Saddam is no HItler. He isn't an angel either. He supports a dominant Iraq in the Middle East because he controls Iraq. It means little what he wants because the other Middle Eastern states won't let him have his way. Saddam is really nothing more than the tool of colonialist masters in Britain and the United States who let him loose against Iran and then goaded him into invading Kuwait so he could become a whipping boy. They didn't send troops to protect Saudi Arabia since Saddam had no intention of invading. They sent troops to wage an offensive war against a weakened Iraq in order to force it to sell oil at a substancally cheaper price than it otherwise might have. It has little to do with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had expelled weapons inspectors because he keeps the weapons as a deterent against overthrowing his regime. He was not stupid enough to launch a chemical or biological attack on Israel or Saudi Arabia. That would have meant the end of him. The imperialists don't want you to know these things. They want you to think like sheep.

Thank you for clearing that up, Sbarro. How original and ingenious you are! I've certainly never heard arguments like that before. It's all so clear now. I've been such a fool!

On 2002-03-26 08:52, David '47 wrote:
You are absolutely correct that climatic change can and has been caused by natural phenomena, but that doesn't make the prospects of another age of climatic extreme any more desirable.

Agreed. (But if it's natural this time, we may be unable to stop it.)

Given the FACT (unless you consider this opinion) that the return of either a thermal maximum or an ice age would reek havoc on the world as we know it, and the relatively minor costs involved in removing the human component to exacerbating it, why would anyone in their right mind think that inaction was justified?

I dont' support inaction. But there are reasonable disagreement over what sort of actions are justified.

[*]MOTOR FUELS: First, why is reducing the wasteful consumption of motor fuels a HUGE cost? If, and these are big ifs: CAFE standards rose to ~40 MPG and applied to light trucks and SUVs as well as cars, and, coincidentally, the tax on motor fuels rose $0.25(US)/gallon, the automobile industry would make a fortune building in-demand fuel effecient cars - cars they know how to build today.

I support raising CAFE standards. I never said anything about them in my post.

[*]ELECTRIC UTILITIES: There is no reason to allow acid rain producing power plants to spew this garbage without restriction, when the cost to reduce it is relatively low.

Acid rain is not global warming. These are separate issues. Acid rain is caused by sulfur dioxide, not carbon dioxide. I don't like coal-fired electric plants because of this.

I should also note that I'm pro nuclear power.

Now we're talking! Any environmentally concerned person should be pro-nuclear. It's the cleanest form of energy we have.

I think we are more in agreement than in disagreement.

When Eric starts talking about it being "obvious" that "the crisis" will be environmental, my hackles rise. My guess is that this sort of prediction will go the way of so much other environmental doomsaying.

It's always possible that, at any point, something may jar the environment into a new chaotic regime, but that "something" could as likely be natural as unnatural, and if it happened, it would be about as arbitrary as an asteroid collision.

Barring that, I expect global warming to continue to be too gradual to cause a "crisis", and that in a hundred years, we will not be adding carbon to the atmosphere.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-26 12:51 ]</font>

I expect global warming to continue to be too gradual to cause a "crisis", and that in a hundred years, we will not be adding carbon to the atmosphere.

Your expectations are at odds with objective, non-industry paid scientists who are looking at the matter. Why oppose efforts to curb the problem? I'm glad you're not opposed to all these efforts, but to deny that this is a major problem that will cause a crisis if not dealt with in a major way is suicide.

What is obvious, is that if not dealt with, human-caused global warming could be a Crisis in anyone's book. You can't eat and maintain shelter if floods and famines and droughts destroy the environment.

Our addiction to an overly-comfortable lifestyle and constant economic growth is a major factor here. Sure, we all want to have a good economic success level. But we over do it with our SUVs and superhomes and so on. There are simply more important priorities in life than material comforts and gadgets. We should use this crisis as a chance to learn this. America needs to become a civilization, by learning what the purposes of life are. It may be a vain hope, but I hope it will become one before it destroys our environment for all humanity.

I'm not convinced nuclear power is the way to go. Storing and transporting the waste is inherently dangerous. The dangers from accidents and sabatoge haven't been eliminated. New approaches may work. But it is so dangerous to play with atomic fire, that I wish we would devote our resources to solar, wind, fuel cells and biomass. The reason we don't is because these energy sources can be decentralized, and the big energy companies will lose out in that case. So they have used their influence to hold back development of alternatives for 30-plus years now.

Such backwardness, America

It is interesting to me that Tristan and Tracey X want to unleash all-out war on a country that hasn't attacked us, based on "evidence" that someone from al Qaeda talked to an Iraqi official; meanwhile a decade of compelling evidence of climate change caused by pollution is not enough "evidence" to take action and "oh we really don't know."

Firemind:

Any environmentally concerned person should be pro-nuclear. It's the cleanest form of energy we have.

No, actually it's the second-dirtiest. Or fourth dirtiest if you subdivide fossil fuels into coal, oil, and natural gas.


In order from environmentally best to worst, I would rank sources of energy as follows:


1. Improved efficiency. Our current overall energy efficiency is about 10%, meaning we consume 10 watts of energy from various sources for every 1 watt of use. Investing in new technology for appliances and production could easily double this efficiency or, not so easily but certainly doable, quadruple it. Doubling our energy efficiency would double our effective energy production, with an environmental cost of zero.


2. Renewable energy other than hydroelectric. Not quite as benign as improved efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal, and synthetic natural gas made from animal wastes or human sewage is nevertheless better than anything further down the list. In conjunction with efficiency improvements, these power sources could replace those further down the list. Environmental costs are nonzero but better than anything below. Hazards include manufacturing pollution for solar, wildlife losses for wind, and similar relatively minor problems.


3. Hydroelectric. While this is also a renewable power, it does have much more serious environmental consequences than any of the above. On the plus side, those consequences are all local rather than global, consisting of habitat loss from artificial lakes and reduction of water flow.


4. Nuclear. Our first non-renewable on the list, better than fossil fuels but worse than any renewable. On the plus side, it contributes nothing to global warming, acid rain, or any of the other problems associated with fossil fuels. Also, the damage it causes is relatively localized, compared again to fossil fuels. However, that damage is often acute. It includes the pollution caused by mining and refining of radioactive metals, diversion and contamination of water sources, risk of meltdown with catastrophic semi-localized contamination, and the buildup of radioactive waste. There are also numerous economic and political/terrorism-related problems associated with nuclear power that make it unattractive for non-environmental reasons.


And finally, the booby prize goes to:


5. Fossil fuels. Yessir, natural gas, oil, and (especially) coal are environmentally worse than nuclear, and so anyone who proposes replacing nukes with coal plants is being a ninny. But there are alternatives other than those, which should be considered.

On 2002-03-26 12:44, firemind wrote:

When Eric starts talking about it being "obvious" that "the crisis" will be environmental, my hackles rise. My guess is that this sort of prediction will go the way of so much other environmental doomsaying.

It's always possible that, at any point, something may jar the environment into a new chaotic regime, but that "something" could as likely be natural as unnatural, and if it happened, it would be about as arbitrary as an asteroid collision.

Barring that, I expect global warming to continue to be too gradual to cause a "crisis", and that in a hundred years, we will not be adding carbon to the atmosphere.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-26 12:51 ]</font>

Until I found the Atlantic article I used earlier, I hadn't been aware of the work being done on bistability. If the theory is correct, (and I'm agnostic on this) then we are living in a state that can trigger an ice age in less time than I thought possible (the evidence from the last transition - ~50 years).

You're right that the cause can be natural, and may not be avoidable, but playing with fire isn't the way either. A fifty year transition that cuts food production by 50%, and makes Europe virtually unlivable is not a pleasant prospect. I'll err on the side of safety on this one.

And I'm a notorious risk-taker!

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-03-26 15:02 ]</font>

As a guilty party, let me do penance by re-posting this:

William Strauss asked nicely, but firmly:


Let's use this topic to identify specific elements of American society--politics, economics, culture, religion, family life, and more--that suggest (1) we may still be in a Third Turning, or, alternatively (2) the Fourth Turning has started. These can be items in the news, large and small--or aspects of your own daily lives that offer useful pieces of evidence of either a Third or Fourth Turning.


Please, let's keep all posts on this topic on this point only.

Like I said, as a guilty party ...

On 2002-03-26 15:00, David '47 wrote:

William Strauss asked nicely, but firmly:


Please, let's keep all posts on this topic on this point only.

i've never understood the compulsion to keep everything "on-topic". conversation is tangential by nature. and if this is indeed "the best conversation going on anywhere in America right now", it follows that tangents should not only be expected, but appreciated as well.


TK

I concur with Trollking. This "on topic" stuff just ain't natural to a spontaneous discussion. Besides, most everything posted here pertains to "issues of the day," which I submit qualify to said topic subject. But I'll be more than happy to take my toys and go home, coz this ain't my house. :smile:

William did open this thread with a request "Please, let's keep all posts on this topic on this point only." Thus, it seems terribly important to post the lastest AP article...

LIHUE, Hawaii (AP) -- A 17-year-old body boarder lost his left foot and ankle in a shark attack off Hawaii, prompting authorities to close two miles (three kilometers) of a popular beach.

Hoku Aki was attacked Monday while he was body boarding in murky water about 150 yards (135 meters) off Brennecke Beach. Witnesses said the youth was pulled underwater by the shark.

Aki, who was able to free himself, was helped to shore by onlookers.

"He said he was being thrashed around underwater," Kauai Fire Capt. Mike Layosa said. "He fought back and was able to grab the eye, and the shark released him."

A witness wrapped a towel around Aki's leg and applied pressure to stop the bleeding, Layosa said. Firefighters arrived and applied a tourniquet until paramedics took over.

The teen's condition was upgraded from serious to stable Monday afternoon. Authorities could not immediately determine the type of shark that attacked the teen-ager.

I think that makes it official. We're back in 3T.

I do think this is an important thread. I would like to see it on topic. However, there is frequently at least one "gossip" thread, where a lot of us visit frequently, and tangents are commonplace. Short of an active moderatior actively zapping tangents, tangents happen. I for one don't have time to visit every forum, and having a few places to check to get a pulse on community opinion might be a good thing.

A lot of the stuff we've seen here recently might belong on "liberals and conservatives" or elsewhere. Our exaulted Moderator has discouraged rapid proliferation of threads. Should we consider an explicit "tangential gossip" thread where tangents are accepted and the norm?

"Please, let's keep all posts on this topic on this point only." --William Strauss

I think posts, not pertaining to the question of 3T/4T evidence should go elsewhere, per stated request.

On 2002-03-26 16:56, Marc Lamb wrote:

I think posts, not pertaining to the question of 3T/4T evidence should go elsewhere, per stated request.

i think i'll start a new thread dedicated to the question "Should threads remain on-topic, or are tangents okay?". but dammit, people better not hijack that thread with tangents. :smile:


TK

I think that the question of what the nature of the crisis is, and how we are still ignoring it in favor of false crises, it relevant to this discussion. Ignoring the real issues, as we are, is strong evidence that we are still in 3T, and strong evidence of what kind of 4T we will shortly experience.

Another thing to keep in mind is, when any thread becomes the most active on the board, it tends to attract everybody, and people are going to say what they feel is important to say, not just what William Strauss might think is the important thing to say. Of course, it is his and Neil's web site, so some level of deference to their wishes is due.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/056jwbmn.asp

Here is some interesting evidence that the USA has now entered a 4T. This is written from a Republican paristan P.O.V.

The article seems to show that the mood of American society has changed radically since the 911 attack.

From an Australian point of view, American society is very different post-911. Australia society did not change very much in its mood in the same period. I am really starting to think North America has entered the 4T. You have passed the river Rubicon, the die is cast.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-03-27 03:56 ]</font>

On 2002-03-27 03:53, Tristan Jones wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/056jwbmn.asp

Here is some interesting evidence that the USA has now entered a 4T. This is written from a Republican paristan P.O.V.

The article seems to show that the mood of American society has changed radically since the 911 attack.

From an Australian point of view, American society is very different post-911. Australia society did not change very much in its mood in the same period. I am really starting to think North America has entered the 4T. You have passed the river Rubicon, the die is cast.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-03-27 03:56 ]</font>

Could very well be. Could be that the remaining signs of our still being in 3T are nothing more than a society in denial about there being no turning back, about being in 4T. Just as many others have said was the case in 1930, after the Stock Market Crash, but before the banks started to fail. Stay tuned.

Tristan suggests...

From an Australian point of view, American society is very different post-911. Australia society did not change very much in its mood in the same period. I am really starting to think North America has entered the 4T. You have passed the river Rubicon, the die is cast.

I think it may be inevitable that die will be cast, but it is not yet clear the color of the die. Yes, a global alliance including the West might be necessary to contain Islamism and other autocratic violent "rogue nations." To what degree with this alliance be dominated by capitalist elites? To what degree will the interests of the powerful be tempered by concern for human rights, shared wealth and ecology? If the effort is fairly straight forward, requiring no major transformations, we might trust Big Brother to take the powers necessary to protect Big Brother. If a major struggle develops, the powerful might need invoke ideals to gather support.

Yes, currently the Republicans are strutting and the Democrats are lost. The simplistic solution is brute force military maintenance of the status quo. However, if you look at prior crises, the conservative and radical factions exchange positions of strength several times over the period of crisis. A Neocon dominance early isn't too much of a shock. A conservative triumph over the duration of the crisis would be very unusual.

Bob:

I think that makes it official. We're back in 3T.

Why do you say that? Do shark attacks not occur in a 4T?


Eric:

I think that the question of what the nature of the crisis is, and how we are still ignoring it in favor of false crises, it relevant to this discussion.

If you're referring to the September 11 attack and the problem of terrorism as a "false crisis," please refer to my own discussion of that subject on the Crisis Issues thread. To recap: the problem of the international peacekeeping order and the challenge to American hegemony is very much an issue of this Crisis, along with the global economy and the global environment. Excess of corporate power is the lynchpin of all three issues. Thus, the war on terrorism is part of the real Crisis, not a false one.


That we are taking an ineffective approach to this issue is arguable but irrelevant. Turnings do not guarantee wisdom.

New evidence of a 4th Turning in the Middle East. The Palestinians and Yasir Arafat refuse to depend on international pressure to help them anymore. They now realize the hypocrisy of the Arab leaders who give lip service to the Palestine cause and then do nothing to help them. The Palestinians are a vanguard of a revolution in the Islamic world that will overthrow all the tyrants and replace them with revolutionaries dedicated to the liberation of Palestine from colonialist oppression.

This revolution will be manned by midliife 13ers and led by late wave Boomers or early 13ers who will lead, Gray Champion style. The shock troops will be Millenial Palestinians who will go from being kids throwing stones to being well trained soldiers ready to die in taking on the behemoth of the Israeli army. If the international community won't do it the masses of Palestinian proletariat, whose lives are now controlled South Africa style by Israel, will fight for a state. In a strange way, the Islamic radical fascists who promote their strange brew of religious nationalism are also promoting progressive change for the Palestinians and the Arab world. The Islamic vanguard is manned by petit bourgiousie just like the leaders of the French Revolution were. And they are promoting radical change that will not lead the Muslim world to theocracy as they intend but instead to secularism and democracy. Why? Because the upheavel of institutions that now oppress and control the daily lives of people will be overthrown and Arabs will not be content to see this reinstituted in the form of rigid Sharia law. Some 4oo million Arabs are yearning to breathe free like thier counterparts in the West. Long live the struggle for Palestine.

Palestinians Supportive of Arafat's
Decision not to Attend Summit

Wednesday, March 27 2002 @ 04:02 AM GMT

RAMALLAH, West Bank (PINA): Palestinians in Ramallah are
supportive of their leader's decision not to go to Beirut.
Earlier, Palestinian Authority Minister of Information Yasser
Abed Rabbo announced that Palestinian President Yasser
Arafat has decided not to attend the Arab League summit
in Beirut.

One Palestinian woman said that Arafat's decision was
really no decision at all; his plight was representative of
the plight of all Palestinians who are unable to travel for
work or school, even if it is merely ten kilometers.

A Palestinian political commentator said that the biggest
danger in Arafat attending the summit was the
negotiation of cease-fire terms.

One of the conditions placed on Arafat's being allowed to
attend was the acceptance of U.S. envoy Zinni's new
cease-fire terms; as this commentator pointed out, Zinni's
terms are extremely close to Israeli demands and likely
would not be accepted by the Palestinian people, who
continue to suffer under strict closures and blockades.

He said that acquiescence to unfair cease-fire terms
would cause damage that would outweigh the benefits
brought by attending the summit.

In addition, the analyst noted that Arafat deciding not to
attend the summit would be a blow to both Israel and the
U.S. in terms of PR, as even a U.S. guarantee that Arafat
would be allowed to return to Ramallah is dubious in
Palestinian eyes in the current situation.

A Palestinian woman described a short clip that has been
shown on Al-Manar television station, the Hezbollah
broadcasting station from Lebanon. In the clip, a young
Palestinian girl addresses the Arab leaders attending the
summit, telling them of her father whose hopes are raised
every time the Arab leaders meet in support of Palestinian
rights and freedoms.

The girl talks of how her father prepares to return to his
village which he fled with only the key to his house upon
hearing the promising words of Arab leaders. The young
girl reminds the leaders that only free men can make
promises and that they must honor their promises to the
Palestinians.

The powerful, short clip has been widely shown and
picked up by other Arab stations. The woman today said
that the clip captures the feeling of many Palestinians in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and probably the refugee
camps in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria as well, about the
upcoming summit.

She said that when most of the Palestinian population is
unable to move more than several kilometers due to the
strict military blockades and closures imposed by Israel, it
is difficult for most Palestinians to see the benefits of
Arafat attending a conference that will likely only produce
more empty words.

We need more time before we can decide if we are in 3T or 4T. I still think that 911 could be the catalyst, but what and how future events unfold will determine how 911 is defined.

There's been a mood shift since 911. The Unravelling stuff of reality TV, endless shopping choices, and the "more is more" mentality, all are still in evidence, but people seems to know we're just about done with all that; or that it's all pretty superficial.

People still have begun to cut back on their spending - even this year's holiday season, best selling retailers were Walmart and Target. People I know are re-prioritizing family over job. In short, I think we all know that the party is going to be over and soon. But the crashers aren't quite yet here, so people are getting in their last hurrahs.

Just my broad brush stroke perceptions, FWIW.

Ms. Sherman, your analysis indicates that 9/11 was either the catalyst, or a wake-up call that the true catalyst will occur soon. Either way, the leftovers of the 3T party have about run their course.

On 2002-03-26 16:28, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Should we consider an explicit "tangential gossip" thread where tangents are accepted and the norm?

We have one. It's "Generations and Spam". Welcome to Happy Hour!

Now back to our on-topic conversation about whether we are in 3T or 4T. :smile:

the problem of the international peacekeeping order and the challenge to American hegemony is very much an issue of this Crisis, along with the global economy and the global environment. Excess of corporate power is the lynchpin of all three issues. Thus, the war on terrorism is part of
the real Crisis, not a false one.

I agree with most of your paragraph here, but am not certain about the last sentence. I'm not sure the actions of Bin Laden and his group qualifies as a real challenge to American hegemony, whether they intended it as such or not. We'll see how far it goes; Bush could still push us into a Crisis, depending on what he does and how it turns out, especially with other Arab and Middle East nations and/or their allies.

I'm betting that the environmental crisis happens first; environmental and economic problems tend to begin or immediately preceed Crisis Wars, according to my reading of history. The results of that crisis in circa 2010 will lead to conditions that could result in greater wars, involving the USA (civil more likely, but international possible too) by the 2020s. That is just my prediction, nothing more. I'm not saying I'm right.

Eric:

I'm betting that the environmental crisis happens first; environmental and economic problems tend to begin or immediately preceed Crisis Wars, according to my reading of history.

Let's take a look at that through the modern saeculum. We haven't actually had an environmental 4T before, but we've certainly had at least one economic one.


Wars of the Roses? Began with a civil war, if I'm reading it right, with economic consequences following upon the fighting.


Armada Crisis? Began with a palace intrigue and climaxed with a big sucker of a foreign war.


Glorious Revolution? Indian wars, internal rebellions, conflict between England and the colonies.


American Revolution? Conflict between England and the colonies, and then an internal breakdown of government effectiveness (with heavy economic consequences).


Civil War? Civil war. Lots of damage to the economy but it started with secession and combat.


Great Depression? This one started with an economic breakdown. No doubts there.


Seems to me, from admittedly casual inspection, that most Crisis eras revolved around internal disputes and conflicts, up to and including civil war, with the Crisis of the last saeculum being the exception rather than the rule.


We should see the environmental issues come to the fore in this 4T about 8 years from now, more or less. I suspect everthing else will be put on the back burner at that point. But we do have some other problems to keep us busy until then.


As for Osama bin Ladin, he had a complicated agenda, and not an uplifting one. But certainly challenging U.S. hegemony (preparatory to establishing Islamic hegemony under his own direction) was at the center of it.