On 2002-01-31 14:43, msm wrote:
Prior top recent years, what people said was "nobody ever bombs America". The increases in security at U.S. airports aren't new to Europe; terrorism in Europe forced European airports to enact tighter security a long time ago.

Until recently (if even), 'Europe' was not a monolithic entity. That being the case, talk about "terrorism in Europe" before 2000 is about as meaningful as talking about "terrorism in North America" -- of which there has been quite a bit in recent decades.

I remember a comment by an Englishwoman after 9/11: "Welcome to the world." I took this to mean that, now, finally, terrorism had reached the U.S.

It is inaccurate to imply that terrorism never strikes in Europe. What about Lockerbie? London has had terrorism for years. So has Paris and Germany.

These are simple facts.

If you are looking for patterns, just for a minute, stop looking at where the victims live, and start looking at where the terrorists come from. There are pretty clear patterns.

The argument most people make about terorism being a result of a nation's foreign policy can only be refuted by consideration of a nation with a different policy or which experiences a different level of terrorism. England has been hand-in-glove with the US for as long as I can remember. It's not surprising, given the thesis that foreign policy breeds terrorism, that two countries (US and UK) with very similar policies will experience similar levels of terrorism.



The examples many people look at are Switzerland and Japan. Both are stringently non-interventionist, and neither has been plagued by any level of foreign terrorism (Aum Shinryo was internal) during that time.



If you have any compelling counterexamples -- by which I mean countries with interventionist foreign policies which are not terrorized, or countries with non-interventionist policies which are, I would be interested in 'hearing' them.



_________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-01-31 16:16 ]</font>

I think that I have finally come to a decision. My official position on this issue is YES. We are in the Fourth Turning.

Ralph Nader speaks in 4T era tone.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnew...=3c54fff73b731

<font color="blue">Nader: Democracy works, get involved
Crowd of 5,500 hears former presidential candidate's message on political activism
By Miguel Liscano (Daily Texan Staff)
January 28, 2002

Civic action is the key to governmental change, consumer advocate and politician Ralph Nader said Saturday at a rally uniting grassroots activists at the Tony Burger Center.

Speaking to a sold--out crowd of about 5,500, Nader, former Green Party presidential candidate and long--time activist, offered his views on campaign finance reform, a living wage for workers, corporate welfare and how citizens could cause reform by joining together.

"Democracy works. That's one of its secrets - it actually works," he said. "The greatest power that the few have over the many throughout history is the deep feeling by the many that they don't count, that they can't really turn things around, that they don't have any power."

Nader said people have power when they join together, and if they organize, then they can make democracy work and change what should be changed. The rally, he said, was designed to get different activist groups to work together.

Austin was the eighth stop on Nader's "People Have the Power Tour," and featured speeches by syndicated columnists Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins and musical performances by Jackson Browne and Patti Smith.

During his speech, Nader endorsed the Austin Fair Elections Act, which seeks to help political candidates garner grassroots support, giving them a better chance to run against someone with a large amount of money.

"There are certain things in our country that should never be for sale. Our elections should never be for sale. Our democracy should never be for sale. Our government should not be for sale," Nader said.

Mike Blizzard, spokesman for Clean Campaigns for Austin, said the act, which is on the ballot in May, would give the average person a better chance at running for local office by giving candidates access to a certain amount of public funds for campaigning.

"These days you have to be either independently wealthy or have a lot of wealthy friends to run for office, " he said. "[The Austin Fair Elections Act] allows grassroots candidates to get their message out without catering to and then being beholden to special interests."

The act of corporations seeking subsidies and "handouts" is also a problem that should be faced by citizens because "corporate welfare" hurts workers as corporations put profits before the needs of employees, Nader said

He also used the collapse of Enron as an example of how corporations seek help from the government. Investigations will be thorough, prosecutions will be numerous, but no reform will take place unless citizens inform their representatives in Congress that their state wants change, he said.

"Enron inadvertently may be the greatest engine for reform in Washington that we've had in decades," Nader said.

Nader also criticized politicians who "eroded" American's civil liberties after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Catherine Cunningham, member of the UT Green Party, said student movements and anti--globalization activists were silenced in the wake of Sept. 11. However, she said the climate is changing as more political action groups begin to speak out again.

"I see a resurgence with something like this here in Austin, and I see people becoming more and more receptive to our thoughts and ideas. I see less and less blind patriotism, and I think that's a good thing," Cunningham said.

Nader also said the lack of affordable health insurance for many Americans causes the nation to lag behind the rest of the Western world. A national health insurance plan could help, only if money wasted on bureaucracy was redirected to health care, especially preventive health care.

He added that the minimum wage should be raised.

The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, which Nader said is not adequate for a normal person to live on.

"More and more people are sinking into homelessness and into poverty because they can't make it in Wal--Mart or McDonald's and the other corporations who are reaping enormous profits on the back of these workers," Nader said.
</font>

Isn't the terrorism in the U.K. mostly related to the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, rather than to them being staunch Allies of the United States?

I don't believe Lockerbie was targeting the U.K. It was a flight that originated in Frankfurt, Germany.

Fans of anarchist protesters might also be angered by what they find here:

STUPID WORLD vs. REAL WORLD
In which the forces of normal do battle with the forces of dumb

This week: 60,000 World Economic Forum protesters in New York take on Brian K., of Kansas

Stupid World:"If we back down now, we'll send the message that the globalisation movement has been scared quiet. I think it's more important to come together and put our message out, knowing full well the media may spin it in such a way that's unfavourable, but that's a chance I think we have to take." ? Brooke Lehman, member of Another World Is Possible, one of the anti-globo, anti-McDonald's, anti-Nike goon squads assembling in New York.

Real World: "I work at the County Sheriff's Department from midnight to 0800 in the morning. On my way to work, I became hungry." ? reader Brian K., of Kansas, via email...

Some quick comments about prior postings.

Sure, I can sympathize with worker rights in the Third World but do I have to oppose trade with those countries to support those rights?
Doesn't trade, however slowly, bring economic
growth and higher living standards to those countries? The opposite (protectionism) has never worked and actually turned a depression (small 'd') into the Great Depression. Our trade with Great Britain boosted American living standards when we were still a backwater agrarian nations. It doesn't seem much different in the case of China or Latin America.

Secondly, if the anti-globalization protestors really hate McDonald's and Burger King why don't they offer an alternative? Why are protests always anti, anti, anti instead of pro, pro, pro? No one ever really understands the WTO or GATT or World Bank or what they do so it's easier to bash something that you don't understand and is big than to propose a positive alternative.

Third, New Yorkers support free speech.. It's a great tradition here. Whoever wrote that we want to kill or kick these protestors doesn't know what he's talking about. I support their right to PEACEFUL protest, even if I disagree with their agenda. It's good to see Xers and Mills caring enough to protest SOMETHING. Right after 911 we tolerated protests here against the war in Afghanistan.
I cannot see why we would do the same with antiglobalizers who intend to stay within the constraints of peaceful and rational protest.


If Bin Laden wanted to target somewhere New York was the worst place he could have targeted. New York has more peaceniks than just about anywhere else in the country and by doing this he's not only picking a fight with the warhawks in Washington. He picked a fight with the peaceniks as well. Leftists such as myself who previously denounced US Mideast policies against Palestinians and Iraqis are now seeing that it's futile to denounce these policies without a change of heart on the part of the Arab and Muslim world. Bin Laden and his chroneys, who are really an Islamic version of the same fascist plague that enveloped Europe in the last century, have legitamite gripes with US foreign policy. But even Hitler had a valid point or two about reparations and the Versailles Treaty. The West , especially Europe, needs to wake up to the terrorist threat in our midst. Sure, Bush is exxagerating with his Axis of Evil rhetoric but he's on target that the I and K countires are out to cause havoc sooner or later. Why stay silent about them?

Fourth, I love Ralph Nader but he's a mega-Silent and a goner. Late Silent always sound Boomerish because they're trying to get younger support. Many of Nader's proposed reforms will make it into the next New Deal just like many of TR's and Woodrow Wilson's reforms paved the way for their Fourth Turning regeneration. But we still have a way to go before Boomers completely grow up and start completely facing the responsibility that will be placed heavilly on their shoulders.
Nader may not be alive when his proposed reforms are enacted.

Lastly, an alarming article about the shift towards Fourth Turning cultural conservativism. It seems that Bush is now trying to use a change in Medicaid financing rules to legislate the idea that fetuses are considered children with rights. Where is the pro-choice crowd now? Too busy with their awards dinner in Washington DC? Why aren't the young ums protesting this since it might affect their right to choose?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020201-38749390.htm

Apparently it is getting missed by some that no one is saying the "antiglobal" protesters can't march or exercise their free speech. What is being said is, they better remain peaceful this time.

That crowd has many different groups with different (contradictory) stances, but among them are people who frequently decide a little property damage would help get them airtime.

I would point out that the last 4T began with domestic stress and ended with war. There is no reason why a new 4T couldn't reverse this pattern.

Thus, if we have a few years of "war on terrorism" with a relatively quiet domestic front, that doesn't neccessarily mean it's not a 4T. The domestic front during WWII was quiet, also.

(See, this whole theory is so slippery as to not really be quite scientific anyway. I see it as more like a convenient way to classify eras.)

I haven't yet decided wether this is 4T yet.

But I do know what this 4T will be about.

The US and Western Europe have most of the wealth of the world. Most of the rest
of the world is in great poverty.

Now, we can argue about whose fault this is, but alot of it has to do with the
forms of government around the world.

Most nations are in a miserable cycle of opression, revolution and
opression again.

Things get bad. People take up arms and overthrow the regime. Problem is
that the new regime is just as bad as the old one. (read _Animal House_)

The regimes are corrupt - stealing what little wealth exists in the nation
and leaving most people poor and miserable and ripe for a demagoug like
Bin Laden.

He comes along and riles up people and say "See - its all the US's fault" and
the people now have an outlet for their rage. Is it misplaced - yes, but it
still exists.

One of the things that a dictator does is to stifle or kill the intellectuals
since they are the only ones who 1) Can figure out who the real culprit is and
2) Know what to do about it. Most of the world is made up of uneducated peasants
who know only emotion and do not have the education to know better or the skills
to engage in deductive reasoning. They are more likely to fall for propaganda and
will be footsoldiers of violence.

Nations need laws that protect private property rights, Allow a framework to
enforce contracts, provide a stable taxation policy and are relativily free from
corruption. If you are missing any of these pieces, you are doomed to failure.
Most third world nations are missing all three.

The next 4T will be a global 4T, and the problems to be resolved are the bitter
poverty in the world as well as environmental issues.

A nice resolution to the next 4T will be a world in which a nation can rise up,
open its eyes, stabilize its economy and society and slowly crawl out of the ditch
of misery that it has been in since the beginning of time.

It would also be nice if the world could do a global "Energy Manhattan Project" with
the goal of eliminating the need for all fossil fuels. We have to stop burning
this stuff - its killing us.

Justin '79 wrote: <font color=blue>I bet you the trigger happy NYPD kill a couple kids this weekend</font>

I note that this didn't happen. All reports indicate that the NYPD behaved professionally, despite the bad attitudes displayed by some of the visitors.

Justin is not old enough to understand reality. Life is much more complicated than his idealistic mind can yet comprehend.

Its just youth. I was that way when I was young as well. Don't take it as an insult Justin, you have a lot of living to do and time to experience life in order to understand.

President Bush is an experienced leader with people around him that know what they are doing. Its times like these that reinforce my faith in God.

GWB is JUST the man we need there now. I think it is more than just a cooincidence that he won (fair and square, by the way) in 2000.

Taka

Pesonally, I don't understand what the protestors are advocating. It seems like they're against rather than for something. Most of them protested peacefully and were well behaved. A few got out of hand and
were arrested. By and large things were much quieter than before. The protestors and police alike should be saluted for this.

A lot of the protestors were Mills and Late Xers. I think it proves that this gang can behave well. It also lends some validity to the "better behavior" theory of Strauss and Howe regarding late Xers and Millenials.

Taka wrote: "Most nations are in a miserable cycle of opression, revolution and
opression again....Things get bad. People take up arms and overthrow the regime. Problem is that the new regime is just as bad as the old one. (read _Animal House_)"

I think that you probably mean "Animal Farm", by George Orwell. Correct? And, yes, I would agree with you on that point.

Regarding whether G-Dub is the man we need at the helm right now, well, he is certainly doing an awesome job conducting the Afghan War. I hope, however, that he can also rise to the occasion on the domestic front. A crisis is brewing in regard to corporate oligarchy, and our dependence on foreign oil is about to collide with the war against Islamism. If President Bush is perceived as being on the wrong side of either of these issues, he shall go down in history as a 21st Century Herbert Hoover.

OTOH, if in the end Mr. Bush stands up to the corporations -- particularly the oil companies -- he could well become this saeculum's FDR, the Hero of The Hour. The Only-Nixon-Could-Go-To-China analogy may be in order here. It is quite possible that only a President with impeccable conservative credentials can avoid being laughed off the national stage as a "limp-dick liberal" while retaking America from the CEO's that threaten our democracy. I pray that GWB is up to the challenge.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-02-04 21:31 ]</font>

On 2002-02-04 21:11, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:


OTOH, if in the end Mr. Bush stands up to the corporations -- particularly the oil companies -- he could well become this saeculum's FDR, the Hero of The Hour. The Only-Nixon-Could-Go-To-China analogy may be in order here. It is quite possible that only a President with impeccable conservative credentials can avoid being laughed off the national stage as a "limp-dick liberal" while retaking America from the CEO's that threaten our democracy. I pray that GWB is up to the challenge.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-02-04 21:31 ]</font>

One of the reasons FDR was able to do the things he did was that he himself came out of the 'aristocratic' class. Today, conservatives themselves share some of the concerns about the corporations and the current state of capitalism, but your're right that they simply don't quite trust a liberal to correct it, since they suspect (rightly or wrongly) that the liberal would be tempted to try to take the solution far past the needs of the problem.

Did the WEF forum turn to the left, and turn more anti-corporate?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...world_forum_98

<font color="blue">
World Economic Forum Takes Left Turn
Mon Feb 4, 8:34 AM ET

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - They came in solidarity with this terror-wounded city.

But since they arrived, speaker after speaker at the World Economic Forum has lambasted America as a smug superpower, too beholden to Israel at the expense of the Muslim world, and inattentive to the needs of poor countries or the advice of allies.

With the forum wrapping up its five-day session Monday, some of the criticism has been simple scolding by non-Western leaders. But a large measure has come in public soul-searching by U.S. politicians and business leaders.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., cited a global poll that characterized Americans as selfish and bent on arranging the global economy for their own benefit.

"We've not done our fair share to take on some of the global challenges" like poverty, disease and women's rights, Clinton said Sunday. "We need to convince the U.S. public that this is a role that we have to play."

Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates warned that the terms of international trade were too favorable to the rich world, a disparity that feeds resentment.

"People who feel the world is tilted against them will spawn the kind of hatred that is very dangerous for all of us," Gates said. "I think it's a healthy sign that there are demonstrators in the streets. They are raising the question of 'is the rich world giving back enough?'"

Held in the Swiss ski resort of Davos in its first 31 years, sponsors decided to move this year's forum to New York to show support for the city after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

About 2,700 corporate and political leaders, clergy and celebrities came to discuss the world's problems, and have spent much time dissecting U.S. foreign policy, its possible role in breeding terrorism and the potential harms of globalization.

Few protesters turned up Sunday near the Waldorf-Astoria hotel, site of the forum, on the fourth day of the conference. But mostly peaceful demonstrations miles from the hotel generated 159 arrests ? the largest in a single day since the conference started ? and one case of vandalism was reported.

The total arrested so far during the meeting grew to over 200, mostly for disorderly conduct.

In a curious convergence, the titans of business and politics at the meeting have seized on many of the same socially liberal issues that they have been accused of ignoring at past gatherings.

The forum's agenda may have taken some of the steam out of street protests, which were sparse except for Saturday's turnout of about 7,000 demonstrators, and has even paralleled issues under discussion at the World Social Forum, an anti-globalization conference under way in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

In Brazil, speakers on Saturday condemned the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, with one comparing the practice to apartheid-era South Africa's creation of "Bantustans," which were economically poor areas designated as homelands for blacks.

In New York, guests heard a similar message Sunday.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, warned that Palestinian violence risked evolving into large-scale urban terror, while Israel's response "will slide into a pattern of behavior that resembles the South Africans."

However, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said Sunday he saw "a ray of hope" for Mideast peace. New talks with the Palestinians could lead to a cease-fire, and mutual recognition of a Palestinian state and Israel's right to exist, he said.

Jordan's King Abdullah II called for "international intervention to help steer the parties from the brink," arguing that the "burning injustice of Palestine" had "fed extremism around the world."

Brzezinski called for Washington to create a parallel social campaign to temper the anger against its military campaign against terrorism, to "appeal to a better future" in poor countries.

"It's very easy for the U.S. to slide into a kind of global alliance for the sake of repression," Brzezinski said.

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chided his colleagues in Congress for giving too much foreign aid to Israel, the largest recipient of American help, and said too little aid flows to the neediest.

"I've been critical of the aid we've given to Israel," Leahy said in an interview. "But the same complaint could be made of a number of wealthy Muslim countries. They're not giving aid to the poorest of their own people."
</font>

I think the WEF changed the wall paper to make things more light and airy but the dimensions of the "room" are still the same and the help is still below stairs polishing the silver and scuttling the coal.

Some conservatives are aware of what corporations and their CEOs are doing to our country, and yes, they fear that liberals will do more than is necessary to correct the problem. They are incorrect however. Their mistake shows that we are not in 4T. When the 4T comes, people will know that drastic change is needed, and ONLY a liberal can pull it off. Then our next FDR will appear.

We need to change our energy policy totally. Plants need to be publically owned. Cars need to use alternate fuels, and we need alternate transit. Cutting of forests needs to stop, and so does the emission of acid rain-producing pollutants. The design of our cities needs to change to end urban sprawl and humanize their environment. World Trade policy needs to change so that our jobs and our environment are protected. US foreign policy needs to change so that regimes around the world help the people, and are not saddled with debt to the IMF. We need social insurance policies that protect the poor and the old, and keep the middle class growing and the lower class shrinking. Tax policies need to change so that a few people don't have all the wealth and power. The economy and the future of the few social programs we have left depend on this.

Conservatives and Bush won't do these things. Instead, they might impose religious morals on the people that are outdated. They might cripple education with their silly vouchers. They will spend more than necessary on defense. They will balloon the deficit so that we can't afford social security and social programs to improve the condition of the people, and cause a financial collapse when the Boomers retire. They will lower taxes and restrictions on the rich so they can continue ripping people off. Enron is just the most obvious example; the 1980s provided many more. They might oppose campaign finance reform so the lobbyists for the rich can keep control of our government and stop reforms.

Bush handled the war in Afghanistan well, except that he didn't do anything that any other leader would not have done. And he may have killed 3000-plus Afghan civilians with errant bombing, and this report is being suppressed and not investigated by our corporate media. Bush is suppressing information about Enron and tightening restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act, so that he can pursue cover-ups with impunity.

Dubya was, as everyone should know, not elected elected fair and square. He stole the election. Gore should be president now. The Republicans padded the list of convicted felons by adding people on the Florida felon list with the same names as felons in Texas, and then did not allow them to vote, although they weren't really felons. People in poor districts were turned away because their names were not on the rolls, and the poll workers could not check on them because they had no phones. In Seminole and Martin Counties, absentee ballots were corrected for mistakes if they were Republican, but not if they were Democratic. The recount was stopped by the Supreme Court, when a count of the ballots of all counties showed that Gore would have won despite all this fraud. The Palm Beach County recount was not counted. Plus they refused to hold a revote in Palm Beach County after the "Butterfly ballot" confused 3000 people into voting for Buchanan. Many other votes were not counted because of the punch card ballot.

No, Bush was not elected fair and square. He didn't even win the popular vote.

Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-02-05 12:02 ]</font>

On 2002-02-05 06:15, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
I think the WEF changed the wall paper to make things more light and airy but the dimensions of the "room" are still the same and the help is still below stairs polishing the silver and scuttling the coal.

True.

On 2002-02-05 11:59, Eric A Meece wrote:
Some conservatives are aware of what corporations and their CEOs are doing to our country, and yes, they fear that liberals will do more than is necessary to correct the problem. They are incorrect however. Their mistake shows that we are not in 4T. When the 4T comes, people will know that drastic change is needed, and ONLY a liberal can pull it off. Then our next FDR will appear.

Not so. If that is the case, then the prior 4T didn't really begin until 1932. Society picking a leftist to solve problems is more of a regeneracy event than a catalyzing event. And even so, not even the conservatives will totally be on the same page as the liberals.

We need to change our energy energy totally. Plants need to be publically owned. Cars need to use alternate fuels, and we need alternate transit. Cutting of forests needs to stop, and so does the emission of acid rain-producing pollutants. The design of our cities needs to change to end urban sprawl and humanize their environment. World Trade policy needs to change so that our jobs and our environment are protected. US foreign policy needs to change so that regimes around the world help the people, and are not saddled with debt to the IMF. We need social insurance policies that protect the poor and the old, and keep the middle class growing and the lower class shrinking. Tax policies need to change so that a few people don't have all the wealth and power. The economy and the future of the few social programs we have left depend on this.

Have you ever thought about entering public life? You have stated the goals, now, we have to implement this.

Conservatives and Bush won't do these things. Instead, they might impose religious morals on the people that are outdated. They might cripple education with their silly vouchers. They will spend more than necessary on defense. They will balloon the deficit so that we can't afford social security and social programs to improve the condition of the people, and cause a financial collapse when the Boomers retire. They will lower taxes and restrictions on the rich so they can continue ripping people off. Enron is just the most obvious example; the 1980s provided many more. They might oppose campaign finance reform so the lobbyists for the rich can keep control of our government and stop reforms.

This is what I am rebelling against.

Bush handled the war in Afghanistan well, except that he didn't do anything that any other leader would not have done. And he may have killed 3000-plus Afghan civilians with errant bombing, and this report is being suppressed and not investigated by our corporate media. Bush is suppressing information about Enron and tighting restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act, so that he can pursue cover-ups with impunity.

Dubya was, as everyone should know, not elected elected fair and square. He stole the election. Gore should be president now. The Republicans padded the list of convicted felons by adding people with the same names as felons in Texas, and then did not allow them to vote. People in poor districts were turned away because their names were not on the rolls, and the poll workers could not check on them because they had no phones. In Seminole and Martin Counties, absentee ballots were corrected for mistakes if they were Republican, but not if they were Democratic. The recount was stopped by the Supreme Court, when a count of the ballots of all counties showed that Gore would have won despite all this fraud. The Palm Beach County recount was not counted. Plus they refused to hold a revote in Palm Beach County after the "Butterfly ballot" confused 3000 people into voting for Buchanan. Many other votes were not counted because of the punch card ballot.

No, Bush was not elected fair and square. He didn't even win the popular vote.

Eric Meece

Now that you have identified the problems, it is up to us to come up with solutions.

One of the things that a dictator does is to stifle or kill the intellectuals since they are the only ones who 1) Can figure out who the real culprit is and 2) Know what to do about it. Most of the world is made up of uneducated peasants who know only emotion and do not have the education to know better or the skills to engage in deductive reasoning. They are more likely to fall for propaganda and will be footsoldiers of violence.

My only comment on this is that this description also applies to Americans. We may not be peasants, but otherwise it applies perfectly.

Thanks mad. I actually am in public life at a very local level (Green Party Central Committee). I doubt I am politician material; not diplomatic enough. I also need to study these issues more. Some of these changes can be made on the local level.

The domination of radio and other media by a few big companies is another outrage, as it is totally stifling and dumming down our culture-- even from the low level it was at. Most people don't have access to what real creative vision and expression is out there. The example of what has happened in our media has been repeated in other fields, and is a stark warning of what is ahead as long as the conservative free market trickle-down ideology and the merger mania reigns unchecked. Do we really want to continue to live in a nation where our media is more limited and controlled than it is in Russia? A media which is not giving us the information on the war we need to make an intelligent decision? And then we wonder why Bush's approval numbers are in the 80s?

Nobody can say who actually received the most votes in Florida, or in the US as a whole, for that matter.

The election was so close that the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory.

In every election, thousands of ballots go uncounted due to this or that reason (hanging chads, double punches, etc.). Usually, this doesn't change the outcome. In 2000, the vote was unusually close.

We need to improve how elections function to minimize the margin of error. That's something we can all agree on.

Something we won't agree on is that there was a lot of vote stealing by the Democrats as well. The Democratic lawyers disqualified hundred of ballots from military bases, for example.

Of course, as The Onion pointed out so brilliantly:

RECOUNT CONFIRMS: NADER LOST

How's this for proof that we are in 4T? :wink:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/700935.asp?0si=-

<font color="blue">
Anheuser-Busch sees higher profits
Beer maker posts earnings of 26 cents a share, tops estimates

ASSOCIATED PRESS
ST. LOUIS, Feb. 6 ? Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc.?s profit rose 8.9 percent in the fourth quarter, matching Wall Street expectations on a 1.7 percent sales increase.

THE ST. LOUIS-BASED maker of the world?s best-selling regular and light beers, Budweiser and Bud Light, earned $228 million, or 26 cents per share, in the October-December period compared to $209 million, or 23 cents per share, a year ago.
Net sales increased to $2.89 billion from $2.84 billion.
Analysts surveyed by First Call/Thomson Financial anticipated earnings of 26 cents a share.
In trading on the New York Stock Exchange, Anheuser-Busch stock fell 5 cents to $48.20 a share.
?Anheuser-Busch is a simple, straightforward consumer products company, and with our significant competitive strengths we have been able to achieve these consistently strong results,? said August A. Busch III, chairman of the board and president.

For the full year, the company earned $1.71 billion, or $1.89 per share, compared to earnings of $1.55 billion, or $1.69 per share, in 2000. Net sales for the year rose to $12.91 billion from $12.50 billion a year earlier.
Worldwide beer sales volume grew 0.6 percent to 24.5 million barrels in the fourth quarter and was up 1.5 percent to 107.2 million barrels for all of 2001.
The company continued to inch closer to having half the domestic beer market. Anheuser-Busch?s domestic market share rose 0.3 percent in 2001 to 48.8 percent.
Busch said the outlook remains strong for 2002.


?We expect to again accomplish our double-digit earnings per share growth objective in 2002, with a current target of 10 to 12 percent growth,? he said. ?Longer-term, we remain confident in our ability to consistently achieve double-digit earnings per share growth.
</font>

Eric wrote: "When the 4T comes, people will know that drastic change is needed..."

Not (necessarily) true. Immediately after the October '29 Stock Market Crash, most people weren't convinced that a major overhaul of the American economic system was in order. That realization didn't hit home until around 1932, at which time we voted Hoover out of Office. Roosevelt's election to the Presidency was the beginning of the Great Power Crisis' Regeneracy-- not the Fourth Turning catalyst.

In a similar way, most people today don't yet see the coming perfect-storm collision between our dependence on foreign oil, the war on terrorism, urban sprawl, the shrinking middle class, and Boomer retirement. On a gut level, they do sense that something is off-kilter in the aftermath of September 11th, the catalyst of the current Crisis. But it is intangible; they don't quite know what that something is yet.

The likelihood that President Bush will do nothing to solve the real problems simmering below the obvious ones, doesn't mean that we are still in a 3T. It is simply that people don't yet see the need for drastic action other than the obvious, the all-but-over Afghan War.

We are in the Fourth Turning, Eric. But it's only the equivalent of 1930, not 1933. For the Regeneracy we must be patient.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-02-06 20:03 ]</font>

On 2002-02-06 19:53, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Eric wrote: "When the 4T comes, people will know that drastic change is needed..."

Not (necessarily) true. Immediately after the October '29 Stock Market Crash, most people weren't convinced that a major overhaul of the American economic system was in order. That realization didn't hit home until around 1932, at which time we voted Hoover out of Office.

FDR actually did not run on anything like an overhaul. He thought Mr. Hoover had actually gone too far in some ways and said so in his campaign promises.

On 2002-02-06 21:45, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-02-06 19:53, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Eric wrote: "When the 4T comes, people will know that drastic change is needed..."

Not (necessarily) true. Immediately after the October '29 Stock Market Crash, most people weren't convinced that a major overhaul of the American economic system was in order. That realization didn't hit home until around 1932, at which time we voted Hoover out of Office.

FDR actually did not run on anything like an overhaul. He thought Mr. Hoover had actually gone too far in some ways and said so in his campaign promises.

And to add to that, we must realize the Hoover designed the original New Deal, and told FDR about it during his lame-duck period.