Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 54







Post#1326 at 03-05-2002 07:04 PM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
03-05-2002, 07:04 PM #1326
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

On 2002-03-05 11:12, Eric A Meece wrote:
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.
I usually do not bevelie in your astrological nonsense. However I do think a serious economic downturn will come soon. In using serious economic analysis, this nasty economic downturn prehaps depression will come from Japan. Here is good article on the grave risk to the world economy from Japan.

It makes for quite chilling reading

Meltdown in the Land of the Rising Sun

Mike Nahan, Herald Sun, 16 February 2002

The world economy is facing as a full blown crisis with its epicentre in Japan.

The world's second largest economy---and Australia's largest trading partner---has failed to address is severe structural problems and is now running out of policy options. What is worse the Koizumi Government is proving bereft of leadership.

The Japanese miracle burst in late 1989. While the Japanese economy contained many world class manufacturers, its service sector, which makes up over 60 per of the economy, remained highly inefficient and uncompetitive. The economy was badly bloated and distorted by unsustainable levels of corporate debt. On top of this, the banking system was opaque, corrupt and incompetent and the political system was incapable of leading changing.

In 1989 when the bubble economy started to haemorrhage, instead of trying to address its root causes---as the US did for it savings and loan crisis in the mid-1980s---the Japanese tried to stem the leak with government largess. The government put in place one massive spending spree after another, to no avail. The economy limped from one recession to another. Now there are no more rivers to straighten or bridges to be built and Japan has become the most indebted nation in the developed world. Goldman Sachs estimates that total household, corporate and government debt in Japan at about $58 trillion or six times Japan GDP. (US debt levels are about twice GDP.)

The government also tried to stimulate the economy via monetary policy, but again to no avail. The official interest is now virtually zero with no room for further cuts.

The trend on the asset side of the ledger has been if anything been worse. The Japanese stock market (Nikki 225) has lost 75 per cent of its value over the last dozen years and last week hit a18 year low. Indeed the Nikki which at its peak in 1989 was 15 times higher than the Dow Jones Industrial Average is now below the Dow Jones for the first time in 45 years.

The reasons for the decline in asset prices are clear. First they were grossly overvalued in the first place. Second, investors knew that that many firms and their banks were loaded with dud debt and discounted them accordingly. Third the Japanese economy became trapped in a deflationary spiral with the wholesale price index declining at an annual rate of 4 per cent. Deflation not only makes the debt burden greater but puts down ward pressure on profits and asset prices.

The concerns for the world is threefold. First, it means that the world's second largest economy will remain a drag on the world economy. Second, Japan could drag the rest of the world into its deflation spiral---remember deflation was a major cause of the great depression. This is real risk if Japan tries to solve it problem by devaluing the yen. Finally despite rapid build-up of debt, Japan remains the world largest creditor and largely responsible for funding the current account deficits of the US and Australia. If its banks are panicked into calling-in overseas loans---to for example shore up losses at home---a economic disaster could well sweep the world.

Even the Australia's teflon economy would not be able to shrug-off a tsunami from Japan.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"

L. Ron Hubbard







Post#1327 at 03-05-2002 07:15 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
03-05-2002, 07:15 PM #1327
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

On 2002-03-05 11:50, firemind wrote:
"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...
Right on the button, firemind! Funny how murky some people can be.








Post#1328 at 03-05-2002 09:13 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
03-05-2002, 09:13 PM #1328
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

"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...
I'd be careful that one's experience with Eric does not lead to a distrust or cynicism about astrology or other occult methods. I have found that many involved in religion, magic and the occult are honest seekers after truth. Not all go badly astray.







Post#1329 at 03-05-2002 09:44 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
03-05-2002, 09:44 PM #1329
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Eric writes... 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.

It depends on which experts you read. Could you name a few experts who agree with you? (Yes, I know, this is just argument from authority, and an exchange of expert's names will not settle anything. Still, in past exchanges with you, you have tended to claim that experts agree with you without being able to state the name of any single expert. "I saw sombody on TV, I forget his name" is the closest I have ever come to an Eric Meece footnote listing a source. Your unsupported claim that experts agree with you is a spurious argument.)

Preferably, try for an 'expert' who is not under the full time employ of gun control lobby organizations? In my experience, if one follows the money trail, there are no experts who agree with you who have not been bought and paid for. This doesn't imply that the NRA doesn't finance some of the other experts.

See http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/ for my own list of refrences and experts.

Agreed, there are laws against using armed force against the government. However, the point of the Second Amendment is that the government may not disarm the People. Part of the reason for this is as a curb against abuse of government power. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. The founding fathers might be considered experts on the intent of the Constitution.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2002-03-05 18:45 ]</font>







Post#1330 at 03-05-2002 10:30 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-05-2002, 10:30 PM #1330
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

firemind, your knee-jerk reaction to astrology, and your knee-jerk upholding of conservative slogans, go hand in hand. That goes for your allies Tristan, Croaker, etc.

I was going to edit this post to correct the spelling of your moniker, but hey, you misspelled my name, so what the heck.:razz:
_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-05 19:33 ]</font>







Post#1331 at 03-05-2002 11:39 PM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
03-05-2002, 11:39 PM #1331
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

On 2002-03-05 19:30, Eric A Meece wrote:
firemind, your knee-jerk reaction to astrology, and your knee-jerk upholding of conservative slogans, go hand in hand. That goes for your allies Tristan, Croaker, etc.
Eric,
I pride myself on basing my political views on reason & rationality. I make my predictions in the same way. Not mystical feelings and astrology, anyway Adolf Hitler used astrology and where it got him?







Post#1332 at 03-06-2002 12:13 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
03-06-2002, 12:13 AM #1332
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-03-05 19:30, Eric A Meece wrote:

firemind, your knee-jerk reaction to astrology, and your knee-jerk upholding of conservative slogans, go hand in hand. That goes for your allies Tristan, Croaker, etc.

I was going to edit this post to correct the spelling of your moniker, but hey, you misspelled my name, so what the heck.:razz:
Eric, if you can show how our choice of what to eat for lunch had anything to do with a stellar alignment, it would help your case tremendously. Or tell us what the weather will be like tomorrow. Show us any correlation at all. Short of you doing this, it looks like you are consulting a Magic 8-ball.







Post#1333 at 03-06-2002 01:51 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
03-06-2002, 01:51 AM #1333
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

OK, this isn't a gun control forum, but it seems the US v Emerson decision finally came in at the District Court level. (Eric is good for something. He provides me with the motivation to do a little research from time to time.) See US v. Emerson, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22386 (5th Cr. 2001)

The key paragraph goes...

We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.
The decision runs 86 pages, so hopefully all will forgive if I don't repeat its arguments. Let's just say the academic Standard Model came out clearly on top.

Anyway, not all the experts agree with Eric, especially not the experts sitting on the 5th Circuit. This one was seen as likely to hit the Supreme Court way back at the district level. I wouldn't be surprised.







Post#1334 at 03-06-2002 04:32 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-06-2002, 04:32 AM #1334
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Stonewall, you know this is not the forum to discuss astrology. I'm sure you know that I predicted that the USA would enter a major war in late Summer 2001. I've made many correct predictions. Read the astrology thread here; it's long and has lots of info I posted. Go to my site and see some of the evidence in my book. Study the planets and signs and their meanings, and then ask yourself, what should my horoscope be like if this stuff is true? That's what I did, as a skeptic, and boy did I become a believer; everything I thought would be in my chart was there. And by the way, have a little bit of info about what astrology is and what it does; obviously you and current posters to this thread have none. If you don't want any; that's OK too. But you asked...

Tristan wrote:

"I pride myself on basing my political views on reason & rationality"

What does it prove "rationally" that you have "pride" in this? Of what relevance is your pride?

Now, back to the thread topic...

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-06 01:35 ]</font>







Post#1335 at 03-06-2002 07:39 AM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
03-06-2002, 07:39 AM #1335
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

"this is not the forum to discuss astrology"

Agreed.







Post#1336 at 03-06-2002 07:56 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
03-06-2002, 07:56 AM #1336
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

On 2002-03-06 04:39, firemind wrote:
"this is not the forum to discuss astrology"

Agreed.
Ditto.







Post#1337 at 03-06-2002 08:39 AM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
03-06-2002, 08:39 AM #1337
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426


Then why do you suppose so much space is used here to promote Christianity?







Post#1338 at 03-06-2002 10:33 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-06-2002, 10:33 AM #1338
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On 2002-03-06 05:39, Croaker'39 wrote:

Then why do you suppose so much space is used here to promote Christianity?
And the promotion of Darwinian hocus-pocus as well.







Post#1339 at 03-06-2002 11:17 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-06-2002, 11:17 AM #1339
Guest




Not to mention Clinton's sex life... or Monica's new life on HBO... or Condit's old life... or whatever really.

Does this have anything to do with free speech, and our desire to move on to a fourth turn?

3T? 4T? You decide... :smile:









Post#1340 at 03-06-2002 01:13 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
03-06-2002, 01:13 PM #1340
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

On 2002-03-05 20:39, Tristan Jones wrote:
On 2002-03-05 19:30, Eric A Meece wrote:
firemind, your knee-jerk reaction to astrology, and your knee-jerk upholding of conservative slogans, go hand in hand. That goes for your allies Tristan, Croaker, etc.
Eric,
I pride myself on basing my political views on reason & rationality. I make my predictions in the same way. Not mystical feelings and astrology, anyway Adolf Hitler used astrology and where it got him?
Hey, Tristan, not that it means anything, but so did Nancy Reagan. :wink:








Post#1341 at 03-06-2002 04:00 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
03-06-2002, 04:00 PM #1341
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

DISCLAIMER: I am not defending astrology and I do not believe that the position of the stars 2000 years or more ago have anything to do with my actions today,

HOWEVER--the market is people making purchasing decisions and selling decisions. If enough people believe that astrology has something to do with the market and if they base their buying and selling decisions on the same astrological predictions, then the market could still go south,

NOT because the stars have influenced the market but because people have been influenced by a prediction,

AND SO you could point to a correlation, but correlation does not say anything at all about causation.

PERHAPS we should get the astrologers to predict some event that would cause believers to buy and thus strengthen the market. :smile:

HMMMM.....

Elisheva

Elisheva








Post#1342 at 03-06-2002 05:43 PM by voltronx [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 78]
---
03-06-2002, 05:43 PM #1342
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
78

On 2002-02-21 23:46, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.
Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.
This statement is immensely hypocritical. You say to look at "cold, hard reality" with your physical senses but indeed the cold, hard reality is that we won't have a dictator step up just because America isn't # One. The idea is patently ridiculous. Eric is NOT engaging in any fantasies; the reason he doesn't imagine that America's lowering its "world rank" will mean a dictator dominates the planet, is because America's lowering its "world rank" will NOT mean a dictator is going to dominate the planet!

If Germany or Japan stepped up to first place instead, would the whole place be so weak that a dictator took over? It just doesn't follow.

Back at the turn of the century when London was at the top of the world, did a dictator immediately pop up because the U.S. wasn't ahead of the U.K.? Did a dictator take over in the eighteenth century when France was at the height of the world? And how about the Renaissance, when America had barely been discovered? Would Italy fall immediately because it was second to a nation that Westerners hadn't even colonized? Once you start thinking about that, the argument becomes utterly nonsensical.

Most other developed countries are, in fact, more developed and enlightened than we are, in every conceivable way (because, of course, they don't have a red zone).
Eric, there are times when you show signs of living in a fantasy world so deep it's scary.
I'd like you to show me some. Obviously, you couldn't have been referring to this last quote of his, because this ain't one of them. Eric says these other countries are more enlightened and developed than America because they ARE more enlightened and developed than America!

America is ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same.
This is baloney. European countries have none of the crap believed in in the U.S. that declares sexuality a sin. Right-wing churches find themselves unable to buy the countries' legislatures. None of them are allowed to prosecute homosexuality and in fact the EU forced the U.K. to rid itself of laws on homosexuality that were discriminatory a few years ago. You go to a European beach and no women are getting arrested for not including a top on their bathing suit. You listen to someone talking about their stay in Europe and they're always, "Ahh, they're more tolerant", "Aaah, it's so much more open-minded than America", "The people are freer". All but two of the EU countries have higher life expectancies than America, they're ahead of the U.S. in life expectancy. The literacy rates even get higher; America does not top the world in the ability of its adults to read, folks. The figures would make it look third-world in education if placed next to Switzerland or Norway. Did Europe start a Vietnam? They have fewer people per capita in prison than America. And the list goes on.

If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternative possibilities.
Wrongo-bongo. When in its entire postwar development of "the more enlightened society" has Europe been beaten up on?

Also, I didn't see any suggestion of Eric's that America "be removed from the picture". Only that America didn't have to be the Hamburger Head Honcho, round-'em-up USA-hooray Numero Uno. Is Germany out of the picture? No.

If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way.
Then how about not having the Red Zone compromise ase at all? That's always an option.

There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.
Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules
This is absolutely true. No one here is pushing for a society without rules against murder, without rules against rape, etc. But the rules America has (and even other nations to a lesser degree -- or greater, for certain undeveloped nations) are based on a sexual puritanism, punish people for choices about what drugs to put into their own body, punish the unconventional in general or get people arrested for things that are barely even recognized as crimes on bases like "disturbing the peace", etc. ... or discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, complexion or sexual orientation. What's objctively morally wrong is the holding down of these rules against actions that are not objectively morally wrong.

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.
I don't see any law of physics or mathematics that would make it impossible. No Malthusian or economical or biological principles that would do it either. It took a big push to get most people out of their racism... but they've done it, in many parts of the world. With a little push and people forcing them to change, much of the intolerant stubbornness in people's attitudes would go away in the not-so-distant future. So much of what's preventing a utopia is learned. And if we unlearn and prevent certain unenlightened attitudes from being passed on to future generations, we will be able to get rid of them.

_________________
"Now we meet in an abandoned studio."

Every time
I see you falling
I get down
On my knees
And pray

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: voltronx on 2002-03-06 15:01 ]</font>







Post#1343 at 03-06-2002 05:47 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-06-2002, 05:47 PM #1343
Guest

This post is a departure from astrology, Christianity, debates among regular posters -- we're back to the topic of Signed of Third or Fourth Turning.

I've been attending the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) annual legislative conference. (Yes, I know that I work for USDA, not Treasury, but NTEU has been very aggressive in unionizing non-Treasury-based Federal employees, including my own Agency. :smile At this conference, I've heard speakers from the Union, Congressional Representatives, Senators, and Administration spokespeople. What everyone has done is use the 911 attacks to support their position.

NTEU's goals are to increase Federal pay, increase the Government's contribution to health insurance premiums, and keep better track of whether outsourcing Government work actually saves the taxpayers money. These are exactly the same goals that we had a year ago at the 2001 Legislative Conference, when we were indisputably in 3T (of course, the jury is out on whether we are still in 3T or in early 4T right now). So these are not 4T issues.

But throw in 911 and you get stories of border crossings with no customs officials and customs officials working 12 hour days because there is no agency appropriation to hire the addition new customs officials. Stories of civilian Federal employees killed in the WTC and the Pentagon. Stories of what happens when you let poorly-paid contractors be in charge of airport security rather than well-paid and trained government employees. Stories of the need for Federal workers to be involved in public health work and other national security. In other words, using 911 to justify 3T goals.

I'm not disputing NTEU's focus or strategy. I happen to support these goals. I did in early 2001 and I still do today, because I believe in a strong Federal Government. Of course, others on this forum disagree.

However, I do think it is interesting (and ironic) to use 911 to augment arguments for 3T goals.

Any comments anyone on what this signifies? Does this support Marc Lamb's argument that it still be 3T? :smile:







Post#1344 at 03-06-2002 06:09 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
03-06-2002, 06:09 PM #1344
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452


On 2002-02-21 23:46, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

I take exception to this one:

Quote:
You listen to someone talking about their stay in Europe and they're always, "Ahh, they're more tolerant", "Aaah, it's so much more open-minded than America", "The people are freer".

[/quote]

It depends on your point of view. In my eyes, the history of Europe in the past 2000 years has been one of persecution and intolerance. To list a few: destruction of the pagans (convert or die), Code of Justinian, Crusades,Inquisition ,Witchburnings,Pograms and Holocaust. The last great ethnic cleansings happened within the last ten years. Yes, western Europe is prosperous and tolerant for the nonce--but I am not the least bit convinced that Europe has thrown off its history of religious and ethnic hatred and intolerance. In fact, the intolerance that you are speaking of (homophobia,etc) are probably direct inheritances from Europe. We carry our garbage with us.

I am not arguing that the US is perfect but I know that the US has been a comparitive bastion of enlightenment for the remnant of my family that survived 1932-1945. They were amazed that they could actually become citizens after a short residency period and a little paperwork. And, gevalt, you don't have to carry identity papers everywhere...like real human beings.

We neither want nor need the perfection sought after by those who want this to be a New Jerusalem. We've made a lot of mistakes--and its still a better place to be than Europe ever was--at least for my family.


Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#1345 at 03-06-2002 06:14 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
03-06-2002, 06:14 PM #1345
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

On 2002-03-06 14:47, Jenny Genser wrote:
This post is a departure from astrology, Christianity, debates among regular posters -- we're back to the topic of Signed of Third or Fourth Turning.

I've been attending the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) annual legislative conference. (Yes, I know that I work for USDA, not Treasury, but NTEU has been very aggressive in unionizing non-Treasury-based Federal employees, including my own Agency. :smile At this conference, I've heard speakers from the Union, Congressional Representatives, Senators, and Administration spokespeople. What everyone has done is use the 911 attacks to support their position.

NTEU's goals are to increase Federal pay, increase the Government's contribution to health insurance premiums, and keep better track of whether outsourcing Government work actually saves the taxpayers money. These are exactly the same goals that we had a year ago at the 2001 Legislative Conference, when we were indisputably in 3T (of course, the jury is out on whether we are still in 3T or in early 4T right now). So these are not 4T issues.

But throw in 911 and you get stories of border crossings with no customs officials and customs officials working 12 hour days because there is no agency appropriation to hire the addition new customs officials. Stories of civilian Federal employees killed in the WTC and the Pentagon. Stories of what happens when you let poorly-paid contractors be in charge of airport security rather than well-paid and trained government employees. Stories of the need for Federal workers to be involved in public health work and other national security. In other words, using 911 to justify 3T goals.

I'm not disputing NTEU's focus or strategy. I happen to support these goals. I did in early 2001 and I still do today, because I believe in a strong Federal Government. Of course, others on this forum disagree.

However, I do think it is interesting (and ironic) to use 911 to augment arguments for 3T goals.

Any comments anyone on what this signifies? Does this support Marc Lamb's argument that it still be 3T? :smile:
Jenny, your example is along the same lines as what was imbalanced in the last 3T! It was just the private sector, as there was no big gov't at that point, or so the story goes. I'm with you on this one, and I think it depends upon your success as to whether it proves a 4T issue (plenty of 3T issues will be part of 4T-1T solutions).







Post#1346 at 03-06-2002 06:44 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
03-06-2002, 06:44 PM #1346
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On 2002-03-06 14:43, voltronx wrote:
Did Europe start a Vietnam?
Yes, they did in Southeast Asia. I think it was in Viet Nam. HTH







Post#1347 at 03-06-2002 09:27 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-06-2002, 09:27 PM #1347
Guest



Ms. Genser wonders,
"Any comments anyone on what this signifies? Does this support Marc Lamb's argument that it still be 3T?"

Liberals, Ms. Genser, as evidenced by the Bill and Al Gore show, live in a constant state of "Crisis." Be it health care, child care, elderly care, care for the disabled, care for the infirm, care for the environment, the trees, the forests, the homeless bum on the street, the greed on Wall Street, the Big Business, the Big Tobacco, the Big SUV, the Big urban sprawl, the Big City pollution, the Big Hamburger with too much fat, the apple with too much alar, acid rain, the glut of trash, the shortage of fossil fuels, the rise of Big Golf courses, the lack of concern by Big Drug Companies for the sick and elderly, the concern for the human rights of the Taliban prisoners in Cuba, the concern that a woman and Hispanic be included in the flag raising statue over ground zero, the lack of compassion, and an overly indulgent concern, for mother who killed all her kids, the hideous issue of school vouchers, the lack of school funding in poor, oppresed nieghborhoods, and of course, the continuing Crisis of welfare reform that was passed because former president needed to get re-elected or else the Republicans would cut off school lunches and make our grandparents eat dog food.

So no, I wouldn't expect anyone, here at T4T.com to "support Marc Lamb's argument that it still be 3T," anytime in the near future. :smile:










Post#1348 at 03-07-2002 12:11 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
03-07-2002, 12:11 AM #1348
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-03-06 14:43, voltronx wrote:
On 2002-02-21 23:46, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.
Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.

If Germany or Japan stepped up to first place instead, would the whole place be so weak that a dictator took over? It just doesn't follow.
It wouldn't necessarily happen immediately, but it would happen, unless the civilized powers were sufficiently well armed (and also self-disciplined, to refrain from throwing the power around as bullies themsleves) to prevent it.

Further, in order to step up to #1, those powers would have to do many of the things America has done. America's status is not an accident.


Back at the turn of the century when London was at the top of the world, did a dictator immediately pop up because the U.S. wasn't ahead of the U.K.?
Of course not. I didn't say that only the U.S. could prevent dictatorship. I said that dictatorship is only prevented by civilized people being more powerful than would be dictators.

London, today, can not occupy the role it did 100 years ago. No single European country can. They aren't wealthy and populous enough, by themselves, though in combination that could change.

Today, the only civilized nation powerful enough to act directly on a global scale is America. Europe collectively could do so in theory, but they are not yet ready to turn theory into practice.


Did a dictator take over in the eighteenth century when France was at the height of the world?
Though he was far from the worst ever, Napoloen Bonoparte was indeed a relatively civilized prototype of the modern post-Enlightenment style dictator.

At that time, technology levels were such that no autocrat or dictatorial government could threaten the entire world at once, anyway. That situation is now changed.

And how about the Renaissance, when America had barely been discovered? Would Italy fall immediately because it was second to a nation that Westerners hadn't even colonized? Once you start thinking about that, the argument becomes utterly nonsensical.
True, because that's not my argument.


Most other developed countries are, in fact, more developed and enlightened than we are, in every conceivable way (because, of course, they don't have a red zone).
Eric, there are times when you show signs of living in a fantasy world so deep it's scary.
I'd like you to show me some. Obviously, you couldn't have been referring to this last quote of his, because this ain't one of them. Eric says these other countries are more enlightened and developed than America because they ARE more enlightened and developed than America!

America is ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same.
This is baloney. European countries have none of the crap believed in in the U.S. that declares sexuality a sin.
Right-wing churches find themselves unable to buy the countries' legislatures.
No, instead left-wing environmentalist groups buy the legislatures, to the degree they are bought. In neither America nor Europe is the legislative power entirely bought and paid for.

None of them are allowed to prosecute homosexuality and in fact the EU forced the U.K. to rid itself of laws on homosexuality that were discriminatory a few years ago. You go to a European beach and no women are getting arrested for not including a top on their bathing suit. You listen to someone talking about their stay in Europe and they're always, "Ahh, they're more tolerant", "Aaah, it's so much more open-minded than America", "The people are freer". All but two of the EU countries have higher life expectancies than America, they're ahead of the U.S. in life expectancy. The literacy rates even get higher; America does not top the world in the ability of its adults to read, folks. The figures would make it look third-world in education if placed next to Switzerland or Norway. Did Europe start a Vietnam?
As a matter of fact, Europe did start Vietnam. The Vietnam mess was created in lage part by French mismanagement of their colonial empire, followed by a desperate effort to hang on to the remnants after that empire had begun to disintegrate.

As for the rest, you're basically asserting that being left-wing makes you more enlightened. This has not been established by objective evidence.




If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternative possibilities.
Wrongo-bongo. When in its entire postwar development of "the more enlightened society" has Europe been beaten up on?
The primary reason for their peaceful status is the United States of America. NATO was in large part an alliance based on the protection of Europe through the threat of American retaliation. America's military power purchased Europe the peace and quiet to build their social model.

Or, as one French military officer put, in a possibly apocryphal attribution: "NATO exists to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Soviets out."


Also, I didn't see any suggestion of Eric's that America "be removed from the picture". Only that America didn't have to be the Hamburger Head Honcho, round-'em-up USA-hooray Numero Uno. Is Germany out of the picture? No.
If America stops being top dog, then a power struggle automatically ensues for the new top dog. The question of who would win is interesting, but unclear.


If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way.
Then how about not having the Red Zone compromise ase at all? That's always an option.
The Red Zone has compromised extensively steadily for decades, and of late has basically said "no more". Blue must yield something before Red will voluntarily give any more ground than they already have.


There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.
Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules
This is absolutely true. No one here is pushing for a society without rules against murder, without rules against rape, etc. But the rules America has (and even other nations to a lesser degree -- or greater, for certain undeveloped nations) are based on a sexual puritanism, punish people for choices about what drugs to put into their own body, punish the unconventional in general or get people arrested for things that are barely even recognized as crimes on bases like "disturbing the peace", etc. ... or discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, complexion or sexual orientation. What's objctively morally wrong is the holding down of these rules against actions that are not objectively morally wrong.
How do you know they're not morally wrong, with resort to an act of faith?

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.
I don't see any law of physics or mathematics that would make it impossible. No Malthusian or economical or biological principles that would do it either.
It isn't a law of physics, but the near-constants of human nature that stand in the way. Maybe human nature should be more flexible and malleable than it is, but 4500 years of recorded history says it isn't.

It took a big push to get most people out of their racism... but they've done it, in many parts of the world. With a little push and people forcing them to change, much of the intolerant stubbornness in people's attitudes would go away in the not-so-distant future.
No, it wasn't a 'little push' that got rid of racism, it was exposure to other races, on a daily basis, day after day after day. The effort to overcome racism didn't start in the sixties, it started before the Revolutionary War in spots, and continues today.


So much of what's preventing a utopia is learned. And if we unlearn and prevent certain unenlightened attitudes from being passed on to future generations, we will be able to get rid of them.
Who has the authority to decide what constitutes an 'unenlightened attitude'?
Further, what means are permissible to 'prevent' these attitudes from being passed on?

That is the very crux of the objections of the Red Zone to your grand plans!

Utopia remains impossible in this world. Historically, attempts to achieve it have almost invariably ended either in a rapid and rather pathetic break-up, or massive bloodshed. I know of no exceptions to this rule.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-06 21:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-06 21:25 ]</font>







Post#1349 at 03-07-2002 12:13 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
03-07-2002, 12:13 AM #1349
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-03-06 18:27, Marc Lamb wrote:


So no, I wouldn't expect anyone, here at T4T.com to "support Marc Lamb's argument that it still be 3T," anytime in the near future. :smile:



Actually, Marc, I'm about 99% convinced that you're right about it still being 3T at this point, for what it's worth.







Post#1350 at 03-07-2002 01:12 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
03-07-2002, 01:12 AM #1350
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

On 2002-03-06 21:11, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
On 2002-03-06 14:43, voltronx wrote:
On 2002-02-21 23:46, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.
Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.

If Germany or Japan stepped up to first place instead, would the whole place be so weak that a dictator took over? It just doesn't follow.
It wouldn't necessarily happen immediately, but it would happen, unless the civilized powers were sufficiently well armed (and also self-disciplined, to refrain from throwing the power around as bullies themsleves) to prevent it.

Further, in order to step up to #1, those powers would have to do many of the things America has done. America's status is not an accident.


Back at the turn of the century when London was at the top of the world, did a dictator immediately pop up because the U.S. wasn't ahead of the U.K.?
Of course not. I didn't say that only the U.S. could prevent dictatorship. I said that dictatorship is only prevented by civilized people being more powerful than would be dictators.

London, today, can not occupy the role it did 100 years ago. No single European country can. They aren't wealthy and populous enough, by themselves, though in combination that could change.

Today, the only civilized nation powerful enough to act directly on a global scale is America. Europe collectively could do so in theory, but they are not yet ready to turn theory into practice.


Did a dictator take over in the eighteenth century when France was at the height of the world?
Though he was far from the worst ever, Napoloen Bonoparte was indeed a relatively civilized prototype of the modern post-Enlightenment style dictator.

At that time, technology levels were such that no autocrat or dictatorial government could threaten the entire world at once, anyway. That situation is now changed.


And how about the Renaissance, when America had barely been discovered? Would Italy fall immediately because it was second to a nation that Westerners hadn't even colonized? Once you start thinking about that, the argument becomes utterly nonsensical.
True, because that's not my argument.


Most other developed countries are, in fact, more developed and enlightened than we are, in every conceivable way (because, of course, they don't have a red zone).
Eric, there are times when you show signs of living in a fantasy world so deep it's scary.
I'd like you to show me some. Obviously, you couldn't have been referring to this last quote of his, because this ain't one of them. Eric says these other countries are more enlightened and developed than America because they ARE more enlightened and developed than America!

America is ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same.
This is baloney. European countries have none of the crap believed in in the U.S. that declares sexuality a sin.
Right-wing churches find themselves unable to buy the countries' legislatures.
No, instead left-wing environmentalist groups buy the legislatures, to the degree they are bought. In neither America nor Europe is the legislative power entirely bought and paid for.

None of them are allowed to prosecute homosexuality and in fact the EU forced the U.K. to rid itself of laws on homosexuality that were discriminatory a few years ago. You go to a European beach and no women are getting arrested for not including a top on their bathing suit. You listen to someone talking about their stay in Europe and they're always, "Ahh, they're more tolerant", "Aaah, it's so much more open-minded than America", "The people are freer". All but two of the EU countries have higher life expectancies than America, they're ahead of the U.S. in life expectancy. The literacy rates even get higher; America does not top the world in the ability of its adults to read, folks. The figures would make it look third-world in education if placed next to Switzerland or Norway. Did Europe start a Vietnam?
As a matter of fact, Europe did start Vietnam. The Vietnam mess was created in lage part by French mismanagement of their colonial empire, followed by a desperate effort to hang on to the remnants after that empire had begun to disintegrate.

As for the rest, you're basically asserting that being left-wing makes you more enlightened. This has not been established by objective evidence.




If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternative possibilities.
Wrongo-bongo. When in its entire postwar development of "the more enlightened society" has Europe been beaten up on?
The primary reason for their peaceful status is the United States of America. NATO was in large part an alliance based on the protection of Europe through the threat of American retaliation. America's military power purchased Europe the peace and quiet to build their social model.

Or, as one French military officer put, in a possibly apocryphal attribution: "NATO exists to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Soviets out."


Also, I didn't see any suggestion of Eric's that America "be removed from the picture". Only that America didn't have to be the Hamburger Head Honcho, round-'em-up USA-hooray Numero Uno. Is Germany out of the picture? No.
If America stops being top dog, then a power struggle automatically ensues for the new top dog. The question of who would win is interesting, but unclear.


All too true!

If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way.
Then how about not having the Red Zone compromise ase at all? That's always an option.
The Red Zone has compromised extensively steadily for decades, and of late has basically said "no more". Blue must yield something before Red will voluntarily give any more ground than they already have.


There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.
Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules
This is absolutely true. No one here is pushing for a society without rules against murder, without rules against rape, etc. But the rules America has (and even other nations to a lesser degree -- or greater, for certain undeveloped nations) are based on a sexual puritanism, punish people for choices about what drugs to put into their own body, punish the unconventional in general or get people arrested for things that are barely even recognized as crimes on bases like "disturbing the peace", etc. ... or discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, complexion or sexual orientation. What's objctively morally wrong is the holding down of these rules against actions that are not objectively morally wrong.
How do you know they're not morally wrong, with resort to an act of faith?

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.
I don't see any law of physics or mathematics that would make it impossible. No Malthusian or economical or biological principles that would do it either.
It isn't a law of physics, but the near-constants of human nature that stand in the way. Maybe human nature should be more flexible and malleable than it is, but 4500 years of recorded history says it isn't.

It took a big push to get most people out of their racism... but they've done it, in many parts of the world. With a little push and people forcing them to change, much of the intolerant stubbornness in people's attitudes would go away in the not-so-distant future.
No, it wasn't a 'little push' that got rid of racism, it was exposure to other races, on a daily basis, day after day after day. The effort to overcome racism didn't start in the sixties, it started before the Revolutionary War in spots, and continues today.


So much of what's preventing a utopia is learned. And if we unlearn and prevent certain unenlightened attitudes from being passed on to future generations, we will be able to get rid of them.
Who has the authority to decide what constitutes an 'unenlightened attitude'?
Further, what means are permissible to 'prevent' these attitudes from being passed on?

That is the very crux of the objections of the Red Zone to your grand plans!

Utopia remains impossible in this world. Historically, attempts to achieve it have almost invariably ended either in a rapid and rather pathetic break-up, or massive bloodshed. I know of no exceptions to this rule.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-06 21:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-06 21:25 ]</font>
HC, the more I read your assertion that a dictator would arise should the U.S. cease to be #1, the more I believe that you're thinking of China moving into an expansionist phase. Said development left unchecked could become a very credible threat, and rather quickly. And yes, our loss of power would lead to a global power struggle, which would almost certainly include China as one of the contestants.

As for Europe being more 'enlightened' I could refer you to an editorial in the March 5th edition of USA Today by Pat Buchanan, where he describes Europe as a cluster of slowly dying societies, and recommends that we cut bait on the NATO Alliance - the only thing that allows them to pursue their 'enlightened' policies that may, in fact, be killing their civilization, if Buchanan is right about them.

With the Blue Zone accustomed to pushing the Red Zone around for so long as to consider the ability to do so to be their right, while the Red Zone is no longer in a mood to put up with it, I see a lot of room for things to get ugly fast, and for both sides to live down to their own worst instincts (Think Spanish Inquisition vs. Stalin's NKVD).

As for views of universal truth and human nature, those, I believe, are the crux of the whole Blue/Red dispute. The Blue Zone apparently believes that both are relatively malleable, while the Red sees both as being resistant to remolding. Thus the Blue Zone's continuing hopes for eventually achieving utopia, which the Red Zone very clearly does not share. Also, in light of Soviet history, and on-campus PC, your questions as to who judges what ideas are unenlightened, and what methods are acceptable to keep said ideas from being passed on, are very apropos.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-03-06 22:41 ]</font>
-----------------------------------------