Strauss and Howe back in October 2001 made this checklist to be about now to see whether or not we are still in a 3T or have gone into a 4T a year from that date.

Within the next year, we'll know. Here's a checklist. If the following trends deepen, then America will be in the Fourth Turning, a new era of crisis.

Are leaders describing the problem in larger rather than smaller terms, proposing grand solutions, and seeking to destroy (and not just contain) enemies?

Is there a shift away from individualism (and civil liberties) toward community purpose (and national survival)?

Are the old "culture wars" arguments beginning to feel lame, ridiculous, even dangerous to national unity?

Is the celebrity culture feeling newly irrelevant? Is youth fare becoming less gross and less violent?

Is immigration reversing? Are mobility and openness declining? Is there more nativism in our culture and less "globalism" in our commerce?

Is there a new willingness to pay a human price to achieve a national purpose? Will we harness technology only to reduce casualties and inconvenience, or also to achieve a total and lasting victory.

Is each generation entering its new phase of life with a new attitude? Are aging boomers overcoming narcissism? Are Gen-Xers on the edge of midlife, circling their wagons around family? Are Millennials emerging as a special and celebrated crop of youth?

Originally Posted by justmom

When they absorb and accept groups like NAMBLA, what do you really expect?.....

When you accept and absorb people that adamently support abortion up to the day before birth. What do you really expect?.....

Perhaps if the leaders of the Democrat party actually got in touch with the
average Joe, then maybe your party has a chance.

i think you hit the nail on the head here, mom (if i may call you mom).

i don't really know anything about the jesse jackson thing, and the dock worker thing sounds like hyperbole, but i agree that the problem with the dems (in terms of ability to get elected) is their alienation of middle- and working- class white folks. if you don't belong to some kind of "minority" group, you won't be courted. and since the country is still (for now, anyway) mostly made up of these people, the elections go to the right.


TK

You can call me mom. No, TK, I am most definitely not exaggerating about the dock workers. I wish I were . It was big news all over talk radio. Because of the dock strike in Long Beach harbor.
I will see if I can find some local rag to link to.

But, yes, my point is that, the Dem leaders have really gotten off course, from the average Joe Dem in the heartland.

OK. Here is a local paper. Which reported the salaries.
Press Telegram

I'll cut and paste for ease......"I don't think we're given enough credit for when the ships are moving out of here," said Robert Bennett, 48, who has worked as a longshoreman in the San Francisco area for 11 years. With only a high school education, he has made as much as $80,000, the average for full-time dock work in the ILWU. The most experienced foremen can earn $167,000.

AND THIS


The two sides have been at the bargaining table since May trying to hash out a new three-year contract. Although the previous contract expired July 1, the two sides extended it continually on a day-to-day basis until Sept. 1.

They are at odds over benefits and pension packages and cargo- handling technology that the union fears would wipe out jobs.

Under the last contract, full- time longshoremen earn an average annual salary of $80,000, while the most experienced foremen average $167,000 before overtime is calculated.

Under the PMA's most recent proposal, those salaries would jump to $114,500 for longshoremen and $137,500 for marine clerks before overtime is added.


I am looking for something to verify the hours worked per week.

Originally Posted by justmom

I have a suggestion for you. Get rid of the filthy crap in your party.
When they absorb and accept groups like NAMBLA, what do you really expect?

When you accept and absorb people like Jessie " a fighter doesn't stay on the mat" Jackson. A man who being a Reverend, refused to humble himself, what do you expect?

When you accept and absorb people that adamently support abortion up to the day before birth. What do you really expect?

When your party supports (union) dock workers who work 16 hours per week, get full medical and dental, plus sick, vacation etc... AND get paid
100,000+ per year what do you expect?

Perhaps if the leaders of the Democrat party actually got in touch with the
average Joe, then maybe your party has a chance.

To put things simply, I'm with you on all your points. (I had to lok up what NAMBLA was. Geez, are the Dems really dumb enough to associate closely with them?

Just one thing, though: the Dems ain't "my" party. I'm just sensitive enough to imagine myself in their shoes, for the moment, to try and predict what will happen next.

Originally Posted by Sanford

What now for the Dems?

Yesterday (the morning after) as I was driving to work, I heard on the radio that exit polls nation-wide showed that more Republicans voted than Democrats.

Then today (Thursday) I heard on the radio that the Dems are starting to jockey for position for leadership in the coming Congress. One (I don't know these people) was quoted as saying that the electorate is more conservative so the Dems should move more to the right.

I don't think that is their problem, actually. I think the problem is that they do not represent any alternative to the Republicans. As someone on this list said: they tend to express concern about where the country is going and then vote with the Republicans anyway. It seems they are "leaders" without a constituency.

That they support silly causes or people who are way off center only makes them more irrelevent. But if they proposed a genuinely progressive alternative they might get their vote out.

The book (T4T) had a page on the ways each party would have to change in the crisis. Unfortunately, I do not have the book here at work. Can anyone put up on this page what was said. It would be helpful to our discussion here.


Disclaimer: I am not registered as either a Democrat or a Republican.

More interesting words from Eric Raymond:

http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/....html#84133776

...The Democrats have forgotten how to do politics that is about anything but politics. They're a post-modern political party, endlessly recycling texts that have little or no referent outside the discourse of politics itself...

The preconditions for paralysis had been building up for a long time; arguably, ever since the New Left beat out the Dixiecrats for control of the party apparat in 1968-1972. Caught between the blame-America-first, hard-left instincts of its most zealous cadres and the bland dishwater centrism recently exemplified by the DLC, the Democrats found it more and more difficult to be about anything at all. The trend was self-reinforcing; as Democratic strategy drifted, the party became ever more dependent on cooperation between dozens of fractious pressure groups (feminists, gays, race-baiters, the AARP, the teachers' and public-employee unions), which made the long-term drift worse.

Bill Clinton was the perfect master of political postmodernism and James Carville his prophet. For eight years they were able to disguise the paralysis and vacuum at the heart of Democratic thinking, centering party strategy on a cult of personality and an anything-but-Republicanism that was cunning but merely reactive. The Republicans cooperated with this strategy with all the naive eagerness of Charlie Brown running up to kick Lucy's football, perpetually surprised when it was snatched away at the last second, repeatedly taking pratfalls eagerly magnified by a Democratic-leaning national media.

But Bill Clinton was also a borderline sociopath and a liar, a man whose superficial charm, anything-to-get-elected energy, and utter lack of principle perfectly mirrored the abyss at the heart of the Democratic party. The greedy, glittery, soulless Wellstone-funeral fiasco was the last hurrah of Clintonism, and it cost Walter Mondale his last election fight.

Reality had to intrude sometime. The destruction of the WTC reduced all the politics-about-politics rhetoric of the Democrats to irrelevance. They stood mute in the face of the worst atrocity on American soil since Pearl Harbor, arguably the worst in U.S. history. The superficial reason was that their anti-terror policy was hostage to the party's left wing, but the deeper problem was that they long ago lost the ability to rise above petty interest-group jockying on any issue of principle at all. The most relevant adjective is not `wrong', or `evil', it's `feckless'.

Republicans, by contrast, forged a workable consensus during the Reagan years and never quite lost it. They've often been wrong, frequently been obnoxious as hell, and have their own loony fringe (abortion-clinic bombers, neo-fascists like Pat Buchanan, and the Christian Coalition) to cope with. But when Osama bin Laden demonstrated a clear and present danger to the United States of America they were able to respond.

They were able to respond not merely with reaction, but by taking a moral position against terrorism that could serve as the basis of an effective national strategy. Quarrel with "Homeland Security" all you like — but then imagine Al Gore in charge of defeating Al-Qaeda and shudder. He would actually have had to take the likes of Cynthia McKinney and Maxine Waters seriously...

The Democrats show no sign of developing a foreign-policy doctrine that can cope with the post-9/11 world, and their domestic-policy agenda is tired and retrogressive. Their voter base is aging, and their national leadership couldn't rummage up a better Wellstone replacement than Walter "What decade is this, anyway?" Mondale. The Democratic party could end up disintegrating within the decade.

This is not a prospect that fills me with uncomplicated glee. Right-wing statism is not an improvement on left-wing statism; a smug and dominant GOP could easily become captive to theocrats and know-nothings, a very bad thing for our nation and the world...[/i]

I stand corrected. This is what I get taking literary criticism from old Metallica songs. To wrap up the question:

Originally Posted by In 1916, Vicente Blasco Iba?ez

"Come and see," cried one of the beasts in a stentorian tone to the vision-seeing poet. . . . And the first horseman appeared on a white horse. In his hand he carried a bow, and a crown was given unto him. He was Conquest, according to some, the Plague according to others. He might be both things at the same time. He wore a crown, and that was enough for Tchernoff.

"Come forth," shouted the second animal, removing his thousand eyes. And from the broken seal leaped a flame-colored steed. His rider brandished over his head an enormous sword. He was War. Peace fled from the world before his furious gallop; humanity was going to be exterminated.

And when the third seal was broken, another of the winged animals bellowed like a thunder clap, "Come and see!" And John saw a black horse. He who mounted it held in his hand a scale in order to weigh the maintenance of mankind. He was Famine.

The fourth animal saluted the breaking of the fourth seal with a great roaring--"Come and see!" And there appeared a pale-colored horse. His rider was called Death, and power was given him to destroy with the sword and with hunger and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Here's another article on the disarray in the democratic party and about what direction they should head in. I particlularly found the comments of Al Gore interesting (from a T4T perspective):

"Democrats should not mistake the magnitude of this loss. There has to be a major regrouping." Gore also said it was time for Democrats to become "the loyal opposition in fact and not just in name."

Sounds like someone knows their S&H. Does anyone else think that perhaps Gore is gambling on their theory, or is it completely coincidental? I do know that he read Generations (since there was a comment of his on the back cover of it written when he was a senator).



Here's the full text:

Challenges On Agenda, Leadership

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2002Nov6.html


By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 7, 2002; Page A01


Shell-shocked Democrats emerged from Tuesday's midterm election in their worst shape since landslide defeats of 1984 and 1994, and began the process of picking up the pieces without the presidency or either house of Congress, without a dominant national leader and without a clear agenda to take into the 2004 presidential election.

Tuesday's results, in which President Bush and the Republicans recaptured the Senate, expanded their majority in the House and held down anticipated Democratic gains in governors' races, caught the party by surprise. The losses triggered finger-pointing at party leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), and reopened ideological and strategic divisions that have plagued the party for years.

"I think we're going to go straight from defeat to recriminations," said Democratic strategist Bill Carrick.

Some Democrats argued that the midterm elections did not fundamentally alter the balance of power in the country and had left America relatively close to the 50-50 nation that has prevailed since Election 2000. But former vice president Al Gore, in an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, said, "Democrats should not mistake the magnitude of this loss. There has to be a major regrouping." Gore also said it was time for Democrats to become "the loyal opposition in fact and not just in name."

But where the party was splintering yesterday was over what it would mean to act like the loyal opposition. Liberals called for an end to accommodation with Bush in the party's message, and centrists warned that moving too far to the left would destroy the party's ability to woo the independent and swing voters who hold increasing power to decide the outcome of close elections.

Party leaders sought to salve the sting of Tuesday's results by arguing that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Bush's popularity made this midterm unique in the annals of American politics and that, with most of the competitive battlegrounds in the so-called "red states" that Bush won in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats were at a distinct disadvantage from the start.

"If the Republicans had an edge over us yesterday, it was tactical rather than ideological," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence McAuliffe. "Ultimately, many of our candidates couldn't overcome the political muscle that carried many Republicans over the finish line. They had a wartime president with the highest sustained approval ratings in history, who made these elections his number-one domestic priority."

But McAuliffe got little support for that view from others allied with the party, who said the Democrats should have done better given the state of the economy and public pessimism about the direction of the country.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said labor's post-election polling found that a plurality of union members did not believe Democrats had a clear economic message for voters this fall. "They said neither party has a plan to strengthen the economy," Sweeney said. "That is a particularly strong indictment of the Democrats. They needed to be crystal clear what they stand for, and they were unable to do that."

Tuesday's results deepened the party's leadership vacuum, with its top tier of potential Democratic presidential candidates all tarnished by defeat. Gore lost a presidential race that many in his party still believe he should have won easily (although he received more of the popular vote than Bush). Gephardt has failed in four consecutive elections to win back the House. Under Daschle's leadership, Democrats this week surrendered control of the Senate.

Republican gains in the House brought immediate criticism of Gephardt, with Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) calling on him to give up his leadership post -- something Gephardt already was considering to prepare for a probable presidential campaign.

Gephardt will announce today his decision not to seek reelection as Democratic leader in the House, although sources said that some of his St. Louis-based advisers had argued against it because they believe it would hamper fundraising for a presidential campaign. Gephardt advisers said a formal decision about running would come later.

A senior Gephardt aide dismissed Ford as simply carrying water for Gore. "Harold Ford is a charter member of the Gore-for-president committee," the aide said. "He's always been the guy they go to to do their business. When they need someone to criticize Dick, he's always first in line. But what he has to say will have no impact on whether Dick Gephardt is going to be leader or not."

Daschle, on CBS's "Early Show" said he would not make a decision about running for president "in the months ahead," but a Democrat with ties to the Senate leader said Daschle would have to make a relatively quick decision because, unlike most of the other potential candidates, he has not spent much time this year preparing for such a campaign.

Gore, meanwhile, spent part of the day taping an interview with Walters. The bulk of that will air at the end of next week as part of a well-planned return to the public spotlight built around the publication of a book on families titled "Joined at the Heart," which Gore wrote with his wife, Tipper.

Some Democrats said the aftermath of these elections will prompt Democratic primary voters to look for a fresher face as their presidential nominee, which would benefit Sens. John Edwards (N.C.) and John Kerry (Mass.) or Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

But neither the retiring Dean nor Kerry, who was easily reelected Tuesday, showed much ability to help other Democrats in tight races in their state. Democrats failed to win back the governorship in Massachusetts and may lose the governorship in Vermont. In Edwards's home state, Elizabeth Dole (R) was elected to the Senate to succeed Sen. Jesse Helms (R).

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D), the party's 2000 vice presidential candidate, says he will run only if Gore doesn't, and the former vice president has said he will not make a decision until the end of the year.

Democrats were particularly dispirited yesterday, because they never anticipated the size of the GOP victories Tuesday. In 1984, when Ronald Reagan won a 49-state reelection landslide, and in 1994, when the GOP won 52 House seats and eight Senate seats to capture control of both houses of Congress, Democrats at least had early warning.

Robert Borosage of the left-leaning Campaign for America's Future said the party is in both better and worse shape coming out of this election than in previous defeats. In the early '80s, he said, Republicans were openly pushing for "a very conservative posture in American politics," while today there is much stronger support for the kinds of programs advocated by the Democrats, from prescription drugs to Social Security.

"In that sense, the Democratic Party is in a better position, because the public is still looking for progressive reforms in a whole bunch of areas Republicans are going to have trouble" fully embracing, he said.

What Democrats lack, he said, is a leader. "This party has to find new leaders, has to find its voice, has to decide what it's prepared to stand up and vote for," he said. "Unlike 1994, when Clinton was president and you had a leader, it's a much harder position to be in."

It took Clinton months to regain his political footing after 1994, but with the bully pulpit of the White House and with the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans overplaying their hand, he was able to put the party back on track. Democrats said yesterday they believe Bush will make too many concessions to the GOP right now that the Republicans control both the White House and the Congress. "The right wing of the party has been awfully patient with Bush and is looking for payback," one Democratic strategist said.

Where Democrats remained divided yesterday was on the strategy and message for the battle ahead, with some pointing to losses by Democrats who embraced part of Bush's agenda proving that trying to accommodate the president will not work.

Borosage, among others, argued for a strategy of getting tough with Bush. "It's hard to imagine that we should get more timid," he said. "Republicans won in part because Bush gambled big and they won. Cross-dressing and sword-rattling worked well because it was aided and abetted by the Democrats."

"Accommodation was not an obvious path to reelection," said pollster Geoff Garin. "I think that the mood will be more to take him on than to lay down for him."

Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) countered that candidates who sharply opposed the president did no better than those who embrace him. "You can't say Walter Mondale [in the Minnesota Senate race] didn't draw a strong distinction between himself and Bush, and he didn't win," Breaux said.

The moderate Democratic Leadership Council said the party's message of "promising the moon on prescription drugs and attacking Republicans on Social Security" should be buried. DLC founder Al From said the election of new governors in Pennsylvania and Michigan could influence the party to move in a different direction.

"I think the lesson for the presidentials is you really need a compelling message," From said. "You need to tell people what you're gong to do, and you have to have a critique of Bush. . . . If we become a strong reform-oriented party again, we'll be fine, and we have plenty of time to do it."


? 2002 The Washington Post Company

After contemplating the reactions to civilian deaths in the recent Russian "rescue" and the general acceptance of casualties in the "war against Terror, etc", I have changed my position from fence-sitting to here-we-go.

Any time I hear someone worry about "body-bags" coming home from Iraq I am struck by how stupid that sounds - like something from another era. In fact, this rhetoric is fast disappearing from the war discourse. It has lost all it's potency. There have been a slow but steady trickle of military deaths in Afganistan and the ME. I don't know how the military community sees it but most people seem to be taking it in stride.

9/11 seems to have scared the sh*t out of Americans so much that we have turned the corner into that fuzzy period of transition into the 4T. I don't know how long it will take - historians will have fun with that one in the coming decades - but I expect it to become more and more apparent in the next couple of years.

On a related note - I posted on another thread a question concerning the effect of the anticipated flood of Bush appointees to the federal bench on the crisis... Any bites here? :wink:

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

Here's another article on the disarray in the democratic party and about what direction they should head in. I particlularly found the comments of Al Gore interesting (from a T4T perspective):

"Democrats should not mistake the magnitude of this loss. There has to be a major regrouping." Gore also said it was time for Democrats to become "the loyal opposition in fact and not just in name."

Sounds like someone knows their S&H. Does anyone else think that perhaps Gore is gambling on their theory, or is it completely coincidental? I do know that he read Generations (since there was a comment of his on the back cover of it written when he was a senator).

A few thoughts on Mr. Gore, and the S&H theory of history:

Posted by: Marc Lamb
Date posted: Thu Dec 14 15:09:20 EST 2000
Subject: The real Al Gore?
Message:
Tim Russert said best I think. He observed that,
"The amazing thing about this campaign is that we saw
three debates and a different Al Gore in each one."

Was the Al Gore we saw last night, real?
You seemed to think so Mr. Strauss. You say you
and he were friends in the early '90s. In addition,
he seems to have endosed your theories on generations.

I am curious then, why did he do this thing? Why,
knowing that a premature turn could spell disaster
for our country, did he take to the brink of the turn?

I really would appreciate your thoughts about this Mr. Strauss.


Posted by: William Strauss
Date posted: Thu Dec 14 23:12:46 EST 2000
Subject: response to Marc
Message:
Marc, I wish I knew the answer to your question, but I don't.
But I do have a hunch. In my eyes, Al's public persona began to shift
right around the time of Clinton's Lewinsky/impeachment imbroglio. I
could be wrong, but I think Clinton's behavior (with women, and after)
bothered Al at a fundamental level, as a man and as a successor-in-
waiting. I know Tipper pretty well, and I'll bet it bothered her just as
much. The whole Clintonian defense plan threw Al off-joint, requiring
feints, facades, and calibrations. To Al's enduring credit, he can't put up a
false front (a la Clinton) without anguish--hence, his awkwardness when
the persona isn't real. From here on out, I'll bet he and Tipper will spend
time with the Clintons only when they absolutely must.

I hope, sometime down the road, to drain a few diet cokes (our shared
passion) with my old friend to find out what it was like. If so, I probably
shouldn't and wouldn't post what he'd tell me.


Comment:
None, really.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I stand corrected. This is what I get taking literary criticism from old Metallica songs. To wrap up the question:

Originally Posted by In 1916, Vicente Blasco Iba?ez

"Come and see," cried one of the beasts in a stentorian tone to the vision-seeing poet. . . . And the first horseman appeared on a white horse. In his hand he carried a bow, and a crown was given unto him. He was Conquest, according to some, the Plague according to others. He might be both things at the same time. He wore a crown, and that was enough for Tchernoff.

"Come forth," shouted the second animal, removing his thousand eyes. And from the broken seal leaped a flame-colored steed. His rider brandished over his head an enormous sword. He was War. Peace fled from the world before his furious gallop; humanity was going to be exterminated.

And when the third seal was broken, another of the winged animals bellowed like a thunder clap, "Come and see!" And John saw a black horse. He who mounted it held in his hand a scale in order to weigh the maintenance of mankind. He was Famine.

The fourth animal saluted the breaking of the fourth seal with a great roaring--"Come and see!" And there appeared a pale-colored horse. His rider was called Death, and power was given him to destroy with the sword and with hunger and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

If you're going back to the actual text, then you got them all right except the third horseman. That rider on a black horse is generally referred to as "Commerce". Of course, modern business-Christians don't cotton to that very much ...

Here's a direct quote from Revelations 6:5-6, as rendered in the New Revised Edition:

• 6:5 When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature call out, "Come!" I looked, and there was a black horse! Its rider held a pair of scales in his hand,
• 6:6 and I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's pay, and three quarts of barley for a day's pay, but do not damage the olive oil and the wine!"

Originally Posted by David '47

6:6 and I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's pay, and three quarts of barley for a day's pay, but do not damage the olive oil and the wine!"

Ah, the vagaries of translation. My version (KJV) reads thusly:

6:6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Sounds like a much better deal to me :lol:

Stand back peasants! And let the Children of God enlighten you.

1. NO the 3rd horse isn't commerce.
It doesn't go, a conqueror conquering the world, then war, then evil corporate capilitalist take over then death.

The third horse is Famine.
Remember Prof.. context,context, context.....

Rev. Chap 6.
6:1
And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

6:2
And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

In order to conquer, one uses the tools of war, therefore, death is the result.

6:3
And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

6:4
And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

ie: death

6:5
And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

6:6
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Death by famine

How do I know it's famine? Look at the context given by the 4th horse....

6:7
And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

6:8
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

...'cept for froggies!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by David '47

6:6 and I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's pay, and three quarts of barley for a day's pay, but do not damage the olive oil and the wine!"

Ah, the vagaries of translation. My version (KJV) reads thusly:

6:6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Sounds like a much better deal to me :lol:

Unless A = B, in which case we are in the deepest of doo-doo. That would make for the greatest of devaluations.

Originally Posted by justmom

With only a high school education, he has made as much as $80,000, the average for full-time dock work in the ILWU. The most experienced foremen can earn $167,000.

damn, that's insane. seriously, wtf?

Originally Posted by justmom

They are at odds over....cargo-handling technology that the union fears would wipe out jobs.

this is justifiable concern, but one that nobody (repub or dem) is addressing right now.

by all means, we need to encourage technological progress, but both sides must understand that with innovation comes job displacement. if we don't build something into the system to help those on the losing end adjust to the changes, we'll always end up with obstructionism.

i once read something that really illustrated the point, about how steam power would have been developed over a hundred years earlier if the boatmens's guild, fearing being put out of work, hadn't destroyed denis papin's model of the first steam-powered paddle-wheeler.

this is the whole reason we have the system of social insurance that we do. without it, capitalism may have succumbed (as it did in many countries) to a backlash in the form of fascist or socialist movements.


TK

Well, justifiable, yes and no.
The Ports claim they've promised that no body currently employed will loose their jobs.
Currently they keep track of the containers with chalk on the outside of the containers, guys walk around with clip boards and paper.
The Ports want to upgrade to a UPS style of tracking on a hand held computer.

The bottom line of the strike is, the Ports want to hire people who will do the tracking in the office as Non-Union.
The Unions position is since everyone who works down here is Union already, we want you to continue to hire Union.

The thing that makes me irate is the cost. Do you realize how much less
expensive most everything you buy would be if these guys were paid real wages? And the costs are going to go up beacause the Ports are offering a wage increase with no lay offs.

That is a serious WTF.

Yeah, and us evil Republicans want to "Break the Unions" .....damn straight!

[quote="AlexMnWi"]

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

The thing is, cartoons aren't real, and therefore lack all credibility.

Due to various parallels and patterns, millions and millions of mainstream Americans, even many conservative Republicans, actually stopped and entertained the notion that Wellstone's death may not have been an accident. quote]

"Millions and Millions"? Prove it. I dare you. Go right ahead and show me anything at all that proves that "Millions and Millions" of Americans even remotely considered that he was murdered.

Well, Alex, I found the site where Stonwall gets his stupid political cartoons. And guess what else I found? I found that it has had less than 600,000 hits since 1999. Check it out here

Originally Posted by justmom

Stand back peasants! And let the Children of God enlighten you.

1. NO the 3rd horse isn't commerce.
It doesn't go, a conqueror conquering the world, then war, then evil corporate capilitalist take over then death.

The third horse is Famine.
Remember Prof.. context,context, context.....

After performing a little research, I managed to find so many variations on a theme that I'll agree to accept famine if you agree that the only ones who starve are the poor. Context: "... hurt not the oil and wine.", which were only available to those who could afford them and manage to be spared.

I found several references to Levitticus, regarding the scales and selling grain by measure. I also found references to Zorastrianism. In fact, those are the oldest references. Here's a chronology of the topic. What is it with people that they dwell on this subject?

Personally, I find it to be interesting hogwash, but it has all the ultra-sex and ultra-violence anyone could ask.

Originally Posted by David '47

Unless A = B, in which case we are in the deepest of doo-doo. That would make for the greatest of devaluations.

I think you mean deflation. A devaluation would likely mean that a day's wages would remain the same nominally, but purchasing power would go down. Deflation, on the other hand, would bring down both wages and prices (increase of nominal purchasing power).

Regardless, I think mom makes a good point with her the last verse she quotes:

to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

That, to me, says

• War
• Famine
• Death
• Pestilence

Maybe Metallica was right 8)

Originally Posted by justmom

Yeah, and us evil Republicans want to "Break the Unions" .....damn straight!

Unionization sure can lead to some grotesque situations, sure! However, before we shoot all the union organisers (after the squad has warmed up on the trial lawyers) don't think that employers have reformed and want to play nice-nice.

- In the 90's the feds busted a meatpacker who decided he could save some bucks by "selling" the knives to the workers and then not pay them for the time he required them to stay and clean them.

- Walmart is being investigated for locking its employee in the store after closing time and making them work off the clock. The complaints have come from so many geographically remote locations that it is hard to see how this could be isolated or sour grapes.

- My own employer thought that he could deduct from the pay of his salaried employees if they didn't record 40 hours work every week.

I don't have the answer for curbing the excesses of labor unions but I am very reluctant to wish them gone entirely.

Originally Posted by David '47

I found several references to Levitticus, regarding the scales and selling grain by measure. I also found references to Zorastrianism. In fact, those are the oldest references. Here's a chronology of the topic. What is it with people that they dwell on this subject?

Personally, I find it to be interesting hogwash, but it has all the ultra-sex and ultra-violence anyone could ask.

As Jewish symbols are interpreted, wine is a symbol of joy and oil is a symbol of the fulfilment of the harvest. Both are particularly associated with the asif or the ingathering harvest which is celebrated at Sukkot (September-October).

Certain products are associated with each of the three harvests in the land of Israel. I wonder if alternative to the above, we could say that the famine will not touch joy and the ingathering which have theological values associated with them.

As a non-Christian, I am interested in this as metaphor for what people go through when their civilizations, whether anciet or modern, go through crisis and upheaval.

Wow, Elisheva.
That makes a TON of sense to me as a Christian. Knowing that the writer was Jewish, and using these symbols, is simply fastinating.

Thank you so much for posting that!

One thing, I've been taught that typical style of Jewish story telling is to
first give a general overview, then to retell the story filling in details.
Can you confirm or deny that?

P.S. What does your name mean, Eli=God, sheva=? rest?

Originally Posted by justmom

Well, justifiable, yes and no.
The Ports claim they've promised that no body currently employed will loose their jobs.

two things:

first, a pet peeve of mine-- it's lose, not loose, their jobs. to "loose" one's job is to "let it loose", implying, at the very least, quitting.

second, if the port's claim is in fact the case, then it is not justifiable (in this case) at all. but let's be honest-- the only reason they would keep their jobs when an obvious efficiency has been achieved is due to the union's threat of walkout (or what have you).

personally, i think the "excesses of the unions" (as i believe scott '63 put it) could easily be curbed (if not "broken" as you suggest) if society as a whole accepted the fact that social insurance is needed to protect those that are left behind in the wake of technological and economic progress. that way, the burden would not fall upon specific employers or even industries, causing them to reduce efficiency in order to placate labor. instead, society itself would accept this as a cost of progress. it's a numbers game, really, on par with how insurance companies operate-- if the risk is spread amongst the largest population possible, the cost to any individual is minimized.

currently, the left champions such programs in the name of social equality and the right attacks them as inhibiting individual responsibility. but really, they both miss the point.


TK