Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I love trees, and see their benefit to mankind. But I do not hug them Mr. Parker.

Dear Mr. Lamb, do arborphiles have a special (not that there would be anything wrong with that) way of demonstrating this love. Can you kiss (if so inclined) and tell? Or is this a Platonic love? A friendship? Do advise.

Originally Posted by eameece

That's what Social Security and AFDC does. A lifetime ago is a short time anyway.

Just a correction. "That's what AFDC did. AFDC RIP. d. 1997 (it took the states some time to implement the 1996 legislation.) :wink:

Originally Posted by eameece

If we want someone who is of high principle and an effective campaigner who supports mostly progressive policies, it is futile to find that person in the current Democratic Party; certainly among those who are running.

There is one: Russ Feingold.

Because of Bush we are forced to acquiese in the consideration (if not support) of a lesser of two evils.

Ack. :-P :-P

You may be right in the end, Eric, but I don't want to think this way right now. Not unless I absolutely have to.

Howard Dean hasn't a prayer of winning because he is not a dynamic candidate with wide name recognition. He will simply be buried.

Perhaps. They said that about Jimmy Carter, too. ;-)

Edwards is another southern moderate Clinton, Gore, Johnson, Carter and won't revitalize the progressive core of the Democratic Party. When faced with the choice of a real Republican and a phony one, the public will choose the real one. Nor does Edwards have any experience, and that is a handicap.

I will still have to take a good hard look at him. He may be my second choice behind Dean right now.

Liebermann is not even worth mentioning (though I just did; ha!)

Agreed. Too far to the right.

Daschle is a wimp who has been unable to arouse the Democrats to victory.

Yes.

Kerry is a fresh alternative, but is also a wimp and cannot arouse or inspire anyone.

So far that's true. He may still have time to develop a backbone, since most Americans aren't paying attention to presidential politics right now anyway.

That leaves Gephardt. Besides doing what other politicians do and accept money from special interests, I don't see him as sleazy. He has none of the Clinton moral problems. But I agree he sold out and also was unable to stave off a Republican victory this fall. But he is an effective campaigner whose policies are at least somewhat progressive. I don't know who else there is in the Party.

I'm sorry, Eric. He may not be "sleazy," but he is smarmy, and he is old news. I just can't stomach the guy. Faced with a choice between him and Bush, I will definitely vote third party.

Originally Posted by David '47

I live in Virginia, which has been in the thrall of the hard right for some time. Under George Allen the Younger, we underfunded services like transprotation and education, but we built enough prison cells to last for 50 years ... even though the same GAtY managed to have parole abolished and attempted to have post incarceration sevices defunded. His successor, Jim Gilmore the Dim, continued by eliminating taxes when budget shortfals were already emerging, and by pretending that this was OK because transportaion problems could be solved by privatization.

Originally Posted by ... finishing his thought, Marc

In short, modern-day liberals are kooks!

At least liberals understand simple economics. Just how do you get more revenue by lowering already low taxes again?

I used to live in Columbus, which has been in the thrall of the hard left for some time. Under Judge Robert Duncan, we tore children from their familar neighborhoods, and forced them to attend schools twenty miles away from home and made them make friends (or enemies) with kids of a different color and economic backround. It didn't work very well. But the schools are still there teaching, and failing so miserably. It's so bad in the Columbus Public school system that parents are leaving the city in droves, or seeking private relief like the liberal politicans in Virginia and Washington do. Or hoping and praying that the courts here grant relief by way of vouchers and forced educational competetion. I wish them well, as I left long ago for greener pastures.

Econ 101 applies to the federal government as well as the private sector, Mr. Horn. Raise prices and you will sell less product; Raise taxes and you will have less economic growth (and hence less funds in the federal coffers). Reagan proved this was the case in 1981. Bush proved this was the case in 1990. And Bush 43 will prove this is still the case in 2003.

Otherwise, the liberals would be screaming bloody murder to raise taxes in order to get the economy growing again. :wink:

Marc,

I forgot to mention the illogical reasoning behind the tax cuts that have now generated the biggest revenue shortfall in Virginia's history. When I moved here, the state was the most fiscally sound in the US. In eight short years, we have reduced funding everything (except cops and prisons) to roughly the same level as Mississippi, the #50 state in almost all fiscal categories. Here are a few of the more bizarre results of this policy:

• Virginia Tech, the College of William and Mary and the Universtiy of Virginia are considering going private, since state funding is now insignificant. Unless they do this, they must subsidize in-state students without state funds
• Other state schools are just closing down programs or deferring maintenance, since going private only works at the top of the food chain
• Community colleges may be the worst affected. Many companies that rely on community college graduates as a primary source of trained workers are contemplating leaving the state entirely
• Traffic in Northern Virginia is now so bad that businesses are abandaoning the place, even though they are in close proximity to the biggest customer in the world
• We are seriously considering using the excess prison space to house the mentally ill, since mental heath services are basically gone
• More service cuts are in the offing, because the ones to date were the upper limit of those the governor can make without legistaive action. There is still a huge gap in the revenue to expenditures equation.

The solid Republican majorities in both houses of the Legislature have seen this as a good thing (I think), because they are already talking about addtiional tax cuts.

So much for Yoodoo Econ 101.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by David '47

I live in Virginia, which has been in the thrall of the hard right for some time. Under George Allen the Younger, we underfunded services like transprotation and education, but we built enough prison cells to last for 50 years ... even though the same GAtY managed to have parole abolished and attempted to have post incarceration sevices defunded. His successor, Jim Gilmore the Dim, continued by eliminating taxes when budget shortfals were already emerging, and by pretending that this was OK because transportaion problems could be solved by privatization.

Originally Posted by ... finishing his thought, Marc

In short, modern-day liberals are kooks!

At least liberals understand simple economics. Just how do you get more revenue by lowering already low taxes again?

I used to live in Columbus, which has been in the thrall of the hard left for some time. Under Judge Robert Duncan, we tore children from their familar neighborhoods, and forced them to attend schools twenty miles away from home and made them make friends (or enemies) with kids of a different color and economic backround. It didn't work very well. But the schools are still there teaching, and failing so miserably. It's so bad in the Columbus Public school system that parents are leaving the city in droves, or seeking private relief like the liberal politicans in Virginia and Washington do. Or hoping and praying that the courts here grant relief by way of vouchers and forced educational competetion. I wish them well, as I left long ago for greener pastures.

Econ 101 applies to the federal government as well as the private sector, Mr. Horn. Raise prices and you will sell less product; Raise taxes and you will have less economic growth (and hence less funds in the federal coffers). Reagan proved this was the case in 1981. Bush proved this was the case in 1990. And Bush 43 will prove this is still the case in 2003.

Otherwise, the liberals would be screaming bloody murder to raise taxes in order to get the economy growing again. :wink:

IMHO, ethnic and economic integration would have been better addressed back in the Awakening by using a carrot first, before applying the stick (in this case, it was the liberals who favored the stick first), using (a) magnet schools to attract willing students from both wealthy and poor districts; (b) installing quality, specially (militarily?) trained, higher-paid teachers into poor districts to provide those students with quality education, so that when they grew up they could simply leave those areas; and (c) giving anti-discrimination laws teeth (this is the stick part), so that well educated, middle-class people of color could leave bad neighborhoods behind and attain quality education and safer streets elsewhere.

All of these eventually happened in most places by the late 1970s-early 80s, after it became obvious that forced busing was another Awakening-era debacle of unintended consequences, like promiscuous sex, casual drug use and 120-decibel rock and roll. Still, it wasn't a complete failure-- possibly in part because of forced busing, Generation X is the most ethnically open-minded adult generation in the history of the Republic (a major reason why most of my friends have been Xers). But at what cost, when there was another way to accomplish similar results?

And Columbus schools? They are a complete travesty, of course. I suspect it is because they refuse to use either carrots or sticks to fix the schools. I don't believe that magnet campuses ever really caught on here, Columbus continues to offer the lowest pay in the region to bottom-tier teachers, and City Hall would rather spend money putting neat, glowing arches across High Street in the Short North than computers in every classroom. Their only option left seems to be vouchers, which are resisted with every fiber of the local Teachers' Unions collective being.

Which is why my sister lives in strongly-Republican Westerville with its fine public schools (and yes, Marc, they are even willing to raise taxes to keep them that way ;-)). Myself if I were to end up staying and raising a family here (NOT!!!), I'd live in the Grandview Heights/Upper Arlington area for the same reason.

Both MSNBC and CNN are reporting that Daschle won't run in 2004. Which is a good thing. :-)

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Both MSNBC and CNN are reporting that Daschle won't run in 2004. Which is a good thing. :-)

Yay! YAY!!! High-fives all around!!!

Not that it's going to matter much anyway :-?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Mr. Parker, I am the proud caretaker of one of the largest White Oak trees in Ohio. Not to mention over eighty Fraxinus americana, many reaching sixty feet tall, and over twenty other species of trees on my unique and rich habitat here in southern Ohio.

I love trees, and see their benefit to mankind. But I do not hug them Mr. Parker. Especiallly my Gleditsia triacanthos, as the act would do great bodily harm. :wink:

Hug a honeylocust? :o Yeah, that would really hurt!

BTW, do your ash trees turn an interesting shade of dark purple in the fall, or do they just turn pale yellow?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Awakening-era debacle of unintended consequences, like.... 120-decibel rock and roll.

and what's wrong with 120-decibel rock and roll?

TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Awakening-era debacle of unintended consequences, like.... 120-decibel rock and roll.

and what's wrong with 120-decibel rock and roll?

TK

...eh? what's that, sonny?? i can hardly HEAR YOU!!! :-D

Hey!

Name is Jason Carnevale, have not really posted here since the site opened in 1997. I was actually surprised it was still here, since I couldn't imagine the discussion going on for years and years. Oh well.

I'm currently a law student at Rutgers University - Camden, and I originally graduated from UC Berkeley with a history degree in 1998. Since I was born in 1976 that makes me a 13er, and I have found the book "Fourth Turning" to be more and more relevant as the years go by.

Honestly, when I heard the news on 09/11. my first thought was, "Uh Oh, this is it, but it's TOO DAMN EARLY". Then things returned to normal, and I started thinking that maybe we were still in a 3rd Turning.

That is still my opinion, that we are in an Unraveling, though in the final stages of it. When Strauss and Howe specified what the Unraveling was going to be like as it neared its conclusion, they seemed to mention that those in society who keep up with current events can see the Fourth Turning on the horizon. You start getting a feeling that the "party can't last forever."

I think we're all feeling this way. We see the coming problems like storm clouds, but they haven't broke yet. If they don't break, and blow away, we're still in an Unraveling. If they do break, we're in a Crisis. As the years go on, however, it becomes more and more likely that they will break and not blow away. We've been dealing with Iraq and North Korea for years; will these two issues finally come to a head now, or will they be dealt with only to rise up again in a couple years?

I think 2003 has a real good chance of being the year we fall into the Fourth Turning, and I don't think we're in one yet. The 2002 election was a political shift, but it was less of a reaction to events than simply a public disillusionment with the Democrats' inability to articulate a policy. I think the big election will probably be 2004 or 2008, maybe both.

Bush is going to lose in 2004, and he's going to fail for the same reasons his father did. The economy will still be mediocre, and Bush will have trouble articulating the "vision thing." He's had a very reactive presidency so far; he's been forced to react to events (not quite his fault) rather than being allowed to really make a difference with some far-reaching legislation. While I think he's done a good job, reciting past achievements is not going to work with the voters, especially if the Democratic candidate is a personable new guy with a major plan and good debating skills.

On the other hand, if that Democrat gets elected, he had better hope that his presidency goes well. If it does, the Democratic Party will probably control the American political scene into the 2020's. If he turns out to be a total failure, the Republicans will roar back in 2008 and you won't see another Democrat in office until 2028.

This year is going to be interesting. If we can make it past Iraq, either by diplomacy or a real quick victory, without North Korea trying anything, the Unraveling will linger on into 2004 (so long as nothing else happens). If however, Iraq turns into a quagmire, and/or North Korea decides to gamble and invade South Korea (and attack Japan with missiles?), that will probably be the catalyst event. Another major terrorist attack would probably also do the trick, especially if it employs weapons of mass destruction this time. I think this latter possibility is far less likely.

So, we're still in a 3rd Turning. My personal feeling is that a war with Iraq should be fairly quick, and that North Korea is the decisive factor. If Bush can solve this current dispute without armed force, the Unraveling will probably continue if nothing else happens.

Note that the percentage who would vote to re-elect Junior continues to hover around 50% (E2K all over again) despite all the emphasis the corporate media attaches to his "favorability rating" (still holding steady in the low 60s). If the Democrats would only produce a real candidate, they would win it. But this will not happen so long as they stick to underwear models, empty suits, and Republican-lite.



http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=664

(Usual disclaimers)



Released: January 07, 2003

Edwards jumps to second among 2004 Dem hopefuls; Bush job performance stays at 63%, re- elect at 51%; Nation still split on Iraq war - 50% support, 45% oppose; Dems lead on economy, health care, tolerance, GOP leads on terrorism, taxes, integrity, latest Zogby America Poll Reveals



North Carolina Senator John Edwards has surged into a tie for second place among rivals for the 2004 Democratic nomination, latest Zogby America Poll results show.

Among likely Democrats nationwide, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman
leads with 11%, followed by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards, both at 9%. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt is next at 8% and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle follows at 7%.

In July, Edwards was a distant seventh place among 2004 Democratic
hopefuls with 2% support among likely voters.

The poll of 432 likely Democratic voters, was conducted Jan. 4-6 and has a
margin of sampling error of +/- 5%.

Other 2004 Democratic hopefuls receiving support include: Civil Rights
Leader Al Sharpton 3%, with Florida Senator Bob Graham and Vermont Governor Howard Dean, both at 2%.

In the overall poll of likely voters nationwide, Americans remain split on a
possible war with Iraq, with 50% who support military action against Iraq compared to 45% who are opposed.

The overall poll of 1001 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 4-6 and
has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.2%.

President George W. Bush?s job performance remains strong at 63% positive,
36% negative, continuing to equal the 64% positive, 35% negative rating in October and the 63% positive, 36% negative rating voters gave Bush in September.

A slim majority (51%) says Bush deserves re-election compared to 36% who
say it is time for someone new. Another 13% are not sure. In October, 49% said Bush deserved re-election and 35% said it was time for someone new.

Slightly more than one in three voters (35%) say they would vote to re-elect
President Bush regardless of who he runs against, compared to 56% who would not vote to re-elect Bush regardless of who he runs against.

Results also show that voters believe Democrats over Republicans are the
party better able to handle jobs/economy (Democrats 43%, Republicans 36%), healthcare (Democrats 47%, Republicans 32%), the environment (Democrats 55%, Republicans 28%), and traditional values like tolerance (Democrats 45%, Republicans 30%).

At the same time, voters believe Republicans over Democrats are the party
better suited to handle taxes (Republicans 46%, Democrats 34%), terrorism (Republicans 54%, Democrats 20%), and traditional values like integrity (Republicans 42%, Democrats 27%).

Kevin; don't forget that many of us think we're not IN the Crisis yet. whoever is elected in 04 will not be chosen to lead us through a Crisis. The Boomer "Gray Champion" probably won't appear until the year 2020 at least. There can be no FDR who can be elected to 3 or 4 terms. Until the GC arrives, other leaders will have to do, and there's no reason why a Silent cannot handle things as they currently exist (Gephardt a "swinger"? I don't think so!). Certainly the Boomer Bush isn't doing the job. He may be trying to provoke the Crisis; he certainly isn't handling what he has provoked or allowed to occur. Where's Bin Laden?

Kiff, I don't know what smarmy means! Old news? Perhaps the people would prefer someone they know to an inexperienced upstart. Non of the contenders is GC material, but as I said, he isn't due for a while anyway. We just need someone who can beat Bush and provide somewhat of an alternative, so we don't fall into too deep of a crisis too soon.

But I too will probably vote third party, no matter whom the Dems nominate. I'm just looking at things as if I weren't going to.

Originally Posted by eameece

Kiff, I don't know what smarmy means!

From the online Merriam-Webster:

1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction -- New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality <smarmy eroticism>

I think #1 actually applies to a lot of politicians. ;-)

Old news?

Gephardt first ran for president in 1988. The world has passed him by.

Perhaps the people would prefer someone they know to an inexperienced upstart.

Well, that's what I'm thinking right now, which is why I think Bush will probably get re-elected.

So the dictionary defines 'smarmy" as a "New Yorker"? How appropriate.

Those who don't believe the we are moving into the 4th Turning should look at the Fiesta Bowl symbolism. Marc Lamb and Virgil have a good discussion of the 4th turning meaning of coach Jim Tressel and the team of Ohio State Buckeyes (contrasted with the group of Xer individuals from Miami).

On a personal note, I was fortunate enough to attend the Fiesta bowl and my tickets were on the Miami side among the Miami fans (actually, even the Miami side was 60% Ohio State). The taunts of the Miami crowd were clearly 3T ("You wish,pause pause, you were, pause pause, the Miami Hurricanes; you guys suck; good band, bad team; and other trash talking stuff so popular among professional athletes). the Ohio State cheers were leftovers from the last 4T (spelling out O-H-I-O from each side of the stadium; "Let's go Bucks"). The Miami fans were just Yankee fans (when the Yankees are winning) lording it over because they were on a long winning streak and not too smart about football (three separate groups of Miami fans near us all thought that overtime in college football was the sudden death variety of the NFL).

All this leads to my observation, from discussions with Miami fans but mainly their accents, that they are largely from New York/New Jersey and fit the definition noted above.

Monoghan, I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the passage in brackets was a quote, and "New Yorker" was a reference to where it was found, i.e. the New Yorker magazine.

Jason C--

Sure liked your post. Nope, this party ain't gonna to last forever. I figure about the time I'm croaking for real that Big Bad Thing will finally happen--sometime maybe after 2010. Yeah, I'll be something like Lincoln and never get to see the Second Reconstruction. (Great frogs are always assassinated.) But I sure do want to be alive when it happens. I'm just too curious.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Monoghan, I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the passage in brackets was a quote, and "New Yorker" was a reference to where it was found, i.e. the New Yorker magazine.

Of course it was, but I was dying to find a way to mention the way the Miami fans acted.

I didn't mention that after the game was over, a nice lady from South Dakota offered to take my picture with my 11 year old son, a Miami fan in his mid-50s kept standing in the picture trying to give the finger in the picture. He had that Newyawk accent, too. Smarmy.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by eameece

If we want someone who is of high principle and an effective campaigner who supports mostly progressive policies, it is futile to find that person in the current Democratic Party; certainly among those who are running.

There is one: Russ Feingold.

Excuse me while I go vomit all over the floor.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by eameece

If we want someone who is of high principle and an effective campaigner who supports mostly progressive policies, it is futile to find that person in the current Democratic Party; certainly among those who are running.

There is one: Russ Feingold.

Excuse me while I go vomit all over the floor.

Who may I ask is Russ Feingold?

Originally Posted by "Kevin Parker '59

Who may I ask is Russ Feingold?

He is the Democrat Senator for Minnesota and he along with John McCain wrote the campaign finance reform act.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Who may I ask is Russ Feingold?

He is the Democrat Senator for Minnesota and he along with John McCain wrote the campaign finance reform act.

Wisconsin actually, but that is pretty damn good for a guy who lives halfway around the world!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Monoghan, I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the passage in brackets was a quote, and "New Yorker" was a reference to where it was found, i.e. the New Yorker magazine.

Yes, that was the case. Sorry for the confusing cut-and-paste job there.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by eameece

If we want someone who is of high principle and an effective campaigner who supports mostly progressive policies, it is futile to find that person in the current Democratic Party; certainly among those who are running.

There is one: Russ Feingold.

Excuse me while I go vomit all over the floor.

Who may I ask is Russ Feingold?

The only Senator who voted against the PATRIOT act. A guy who actually practices what he preaches. He refused to take PAC money in his last election and almost lost his seat over it.