On 2001-12-20 14:39, cbailey wrote:
Most of the Boomers I know, myself included, are NOT "straining to get loose", or calling for the "drumbeats" of war. Most are hoping and praying for a well-thought-out action to stop further Terrorist attacks, and a controllable, positive, intelligent outcome to the war in Afghanistan.

If the Boomers I know are ready for a 4T change, it would be to assume the Prophet role and address "Ecological distress, with atmospheric damage, energy or water shortages, and new diseases." Or "Economic distress" or "Social distress."

Not war-mongering.

Granted, and I owe you (and Alan and other sensible Boomers) an apology for my failure to qualify my words. When I said "boomers" I meant the loudest voices, the voices in politics and media, and some in Congress. I am well aware that the majority of Boomers are neither insane nor foolish.

But I do stand by what I said, there is a faction among the Boomers that is hoping for war, or rather for action . I get the impression they've been very frustrated by the last 20 years or so of stasis. So have I, but in a totally different way.

On 2001-12-19 12:37, Richard Turnock wrote:

This morning an article in the newspaper said 2001 is going into the record books with one of the highest average global temperatures. Storms and increase in violent weather patterns are consequence.

Counterpoint:

http://highmarkfunds.stockpoint.com/...0/354u2312.xml

Record cold temperatures in Europe?!

Neither example actually proves anything either way about the long-term temperature trend, BTW.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-12-20 21:48 ]</font>

On 2001-12-18 10:48, Richard Turnock wrote:

Everyone on this board is talking/ typing/ thinking war and economic disaster. The catalyst is probably not a war or economic event. The catalyst sets in motion a series of cascading events that lead to concerns about personal survival. For example, a significant shift in climate might be a catalyst to focus everyone's attention on global climate change and reducing CO2. That would have a huge economic impact that we've been avoiding and delaying = 3T.

Well, there are mixed signs that the U.S. economy might actually be improving a bit as of 12 20 2001, but this might shake things up again:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...21/ixport.html

An integrated global economy has some distinct risks associated with it.

A year of record warmth on a global scale is more significant than a region having a few record cold days. Since the Earth has been warming for over a century and greenhouse gases are rising in concentration, along with "thermal pollution" and asphalting gazillions of acres, we are probably responsible for this warming. Now, will this be, on balance, better or worse for humanity? This is still debatable.

On 2001-12-21 12:16, Tom Mazanec wrote:
A year of record warmth on a global scale is more significant than a region having a few record cold days. Since the Earth has been warming for over a century and greenhouse gases are rising in concentration, along with "thermal pollution" and asphalting gazillions of acres, we are probably responsible for this warming. Now, will this be, on balance, better or worse for humanity? This is still debatable.

Earth has been warming for several centuries. Humanity is probably one contributing factor, but how much of a factor remains unclear at this time. As you say, however, it's not even dead certain whether a warmer global average climate will carry greater good or greater evil.

Note, however, as I said previously, that recent centuries have seen Earth warming up after the Little Ice Age. This may or may not represent simply a return to normal conditions.

Scientists have shown that last year was the warmest, not only in the last hundred, but in the last hundreds of thousands of years. The rate of increase is much greater in the last two decades than the last several centuries. Don't keep your heads in the sand, folks. THIS is the real "Crisis" we will be facing, not Osama bin Laden. CO2 is in the air in greater amount than in 200,000 years. Ice samples prove this. It is totally OUR doing. Most of all, we naive and greedy Americans. Rush Limbaugh is wrong (he's deaf, after all; he can't hear the truth). The scientists not paid by the corporations are correct.

The consequences will be the wiping out of many species. What right do we have to do this, just so that we can drive SUVs? Don't buy land in Florida! One of these days we won't be able to count ballots there for another good reason; they'll all be under water! Try counting a wet hanging chad, Mr. Bush! Climate change means more weather disasters, and more severe ones; just look at 1998. How quickly we forget. The most damage from storms ever in history. The worst storms, and further damage because we build in places where storms hit. We can expect more droughts, more floods, more hurricanes, more earthquakes, and consequent social problems; all because the oil companies have us hooked, and Republicans (and too many Democrats) do their bidding-- and we vote for them.

Don't create clever arguments to avoid reality. That is 3T thinking. We are neglecting the real problem; we are doing nothing! We are driving off a cliff.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2001-12-21 22:22 ]</font>

Thanks to all the SUV's out there, I finally got a crop of apples from my orchard of twenty plus years. One man's heat is another man's tempering.

When I can keep my citrus outside I'll be very happy...driving off that particular cliff. HTH

p.s. This Copperhead won't mind the South comin' up North at all.
_________________

"I often think it odd that [History] should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention." Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey, Chapter XIV

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-12-21 22:27 ]</font>

On 2001-12-21 22:18, Eric A Meece wrote:
Scientists have shown that last year was the warmest, not only in the last hundred, but in the last hundreds of thousands of years. The rate of increase is much greater in the last two decades than the last several centuries. Don't keep your heads in the sand, folks. THIS is the real "Crisis" we will be facing, not Osama bin Laden. CO2 is in the air in greater amount than in 200,000 years. Ice samples prove this. It is totally OUR doing. Most of all, we naive and greedy Americans. Rush Limbaugh is wrong (he's deaf, after all; he can't hear the truth). The scientists not paid by the corporations are correct.

The consequences will be the wiping out of many species. What right do we have to do this, just so that we can drive SUVs? Don't buy land in Florida! One of these days we won't be able to count ballots there for another good reason; they'll all be under water! Try counting a wet hanging chad, Mr. Bush! Climate change means more weather disasters, and more severe ones; just look at 1998. How quickly we forget. The most damage from storms ever in history. The worst storms, and further damage because we build in places where storms hit. We can expect more droughts, more floods, more hurricanes, more earthquakes, and consequent social problems; all because the oil companies have us hooked, and Republicans (and too many Democrats) do their bidding-- and we vote for them.

Don't create clever arguments to avoid reality. That is 3T thinking. We are neglecting the real problem; we are doing nothing! We are driving off a cliff.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2001-12-21 22:22 ]</font>

Eric, like it or not, the data are not conclusive. Either way.

The comment about Limbaugh's hearing loss, by the way, speaks worse of you than him. Mocking a serious loss of a valuable faculty in another does nothing to enhance your argument, and is a petty thing to say. No offense intended, but that's how I see it.

Please don't start focusing on global climate change pro/con discussion. It was just an example of a catalyst and a scenario.

What's your example of a catalyst and a scenario?
How does it affect everyone?
How does it fit the S&H theme of Individual versus Community?
Why will Boomers hijack it with their value agenda and define it in terms of morality?

Mr. Meece writes,
"Rush Limbaugh is wrong (he's deaf, after all; he can't hear the truth)."

Doesn't that qualify him as a bonafide member of the new 'protected class' under the Americans With Disablities Act? Can't he now lay claim to all sorts of government goodies and entitlements?

And just where is the love and compassion you, on the left, claim to corner the market on, Mr. Meece? Or do you, and your lefty friends and colleagues, love only those that agree with you?

Please advise, Mr. Meece.

Well, I just replied to an earlier post...did not mean to help change the thread! To get back on, it is probably not a coincidence that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament occurred just after the Taliban was defeated, driving many al-Qaida into Pakistan. This could be the spark to a nuclear war, if Murphy's Law prevails!

On 2001-12-22 16:28, Tom Mazanec wrote:
Well, I just replied to an earlier post...did not mean to help change the thread! To get back on, it is probably not a coincidence that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament occurred just after the Taliban was defeated, driving many al-Qaida into Pakistan. This could be the spark to a nuclear war, if Murphy's Law prevails!

On this subject, this story dated 12 25 2001!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-80387.html

<FONT SIZE="+2"><center>Pakistan v. India?</FONT></center></HTML>


No problem... This is a job for SUPER SILENT!*


*um, er Colin Powell :smile:

The way things are going now, the United States seems to be doing nothing about India and Pakistan, which is proof that America is becoming more and more isolationist. This is a sign that we are entering 4T.

On 2001-12-26 10:03, madscientist wrote:

The way things are going now, the United States seems to be doing nothing about India and Pakistan, which is proof that America is becoming more and more isolationist. This is a sign that we are entering 4T.

Bear in mind that the pipeline will run to Karachi. Predict administration policy based upon that.

Scenario of 4T beginning - Pick any catalyst, doesn't really matter.
> Global climate change;
> middle east revolutions against current rulers in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq;
> another terrorist attack

Whatever the catalyst, S&H theory shows how the alignment of the generations is required for the consequences to develop into 4T. After 2002 and 2004 elections, then we will have enough Silent generation retired and Boomers moving in to take their place to get the alignment of generation constellations. Then a catalyst will come along to ignite the mixture and we'll all respond according to our generational programing.

The comment about Limbaugh's hearing loss, by the way, speaks worse of you than him. Mocking a serious loss of a valuable faculty in another does nothing to enhance your argument, and is a petty thing to say.

"Rush Limbaugh is wrong (he's deaf, after all; he can't hear the truth)."

Doesn't that qualify him as a bonafide member of the new 'protected class' under the Americans With Disablities Act? Can't he now lay claim to all sorts of government goodies and entitlements?

And just where is the love and compassion you, on the left, claim to corner the market on, Mr. Meece? Or do you, and your lefty friends and colleagues, love only those that agree with you?

Please advise, Mr. Meece.

My lefty friends vary all over the lot in regard to their attitude to Rush as a fellow member of th human race. We don't all love our enemies, as the hero of many on the Right, Mr. Jesus of Nazareth, recommends. I suppose I should be nice all the time, but heck, when someone speaks the truth as he sees it, why should he get bric brats? Why object to someone pointing out such obvious infirmities, in a satiric and humorous vein? I think Reagan's nose growth in the time of Iran-Contra was a similarly interesting historical anecdote. Pinochio incarnate. Why does my comment not speak to you of my witty, satirical brilliance as a commentator, worthy of The Realist or National Lampoon? (Well, maybe not all that brilliant, but you get the point). And BTW, Limbaugh needs to get some of his own medicine once in a while. :smile:

It's obvious Rush has not a clue, and I think his ideas, while provocative, should not be taken seriously, even by conservatives. Anyone who takes them at all seriously is IMO seriously off the extreme right side of the political scale. Given the roaring success of Mr. Limbaugh in promoting his harmful brand of entertainment, and the overwhelming predominance of commentators of his ilk over those of the left, he hardly needs my sympathy or approval. But yes, he is a fellow member of the human race, and I pray that he finds that kernel of inner truth that lies within him, and within even the most fallen.

And yes, it qualifies him for benefits. If he receives them, maybe he won't poo poo them all the time any more. I hope he gets them.

BTW, I think if people are always asking people such as me to be nice and polite all the time, S&H not only would agree with the advice, but it shows the approaching 4T that they predict, where people are more concerned with appearances of social ettiquette than with self-expression or telling the truth.

The global warming crisis will indeed fit the 4T scenario to a tee. The values of Boomers will be aroused, for it is they who led the way in ecological consciousness, and it meant a lot to them in their youth in the time of Earth Day. We will have to pull together as a society to meet this threat, far more than any other, because basic economic, lifestyle and government changes will be needed. Not only will we have to stop buying SUVs, companies will need to change all the practices that pollute and change the climate. Before companies will make these changes, their influence over our government will have to be dramatically lessened. Many collective actions will be needed to restore ruined lands, fix destroyed and flooded cities, remedy food shortages, stop and handle wars and revolutions resulting in many nations from famines and plagues, feed and house the ensuing refugees from all over the world, consider fundamental changes to meet these needs, etc. The greeds and desires of individuals may well have to be put on hold while these emergencies are dealt with.

At the same time, I hope that awakenings will still be going on. We will need increased awareness if we are to make the right changes, personally and politically. Perhaps that will be different from the previous Crisis, in which the generations pulled together, but lost their own sense of self and awareness to the big military-industrial machine.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2001-12-27 01:56 ]</font>

"My lefty friends vary all over the lot in regard to their attitude to Rush as a fellow member of th human race." --Eric Meece


Mr. Lamb's well reasoned response to Mr. Meece, and his 'lefty friends,' can be found
here. If you care to peek at it. :smile:






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2001-12-28 12:15 ]</font>

At 7 PM CST on The History Channel, historians will take a look at the year 2001. This will be interesting.

On 2001-12-27 17:44, madscientist wrote:
At 7 PM CST on The History Channel, historians will take a look at the year 2001. This will be interesting.

Sounds like a case of premature evaluation. Isn't there a pill or potion for this?

On 2001-12-27 01:54, Eric A Meece wrote:

It's obvious Rush has not a clue, and I think his ideas, while provocative, should not be taken seriously, even by conservatives. Anyone who takes them at all seriously is IMO seriously off the extreme right side of the political scale.

Rush Limbaugh is taken very seriously by millions. Further, his ideas represent a fairly mainstream conservatism. Like it or not, Eric, Rush's ideas resonate with a large chunk (not an overwhelming majority, but a very large percentage) of the American population. Rush is not nearly as far to the Right of the hypothetical center as even such well-regarded leftish icons as Hillary Clinton or Mfume are to the Left of it.

Given the roaring success of Mr. Limbaugh in promoting his harmful brand of entertainment, and the overwhelming predominance of commentators of his ilk over those of the left...

The Right dominates commentary only on the radio. TV and print media both tilt strongly to the Left.

The global warming crisis will indeed fit the 4T scenario to a tee. The values of Boomers will be aroused, for it is they who led the way in ecological consciousness, and it meant a lot to them in their youth in the time of Earth Day. We will have to pull together as a society to meet this threat, far more than any other, because basic economic, lifestyle and government changes will be needed. Not only will we have to stop buying SUVs, companies will need to change all the practices that pollute and change the climate. Before companies will make these changes, their influence over our government will have to be dramatically lessened. Many collective actions will be needed to restore ruined lands, fix destroyed and flooded cities, remedy food shortages, stop and handle wars and revolutions resulting in many nations from famines and plagues, feed and house the ensuing refugees from all over the world, consider fundamental changes to meet these needs, etc. The greeds and desires of individuals may well have to be put on hold while these emergencies are dealt with.

Assuming, of course, that two unproven hypothesi prove out: (1) that environmental disaster is actually in the offing, and (2) that if so, it will come to a head during the Boomers' tenure in power.

Neither of these is established, nor has either been disproven.

At the same time, I hope that awakenings will still be going on. We will need increased awareness if we are to make the right changes, personally and politically. Perhaps that will be different from the previous Crisis, in which the generations pulled together, but lost their own sense of self and awareness to the big military-industrial machine.

If you thought the military-industrial complex was dehumanizing, then the social/political complex necessary to maintain the strict control over personnal behavior that you describe will be all-out Orwellian.

The ecodefensive world state called for by such as Paul Ehrlich would make the military-industrial complex seem quite warm and cuddly in comparison.

On 2001-12-26 10:03, madscientist wrote:
The way things are going now, the United States seems to be doing nothing about India and Pakistan, which is proof that America is becoming more and more isolationist. This is a sign that we are entering 4T.

America is sort of caught between a rock and a hard place on this one, Robert. On one hand, we need (for the moment, anyway) the assistance of Pakistan in our quest to capture Bin Laden and obliterate his Al-Queda network. This is because it is all but likely that numerous Al-Queda have already slipped across the Afghan border into that country-- perhaps even OBL himself. We would certainly rather have the Pakistanis round up these folks -- under US pressure -- than have to invade Pakistan and do it ourselves.

On the other hand, even if getting along with the Pakistanis is in our current interest, how can we possibly justify telling the Indians to lighten up on Pakistan for the recent terrorist attack on their Parliament building, in the aftermath of our own Events Of September Eleventh? Such blatant hypocrisy would undermine our efforts to form alliances against those who would commit terrorist acts against Americans.

So, I would have to concur with the Bush Administration's decision that doing/saying nothing with regard to the Indo-Pakistani conflict is the wisest course of action.

For the time being.

Marc's "peek" led me down the rosy path to nowhere, which I guess is just as well.

As for Hopeful Cynic, I think your insult of me on the last page was interesting. Though I don't take offense, I do disagree. Especially since many people here and elsewhere have no problem with insulting Clinton as if he were no better than an insect. I ask you, who has worked harder or done more for the US, Clinton or Rush? Though not morally or politically perfect, I submit that you know that the answer is Clinton. He has worked hard for our country; Rush just shoots his mouth off and gets paid for doing it. Rush, like Bill, is a public figure, and like it or not, public figures are in for public satire and ridicule. So get used to it, Mr. Hopeful Cynic.

As for Rush's popularity, that is self-evident from what I said. That in no way negates my comment that anyone who takes his total nonsense seriously, is seriously off on the extreme-right of the spectrum. Unfortunately many people in the United States today are just so affected. The rest of the world does not suffer from this malady; only America the sick. Many Americans have been deceived by 20 years of right-wing propaganda. I submit also that many people who listen to Rush take him for what his is, a buffoon, and they find him entertaining at best.

Those who find lifestyle restrictions needed to protect the future of our planet and the very life of humanity restrictive, deserve all the feelings of oppression they get. I suspect by the 4T, such reluctance will dissappear, once people are forcibly awakened to the facts. Fortunately, however, it is not individuals who will be mostly affected by any environmental restrictions that are needed, but the big companies. However, conservatives such as yourself seem not to be able to discern the difference between the two, and actually believe that restrictions on big, greedy, powerful corporations are intolerant violations of our individual freedom! Why do you suffer from such misconception, pray tell Mr. Hopeful Cynic?

I've listened to Limbaugh. I find his attitudes reprehensible and his style smug, pompous, and insulting.

However, I am sorry that he is losing his hearing. I would not wish deafness on anyone, much less someone who makes his living on the radio. Talk radio is what Limbaugh loves, and it has to be personally shattering to him to be losing what he most needs to carry on.

Kiff '61

On 2001-12-28 12:09, Eric A Meece wrote:


As for Hopeful Cynic, I think your insult of me on the last page was interesting.

What insult? I intended none. I intended a criticism, which is not the same thing.

Though I don't take offense, I do disagree. Especially since many people here and elsewhere have no problem with insulting Clinton as if he were no better than an insect. I ask you, who has worked harder or done more for the US, Clinton or Rush?

The cold fact is that the answer is Rush, out of those two choices. Clinton worked almost without exception entirely for himself. Again, that is not an insult, merely reality.

Though not morally or politically perfect, I submit that you know that the answer is Clinton. He has worked hard for our country;

Bill Clinton has worked primarily for himself, secondarily for Hillary, tertiarily (sp?) for the Democratic Party and its associated interest groups, and as a distant fourth, for the United States, when it didn't interfere with his golf game. Overall, he did the nation far more harm than good. Those good things that he likes to take credit for in the nineties, particularly the economic boom, were mostly unconnected to him.

Rush just shoots his mouth off and gets paid for doing it. Rush, like Bill, is a public figure, and like it or not, public figures are in for public satire and ridicule. So get used to it, Mr. Hopeful Cynic.

Oh, like many right-wingers, I am used to it. But not all satire and ridicule are equal. True, Rush often pushes his own mockeries over the line. I don't particularly like ad hominem attacks or personal mockery in either direction, I prefer civility. When there is mockery, I prefer to mock bad ideas rather than human beings. Note that this is my point. Had you mocked his ideas, I would have disagreed, but not been irritated. It was mocking the person rather than the message, particularly such a disability, that got my back up.

BTW, as I said, Rush is sometimes guilty of this too. One of his mocking songs about a particular liberal politician, for example, in my opinion goes past mocking his ideas into mocking him, and I don't approve of that either.

As for Rush's popularity, that is self-evident from what I said. That in no way negates my comment that anyone who takes his total nonsense seriously, is seriously off on the extreme-right of the spectrum. Unfortunately many people in the United States today are just so affected. The rest of the world does not suffer from this malady; only America the sick. Many Americans have been deceived by 20 years of right-wing propaganda.

No, many Americans have always held these ideas, and Limbaugh (and others) came along at an opportune moment to give them voice. The Awakening tended to give voice to one or two factions while drowing out many others, and resentment built over that.

The large numbers of people who agree with some or all of Limbaugh's ideas already held them, in more or less coherent form, before they ever heard of him. These ideas were not implanted or created by 'right wing propaganda'.

Incidentally, America is currently the world's dominant military, economic, and cultural power. Unless something happens to shatter that power, America is not under any particular obligation to follow the path of the rest of the world. IMHO, in fact, the world would do well to imitate America more than they do, but they, too, are not obligated to do so. So simply referring to 'America the sick' makes no impression on anyone who doesn't already hold that opinion.

I submit also that many people who listen to Rush take him for what his is, a buffoon, and they find him entertaining at best.

Not according to the latest rating numbers.

Those who find lifestyle restrictions needed to protect the future of our planet and the very life of humanity restrictive, deserve all the feelings of oppression they get. I suspect by the 4T, such reluctance will dissappear, once people are forcibly awakened to the facts.

Funny, the Left is always talking about individuality and the rights of the individual, yet there seems to be this strange subthread that keeps focusing on 'making' people wake up, on 'forcibly' educating them, on compulsory sensitivity training, etc. What an odd dichotomy!

One might almost wonder whether the Left has a faint little streak of authoritarianism running through it! :smile:

Fortunately, however, it is not individuals who will be mostly affected by any environmental restrictions that are needed, but the big companies. However, conservatives such as yourself seem not to be able to discern the difference between the two, and actually believe that restrictions on big, greedy, powerful corporations are intolerant violations of our individual freedom! Why do you suffer from such misconception, pray tell Mr. Hopeful Cynic?

I'm not in any sense worried about the corporations. For one thing, I neither love them nor hate them. For another, they are in no particular danger.

The corporations will fare just fine under the new arrangements. They can afford legions of lawyers, they can buy access to susceptible politicians and bureaucrats, they can influence the training of the same by donations to various Ivy League (and other selected) univer$itie$, they can even provide a lot of the very personnel for the various regulatory bodies by means of the 'revolving door' effect.

No, the people who'll end up feeling the bite of the restrictions will be the average sap who can't afford these options, and who lacks those connections and opportunities.

Oh, I can tell the difference, Eric. That's why I am not reassured.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-12-28 21:39 ]</font>