Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

First of all, why provide a link to the pro-SUV guy, when you've talked about a anti-SUV gal?

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

Firstly,
Well the article talked about the backlash aganist SUV's and what may be behind it.

Secondly,
I will clear this one Australian 'Conservatives' do not mind trampling over 'few liberties and rights here and there' in the pursuit of making a more 'ordered, decent civil' society, some of them would love a Singapore style justice system if it meant very low crime rates. Before the 1960's Singapore's apporach to justice which includes corporal punishment for minor offenders was the standard in Britain and also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

If our American conservative friends were halfway honest, they'd admit that this is their view as well. Order and using the "stick" to achieve it are hallmark conservative positions in this country, too. Show me even ONE Republican Attorney General that didn't support a strict application of "justice", even though the risk to the innocent was high. I doubt you'll find one.

If you question their overbearing use of the police power, you'll only be branded as "soft on crime". Like the SUV phenomenon, it's the fear factor that rules.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

First of all, why provide a link to the pro-SUV guy, when you've talked about a anti-SUV gal?

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

Firstly,
Well the article talked about the backlash aganist SUV's and what may be behind it.

Secondly,
I will clear this one Australian 'Conservatives' do not mind trampling over 'few liberties and rights here and there' in the pursuit of making a more 'ordered, decent civil' society, some of them would love a Singapore style justice system if it meant very low crime rates. Before the 1960's Singapore's apporach to justice which includes corporal punishment for minor offenders was the standard in Britain and also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

If our American conservative friends were halfway honest, they'd admit that this is their view as well. Order and using the "stick" to achieve it are hallmark conservative positions in this country, too. Show me even ONE Republican Attorney General that didn't support a strict application of "justice", even though the risk to the innocent was high. I doubt you'll find one.

If you question their overbearing use of the police power, you'll only be branded as "soft on crime". Like the SUV phenomenon, it's the fear factor that rules.

emeece wrote:
Actually, on astrological grounds, I claim Bush will not be in office after 2005. We'll see.[/quote]

Monoghan notes:

I knew that you were both Californians, but I never would have guessed that you and Nancy Reagan shared the same intellectual background.

emeece wrote:
Actually, on astrological grounds, I claim Bush will not be in office after 2005. We'll see.[/quote]

Monoghan notes:

I knew that you were both Californians, but I never would have guessed that you and Nancy Reagan shared the same intellectual background.

Monoghan, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have known long ago that Eric is an astrologer. But the difference between him and Nancy is that he actually does it, rather than paying someone else to do it.

Monoghan, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have known long ago that Eric is an astrologer. But the difference between him and Nancy is that he actually does it, rather than paying someone else to do it.

Originally Posted by David '47

If you question their overbearing use of the police power, you'll only be branded as "soft on crime". Like the SUV phenomenon, it's the fear factor that rules.

I guess that makes me soft on SUVs, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by David '47

If you question their overbearing use of the police power, you'll only be branded as "soft on crime". Like the SUV phenomenon, it's the fear factor that rules.

I guess that makes me soft on SUVs, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by David '47

Is this your opening shot on the issue of driver"s rights? If so, I'll enjoy seeing you try to defending your point. There are a lot of things that can reasonabley be called "rights", but SUV ownership and use aren't among them.

No, I don't think much of anything can be accomplished by debating this SUV business so I do not see any point in doing so. But after all these years of putting up with this tobacco nonsense, I think a lot of people have finally had it with this busybody crap and they are not going to take it anymore. If this SUV silliness keeps up, I believe the adults among us will finally assert themselves. There actually are important things going on in this country and the world at the moment which deserve our attention. Maybe we will finally get our priorities back in order.

Originally Posted by David '47

Is this your opening shot on the issue of driver"s rights? If so, I'll enjoy seeing you try to defending your point. There are a lot of things that can reasonabley be called "rights", but SUV ownership and use aren't among them.

No, I don't think much of anything can be accomplished by debating this SUV business so I do not see any point in doing so. But after all these years of putting up with this tobacco nonsense, I think a lot of people have finally had it with this busybody crap and they are not going to take it anymore. If this SUV silliness keeps up, I believe the adults among us will finally assert themselves. There actually are important things going on in this country and the world at the moment which deserve our attention. Maybe we will finally get our priorities back in order.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

There actually are important things going on in this country and the world at the moment which deserve our attention.

Like what?



Oh, yeah... our evil Bushlicker, Gestapoesque, Hermann Goeringish, resurgent 1984 Big Brother, Republican Neo-Con backed, anti-ACLU and civil liberty hating, all seeing, all knowing, want to kill babies with tobacco, gun-totin', SUV-driving, wife-beating, illegal immigrant loathing, grandma should eat dog food believeing, backwoods fundamentalist preachin', God fearing, flag-a-waving, naked statue-a-covering Attorney General Ashcroft has dropped the ball on illegal immigration. :wink:



p.s. Did I mention he's a BIG CORPORATIST, too?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

There actually are important things going on in this country and the world at the moment which deserve our attention.

Like what?



Oh, yeah... our evil Bushlicker, Gestapoesque, Hermann Goeringish, resurgent 1984 Big Brother, Republican Neo-Con backed, anti-ACLU and civil liberty hating, all seeing, all knowing, want to kill babies with tobacco, gun-totin', SUV-driving, wife-beating, illegal immigrant loathing, grandma should eat dog food believeing, backwoods fundamentalist preachin', God fearing, flag-a-waving, naked statue-a-covering Attorney General Ashcroft has dropped the ball on illegal immigration. :wink:



p.s. Did I mention he's a BIG CORPORATIST, too?

I knew that Meece was some type of New Age adherent, just not to astrology because he rejects the authors' thesis. (My bad for not reading the archives).

I also did not realize that there is such a chasm of respectability between believing practitioners of astrology and believing consumers of astrology. That must account for the difference in political positions taken by Mr. Meece and Mrs. Reagan. {sarcasm off}

I knew that Meece was some type of New Age adherent, just not to astrology because he rejects the authors' thesis. (My bad for not reading the archives).

I also did not realize that there is such a chasm of respectability between believing practitioners of astrology and believing consumers of astrology. That must account for the difference in political positions taken by Mr. Meece and Mrs. Reagan. {sarcasm off}

Hi all! Hope you had a great winter break!

About the SUV's: I think that the original post on this thread was stating that the fuss about SUV's gives us some clue as to which turning we might be in.

There has been a minor fuss about SUV's. (We used to call them SAV's--Suburban Assault Vehicles). There was a photograph in the paper in December that showed Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform Movement's Religious Action Center getting into a small, gas efficient vehicle with a bumber sticker that said "What would Jesus Drive?" Whether this is evidence of 3T or 4T I don't know. There could be arguments for both positions.

BUT the SUV fuss does show that we are not approaching regeneracy yet, if 9/11 was the catalyst. The issue of the SUV is only the tip of the issue iceberg. It is our need for oil that makes the middle east an area of intense interest to the US. Although we now get the majority of the oil we use from other sources, we still need oil from the middle east because since the Embargo following the '73 war, we have gradually gone back to driving massive cars that use lots of gas and we use more oil than ever in manufacting of stuff that we like to buy. As this crisis deepens, we will need to seriously consider how to reduce our oil use and so lessen our dependence on middle east oil. This will free us and it will also make it necessary for the middle-eastern oil producers to develop their nations in other ways. They will have to focus on the education of their population to produce wealth not just take it from the ground. This could well mean changes in governments there to accommodate such a change.

Oil, or more globally, energy will be a problem that we will have to solve to successfully navigate this crisis.

Hi all! Hope you had a great winter break!

About the SUV's: I think that the original post on this thread was stating that the fuss about SUV's gives us some clue as to which turning we might be in.

There has been a minor fuss about SUV's. (We used to call them SAV's--Suburban Assault Vehicles). There was a photograph in the paper in December that showed Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform Movement's Religious Action Center getting into a small, gas efficient vehicle with a bumber sticker that said "What would Jesus Drive?" Whether this is evidence of 3T or 4T I don't know. There could be arguments for both positions.

BUT the SUV fuss does show that we are not approaching regeneracy yet, if 9/11 was the catalyst. The issue of the SUV is only the tip of the issue iceberg. It is our need for oil that makes the middle east an area of intense interest to the US. Although we now get the majority of the oil we use from other sources, we still need oil from the middle east because since the Embargo following the '73 war, we have gradually gone back to driving massive cars that use lots of gas and we use more oil than ever in manufacting of stuff that we like to buy. As this crisis deepens, we will need to seriously consider how to reduce our oil use and so lessen our dependence on middle east oil. This will free us and it will also make it necessary for the middle-eastern oil producers to develop their nations in other ways. They will have to focus on the education of their population to produce wealth not just take it from the ground. This could well mean changes in governments there to accommodate such a change.

Oil, or more globally, energy will be a problem that we will have to solve to successfully navigate this crisis.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Reclassifying them as passenger cars subject to the 27mpg CAFE requirement might well mandate that my next vehicle be either an SUV, or a dorky little Toyota Echo, neither choice of which would be acceptable to me.

Hey Kevin! I own two Echos, and they're great cars! :-) Great gas mileage and pretty good power for a little car.

Otherwise, I agree with you about SUVs; right now the people want 'em, and that's fine, but someday gas will shoot up over $2 a gallon again, and they'll switch.

I still think that the Arianna Huffington-sponsored anti-SUV ads are a complete riot! :lol:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Reclassifying them as passenger cars subject to the 27mpg CAFE requirement might well mandate that my next vehicle be either an SUV, or a dorky little Toyota Echo, neither choice of which would be acceptable to me.

Hey Kevin! I own two Echos, and they're great cars! :-) Great gas mileage and pretty good power for a little car.

Otherwise, I agree with you about SUVs; right now the people want 'em, and that's fine, but someday gas will shoot up over $2 a gallon again, and they'll switch.

I still think that the Arianna Huffington-sponsored anti-SUV ads are a complete riot! :lol:

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Reclassifying them as passenger cars subject to the 27mpg CAFE requirement might well mandate that my next vehicle be either an SUV, or a dorky little Toyota Echo, neither choice of which would be acceptable to me.

Hey Kevin! I own two Echos, and they're great cars! :-) Great gas mileage and pretty good power for a little car.

Otherwise, I agree with you about SUVs; right now the people want 'em, and that's fine, but someday gas will shoot up over $2 a gallon again, and they'll switch.

I still think that the Arianna Huffington-sponsored anti-SUV ads are a complete riot! :lol:

Sorry, Kiff- no offense intended! That example popped into my head because a few months ago i saw a movie called "One Hour Photo" featuring Robin Williams as a psychotic dork-from-Hell, and he drove an Echo. In the movie, the car seemed to underscore the personality of the character. Not that I think that you are a psycho! :-)

But seriously, if in two or three years I decide to step down from my 3-Series I just might consider buying another Toyota Celica. I've owned three in my life, and yes they were all great cars. They'll have to change the body style though-- the current Celica model sucks! It's smaller than the last model, feels very cramped inside and has lousy, un-Toyotalike interior fit-and-finish.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Reclassifying them as passenger cars subject to the 27mpg CAFE requirement might well mandate that my next vehicle be either an SUV, or a dorky little Toyota Echo, neither choice of which would be acceptable to me.

Hey Kevin! I own two Echos, and they're great cars! :-) Great gas mileage and pretty good power for a little car.

Otherwise, I agree with you about SUVs; right now the people want 'em, and that's fine, but someday gas will shoot up over $2 a gallon again, and they'll switch.

I still think that the Arianna Huffington-sponsored anti-SUV ads are a complete riot! :lol:

Sorry, Kiff- no offense intended! That example popped into my head because a few months ago i saw a movie called "One Hour Photo" featuring Robin Williams as a psychotic dork-from-Hell, and he drove an Echo. In the movie, the car seemed to underscore the personality of the character. Not that I think that you are a psycho! :-)

But seriously, if in two or three years I decide to step down from my 3-Series I just might consider buying another Toyota Celica. I've owned three in my life, and yes they were all great cars. They'll have to change the body style though-- the current Celica model sucks! It's smaller than the last model, feels very cramped inside and has lousy, un-Toyotalike interior fit-and-finish.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Sorry, Kiff- no offense intended! That example popped into my head because a few months ago i saw a movie called "One Hour Photo" featuring Robin Williams as a psychotic dork-from-Hell, and he drove an Echo. In the movie, the car seemed to underscore the personality of the character. Not that I think that you are a psycho! :-)

I meant to see that movie. Gotta put it on my list of Things to See in '03. ;-) Thanks for the tip. No offense taken. Shoot, I never notice what people drive in movies ('Cept for Bond, of course. ;-)).

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Sorry, Kiff- no offense intended! That example popped into my head because a few months ago i saw a movie called "One Hour Photo" featuring Robin Williams as a psychotic dork-from-Hell, and he drove an Echo. In the movie, the car seemed to underscore the personality of the character. Not that I think that you are a psycho! :-)

I meant to see that movie. Gotta put it on my list of Things to See in '03. ;-) Thanks for the tip. No offense taken. Shoot, I never notice what people drive in movies ('Cept for Bond, of course. ;-)).

In assessing whether any given controversy is a sign of 3T or 4T, I think it's helpful to bear in mind the issues on which the Crisis turns. Once again, in my opinion, these are:

1) The instability of the global economy due to maldistribution of wealth;

2) The breakdown of the global peacekeeping system due to the fall of one of the superpowers, and accompanying proliferation of WMD and terrorist movements; and

3) The looming collision between our low efficiency/high throughput style of production/consumption, and natural limits.

An issue that encompasses one or more of these three is 4T; one that does not is 3T. The SUV controversy touches on the third issue directly and the second indirectly. It is therefore 4T, although I agree with Eli that it is only the tip of the iceberg, and that far more serious transformations will be necessary than merely upping SUV gas mileage requirements or even banning SUVs altogether.

In assessing whether any given controversy is a sign of 3T or 4T, I think it's helpful to bear in mind the issues on which the Crisis turns. Once again, in my opinion, these are:

1) The instability of the global economy due to maldistribution of wealth;

2) The breakdown of the global peacekeeping system due to the fall of one of the superpowers, and accompanying proliferation of WMD and terrorist movements; and

3) The looming collision between our low efficiency/high throughput style of production/consumption, and natural limits.

An issue that encompasses one or more of these three is 4T; one that does not is 3T. The SUV controversy touches on the third issue directly and the second indirectly. It is therefore 4T, although I agree with Eli that it is only the tip of the iceberg, and that far more serious transformations will be necessary than merely upping SUV gas mileage requirements or even banning SUVs altogether.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In assessing whether any given controversy is a sign of 3T or 4T, I think it's helpful to bear in mind the issues on which the Crisis turns. Once again, in my opinion, these are:

1) The instability of the global economy due to maldistribution of wealth;

2) The breakdown of the global peacekeeping system due to the fall of one of the superpowers, and accompanying proliferation of WMD and terrorist movements; and

3) The looming collision between our low efficiency/high throughput style of production/consumption, and natural limits.

I believe we're in a Fourth Turning, and I have no trouble seeing how issues (1) and (2) fit into the current crisis. I also believe that "our low efficiency/high throughput style of production/consumption" will pose a threat to the continuance of civilization (and possibly the human species). But I have a harder time seeing the emergence of this issue as a life-and-death matter over the next twenty years or so. For example, most of the studies I've heard about put the bulk of the problems associated with global warming (e.g. destruction of biomes and associated species loss, movement of agricultural belts, coastal flooding) toward the end of the 21st century.

I gather that you have a different take on the matter. Could you elaborate? How might the environmental consequences of our past and current behavior come home to roost over the next few decades to the point where civilization is threatened?