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 169







Post#4201 at 10-19-2002 05:51 PM by alan [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 268]
---
10-19-2002, 05:51 PM #4201
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
268

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
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
"Meanwhile, another danger looms--that Bush's policies will transform anti-Americanism into the world's common language of protest, what journalist Fareed Zakaria has called the emerging "default ideology of opposition."
Both prospects carry grave dangers for the United States and for individual Americans, at home and abroad."

I'm coming to believe that in some insane, boneheaded, reptile-brained way, the Bush administration is doing its damnedest to initiate the Fourth Turning, although I seriously doubt that the people at the top levels have ever heard of it.
Could this be the product of that fundamentalist Christian desire to
cause the Rapture and the Second Coming? If individuals in the administration have this as part of their religious belief structure it would have to have an influence on them, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Now that I've written this out, the reptile brain theory is making much more sense as an explanation for current events. Eat, sleep, kill......Its all very simple that way.







Post#4202 at 10-19-2002 06:27 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-19-2002, 06:27 PM #4202
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

This highlights the casual 3T attitude of the Bush High Command, but it does not change the fact that they are actively attempting to start a 4T war:








Post#4203 at 10-19-2002 09:56 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-19-2002, 09:56 PM #4203
Guest

The Bush High Command?

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
This highlights the casual 3T attitude of the Bush High Command, but it does not change the fact that they are actively attempting to start a 4T war...
Are any of you on the left growing tired of this sophistry? If for no other reason than such a brutal contortion of anything even slightly resembling the theory of the authors of The Fourth Turning.

I mean, come on, folks, it just doesn't get any worse than this! :wink:







Post#4204 at 10-20-2002 12:10 AM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
10-20-2002, 12:10 AM #4204
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
This highlights the casual 3T attitude of the Bush High Command, but it does not change the fact that they are actively attempting to start a 4T war:



IMHO Mr. Patton has an a knack for staying on topic.







Post#4205 at 10-21-2002 12:14 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-21-2002, 12:14 AM #4205
Guest


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.
What we have here is proof that the Millies can do math.

Good work kid.

And yes, this X-man is back after a needed break. :wink:







Post#4206 at 10-21-2002 02:47 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-21-2002, 02:47 PM #4206
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Earthshine
And yes, this X-man is back after a needed break. :wink:
Hey, Earthshine. Good to see you back here at T4T!! :-)







Post#4207 at 10-21-2002 06:35 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-21-2002, 06:35 PM #4207
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
Quote Originally Posted by Earthshine
And yes, this X-man is back after a needed break. :wink:
Hey, Earthshine. Good to see you back here at T4T!! :-)
Thanks Kiff. Nice to BE back.







Post#4208 at 10-23-2002 10:46 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-23-2002, 10:46 AM #4208
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Pat Buchanan argues that the news from North Korea exposes the "hollowness" of the Bush [sic] Doctrine:


... "Now, let's be clear, we aren't suggesting the U.S. go to war," the Journal assured us. But why isn't the Journal, wild for war on Iraq, wild for war on North Korea? After all, Pyongyang is a charter member of the Axis of Evil. It may have plutonium bombs. It is a terrorist state that has dynamited airliners, blown up half the South Korean cabinet, sent agents to murder its president, kidnapped Japanese citizens and sold missiles to state sponsors of terror.

Surely, this is a prime candidate for pre-emptive war. Will the Journal hawks explain to us why Saddam, with no nukes and a few decrepit rockets, is a mortal peril, but the sex-and-movies maniac Kim Jong Il, with a matched pair of plutonium bombs, is the kind of fellow we can do business with?

[snip]

This crisis has exposed the hollowness of the Bush Doctrine. Kim Jong Il and Saddam have observed that if you have nuclear weapons, the Bush folks will negotiate with you and bribe you. If you do not, they will threaten you. The Bush Doctrine of threatening pre-emptive war on non-nuclear rogue states may be the most powerful incentive for nuclear proliferation since Stalin learned Truman had the bomb.



Buchanan predicts the following logical outcome:


...The technology for the atom bomb is 57 years old. Eight nations have them. The technology for ballistic missiles is 58 years old. Dozens of nations have them. As proliferation takes place ? aided by North Korea, Pakistan, China and Russia ? this brief era of American global hegemony will come to a rapid close.

Americans will conclude that only our own vital interests justify risking a nuclear exchange with a rogue regime. We will give up the American Empire. Olsen is right. Fortress America is our future. North Korea has concentrated the mind wonderfully.



He is looking for so-called 4T-style "isolationism" in our future. Seems like wishful thinking though given the moral bankruptcy of our leadership and its stranglehold on power. Full column here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29377







Post#4209 at 10-23-2002 05:03 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-23-2002, 05:03 PM #4209
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

The Third Way

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
Buchanan predicts the following logical outcome:


...The technology for the atom bomb is 57 years old. Eight nations have them. The technology for ballistic missiles is 58 years old. Dozens of nations have them. As proliferation takes place ? aided by North Korea, Pakistan, China and Russia ? this brief era of American global hegemony will come to a rapid close.

Americans will conclude that only our own vital interests justify risking a nuclear exchange with a rogue regime. We will give up the American Empire. Olsen is right. Fortress America is our future. North Korea has concentrated the mind wonderfully.



He is looking for so-called 4T-style "isolationism" in our future. Seems like wishful thinking though given the moral bankruptcy of our leadership and its stranglehold on power.
I do not see Buchanan's neo-isolationism, the US as a wealthy state surrounded by impoverished autocratic government with nukes. I also don't see Dubya's neo-imperialism, the powerful nations preventing poor and impoverished areas of the globe from developing weapons of mass destruction and the means (perhaps terrorist) of delivery.

When Tony Blair came into power, he spoke of a "Third Way," originally an alternative to both capitalist imperialism and authoritarian communism. Clinton recently elaborated. Egypt's Al Ahram reported favorably on Clinton's speech, (See http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/608/op3.htm ) in what might be a manifesto for the anti-authoritarian anti neo-imperialist Third Way.

Al-Ahram was pleased by the speech overall, but raised an abstract but real concern.

However, the traditional problem raised by a world government is the one that German philosopher Kant put forward, namely, how to reconcile one global, central authority, that will necessarily be totalitarian in one form or other, with democracy, accountability, transparency. How to ensure that social structures based on the idea of a 'network' take precedence over those based on the idea of a 'pyramid', an interactive command system rather than from top to bottom? This problem was not sufficiently addressed by Clinton in his otherwise thought-provoking speech.







Post#4210 at 10-24-2002 03:19 PM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
10-24-2002, 03:19 PM #4210
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

Neo-Isolationism

First off, I'm BA-A-A-ACK! We finally had to get a new, and hopefully better, computer, as the other one proved to be a classic case of fubar.

Second, I can see us at least trying a brand of neo-isolationism after the current administration leaves office, whether of the 'Fortress America' variety, or the 'let's stop bothering them' flavor. However, I don't see it working in the long run. For one thing, our many sworn enemies won't let it work, once it no longer serves their purposes to do so.







Post#4211 at 10-24-2002 09:44 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
10-24-2002, 09:44 PM #4211
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Re: Neo-Isolationism

Quote Originally Posted by jds1958xg
First off, I'm BA-A-A-ACK! We finally had to get a new, and hopefully better, computer, as the other one proved to be a classic case of fubar.

Second, I can see us at least trying a brand of neo-isolationism after the current administration leaves office, whether of the 'Fortress America' variety, or the 'let's stop bothering them' flavor. However, I don't see it working in the long run. For one thing, our many sworn enemies won't let it work, once it no longer serves their purposes to do so.
What does the BAR stand for in FUBAR, again? I used to know that, but I can't remember those 3 letters.
1987 INTP







Post#4212 at 10-24-2002 09:55 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-24-2002, 09:55 PM #4212
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Re: Neo-Isolationism

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
What does the BAR stand for in FUBAR, again? I used to know that, but I can't remember those 3 letters.
Beyond All Recognition.







Post#4213 at 10-25-2002 08:09 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-25-2002, 08:09 AM #4213
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Neo-Isolationism

Quote Originally Posted by jds1958xg
First off, I'm BA-A-A-ACK! We finally had to get a new, and hopefully better, computer, as the other one proved to be a classic case of fubar.
Hey, welcome back. :-) And congratulations on the new computer. :-)







Post#4214 at 10-25-2002 08:35 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-25-2002, 08:35 AM #4214
Guest

dangerously dupped

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
Hours after the Senate votes to authorize action in Iraq, former U. S. president Jimmy Carter is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

How's that for irony?

The following quotes are from today's Washington Post and New York Times:

One of the proudest achievements of the Clinton administration was the Agreed Framework with North Korea. Clinton assured us that it froze the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea gave us a piece of paper promising to freeze; we gave North Korea 500,000 tons of free oil every year and set about building -- also for free -- two huge $2 billion nuclear power plants that supposedly could be used only to produce electricity. Japan and South Korea were induced to give tons of foreign aid as well, Clinton being the committed multilateralist, even in extortion.

It turns out the North Koreans took the loot and lied. Surprise! All the while they were enriching uranium.
--Charles Krauthammer (The Clinton Paper Chase)


"It was kind of like a miracle," breathed Jimmy Carter about his supposed conversion of the North Korean leader from lion to lamb on live TV. Ignoring the protests from realists in this space and all over about appeasement and lack of verification, the Clinton administration embraced Carter's "miracle." After all, hadn't the North Koreans agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed by the sternly unfoolable Hans Blix?

As we now know, the Carter-Clinton crowd was taken to the cleaners by a totalitarian regime that snatched our payoff and secretly kept on building nukes. When confronted this month with indisputable evidence of years of double-crossing us and the world, the Communist North headed by Kim's dictator son said, in effect, "Sure we did ? and your nosiness means that the deal is now nullified."
--William Safire (Hicks Nix Blix Fix)


So just days after former U. S. president Jimmy Carter is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, we find that he is among the most dangerously dupped in modern history.

How's that for irony? Thanks, Jimmy and Billy!







Post#4215 at 10-25-2002 11:32 AM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
10-25-2002, 11:32 AM #4215
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

?and Billy Jeff left The Mumbler with a trillion-trillion-dollar surplus without the threat of war. Now we have a trillion-trillion-dollar deficit, and The Mumbler wants to wage WWIII against the evil doer who tried to kill his daddy. Oh, but we do have our ?faith-based initiative,? and our Pledge, and our self-righteous songs. So how?s that for irony, all you God-Bless-Americans?







Post#4216 at 10-25-2002 11:54 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-25-2002, 11:54 AM #4216
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
?and Billy Jeff left The Mumbler with a trillion-trillion-dollar surplus without the threat of war. Now we have a trillion-trillion-dollar deficit, and The Mumbler wants to wage WWIII against the evil doer who tried to kill his daddy. Oh, but we do have our ?faith-based initiative,? and our Pledge, and our self-righteous songs. So how?s that for irony, all you God-Bless-Americans?
Nice to hear from ya, Croak. By the way, the deficit stands at "159 bllion", not the "trillion-trillion-dollar" beast of which you claim. But what's a few billion/trillion, huh?

Your post reminds of the the Clinton game, Croak, which still is; distort, distort, muddy the water, obfuscate, and when ya have to just lie. Which, as one of Clinton's fellow travelers pointed out, Clinton is "unusually good" at. Boy, that Clinton must of really learned a thing or two in Moscow during his Vietnam era visit there, huh? "Down with America!" Go, go, Ho, Ho! :wink:







Post#4217 at 10-25-2002 12:16 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
10-25-2002, 12:16 PM #4217
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
?and Billy Jeff left The Mumbler with a trillion-trillion-dollar surplus without the threat of war. Now we have a trillion-trillion-dollar deficit, and The Mumbler wants to wage WWIII against the evil doer who tried to kill his daddy. Oh, but we do have our ?faith-based initiative,? and our Pledge, and our self-righteous songs. So how?s that for irony, all you God-Bless-Americans?
Nice to hear from ya, Croak. By the way, the deficit stands at "159 bllion", not the "trillion-trillion-dollar" beast of which you claim. But what's a few billion/trillion, huh?

Your post reminds of the the Clinton game, Croak, which still is; distort, distort, muddy the water, obfuscate, and when ya have to just lie. Which, as one of Clinton's fellow travelers pointed out, Clinton is "unusually good" at. Boy, that Clinton must of really learned a thing or two in Moscow during his Vietnam era visit there, huh? "Down with America!" Go, go, Ho, Ho! :wink:
But the fact is that the Federal budget was running in surplus in January 2001, when Clinton left office and W. Bush took over. Be it sensible policies, luck, or a combination of the two, facts are facts.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#4218 at 10-25-2002 12:47 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
10-25-2002, 12:47 PM #4218
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonk
But the fact is that the Federal budget was running in surplus in January 2001, when Clinton left office and W. Bush took over. Be it sensible policies, luck, or a combination of the two, facts are facts.
Surplus my ass.


(graph uses real number through 2001, projected through 2008). Whay did the debt keep going up if the gov't was collecting revenues in excess of what it owed (the definition of a surplus)?

Let it never be said that accountants at Enron and WorldCom had nothing to learn from the US gov't.
"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#4219 at 10-25-2002 12:57 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
10-25-2002, 12:57 PM #4219
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?







Post#4220 at 10-25-2002 01:04 PM by Sanford [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 282]
---
10-25-2002, 01:04 PM #4220
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
282

Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?
While the debt and the deficit are not the same, Justin is not comparing apples to oranges. His post questions, if the budget was in surplus, why did the debt still RISE. His reference to the direction of change of the debt indicates he understands the terms.

I can't vouch for his graph, but if it is acurrate, his question is logical.







Post#4221 at 10-25-2002 01:08 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
10-25-2002, 01:08 PM #4221
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?
From Merriam-Webster:

Deficit: an excess of expenditure over revenue

Surplus: the amount that remains when use or need is satisfied

From http://www.house.gov/rules/glossary_fbp.htm

Federal Debt: The total amount of funds borrowed and not yet repaid by the federal government.

If one states that the government had an amount of money beyond what was used or needed (surplus), it is very reasonable to counter with evidence that the government (at that same time) continued to increase the total amount of funds borrowed and not repaid (fed. debt). I hope you can follow the logic.
"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#4222 at 10-25-2002 01:19 PM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
10-25-2002, 01:19 PM #4222
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

Re: Neo-Isolationism

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
What does the BAR stand for in FUBAR, again? I used to know that, but I can't remember those 3 letters.
Beyond All Recognition.
Actually, the meaning I had in mind was 'Beyond All Repair'. But yours is just as good.







Post#4223 at 10-25-2002 01:43 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
10-25-2002, 01:43 PM #4223
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
But The Wonk refers to deficit, while you refer to debt. Can you differentiate these apples from the oranges?
From Merriam-Webster:

Deficit: an excess of expenditure over revenue

Surplus: the amount that remains when use or need is satisfied

From http://www.house.gov/rules/glossary_fbp.htm

Federal Debt: The total amount of funds borrowed and not yet repaid by the federal government.

If one states that the government had an amount of money beyond what was used or needed (surplus), it is very reasonable to counter with evidence that the government (at that same time) continued to increase the total amount of funds borrowed and not repaid (fed. debt). I hope you can follow the logic.

I was also hoping to follow your logic, Justin. Thanks, but you are fundamentally confusing debt with deficit. It is entirely possible to have heavy debt without any deficit at all, if your revenues exceed your expenses, which include payments against your debt. That?s how most businesses operate!

BTW, Justin, your anti-voting attitude baffles me. What good can come from that?







Post#4224 at 10-25-2002 01:56 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
10-25-2002, 01:56 PM #4224
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
It is entirely possible to have heavy debt without any deficit at all, if your revenues exceed your expenses, which include payments against your debt. That’s how most businesses operate!
Agreed (of course). It is not possible, however, to have increasing debt -- what the graph shows -- without net liabilities (outlays) being greater than net income. This has very little bearing on the fact that one can hold a debt for quite a while, paying to keep it out of arrears, all the while posting surpluses.
This, in fact, describes my current financial state, as I have a mortgage and a (pitifully small) savings account. Note, however, that if my debt increased over any period, I could not claim to have brought in more money than I spent (again, the definition of a surplus).

BTW, Justin, your anti-voting attitude baffles me. What good can come from that?
What good can come from imposing my will on my fellow men? Click on the link in my sig.
"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#4225 at 10-25-2002 02:14 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
10-25-2002, 02:14 PM #4225
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
...What good can come from imposing my will on my fellow men?
Well, thanks, Justin. You make it too easy. I can rest a lot easier now, knowing you won't be imposing your will on me.
-----------------------------------------