissing the proposal.

Richard Regan, a Lumbee Cheraw Indian who heads the commission, said observing Columbus Day reinforces historical inaccuracies.

"He did not do what most schoolchildren in this country think he did, which was discover America," Regan said. "Columbus did not discover anything, he was lost."

The resolution condemns Columbus for the "torture, rape and murder" of Indians he encountered upon arriving in the New World. It accuses Columbus of invading North and South America "with the intent to pillage and forcefully conquer and convert otherwise spiritual and prosperous human beings in order to increase his personal wealth and status."

Regan led a summer crusade to end the use of mascots, logos and themes that bear references to American Indians in Montgomery County, Md. The county school board agreed to the change even though one local community voted against the decision and the board had to pay $80,000 to change artwork and the school's basketball court which had the Indian mascot design ingrained in the wood.

Regan is expanding his effort to other counties. At least 30 schools in Maryland use Indian terms for their mascots.

Columbus Day, a national holiday since 1971, will be celebrated Oct. 8 this year. Commission members said if the state is going to have a Columbus Day holiday, it should also have a day to honor American Indians.

The Associated Press contributed to this report
-----------------------------------------------------


Do these "non-whites" appear to be living in mortal fear in an "America," to quote Ms. Angeli's derogatory observervation, "at its finest." :???:

Is this evidence that we are 3T or 4T? :???:

This is what is happening in popular culture now..kinda tacky, but real? Now Phil Donoghue and Drew Carey are on the screen defending free speech. Are they the only ones brave enough? I guess there is Congresswoman Lee. Don't forget Boondocks.
That comic strip is gonna be run outta town.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2001-10-03 09:55 ]</font>

HopefulCynic:

In fact, I rather doubt if there is such a thing as a true centrist. In my experience, when one looks closely at the proposals called centrist, they usually boil down to maintaining the status quo the Democratic Party has set up over the years when they were the dominant party (most of the middle and late 20th century).

The center isn't static; it moves. Actually what is meant by the term "centrist" is what I mean by "conservative": motivated by a belief in tradition, order, and stability to defend the status quo. At present, conservatives (properly so called) defend the status quo which was established by Democrats when they were the dominant party, even though at that time they were liberal. Even most Republicans defend that status quo. Certainly they take no significant steps toward dismantling it when they hold power. Why should they? It's been proven to work, and has passed the tests imposed by conservatives back when it was genuinely a progressive program (meaning new and controversial), is very popular, and is now part of the mos majorum.


Everything that is conservative today was liberal once. That's how it's supposed to work.

I don't know if any of these calculations apply post 911, but the reason CNN was talking with Rush about his own show is precisely that they perceive a need to move away from the Left a bit, to regain some of the viewers Fox has spirited away.

I don't imagine it will apply post-911, in the Fourth Turning. Crisis eras are progressive eras. But this brings up a dynamic I've noticed that operates when we switch from a 1T or 3T to a 2T or 4T. Society enters a progressive era, but not by moving left along the same issues that were being argued in the prior Turning. Instead, it reduces those issues to irrelevance and focuses attention on a different vector altogether.


So in terms of the political issues of the 3T, the culture-war issues, the 4T isn't going to be either progressive or conservative because it isn't going to be dealing with those issues very much. Instead, it's going to be dealing with the problems of global security, injustices in the global economy, and the danger to the global ecosystem. (It will be very much a global Crisis.) Measured by these issues, it will be a progressive and liberal era. Measured by the 3T issues, it will be a nothing-much-of-anything era.


This is the mirror image of what happened in the Awakening. Issues of poverty and such that were hanging over from the New Deal era took a back seat to new amd culturally-focused issues such as feminism, environmentalism, racism, patriotism, and so on. Some or all of these, of course, have a civic side as well, but that side wasn't emphasized in the 2T.


Barbara:

Again, my interest here is to have a Republican party and conservative basis I can be proud again to be a member of.

You keep saying things like this, and so I keep looking for and expecting right-wing views from you, and not finding them. I agree with you more often than not, and certainly don't consider myself a conservative.


Perhaps you could explain to us what would constitute a conservatism you could be proud to be part of.

I don't believe I am rightwing, Brian. I am an issues voter who is paleoconservative and third way, and I can't take social libertarianism (it's not for me). I feel uncomfortable as a Democrat as well. (My views on education, immigration, and federal funding are the main causes of my discomfort). But (remember, I've been voting since 1952) I was very happy for many years in the Republican Party when it was more forgiving, inclusive, centrist. It started changing about the time you started voting, so even though I'm sure you've read about it and know the facts, you kind of had to be there to understand why I want it again.

Now, if the Repub Party keeps on with this rightwing stance, who knows, the Democrat Party may morph to fill my void. I'll look again at it. But for now, Repubs are the lesser of evils for me. I actually know other people with my same political mindset who still say they are Republican, too. We're not giving up yet.

You yourself have posted, I believe, on the rightwing's alienating tendencies. I guess I'm not ready to let them alienate me yet. I probably don't gripe much about Democrats or liberals because their positions don't interest me. I hardly ever pay detailed attention to them, probably an extension of my live and let live beliefs. I care about the Republican Party more, so when I see how it could improve, I say so. That's all.

Actually, Brian, the GOP time frame I remember and want again was probably much the same thing Reagan fell in love with and left the Democrats for. But a note: I think it took him too long to get elected nationally. By the time he did, he'd had to take on too many pieces of non-matching luggage, so the Reagan years weren't a great example of what I'm talking about. Had he been elected after Kennedy or Johnson, that would have been what I liked. He'd have been less conservative and more centrist.

It'll come around again, and the country will be better for it.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-03 12:59 ]</font>

Speaking of good patriots and good political doctrine coming around again, I really liked the way Congress has behaved this week (knock wood, two days left). The Senate leaders are discoursing again, but not dis-cussing. Gramm is being deficit-wary again, and I say, you go, Phil, but don't go too far. Anyway, I hope it holds. They aren't pulling little procedural tricks or trying to trump each other. They are arguing their points. Of course, I love to see it.

They have some real differences over this aid package, but they may not be huge. Curiously, Bush and the Dems are more aligned than the Repubs. (?) Shades of honest discourse, perhaps???? (be still, my heart). I was glad to see Bush advise to keep the borrowed amount down so to keep inflation down. I understand the Repubs' reluctance to federalize airport employees, and normally I'd be with them on it (civil servants' benefits are expensive). BUT, I don't think people will fly again without it, myself included, I must admit. Fox reporters have already exposed that too many things can go overlooked at certain airports using presently contracted screeners. The proposal to take and examine one airport at a time is good, but it'll take too long.

Also at odds is whether to include airport worker unemployment aid in this bill or, as Lott wants, in a separate bill. I liked a suggestion I heard, to take those unemployed and use them as the federal workers, since we don't have enough federal workers to put in anyway at once. As it was asserted, these employees are already familiar with their terminals and airport procedures. The training wouldn't be any MORE or LONGER. And no or less aid needed for them, and they get to work. Thanks to my luverly Ronnie though, they cannot strike (oh well, they can fight that down in the next High...).

Talk about a role reversal: the House has their bill version in order already! Conyers and Armey a team, who'd a thought?

On the anti-terrorism bill, I am glad to see the application of sunset provisions to 12/31/2003. There's nothing wrong with doing that, and it's ample time for now. Especially where our civil liberties are exposed. As usual, Hatch had a sanctimonious quip: "you can't put a sunset provision on terrorism." Oh, c'mon Oren. He kind of reminds me of Jack Benny sometimes....

I also liked the photo ops showing Bush at the NYC grade school in Manhatten today. He was so at ease with the kids, bending down to talk. He took Laura Bush's cue as to what to say to them, I'd seen her interview on CNN's King, and the wording was similar. That's good. He seemed nervous at first. It was kind of endearing (yes, I know, I heard myself say that...:smile. His tearing up right after 911 didn't move me, but hanging with the kiddos did, go figure. Now, if he would just take an elocution crash course, I might like him.....

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-03 15:21 ]</font>

Barb writes, "His [Bush] tearing up right after 911 didn't move me, but hanging with the kiddos did, go figure. Now, if he would just take an elocution crash course, I might like him....."

Wow. It's been sometime since I've heard that one. Thanks teach! :smile:


Main Entry: el?o?cu?tion
Pronunciation: "e-l&-'ky?-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English elocucioun, from Latin elocution-, elocutio, from eloqui
Date: 15th century
1 : a style of speaking especially in public
2 : the art of effective public speaking
- el?o?cu?tion?ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- el?o?cu?tion?ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun

A professor at Case Western Reserve has long had his students place sensor/recording equipment under bridge decks. This time, he caused major rush-hour traffic jams when bomb squads closed the bridges. "I feel horrible" said the professor, Art Hucklebridge. "But I guess we're not operating under normal rules anymore."
Plain Dealer October 3, 2001 page B2.
No, professor, I guess we're not.
Also, another local professor got in trouble for joking about the Pentagon attack...something I doubt would have happened a couple years ago.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2001-10-03 19:17 ]</font>

How's this for 4T?

http://www.theonion.com/onion3735/a_...ed_nation.html

On 2001-10-03 20:18, madscientist wrote:
How's this for 4T?

http://www.theonion.com/onion3735/a_...ed_nation.html

:lol:
Beats anything I remember from the Harvard/National Lampoon back in the day! As for the top picture--"Woof!" "Easy boy" :wink: That reminds me of something I saw on the Bottom Line crawl on CNN this weekend--"Britney Spears' Pepsi commercials have been banned in the United States for being too frivolous." "Banned"? By whom? Yanked by Pepsi, I could believe, but banned? Anyway, I'm surprised none of you mentioned that as evidence for entering 4T.

Speaking of caring about stupid 6*11$#!+, the fans of reality TV over on alt.tv.survivor are noticing that their form of entertainment is being left behind, as one of them posted this link:

Are Viewers Tuning Out Reality TV?
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?20897

FWIW, the posters on alt.tv.survivor are still betting that Survivor III will still be a winner, boasting that it will beat Friends in the ratings. I'm not convinced. I think people are starting to ignore the flagpole sitters.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vince Lamb '59 on 2001-10-03 23:04 ]</font>

<HTML><FONT SIZE="+2"><FONT COLOR="B22222"><center>"Normality. It's nice."</FONT></center>

<FONT COLOR="2F4F4F"><FONT SIZE="-1">

A Silent desire...



Click here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2001Oct3.html



Quote:

"Americans groping for normality wonder when they can laugh again. How about: Right now."
--George F. Will Thursday, October 4, 2001









:smile:</HTML>

President Bush calls for deficit spending and aid to the unemployed.

... Of course, I think it was answered for me when I felt it right and proper, even urgent,
to buy and wear a flag pin, which is the last thing I ever imagined myself doing. Not since V-J Day, which I only remember because all the adults were in the streets celebrating and us little kids got to stay up till *9 o'clock at night*!!!! And Dad was home, which is another story.

My company had a User's Conference last week and there was a basket full of little flag pins. I, too, have neevr been one to wrap myself up in Ol' Glory BUT I felt like our customers in attendance would expect me to wear one. How 4T is that?

[quote]
On 2001-10-04 11:04, scott '63 wrote:

My company had a User's Conference last week and there was a basket full of little flag pins. I, too, have neevr been one to wrap myself up in Ol' Glory BUT I felt like our customers in attendance would expect me to wear one. How 4T is that?

Scott, I know the feeling -- this old former hippie feels funny with all of the flag waving. In my temple synagogue, I saw a car with shiny wrapping ribbon and party stars, all in red, white, and blue, festooning the radio antenna. That concept appealed to me -- the "patriotic hippie" look for a vehicle, so I did something similar.

On 2001-10-03 16:31, Marc Lamb wrote:
Barb writes, "His [Bush] tearing up right after 911 didn't move me, but hanging with the kiddos did, go figure. Now, if he would just take an elocution crash course, I might like him....."

Wow. It's been sometime since I've heard that one. Thanks teach! :smile:


Main Entry: el?o?cu?tion
Pronunciation: "e-l&-'ky?-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English elocucioun, from Latin elocution-, elocutio, from eloqui
Date: 15th century
1 : a style of speaking especially in public
2 : the art of effective public speaking
- el?o?cu?tion?ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- el?o?cu?tion?ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun

You're welcome, though I do make a poor substitute for Virgil. :smile:

Here's something that, while not large-scale or earthshaking, is still quite strong evidence that we're in a Fourth Turning.


There is now a possibility -- far from a certainty, but a possibility nonetheless -- that I may vote for George W. Bush in 2004.


We have been struck with the first stages of two of the three Crisis issues now. In response to the terrorist attack, Bush has abandoned his former isolationist stance and become an internationalist, and he has approached the war with a compassion, wisdom, and restraint I would never have expected of him. Score one.


In response to the recession, he has resisted the urge to respond in knee-jerk Republican fashion and instead called for a stimulus package that includes substantial increases in aid to the unemployed. Score two.


Both these actions show that he is capable of thinking outside the box. I am very pleasantly surprised.


What would clinch it for me? A response to resource shortages that abandons his oil-company ties and seeks fossil-fuel independence. If he does that, he's got my vote.


The fact that I am even considering a vote for that man shows that something very fundamental has changed.

George Bush "abandon his oil company ties"? Please follow up on that. I will be interested to see that hard cold evidence. I'm trying to see things differently and this forum is helpful. Does seeking fossil fuel independence mean drilling in the ANWAR? Does it mean he will be the President who looks at alternatives to oil?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2001-10-04 16:58 ]</font>

More evidence we're in the 4T:

I may vote for Bush in '04 too.

Does seeking fossil fuel independence mean drilling in the ANWAR?

No.

Does it mean he will be the President who looks at alternatives to oil?

Yes. Mind you, to date I see no sign of that so far.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-10-04 17:23 ]</font>