I stand corrected.

Thanks for the response, Elisheva. I will pass your comments on to my parent's group.

Your political activity is admirable.

Sign of 4th Turning?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...4064%2C00.html

Now let's see... the war on terror is going extremely well, the bull market keeps going up, up, up, and now even liberals are wondering if the Democrats are committing "suicide"! :lol:

Andrew Sullivan sounds off on

Daschle's Gamble

"What's going on here? Is this the beginning of another Vietnam? Or are the Democrats toying with throwing themselves off a political cliff? So far, the latter scenario seems the most likely. The latest polls show massive public support for the war on terror and huge backing for taking the war to terrorist-sponsoring states aiming to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the enemy.

A Fox News poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, shows some subsidence of urgency among the public about the war, terrorism, security and related issues. But the public still believes that these related issues comprise the biggest problem the country faces, and should remain the main task of the government. 82 percent still approve the military actions being taken in response to September 11. That number has subsided slightly from around 89 percent a month ago - but it's still a margin of support no-one but a masochistic politician would counter.

It's also true that the latest numbers show president Bush's approval rating moderating somewhat. But it's still 77 percent. Last October, it was 80 percent. That's not exactly a collapse. And it's still historically unprecedented.

For what it's worth, I think those Republicans are right. As long as the administration keeps its nerve, and as long as military competence continues, the Democrats could be handing Bush a political gift of massive proportions. The fall elections may well be held as military action in Iraq reaches a critical point. If that happens, the Democrats could not only risk losing the Senate and the House, they could undo many, many post-Vietnam years devoted to persuading middle America that the party could be trusted on foreign policy. If I were Tom Daschle, I'd be worried sick. Suicide isn't pretty for a political party - but the Democratic leadership for short-term political reasons - or for lack of any other viable strategy - is contemplating it once again."


"Suicide isn't pretty"? No but someone said once that it's quite "painless." For the GOP, anyway.

Some fourth turn, eh, folks! :smile:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-04 14:48 ]</font>

"and now even liberals are wondering if the Democrats are committing 'suicide'!"

Perhaps you did read somewhere that a "liberal" was wondering that, as I have no doubt that some liberal somewhere is.

However, the implication from your post is that Andrew Sullivan is a "liberal".

Actually, a few conservatives think he is. Sullivan originally supported McCain in 2000, and took a while to warm to Bush. He also takes contrary positions sometimes (like supporting the current Campaign Finance legislation).

He also sometimes clashes with others on the "right" due to his strong libertarian bent.

However, given that he has been one of Bush's most staunch media supporters since 2000, is fully behind the war, waxes eloquently about how great Reagan was, likes taxes and government spending low, and calls himself a "conservative", he is rarely described as a "liberal" by anyone except the most strict "conservatives".

Well, truth is truth. And what I observe is true, and what Mr. Sullivan observes is also true.

As far as "suicide" goes, we'll see in November. :smile:

On 2002-03-04 15:11, firemind wrote:

However, the implication from your post is that Andrew Sullivan is a "liberal".

Actually, a few conservatives think he is. Sullivan originally supported McCain in 2000, and took a while to warm to Bush. He also takes contrary positions sometimes (like supporting the current Campaign Finance legislation).

He also sometimes clashes with others on the "right" due to his strong libertarian bent.

However, given that he has been one of Bush's most staunch media supporters since 2000, is fully behind the war, waxes eloquently about how great Reagan was, likes taxes and government spending low, and calls himself a "conservative", he is rarely described as a "liberal" by anyone except the most strict "conservatives".

Sullivan may want government out of his bedroom, but that does not give him a libertarian bent. Every trait you ascribed to him above consistently demonstrates a neocon bent. Big, big difference between that and libertarian. He would be considered a "liberal" by paleocons and the Religious Right. Libertarians are more apt to consider him a...we had this discussion before...I won't say it. :wink:

I'd really like to avoid another pointless semantic argument as well.

My point to Marc was that he is not a "liberal". You agree there, no?

I did not call Sullivan a "libertarian". I called him a conservative, and mentioned that he had a "libertarian bent".

He often spars with neocons, who themselves consider him a "libertarian".

For example, he has a libertarian attitude about drug policy.

"Sullivan may want government out of his bedroom, but that does not give him a libertarian bent."

It doesn't? Really?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-04 16:27 ]</font>

Stonewall:

I *so* do not want to get into another semantic argument that I will erase this and most of my previous post.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-04 15:56 ]</font>

Good grief, I post comments by lots of folks, of all political strips, all the time if I think what they're saying is right.

I guess folks here just can't see the forest for their political trees, huh?

Oh well. :smile:

On 2002-03-04 15:47, firemind wrote:
I'd really like to avoid another pointless semantic argument as well.

My point to Marc was that he is not a "liberal". You agree there, no?

I did not call Sullivan a "libertarian". I called him a conservative, and mentioned that he had a "libertarian bent".

He often spars with neocons, who themselves consider him a "libertarian".

For example, he has a libertarian attitude about drug policy.

"Sullivan may want government out of his bedroom, but that does not give him a libertarian bent."

It doesn't? Really?

Sullivan is a typical Captialist to use Brian Rush's termnology. He likes to see government out of people's moral life.

He is also with seeing government's main role in defending property rights and the interests of the business sector. That is also typically Captialist.

On 2002-03-04 16:02, Marc Lamb wrote:



Good grief, I post comments by lots of folks, of all political strips, all the time if I think what they're saying is right.

I even post others comments if I think what they are saying is wrong. HTH

On 2002-03-04 15:17, Marc Lamb wrote:

Well, truth is truth. And what I observe is true, and what Mr. Sullivan observes is also true.

As far as "suicide" goes, we'll see in November. :smile:

If a full-scale election were held _tomorrow_, I think GWB would win in landslide, with Congress remaining divided pretty evenly.

In the upcoming real world election, I think we just might see another round of razor-thin votes, but I could be wrong.

Incidentally, just a moment ago, I saw David Leno running a skit based around Monica Lewinsky. The TV news the last few days seems to be focusing in on Condit and the high-profiles murders of late.

The cover of Time this last week: "Can Bono Save The World?"

Third Turning, here we come, right back where we started from...

Or so I suspect.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/719084.asp?0si=-

"While we know that people such as you describe do exist in the Red Zone, their numbers are so small that they comprise a tiny minority."

Far from it Stonewall, If anything, they are the MAJORITY in the red zone. Fundamentalist Christians are at least 30% of Americans, maybe more. Certainly in the Red Zone they are far more than this.

So you idealize the Malaise of the '70s? We had problems then and we have problems now. The point of this 4T is to junk the New Deal and find something that works.

The New Deal always worked great. Some things about the Great Society didn't, but do work with readjustments. I just don't think the answer to social problems is to go backwards. In the 1930s, we did not reintroduce slavery. In the 2020s, we should not reintroduce individualist capitalism with no safety net. Unfortunately the conservatives of today want to do precisly that.

Let's move forward in our 4T, not backward. Just because Strauss and Howe say the New Deal will be scrapped or revised to weaken it, doesn't mean that will happen. That's just their prediction. It isn't mine.

Eric, if you are referring to Kyoto, you should well know that it was a de facto global redistribution of wealth scheme masquerading as a global warming treaty. This truth was so obvious that none of your more "enlightened" European social democracies would touch it with a ten foot
pole. If I am not mistaken, the only industrialized nation to actually ratify
it was Australia and they flipped an immediate U-turn and "cancelled
their subscription." Why you keep beating the drum for this thing when all your "enlightened" Europeans rejected it is beyond me.

I heard they not only accepted it but are very chagrined that we are holding out. Certainly it is a fact that industrial nations are the one contributing most to global warming, and so we have to do the most to stop it. Developing nations need to develop, and we need to help them do it with non-polluting technology.

Eric, what on earth are you talking about? Gorbachev remained a member of the Communist Party even after Yeltsin took over and would have nothing of abandoning communism. As far as I know, he is still a communist today.

His version of communism amounts to social democracy. Don't be confused by labels. The reforms he made in 1990 were democratic, even before Yeltsin. He deliberately allowed the old regimes in Eastern Europe to fall. Gorbachev deserves credit for the whole thing and I think Europeans understand that. Russians and Americans don't.

Eric writes:

We didn't win the Cold War





Who did then? The French?

Nobody won it; Gorbachev ended it. I must admit that debating who won the Cold War does seem very 3T; I'm not sure how constructive it is now; except that it justifies military buildups which we might not need. Arming may be necessary, but let's only do what is needed.

Eric, there was a reason those militaries were built up in the first place.Those nations were competing for colonial and even global ascendancy. The logistics of empire requires a vast military, hence the buildup. Why do you treat these rulers/governments as if they had nothing better to do than to build up those militaries with no plans to actually use them? Do you think that Kaiser Wilhelm, by engaging in that naval race, was merely
trying to prove that he had a bigger unit than his cousin Edward or do you think that he might have had actual designs on his cousin's imperial power?

Of course he did. That's what I said; these nations were deceived into thinking they had to compete for power, based on ideas similar to HC's. That life is a competition for power, therefore our guys must win. Power ideology was never more influential before or since than in the 50 years before WWI. Social Darwinism was a big part of this, which was also the basis for Nazism. And yes, that is the whole point; they built them up to use them, not for peace as HC thinks. What happened in addition was that the more each nation armed, the more their rivals had to arm out of fear of their competitors. It only took a spark to set off the war in this climate of mutual fear of armaments. That is what armament building creates.

Eric writes:

Give up your neanderthal policies

Would you prefer Cro-Magnon ones then?

That would be a step forward, at least!

All gun control means is that criminals can outgun the innocent. End of story.

Only if you assume that life is about shooting each other. More guns just means more innocent deaths, and criminals outgun the police. The guns out there for "protection" end up in the criminals' hands. If other nations understand this, and we don't, it is only because we are a young nation apparently not far removed from the Wild West, and we still idealize this myth. Too bad. It bores me to tears. There is nothing macho about guns.

In America, the government was to fear the people, not the other way
around.

It is this view that I have always found bizarre. Of course I have already explained why very clearly and there's no point to repeat what I wrote above.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-04 23:14 ]</font>

"My problem is not with your changing your mind on occasion. It is with total disregard of fact.... I have posted the NRA Founding Fathers quotes before..."

To me it is obvious that quotes from Founding Fathers are not facts.

[quote]
I consider the role of the militia in establishing democracy and the founding father's greater faith in an armed people
than in central government basic. When you agree with the founding fathers, you use their cultural weight and your perverted view of their constitution to throw words like 'treason' at those who disagree with you.
When you disagree with them, they are ignorant of the realities of the day. This sort of inconsistency, 180% shifts in arguments, are intellectually dishonest."

You were the one who dislikes ad hominum attacks. You are entitled to consider the role of the militia any way you wish. I disagree with you. Treason is in the constitution. If you wage a war against the USA, that is treason. That is not debateable. Of course, if you wage a revolution, and you win, then it's not treason anymore! But no government is going to legalize armed resistance to it. The meaning of the Second Amendment is not only debateable, but most experts agree with my interpretation and not yours.

I'm not going to answer any further of Bob B's posts, as he seems intent merely on throwing insults that aren't worth answering due to some past resentment against me. He can't let go and move on; very 3T indeed.

However, I am concerned a bit about some of the other recent posts to this thread. It sounds quite intelligent; let's not get wrapped up in debates; let's listen to both sides, etc. But I have seen few proposals for how we should proceed with the issues that face us today in these recent posts. It means nothing just to say let's stop "3T debates" and compromise or something. Specifically what should we do; how should we compromise? If you don't agree with what the liberals have been saying for 30 years, proposals that haven't been acted on because of obstruction by interest groups and deception fed by propaganda about "less government" and so on., then come up with some of your own.

I'm not addressing this challenge to convinced libertarian conservatives; I know your solution is just to let the market operate. Let's hear something more imaginative than that, something which addresses real problems.

I would suggest that, as I said before, if we want to move the debate forward, then we need to move our society forward. You can't just wish the liberals and conservatives away and say "I don't like ideological fights." Those fights exist for a reason; matters need to be addressed, and there is obstruction. The rest of the world has moved on and is addressing real problems. We are stymied by conservative nostrums. Consider that, before you label people like me. If we weren't so backward to begin with, the debate would look much different, and would be less bitter, because it would actually lead to action. It is the lack of action and progress, I submit, which is really frustrating us. Is it not?

I welcome suggestions on how to make liberal or radical ideas more practical. I consider that quite meaningful. Merely repeating and debating the same old conservative nostrums, whether that be "our founding fathers believed in an armed citizenry to keep us free" or "abortion is murder" or "let the free market operate and all will be well", etc., will only trap our nation in endless debates which will surely only lead us to civil war; this time between the blue and the red instead of the blue and the gray (however it seems there's a lot of similarities anyway between the regions and the peoples then and now).

Eric

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-04 23:11 ]</font>

"The New Deal always worked great."

Over 30% unemployed for ten years? You call that "working great"?

In truth, it never much worked at all. Surely, now, 70 years later, we can finally face that fact!

Marc why do you think the war on terror is going well? The senior members of al Qaeda got away. The Taliban government that supported them was driven from power, but their senior leadership is intact as well. Remember the present government of Afghanistan was in power in the early 1990's and they lost power, only to get it back 8 years later with American help. How are you so sure they won't lose it again to Taliban II in just a few years?

So far Bush has NOT succeeded in teaching the lesson to the world's strongmen that if you back a guy like bin Laden you will lose your *life* and your movement will be destroyed. Bush has not cut off the head of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The only thing he has accomplished is driving the Taliban from power, but for how long?

Has Bush taken the next step and gone after the movements backers? Nope. He's too close to them so instead he is throwing out the axis of evil as a red herring. But hey as long as his popularity is high he has no incentive to solve the problem, does he? And so the most devastating anti-terrorist weapon at our disposal remains almost completely unused.

You claim we are in a new *bull* market. Have you gotten back on board, or are you going to let the train leave the station without you? If you *haven't* gotten back on board then that means you don't *really* believe that the market or the economy are on the mend. In the stock market and the economy, its actions that count, not what people *say*. A business can *say* an upturn is coming, but unless they act on it and expand their staff it won't happen.
Similar an investor has to act (by buying) on the belief that a new bull has started, else it will fizzle out.

The hammer has dropped hard.


Like I have said before, Mike, I have my own micro-level problems to deal with. :smile:

I completely understand. But remember, the macro is simply the population-average of everybodies micro experience. This is *why* the market can (sometimes) anticipate future economic events.

A few good days are nice but I need a heck of a lot more of them before I am going to feel like celebrating. And today's action just sucks. We still haven't broken this %*%! downtrend. And I still hear the steady drumbeat of the uberbears at the longwaves sidelist (I'm the bull there).

And the resident bulls here, one (you) are positioned like we are going into a depression and the other (enjolras) isn't saying anything now, but the last time he did speak he was bearish. I feel like I am the only person in the world who actually thinks the market could go up from here *and* has put my money on the line.

I got "Enroned" TWICE by small caps you never heard of in 1999 and early 2000. Yet my stocks in small companies run by honest, decent management, with many years of solid, steadily-growing profits have been trashed by FOUR YEARS of relentless bear market in the small cap value segment (the peak was in March 1998, two years before the big caps--which my model is based on--peaked). MY stocks were never grossly overvalued like tech was in 1998 and 1999 (I bought in 1997 & early 1998 at multiples in the teens, considerably less than where the S&P500 was in 1998--or today for that matter). Now they sport single-digit multiples, where they have sat for years.

Tech is still warmed-over death. My QQQ "bottom fishing" purchase at the spring lows is underwater. Heck if even your bottoming fishing buys are trashed what does that say of those who bought a couple of months ago? My 401K is underwater and shows no signs of ever surfacing (and I sold out in 1999 and bought it back lower in late 2000 and up through Sept 2001--at an average price of 35% BELOW the 2000 peak price. It'll be decades before I every see that peak level again. All I want is sometime in the next couple years, for it go HALFWAY back up from here--only HALF and I'll be happy as a clam.

So I don't see any bull out there. Of course here I am relating my feelings. I don't act on these feelings, I simple execute an automatic plan. This is why I can be bullishly positioned while I feel like the world is ending.

In reality the level of pain I experienced in 2001 was pretty small, I'll recover from that in a snap. It the pain from 1998 through 2000 that is still smarting.

For what it's worth, from my astrological perspective---

The latest upturn will be small and probably temporary, since there will likely be another downturn in Summer 2003.

There will be another recovery, which could at least seem substantial. But the 2000s to me look unstable, and nothing like the 1990s. Come late 2008 or 2009, the bears will stomp through Wall Street in a major downturn.

Recoveries will always come. Even after this crash, recovery will come at least by the later 2010s.

"from my astrological perspective"

!!!

Processing...

from my astrological perspective
from my astrological perspective
astrological perspective
my astrological
Eric Meese
perspective
from my astrological perspective
perspective
astrology
astrological perspective
my perspective
astrological
astrology
from my perspective
from my
Eric Meese
astrological
perspective
perspective
astrology


THIS could explain a lot...

On 2002-03-03 18:35, cbailey wrote:


How come xers love to party, but they won't join one?

The xers are the weight that will tip the balance one way or the other on most issues.

We wont join a party because they are just corrupt scams. We like to keep our options open. Not being tied to the ideology of one party or another makes us agile. You should know that by now by looking at our voting patters. Parties are for the Silents (Artists) who worry about "procedure". We worry about results and who can give us the proper results depends on the times. Look at the difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11. How many people would vote for Bush now vs Then. A lot of those are X-ers.

Unexpected people are begining to rethink the whole foregin policy approach of the United States. This is another sign a 4T has arrived in North Americia.

Arabs and Americans built a wall. Let's tear it down

Thomas L. Friedman


In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down, and on the other side we in the Western world
found millions of people receptive to US and Western ideals and perceptions. Well,
there is another wall in the world today. It's not on the ground - it's in people's
heads - and it divides America from the Arab-Muslim world.

Unlike the Berlin Wall, though, this wall was built by both sides and it can be taken
down only by both.

Just go anywhere - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan - and you'll hit your head against
this wall. You say the problem is Islamist terrorism; they will say it is Israeli
brutality to Palestinians. You say America liberated Afghans from the Taliban; they
will say America bombed innocent Afghan civilians. You say Saddam Hussein is evil;
they will say Ariel Sharon is worse. You say America is a democracy; they will say
it's a country whose media and politics are controlled by Jews. You say President
Bill Clinton devoted the end of his presidency to creating a Palestinian state; they
will tell you America never showed them the plans. You say the problem is their lack
of democracy; they will say that must be what America prefers, given the sorts of
Arab-Muslim regimes it backs.

From my experience, the only thing surprising about last week's Gallup poll from nine
Muslim countries - which showed that 61 per cent of Muslims believe that Arabs were
not involved in the September 11 attacks and 53 per cent view the US unfavourably -
is that the numbers aren't worse.

How was this iron wall of ideas built? By many hands. Let's start with America's.

America has been pathetic at telling Arabs and
Muslims who it is. Have US diplomats pointed out
in any sustained way how, for the past decade,
America has fought to save Muslims in Bosnia,
Kosovo, Somalia and Kuwait? Has America ever told
the world exactly how the Clinton peace plan,
which Yasser Arafat rejected, would have produced
a Palestinian state on close to 100 per cent of
the land sought by Palestinians?

US officials rightly say that Israel is America's
friend because it is a democracy. But for 30
years, these same officials have failed to speak
out against Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories, even though they know those
settlements, if unrestrained, are going to destroy
Israel as a Jewish, democratic state and deprive
Palestinians of any potential homeland.

Does America press its values - democracy, freedom, women's rights - in the
Arab-Muslim world? No. America talks about them only for China or North Korea, never
for countries whose oil or bases the US may need. Is it any wonder some people there
see Americans as hypocrites?

But America's Arab-Muslim allies also helped erect this wall. Their leaders have
encouraged their press to print the worst lies about America, as well as blatant
anti-Jewish and Holocaust-denial articles, as a way of deflecting their people's
anger away from them. That's why these regimes can now cooperate with the US only in
secret.

And they have let their conspiracy theories about America and Israel become easy
excuses for why they never have to look at themselves - why they never have to ask:
"How is it that we had this incredible windfall of oil wealth and have done so poorly
at building societies that can tap the vast potential of our people?"

Next week a key Arab-Muslim leader, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, will meet
President George Bush in Washington. No doubt he will whisper all the great things
Egypt is doing in secret to help the US in the war on terrorism. And America will
whisper back. But that's not what we need.

We need Mubarak to articulate publicly a progressive, modern-looking, Arab-Muslim
vision to counter bin Ladenism. We need him to get Egypt's act together, to stop
riding on its past and start leading the Arab world into the future.

And we need Bush to talk to the Egyptian people, and to Arab societies - not just to
their rulers - about how that future can also be theirs.

Hosni Mubarak, George Bush, tear down this wall.