On 2002-07-03 15:35, Neisha '67 wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out what specifically you mean by "left" and "right" as those words have become fairly imprecise. Going back to the 1920s and into the 1930s and 1940s, I don't really see a shift from "left" to "right" during that period of time. What I see is a shift from lots of self-indulgent behavior and a weak, unintrusive federal government to a more serious-minded culture and a strong, activist, and much larger federal government. If you want to use the terms "left" and "right," many would say that, in terms of economic policy at the very least, we shifted from "right" (laissez faire) to "left" (pump-priming, quasi-socialist). So . . .

Neisha, the 1920s were hardly laissez-faire yet this term has somehow stuck through all the years. The 1920s were just as dominated as the 1930s by ideas about central planning. The 1920s were in fact corporatist and saw a profound increase in the size and scope of the federal government. Herbert Hoover was about the biggest bureaucrat in American history and his ideal was the "associative state" which incorporated fascist planning. Of course fascism was not yet a bad word and was then the "great hope" for the future, being the "Middle Way" between capitalism and socialism. After the catalyst, we merely shifted from rightist planning to leftist planning. Freedom and laissez-faire played no part under either regime because both were committed to top-down control, albeit by different means.

Ah, thanks for the correction! If that's the case, then maybe this early 4T will look more like the last one than I thought.

On 2002-07-03 17:40, Neisha '67 wrote:

Ah, thanks for the correction! If that's the case, then maybe this early 4T will look more like the last one than I thought.

That's the funny thing. The Republican Party of today virtually mirrors the Republican Party of the 1920s in its corporatism. It has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or freedom or laissez-faire. It has everything to do with control from the top. But I don't see the Democrats countering it with a new New Deal so, although today's Republican Party is almost identical to that of the 1920s, I do not see this 4T as matching the last one. I see a closer match with either the Glorious Revolution or the American Revolution. It is hoped that there will be little violence domestically in which case I go with the Glorious 4T for the match.

On 2002-05-13 22:43, mmailliw wrote:

yeah... one wonders how those millies will ultimately turn out - will they follow in the footsteps of
A) late Xrs like yourself
B) conventional S&H Millies like Robert Reed '82
C) "unconventional Millies" such as Jesse Manoogian or myself or
D) no one at all from the late 70s or early 80s; making a completely different identity for themselves instead?

Only time will tell...

When the person you list as a "conventional" S&H Millie is a self-described eccentric who views himself as eccentric all his life and felt tortured because he had problems fitting in, and all that for what's supposed to be a "conventional" generational archetype, there's something strange smelling in the air.

On 2002-06-08 20:12, Earthshine wrote:

I think something HAS changed, and I am surprised that someone with your intuition to "things mystical" hasn't picked it up.
Call it the collective unconcious, or call it whatever you will, but peoples attitudes are different. People make up the generations and the generations make history, just as history makes the generations. If you don't agree with that, then why keep reading S&H?

So where's the big mood change? I don't smell any big change in the air. The air looks the same color and temperature. It's the same ERA, even, and people are talking of "these times" as if it was. "I know we live in a time where people don't trust the government...", with 911 being an event happening within this time frame and interpreted as a part of the Reagan/Clinton/grunge/young-Gen-X/Madonna era. People ACT the same (and that's the word "act" emphasized, not the SAT alternative, just thought I'd clarify), watching "Survivor" gives people the same sensations it did before (not a different reaction to the same activity). The mix of beliefs are the same, with the words with which people express beliefs denoting the same beliefs as before. Of course I agree that people make up the generations and generations make history, which will shape more generational members, but nothing has changed the turning, made a change in each generation. Nothing has changed in the way I live my life or the atmosphere in which I live it. I never live in fear of being ostracized for expressing anti-government views because I wouldn't be treated that way as a result of the people around me before the attack, and none of the people around me have changed their views on the issue after the attack. But then again, I'm just a college student from Southern California locked up in a dorm. What should I know about the world?

On 2002-07-03 17:54, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

So where's the big mood change? I don't smell any big change in the air. The air looks the same color and temperature. It's the same ERA, even, and people are talking of "these times" as if it was. "I know we live in a time where people don't trust the government...", with 911 being an event happening within this time frame and interpreted as a part of the Reagan/Clinton/grunge/young-Gen-X/Madonna era. People ACT the same (and that's the word "act" emphasized, not the SAT alternative, just thought I'd clarify), watching "Survivor" gives people the same sensations it did before (not a different reaction to the same activity). The mix of beliefs are the same, with the words with which people express beliefs denoting the same beliefs as before. Of course I agree that people make up the generations and generations make history, which will shape more generational members, but nothing has changed the turning, made a change in each generation. Nothing has changed in the way I live my life or the atmosphere in which I live it. I never live in fear of being ostracized for expressing anti-government views because I wouldn't be treated that way as a result of the people around me before the attack, and none of the people around me have changed their views on the issue after the attack. But then again, I'm just a college student from Southern California locked up in a dorm. What should I know about the world?

Woah, easy there Jesse

First of all, nice to meet you. The quote you took was a *slight* misunderstanding I had with Eric, and that has since been resolved.

Since then, I too have revised my thinking a little bit, not completely, but a bit. I think 9/11 was not THE catalyst, but perhaps ONE of them. I think similar to the last 1T there will be some subtle changes that take place, and the new crisis might just sneak up on us in steps. Only with hindsight will we really know, so until then at least we have lots to post about.

I have never lived in the dorms, nor in Cali, so I don't know what you know, but I assume you have a clue or two or you wouldn't have read S&H. I look forward to discussing your views with you as I do with everyone else here, even when we don't agree.

It is interesting though that you are from Cali, because I have friends there. One is a guy who moved to LA to "get signed and live the life of a rock star" years ago. He's now working as a bouncer. The interesting thing he said to me is that people in Cali didn't act any different and didn't feel affected by what happened here on the east coast much. He compared it to when we hear about an earthquake out there that is big and kills a lot of people...we have sympathy, but not empathy. We feel bad for you, but not WITH you. Not because we won't but maybe because we can't.

Then again, he says there is a different mindset in the LA area anyway. I won't go into the details of his philosophy about why...

The issue of empathy is why I don't think 9/11 in itself will do the trick completely into the 4T. The whole country will need to be in alignment to get into the full swing of the 4T. I think the turn has begun though. God help us is something worse than that has to happen though.

Peace


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-04 00:18 ]</font>

I don't see the Democrats countering it with a new New Deal so, although today's
Republican Party is almost identical to that of the 1920s, I do not see this 4T as matching the last one.

True, however, the Democratic Party was not offering a New Deal in the 1920s, or even until March 1933. Those of us who believe we are cyclically-speaking in circa 1923 and not 1930, would compare today's Democrats as well as today's Republicans to those of 1923.

The coming 4T will not match any 4T before it; each is quite different. The ideals for transformation will come primarily, however, from the 1960s and 70s, not from the 1770s.

Apologies to those who think astrology is bunk. Those who want to read on anyway--

We can look at possible similarities to past 4Ts by looking at repeating planetary cycles as well as generational patterns. These both suggest that the next 4T will have some similarities to the Civil War 4T (circa 1850-68), because the saeculum has a double rhythm. Thus, for example, transcendentals were more like boomers than missionaries. There will also be a return of Neptune to the same place it was in 1861, as well as Uranus to its place then (the return of Uranus happens every 4T). This return of Neptune also happened in the Glorious Revolution. Many including myself have suggested that this indicates a greater emphasis on internal American conflicts than on foreign ones.

On the other hand, Pluto also makes its first return to its position of 1776. This suggests an aspect of another American Revolution happening.

It takes 500 years for all three planets to return to the same place. That would suggest the Wars of the Roses. It also suggests that we are not only entering a new saeculum, but a new 500-year era or cycle of civilization, which will be as different from the renaissance/modern era, as the modern era was from the Medieval era; and in fact that we have already entered this new era.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-04 00:22 ]</font>

better an American Empire over any of the other contenders. (Particularly, as you've noted elsewhere, for the protection of individual rights that such an empire would maintain.)

How turning over our rights and powers to corporations is "protecting individual rights" eludes me. I think Kevin Phillips was pretty clear that this growing aristocracy is a threat to our liberties and democracy. To acquiese in it is a shocking cave-in to the forces of corruption and evil.

What is that quote that Stonewall posts? Hmmmmmm.

How justmom and monoghan can be taken in by ideas that forest fires were caused by environmentalists is amazing. It should be clear by now to them that they were caused by global warming-caused droughts, by tree-farming practices that reduce the diversity of forests, by development in wilderness areas, and by greedy and careless people who start fires.

How justmom and monoghan can be taken in by ideas that forest fires were caused by environmentalists is amazing. It should be clear by now to them that they were caused by global warming-caused droughts, by tree-farming practices that reduce the diversity of forests, by development in wilderness areas, and by greedy and careless people who start fires.

Yeah and "officials" as well. There was the big one last year started by someone who was trying to keep back the brush and ended up messing it up and torching half a state. Then there is the woman this year who allegedly burned her husbands letter because she didn't like him anymore, and torched even more. This last could be a frame up though. Someone needed to take the fall for that one.

Either way, I think we can rule out "Lightning strikes" as the cause of most of this years destruction, and this has been a BAD year.

Regarding my post above about this being the cyclic return of the Wars of the Roses...

The Red Rose, and the White, circa 1460.

The Red Zone, and the Blue, circa 2000....

On 2002-07-04 00:54, Eric A Meece wrote:
Regarding my post above about this being the cyclic return of the Wars of the Roses...

The Red Rose, and the White, circa 1460.

The Red Zone, and the Blue, circa 2000....

And while America is tearing itself apart in a bloody civil war, our ever lengthening list of sworn implacable enemies could join together to intervene militarily on the Blue Zone side, defeat the Red Zone, thus conquering *ALL* of us, and then punish us *ALL* as we *ALL* no doubt deserve, for our accumulated burden of collective, hereditary guilts and crimes. What a cheerful future to look forward to!

It is interesting though that you are from Cali, because I have friends there. One is a guy who moved to LA to "get signed and live the life of a rock star" years ago. He's now working as a bouncer. The interesting thing he said to me is that people in Cali didn't act any different and didn't feel affected by what happened here on the east coast much. He compared it to when we hear about an earthquake out there that is big and kills a lot of people...we have sympathy, but not empathy. We feel bad for you, but not WITH you. Not because we won't but maybe because we can't. >>>>>

I live in So. CA. I can't speak for the man on the street in LA, they are almost all stoned out of their minds anyhow.

This isn't true. Without question every person in my circle of friends/family/infulence was completely devastated by 911.

On 2002-07-04 11:20, justmom wrote:
It is interesting though that you are from Cali, because I have friends there. One is a guy who moved to LA to "get signed and live the life of a rock star" years ago. He's now working as a bouncer. The interesting thing he said to me is that people in Cali didn't act any different and didn't feel affected by what happened here on the east coast much. He compared it to when we hear about an earthquake out there that is big and kills a lot of people...we have sympathy, but not empathy. We feel bad for you, but not WITH you. Not because we won't but maybe because we can't. >>>>>

I live in So. CA. I can't speak for the man on the street in LA, they are almost all stoned out of their minds anyhow.

This isn't true. Without question every person in my circle of friends/family/infulence was completely devastated by 911.

I live in the Midwest.

Here, we did empathize with New York, but there is an interesting thing I've noticed:

The American media keep saying that Americans are on edge, that we're scared and hiding it, you hear talk of sleeplessness, depression, etc...

I think that's mainly confined to the Northeast from what I can tell, if it's even true there. Most Americans are barey paying any attention to the War on Terror except intellectually. Certainly we're not living in shivering fear!

Oddly enough, the American news coverage in the British newsmag The Economist gets America's national mood closer to accurate than the American media do.

>>>>> then punish us *ALL* as we *ALL* no doubt deserve, for our accumulated burden of collective, hereditary guilts and crimes.

What punishment do you deserve for your hereditary crimes?

(laugh)

>>>>The American media keep saying that Americans are on edge, that we're scared and hiding it, you hear talk of sleeplessness, depression, etc...

There is precious few media sources I feel speak for me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56608,00.html

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56582,00.html

For the REAL source of the fires.
However if you are going to quibble about who I think is responsible for the fires, you have missed my point entirely.

I wasn't talking about forests at all.
I was talking about policy.

On 2002-07-04 07:28, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-07-04 00:54, Eric A Meece wrote:
Regarding my post above about this being the cyclic return of the Wars of the Roses...

The Red Rose, and the White, circa 1460.

The Red Zone, and the Blue, circa 2000....

And while America is tearing itself apart in a bloody civil war, our ever lengthening list of sworn implacable enemies could join together to intervene militarily on the Blue Zone side, defeat the Red Zone, thus conquering *ALL* of us, and then punish us *ALL* as we *ALL* no doubt deserve, for our accumulated burden of collective, hereditary guilts and crimes. What a cheerful future to look forward to!

What lenghtening list of implacable enemies do you speak of? Not the Arabs certainly. Under such a scenario the followers of OBL, in all their Islamic zeal, would line up squarely behind the holier-than-thou Bible-thumping Red Zoners and help them defeat the evil sinful Blue Zone. They would then turn on their Red Zone hosts, in a world-ripping effort to convert them to followers of Mohammed.

are we having fun yet?

Eric is quite right that the saeculum-nor history in general, for that matter-repeats itself exactly. Perhaps there will be parallels to several different Crisis eras. In a recent post it was pointed out that the last Crisis era featured an environmental debacle, the dust bowl. The Potato Famine was a crucial resource shortage. The Glorious Revolution in America featured both rebellion and raids by the French and Indians (oddly enough providing a preview of both the American Revolution and the French and Indian War). The historical pattern of terrorism suggests that it will be part of our Crisis era; these would be our raiding French and Indians, though their Middle Eastern origin has a parallel in the Barbary Pirates. As for the War of the Roses, that was a civil war over who was to rule rather than one of secession-concievably there could be a parallel in a conflict over which values are to prevail.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-07-04 12:49 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-07-04 13:06 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-07-04 15:14 ]</font>

3T or 4T? God bless America and God bless women!


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...340974,00.html

(For info and discussion)


June 29, 2002

Snap-off bra is a magnet for men

From Charles Bremner in Paris


AFTER eight decades of fumbling with hooks on
brassieres, French women are being offered a technical breakthrough ? a soutien-gorge that fastens with magnets and undoes with a twist.

The gesture is so easy that it should transform the lives of the 80 per cent of women who put their bras on back to front and then pull them around, the makers say.

The makers, Bolero, also see advantages for the Gallic male: no more struggling with le crochet r?calcitrant. ?Men have always found the fastening system to be barbaric,? a spokeswoman said.

Georges Chetochine, a behavioural consultant who advised Bolero, said that Frenchmen felt a loss of virility if they stumbled while performing l?art du decrochage. ?Our study showed that the bra fastener posed a problem. It takes time,? he said. ?The man gets annoyed and embarrassed. Then the women gets irritated too, so she takes it off herself. The man is no longer the conquering male.?

The small magnets, which form a flat gold rectangle, have been tested to ensure that they posed no threat to health or mobile telephones.

The flimsy black construction, which will cost about ?35 when it reaches the shops in the autumn, elicited mixed reactions from men and women when road-tested in the Place de l?Op?ra, near The Times?s office. ?This is wonderful for women. It?s incredibly easy compared to hooks and I?m going to start putting my bra on the right way round,? Sophie, 27, a secretary, said.

But 22-year-old Fr?d?rique said she feared that magnets would take away the charm for men. ?There will no longer be the desire that comes with patience. The gift wrapping is too easily undone.?

Sandrine, a sales assistant, said: ?Sometimes it?s fun to see a man panic over a bra.?

On 2002-07-04 14:29, Stonewall Patton wrote:




The makers, Bolero, also see advantages for the Gallic male: no more struggling with le crochet r?calcitrant. ?Men have always found the fastening system to be barbaric,? a spokeswoman said.

Georges Chetochine, a behavioural consultant who advised Bolero, said that Frenchmen felt a loss of virility if they stumbled while performing l?art du decrochage. ?Our study showed that the bra fastener posed a problem. It takes time,? he said. ?The man gets annoyed and embarrassed. Then the women gets irritated too, so she takes it off herself. The man is no longer the conquering male.?

"conquering male"; these are the FRENCH, surrender is our business- right?

On 2002-07-04 11:37, justmom wrote:
>>>>> then punish us *ALL* as we *ALL* no doubt deserve, for our accumulated burden of collective, hereditary guilts and crimes.

What punishment do you deserve for your hereditary crimes?

I was reacting to the years of being preached at by people like Eric Meece and Brian Rush about the accumulated collective, hereditary guilt that all Anglo-Americans allegedly bear, which supposedly cries out for revenge from an outraged humanity, until I can recite the ^$*@!&@ sermons in my sleep!

jds, the irony of your comment is that you are accusing me of the past crime of endlessly preaching about past crimes, whereas I was speaking of issues in the present day.

Maybe the whole world will pick red and blue sides. This is one world civilization after all. :wink:

Or maybe we'll toss out all this red and blue
BS and start thinking of ourselves as Americans first. Could that be the nature of this Crisis? If not, then perhaps the next 2T will see an ideals change that will toss out all this speculation of Liberal and Conservative for good.

That certainly would jive with the theory that each 2T would upset the prophets of the previous 2T. Nothing would frost the collective ass of the current "idealist" generation so much as see people with a blend of Conservative and Liberal ideologies. Sometimes it seems that Both Red and Blue would rather die first :lol:

The culture wars between the extremes has dominated the 3T. If the 4T tears down the current system and throws out the ideas that don't work, then I predict an end to all this political side taking some time during the next 20 years.

In retrospect that should NOT actually upset the early wave Boomer "flower children" because they wanted pace and harmony. The current system of taking a side and then fighting it out certainly doesn't reflect that.

On 2002-07-05 07:53, Earthshine wrote:
Or maybe we'll toss out all this red and blue
BS and start thinking of ourselves as Americans first. Could that be the nature of this Crisis? If not, then perhaps the next 2T will see an ideals change that will toss out all this speculation of Liberal and Conservative for good.

I would certainly hope that we will come to see ourselves as Americans first and foremost during this 4T, rather than as a mere afterthought. Our survival as a people may depend on it!

That certainly would jive with the theory that each 2T would upset the prophets of the previous 2T. Nothing would frost the collective ass of the current "idealist" generation so much as see people with a blend of Conservative and Liberal ideologies. Sometimes it seems that Both Red and Blue would rather die first :lol:

'This' Boomer *has* no problem with blending conservative and liberal ideas, as long as they are workable. As for the loony fringe fanatics of both sides, oh well.

The culture wars between the extremes has dominated the 3T. If the 4T tears down the current system and throws out the ideas that don't work, then I predict an end to all this political side taking some time during the next 20 years.

Let's hope so!

In retrospect that should NOT actually upset the early wave Boomer "flower children" because they wanted pace and harmony. The current system of taking a side and then fighting it out certainly doesn't reflect that.

No it doesn't! It reflects anything but!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-07-05 08:17 ]</font>

News from the pages of history....


Posted by: William Strauss
Date posted: Mon Sep 1 22:41:54 US/Pacific 1997
Subject: recent survey on Americans' visions of future
Message:
The Washington Post recently reported the results of a new survey on Americans' attitude toward their national civic institutions (which they still widely hold in contempt) and their view of the future (about which a majority remains pessimistic). Analysts were puzzled, in light of the bubbling economy. No one seemed to have any answers. They should have checked into our Discussions forum, because the answer is easy. We're still in a Third Turning.


<FONT SIZE="+2">Trust in Government Declines</FONT>
<FONT FACE="arial">Post-9/11 Jump in Americans' Confidence in Washington Is Fading </FONT>

By Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 31, 2002; Page A29

The post-Sept. 11 romance between the public and the federal government is fading fast, according to a survey released yesterday by the Brookings Institution's Center for Public Service.

While polls conducted in the weeks after Sept. 11 found that long-languishing trust in government had increased dramatically, a survey conducted this month suggests that confidence in government is headed back down.

Forty percent of Americans say they trust the federal government to do what's right at least most of the time. That's down 17 percentage points from a survey conducted for the center in October, but it is higher than the 29 percent recorded in July.

Government favorableness ratings followed the same pattern. The percentage of people viewing the government favorably rose from 50 percent last summer to 78 percent in the fall, only to drop 18 percentage points since then.

"The simple answer to why trust in government rose is the rally-round-the-flag effect: We love government more when government is threatened," said G. Calvin Mackenzie, a professor at Colby College and co-author of the center's report. "But that's like desert rain, it evaporates very quickly."


I love it when I'm right. :smile: