On 2002-08-09 14:21, The Wonk wrote:
Some signs that 1930 was still a 3T year.

• Miniature golf became hugely popular, with courses opening throughout the country.
• Culture wars raged over prohibition.
• Up through April, the stock market was rebounding nicely.
• People were most concerned about crime (remember Al Capone?) and prohibition, rather than jobs and unemployment.

That raises the question. When does the 3T end and the 4T begin? Even with Crises, the mood may return to "normal" after the Catalyst or at least trying to "be normal" but the die is in the cast.

Also, there has been a vigorous debate in "Civil War anomaly" on whether the trigger was Lincoln's election, John Brown's raid, Bleeding Kansas, or some earlier event.

Life isn't clean-cut is it, much as we Boomers would like it to be.

Boo! Hiss!

I mean, it was a real transition year, but it was certainly part of the 4T, but before the regeneracy.

If you ask me, we'll be playing mini-golf in four years.

I still think it's 1926, but I guess it depends on the next two elections (2002 & 2004).
_________________
2nd Wave Millennial
1987 Cohort
Class of 2005

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlexMnWi on 2002-08-09 15:13 ]</font>

On 2002-08-09 15:09, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-08-09 14:21, The Wonk wrote:
Some signs that 1930 was still a 3T year.
(snip)

Boo! Hiss!

I mean, it was a real transition year, but it was certainly part of the 4T, but before the regeneracy.

That's my point. 1930 was a lot more like today than people realize. The Depression really didn't hit most people for another year or two.

(Of course, about one-third to one-half of the country then was dirt poor anyway and missed the "roar" of the Twenties. Think about your midwestern farmers scratching a living on 50 acres, your low-paid factory workers, your Southern sharecroppers, your widows -- there were an awful lot of poor).

On 2002-08-09 15:09, AlexMnWi wrote:

Boo! Hiss!

I mean, it was a real transition year, but it was certainly part of the 4T, but before the regeneracy.

If you ask me, we'll be playing mini-golf in four years.

I still think it's 1926, but I guess it depends on the next two elections (2002 & 2004).

Miniature golf is ALREADY very popular here in Columbus, Ohio.

Food for thought.

On 2002-08-09 15:23, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-08-09 15:09, AlexMnWi wrote:

Boo! Hiss!

I mean, it was a real transition year, but it was certainly part of the 4T, but before the regeneracy.

If you ask me, we'll be playing mini-golf in four years.

I still think it's 1926, but I guess it depends on the next two elections (2002 & 2004).

Miniature golf is ALREADY very popular here in Columbus, Ohio.

Food for thought.

It was symbolical (in that I don't think we will be in "1930" for four years yet. I didn't mean it literally.

I was being symbolical too, Alex. My point was that we may already be 4T here in Ohio.

However, to be honest, Seattle felt much more 4T when i was there last week than Columbus does right now.

On 2002-08-09 09:46, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-08-09 05:12, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

I would think conservatives would hate the book.

Why?

1. The book appears to be entirely secular.
2. It advocates that citizens follow even the smallest laws, thus discouraging resistance to the intrusion of government power into the private realm.
3. It advocates cheerfully paying taxes.

Mike Alexander posits notions needing clarification...


1. The book appears to be entirely secular.

To neglect man's material welfare is just as silly as neglecting his spiritual welfare. Kindness and decency never go out of style as far as the traditional conservative is concerned. Reagan refused to enter the oval office without coat and tie, during an Awakening! Clinton not only took off the coat and tie, he dropped his...

2. It advocates that citizens follow even the smallest laws, thus discouraging resistance to the intrusion of government power into the private realm.

Respect for law and order has long be a conservative tradition... so much so that Richard Nixon resigned his great office rather than dragging the country through the mud. Clinton drug the country through the mud.

3. It advocates cheerfully paying taxes.

Conservatives believe strongly in paying those taxes that are due. They also believe that the tax burden should be shared by all, rich and poor. They also believe that good citizens are responsible for their own, and that while public relief efforts are needed from time to time, the public dole is something to be avoided like the plague.

Hence the wonderous, incredibly successful Welfare Reform Act of 1996. It's a beautiful thing! :smile:





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-08-09 20:43 ]</font>

Using the seasonal metaphor for the mood-think of autumn after the ground is blanketed with leaves. The weather is crisp but not yet particularly harsh. That was Seattle in October '99, when the mood and the physical weather happened to match. (I recall seeing that month T-Rex Back To The Creatacious , which actually felt the same way). Then the World Trade Organization came to town. The mood then matched what Strauss & Howe described as jittery late 3T, and physically, of course, the days were getting shorter and the weather less pleasant.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-08-09 21:41 ]</font>

On 2002-08-09 07:10, Justin '77 wrote:

On 2002-08-08 21:44, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-08-08 16:06, Number Two wrote:

With a name like Azrael it *HAS* to be a 13er :smile:

"Azrael Abyss" was the name of a character on SNL in the late '90s, on the Sunshine State public access "Goth Talk" program. "Azrael Abyss" was played by Chris Kattan (sic?). A Millie was too young at the time to have been interested in Goth (and therefore wouldn't have named himself that on Amazon) and a Boomer would be too old. So that is why it is Xer.

Alternately, Azrael was Gargamel's cat on The Smurfs. Also likely an X'er reference. I'm not even aware of the character you cite.

yeah... I was thinking of the well-known Smurfs character and not the obscure SNL character (who could have easily taken his name from the cat :smile

On 2002-08-09 15:14, The Wonk wrote:


(Of course, about one-third to one-half of the country then was dirt poor anyway and missed the "roar" of the Twenties. Think about your midwestern farmers scratching a living on 50 acres, your low-paid factory workers, your Southern sharecroppers, your widows -- there were an awful lot of poor).

Excellent point!

This is also true of the last 1T to a degree. A relative of mine, a Silent/Boom cusper, always is startled to hear anyone refer to the fifties as 'boom times'. She was quite poor then, and tends emotionally to think of the fifties as hard times for the United States.

On 2002-08-09 19:54, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

3. It advocates cheerfully paying taxes.

Conservatives are not against taxes as a concept. Taxes are inevitable, and necessary for society to function. We dispute the degree and legitimacy of the current tax system on several levels.

Believing that taxes are too high is not equivalent to belieing that taxes should be or even can be abolished.

On 2002-08-09 22:05, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-08-09 19:54, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

3. It advocates cheerfully paying taxes.

Conservatives are not against taxes as a concept. Taxes are inevitable, and necessary for society to function. We dispute the degree and legitimacy of the current tax system on several levels.

Believing that taxes are too high is not equivalent to belieing that taxes should be or even can be abolished.

Maybe it's different where you are, but here in Virginia, the conservatives (mostly Repulicans) are on a "no tax" binge that could easily push this stae into the 1930s, literally.


I just don't buy that argument from conservatives anymore. They are pledged to kill the government dead-dead-dead - death by starvation. What happens then is never addressed.

Conservatives are not against taxes as a concept. Taxes are inevitable, and necessary for society to function. We dispute the degree and legitimacy of the current tax system on several levels.

Actually a definition of a conservative is someone who is skeptical or opposes of changes in society and institutions. Some Conservatives are reactionaries who want to change institutions to once they were was. Most of the people who pass themselves off as conservatives are actually radicals of a sort. Radicals share a belief that society has to be reshaped regardless whether or not such change is necessary.

Radicals are more often than not very ideological people, while conservatives are more often than not pragmatic or cynical. Past Robertson is considered a Christian Conservative infact he is a radical, since he wants to radically restructure society and it's institutions around his Christian Fundamentalist beliefs.

Radicals are hopeful about human nature and conservatives have a darker view of human nature.

On 2002-08-09 20:15, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-08-09 19:38, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

However, to be honest, Seattle felt much more 4T when i was there last week than Columbus does right now.

This is a good point.

Compare to the mid-1960s. The 2T mood hit places like Berkeley, Madison, and NYC first, but the rural South and Midwest much later, perhaps around 1970.

Right now Arizona feels right on the cusp. The 3T mood is definitely gone, but the 4T mood hasn't completely set in yet. Las Vegas and southern California still feel 3T for now, but Vegas seems to be finally passing out of the 3T mood. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but would guess that NYC is already in a 4T mood that set in immediately after 9-11, and Seattle may have had a 4T mood set in even earlier, around the time of the WTO protests.

I think 9-11 was the main catalyst, but that there are, and will be, several smaller and more localized catalysts which crystallize the mood change in different places. For example: the Rodeo-Chedeski fire in Arizona is what really confirmed that the 3T is over here. In Vegas, the congressional approval of nuke waste dumping at the Nevada test site seems to be finally changing the mood. In NYC, 9-11 was all that was needed to enter the 4T. Seattle was probably already primed for the 4T in late 1999, and 9-11 only crystallized the mood change there.

Fine. Then I've decided it is officialy 3T at my house until 2005. So there. :razz:

I think Pancho Villa is a better comparison to OBL than Al Capone. Like OBL, Pancho Villa attacked our nation from without, while Al Capone was an American gangster.

On 2002-08-10 05:51, David '47 wrote:


I just don't buy that argument from conservatives anymore. They are pledged to kill the government dead-dead-dead - death by starvation.

Funny, then -- if that's what they have 'pledged' to do, I've never heard it, and all the evidence I've seen (like the actual actions they take) indicates that not to be the case. Hell, even Libertarians (note capitalization) don't advocate the death of the State. All conservatives want to do is put their guys in charge of the looting. I think HC said it best (emphasis mine):

Conservatives are not against taxes as a concept. Taxes are inevitable, and necessary for society to function. We dispute the degree and legitimacy of the <u>current</u> tax system on several levels.

...meaning, give them the power to make a tax system on their own rules, and they'll be happy as clams. There is no principled opposition, only nominal, in the ranks of conservatives.

On 2002-08-08 07:35, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-08-08 07:21, David '47 wrote:
Prior to entering the land of Falwell, I dwelled even for a score of years in the land of Robertson. There, I met a righteous man, who scorned the Robertson, calling him the anti-Christ. "Robertson is only in it (religion) because it pays", said he. He is surely the chief God-Nazi.


Not being a religous person myself, I'm not sure what a God-Nazi is, but it doesn't sound good.

My guess is that the term 'God-Nazi' implies that, given half a chance, Robertson would want to impose a religious dictatorship on us, with religious policies reminiscent of Hitler's racial policies.

What proof do you have of this? Typical liberal - anyone who dares to say that there is absolutes in the world (right/wrong) is somehow a "Nazi".

On 2002-08-10 09:09, Tim Walker wrote:
I think Pancho Villa is a better comparison to OBL than Al Capone. Like OBL, Pancho Villa attacked our nation from without, while Al Capone was an American gangster.

Hence the "in a way...". I suppose they both have similarities and differences from OBL, and a combination of the two could make a very good comparison.

The Inevitability of the War Against Iraq, and the Gospel of George W.

by Seth Farber

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/s-farber1.html

On 2002-08-10 16:58, Stonewall Patton wrote:
The Inevitability of the War Against Iraq, and the Gospel of George W.

by Seth Farber

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/s-farber1.html

Ok, so how do you start a mass movement?

"I just don't buy that argument from conservatives anymore."

:lol: When did you ever buy before? :lol:

On 2002-08-10 17:36, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-08-10 16:58, Stonewall Patton wrote:
The Inevitability of the War Against Iraq, and the Gospel of George W.

by Seth Farber

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/s-farber1.html

Ok, so how do you start a mass movement?

I would start a mass movement to support the invasion of Iraq, stopping of support to the House of Saudi and Opposition to the Islamist regime in Teheran. I am being deadly serious here; these goals should be part and parcel of any movement to establish a democratic global government. We need to whole world to be democratic before a viable lasting world government can be established.

The current political sutation Islamic world in general poses a barrier to the establishment of stable global government; if the Islamic World is democratized every other problem which faces the establishment of a viable global government is fairly easy to manage.

On 2002-08-10 20:11, Tristan Jones wrote:

I would start a mass movement to support the invasion of Iraq, stopping of support to the House of Saudi and Opposition to the Islamist regime in Teheran. I am being deadly serious here; these goals should be part and parcel of any movement to establish a democratic global government. We need to whole world to be democratic before a viable lasting world government can be established.

The current political sutation Islamic world in general poses a barrier to the establishment of stable global government; if the Islamic World is democratized every other problem which faces the establishment of a viable global government is fairly easy to manage.

If it is one thing that we learned, democracy can only survive with the consent of the people. Democracy cannot be enforced. The reason why the US has existed for so long under a "democracy" is because it is embedded within our culture.

You have to make people WANT democracy. If they are opposed to it, then enforcing it will be useless. Democracy exists because of legitimacy. Without it, people can very easily vote for a dictatorship. If the US wages a very destructive war, and wins, then it is likely that these defeated nations will continue to resent the US because they will see it as anti-Islam. With that, there would have to be a much stronger US military presence to prevent to outbreak of violence and revolution. This is a VERY large feat, and the large military presence will be a large waste of societal resources.

Then there is the question of global governance. I am very much against the idea, as I believe that nations are, and should be sovereign. Wherever there is a single authority, there is totalitarianism.

On 2002-08-10 05:51, David '47 wrote:

On 2002-08-09 22:05, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-08-09 19:54, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

3. It advocates cheerfully paying taxes.

Conservatives are not against taxes as a concept. Taxes are inevitable, and necessary for society to function. We dispute the degree and legitimacy of the current tax system on several levels.

Believing that taxes are too high is not equivalent to belieing that taxes should be or even can be abolished.

Maybe it's different where you are, but here in Virginia, the conservatives (mostly Repulicans) are on a "no tax" binge that could easily push this stae into the 1930s, literally.


I just don't buy that argument from conservatives anymore. They are pledged to kill the government dead-dead-dead - death by starvation. What happens then is never addressed.

You're half right, we do hope to force the government back into its proper role by depriving it of illegitimate income (that would include the tobacco deal, about which we have now been proven right, though we failed to stop it). But no, we don't want the government gone. Note that conservatives rarely oppose spending for police or for the military.

You should buy the argument, because it's true. It's also true that Americans are overtaxed in almost all states (especially if you include the endless 'concealed' taxes). The problem is that a tax proposed for purpose 'x' at rate 'y' tends after a little which to magically morph into a tax for some other purpose at rate 'y X 100'.