Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 168







Post#4176 at 10-17-2002 01:37 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-17-2002, 01:37 PM #4176
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857




















Post#4177 at 10-17-2002 01:47 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
10-17-2002, 01:47 PM #4177
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Well, this may actually be on-topic. Note that the author of the following is a Boomer (born 1946):

http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com

ANTI-IDIOTARIAN MANIFESTO

WHEREAS, the year since the terrible events of 9/11 has exposed the vacuity and moral confusion of all too many of the thinkers, politicians, and activists operating within conventional political categories;

WHEREAS, the Left has failed us by succumbing to reflexive anti-Americanism; by apologizing for terrorist acts; by propounding squalid theories of moral equivalence; and by blaming the victims of evil for the act of evil;

WHEREAS, the Right has failed us by pushing `anti-terrorist' measures which bid fair to be both ineffective and prejudicial to the central liberties of a free society; and in some cases by rhetorically descending to almost the same level of bigotry as our enemies;

WHEREAS, even many of the Libertarians from whom we expected more intelligence have retreated into a petulant isolationism, refusing to recognize that, at this time, using the state to carry the war to the enemy is our only practical instrument of self-defense;

WE THEREFORE ASSERT the following convictions as the basis of the anti-idiotarian position:

THAT Western civilization is threatened with the specter of mass death perpetrated by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons placed in the hands of terrorists by rogue states;
THAT the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attack, and its lesser sequels, are motivated by a combination of religious fanaticism and a smoldering resentment of the West's success and Islam's failures;
THAT no adjustments of American or Western foreign policy, or concessions to the Palestinians, or actions taken against globalization, or otherwise worthy efforts to alleviate world poverty, are of more than incidental interest to these terrorists;
THAT, upon their own representation, they will not by dissuaded from their violence by any surrender less extreme than the imposition of Islam and shari'a law on the kaffir West;
THAT, as said terrorists have demonstrated the willingness to use civilian airliners as flying bombs to kill thousands of innocent people, we would commit a vast crime of moral negligence if we underestimated their future malice even without weapons of mass destruction;
THAT they have sought, and on plausible evidence found, alliance with rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; states that are known to have active programs working towards the development and delivery of weapons of mass destruction that would multiply the terrorists' ability to commit atrocities by a thousandfold;
THAT Saddam Hussein poses a particularly clear and present danger through his known efforts to develop nuclear weapons, his use of chemical weapons even on his own population, his demonstrated willingness to commit aggression against peaceful neighbors, and his known links to the Islamic terror network in Palestine and elsewhere.

WE THEREFORE AFFIRM that both the terrorists and their state sponsors have made themselves outlaws from the moral community of man, to be dealt with as feral beasts are.

WE FURTHER AFFIRM that the `root cause' of Islamo-fascist terrorism lies in the animating politico-religious ideas of fundamentalist Islam and not in any signicant respect elsewhere, and that a central aim of the war against terror must be to displace, discredit, and destroy those animating ideas.

WE REJECT, as a self-serving power grab by the least trustworthy elements of our own side, the theory that terrorist depredations can be effectively prevented by further restrictions on the right of free speech, or the right of peacible assembly, or the right to bear arms in self-defense; and we strenuously oppose police-state measures such as the imposition of national ID cards or airport-level surveillance of public areas;

WE REJECT the theory that `fairness' requires us not to notice the dominant gender, age range, ethnic character and religion of our terrorist enemies; and we urge the systematic use of such profiling to both make anti-terrorist screening more effective and reduce the overall intrusiveness of anti-terror measures on the majority of the population.

IN GRAVE KNOWLEDGE that the state of war brings out the worst in both individual human beings and societies, we reject the alternative of ceding to the world's barbarians the exclusive privilege of force.

WE SUPPORT the efforts of the United States of America, its allies, and the West to hunt down and and capture or kill individual members of the Islamo-fascist terror network;

WE SUPPORT speedy American and allied military action against the rogue states that support terrorism, both as a means of alleviating the immediate threat and of deterring future state sponsorship of terrorism by the threat of war to the knife.

WE SUPPORT, in recognition of the fact that the military and police cannot be everywhere, efforts to meet the distributed threat with a distributed response; to arm not merely airline pilots but ordinary citizens, and to recognize the citizen's right and obligation to respond to terrorist aggression with effective force.

WE SUPPORT, as an alternative greatly preferable to future nuclear/chemical/biological blackmail of the West, the conquest and occupation of Iraq and other nations that combine sponsorship of terrorism with the possession of weapons of mass destruction, until such time as the root causes of terrorism have been eradicated from their societies.

WE DEFINE IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and dictators operating outside it.

WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Left -- the moral blindness that refuses to recognize that free markets, individual liberty, and experimental science have made the West a fundamentally better place than any culture in which jihad, 'honor killings', and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion.

WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Right -- whether it manifests as head-in-the-sand isolationism or as a Christian-identity chauvinism that all but mirrors the Islamo-fascist fanaticism of our enemies.

WE ARE MEMBERS OF A CIVILIZATION, and we hold that civilization to be worth defending. We have not sought war, but we will fight it to the end. We will fight for our civilization in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.

WE HAVE AWAKENED. We have seen the face of evil in the acts of the Bin Ladens and Husseins and Arafats of the world; we have seen through the lies and self-delusions of the idiotarians who did so much both to make their evil possible before the fact and to deny and excuse it afterwards. We shall not flinch from our duty to confront that evil.

WE SHALL SHED the moral cowards and the appeasers and the apologists; and we shall fight the barbarians and fanatics, and we shall defeat them. We shall defeat them in war, crushing their dream of dominion; and we shall defeat them in peace, using our wealth and freedoms to seduce their women and children to civilized ways, and ultimately wiping their diseased and virulent ideologies from the face of the Earth.

THIS WE SWEAR, on the graves of those who died at the World Trade Center; and those who died in the Sari Club in Bali; and those who died on the U.S.S. Cole; and indeed on the graves of all the nameless victims in the Middle East itself who have been slaughtered by terrorism and rogue states;

YOU SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN.

Eric S. Raymond
16 October 2002

____________________
(your signature here)







Post#4178 at 10-17-2002 01:51 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
10-17-2002, 01:51 PM #4178
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
I'm not wishing for anything. I'm just trying to get a discussion started on North Korea.
Unlike Iraq, I actually consider North Korea a legitimate threat to the US. North Korea routinely issues nuclear warfare threats against the US. Not only that, but they have been testing plenty of ballistic missles.

It is impossible to speak about the threat of North Korea without mentioning China, since N. Korea is practically a satellite state of China. As many of you know, China has a VERY destructive 2T with the Chinese Cultural Revolution. One wonders what will happen once this Chinese Boomer generation reaches their apex of power and enters it's own 4T.

One possible scenario is that while the US is fighting its "War on Terror" in the Middle East, China invades Taiwan, giving China and NK better opportunities to threaten Japan, and even US controlled Afghanistan somewhere down the line. This could set up a superpower war between the US and China and their respective allies somewhere in the Crisis. I would say that the best way to go would be to use the UN to build a global missle shield.







Post#4179 at 10-17-2002 02:01 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
10-17-2002, 02:01 PM #4179
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

The US is "saddened" by this? Did the Bush Administration have their heads so far up their a$$es that they didn't realize this before!? I would think that the US military would keep the president fully informed of ANY threats...but then again, they have too much attention directed towards oil and profits.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/822193.asp







Post#4180 at 10-17-2002 02:02 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
10-17-2002, 02:02 PM #4180
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Quote Originally Posted by madscientist
I would say that the best way to go would be to use the UN to build a global missle shield.
Yes, let's melt down the UN building and refashion the metal into an array of anti-missile satellites. :wink:







Post#4181 at 10-17-2002 02:06 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
10-17-2002, 02:06 PM #4181
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Quote Originally Posted by madscientist
The US is "saddened" by this? Did the Bush Administration have their heads so far up their a$$es that they didn't realize this before!? I would think that the US military would keep the president fully informed of ANY threats...but then again, they have too much attention directed towards oil and profits.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/822193.asp
Oh, c'mon, that hardly seems fair. It was the Clinton administration and Jimmy Carter that declared the problem solved when Kim Jong Il talked them into the nuclear-reactor deal.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter: "Kim Jong Il promises to stop trying to build an A-Bomb; all we gotta due is give them a modern nuclear reactor!"

Bush has gone on record about N. Korea's nuclear program. I remember him taking a lot of flack for including N. Korea in his little "Axis of Evil" speech.

Whose heads, whose asses?







Post#4182 at 10-17-2002 02:11 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
10-17-2002, 02:11 PM #4182
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Quote Originally Posted by John Wayne
Oh, c'mon, that hardly seems fair. It was the Clinton administration and Jimmy Carter that declared the problem solved when Kim Jong Il talked them into the nuclear-reactor deal.

"Kim Jong Il promises to stop trying to build an A-Bomb; all we gotta due is give them a modern nuclear reactor!"

Bush has gone on record about N. Korea's nuclear program. I remember him taking a lot of flack for including N. Korea in his little "Axis of Evil" speech.
True.







Post#4183 at 10-17-2002 02:16 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
10-17-2002, 02:16 PM #4183
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by madscientist
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
I'm not wishing for anything. I'm just trying to get a discussion started on North Korea.
Unlike Iraq, I actually consider North Korea a legitimate threat to the US. North Korea routinely issues nuclear warfare threats against the US. Not only that, but they have been testing plenty of ballistic missles.
Well, unlike Iraq and Iran, at least N. Korea has the technological capability (and proximity) to hit the US (Hawaii, and parts of Alaska, I think). Though they have been kind of starving over there for the past few years, and that can't be good for military readiness...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#4184 at 10-17-2002 06:51 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
10-17-2002, 06:51 PM #4184
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

I found the story concerning the creation of corporate personhood to be very interesting especially the timing of which. This happened in 1886, which set up the robber baron era which marked the closing years of the 19th century. An interesting book on this subject is H. W. Brands' "The Reckless Decade: America in the 1890's." In it Mr. Brands describes in detail the era of the robber barons and all the labor unrest which accompanied it. This, as we all know, eventually led to an increasing role for labor unions in this country. Unfortunately, we all know now that while such unions were formed to correct abuses by companies, many ended up creating abuses of their own which eventually led to their downfall, though not demise. The most interesting part of Mr. Brands' book, IMO, is in the opening and closing chapters in which he documented many striking similarites between the 1890's and the 1990's.

Another book, "Fast Food Nation" (not sure of author on this one) talks about how the rise of the powerful fast food chains led to increasing and unprecedented manipulation of farmers who raise beef, potatoes and other things associated with that industry. At the book's close the author stated that while the primary goal of the 20th century was to harness excessive totalitarian state power, perhaps the goal of the 21st century should be to similarly harness excessive corporate power.

Something I often wonder about is why such a staunch free-agent generation such as the Boomers seems to be willing to put up with excessive manipulation by large corporations? I would like to invite you to check out my thread on corporate cannibalism located in the section on politics and economics in which I attempt to create a thoughful discussion on the impact of all these mergers and buyouts in the corporate world, which I fear is leading us toward a state of oligopoly.







Post#4185 at 10-17-2002 08:15 PM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
10-17-2002, 08:15 PM #4185
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

Haywire

Sorry to have been absent for so long. Our computer at home went haywire last Friday, and we have yet to get it working again. (I am currently using a computer at the local public library.) I have no idea when I'll be able to post again, but when I can do so, I'll let everyone know.







Post#4186 at 10-17-2002 08:23 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
10-17-2002, 08:23 PM #4186
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Corporate Personhood

Quote Originally Posted by Sanford
"The concern is not corporations per se; the bludgeon of corporate personhood is rarely used by small or medium companies, only by a handful of the world?s largest, to force their will on governments and communities."

In one sentence, the author turns most of what he wrote into mush.

If he's concerned about the power of big business, why doesn't he just say so without all the flim-flam?
I think you have missed the point here. It sounds as if Mr. Hartman has a specific complaint--that corporations have taken on the rights and priveleges of individuals and have not taken on the responsibilities and liabilities that go with personhood. He then finishes his essay by saying that this mistake on our part has given the largest corporations in the world a road in for their takeover of our governments and communities.

I agree with Mr. Hartman that this has been a tremendous error and the consequences have been the violation of the human rights of workers in corporationsand despoilation of the environment. I believe that come the regeneracy we the (real) people have the opportunity to make corporations our servants instead of our masters. We do this by restoring an older way of dealing with them that existed in the United States before the unfortunate error that has given corporations the defacto rights of persons. In those days, corporations were required to apply for a charter from the state or community. The state or community granted that charter upon evidence that the corporation would provide benefit to the community and refrain from harming the community. The corporation had the responsibility to renew that charter every so often and the community could refuse that renewal if the citizens provided evidence of malfeasence or detriment to the community.

By the way, there is an excellent work of science fiction by Marge Piercy in which a world ruled by a few large corporations is envisioned. It is called He, She and It. The story also includes a cyborg with all the attendent questions of humanness and another story about the Golem of Prague is woven in. It is exciting and entertaining and yet makes one think. It is a great read.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4187 at 10-17-2002 08:56 PM by Tom Mazanec [at NE Ohio 1958 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,511]
---
10-17-2002, 08:56 PM #4187
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
NE Ohio 1958
Posts
1,511

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
I found the story concerning the creation of corporate personhood to be very interesting especially the timing of which. This happened in 1886, which set up the robber baron era which marked the closing years of the 19th century. An interesting book on this subject is H. W. Brands' "The Reckless Decade: America in the 1890's." In it Mr. Brands describes in detail the era of the robber barons and all the labor unrest which accompanied it. This, as we all know, eventually led to an increasing role for labor unions in this country. Unfortunately, we all know now that while such unions were formed to correct abuses by companies, many ended up creating abuses of their own which eventually led to their downfall, though not demise. The most interesting part of Mr. Brands' book, IMO, is in the opening and closing chapters in which he documented many striking similarites between the 1890's and the 1990's.

Another book, "Fast Food Nation" (not sure of author on this one) talks about how the rise of the powerful fast food chains led to increasing and unprecedented manipulation of farmers who raise beef, potatoes and other things associated with that industry. At the book's close the author stated that while the primary goal of the 20th century was to harness excessive totalitarian state power, perhaps the goal of the 21st century should be to similarly harness excessive corporate power.

Something I often wonder about is why such a staunch free-agent generation such as the Boomers seems to be willing to put up with excessive manipulation by large corporations? I would like to invite you to check out my thread on corporate cannibalism located in the section on politics and economics in which I attempt to create a thoughful discussion on the impact of all these mergers and buyouts in the corporate world, which I fear is leading us toward a state of oligopoly.
Here in Maple Heights, we are seeing a school teacher strike which is illustating the abuses of both labor and management quite well.







Post#4188 at 10-17-2002 09:20 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
10-17-2002, 09:20 PM #4188
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Finally read the "Anti-Idiotarian" material posted by John Wayne. My biggest problem with it -- even bigger than the reflexive, not-unexpected, and useless call to arm evrybody -- is this passage:

THAT the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attack, and its lesser sequels, are motivated by a combination of religious fanaticism and a smoldering resentment of the West's success and Islam's failures;
THAT no adjustments of American or Western foreign policy, or concessions to the Palestinians, or actions taken against globalization, or otherwise worthy efforts to alleviate world poverty, are of more than incidental interest to these terrorists;
THAT, upon their own representation, they will not by dissuaded from their violence by any surrender less extreme than the imposition of Islam and shari'a law on the kaffir West;
Point the first: the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attack and its lesser sequels are, at present, motivated by nothing whatsoever, being dead.

Point the second: the terrorists who perpetrated these acts were motivated by something other than Osama bin Ladin was.

Point the third: the number of recruits to al-Qaeda and other terrorist movements is subject to modification by the worthy acts indicated; while the leaders of these movements may not be dissuaded from their violence by anything less than, etc., this need not concern us overly if they can be stripped of the angry persons who staff their movements. The entire population of the Muslim world is not so fanatical.







Post#4189 at 10-18-2002 11:20 AM by Sanford [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 282]
---
10-18-2002, 11:20 AM #4189
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
282

Re: Corporate Personhood

Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
I think you have missed the point here. It sounds as if Mr. Hartman has a specific complaint--that corporations have taken on the rights and priveleges of individuals and have not taken on the responsibilities and liabilities that go with personhood.
Like I said: Flim-flam.

Corporations are not persons, and are not legally treated as such. Corporations share some of the contractual power of people, but not all of them. As for the reponsibilities and liablities, these fall correctly on the operators of the corporation.

My point of view has already been covered previously. A corporation is like an automobile. If an automobile kills someone, the driver is blamed, not the automobile (nor the owner of the automobile).

Whenever this "corporations are legal persons and shouldn't be" meme is raised, it is always raised by people concerned about the power of big business. The meme is merely used to give their concern the aura of something more profound. It isn't any more profound than the age-old concern that certain groups, parties, elites, or what have you, has undue influence over government.

Finding the right balance of power from generation to generation is a neverending struggle, a good fight to fight. There is no need to try to add an aura of profoundity by intellectual flim-flam.







Post#4190 at 10-18-2002 12:23 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
10-18-2002, 12:23 PM #4190
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Finally read the "Anti-Idiotarian" material posted by John Wayne. My biggest problem with it
OK, but what about it's GC-like rhetoric?

-- even bigger than the reflexive, not-unexpected, and useless call to arm evrybody -- is this passage:
To be precise, the author advocates "distributed" solutions to a "distributed" problem. The details of this he may consider open to debate. For example, someone once suggested that every passenger on an airplane be issued a billiard ball.







Post#4191 at 10-18-2002 01:20 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
10-18-2002, 01:20 PM #4191
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

I note that the "manifesto" is changing a little every day as people e-mail the author with suggestions.

http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com

Coincidently, the part that originally read "to arm not merely airline pilots but ordinary citizens" now reads "to arm airline pilots, and to recognize as well the ordinary citizen's right and obligation to respond to terrorist aggression with effective force".

Perhaps Brian would like to send in suggestions.







Post#4192 at 10-18-2002 01:23 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
10-18-2002, 01:23 PM #4192
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

He's also added this:

"WE SHALL DEMAND as citizens and voters that those we delegate to lead pursue the war against terror with an unflagging will to victory and all means necessary — while remaining always mindful that in the process of fighting the enemy we must not stoop to the enemy's level of contempt for human rights and dignity, must not become what we fight;

WE SHALL REMEMBER that in this struggle more than previous conventional wars, the West's keenest weapons are reason and the truth; that it is our obligation as citizens to insist on reason and the truth; that we must shine a pitiless light on the lies from which terrorist hatred is built; and that we must also be vigilant against the expedient lie from our own side, lest our victories become tainted and hollow, leaving root causes unaddressed and sowing trouble for the future."

I don't suppose Thomas Jefferson worked this way...







Post#4193 at 10-18-2002 03:35 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
10-18-2002, 03:35 PM #4193
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Boomers and Corporate Manipulation

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Something I often wonder about is why such a staunch free-agent generation such as the Boomers seems to be willing to put up with excessive manipulation by large corporations? I would like to invite you to check out my thread on corporate cannibalism located in the section on politics and economics in which I attempt to create a thoughful discussion on the impact of all these mergers and buyouts in the corporate world, which I fear is leading us toward a state of oligopoly.
Interesting question. IMHO the boomers are not particularly free-agent types. Even in the 60's when they were opposing the war in Vietnam they were pretty conformist in their non-comformity. I think the X-ers are more the free-agent type, quietly doing what they think needs doing without much attention paid to them and without media fanfare.

I also notice that Boomers rather than being free-agents were a group that started trends, especially the first wave of them. Then the later Boomers hopped on the bandwagons. So although I had never thought of it in terms of fast food, they are the first generation to be raised with television and televised ads and immediate gratification so it would make some sense that they get manipulated by corporate culture. Also, come to think of it, some of them are the ones who now control and define corporate culture.

Elisheva
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4194 at 10-18-2002 08:52 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
10-18-2002, 08:52 PM #4194
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

Eli Levin: Your reply to my last post was interesting in that it said something I have thought all along, and that is that the Boomers, despite having said back in their youth that they would never follow their fathers into the corporate world, do seem today to be even more corporate than their fathers, this despite the tendency for them not to work their whole lives for one company the way their fathers did. In most cases, it seems as if today's corporate structure won't allow them to do so. Seems they don't want to pay for all the advancement that comes with years of experience despite the fact that some still preach the gospel of such.

And, BTW, does it seem to you(meaning all members of this forum) that the Boomers are displaying much of the same type of hubris which they criticized the GI's for back in their youth? It seems that way to me.







Post#4195 at 10-18-2002 10:25 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-18-2002, 10:25 PM #4195
Guest

Historic Accuracy

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
Eli Levin: Your reply to my last post was interesting in that it said something I have thought all along, and that is that the Boomers, despite having said back in their youth that they would never follow their fathers into the corporate world, do seem today to be even more corporate than their fathers...
Look at the twenties, Mr. Beecher... not only the "Idealist" Missionaries, but the vaunted, young GIs as well, embraced the ethos of "free market" corporatism. And it got even worse in the fifties!

Quote Originally Posted by madscientist

http://www.thomhartman.com/economiccycles.shtml

This person would definitely agree that we are in a 4T.

Democracy and Economic Cycles
A potential disaster or opportunity?

"And indeed, the results of fascism can look very good, at first; in Germany it worked so well that Adolf Hitler was named TIME magazine?s Man of the Year on February 2, 1939." --Thom Hartmann, Democracy and Economic Cycles

Obviously this guy would feel right at home in these threads.

"Adolf Hitler without doubt," echoed Time editors, "became 1938's Man of the Year." But Mr. Hartmann is not only all wet, he's drowning in a sea of pure historical revisionism. "Not the mere fact that the Fuhrer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire." echoed the editors of Time magazine, "More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today."

Like duh, Mr. Hartmann couldn't have figured that out?

Stalin was the 1939 "Man of the Year", so did Time leap from endorsing Facism to Communism in less than 12 months? Sheesh, sophomoric drivel at it's finest.

Time went on to say, "Fascism has discovered that freedom--of press, speech, assembly--is a potential danger to its own security. In Fascist phraseology democracy is often coupled with Communism. The Fascist battle against freedom is often carried forward under the false slogan of 'Down with Communism!' One of the chief German complaints against democratic Czechoslovakia last summer was that it was an 'outpost of Communism.' "

Which brings me to my point of why I bothered posting on Mr. Hartmann's website: This "cycles" thing seems to bring out the very worst in historic accuracy in some folks. Sometimes, myself included. :-?







Post#4196 at 10-18-2002 11:07 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-18-2002, 11:07 PM #4196
Guest

Re: Historic Accuracy II

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
Look at the twenties, Mr. Beecher... not only the "Idealist" Missionaries, but the vaunted, young GIs as well, embraced the ethos of "free market" corporatism. And it got even worse in the fifties!
Gee whiz, even as I sought to get it right, I got it wrong!

One cannot posit the notion of "free market" when embracing the Immigration Act of 1924 (just after the Missionaries peaked in 1922) or, soon thereafter, enacting the devestating Smoot-Halley Tariff Act of 1930. Thus, it was a generational constellation of "isolationism" (that is beginning to resemble today).

Nor can one deny the opposite taking place with the Immigration Act of 1965 (just after the GIs peaked in 1964) or the "Free Trade" policies of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s (began in the seventies, I'm sure). Thus it was an era of antiIsolationism (that is being lost today).

But both generations certainly embraced that notion of the legal enity called the "corporation". For better or worse.







Post#4197 at 10-19-2002 12:10 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
10-19-2002, 12:10 AM #4197
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

I've noticed that the 2005 estimate is probably too late, even if 9/11 was not the catalyst. If you take the average length of the following 4 turnings, the last 4 that have been confirmed completed:

World War I and Prohibition Unraveling
Great Depression and World War II Crisis
American High
Consciousness Revolution Awakening

Then the average turning length is 20 years or so. Then, one can estimate the Culture Wars Unraveling to end in 2003 instead of 2005. So, if 9/11 was the catalyst, then it was only 2 years early instead of four. And, that would make the average turning length of these:

Great Depression and World War II Crisis
American High
Consciousness Revolution Awakening
Culture Wars Unraveling

to be 19 years, only 1 year shorter than the previous average.
So, if we be 3T: Then we are aligned with 1928
Or, if we be 4T: Then we still align with 1930.

During the last 4T, the oldest Silent was 20 at the end of the part where one could be heroic; although the actual 4T extended another year. So, if 9/11 was the catalyst, then one can estimate the crisis to last the average 19 years, from 2001-2019. So, people born in 1999 will turn 20 in 2019, making them New Silents.

Or, if 9/11 wasn't the catalyst, one can expect the turning to end in 2003, making it an average 20 year turning (the average depends on whether or not 9/11 was the catalyst, if not then it is 20, if it is then its 19). So, the 4T would be 2003-2022. People born in 2002 will turn 20 in 2022, making them New Silents.
So:
IF WE BE 4T: Millies: 1982?-1998 New Silent: 1999-
IF WE BE 3T: Millies: 1982?-2001 New Silent: 2002-

So, I'm pretty sure that I'm no longer in the youngest generation.

On a different subject, here is a Millie's outline for his future, to see if it means anything generation-wise:

2003: Get Drivers' Licence
2005: Graduate High School
2006: Vote in first election
2009: Graduate College with B.S. Degree
Before March 2010, probably in college: Meet future wife, also graduated HS in 2005.
September 2010: Get engaged
June 2011: Get married
June 2011: Honeymoon in Hawaii
June 2011: Buy NEW suburban house
March 2012: Have first kid
November 2014: Have second kid
April 2054: Retire
2061 or later: Die
2068 or later: Wife Dies
(Last two based on life expectancies; its not like I'll kill myself if I don't die that year or anything)

These are only preferences, if it unfolds a bit differently, I'm not going to consider my life ruined or anything.
1987 INTP







Post#4198 at 10-19-2002 01:18 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-19-2002, 01:18 PM #4198
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

This article details the Bush administration's use of manipulation and cooked intelligence in pushing for an Iraq invasion. Surely they cannot pull this off without a full scale 4t-style backlash:


Misleading the Nation to War

By Sam Parry
October 15, 2002

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/101502a.html






This article catches the comments of Washington insider William Seidman at a Grand Rapids event making it clear that oil is playing a substantial role in the Iraq BS:


Wall Street/Washington insider spills the dirty secret of Iraq war

?Getting control of that oil will make a vast difference?


By Bill Vann
16 October 2002

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/oil-o16.shtml







Post#4199 at 10-19-2002 05:13 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
10-19-2002, 05:13 PM #4199
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
Eli Levin: Your reply to my last post was interesting in that it said something I have thought all along, and that is that the Boomers, despite having said back in their youth that they would never follow their fathers into the corporate world, do seem today to be even more corporate than their fathers, this despite the tendency for them not to work their whole lives for one company the way their fathers did. In most cases, it seems as if today's corporate structure won't allow them to do so. Seems they don't want to pay for all the advancement that comes with years of experience despite the fact that some still preach the gospel of such.

And, BTW, does it seem to you(meaning all members of this forum) that the Boomers are displaying much of the same type of hubris which they criticized the GI's for back in their youth? It seems that way to me.
You seem to say (and suspect) valid criticisms of the Boomers that do not seem Boomer-ish themselves, but more likely to be thought by a Silent who supported (and incited) the Boom at the beginning, but now is wondering, "Where did we and/or they go wrong here?" Incidentally, you (along with Buzzard, who seemed to be getting screwed over by his Boomer 'peers' at work) were born in 1944, a year (almost universally) considered Boomer on this board, but generally considered to be pre-Boomer by the outside world. Although I don't agree with the mass media's methodology for determining generations (Baby Boom by birthyear and everyone else based on them), I have thought 1946 to be a better Boom starting date than 1943 because even though a few of the 43-45 cohorts were leaders inciting the Boomers (Berkeley class of 65, "Republican Revolution of 1994") most of those people seemed fundamentally different from the actual baby boom - even the hippie mindset is more Silent than Boomerish! Do you still consider yourself to be a Boomer based on S&H or do you agree more with my line of thinking?







Post#4200 at 10-19-2002 05:25 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
10-19-2002, 05:25 PM #4200
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
I've noticed that the 2005 estimate is probably too late, even if 9/11 was not the catalyst. If you take the average length of the following 4 turnings, the last 4 that have been confirmed completed:

World War I and Prohibition Unraveling
Great Depression and World War II Crisis
American High
Consciousness Revolution Awakening

Then the average turning length is 20 years or so. Then, one can estimate the Culture Wars Unraveling to end in 2003 instead of 2005. So, if 9/11 was the catalyst, then it was only 2 years early instead of four. And, that would make the average turning length of these:

Great Depression and World War II Crisis
American High
Consciousness Revolution Awakening
Culture Wars Unraveling

to be 19 years, only 1 year shorter than the previous average.
So, if we be 3T: Then we are aligned with 1928
Or, if we be 4T: Then we still align with 1930.
This is a great example of how two people can view the exact same data and get completely diffent results! True, the average length S&H uses might be closer to 19 or 20 years, but S&H makes its last Unraveling nearly 22 (from the beginning of 1908 to late 1929) - a similar length Unraveling from S&H's 3T start date (Morning of America - late summer 1984) would keep the 3T going until about halfway through 2006 - and if you don't agree with ALL of S&H's numbers (e.g. consider 1980 or 1988 to be a better Unraveling start date than 1984) and even wider range is possible!

And about the people born around 2000 being Millie or New Silent? Get real :-); all we can manage at this point are technical S&H style calculations which mean nothing compared to actual cohorts - we'll have to wait until they're teenagers AT THE VERY LEAST to determine their true colors and generational archetype

On another note, the 18-year generational model can be very tempting at times - it even offers a reason why I might not identify with later "core Millies" (because they're *actually* New Silent cuspers); it just doesn't explain the difference between those graduating HS around the turn of the millennium (99-03) and those a few years younger

During the last 4T, the oldest Silent was 20 at the end of the part where one could be heroic; although the actual 4T extended another year. So, if 9/11 was the catalyst, then one can estimate the crisis to last the average 19 years, from 2001-2019. So, people born in 1999 will turn 20 in 2019, making them New Silents.generation.

On a different subject, here is a Millie's outline for his future, to see if it means anything generation-wise:

2003: Get Drivers' Licence
2005: Graduate High School
2006: Vote in first election
2009: Graduate College with B.S. Degree
Before March 2010, probably in college: Meet future wife, also graduated HS in 2005.
September 2010: Get engaged
June 2011: Get married
June 2011: Honeymoon in Hawaii
June 2011: Buy NEW suburban house
March 2012: Have first kid
November 2014: Have second kid
April 2054: Retire
2061 or later: Die
2068 or later: Wife Dies
(Last two based on life expectancies; its not like I'll kill myself if I don't die that year or anything)
These are only preferences, if it unfolds a bit differently, I'm not going to consider my life ruined or anything.
I guess you gotta watch for those temptresses who graduated in 03 and 04 ;-) (but seriously, at least where I'm from, 05 seems to be a pretty - well - promising - class)

How do you expect to afford a hawaii honeymoon AND a new suburban house so soon after graduating from college? The honeymoon might not be that expensive in the long run, but the house?
It's interesting how you plan to retire exactly upon turning 67 though...

and I notice you have your standard disclaimer as well :-)
-----------------------------------------