On 2002-06-16 05:54, Starkk wrote:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ium_standoff_4

COLUMBIA, South Carolina - Gov. Jim Hodges ordered state troopers and other authorities to South Carolina's borders Friday to stop federal shipments of plutonium that could begin arriving from Colorado as early as this weekend.


"I order that the transportation of plutonium on South Carolina roads and highways is prohibited," Hodges said. "I order that any persons transporting plutonium shall not enter the state of South Carolina."

Hodges, who has vehemently opposed the shipments, read a statement declaring a state of emergency but refused to answer any questions about specific plans for roadblocks or other barricades at South Carolina's Savannah River Site, a nuclear weapons complex near Aiken.

On Thursday, a federal judge refused to block the shipments of weapons-grade plutonium. Hodges appealed the ruling and asked for a delay until the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) could hear the case.

The U.S. Energy Department plans to move the material from the Rocky Flats weapons installation in Colorado, which is being cleaned up and closed, to the Savannah River Site, where the material would be converted into nuclear reactor fuel over the next two decades.

But Hodges has said he fears the government will end up leaving the plutonium permanently in South Carolina, making the state a tempting target for terrorists.

"The Department of Energy ( news - web sites) has broken promises, offered no assurances and left few options. Once plutonium arrives, it will never leave," Hodges said. "They want South Carolina to quietly become the nation's plutonium dumping ground."

The shipments legally could begin as early as this weekend, but U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. said Energy Department officials told him they would not start until after June 22.

A message left for an Energy Department spokesman was not immediately returned Friday afternoon.

Vice President Dick Cheney ( news - web sites), in South Carolina on Friday for a fund-raiser, said the fuel-conversion program is important to ensure that plutonium "never falls into the wrong hands."

"This administration is totally committed to helping pass legislation to guarantee that South Carolina does not become a permanent storage site for plutonium," Cheney said.

Hodges, a Democrat who is up for re-election in the fall, has threatened for weeks to use troopers to block roads into the Savannah River Site and has vowed to lie in the road if necessary to stop the trucks.

Sid Gaulden, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, said traffic would still flow along the state's roads. He acknowledged the department does not have enough resources to close every entry point to the state.

About 6 1/2 tons of plutonium are to be shipped from Colorado.

Federal officials have said the nuclear material would be under constant guard, and its path and time of arrival would be kept secret. They also say security at the Savannah River site is sound.

oh, boy....this situation in S.C. is a too-close variant of one of S&H's Fourth Turning scenarios, in which the Governor of California seizes collected Federal Tax Revenues, calls out the National Guard to stand against the Feds, and refuses to back down.

On 2002-06-12 23:05, voltronx wrote:

HopefulCynic68 wrote:

These are the people who insist that difference between male and female is entirely learned, and that they can be made interchangable by education and 'sensitivity training' in the face of 5000 years of experience that says otherwise.

All right, this has been getting on me for quite a while. We don't have 5,000 years of evidence to know that differences between the sexes aren't created only by society. I thought I even learned about some woman in school who became a psychologist and became famous for discovering that gender-related differences were not inborn in people, and caused only by society. All we have from human history is women living within civilization, and even men who leave out into the wild were raised into civilization first. We never had any scientific experiments to see what men or women would be like if they were isolated and grew up outside of civilization. All we've got 5,000 years ago is ancient history that features women kept and raised very tightly and defeats the purpose of finding out what women would be like if they were left developing their personality to their own. So how can you know that the progressive-minded liberals are wrong on this one?

Humans and civilization/society are almost inseparable concepts. Even the hunter-gatherer groups of prehistory would have been highly organized by the standards of other primates. It's almost meaningless to talk of human behavior except in societal reference frames.

If you want to know what human behavior would be like with no societal influence at all, the closest thing available would be to study chimps, and that's not a very close comparison.

The reason the behaviors of the sexes can be fairly reliably seen to be at least partly inborn (and I didn't say that society could not influence) them is that in a range of different societies, the same patterns keep emerging.

Incidentally, not all earlier cultures did suppress women in the way you seem to mean, nor do all primitive cultures resemble either each other or the remaining pseudo-primitive groups left around today.

On 2002-06-16 19:00, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-16 05:54, Starkk wrote:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ium_standoff_4

COLUMBIA, South Carolina - Gov. Jim Hodges ordered state troopers and other authorities to South Carolina's borders Friday to stop federal shipments of plutonium that could begin arriving from Colorado as early as this weekend.


"I order that the transportation of plutonium on South Carolina roads and highways is prohibited," Hodges said. "I order that any persons transporting plutonium shall not enter the state of South Carolina."

Hodges, who has vehemently opposed the shipments, read a statement declaring a state of emergency but refused to answer any questions about specific plans for roadblocks or other barricades at South Carolina's Savannah River Site, a nuclear weapons complex near Aiken.

On Thursday, a federal judge refused to block the shipments of weapons-grade plutonium. Hodges appealed the ruling and asked for a delay until the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) could hear the case.

The U.S. Energy Department plans to move the material from the Rocky Flats weapons installation in Colorado, which is being cleaned up and closed, to the Savannah River Site, where the material would be converted into nuclear reactor fuel over the next two decades.

But Hodges has said he fears the government will end up leaving the plutonium permanently in South Carolina, making the state a tempting target for terrorists.

"The Department of Energy ( news - web sites) has broken promises, offered no assurances and left few options. Once plutonium arrives, it will never leave," Hodges said. "They want South Carolina to quietly become the nation's plutonium dumping ground."

The shipments legally could begin as early as this weekend, but U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. said Energy Department officials told him they would not start until after June 22.

A message left for an Energy Department spokesman was not immediately returned Friday afternoon.

Vice President Dick Cheney ( news - web sites), in South Carolina on Friday for a fund-raiser, said the fuel-conversion program is important to ensure that plutonium "never falls into the wrong hands."

"This administration is totally committed to helping pass legislation to guarantee that South Carolina does not become a permanent storage site for plutonium," Cheney said.

Hodges, a Democrat who is up for re-election in the fall, has threatened for weeks to use troopers to block roads into the Savannah River Site and has vowed to lie in the road if necessary to stop the trucks.

Sid Gaulden, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, said traffic would still flow along the state's roads. He acknowledged the department does not have enough resources to close every entry point to the state.

About 6 1/2 tons of plutonium are to be shipped from Colorado.

Federal officials have said the nuclear material would be under constant guard, and its path and time of arrival would be kept secret. They also say security at the Savannah River site is sound.

oh, boy....this situation in S.C. is a too-close variant of one of S&H's Fourth Turning scenarios, in which the Governor of California seizes collected Federal Tax Revenues, calls out the National Guard to stand against the Feds, and refuses to back down.

I don't think it'll come to a head-on, at least not this time. Bush isn't going to want to give the opposition something to run on, and Hodges knows that there's simply no way he can possibly win if it comes to a confrontation, so they'll work out some kind of face-saving deal, is my guess.

This time.

On 2002-06-16 21:49, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-06-16 19:00, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-16 05:54, Starkk wrote:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ium_standoff_4

COLUMBIA, South Carolina - Gov. Jim Hodges ordered state troopers and other authorities to South Carolina's borders Friday to stop federal shipments of plutonium that could begin arriving from Colorado as early as this weekend.


"I order that the transportation of plutonium on South Carolina roads and highways is prohibited," Hodges said. "I order that any persons transporting plutonium shall not enter the state of South Carolina."

Hodges, who has vehemently opposed the shipments, read a statement declaring a state of emergency but refused to answer any questions about specific plans for roadblocks or other barricades at South Carolina's Savannah River Site, a nuclear weapons complex near Aiken.

On Thursday, a federal judge refused to block the shipments of weapons-grade plutonium. Hodges appealed the ruling and asked for a delay until the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) could hear the case.

The U.S. Energy Department plans to move the material from the Rocky Flats weapons installation in Colorado, which is being cleaned up and closed, to the Savannah River Site, where the material would be converted into nuclear reactor fuel over the next two decades.

But Hodges has said he fears the government will end up leaving the plutonium permanently in South Carolina, making the state a tempting target for terrorists.

"The Department of Energy ( news - web sites) has broken promises, offered no assurances and left few options. Once plutonium arrives, it will never leave," Hodges said. "They want South Carolina to quietly become the nation's plutonium dumping ground."

The shipments legally could begin as early as this weekend, but U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. said Energy Department officials told him they would not start until after June 22.

A message left for an Energy Department spokesman was not immediately returned Friday afternoon.

Vice President Dick Cheney ( news - web sites), in South Carolina on Friday for a fund-raiser, said the fuel-conversion program is important to ensure that plutonium "never falls into the wrong hands."

"This administration is totally committed to helping pass legislation to guarantee that South Carolina does not become a permanent storage site for plutonium," Cheney said.

Hodges, a Democrat who is up for re-election in the fall, has threatened for weeks to use troopers to block roads into the Savannah River Site and has vowed to lie in the road if necessary to stop the trucks.

Sid Gaulden, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, said traffic would still flow along the state's roads. He acknowledged the department does not have enough resources to close every entry point to the state.

About 6 1/2 tons of plutonium are to be shipped from Colorado.

Federal officials have said the nuclear material would be under constant guard, and its path and time of arrival would be kept secret. They also say security at the Savannah River site is sound.

oh, boy....this situation in S.C. is a too-close variant of one of S&H's Fourth Turning scenarios, in which the Governor of California seizes collected Federal Tax Revenues, calls out the National Guard to stand against the Feds, and refuses to back down.

I don't think it'll come to a head-on, at least not this time. Bush isn't going to want to give the opposition something to run on, and Hodges knows that there's simply no way he can possibly win if it comes to a confrontation, so they'll work out some kind of face-saving deal, is my guess.

This time.

Still, it's funny how South Carolina seems to be the one who starts these sorts of dust-ups with the Feds. 1832, over the tariff and Nullification; 1860, by seceding from the Union, thinking thus to protect the institution of slavery; and now.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-06-17 06:01 ]</font>

Doesn't anyone see the French elections as further confirmation that "crisis parties" are taking over? Especially how the French have given up on divided government?

I don't recall an instance since 9-11 where any Euro election did not trend to the right. Parties that tried to ignore the crime and security implications of Muslim immigration and the terror acts (French socialists blamed the torching of the Israeli embassy on poor wiring?) lose.

I know lots of you have your pet 4T themes that become irrelevant if 9-11 is the trigger, so I guess you'll have to wait for the Republican wins in November for proof.

On 2002-06-17 11:51, monoghan wrote:
Doesn't anyone see the French elections as further confirmation that "crisis parties" are taking over? Especially how the French have given up on divided government?

I don't recall an instance since 9-11 where any Euro election did not trend to the right. Parties that tried to ignore the crime and security implications of Muslim immigration and the terror acts (French socialists blamed the torching of the Israeli embassy on poor wiring?) lose.

I know lots of you have your pet 4T themes that become irrelevant if 9-11 is the trigger, so I guess you'll have to wait for the Republican wins in November for proof.

Interesting prediction, given the low number of competitve races in the congressional elections, The Republicans do not need to gain much to control both houses of congress, plus the presidency.

I will submit something to the thread.

The Problem with K Street Conservatism
by David Brooks, for the Editors
06/24/2002, Volume 007, Issue 40


IT MUST BE MISERABLE to be on the Democratic left. For decades you've been inveighing against the evils of corporate power. For decades you've been waiting for a popular backlash against concentrated wealth, one that would finally provide momentum for the liberal economic policies you've been championing all along--for redistribution, for tighter regulations on business, for bigger and more active government.

And then suddenly, the moment comes! Almost everyone acknowledges that income inequality is on the rise. The rich are getting richer. The dot-com collapse has exposed the foolishness of the investor class. You've got the most corporate presidential administration in history, topped by two former oil executives and a former aluminum CEO. Then come a series of business scandals that exemplify a level of corporate greed that surpasses even your most pinko fantasies--Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, Allfirst, Merrill Lynch, ImClone. And the biggest of these scandals, the Enron scandal, revolves around a man, Ken Lay, who is one of the biggest supporters of the president of the United States!

This is incredible! This is the perfect storm. Never before in your lifetime has there been such a confluence of events all pointing in the direction of a popular revolt against overweening corporate power. Surely now, the moment of economic liberalism is at hand.

And what happens? Nothing. A fizzle. The corporate scandals roil and roil, but their effect on American politics is practically nil. The president's approval numbers suffer not a bit. The Republican party loses no support and the Democratic party fails to gain. The liberals express joyful satisfaction at the scandals; they confirm everything liberals think they know about the rotten core of corporate America. But even Democratic leaders know that there will be no massive popular call for any of the things on the class-warfare liberals' wish list. The polls indicate that the general public does not see these as political scandals. Such issues are not playing a big role in the midterm elections. Republicans are now watering down measures to regulate the accounting industry, and Democrats concede that there will be no popular backlash.

The fact is the public is disgusted by Enron and the other scandals, but most Americans have not generalized their disgust into a widespread loss of faith in the current political-economic system. Unlike Washington activists or academic polemicists, most Americans live in the world of corporate America. It didn't take a series of scandals to teach them there are greedy and rotten people in corporations. Furthermore, the scandals don't negate the evidence they see every day--that there are many more decent and honorable people in corporations, and these businesses do far more to build wealth and improve lives than they do to mar them.

Furthermore, though there has been a loss of confidence in corporate elites, that does not mean Americans want to see government taking a dramatically more aggressive role in economic life. Outside of the liberal hard core, there is very little of what you would call class consciousness. Everybody gripes about the bosses, but that doesn't mean most Americans see the world as being divided between the People and the Powerful, as Bob Shrum and Al Gore preached in the 2000 election.

And if the economic liberals can't ride a wave to power now, when they have so much going in their favor, then they never will be able to ride a wave to power, certainly not when the economy finally recovers and when this amazing wave of scandals fades away. That's why it must be miserable to be on the Democratic left.

But that doesn't mean that all is hunky-dory for the right. Just because the class-warfare liberals are wrong, with their 1930s-style indictment of corporate power, doesn't mean that the increasing identification between the business community and American conservatism is not a problem. When conservatism was at its healthiest, it often allied with parts of the business community, but there were clear distinctions, and very often the two communities clashed. During the Cold War, conservatives wanted to topple communism, the business community wanted to trade with communism. During the early days of the Reagan administration, conservatives advocated supply-side tax cuts, while the business community by and large preached green-eyeshade fiscal austerity. During the Clinton administration, conservatives fought Hillary Clinton's health care plan, while many businesses initially sought to manipulate it for comparative advantage.

But now free marketeers and business organizations are more likely to work hand in glove. Many conservatives who came to town as activists now double as paid lobbyists. Now, typically, business groups provide the bucks and conservatives provide the troops for many of the ginned-up lobbying campaigns.

That's fine; corporations deserve representation. But over recent years, Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, and others have set up a K Street patronage operation that effectively obliterates the distinction between conservatives and corporatists. And remember, when they brag about the growing merger between conservatives and the business community, they are talking about something akin to a merger between Sam's Video Shack and Blockbuster. The culture of the corporate community is bound to dominate the culture of conservatism, not the other way around.

That means there will be more resources and entr e for Washington activists, but there will be less intellectual creativity in the Republican party. There will be fewer big ideas. There will be less principle, less of an insurgent spirit, and more corporate pork. Instead of a fundamental debate about ideas, conservative politics becomes transactionalism.

Republican education policy now reflects corporate priorities, not conservative priorities. It provides better management, more money, and pseudo-accountability, while rejecting the core conservative insight that schools will only get better as a result of choice, competition, and parental pressure. As the economy appeared to be slipping into recession, Republicans came up with a stimulus package that contained almost no conservative ideas. Indeed, it contained practically no ideas of any sort. It was just a collection of corporate pork, self-serving subsidies, and narrowly focused favors. Long gone are the days when Republicans championed dramatic plans for fundamental tax reform, such as the flat tax, a consumption tax, or a radical simplification of the tax code.

It's odd. In some ways the Republican party seems more conservative than it ever has been, but somehow in the realm of domestic policy conservative ideas don't seem to matter very much. Conservatives correctly argued that the United States had to work toward a more market-oriented agriculture system. Yet in the post-Gingrich Congress, almost nobody is willing to stand up and defend conservative convictions. The farm bill that Republicans supported and the president signed shreds market-based reforms. It happens to be good for agribusiness.

In place of ideology, too often we have cynicism. The steel tariffs measure the president signed this year is perhaps the worst piece of trade legislation in half a century. In the culture of corporatism, free trade ideology takes a back seat. You cut the deals you need to cut.

Meanwhile, big opportunities are missed because the business community is properly focused on the here and now, and not on grand possibilities for the future. For example, this past year presented a golden opportunity to put together a large plan that would one day rid us of our dependence on Saudi oil. But no business lobby is interested in what might be achieved in the year 2015, and oil companies don't exactly mind continued dependence on the Saudi royal family, no matter how much it dilutes our efforts to fight Islamic extremism. So in the end, there was no impetus toward any ambitious energy bill or any major compromise.

Maybe the sorry stagnation in domestic policy is simply the result of the amazing parity in American politics or the unusual urgency of foreign policy. But the fact remains that conservatism, even with a conservative president, has lost some of its insurgent energy and has become corporatist.

Corporate elites are not blackhearted materialists who exploit the working man, as the economic populists imagined. They organize American drive and creativity to produce the wealth and the living standards we all enjoy. But it still remains true that leading America is a higher calling than leading IBM, GE, or Alcoa. It requires grander visions, higher aspirations, and broader perspectives. If politics is overtaken by the corporate mentality, then government just becomes a grubby enterprise of redistributing federal dollars from their people to our people. The country deserves better.

Well I went to bed in Memphis
And I woke up in Hollywood
I got a quarter in my pocket
And I?d call you if I could
But I don?t know why
I gotta fly
I wanna rock and roll this party
I still wanna have some fun
I wanna leave you feeling breathless
Show you how the West was won
But I gotta fly
I gotta fly...

Like Steve McQueen
All I need's a fast machine
I?m gonna make it all right
Like Steve McQueen
Underneath your radar screen
You?ll never catch me tonite

I ain?t takin? shit off no one
Baby that was yesterday
I?m an all American rebel
Making my big getaway
Yeah you know it?s time
I gotta fly

Like Steve McQueen
All I need's a fast machine
I?m gonna make it all right
Like Steve McQueen
Underneath your radar screen
You?ll never catch me tonite

We got rock stars in the White House
All our popstars look like porn
All my heroes hit the highway
They don?t hang out here no more
You can call me anytime
You can page me all night long
But you won?t catch this freebird
I?ll already be long gone

Like Steve McQueen
All we need's a fast machine
And we?re gonna make it all right...

The plight of the conservatives is that they actually, many of them, don't even seem to realize that their policies are and always have been pro-corporate. The market system = corporations. That's who dominates the market. Cut government, let markets operate as the solution to problems. What happens? Corporations thrive and merge. Yet conservatives seem to have amnesia.

Conservatives never had any "ideas" or "principles" to begin with. All it amounted to was cut taxes and government when it promised change, and support government when it bolsters traditional values and authorities. There's nothing new there, nothing brilliant. It was always negative. This is so obvious folks.

Current Republican policy is just the maturation of what it already was and intended.

On 2002-06-18 12:53, Eric A Meece wrote:
The plight of the conservatives is that they actually, many of them, don't even seem to realize that their policies are and always have been pro-corporate.

You miss the point.

Conservatives are QUITE aware of that their policies are pro-corporate.

The difference is, conservatives don't see anything automatically WRONG with being pro-corporate. With a conservative, you have to be more specific. A "corporation" is not automatically evil in their eyes. How a corporation BEHAVES is the issue.

As Mike Alexander has shown in recent posts, corporations are fundamental to our civilization. Being against corporations per se is like being against farms.

On 2002-06-18 12:53, Eric A Meece wrote:
Conservatives never had any "ideas" or "principles" to begin with. All it amounted to was cut taxes and government when it promised change, and support government when it bolsters traditional values and authorities. There's nothing new there, nothing brilliant. It was always negative.

This is an exaggeration. Conservatism has ideas and principles. Conservatism just doesn't automatically embrace new ideas just for the sake of newness.

One of the fundamental ideas of conservatism is that our ancestors were not idiots. The ideas, principles, and traditions we have inherited from our ancestors are the result of generations of experimentation with different ways of doing things. As such, there is reason to be cautious with throwing out the old ways. New ideas must be looked at skeptically, not embraced willy-nilly.

Brilliance is as often manifested among conservatives as anyone else. To really understand the reasons for the traditions we inherit requires brilliance.

"If you destroy the old tablets, you will discover the rocks from which they were hewn." -- Nietzsche

As Mike Alexander has shown in recent posts, corporations are fundamental to our civilization. Being against corporations per se is like being against farms.

I'm not sure that's what Mike says; he says (I think) that capitalism is about the accumulation of capital (excess money to invest) and its use to achieve power and wealth and to make/influence decisions, build big monopolistic businesses, make and distribute products more cost-effectively, etc. I'm not sure he referred to corporations specifically, although they of course depend on capital.

So I don't think he said corporations are fundamental to our civilization; he said "capital" (large concentrations of money) is fundamental to the way capitalism is organized today in The West.

It is a question of whether that is the way we want things in the future. You may or may not be against corporations per se. People of more liberal cast of mind like me want the size and power of them reduced and/or regulated; that does not necessarily imply that there should be NO large economic organizations. Liberals like me MIGHT have this opinion, or they might not (most do not).

Conservatives often DO NOT (like the author above DID NOT) see that their supposedly-idealistic "free-market" policies enabled corporations to increase their power, so that their interests (rather than free market ideals) would dominate the decisions of the Republican Party. That is just what the author of the National Review piece quoted above DID NOT see, and is consequently bewailing the fact that the Republican Party is straying from its supposed "conservative principles" (when in fact there were none to begin with besides the pro-corporate policies he now criticizes).

It is liberals who are concerned about how corporations BEHAVE, not conservatives. Conservatives want to allow them to behave however they wish. Liberals may have a spectrum of views, from extremists like me who really are pretty much against big corporations per se, to pragmatic liberals who only wish to regulate their behavior (although I am pragmatic enough to push for such regulation and reduction in power and size as can be realistically achieved).

The ideas, principles, and traditions we have inherited from our ancestors are the result of generations of experimentation with different ways of doing things. As such, there is reason to be cautious with throwing out the old ways.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said too on another thread. I agree, but this does not imply that "conservatives are coming up with brilliant new ideas" as is constantly claimed in the media. They are just being cautious and embracing traditions, as they always have, and as you and I said.

Article today was pretty funny with it's generational title. http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/2731.1775

On 2002-06-18 13:27, firemind wrote:

One of the fundamental ideas of conservatism is that our ancestors were not idiots.

That is a superbly concise and descriptively accurate phrase!

I guess this could be taken as evidence for 4T, from America's "McPaper":

link

<font color=blue>
Militia movement is in retreat

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON ? Patriotism stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks has hastened the demise of the anti-government militia movement, an anti-hate group says.

The number of armed citizen militias and "patriot" groups associated with extreme anti-government doctrine dropped by nearly 20% in 2001, according to a new analysis by the Southern Poverty Law Center...

..."The whole atmosphere of the country has changed," says Jim McKinzey, a lieutenant in the Missouri 51st Militia.
</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-06-21 09:19 ]</font>

Here is a site (and organization?) which incorporates S&H's theory:

http://www.newtotalitarians.com

I have not read through it yet but I get the impression that it is done by military people concerned that we have a sufficiently strong military to serve our needs in the 4T. At least there is a pronounced concern about the Leftist Boomer and/or New Age influence on the military. I believe they hope to delay the 4T until sufficient time that Xers replace Boomers in the upper ranks so as to ensure that the military functions properly as an efficient, well-oiled machine as opposed to floundering as a social experiment.

Let's just hope that there will be little need to use the troops in the 4T (assuming that we can put an end to this phony Bush "War on Terror" for Caspian oil. And certainly those troops had better not be used against Americans here at home. Unfortunately, this group appears far too deferential to the Machiavellian human garbage in the White House out of fear of the Boomer Left. I hope that means that these people are not among those who "look the other way" as these Bush people subvert the Constitution. If they are, then what difference does it make whether the Boomer Left is an influence or not? Nothing is gained in terms of our liberty and God-given rights.

In my Sunday paper today are articles on employees losing their jobs for many year old brushes with the law uncovered by 9-1-1 security checks, and foreign students getting new surveilance by the government. "Late Edition" on CNN is currently discussing terrorism and "Islamist" related issues. It has been long enough after the WTC+Pentagon attacks to have a baby, and issue#1 is still Muslim terrorism, from Kashmir to Israel to America. If this were 3T, wouldn't we be "tired" of this issue by now? I think the fact that it has "legs" indicates that something is changing.

On 2002-06-23 11:25, Tom Mazanec wrote:
If this were 3T, wouldn't we be "tired" of this issue by now? I think the fact that it has "legs" indicates that something is changing.

I was soon tired of O.J. and Monica and Diana, but they had "staying power". The anniversaries of 9-11 make easy and "cheap" stories for our mediums of discourse. I just saw a replay of Jackie O's dresses from the Camelot days at a Museum on CBS this morning. Some things have a life of their own and like the "poor" are always with us.

Here is kind of a far out 4T suggestion:


The Bible and the Apocalypse

The biggest book of the summer is about the end of the world. It's also a sign of our troubled times

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...265345,00.html


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-06-24 12:13 ]</font>

Stonewall, sorry, but you have to do something about that URL...it is unusable as it appears in the posting.

On 2002-06-23 23:37, Tom Mazanec wrote:
Stonewall, sorry, but you have to do something about that URL...it is unusable as it appears in the posting.

Tom, I found it linked at http://www.drudgereport.com. Otherwise you can cut and paste the URL.


Hold on, Tom....I just remembered how to correct that problem. HTH

_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-06-24 12:15 ]</font>

On 2002-06-23 15:10, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Here is kind of a far out 4T suggestion:


The Bible and the Apocalypse

The biggest book of the summer is about the end of the world. It's also a sign of our troubled times

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...265345,00.html

Americians seem to be feeling that the end of the world is coming or something big is coming which will change the world forever. Interesting sign of 4T thinking

On 2002-06-23 23:51, Tristan Jones wrote:

Americians seem to be feeling that the end of the world is coming or something big is coming which will change the world forever. Interesting sign of 4T thinking

Definitely. Basically, everyone I speak to thinks that the world is going to hell. My mother thinks that this is the biblical armageddon, and is trying to figure out who the antichrist is. My sister, born in 1980, is behaving more like a Millie than an Xer. My sister, who is not really familiar with the theiry, has decided to learn much more about the world she inhabits, and is convinced that we are headed for a catastrophe. I'm not exactly sure about my father, as he lives out of town, but there is definitely a sense of foreboding. However, he seems intent on living out the 3T as long as possible. He senses that something different may be in the air, but cannot figure out what it is.

My sister's boyfriend is also preparing for the major confrontation, as is his brother. Among college students, there is definitely a sense that the world is being torn apart.

As for me, if we are not in 4T, we are very late in the 3T. The dollar is sinking, and the mood of wall street seems dire enough to start a panic, which would ensure our entry into 4T. My family has become VERY frugal, and much closer. Me and my sister has become very close. I might finally have a girlfriend...but that's a different story altogether. :smile:

On 2002-06-24 08:39, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-06-23 23:51, Tristan Jones wrote:

Americians seem to be feeling that the end of the world is coming or something big is coming which will change the world forever. Interesting sign of 4T thinking

Definitely. Basically, everyone I speak to thinks that the world is going to hell. My mother thinks that this is the biblical armageddon, and is trying to figure out who the antichrist is. My sister, born in 1980, is behaving more like a Millie than an Xer. My sister, who is not really familiar with the theiry, has decided to learn much more about the world she inhabits, and is convinced that we are headed for a catastrophe. I'm not exactly sure about my father, as he lives out of town, but there is definitely a sense of foreboding. However, he seems intent on living out the 3T as long as possible. He senses that something different may be in the air, but cannot figure out what it is.

My sister's boyfriend is also preparing for the major confrontation, as is his brother. Among college students, there is definitely a sense that the world is being torn apart.

As for me, if we are not in 4T, we are very late in the 3T. The dollar is sinking, and the mood of wall street seems dire enough to start a panic, which would ensure our entry into 4T. My family has become VERY frugal, and much closer. Me and my sister has become very close. I might finally have a girlfriend...but that's a different story altogether. :smile:

Tell me about it, Robert! One friend of mine would agree with your mother, and also expects that God will make *absolutely sure* that whatever else happens during the End Times, that the US will get the 'Sodom and Gomorrah' treatment for what she sees as our sins. A coworker where I work is looking for GWB to use the very next terrorist attack on US soil as his excuse to declare nationwide martial law, with 'temporary' suspension of all civil liberties. I personally don't know what to think, but have a very deep sense of foreboding, like someone waiting for the other shoe to drop like a ton of bricks. My wife, on the other hand, is like your father. She fully intends to stay in 3T as for long as possible, and tells me that I should do likewise. Even so, there's no question in my mind, either, that we are either in very late 3T or very early 4T. If we are still in the former, the latter will not be very long in coming.