I thought Missouri was typical Middle America, like the suburb of Parramatta in Sydney is to Australia.On 2002-07-26 11:23, madscientist wrote:
Us Missourians lived under Ashcroft for much of the 1990s. We subsequently voted for a "dead guy" over him in the 2000 senate elections.
We obviously have extremely divergent opinions of what America is.
It is. Missouri is also a 'purple' state, where local interests fuse Red and Blue tendencies. Low-income labor in Missouri, for example, tends to agree with the Democrats on economic issues, and the GOP on social ones.On 2002-07-26 18:16, Tristan Jones wrote:
I thought Missouri was typical Middle America, like the suburb of Parramatta in Sydney is to Australia.On 2002-07-26 11:23, madscientist wrote:
Us Missourians lived under Ashcroft for much of the 1990s. We subsequently voted for a "dead guy" over him in the 2000 senate elections.
We obviously have extremely divergent opinions of what America is.
The Ashcroft/Carnahan vote was razor close. Carnahan died before the actual election, and his wife got a large sympathy vote. Even so, there's a good chance that absent the shenanigans in St. Louis on Election Day, Ashcroft would have won.
One theory is that Ashcroft got the A-G slot in part as repayment for not opting to contest the Missouri election. The election was that close.
I wonder at the fury of Mr. Rush Limbaugh on the matter of the Trapped miners...he did not think well of the New England Patriots winning the Super Bowl as a team. Now, the unfortunate miners survived as they worked in a not very individualistic and freedom loving manner, but in a community for survival; a 4T event if it is celebrated; more 3T if they are condemned as disobeying "every man for himself".
"Their condition is remarkable given the situation they were in," Dumire said.
The miners spent their 77-hour ordeal standing, immersed in more than 3 feet of water at times, struggling to keep warm.
"When one would get cold the other eight would huddle around the person and warm that person, and when another person got cold the favor was returned," Dumire said Sunday morning.
The men also huddled around a pipe funneling down warm air, which Dumire said probably saved their lives.
The miners, who suffered minor hypothermia, "decided early on they were either going to live or die as a group," he said.
from the 28 July 2002 number of the Washington Post Trapped Miners Pulled from PA Shaft by Mr. Larry Neumeister.
We are still solidly in the 3T. Check one of the top news sites, http://www.drudgereport.com for the sort of topics the great majority is looking at.
The administration tries to make 4T noises from time to time, but they just don't resonate with anyone who isn't a war lover or GOP loyalist.
IMO, we have another economic recovery ahead, probably based on the widespread move to broadband. I think the 4T will come after it late in the decade. I think the health care system will melt down before 2010 and pose the boomers with the sort of true crisis problem needed for a 4T. As the excitement fades after the next market run-up sometime around 2005-2008, the boomers will realize that the x'ers really won't be able to pay for the boomers old age expenses. That will be a fourth turning.
The next major war is still too far away to call. It may be between Islam and the west, but not with the current players. A new Hitler may arise in the ruins of Baghdad if we actually invade, (and give up on nation building after a few screwed up ruinous years) but such a leader is more likely to arise in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
At approximately 8:50 PM Pacific time on Saturday, KTVU Channel 2, the Fox affiliate based in Oakland, interrupted its regularly scheduled program ("Cops") for a special report.
I was watching this station at the time, and I was absolutely certain that another massive terrorist attack had just occurred. What was the target this time - the Empire State Building? Or maybe the Sears Tower in Chicago?
But no; the reason for the interruption was to report that the nine trapped miners in Pennsylvania were alive and in the process of being pulled upward to safety.
Don't know about the rest of you here - but I'm definitely in 4T!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-07-29 06:43 ]</font>
I'll warn you in advance that this is creepy as hell. This ain't the Weekly World News, it is the Sydney Morning Herald....
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...497418339.html
(For educ. and discussion purposes only)
Foundations are in place for martial law in the US
By Ritt Goldstein
July 27 2002
Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.
When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua he issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with broad powers in the event of a "crisis" such as "violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad". They were never used.
But with the looming possibility of a US invasion of Iraq, recent pronouncements by President George Bush's domestic security chief, Tom Ridge, and an official with the US Civil Rights Commission should fire concerns that these powers could be employed or a de facto drift into their deployment could occur.
On July 20 the Detroit Free Press ran a story entitled "Arabs in US could be held, official warns". The story referred to a member of the US Civil Rights Commission who foresaw the possibility of internment camps for Arab Americans. FEMA has practised for such an occasion.
FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is also responsible for handling US domestic unrest.
From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations.
Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal.
They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.
A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat "a national uprising by black militants". It provided for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes"' in "assembly centres or relocation camps".
Today Mr Brinkerhoff is with the highly influential Anser Institute for Homeland Security. Following a request by the Pentagon in January that the US military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the institute in February published a paper by Mr Brinkerhoff arguing the legality of this.
He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied.
The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on, under Mr Giuffrida, was "approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it".
By April, the US military had created a Northern Command to aid Homeland defence. Reuters reported that the command is "mainly expected to play a supporting role to local authorities".
However, Mr Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, has just advocated a review of US law regarding the use of the military for law enforcement duties.
Disturbingly, the full facts and final contents of Mr Reagan's national plan remain uncertain. This is in part because President Bush took the unusual step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers last November. However, many of the key figures of the Reagan era are part of the present administration, including John Poindexter, to whom Oliver North later reported.
At the time of the Reagan initiatives, the then attorney-general, William French Smith, wrote to the national security adviser, Robert McFarlane: "I believe that the role assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the revised Executive Order exceeds its proper function as a co- ordinating agency for emergency preparedness ... this department and others have repeatedly raised serious policy and legal objections to an 'emergency czar' role for FEMA."
Criticism of the Bush Administration's response to September11 echoes Mr Smith's warning. On June 7 the former presidential counsel John Dean spoke of America's sliding into a "constitutional dictatorship" and martial law.
Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in the movement for US law enforcement accountability. He revealed exclusively in the Herald last week the Bush Administration's plans for a domestic spying system more pervasive than the Stasi network in East Germany.
Here, the Toronto Sun says essentially the same thing as the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jul28.html
(For educ. and discussion purposes only)
July 28, 2002
Bush is becoming downright dangerous
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
NEW YORK -- Of all the bad ideas that have been pouring from the Bush administration - the faux war on terrorism, the Palestine mess, invading Iraq, curtailment of civil liberties, unilateralism, growing deficits, farm subsidies, steel tariffs - among the very worst is the dangerous proposal that U.S. military forces be given domestic police powers.
Bush administration officials, notably the chief of the newly created Northern Command, Gen. Ralph Eberhart, have been calling for the Pentagon to assume a much greater domestic role in the so-called war against terrorism. A role, apparently, that would give the military power to conduct investigations and surveillance, use troops to "maintain order and security" and arrest American citizens. Canadians might be next, since Canada has been involuntarily placed under the U.S. Northern Command.
This frightening plan comes on the heels of Bush's cutely named but sinister TIPs program, a network of citizen informers that recalls evil memories of ubiquitous Soviet and Chinese civilian informers, children denouncing parents, and East Germany, where a quarter of the adult population spied for the Stasi secret police.
In the magisterial Roman Republic, father of all our western democracies, consular armies were forbidden by law to enter the city. The Romans realized over 2,400 years ago that soldiers had to be strictly kept out of politics. The Roman Republic died during the 1st century BC civil wars after military leaders Marius, Sulla and, later, Caesar, brought their armies into politics.
America's Congress - which was patterned on the Roman Senate - clearly recalled this history when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which outlawed the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. Congress was intent on maintaining supremacy of civilian rule and protecting civil liberties. Properly restrained, the military was a useful tool; unrestrained, a dangerous and ruthless master.
Soldiers are trained to kill enemies, not to perform complex police duties that require professionalism, restraint and knowledge of the law. Long, painful experience around the world has repeatedly shown that once the military is brought in to "maintain order" or perform policing, it almost inevitably becomes corrupted, despotic and politicized.
One need only look at the doleful history of Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile and Venezuela to see that when soldiers take over internal security, they inevitably end up taking over the government as well. When soldiers are allowed to police, they suddenly realize their latent power and go from being second-class citizens to cocks of the walk. Law quickly gives way before raw power. Those who have served in the military - as this writer has - have a healthy fear of military justice and its drumhead implementation.
Interestingly, the Soviet communists were even more sensitive to this threat. Lenin repeatedly warned of "Bonapartism" and urged the party to keep control of internal security and police in the hands of civilians.
The Posse Comitatus Act was amended by the Reagan administration to allow use of the military in an earlier bogus "war" - the war on drugs.
In this case, the military was sent to identify and intercept drug smugglers outside America's borders. At the time, the idea seemed reasonable. But in retrospect, the inflow of drugs has barely been reduced while the military has ended up with a boot in the door of domestic law enforcement.
In 1997, Congress gave the military the power to co-operate with other government departments in countering biological or chemical attacks. This made sense because the military had an arsenal of biowarfare detection, neutralization gear, vaccines and the training to use them. But Congress expressly forbade the military from arresting civilians during biowarfare operations.
Now, some of the far-rightists who populate the darker corners of the Bush administration are using public fear and hysteria generated by incessant claims of imminent nuclear or biowarfare attack to press for what amounts to the beginning of national martial law. We hear calls for greater surveillance of phones and e-mail. Next will come calls for limits on speech and dissent. George Orwell laid out this whole grim process in his epochal novel, 1984. Anyone who wants a feel of what martial law would be like should see the gripping Burt Lancaster film about a Pentagon coup against the White House, Seven Days in May.
Fortunately, Congress, much of the top brass and even Pentagon super-hawk Donald Rumsfeld seem opposed to this daft idea. Good for them. Separation of the civil and military is even more basic and sacred an American concept than separation of church and state.
The voice Americans should be listening to is that of the closest thing the United States had to a noble Roman tribune - former president Dwight Eisenhower. As this great American and former general was leaving office, he warned his people that the gravest threat they faced was not from abroad but from their own military- industrial complex.
The U.S. has ample civilian law enforcement agencies to ensure domestic security - perhaps too many. Americans don't need soldiers to act as super-cops. Osama bin-Laden and the far right must not be allowed to stampede the U.S. into military policing.
Stonewall,
I thought you had something new, but Eric Margolis is just recycling the DNC line.
They used the internment camp idea in the 1992 campaign.
And the FEMA stuff runs both ways. Lots of folks on the other side were scared to death with the potential powers that Janet Reno would have in an emergency. Among the VRWC, the tinfoil hat brigade thought that Bill Clinton wanted a crisis, like 9-11, so he could declare martial law and suspend the 2000 elections.
To the extent that the powers of government should be limited, I agree with you, but not because of the Bush Administration, but because of a potential Eva Peron Hillary adminstration.
I have not heard the DNC reference these things. Can you think of a specific example?On 2002-07-29 06:14, monoghan wrote:
Stonewall,
I thought you had something new, but Eric Margolis is just recycling the DNC line.
I do not remember this. Do any Democrats here remember the Democrats talking about this in '92? In fact, I had never heard of any of this business until the past 2 or 3 years online. I never could take it seriously since it seems so "Twilight Zone" so I am quite suprised to see major foreign papers actually talking about it. I tend to believe that this sort of information is as new to most Americans as it is to me. Therefore I find it difficult to believe that the DNC talked about it in '92 as you assert. Again, could you provide specific examples?They used the internment camp idea in the 1992 campaign.
It still adds up to the same thing. Why attach the disclaimer and grant some special dispensation to the name Bush? If it is created now, it will be abused later. Surely the Bush administration is not so stupid that they do not foresee the same problems that you do. So why grant them such deference and respect when they obviously do not care enough about you not to set up such a horrid structure so liable to abuse you and other Americans further down the road? There is something masochistic about this Bush support.To the extent that the powers of government should be limited, I agree with you, but not because of the Bush Administration, but because of a potential Eva Peron Hillary adminstration.
Your last point does trouble me. But the people who wield power do matter. Maybe its the romantic in me that believes a benevolent despot is the best form of government. Problem is....benevolent ones are so darn hard to find. I do like to vote against incumbents because it takes the new ones a while to figure out how to loot the system.
As for DNC, that was just a shorthand reference to the leftwingnuts. Eric Margolis is a partisan anti Republican, just as partisan as Adam Clymer. His counterpart on the right would be a G.Gordon Liddy, perhaps. Followed by the faithful but distrusted by many.
As to the internment camps, I have a specific recollection of reading one of the 1992 election post mortems where a Californian (Eric Meece?) expressed his relief at the election of Clinton. He had been scared that the Republicans were about to begin rounding up people. (I cannot recall if this was a gay activist, and I don't think he was identified as such).
The reason that stuck with me is that I had no idea of the extent of fear that old 41 inspired. In 1992, he might have seemed preoccupied (looking at his watch in the debate) or too old (the supermarket scanner thingy), but never malevolent.
Well, Stonewall,now I have probably gone and given you something else to worry about....about how W is trying to finish off his father's work on another issue.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: monoghan on 2002-07-29 07:40 ]</font>
I don't recall anything in 1992 about internment camps or the like. But then I have seen nothing today either about internment camps if you exclude the internet (which wasn't around in '92).
I don't think it is valid to compare internet-derived information with information in the pre-internet era.
Well, apparently it is no longer solely "internet-derived." I am sure you can order print copies of the Sydney Morning Herald and Toronto Sun if you so desire.On 2002-07-29 08:10, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
I don't recall anything in 1992 about internment camps or the like. But then I have seen nothing today either about internment camps if you exclude the internet (which wasn't around in '92).
I don't think it is valid to compare internet-derived information with information in the pre-internet era.
I don't recall anybody on the Left or Right expressing fear of 41 back in '92. Dislike, yes, but fear? He lost the election because he broke his tax pledge and forfeited a chunk of the conservative base. No one feared him, they just could not stand him.On 2002-07-29 07:34, monoghan wrote:
The reason that stuck with me is that I had no idea of the extent of fear that old 41 inspired. In 1992, he might have seemed preoccupied (looking at his watch in the debate) or too old (the supermarket scanner thingy), but never malevolent.
Huh? I don't have a thing in the world to worry about. Kool-Aid drinkers insist every day that George W. Bush is a just and moral man such that all this business is nonsense and the rights of American citizens are in fact secure. Surely the Kool-Aid drinkers are telling the truth. We are told that only Democrats lie.Well, Stonewall,now I have probably gone and given you something else to worry about....
In rereading the prediction section in Generations, a few thoughts occur to me. Mainly about the Boomer section (since that is the part I just reread).
The idea is that the Boomers would have started to fit the same pattern as the Missionaries before them, some time in the mid-90s. There is some evidence of this, but no where near the scope of what S&H suggest.
Is this then, part of why 9/11 feels like the catalyst? Pre 9/11 we had a ridiculous election that was more about who people didn't want in the white house, rather than who people did want in the white house. Then 9/11 hits, and people do a 180 degree turn for a while. People love the prez, mom and apple pie.
This is not a comment one way or the other about W. This is a question about where we are turning wise.
Could the 4T feel after 9/ll come mainly from the quick kick in the pants it gave Boomers? After that day, it seems the idealist agenda has picked up some. The decisive nature of swift military deployment and curtailing of some civil liberties suggest this (they are in line with the prediction). Elections this fall will show more on this. Where a president may be elected on principle, senators and governors are elected by 'who brings home the bacon'.
If Boomers vote with their wallets in this one, we can probably say we are still in the 3T.
You misunderstood my point. Yes we can order print copies today. We could have ten years ago too. But I don't order them today nor did I back then. And I'll bet you didn't either. So we don't know what was being printed in foreign newspapers back in 1992, but we do know what is being printed today (thanks to the net).On 2002-07-29 09:51, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Well, apparently it is no longer solely "internet-derived." I am sure you can order print copies of the Sydney Morning Herald and Toronto Sun if you so desire.On 2002-07-29 08:10, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
I don't recall anything in 1992 about internment camps or the like. But then I have seen nothing today either about internment camps if you exclude the internet (which wasn't around in '92).
I don't think it is valid to compare internet-derived information with information in the pre-internet era.
It is hard to put in perspective information obtained from sources that weren't avaialbe to us in the past. Are these opinion pieces a real departure from past foreign opnion on hawkish presidents?
For all I know, articles like this could have been run in the 1980's too. Reagan after all was very unpopular overseas.
Now someone in the business (like angeli) could give us insight into the level of concern (if any) that should be attached to these articles. since she probably has the necessary perspective to make a judgement. Or we could research it ourselves.
I could contribute some replies to this post if I had some more information:On 2002-07-29 11:02, Albus Dumbledore wrote:
In rereading the prediction section in Generations, a few thoughts occur to me. Mainly about the Boomer section (since that is the part I just reread).
The idea is that the Boomers would have started to fit the same pattern as the Missionaries before them, some time in the mid-90s. There is some evidence of this, but no where near the scope of what S&H suggest.
Is this then, part of why 9/11 feels like the catalyst? Pre 9/11 we had a ridiculous election that was more about who people didn't want in the white house, rather than who people did want in the white house. Then 9/11 hits, and people do a 180 degree turn for a while. People love the prez, mom and apple pie.
This is not a comment one way or the other about W. This is a question about where we are turning wise.
Could the 4T feel after 9/ll come mainly from the quick kick in the pants it gave Boomers? After that day, it seems the idealist agenda has picked up some. The decisive nature of swift military deployment and curtailing of some civil liberties suggest this (they are in line with the prediction). Elections this fall will show more on this. Where a president may be elected on principle, senators and governors are elected by 'who brings home the bacon'.
If Boomers vote with their wallets in this one, we can probably say we are still in the 3T.
You know how in Generations' Appendix B it lists American Political Leadership by Generation up to 1989? Where can I find this info from 1991-2001?
I heard about internment camps at least 5 years ago if not more ( but, not more than 8 ). The issue was that CLINTON had signed Executive orders calling Christian Fundamentalists potential terrorists. Being they held to "unusual beliefs" ie: The bodily return of Jesus, no allegiance to an earthly authority. The markings of these so called terrorists were: They believed in the Bible, homeschooled their children, and attended church. This came about after Waco, TX. And the raid on Randy Weaver. The thought behind these people being terrorist was, 1. Belief in the Bible: these people are 'dangerous' when they can believe a long dead man could return from the dead. 2. Home School: They are a "threat" because they can "indoctrinate" their children in any belief system. and 3.Church attendance: A from of self induced brain washing.
More info may be available on http://www.Khouse.org I am not sure, you'll have to do a search.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-29 16:14 ]</font>
The internment camp idea was apparently a mid-80s anti-gay initiative in California.
See http://www.angleonline.org
ANGLE then formed in 89-90 and worked for the election of Clinton, among others. The fact that they still reference the internment issue probably means that it was a fear of theirs at that time.
I really don't recall California having an election issue on interning HIV positive folks in 1985, but there it is.
Here is more detail on it. It apparently was reported by the Miami Herald in 1987 and an attempt was even made to discuss it during the Iran-Contra hearings, but Senator Inouye promptly cut off all talk of it. I'll excerpt the relevant portion of the column:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer24.html
(Excerpted. Follow link for whole article)
It requires no great genius or years of scholarly study to understand how the future is implicit in the present. In July, 1987, the Miami Herald, along with some other newspapers, ran news stories about secret plans, in the Reagan White House, to suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, turn over the functioning of the US government to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and have military commanders running state and local governments, in the event of a national crisis. One of the architects of this plan was the conservative godling, Lt. Col. Oliver North. There were even rumors, in some circles, that government concentration camps were being readied for such a possibility.
While news of such a plan failed to arouse the attention of most legislators, there was one ? Congressman Jack Brooks of Texas ? who, during the Iran-Contra hearings then being conducted, sought to question North about such reports. Brooks was quickly cut off by the Committee chairman, Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye. In the New York Times report of July 14, 1987, Inouye told Brooks: "that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area," to which Brooks responded: "I read in Miami papers and several others that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency [NSC], a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American Constitution." Inouye concluded: "May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon, at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I?m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session." In other words, Sen. Inouye was determined to live up to the pronunciation of his name: "in no way" are we going to let the public know what we have planned for them!
On 2002-07-29 13:18, justmom wrote:
I heard about internment camps at least 5 years ago if not more ( but, not more than. The issue was that CLINTON had signed Executive orders calling Christian Fundamentalists potential terrorists. Being they held to "unusual beliefs" ie: The bodily return of Jesus, no allegiance to an earthly authority. The markings of these so called terrorists were: They believed in the Bible, homeschooled their children, and attended church. This came about after Waco, TX. And the raid on Randy Weaver. The thought behind these people being terrorist was, 1. Belief in the Bible: these people are 'dangerous' when they can believe a long dead man could return from the dead. 2. Home School: They are a "threat" because they can "indoctrinate" their children in any belief system. and 3.Church attendance: A from of self induced brain washing.
More info may be available on http://www.Khouse.org I am not sure, you'll have to do a search.
Justmom, it sounds like you are talking about Project Meggido. I have not heard any report that the Bush administration has ended this (or any other gross violation of the Clinton years, for that matter). Have you heard anything on the status of Project Meggido? Is it still up and running under the auspices of alleged Christians George W. Bush and John Ashcroft?
Next thing you know we will find out that they have plans for a "shadow government".
Um... yeah, we probably will find that out... :-On 2002-07-29 14:33, monoghan wrote:
Next thing you know we will find out that they have plans for a "shadow government".
..just got up from an afternoon nap...
No I have not heard that Bush stopped any former executive orders. Try Khouse . The guy who runs it is strongly Christian and sounded the alarm on the Y2K bug in about 1997. You may skoff now, but, it was primarily because of him that so much stuff got fixed. Not only that but, he's got contacts with Army, Marines, and govt. higher ups ( now retired) He's born out correct enough that he demands attention.
What I find fastinating about Bush, is he's not used the line item veto. I thought sure he'd use it in CFR or others. But, he hasn't.
Line Item Veto, was touted as a great thing. It seems that it's not been mentioned in years, and forgotten to exist.
Something interesting to note however; The Internment camps seem to be heard about by specific groups of people. Arabs, Militant Blacks, California Gays, Christian Fundamentalists. All groups mantaining a VERY strong position one way or the other. The people in the middle somewhere neither know or care. And the groups seem to be blaming their governmental enemies.
"Respect and make use of the past -- for history is the great teacher. The world is full of market and social forecasters. But few have a definable method, and even fewer have road-tested their method -- as LifeCourse has -- on five centuries of past events. For those who have the key, the past can be a treasure chest of parallel lifecycles and instructive scenarios. To comprehend today's "Gen X," for instance, reacquaint yourself with the original gin-fizz "Lost Generation" -- and to dig deeper into the Roaring 1990s, -- take another look back at the 1920s or 1850s. History's echoes deserve attention not just because they bring us closer to our past, but because so much can be learned from them. "
Although S&H have repeatedly SAID that they believe in a saeculum about 80 or 88 years long, this quote seems to suggest that they now prefer a saeculum as short as *SEVENTY* years
"Respect and make use of the past -- for history is the great teacher. The world is full of market and social forecasters. But few have a definable method, and even fewer have road-tested their method -- as LifeCourse has -- on five centuries of past events. For those who have the key, the past can be a treasure chest of parallel lifecycles and instructive scenarios. To comprehend today's "Gen X," for instance, reacquaint yourself with the original gin-fizz "Lost Generation" -- and to dig deeper into the Roaring 1990s, -- take another look back at the 1920s or 1850s. History's echoes deserve attention not just because they bring us closer to our past, but because so much can be learned from them. "
Although S&H have repeatedly SAID that they believe in a saeculum about 80 or 88 years long, this quote seems to suggest that they now prefer a saeculum as short as *SEVENTY* years
