On 2002-08-02 06:56, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-08-01 22:36, Stonewall Patton wrote:


Then I take it that your Aussie troops will do the job. Surely you as an Australian are not demanding that American boys be brought back in bodybags in order to do your dirty work for you?

Mr. Jones might join this volunteer on the new Western Front. I do wonder what the foxhole with the two of them and Mr. Lamb would be like.

Presumably, there would be no sink in the foxhole to serve Mr. Clinton's needs. With libido raging, he might well drag an empty oil barrel down there and force Mr. Jones and Mr. Lamb, at gunpoint, to alternate days inside it in line with the old joke.

Tristan, think twice. It might be your day in the barrel when the troops march into Baghdad. You might miss out on all the glory.

On 2002-08-02 08:30, Marc Lamb wrote:

"This is the bad thing about power, we begin to think we are special, we begin to think that we are above the law, we become sadists, we become evil. This is one of the reasons that I like Geo Washington. Because he had the good sense to relinquish power." --"Democrat" Posy

How come you like Fra. Roosevelt?

On 2002-08-01 22:25, posy wrote:
Because he provided great leadership in a time of crisis.

Forgive me for questioning your sincerity on this matter, but the Democratic Party remains the party of Fra. Roosevelt. While I do not question the immense importance of this man's sudden appearance on the political stage, in 1933, at a very dark hour of our nation's history, I wonder how many Democrats have honestly examined the man's record after he violated Geo Washington's "good sense" dictum on the abuse of power.

And while I will not rehash those profound, and well documented abuses, I will say that the following Constituional Amendment--ratified soon after such abuses occured--speaks volumes about the wisdom of Geo. Washington, and a chorus of shame on the man who violated such wisdom:


AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more that two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more that once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

<FONT SIZE="+1"><center>* * * *</FONT></center>

"Democratic strategists think Bill has smiled on John Edwards's candidacy because he and Hillary want Mr. Edwards to lose to W. in 2004, thus diminishing him and clearing the way for a Hillary run in 2008." --Maureen Dowd (July 31, 2002)

"Interestingly, the most coherent and best received presentation of the New Democrat mantra came not from any prospective 2004 candidate but from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton... That was a common view in a crowd that seemed ready once more to follow the Clinton lead, if not in 2004, then in 2008." --Carl P. Leubsdorf (Friday, August 2, 2002)

Just an FYI:

Folks, please note my above post. It was post number 1777 (no significance intended). And it was by far the most important, and indeed frightening thing that I have ever written in these threads. I shall bookmark it, and I shall be re-posting it as a reminder to all of what is to come.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-08-02 09:30 ]</font>

Well, here is the latest from the human garbage in the White House (use a different term to convey that lowest rung of the human ladder, if you like). They are mad as hell that the American media recently reported what the foreign press has reported non-stop since 11 September 2001 (i.e., that the administration had prior warnings of an attack). Now they will attempt to intimidate and otherwise scare others into not even thinking about blowing their supremely fraudulent cover in the future. Excerpts from the article below:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nvestigation_5


FBI asks lawmakers to take lie detector test in Sept. 11 leak investigation
Fri Aug 2, 8:53 AM ET

By CHRISTOPHER NEWTON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The FBI (news - web sites) has asked members of the House and Senate intelligence committees to take lie-detector tests as part of an investigation into the leak of information related to the Sept. 11 attacks, a law enforcement official said.


[snip]


Investigators are trying to determine who leaked information to CNN about communications in Arabic that made vague references to an impending attack on the United States. The communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency on Sept. 10.

An intelligence source later told The Associated Press they contained the phrases, "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin."

The intercepts weren't translated until Sept. 12.

Their relevance is uncertain. Intelligence officials said it wasn't clear if the conversations referred to the Sept. 11 hijackings. Even if they did, they offered few clues about the nature of the attacks.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) has called the disclosure of the language "alarmingly specific."

"The selective, inappropriate leaking of snippets of information risks undermining national security, and it risks undermining the promises made to protect this sensitive information," he said.


[snip -- it also risks exposing the fraudulence in the White House.]


Concern about leaks has been a key reason the White House has opposed creating an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks, a panel sought by some lawmakers and victims' relatives.


[snip and end -- the executive branch unilaterally forbids any investigation into its fraudulence. My, how convenient.]


You know, if the fraudulence in the White House would simply tell the truth and properly assume the role of the servants they are supposed to be to We The [Sovereign] People, they would not get themselves into these messes nor get all bent out of shape with these scare tactics to intimidate. Rule #1: It is always best to tell the truth because, then, you do not have to keep track of your lies. 2004 would be a very good time for the American people to finally stop saying "whatever" and refuse to return this sort of arrogant, elitist, controlling human garbage to the White House under any party label (and again, substitute another term if there is a better one which objectively represents that lowest rung of the human ladder).

Here ya go, Tristan:


75,000 U. S. forces needed to protect a defeated Iraq from Iran

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, August 2, 2002

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...eaking_10.html


After "On to Baghdad," it's "On to Teheran." But then we are told that Iran rides the Axle of Elvis as well. No surprise here. After Teheran, "On to Pyongyang"?


_________________
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 2002-08-02 09:16 ]</font>

On 2002-08-02 09:15, Stonewall Patton wrote:
No surprise here. After Teheran, "On to Pyongyang"?

Would we go by sea, or since we already have 'taken' Kabul, would we follow the old Spice route and conquer (in order) Islamabad, New Delhi, Dhaka, Yangon, Vientiane, Hanoi, Beijing, then Pyongyang?

By Graham T. Allison
Wednesday, July 31, 2002; Page A19


As preparation for war against Iraq intensifies, the time has come to pause and consider the view from Baghdad. Conclusions from such an exercise are not comforting. But to strike without thinking seriously about what Saddam Hussein could do to us would be irresponsible.

Recent leaks of Pentagon plans reflect growing realism. Advocates' earlier claims about easy military options have given way to seriousness about a military campaign that could require 250,000 American troops. As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers stated pointedly: "You just can't overlay Afghanistan . . . onto Iraq, and I would never refer to it as a cakewalk."

Congressional leaders from both parties now call on the administration to explain to Americans how it proposes to end Hussein's regime, at what costs in American blood and treasure and at what risk. In this debate, the most difficult challenge will be to "red team" Hussein: to put ourselves in his shoes and consider his possible countermoves.

The Bush administration's chosen strategy has forfeited the advantage of strategic, or even tactical, surprise. Clearly he knows we're coming. Evidently, he is actively considering what he can do to defer, deter or even prevail in the coming confrontation. His toolbox includes diplomacy, distraction, deterrence and, ultimately, massive retaliation.

Hussein's opening diplomatic gambits have been deft: settling outstanding territorial disputes with Kuwait; winning Arab League support for the proposition that an attack on Iraq constitutes an attack on all Arab states; dangling lucrative contracts before Russia and France; spooking Saudi Arabia so thoroughly that U.S. planners are now developing a war plan without use of Saudi bases.

As the United States has sought to enlist essential support in the region, the array of roadblocks and distractions expands. The list includes more than a dozen attempted terrorist assaults since 9/11; a sharp increase in suicide bombings in the second Palestinian intifada; terrorist attacks that have pushed India and Pakistan to the nuclear brink; and the collapse of the government of Turkey's prime minister, Bulent Ecevit. Given Hussein's modus operandi, which has included an attempt to assassinate the first President George Bush in 1993 and payment of $25,000 awards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, we should expect him to continue fueling fires that could stand between the United States and war on Iraq.

Beyond diplomacy and distraction lies the murkier realm of deterrence, including a credible threat of massive retaliation. The most unrecognized, uncomfortable but brute fact is that today, Hussein already has weapons of mass destruction. The final report of U.N. inspectors in 1999 concluded that Iraq possesses significant stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. A recently circulated CIA analysis puts Iraq's anthrax supply at 2,650 gallons.

In the first Gulf War, Hussein's forces loaded chemical and biological warheads on Scud and other launchers capable of reaching U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel. In that war, the United States effectively deterred Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction by threatening unlimited retaliation that would destroy his regime.

But what about this time? The announced objective of the impending campaign is to eliminate Hussein and his regime. Having announced one's intention to destroy an enemy and everything he holds dear, how can one then deter him from a Samson moment?

As President Bush rightly noted: "A nightmare scenario would be if a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda were to link up with a barbaric regime such as Iraq and thereby, in essence, possess weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow that to happen." But the course of action Bush has chosen is in fact increasing Hussein's incentive to take just such an action.

Hussein has aircraft and missiles capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons against U.S. troops, bases and allies. Moreover, he has watched Osama bin Laden take a page out of a Tom Clancy thriller, using jumbo jets as guided missiles to assault America. In Clancy's "Executive Orders," an anti-American Arab nation slip canisters of biological weapons into the United States, where agents unleash these deadly bugs in crowded convention centers.

Imagine, God forbid, that as the United States builds up an invasion force in the Persian Gulf, Hussein sends a secret letter to President Bush informing him that he has placed biological weapons in New York, Washington and several other U.S. cities. Where would the confrontation go from there?

Before choosing war, the administration has an obligation to make the case that the proposed military campaign to topple Hussein really is the worst possible option -- except for all the others.

The writer is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He was an assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration.


? 2002 The Washington Post Company

National Kids Day: 3T or 4T.

Just the kind of a thing one would expect for Civics

http://www.kidsday.net/home.asp

STRATFOR:
Mobilizations Hint at Date and Strategy for Iraq War

Summary

As the debate over a potential U.S. attack on Iraq continues in
Washington and abroad, a subtle increase in the mobilization of
Army combat troops is underway. This development offers a hint to
the Pentagon's evolving Iraq strategy, with the specific units
involved indicating that a conventional attack on Iraq could be
slated for January or February, with a major thrust possibly
coming from Turkey.

Analysis

According to a July 31 news release by the U.S. Department of
Defense, the total number of National Guard and Reserve personnel
on active duty in support of the war on Al Qaeda declined over
the previous week by 834 people to 79,780 troops. This represents
the fifth consecutive week of declines in mobilized guard and
reserve troops, with the total mobilized now down to levels not
seen since mid-March.

However, while reductions continue in the number of mobilized Air
National Guard and Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard
Reserve forces, call-ups of Army National Guard and Reserve
troops continue to rise. Total mobilized Army forces surpassed
those of the Air Force in the week preceding July 24, the first
time this has happened since call-ups began Sept. 20, 2001.

In addition to the shift away from air and naval assets to ground
forces, the types of ground forces being mobilized are changing
as well. Beginning last September, the Army call-ups concentrated
on units such as military police, chemical and biological
warfare, medical, mortuary affairs, intelligence and civil
affairs.

Mobilization of these units was reactive and primarily defensive
in preparation for any potential follow-on attacks by al Qaeda
after Sept. 11. Later call-ups included units responsible for
logistics and training, some infantry for guarding airports and
federal facilities and Special Forces for dealing with
contingencies in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Now the mobilization appears to be shifting to include more
infantry, armor, artillery, engineer and combat medical units.
Moreover, the Army is mobilizing full companies, battalions, and
brigades, rather than just individual augmentees or skeleton
crews. Major units from the 28th, 35th and 40th Mechanized
Infantry divisions, 29th Light Infantry Division and 49th Armored
Division have been mobilized.

Some of these are tasked to other missions. For example, the 28th
mechanized is slated to deploy to Bosnia for six months beginning
in October. But others could be employed in action against Iraq.

Elements of the 35th mechanized are scheduled to deploy to Europe
to provide security and force protection to troops based there.
Soldiers of the V Corps' 1st Infantry and 1st armored divisions,
based in Europe, are contingency forces for the Persian Gulf
region. In late March, more than 9,000 soldiers of the V Corps,
in conjunction with Army Reserve and National Guard troops, took
part in exercise Urgent Victory, which modeled combat in the Gulf
region. V Corps troops continue to train, with air units of the
1st Infantry Division currently engaged in live-fire exercises in
Hungary.

The deployment of elements of the 35th Infantry Division to
Europe presents an interesting scenario. When National Guard and
Reserve troops were called up for action in the Persian Gulf in
1990, they received a great deal of criticism for their state of
readiness and the condition of their equipment.

One option, should Washington wish to avoid a recurrence of that
problem, would be to deploy National Guard and Reserve troops
earmarked for an attack on Iraq to large, underutilized bases in
Europe, where they could train and link up with vast stocks of
pre-positioned equipment. From there they could deploy quietly to
Turkey to prepare for an attack.

The trouble is that such a move would require Europe, or at least
Germany, to buy into Washington's plans. And the Europeans
currently remain highly wary of an attack on Iraq or are
outrightly opposed to such a plan

The timing of combat unit call-ups is interesting as well.
Routine mobilizations are limited to nine months in duration,
meaning the clock is ticking on the involvement of any of the
currently mobilized combat units in an attack on Iraq.
Interestingly, the current mobilizations suggest a repeat of the
Desert Storm timetable. Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 1, 1990,
after which the United States began a rapid buildup ahead of its
attack on January the next year.

The weather conditions in Iraq are familiar and tolerable for
combat in January or February, and action then would allow the
currently mobilized troops to rotate home on schedule by the end
of March.

Finally, the mobilization of heavy ground combat units indicates
the Pentagon's evolving strategy for an Iraq operation. There is
an apparent compromise being forged between those in Washington
who argue for a high-tech, low-manpower attack -- built around
air strikes, Special Forces and Unmanned Air Vehicles -- and
those who argue that the Afghan model of fighting will not work
in this case.

The Iraqi army is not the Taliban, the ethnic Kurds are no
Northern Alliance and it is going to take more than a piecemeal
international police force to stabilize Iraq after the war. As
yet, there is no indication the Pentagon is planning for a
massive ground war akin to Desert Storm. But large numbers of
conventional forces are certainly part of the plan.
__________________________________________________ _________________

A BOOMERS DREAM for little Millies, or so this company thinks.

http://store.babycenter.com/category...3OJKCUAQMKSHPQ

Imagine that :lol:

Another 3T'ish sign.

http://msn.eonline.com/On/AnnaNicole/?msnb

Oh my, :lol: I can hear the global warming crowd already!

Cnn reports tonight that Joe Biden says war with Iraq is a go.

"And while I will not rehash those profound, and well documented abuses, I will say that the following Constituional Amendment--ratified soon after such abuses occured--speaks volumes about the wisdom of Geo. Washington, and a chorus of shame on the man who violated such wisdom: AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951."
_______________________________

It speaks volumes about the Republicans and their resentment of his dominance of the political agenda. What I do not understand is their hysterical hatred of Clinton. At least FDR I get ... 4 terms would drive me nuts too. But they were witchhunting Clinton from day one, and even now their paranoia continues. It is really amazing to watch. I think it must be some of that 3T true-believer stuff that gets triggered. Did I read in one of the Stauss and Howe books that they thought the first boomer to become president would be attacked because boomers would all think they were better than him. Something about our grandiosity, perfectionism and narcissism.

On 2002-08-06 08:05, posy wrote:
... It speaks volumes about the Republicans and their resentment of his (FDR's) dominance of the political agenda. What I do not understand is their hysterical hatred of Clinton. At least FDR I get ... 4 terms would drive me nuts too. But they were witchhunting Clinton from day one, and even now their paranoia continues. It is really amazing to watch. I think it must be some of that 3T true-believer stuff that gets triggered. Did I read in one of the Stauss and Howe books that they thought the first boomer to become president would be attacked because boomers would all think they were better than him. Something about our grandiosity, perfectionism and narcissism.

Clinton was on "their" screen from pretty early in his career in Arkansas. After his first los, he learned how to play the game - bettter than any of his critics. I guess they were just pissed-off that this young kid (32 when first elected governor) could consistently eat their lunch. He ran for and won the governorship in '78, '82, '84, '86 and '90.


I guess it was the FDR thing, in the junior edition. Republicans hate to lose any office that should be theirs by Divine Right.

So I getting the impression that the Democrats would probably embrace Hillary's run for the President as a means correcting the record on Bill's legacy... or, secretly, as a means to get back at those Republicans for making Bill's tenure so difficult.

Am I right? Now, be honest. :smile:

On 2002-08-06 08:43, Marc Lamb wrote:


So I getting the impression that the Democrats would probably embrace Hillary's run for the President as a means correcting the record on Bill's legacy... or, secretly, as a means to get back at those Republicans for making Bill's tenure so difficult.

Am I right? Now, be honest. :smile:

My guess is that the Democratic establishment will go for the person who appears to have the best chance of being elected. Of course, fundraising ability will definitely come into play.

Jenny,

I think you're exactly correct about the money, but I doubt Hillary has a snowball's chance of getting more than true-believer support. The Clintons were and still remain THE high maintenance political duo. It's better to let them raise money, be lightening rods, and leave the governing to someone else. Of course, who else is the question.

If a contrarian attitude sets in, then the "I'm-an-outsider" mentality is toast. That would likely mean a Senator rather than a governor this time, and anyone BUT a Southerner. Hillary is both a Senator and ostensibly a New Yorker, but I doubt that's enough.

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

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-08-06 11:01 ]</font>

"My guess is that the Democratic establishment will go for the person who appears to have the best chance of being elected."

Not in 2004, according to conventional wisdom at the latest DLC meeting. Hillary setting up to run in 2008, as memory dims.

"Of course, fundraising ability will definitely come into play."

Who ever runs this game runs the party. And nobody did it better than Clinton, and continues to do it better than Clinton's man at the DNC, Terry McAuliffe.

On 2002-08-06 10:55, Marc Lamb wrote:


"My guess is that the Democratic establishment will go for the person who appears to have the best chance of being elected."

Not in 2004, according to conventional wisdom at the latest DLC meeting. Hillary setting up to run in 2008, as memory dims.

"Of course, fundraising ability will definitely come into play."

Who ever runs this game runs the party. And nobody did it better than Clinton, and continues to do it better than Clinton's man at the DNC, Terry McAuliffe.

HRC will get the Democratic nod right after Quayle gets the G.O.Potatoe. nod.

The Democrats aren't stupid, you don't nominate the unelectable, especially in a likely contested election. Mondale, yes, but he was up against mid-term Reagan.

The GOP did Dole-Kemp, a bad combo, against a likeable Dem incumbent in a good economy. Chances were low, but the economic confusion by the reasonable Dole and supply-side Kemp made them unlikely.

But in those big elections which changed everything, you had good candidates. Likeable Carter vs. weakened-incumbent Ford.
Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis. (Both were very electable, and it was a close race. Dukakis had a slim lead 2 weeks out.) Clinton vs. weakened-incumbent Bush Sr. (Economy was bad.)

And in 2000, Gore vs. Bush Jr., both very electable candidates, in what everyone on both sides admit was a virtual tie. Replace one Democratic county commissioner in Florida, and the whole outcome changes. One less bumble on each side could've swung it either way. A slight shifting of ad dollars, anything. You were down to less than 5000 votes in a multitude of states.

AlexMnWi what's your shoe size?

Here's something interesting.

Study: Kids Optimistic Despite 9/11

By DAVID HO
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than two-thirds of American teenagers feel closer to their families since the Sept. 11 attacks and remain hopeful about the country's future, a private survey finds.

``Coming out of Sept. 11 these kids recognize that the world is different - it's smaller and more challenging,'' said Peter Hart, whose research company studied adolescents' attitudes and goals. ``As difficult a year as they've gone through, they remain optimistic and upbeat.''

The ``State of Our Nation's Youth'' survey, released Tuesday, is published annually by the Horatio Alger Association, an Alexandria, Va.-based group that gives college scholarships and financial aid counseling.

Two-thirds of teens surveyed said Sept. 11 was the most significant event of their lives, the survey found. The same percentage said that after the attacks they prayed, meditated or spent time in spiritual reflection.

``Since the attack on Sept. 11, I believe anything can happen anywhere even in our back yard,'' said Adrienne Ulmer, 17, who graduated from high school in May in Columbia, S.C. ``It made me appreciate my family, my religion, the places where I grew up, everybody who has loved me.''

One in five students said the attacks directly affected their lives a great deal and nearly a third said the events of Sept. 11 gave them new ideas or changed their plans for life after high school.

While the survey did not explore what those changes might be, 89 percent of students said they planned to attend some type of college after graduating.

Hart said 62 percent of students said seeking professional degrees would better prepare them for life rather than a broader liberal arts education.

``Tougher economic times have made these young people that much more pragmatic,'' he said.

The survey also found:

Nearly six in 10 teens expect to see required military service in their lifetimes.

Half said their fellow students became more friendly and considerate immediately after the attacks, but only 14 percent said students still were that way six months later.

More than half said they have been frustrated since Sept. 11 because they can't do more to help.

The telephone survey of 1,003 high school students 13 to 18 was conducted in May and had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

On the Net:

Horatio Alger Association site: http://www.horatioalger.com



08/06/02 09:41 EDT

Evidence that we're in early 4T, or at least that most Millies are in 4T mode now?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-08-06 16:29 ]</font>

On 2002-08-06 16:26, jds1958xg wrote:
Here's something interesting.

Study: Kids Optimistic Despite 9/11

By DAVID HO
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than two-thirds of American teenagers feel closer to their families since the Sept. 11 attacks and remain hopeful about the country's future, a private survey finds.

``Coming out of Sept. 11 these kids recognize that the world is different - it's smaller and more challenging,'' said Peter Hart, whose research company studied adolescents' attitudes and goals. ``As difficult a year as they've gone through, they remain optimistic and upbeat.''

The ``State of Our Nation's Youth'' survey, released Tuesday, is published annually by the Horatio Alger Association, an Alexandria, Va.-based group that gives college scholarships and financial aid counseling.

Two-thirds of teens surveyed said Sept. 11 was the most significant event of their lives, the survey found. The same percentage said that after the attacks they prayed, meditated or spent time in spiritual reflection.

``Since the attack on Sept. 11, I believe anything can happen anywhere even in our back yard,'' said Adrienne Ulmer, 17, who graduated from high school in May in Columbia, S.C. ``It made me appreciate my family, my religion, the places where I grew up, everybody who has loved me.''

One in five students said the attacks directly affected their lives a great deal and nearly a third said the events of Sept. 11 gave them new ideas or changed their plans for life after high school.

While the survey did not explore what those changes might be, 89 percent of students said they planned to attend some type of college after graduating.

Hart said 62 percent of students said seeking professional degrees would better prepare them for life rather than a broader liberal arts education.

``Tougher economic times have made these young people that much more pragmatic,'' he said.

The survey also found:

Nearly six in 10 teens expect to see required military service in their lifetimes.

Half said their fellow students became more friendly and considerate immediately after the attacks, but only 14 percent said students still were that way six months later.

More than half said they have been frustrated since Sept. 11 because they can't do more to help.

The telephone survey of 1,003 high school students 13 to 18 was conducted in May and had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

On the Net:

Horatio Alger Association site: http://www.horatioalger.com



08/06/02 09:41 EDT

Evidence that we're in early 4T, or at least that most Millies are in 4T mode now?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-08-06 16:29 ]</font>

I would like to see that broken down by cohort year and class year... for some reason I doubt that the 84s and the 89s would post similar results

On 2002-08-06 14:22, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
AlexMnWi what's your shoe size?

13. I haven't been up to that part of the state... at least not out of a car anyway...

On 2002-08-06 16:26, jds1958xg wrote:
Here's something interesting.

Study: Kids Optimistic Despite 9/11

By DAVID HO
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than two-thirds of American teenagers feel closer to their families since the Sept. 11 attacks and remain hopeful about the country's future, a private survey finds.

``Coming out of Sept. 11 these kids recognize that the world is different - it's smaller and more challenging,'' said Peter Hart, whose research company studied adolescents' attitudes and goals. ``As difficult a year as they've gone through, they remain optimistic and upbeat.''

The ``State of Our Nation's Youth'' survey, released Tuesday, is published annually by the Horatio Alger Association, an Alexandria, Va.-based group that gives college scholarships and financial aid counseling.

Two-thirds of teens surveyed said Sept. 11 was the most significant event of their lives, the survey found. The same percentage said that after the attacks they prayed, meditated or spent time in spiritual reflection.

``Since the attack on Sept. 11, I believe anything can happen anywhere even in our back yard,'' said Adrienne Ulmer, 17, who graduated from high school in May in Columbia, S.C. ``It made me appreciate my family, my religion, the places where I grew up, everybody who has loved me.''

One in five students said the attacks directly affected their lives a great deal and nearly a third said the events of Sept. 11 gave them new ideas or changed their plans for life after high school.

While the survey did not explore what those changes might be, 89 percent of students said they planned to attend some type of college after graduating.

Hart said 62 percent of students said seeking professional degrees would better prepare them for life rather than a broader liberal arts education.

``Tougher economic times have made these young people that much more pragmatic,'' he said.

The survey also found:

Nearly six in 10 teens expect to see required military service in their lifetimes.

Half said their fellow students became more friendly and considerate immediately after the attacks, but only 14 percent said students still were that way six months later.

More than half said they have been frustrated since Sept. 11 because they can't do more to help.

The telephone survey of 1,003 high school students 13 to 18 was conducted in May and had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

On the Net:

Horatio Alger Association site: http://www.horatioalger.com



08/06/02 09:41 EDT

Evidence that we're in early 4T, or at least that most Millies are in 4T mode now?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-08-06 16:29 ]</font>

No, Hero-types are characteristically (SIC, very long word?) that way in youth, in both 3T and 4T. There is just more unity amongst themselves once the 4T starts (optimism is high in both turnings, but unity is much higher in the 4T), and if you visit any teen newsgroup board about politics, there is about as much divisiveness as adults have right now. Very 3T if you ask me. I think it's 1926, but hopefully we'll have better clues after mid-term elections. In 1930, congress went from heavily republican to about even, whereas in 1926, it was heavily republican both before and after elections, although the dems had significant gains. If the senate becomes roughly 43-56-1 or less after mid-terms, at least the elections are similar to 1926. A similar swing the other way or less could also be described as 3T. A swing of roughly 10 or more in either direction would be closer to 1930. Both years were mid-terms and non-presidential.

Here's something that has generations written all over it...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,436495,00.asp

Dvorak @ Pc Magazine



August 5, 2002

Where are the Summer Jobs?

By John C. Dvorak


Total posts: 76




Where are all the jobs that technology promised? And exactly why are there so many kids without summer jobs of any sort? It's out of control.

ADVERTISEMENT



Some of this may have to do with the economy in general, but I blame the loss of the manufacturing base. What happens to manufacturing has effects

beyond manufacturing itself. There are social implications. This was brought to my attention last week as I was roaming around the quaint Victorian town of Port Townsend, Washington. Everywhere I looked, there were groups of teenagers hanging out with apparently nothing better to do than smoke and chat with each other. Normally, you'd see a few kids during the summer, but it looked like the town was taken over by them. Many were sitting on the sidewalk making the place look like a country town in the deep South during the 1930s. Port Townsend is not a manufacturing town, but seeing what was happening there made me look around more. Everywhere I go, I see an excessive number of kids with absolutely nothing to do. A few exhibitionist kids seem to relish making out in public, but the rest just smoke and chat.

So where are all these jobs that the technology revolution was supposed to create? Over the years we were constantly told that for every X number of jobs that technology eliminated it would create X plus Y jobs. It seems to me that Y turned out to be a negative number.

The only summer jobs available to students nowadays seem to be in fast food restaurants at minimum wage or in retail at minimum wage. And retailers seem to be suffering, so there is little opportunity there. Office jobs for students are virtually nonexistent and most kids have to take internships?and internship is the biggest scam in the history of business. "Intern" usually means someone who gets coffee.

I hate to date myself, but when I was in high school I had no trouble finding a union job in a factory. The big auto plants run by companies like Ford and GM had programs to hire students for the summer. I worked variously at International Harvester, Trailmobile, Kaiser Aluminum, and elsewhere. I was paid a good wage and received good benefits. (Curiously, in all those companies I always gravitated toward the job of inspector. Once a critic, always a critic, no?)

Anyway, it was easy to finance college just working three months a year. Now you have to work part-time all year round and you still can't afford school. Does anyone see a problem here?

And if things weren't bad enough for the young people of America, I sense an anti-youth movement. An interesting article got my attention. Apparently Silicon Valley and the entrepreneurs have all changed their opinions about who to hire. They now prefer the "gray-hairs." This is probably because the old-timers, after being locked out of work for so long, will work cheaply now. But among the rationalizations, you find a subtle contempt for the younger employee. The young CEO's are now being blamed for the dot-com disaster despite the fact that all they did was what they were told to do by the "experts" in the investment community. It seems to me that this sudden anti-youth movement must have some effect on the student job market too.

Whatever the case, you get an overwhelming feeling that today's high-tech managers lack any sense of social responsibility. This is reflected in the ridiculous salaries they give themselves combined with the cavalier attitude they have toward workers. Very few companies are even attempting work-sharing or other techniques to keep people employed during the downturn. This is creating a deep resentment toward business in this country, and the resentment is worsening. My recent online columns on this topic, from the piece trashing MBA's to the China Syndrome column of last week, are relevant here. I've never seen as much piling on from obviously smart and savvy readers as I've seen from reactions to these recent columns.

stwb: I couldn't agree more, regarding the lack of a social conscious. Most companies, and not just the tech sector, have no regard for society, their employees, their global or local communities. Their only loyalty is to Wall Street and their investors, and most have a very short focus.

view full post



Methuss: Don't forget
that many, if not most, of these kids you are seeing hanging out wouldn't take a manufacturing job if offered to them. There is a definate contempt that most high-school kids have these days toward manual labor.

view full post



lgbowman: I am a
small employer with summer jobs to offer. Many of the kids that apply are not interested in removing their piercings or pulling up their pants.

view full post


Once a moniker is put on a profession, it's hard to remove. People think all politicians are crooks, for example. And lawyers have managed to get their profession derided and stereotyped with
jokes. But the CEOs have been unscathed. It's always been kind of cool to be a CEO. What happens if they are all stereotyped as unethical, crooked book-cookers who care about nobody but themselves? How does an executive walk away from a dead company with $750 million in his pocket? I'd recommend a rescreening of the rentable TV Movie Barbarians at the Gate in this new climate, and see what you think.

All I know is that I'm seeing a lot of kids who don't even try to get summer jobs, because there are no jobs to be had. These kids have lost hope. So they smoke and hang out. Tell me what you're seeing. Is there a solution to this dilemma? I don't think so.