On 2001-10-19 19:29, Marc Lamb wrote:
And you're not one? After making that hateful anti-Semitic post to Jenny? --Ms. Susan

What about 'white man'? What about 'America'?

What the hell is the difference between how I responded to Ms. Genser, and a 'self-righteous bigot' responded to my 'laughter'?

Speak, Ms. Susan. Speak!

I would, but I can't find the "self righteous bigot"'s comments to you or your laughter. So I can't make a comparison. Is it SV81? What did he/she say that was so offensive? Perhaps you could put his/her remarks in quotes and I could comply with your request.

Mr. Steven Buyer's bio suggests that he, of 'red zone' fly-over country, is of late Boom, early Xer 'white man' stock.

Education:
Congressman Buyer is a graduate of North White High School in Monon, Indiana. He received a degree in Business Administration from The Citadel, and was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army. He obtained his law degree from Valparaiso University School of Law in 1984.


This is, no doubt, bad for 'America.'

Sigh. I give up....


*******

More evidence that we are in a 4T. A new law has just been passed, at least in my state, REQUIRING bicycle helmets for kids. Any child caught riding a bike and not wearing a helmet will be fined $10. To me, this is a prime signal that we are entering the Homelander child era rather than the Millennial child era. Hence, the 4T.

When I was a kid, no one had even HEARD of bicycle helmets, and if anyone had worn one, would have been laughed off the block.

For all the underprotectiveness we Jonesers and Xers faced, at least one thing must be said in its favor: we had freedom.

I have also noticed new babies being wheeled around in contrivances that are covered with mesh nets to keep out God knows what. That's another sign.

On 2001-10-19 21:40, Susan Brombacher wrote:
More evidence that we are in a 4T. A new law has just been passed, at least in my state, REQUIRING bicycle helmets for kids. Any child caught riding a bike and not wearing a helmet will be fined $10. To me, this is a prime signal that we are entering the Homelander child era rather than the Millennial child era. Hence, the 4T.

we've had that law out here for at least 6 years, so i'm not sure how much of a sign it is.


TK

Over here, someone is trying to pass a law forbidding pants that hang low!

My sincerest apologies to Ms. Genser for my post of last evening. I don't adhere to anything resembling the 'jew' crap that was written. In fact, it made me sick just writing it.

I wanted to make a point about another post I was sickened by. But in making that point, I fear that I stepped over a certain line I should not have stepped over.

I have an unabashed fondness for 'His people.' That includes the descendants of Jacob's brother, Esau. And America, of whom, I have an even greater respect for in the light of the 911 aftermath.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-20 09:40 ]</font>

I think I can enlighten on Marc's comment. He was paraphrasing what Angeli said to him in another post that offended him and he made the mistaken assumption that everyone was going to immediately connect the two and empathize.

Personally, I think everyone needs to take a powder before either making those kinds of comments or reacting in kind to them.

On 2001-10-19 10:09, Marc Lamb wrote:
First of all, I am known as Mr. 'clueless' here.

I hope you know I wasn't talking about you, Marc, when I made that "clueless" comment a few pages back (re: Charlie McCarthy). Whatever prompted that title for you might have been before my time here, so forgive me if I used a word that is verboten for my use.

Second, I would rather people draw their own conclusions from what I write, or the direction I point to.

Well, if you ever want people to stop calling you "clueless", all you have to do is quote them extensively and explain it to them in real small words so there's no doubt who the "clueless" really are. I did it - and see how effectively they stopped arguing with me? Heck, they even stopped talking to me....

I confess some laziness here, with a question: Can't you figure it out? It's not that hard to understand.

Sure it is, Marc. People who take themselves this seriously have no facility to understand that which you're doing.

laugh it up, jew woman. If you were "Ayrab" - you wouldn't think that airline fight was funny at all. Yeah, lets make all the "Ayrab" fight to prove their loyalty, especially the ones born here and never mind if "Ayrab" people have been killed by jews for the last 40 years.

You're slipping, Marc. This one was a little TOO obvious, though you'd never know it from the response you've been getting.

On 2001-10-19 18:57, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Yeah, Marc, that was a mean and hateful thing to say to Jenny. And just when I had pretty much decided that you weren't such a bad guy, after all -- just one with an off-the-wall sense of humor. I believe an apology is in order. Don't you?

Comment:
While I may disagree with the attitude displayed by Mr. Marc Lamb, nevertheless, I am altogether confident that Jenny can handle herself just fine in her debate with him, Mr. Parker.

On 2001-10-20 09:38, Marc Lamb wrote:
My sincerest apologies to Ms. Genser for my post of last evening. I don't adhere to anything resembling the 'jew' crap that was written. In fact, it made me sick just writing it.

I wanted to make a point about another post I was sickened by. But in making that point, I fear that I stepped over a certain line I should not have stepped over.

I have an unabashed fondness for 'His people.' That includes the descendants of Jacob's brother, Esau. And America, of whom, I have an even greater respect for in the light of the 911 aftermath.

Alas, I wasn't quick enough, and Mr. Lamb posted before I could get in my say. I guess I should quit one of my jobs so I can spend more time back here in 3T-land.

I'm disappointed somewhat in your apology, Marc - I would have liked to see a little more of this thread before it ended. But I know how hard it is to be strong under the polite scrutiny of Ms. Gesner. Besides, it's not very becoming for a Prophet such as yourself to get down here in the mud with the peons. You might want to leave the 13er-esque comments to your juniors while retooling your message to be more GC. I have a sneaking suspicion we'll see you "all wet" with gusto some day. :wink:

On 2001-10-20 09:38, Marc Lamb wrote:
My sincerest apologies to Ms. Genser for my post of last evening. I don't adhere to anything resembling the 'jew' crap that was written. In fact, it made me sick just writing it.

I wanted to make a point about another post I was sickened by. But in making that point, I fear that I stepped over a certain line I should not have stepped over.

I have an unabashed fondness for 'His people.' That includes the descendants of Jacob's brother, Esau. And America, of whom, I have an even greater respect for in the light of the 911 aftermath.

Well done, Marc. You might consider that many people here have not been around long enough to pick up on the "joke." And even some who have, like myself, did not pick up on it because we did not care to follow your original thread with angeli. From my standpoint, you are entirely correct to challenge the modern liberal conception that it is the "white man's burden" to step aside and render himself a second-class citizen so as to atone for the sins committed, past and present, by others bearing his same skin color. However I do not see where angeli was advancing this misconception in her original post. It was necessary to her argument to point out that she might be mistaken for a "Middle Eastern terrorist" whereas you as a "white man" would not be. In other words, she did not hurl a random epithet. Her phraseology and/or the way she framed her argument might be suspect however she does not demonstrate a pattern of contempt for white people as far as I can tell. So I believe that angeli was the wrong target for your completely justified argument and I chose to ignore your thread. As a consequence, I was at a loss to understand how this side of Marc Lamb could suddenly surface last night. Thank you for setting the record straight.

As to a (growing?) number who see you as "obscure," "cryptic," or even "clueless," you might consider retaining a degree of your dryness but being slightly more direct in your responses. As an example, for the life of me, I do not understand how you see evidence of 3T or 4T in that Clinton/Bush poll. If, for example, you interpret a vote for Bush as a vote for the 3T, then that brings your basic assumptions into question. Discussion simply cannot advance unless you explain yourself. And discussion with you has become a paved road which quickly becomes gravel, which even more quickly turns to dirt, and then gets lost in the weeds. Let's keep the traffic moving.

I'll take a stab at what I believe to be the basic thrust of Marc's argument.

Strauss and Howe posit that history creates generations and generations create history. S&H show turnings that are closely aligned with generations that are being born. A long generation has a long turning, a short generation a short turning. This observation shows the idea that history (turnings) creates generations. Generations precede turnings by 2-5 years since history doesn't start to affect a generation until they reach the earliest age at which they can remember anything.

S&H also say that generations create history. That is, generations create turnings. Obviously, it is not the generation being born that created the associated turning. Rather is the the "constellation" of adult generations that creates the turning.

Marc points out that the generational mix currently in power contains far too many Silents for it to be the beginning of the Crisis. He is absolutely right. There are far too many Silents in power right now for a Crisis to begin if the S&H model is correct.

Now Stonewall points our that S&H have the Crisis beginning in 2005 and so 76 years is consistent with their model. No it isn't. A 76 year cycle means a 19 year phase of life, which implies that elderhood begins at age 57, which simply doesn't jive with the common experience of today. S&H developed their model with a 22 year phase of life that has elderhood beginning at age 66, which makes much more sense. S&H advanced the idea that 2005 is the beginning of the next turning to hedge their bets. They know from their work in T4T that turnings are getting shorter. Suppose there really was no Civil War anomaly, generations are only 18 years long and the Crisis begins in 2001. If they stuck to their model with the standard 22 year generations they would look for the Crisis to begin in 2013 at the earliest (as they said in Generations) and be way off. By using 2005 its just four years late with 18 year gens. If Harry Dent is right and it comes in 2009, its just four years early. And if it turns out to come late next decade, that's OK since they already predicted a "Crisis of 2020" in Generations. One does not get the beginning of the Crisis in 2005 using the S&H phase-of-life based model.

Having made the theoretical point, Marc then collects some empirical data. He makes the correlation between the Palmer raids and the hysteria surrounding the 911 attack. He notes a poll that shows overwhelming support for the "3T" approach of President Bush, as evidence of a 3T mood.

In all he gives a fairly convincing argument for "It be 3T". Had I not done an extensive study of my own that suggests otherwise, I'd be in the 3T camp with Marc. But others here have not done the extensive study that I have, and yet appear to reject his hypothesis.

I wonder if perhaps he thinks this rejection has more to do with people's rejection of him (perhaps for how he expresses some of his views) than with his analysis. (I'm not sure at all about this latter, its just my interpretation). I am NOT speaking for Marc, just giving my own interpretation of where IMHO I think he might be coming from.

Thanks for the analysis, Mike. Let me respond to this point:

On 2001-10-20 12:48, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

Having made the theoretical point, Marc then collects some empirical data. He notes a poll that shows overwhelming support for the "3T" approach of President Bush, as evidence of a 3T mood.

You made the point that you do not speak for Marc and I do not either so we are still playing "pin the tail on the donkey." However assuming that Marc does indeed interpret the poll to mean that people favor the "3T approach" of the administration, then I question whether the people do in fact see this approach as being 3T. The rhetoric is still hardcore despite the limited actions, but that is predictable in any turning. However carefully note that Bush has balked at setting a time limit on this thing. When asked if this would go on for, say, two years, he responded that he expected it to go on longer. In other words, whatever this is, we are in it for a very long time.

Also consider that Republican supporters of this administration are essentially trying to will this 4T into being with seances, ouija boards, voodoo spells, and anything else at their disposal. In fact many have been specifically influenced by S&H. Go to their message boards. They recognize that a crisis is critical to this administration's success and they do not want to go back to the rudderless pre-911 days with a foundering 50-59% popularity rating. These people have adopted a crisis mindset whether they truly perceive one or not, and to some degree this attitude ought to be infectious with people whom they meet. Without doubt, many people selected Bush in that poll who also see this -- or want to see it -- as a 4T. At least a third probably did and perhaps as many as half.

This administration and its supporters have everything to gain by fomenting a 4T mood. However this administration, given its interests in oil and other things, has everything to lose by actually prosecuting a 4T war. So we have a very strange situation: let's generate the propaganda to create a crisis mood but let's not go through the actual 4T motions. But my point with respect to Marc's suspected stance on the poll is that I am not at all certain that the public, confronted with all this propaganda from the administration and their neighbors and co-workers, can see through to the war's 3T reality. I reject Marc's suspected hypothesis that a vote for Bush is a vote for the 3T. In fact I do not believe that the poll is at all indicative of whether the people are going 3T or 4T. It merely establishes that they would rather have Bush's people fight this war than Clinton's people. And I can easily see where 80% would want anybody but Clinton's people to fight a war.

On 2001-10-20 12:48, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
...
Now Stonewall points our that S&H have the Crisis beginning in 2005 and so 76 years is consistent with their model. No it isn't. A 76 year cycle means a 19 year phase of life, which implies that elderhood begins at age 57, which simply doesn't jive with the common experience of today. S&H developed their model with a 22 year phase of life that has elderhood beginning at age 66, which makes much more sense. S&H advanced the idea that 2005 is the beginning of the next turning to hedge their bets. ...

I don't see that the generations need to always be so close to 22 years, such that 4 turnings = 88 years. One generation doesn't have to completely occupy a phase of life. The phases of life can remain at roughly 22 years to have a handy way of labeling youth vs. coming of age vs. midlife vs. elderhood vs. "post-elderhood", but you can have six generations occupying those five groupings, without being contrary to the "turnings create generations and generational constellations create turnings" theory. You seem to want too rigid an interpretation of the theory, one which would not allow for the fact that events do happen all the time, and not every event waits for an exact constellation to be in place. Turning-making reactions can still happen before the generations are entirely aligned (e.g. Civil War anomaly, which I do believe exists, but you seem to reject).

The last Third Turning ended in 1929, so that is only 72 years ago. When you mention 76 years, it is in reference to the 2005 projected 4T start. This can also refer to the time from the start of the Silents in 1925 to the possible start of the New Adaptives/Artists in 2001. That means, four generations in only 76 years, so each one not occupying a 22-year phase of life for each of the past four turnings, and the need to try to justify 19-year phases of life.

However, as I tried to explain above, I look at it in a different way, namely that a generation need not completely occupy a phase of life during a turning, in order for the statement "turnings create generations and generational constellations create turnings" to hold true. The result is that one generation can be longer or shorter than another, and does not have to exactly equal 22 years.

But let's look at things in detail:

(To help with the math, I'll use January 1 as the date for each turning start year.)

(Also, I'll leave off the super-old fringe generation in each case.)

4th Turning 1930-1945

1930 start:

Silents age 4 and under
G.I.'s age 5-28
Lost age 29-46
Missionaries age 47-69
Progressives age 70-86
Gilded age 87 and over

Here already, there were G.I.'s in the "coming of age" phase, and the Lost and Missionary generations were past the point of occupying the next phase-of-life brackets. This doesn't mean the 4th turning actually started a few years before 1930, or that the generations need to be realigned (as I believe you would like to do), i.e. the Lost would pick up G.I.'s over the age of 22, and the Silents under age 5 would actually still be G.I.'s. (But what happens then when these zero-to-4-year-olds enter the first turning 16 years later, as 16-20-year-olds? Is the 16-year-old high school student in 1946 really a G.I.?)

1st Turning 1946-1963

1946 start:

Boomers age 2 and under
Silents age 3-20
G.I.'s age 21-44
Lost age 45-62
Missionaries age 63-85
Progressives age 86 and over

Here the generations line up better to the phases of life entering a turning, but are still not quite aligned, nor are the generations the same length, since the culmination of World War II and resulting "modern" first-turning era arrived when they did.

2nd Turning 1964-1983

1964 start:

Gen X age 2 and under
Boomers age 3-20
Silents age 21-38
G.I.'s age 39-62
Lost age 63-80
Missionaries age 81 and over

Here, the Boomers pretty much fill the ranks of youth, while Silents fill coming-of-age up to age 38, after which there are no more Silents. Ideally , there should be four more years' worth of Silents, pushing back G.I.'s and Lost into near-exact phases of life, but ... hey, history didn't make four more years of Silents.


3rd Turning 1984-2000???

(We do not yet know the end year.)

1984 start:

Millenials age 1 and under ????
(we don't know yet)
Gen X 2-22
Boomers age 23-40
Silents age 41-58
G.I.'s age 59-82
Lost age 83 and over

Here, Gen X nicely fills up youth, and Boomers do a pretty good job of filling up coming-of-age, though short by the four years that concern you, i.e. it is yet another 18- rather than 22-year generation. The Silents are still culprits as well, falling short of filling up the midlife category all the way to age 65.

So it's time to take a sense check again. Should we make early Gen Xers into Boomers? I think we've all posted enough to know that's not a correct idea. Should we "blame" someone for starting "the 60's" four years too soon? For the Vietnam reaction and its generation-shaping force? Again, no, we should allow for the fact that generations will not react to events only until they have waited for every one of their cohorts to join the rest in a certain phase of life.

As can be asked with the Silents, are the Boomers not a real generation, because they did not extend over 22 years, and neatly fit a chart in support of a numerical theory? I think most would validate the shorter length of the Boomer generation.


4th Turning 2001??? - ?????

(We do not yet know the start and end year. Since we are debating whether we have reached a 4T, let's say that the 4T did start this year, when looking at the following age ranges.)

2001 start:

New Adaptives/Artists alive yet?
Millenials age 0-18??
(we don't know yet)
Gen X 19-39
Boomers age 40-57
Silents age 58-76
G.I.'s age 77 and over

Now things do get interesting, and the reason for the debate is clear. The 76 years mentioned goes from Millenials age zero to Silents age 76. Gen X is not quite in the "coming of age" category for its youngest members. Boomers are well short of the elder "midlife" years, and Silents are a midlife/elderhood mishmash. G.I.'s are even still on the scene in elderhood.

Well, this is why the talk is of an early 4T. Strauss and Howe picked 2005 not to "hedge their bets", but because 4 years from now, we will have this generational constellation:

New Adaptives/Artists age 0-??
Millenials age ?? - 22?
(we don't know yet)
Gen X 23-43
Boomers age 44-61
Silents age 62-80
G.I.'s age 81 and over

This still has some Silents in midlife, but other than that, the phases of life are pretty darn close to being entirely occupied by separate generations. S&H are not "hedging their bets" here, rather this is exactly what their model is forecasting as the expected time for the generational constellations to create a turning. However, again, older cohorts of a generation do not always wait for all cohorts to be aligned before a sufficient turning-creating reaction is made. The September 11 attacks may have forced the hand of older Boomers too soon, and the turning will come at an awkward time. The last awkward start to a 4T was in 1860. Then again, perhaps the fact that there still are enough Silents in midlife to stave off an all-out, crisis-fomenting reaction to this spark, will result in what is later seen as a jittery final phase of the 3T. There is room for debate here. I personally do believe that the 4T has begun. My hope is that the major (history-bending, 1T-creating) events are delayed as long as possible, to make up for the early start. I really can't say, but I have a hunch that the Crisis will be both domestic (culture wars come to a head) and global (both political/ideological war and resource/environment-related), resulting in a humbling of society followed hopefully by a new, debris-free, optimistic, Millenial-led world.

I hate to say this, but I think that a big contributor to all of this will be the American Boomer white male's explosion, after years of 3T slow burn. (I won't claim either to share or reject this sentiment in this post, nor will I attempt to further explain it in this venue.)
_________________
- Rich Tauchar (1960 cohort)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-10-20 17:40 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-10-20 17:47 ]</font>

Excellent post, Mr. O'Conor. I especially liked this little gem, "While I may disagree with the attitude displayed by Mr. Marc Lamb, nevertheless, I am altogether confident that Jenny can handle herself just fine in her debate with him, Mr. Parker."

As an aside, the Mr. Parker in question here, a man I have had a few words with in the past :smile:, is not doing well at all these days. I sincerely wish the best for him. You, whether you want to be or not, are in my prayers, Kevin Parker.

Mike Alexander does a pretty bang up job in his 'stab at what I [he] believe to be the basic thrust of Marc's argument.' But the real key in all of this is "a poll that shows overwhelming support for the '3T' approach of President Bush, as evidence of a 3T mood."

Of course, Mr Patton, while sensing a possible lock on this 'poll' data that just might be the 'key' that unlocks this '3T' mystery that has everyone, including Mr. Tauchar ('richt') tied up in knots these days.

On that subject, Rowland Nethaway takes a 'stab' as well in Bush's post-Sept. 11 popularity begs question about Gore

In his piece, Nethaway suggests that 'Winston Churchill was the epitome of a revered wartime leader. He was unceremoniously dumped from office as soon as World War II ended.' While this maybe true, I wonder whether Nethaway has ever heard of Franklin Roosevelt. Seems this guy (FDR) got a pass on all that 'peacetime', 'wartime' preference stuff.

Come on, Rowland, are you getting paid for this? :smile:

No, the real 'key' lies in understanding this '3T' thing (insomuch as a 'turning' goes. Generational considerations are another matter, but they are so intertwined.) I hope this isn't interpeted as 'cryptic,' but a line from the movie Bladerunner fits perfectly here, "Memories... you're talking about memories." In otherwords, not only did WWII eclipse WWI (and thereby shift from 3T to 4T), but there ain't no folks around anymore to remind us of what 1920 was like!

But that ain't even the half of it. '3T' means a lot more, or less, than pure 'ballyhoo,' or even 'antebellum' (though it is just that). It means more that Britney Spears, and 'culture wars' (though it is just that too).

There was a critical issue that was resolved in the '20s that was not resolved in the 1850s: To be absolutely blunt here, each Awakening spawns an 'empowered' liberal mindset among the 'anointed ones'. In the antebellum, it was, as just about every historian has noted, a Christian notion of 'sanctification,' or 'set apart' for a greater purpose. In the pre-WWI daze, it was Marxist induced 'socialism.'

Today it is... epitomized by 'First in his class,' William Jefferson Clinton and his faithful supporters (like those found here at T4T).

I do not find it at all unremarkable that this notion of liberal 'empowerment,' totally discredited around 1920 (unlike the 1850's) resulted in an 'empowered' fourth turn in the 1930s but not in the 1860s.

Today, in the sad aftermath of 911, we are witnessing a total discrediting of an, heretofore 'empowered' liberal political elite in an 'antebullum' period of our nation's history. And now, 'compassionate conservatism' as epitomized by 'Dubya' (in the shadow of Silent elders) is posed to return to 'normalcy' amid the chatter of progress.

If I seem to be getting to deep... that is because I am. Perhaps more later.

p.s. I wish richt's post had been made in the Numbers thread! It would have added 'nicely' to the mix of things there.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-20 19:40 ]</font>

On 2001-10-20 19:25, Marc Lamb wrote:

There was a critical issue that was resolved in the '20s that was not resolved in the 1850s: To be absolutely blunt here, each Awakening spawns an 'empowered' liberal mindset among the 'anointed ones'. In the antebellum, it was, as just about every historian has noted, a Christian notion of 'sanctification,' or 'set apart' for a greater purpose. In the pre-WWI daze, it was Marxist induced 'socialism.'

Today it is... epitomized by 'First in his class,' William Jefferson Clinton and his faithful supporters (like those found here at T4T).

I do not find it at all unremarkable that this notion of liberal 'empowerment,' totally discredited around 1920 (unlike the 1850's) resulted in an 'empowered' fourth turn in the 1930s but not in the 1860s.

Today, in the sad aftermath of 911, we are witnessing a total discrediting of an, heretofore 'empowered' liberal political elite in an 'antebullum' period of our nation's history. And now, 'compassionate conservatism' as epitomized by 'Dubya' (in the shadow of Silent elders) is posed to return to 'normalcy' amid the chatter of progress.

So you are looking toward an 'empowered' fourth turning roughly a decade from now? As much as I hate to say it, I hope you're right. As bad as an 'empowered' fourth turning sounds, I fear a 4T led by the Bush crowd will ultimately be worse beyond all comprehension as hard as it may be for so many to see today. And the worst of it is that I think we are now in the 4T and I honestly doubt that the Bush crowd can ever be removed. Beam me up!

OK, here's a gem about some potential weapon systems which might be used in the upcoming battles, and I was wondering if these were weapons suited to a Prophet's outlook on the enemy:

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/p...ausa01032.html




Is anyone really surprised by this development:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

On 2001-10-20 21:29, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
OK, here's a gem about some potential weapon systems which might be used in the upcoming battles, and I was wondering if these were weapons suited to a Prophet's outlook on the enemy:

Suited to a Prophet's outlook on the enemy? What does that mean, exactly? How is something suitable to an outlook?

Evidence that suggests just how powerful a grip the so-called Silent generation retain on American institutions has been clearly seen since the notion of 'gravitas' was embraced en masse' by the left during the Presidential campaign. Poor Dubya (Boomer) needs Cheney et al (Silents) more than vice versa.

Hence this week when all the media was a having near panic attack wondering where veep Cheney was.

Seriously folks, can you even name the vice president that served under FDR during WWII? And even if you can, who cared where he was?

This is funny. :lol:

p.s. I wonder why this word was invented in 1924? :lol:

Main Entry: grav?i?tas
Pronunciation: 'gra-v&-"t?s, -"tas
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin
Date: 1924
: high seriousness (as in a person's bearing or in the treatment of a subject)


p.s.s. Something tells me that good old H.L. Mencken was behind this word. It just fits too perfectly. Can anybody guess who Mencken would have used this word to describe?


:lol: :lol: :lol:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-21 07:10 ]</font>

Dubya's First Sleep-over. <a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20011021/wl/1003652587china_apec_tok217.html">Peking
Pyjama Party Pix</a>



An anonymous highly placed White House source said, We don't need no steen-kin' GRAVITAS! HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-10-21 08:00 ]</font>

I couldn't help but think, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Mr. Saari. :lol:

And I sure was glad they pointed out that "U.S. President George W. Bush," was "second from left."

The New Normalcy looks an awfully lot like an old 'normalcy' I've read about in the history books.

I wonder if Bob Woodward makes the connect between 1920 and 2001?

"When specific facilities or locations are threatened, as they have been repeatedly in the last month, the FBI informs local law enforcement authorities or foreign intelligence services that are supposed to increase security and take protective measures.

The Threat Matrix lists where the intelligence comes from -- intercepted communications, walk-in sources, e-mails, friendly foreign intelligence services, telephone threats, and FBI or CIA human sources.

The public is not informed except when the threat is considered highly credible or specific, as it was on Oct. 11 when the FBI issued its nationwide alert."


Didn't I read somewhere, "It's all happened before"?

What was the name of that book? I can't seem to remember?

In keeping with the present trend of my morning posts...
More history on 'NORMALCY'

Quote:
NORMALCY: Harding's inaugural address became famous for its promotion of "normalcy," a word he erroneously used during his campaign. One of his campaign speeches contained the word "normality," which he mispronounced as "normalty" or "normalcy." The latter word (not commonly used, though it appeared in a dictionary in 1857) was reported by the media. Harding liked the term and decided to use it frequently.


Gee, who else do we know that 'mispronounce[s]' words?

And gee II, what a very peculiar thing, "The latter word (not commonly used, though it appeared in a dictionary in 1857)."

"1857"? I seem to recall that year from my history books. Another 'antebullum' time perhaps?

Seems we like 'normalcy' in 3Ts, huh? :smile:

I love those coats! The Chinese have such gorgeous colors and materials.

By the way, isn't that a rather momentous event? I don't ever remember seeing a picture of the world's three most powerful leaders all together in my lifetime.

I think this is only the beginning. By the time 2020 gets here, I figure the entire Muslim world will have gone up in flames one way or the other, and either we'll be in a
position to help rebuild those lands as civilized, prosperous democracies afterwards or we'll be, for all intents and purposes, gone.

In response to richt, you are looking at too narrow of a slice of time. Since Marc's point is there are too many Silents, lets look at prior Crisises and seen the age of the Artists when they began:

Armada: 86-109
Glorious: 87-109
Revolutionary: 72-99
Civil War: 68-93*
Depression: 69-86

2001 crisis: 58-76
2005 crisis: 62-80
2013 crisis: 70-88

Of these three the 2013 crisis era beginning fits the best, and that's why S&H used it in Generations. There is no reason to move the crisis era up between Generations (1991) and T4T (1997).

A key idea behind the Civil War anomaly is that it "came early" which suggests that generations should have been unusually young then. And I note that the minimum age of the Artist gen was the lowest for that crisis. But the Silent are going to be *younger* than the Artists then were unless the Crisis waits until at least 2011 to come.

Also, according to the S&H theory, the old heroes are supposed to be completely gone by the beginning of the Crisis. At the beginning of previous Crises in which there were old heroes, the youngest were 103 plus or minus 8 years. At 77 today's youngest heroes are 3.25 standard deviations off the norm, which is statistically significant at >95% probability. By 2013 the youngest heroes would be 89, which is not significantly different than the norm.

Bottom line: The Silents (and especially the old heroes) are simply too young for it to be a Crisis if generational constellation is the mechanism responsible for the cycle over the past 4-5 centuries.

In you analysis you throw out all the previous cycles except the last. Since we do not yet have an accurate assessment of post-Civil War cycle length such analysis is suspect. S&H's identifiaction of turnings in the 1860-1929 period is affected by their explanation for the Civil War anomaly. The first saeculum that will be entirely free of these effects will be the one that began in 1929. The ending of this saeculum much before 2009 will invalidate their model.

S&H's model is critically dependent on the idea of phase of life. If the Crisis is starting now this means that each gen will be performing their phase-of-life tasks at what llok like to me to be pretty young ages:

rising adulthood heroes (19 vs. 27 past avg),
mid-life managers (39 vs. to 52 past avg), visionary elders (59 vs. 73 past avg).

And as I mentioned before, a lot of Artists will still be young enough to play a role, yet there is no role for them in the S&H model. In the past they were mostly gone, and the few left were very old.

I share Richt's hope that the big history bending events will be held off a bit longer. Instead, I would like to see debates about how the country can prepare for the years ahead.