Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Um, if I may ask, how old were you, Dom, when the Challenger blew up?

Eighteen and in college.

I was twenty-six, a recent college graduate and entree to the professional rat-race and extremely well aware of what was going on around me. Unfazed my ass!!! The American public was absolutely devastated by the Challenger explosion-- in fact, good, patriotic conservatives who remembered the glory days of the Apollo moon program seemed to have been by far the most troubled of us all. People were indeed wondering if it was worth continuing the space program, largely because there didn't seem to be a goal worth losing human lives over (such as a manned landing on Mars) within reach. It didn't have a damned thing to do with a supposedly bloated and disingenuous NASA bureacracy at all. Myself, I changed my major from physics to civil engineering in 1981, largely because there didn't seem much point in pursuing a career in Space Sciences that --at the time -- weren't going anywhere very exciting.

Your ass and anger aside, the polls consistently showed a majority favoring continuation of the space program.

I'm not angry, I merely described what I observed at the time. I never said that people didn't favor continuation of the space program, either; what I did say was that they certainly were questioning its viability, and for reasons other than the usual "starving babies in ______(you fill in the country-of-the-month)" habitually given by many liberals during the Awakening. In the end, most Americans felt that ending the shuttle program would dishonor those who died, as well as remove the United States from the cutting edge of technological development.

Still, it took two-and-a-half years before we returned to space after Challenger. Bet it doesn't take that long this time. Moreover, Columbia will likely spur the preliminary development of the next generation of space vehicles-- fully reusable, fully powered craft which will enable us to establish a base on the moon, mine the asteroids, and travel to Mars and beyond, during the next High and Awakening. Who knows? With scientists on the brink of discovering precisely what gravity is and what makes it tick, antigravity spacecraft that will "float" their way to the outer planets are a strong possibility by the 2040s. I hope I am still alive by then-- it will be fascinating!

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Um, if I may ask, how old were you, Dom, when the Challenger blew up?

Eighteen and in college.

I was twenty-six, a recent college graduate and entree to the professional rat-race and extremely well aware of what was going on around me. Unfazed my ass!!! The American public was absolutely devastated by the Challenger explosion-- in fact, good, patriotic conservatives who remembered the glory days of the Apollo moon program seemed to have been by far the most troubled of us all. People were indeed wondering if it was worth continuing the space program, largely because there didn't seem to be a goal worth losing human lives over (such as a manned landing on Mars) within reach. It didn't have a damned thing to do with a supposedly bloated and disingenuous NASA bureacracy at all. Myself, I changed my major from physics to civil engineering in 1981, largely because there didn't seem much point in pursuing a career in Space Sciences that --at the time -- weren't going anywhere very exciting.

Your ass and anger aside, the polls consistently showed a majority favoring continuation of the space program.

I'm not angry, I merely described what I observed at the time. I never said that people didn't favor continuation of the space program; what I did say was that they certainly were questioning its viability, and for reasons other than the usual "starving babies in ______(you fill in the country-of-the-month)" habitually given by many liberals of that era. In the end, most Americans felt that ending the shuttle program would dishonor those who died, as well as remove the United States from the cutting edge of technological development.

Still, it took two-and-a-half years before we returned to space after Challenger. Bet it doesn't take that long this time. Moreover, Columbia will likely spur the preliminary development of the next generation of space vehicles-- fully reusable, fully powered craft which will enable us to establish a base on the moon, mine the asteroids, and travel to Mars and beyond, during the next High and Awakening. Who knows? With scientists on the brink of discovering precisely what gravity is and what makes it tick, antigravity spacecraft that will "float" their way to the outer planets are a strong possibility by the 2040s. I hope I am still alive by then-- it will be fascinating!

I don't know--from what I've heard of general relativity, antigravity is probably one of those absolutely impossible things. One of the few. On the other hand, we did recently develop an experimental ion drive. (What happened to teleportation, anyway? I heard about its being accomplished on a small scale on ABC News in the late 1990's, and then never heard hide nor hair of it again).

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

People were indeed wondering if it was worth continuing the space program, largely because there didn't seem to be a goal worth losing human lives over (such as a manned landing on Mars) within reach. It didn't have a damned thing to do with a supposedly bloated and disingenuous NASA bureacracy at all.

This is my recollection as well. The talk in the news suggested the possible end of the space program (or at least of the shuttle program with no new program in sight). And it was a number of years before another shuttle would go up.

Regarding the 3T mood in 1986, yes Mr. Reagan's forays into Grenada and Libya (we'll forget about Lebanon here, for discusion's sake) had succeeded in getting America over its post-Vietnam malaise, and because of that-- along with Mr. Gorbachev's new glasnost policy -- the fear of nuclear war was beginning to wane. But it was the Challenger disaster that suggested rather strongly that the old America -- that which could both imagine and accomplish nearly anything it wished -- was not "back" as the President would rather have had us believe. Such was the genesis of Xer-style "whatever" cynicism that emerged full-blown by the early 1990s, a confirmation that the downward spiral the world had been in since the Summer of Love had not reversed, but had in fact accelerated.

Looking back, I would say that Challenger was the 3T's Social Moment, the point at which most people realized that there was no going back even to the Awakening, let alone to the glory days of the High when JFK announced that "We Choose To Go To The Moon....not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

This MUST be generational because, although I thought Challenger was incredibly tragic, it did NOT leave any permanent impression on me or any other Xer I knew. Yet you and S&H agree and note that you are all Boomers! Were someone to ask me as an Xer to list the most significant events of the 1980s, I would list the following (in chronological order):

1980 - Reagan's election and the freeing of the hostages in Iran.

1983 - the Grenada invasion.

198? - the bombing of Libya

1986/1987 - Iran-Contra

1989 - Fall of Berlin Wall.

And Tiananmen Square if it fell in 1989.


Note that the '87 stock market crash and the barracks bombing in Lebanon do not even come immediately to mind but I am sure they might to lefty Xers. But Challenger does not register at all and I cannot see it really registering with any Xers I have hung with. However we see evidence that it registered with Boomers (Kevin and the authors). Interesting.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Columbia turned out to be the Social Moment-- or Regeneracy-- of the current Fourth Turning. We shall see.

Do you mean that everyone will now support the Bush administration's military aggression and empire building? I doubt it. It may be the Social Moment but I do not think we are even close to the Regeneracy yet.

Well, I have no memories of the Challenger disaster, but the Columbia one was jarring indeed. There certainly IS a resolve to continue the space program. There is a definite consensus on this. I haven't even heard the fringe left speak against the continuation of the program.

In fact, I even found an article that uses the disaster to bring back "common purpose": http://makethemaccountable.com/caro/...aChallenge.htm

If there IS going to be any talk against the space program from any side, the question will most likely be one of the ability to fund it in a time of national and fiscal crisis.

Regardless, space will loom at least somewhat large during this 4T, especially given the fact that China plans to land men on the moon this decade, and I'm sure that no one wants China to dominate the high frontier.

One of the largest battlegrounds in the debate will be Bush's plan to build a nuclear power spacecraft. My own opinion is that it should not be a laumch vehicle, and should remain in orbit to be used as an interplanetary vehicle. There is a debate brewing that the vehicle should not be built at all. I would recommend that funding be sent to the effort to build aspace elevator, and for interplanetary travel, to maybe the M2P2 concept, among others. Building these new projects, among others, such as Lunar and asteroid mining, along with building solar power satellites in orbit and on the Lunar surface should definitely revitalize our space program. NASA is just starving for a new (Millie) generation to revitalize the program as the GIs have disappeared. One can imagine that the Boomers will answer the moral questions, such as whether or not space should be militarized or be used for peace, private or public, and more, while the Xers skip all of the procedural mechanisms that plagued the space program in the post-Apollo era, while the Millies revitalize the aerospace industry, and build the new space infrastructure.

[quote-Stonewall Patton]This MUST be generational because, although I thought Challenger was incredibly tragic, it did NOT leave any permanent impression on me or any other Xer I knew. Yet you and S&H agree and note that you are all Boomers! Were someone to ask me as an Xer to list the most significant events of the 1980s, I would list the following (in chronological order):

1980 - Reagan's election and the freeing of the hostages in Iran.

1983 - the Grenada invasion.

198? - the bombing of Libya

1986/1987 - Iran-Contra

1989 - Fall of Berlin Wall.

And Tiananmen Square if it fell in 1989.


Note that the '87 stock market crash and the barracks bombing in Lebanon do not even come immediately to mind but I am sure they might to lefty Xers. But Challenger does not register at all and I cannot see it really registering with any Xers I have hung with. However we see evidence that it registered with Boomers (Kevin and the authors). Interesting.[/quote]


Hmm...I am generation X, born in 1961 and the Challenger did affect me a great deal. I was, as I mentioned in my original post on this topic, very interested in space exploration. I am a member of the Planetary Society and I was a member of L-5. I always felt like I was born just a little too late to be part of the glory days of the first wave of humanity's exploration into space. I hoped to be part of a second wave.

Also, I was married to a physicist who did contract work here in ABQ and some was for NASA. We spent sevaral spring breaks at the Planetary Conference at Johnson Space Center in Houston.

NASA was not trying to Naderize the Shuttle program, in my memory, but congress was, to some extent. That was part of the 3T mood at the time, I think. NASA did have problems and issues having to do with privitization of management of the Shuttle program and fiscal and political concerns.

For me and the X-ers I know, Lebanon and the destruction of the Marine Barracks there in Beruit was an important landmark. That is because a number of us lost relatives and/or friends in that mess! I suspect that those X-ers who have strong ties to Israel and the middle east were affected by it.

As a young wife, mother and scientist, I saw the 80's very differently than you did. I saw them as retrenchment from the weirdness of the 70's and as a time when individual concerns began to overwhelm social concerns. I saw them as the time when we definitely turned away from the grand projects of the 60's and as the time when there was much discussion of the need to pare down "big" government or "big" anything, for that matter.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Columbia turned out to be the Social Moment-- or Regeneracy-- of the current Fourth Turning. We shall see.

Do you mean that everyone will now support the Bush administration's military aggression and empire building? I doubt it. It may be the Social Moment but I do not think we are even close to the Regeneracy yet.[/quote]

I think it is more likely another in a series of events that we will remember later as the beginning of the crisis.

Originally Posted by "Dominic Flandry
In fact, the reaction to the [i

Columbia[/i] tragedy is no more favorable to space exploration than the reaction to the Challenger. There is still talk of an "investigation"--always a chilling and hostile word.

Nevertheless, I also see Sen. Bill Nelson, a liberal Democrat who in 1975 would probably have been calling for the abolition of NASA, the money to be spent on organic foods, talking favorably today about plasma rockets. That is a sign that things are getting better.

I disagree that "investigation" is always a chilling and hostile word. NASA would do an investigation of the tragedy regardless of what politicians did. An investigation in this case means protecting all the data that was gathered by telemetry during Columbia's descent, gathering additional data from evidence that fell over Texas and Louisiana and getting teams of engineers and scientists to meticulously check and correlate this data to figure out what went wrong. This is not chilling or hostile but is in fact a necessary response to the loss of the shuttle and crew. I tried to make two points about this investigation vis-a-vis the Challenger. I will reiterate in more concise form:

1. This investigation appears to be one to determine the cause
of the accident and not one that primarily exists to assign blame.

2. This investigation is being conducted by a coalition of govern-
ment agencies, primarily military (headed by a military man) and
assisted by FEMA (evidence gathering on the ground), Homeland
Defense, personnel from national laboratories and law enforce-
ment, along with NASA itself.

Finally, great strides have quickly been made to get the investigation going and to release information. By this morning, it was reported that the investigation is now focussed on the left wheel well (which is recessed inside the body of the shuttle) and the ablative tiles that protect it there.

I suspect we will know the cause relatively quickly and that the remaining shuttles will be checked and repaired as necessary and we will see Shuttle flight resume much more quickly.

Bush's latest tax proposals - the new personal savings accounts - are further evidence that a profound shift in taxation is taking place. Previous 4T's have seen radical shifts in taxation policy - e.g. Boston Tea Party, Whiskey Rebellion, and the huge income tax increases in the Civil War and WWII.

Bush's moves constitute a major shift away from taxes on income and investments. Eliminating the estate tax, lowering marginal rates, repealing the dividend tax, and now these large non-taxed retirement accounts are all similar in their emphasis on favoring work and investment. The boldness of his plans is impressive, but if previous 4T's are any indication taxes must be increased at some point. It appears states will eventually begin to raise taxes and the feds may eventually have to call on Americans to make fiscal sacrifices. I expect these taxes to be more weighted towards consumption than income and investment. States rely more on sales taxes and thus any increase in the share of all taxes paid to states will increase the proportion of consumption taxes as a percentage of total taxes.

I believe Bush or his successor will propose a new tax to at least partially replace the current tax system. Up until the 1970's the public thought the income tax was the most fair tax, but since then the public has shifted to the belief that consumption taxes are the most fair. States will probably lead on instituting sales taxes because they must eliminate their deficits but there may be a real debate at the federal level in this 4T (as there was in the last 4T).

[quote="Mike Alexander '59"]

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

If I'm an old guy sitting on a $100 million and I'm faced with paying half of it in estate tax, I'm more likely to consume now even if I'd rather invest for my future or my heirs' future. This consumption is very likely to be wasteful.

In actuallity, the millionaire generally puts his fortune in trust and so avoids estate taxes in this way. But even if we ignore this, you are arguing that using the money to buy Enron, Worldcom, or even QQQ (NASDAQ 100) shares in 1999 or 2000 was a better use of the money than buying real goods and services provided by real businesses?

I think by eliminating the distortions involved in taxing capital inconsistently and simplifying the tax code capital markets will be more efficient. The current tax code is more forgiving of bad investments by allowing in some cases capital losses to offset capital gains.

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

Bush's latest tax proposals - the new personal savings accounts - are further evidence that a profound shift in taxation is taking place....
Bush's moves constitute a major shift away from taxes on income and investments. Eliminating the estate tax, lowering marginal rates, repealing the dividend tax, and now these large non-taxed retirement accounts are all similar in their emphasis on favoring work and investment.

I wish!

Read the details of the new "personal savings accounts". First, contributions will not be deductible; only interest. Since both are deductible in an IRA, how in the world can you say that a PSA is more favorable towards savings? Add to that the fact that Bush's plan would eliminate the contribution deduction for IRA's, and now we are left with no direct tax incentives for saving whatsoever. This is naught but an increase on income taxes (doing away with that IRA contribution loophle, dontcha know) and a disincentive to savings.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

Bush's latest tax proposals - the new personal savings accounts - are further evidence that a profound shift in taxation is taking place....
Bush's moves constitute a major shift away from taxes on income and investments. Eliminating the estate tax, lowering marginal rates, repealing the dividend tax, and now these large non-taxed retirement accounts are all similar in their emphasis on favoring work and investment.

I wish!

Read the details of the new "personal savings accounts". First, contributions will not be deductible; only interest. Since both are deductible in an IRA, how in the world can you say that a PSA is more favorable towards savings? Add to that the fact that Bush's plan would eliminate the contribution deduction for IRA's, and now we are left with no direct tax incentives for saving whatsoever. This is naught but an increase on income taxes (doing away with that IRA contribution loophle, dontcha know) and a disincentive to savings.

Your wish is true. The proposed savings accounts would more than double the allowed annual contribution of IRAs. They work nearly identical to the current Roth IRA i.e., contributions are post-tax but all gains accumulate tax-free. Currently, non Roth IRA's are fully taxable upon withdrawl (both contributions and income) so they merely defer taxes not escape taxation. You'll also have the option of keeping your current IRA's as is.

I see nothing in this proposal that will decrease saving or act as a tax increase (there may be some accelerated IRA conversions in early years but this is entirely at the taxpayer's discretion).

The final evidence that we're in a 4T:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...35dbq.html&e=5

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The final evidence that we're in a 4T:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...35dbq.html&e=5

That's pretty funny!

However, the pic is probably misleading. Everyone knows that the front rows are usually empty! :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The final evidence that we're in a 4T:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...35dbq.html&e=5

Strange, I had no idea Yahoo News was so racist. I wonder if their CEO will be called to account for this blatant racism.

Does anybody know whether the Yahoo CEO is a liberal or a conservative? How much money does he give to each Party? Did he vote for the "first black president," Billy Clinton, or not?

Or is this a deliberate smear campaign, waged by the mainstream media, to "lynch" Mr. Sharpton lest he do well with the "black vote"? I wonder what Bob Herbert, over at the New York Times, will have to say about this.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The final evidence that we're in a 4T:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...35dbq.html&e=5

Preaching to a nonexistent choir, perhaps? That's about how i see him too!

One of the characteristics of a 4T is that leaders exacerbate problems rather than papering over the problems.

While I have enjoyed the delicious digs that Rumsfeld has made at the french and germans, I must admit that I am surprised at the war of words we have gotten into with the North Koreans. Given the North Korean talent for hot rhetoric, I admit that I am surprised that we are going toe to toe with them. It cannot be anything but deliberate on the part of this administration. It certainly confirms the prediction of the authors.

I'm back, but having a very hard time interpreting what any of what you are all blah blah blahing about has to do with anything.
This forum is the antithesis of ANYONE'S experience of real life.

This discussion seems to me to be an overly complex 3T- boomer-fueled, battle of ultimately meaningless personal self-aggrandisement, regularly fortified with the supposedly essential vitamins of very entrenched politcal prejudices and erudite, yet still Trivial Pursuit-type knowledge, without any of the minerals of actual how-to experience. Do you just peel off your regular skin and don "HIGHLY SMART PERSON WHO KNOWS EVERYTHING AND DOES NOTHING" spacesuits when you log on here, or what? Is it just me, or does anyone else here actually ENGAGE the world you all so scientifically dissect as if it were a debate team assignment given to a class of economists? Am I the only one who percieves the dissonance?

Reading through all the posts since I logged off a mere week ago, I found myself thinking over and over and over: GET TO THE BOTTON LINE, ALREADY. And everybody here seems very much invested in showing off how much they know, and very little invested in doing anything at all to put that vast body of supposed smartness to a litmus test of "Let's roll" "Just do it" policy-making. Y'all just wanna talk talk talk about it.

My generation is accused of not caring, not knowing, not understanding, not being cerebral, not having a good education, not having any advantages, not being smart enough, not "getting it." Well, we get it. We've gotten it all along.

Let me tell you something right here and right now: My generation is sick to death of the caring, knowing, understanding, cerebral, educated, advantaged, worldy, "with-it" generation preaching to EACH OTHER about all the problems of the world while solving none. My generation is sick of being forced, via university and workplace and media, to become the drones of the idealistic, but ultimately meaningless, mantra of complexity.
Many of us engage in it, that is without doubt. We do what we do, for our own individual reasons.

To the Boomer and Silent generations, I say this: your "opportunities" have become our obligations. Your "freedoms" have become our chains of oppression. We don't thrill to the idealist notion of feminism because we live the expected dual-income reality of it. We embrace the notion of multiculturalism because to us, it's a non-issue. But it's fast becoming an economic red herring, and brings us more trouble than truth. We really have no way of dealing with the reality of it, so we say the right words and secretly become more racist than before. All of us. White, black, hispanic, whatever. Your ideals of "diversity," as shoved down our throats, make us increasingly diverse. Any you think that's a good thing?
How in hell are we to turn "diversity" into "togetherness," may I ask?
It works out, in our experience, to be simple "unfairness." Maybe we aren't as ignorant as you all thought we were.

Next will come the Boomer Senior Citizen's "right" to keep working until dropping dead from exhaustion. That, too, will become our obligation. And I am dreading it, but expecting it.

And meanwhile all of you here will continue to argue the finer points of theory and hypothesis while the whole world goes on without you. You seem to be so throwing yourselves under the bus to me. Saying that you can't see the forest for the trees is a huge understatement. You can't seem to see life for your dissertations about it.

And, because I am really looking for answers, your inability to answer anything without a million-man survey conducted over 20 years pisses me off. Your constant one-up-manship and "Oh, but have you heard that the latest economic model includes this or that" pisses me off. You people seem so damned isolated and so damned stupid, as if anyone in the real world gives a damn what label you apply to them economically.

You, my friends and foes on this particular thread, are out of touch to a degree I cannot even quantify. I know you are really just here to show off how much you know; and that is useless to nearly everyone. But, damn, let me say that you are all really, really smart. Hope it makes you all feel good.

But I'm sure you can find a way to intellectualize your way out of that accusation, too. :o

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm back, but having a very hard time interpreting what any of what you are all blah blah blahing about has to do with anything.
This forum is the antithesis of ANYONE'S experience of real life.

This discussion seems to me to be an overly complex 3T- boomer-fueled, battle of ultimately meaningless personal self-aggrandisement, regularly fortified with the supposedly essential vitamins of very entrenched politcal prejudices and erudite, yet still Trivial Pursuit-type knowledge, without any of the minerals of actual how-to experience. Do you just peel off your regular skin and don "HIGHLY SMART PERSON WHO KNOWS EVERYTHING AND DOES NOTHING" spacesuits when you log on here, or what? Is it just me, or does anyone else here actually ENGAGE the world you all so scientifically dissect as if it were a debate team assignment given to a class of economists? Am I the only one who percieves the dissonance?

But this dissection is fun! It provides a good recreation/procrastination device and gives a mental workout as well... I don't see how this precludes engaging the world during the 23 hrs/day I don't spend on TFT...

Reading through all the posts since I logged off a mere week ago, I found myself thinking over and over and over: GET TO THE BOTTON LINE, ALREADY. And everybody here seems very much invested in showing off how much they know, and very little invested in doing anything at all to put that vast body of supposed smartness to a litmus test of "Let's roll" "Just do it" policy-making. Y'all just wanna talk talk talk about it.

Harvard, Harvard, Harvard, Harvard, Harvard ;-)

But seriously... what is the bottom line? I have no idea - that's why we're all talking, philosophising, etc. on this board (and policy, etc)... and I prefer civilized debate to the knee-jerk ranting you see on SOME forums

My generation is accused of not caring, not knowing, not understanding, not being cerebral, not having a good education, not having any advantages, not being smart enough, not "getting it." Well, we get it. We've gotten it all along.

Well, it's my 1984 cohort (not your 1962 cohort) who can't find Brazil on a map ;-)

Let me tell you something right here and right now: My generation is sick to death of the caring, knowing, understanding, cerebral, educated, advantaged, worldy, "with-it" generation preaching to EACH OTHER about all the problems of the world while solving none. My generation is sick of being forced, via university and workplace and media, to become the drones of the idealistic, but ultimately meaningless, mantra of complexity.
Many of us engage in it, that is without doubt. We do what we do, for our own individual reasons.

well, you're clearly not a Boomer - that's for sure

To the Boomer and Silent generations, I say this: your "opportunities" have become our obligations. Your "freedoms" have become our chains of oppression. We don't thrill to the idealist notion of feminism because we live the expected dual-income reality of it. We embrace the notion of multiculturalism because to us, it's a non-issue. But it's fast becoming an economic red herring, and brings us more trouble than truth. We really have no way of dealing with the reality of it, so we say the right words and secretly become more racist than before. All of us. White, black, hispanic, whatever. Your ideals of "diversity," as shoved down our throats, make us increasingly diverse. Any you think that's a good thing?
How in hell are we to turn "diversity" into "togetherness," may I ask?
It works out, in our experience, to be simple "unfairness." Maybe we aren't as ignorant as you all thought we were.

Next will come the Boomer Senior Citizen's "right" to keep working until dropping dead from exhaustion. That, too, will become our obligation. And I am dreading it, but expecting it.

Very well said! (hopefully I'll get around the latter by getting a job where I don't *really* have to do any appreciable amount of work)

And meanwhile all of you here will continue to argue the finer points of theory and hypothesis while the whole world goes on without you. You seem to be so throwing yourselves under the bus to me. Saying that you can't see the forest for the trees is a huge understatement. You can't seem to see life for your dissertations about it.

Once again, this is an online DIVERSION... a HOBBY just like any other one - I suppose a few of us are actually serious about this but I'm just here for the adrenaline rush and mental workout

And, because I am really looking for answers, your inability to answer anything without a million-man survey conducted over 20 years pisses me off. Your constant one-up-manship and "Oh, but have you heard that the latest economic model includes this or that" pisses me off. You people seem so damned isolated and so damned stupid, as if anyone in the real world gives a damn what label you apply to them economically.

Has anyone ever really had the answers? Sure... philosophers try, but people can only approach the truth (and never quite reach it)

You, my friends and foes on this particular thread, are out of touch to a degree I cannot even quantify. I know you are really just here to show off how much you know; and that is useless to nearly everyone. But, damn, let me say that you are all really, really smart. Hope it makes you all feel good.

But I'm sure you can find a way to intellectualize your way out of that accusation, too. :o

I already told you the reason I was here (and keep coming back) twice in this message... I'm not going to repeat it a third time, but thanks for the compliment about intelligence (schoolwork can make one feel like a moron)

I thought it was Boomers who are pompous and whiny.

To Suz X,

As a pompous whiny boomer, let me take umbrage (erudite enough?) at your insistence that the life that burdens you was imposed on us all by some boomer-generational choice.

The two jobs per household standard was not an option, at least not for most boomers. We were getting started in life at a time when inflation was beating the pants off pay raises, and the cost of anything requiring borrowed money, like a home for instance, was out of reach. We weren't all that keen on an all-work lifestyle, either. But speaking for myself, my first wife and I shared 4 full-time jobs, for a while, because we HAD too.

And on the work-until-we-die option, that's likely to be in the same class as the dual-income option - NO OPTION! Perhaps your smaller, more in demand generation will fare better, but if things DON'T work-out, don't lay the burden on the boomer generation.

That said, I'm in full agreement that the worst of us boomers are among the most greedy and self agrandizing people that ever lived. Just don't lump us all together, OK?

Originally Posted by monoghan

One of the characteristics of a 4T is that leaders exacerbate problems rather than papering over the problems.

While I have enjoyed the delicious digs that Rumsfeld has made at the french and germans, I must admit that I am surprised at the war of words we have gotten into with the North Koreans. Given the North Korean talent for hot rhetoric, I admit that I am surprised that we are going toe to toe with them. It cannot be anything but deliberate on the part of this administration. It certainly confirms the prediction of the authors.

Speaking of the authors - I am going thru FourthTurning withdrawl syndrom! I haven't seen any generational - based writings from either of the authors in a long time and they don't participate very much in the discussions here.

Does anyone know if they are doing any regular writing ala 4th Turning? I know one of them is involved in that comedy theatre in Virginia, but not much in the way of generations

Taka
(who just turned 40 and doesn't like like it being "kind of sad, like the season")

takascar2----
William Strauss is scheduled to be interviewed tonight (Saturday, Feb 8 )on Coast to Coast AM (formerly the Art Bell show). I can't guarantee whether you'll like it or not, just that its supposed to be happening. He's supposed to speak about crisis cycles.
That's the best that I can do for you today.

While I wish Mr. Strauss well tonight on Coast to Coast, he might take note of the other topic -- "numerology of the Space Shuttle tragedies" -- of discussion on the show, and note how very 3Tish it is. In fact, it might even compare favorably to evidence of a second turning.

But "numerology of the Space Shuttle tragedies" would hardly be the stuff a two year-old fourth turning. (And he ought to tell the host that.) :wink:

In response to the post, found here, on "Boomer Senior Citizen's" and such:

Please keep in mind, the prevailing impetus among the baby-boomer crowd is our main fault: We, boomers were, more likely than not, loved and adored as kids. Our parents wanted us.

When the [Silent] Surgeon General Joslyn Elders declared "every child, a wanted child," she epitomized a generational shift so profound as to be very recognizable to a generation that, more likely than not, was wanted. In her famous "they have a love affair with the fetus" speech, she was in effect preaching the New Left gospel, a gospel wherein the salvation of society lay in the genesis of a new "wanted" generation, a generation who's surviving members were only those that were truly "wanted," while the remaining unwanted members were discarded.

To many baby boomers, who remember their own wanted childhoods and the sacrifices their parents made for them, these words spoken by the chief medical officer in America had a chilling sound to them. To others, they have the sound of life and beauty. To still others, they have absolutely no sound at all.

I will not apologize for the words I post in this forum, nor will I apologize for continuing the argument over whether our Surgeon General's vision of a "brave new world" is the best for America, or not.

But I will apologize for standing by, in my ignorance of coming of age, and not screaming louder that, in the meantime of how to create that "wanted" generation of the New Left, an entire generation is being lost.

For that, I am truly sorry.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

When the [Silent] Surgeon General Joslyn Elders declared "every child, a wanted child," she epitomized a generational shift so profound as to be very recognizable to a generation that, more likely than not, was wanted. In her famous "they have a love affair with the fetus" speech, she was in effect preaching the New Left gospel, a gospel wherein the salvation of society lay in the genesis of a new "wanted" generation, a generation who's surviving members were only those that were truly "wanted," while the remaining unwanted members were discarded.

I think Joyce Elders was making a general observation about society during the Unraveling that the anti-child attuide of the awakening has disappeared and society became more pro-child in policy. Regardless of the political persuasion of people, they generally feel that every child born is an invaluable resource and a blessing, as opposed to a waste of resources and a curse that was so common during the awakening. That is a good reason why that public attuide toward Abortion now are less approving than they were in the Awakening.

Back in the Awakening in Australia 1971, people were concerned about the high birth rate which was just starting to decline and a lot of public wanted to punish people for having childern. Right now in Australia the TFR rate has reached a record low and people are very worried that there are not enough childern and are calling for the government to reward people for having childern.

As evidenced by the books Strauss and Howe have written, it is amazing how much public policy and social views are influenced by turnings and generations.

Originally Posted by alan

takascar2----
William Strauss is scheduled to be interviewed tonight (Saturday, Feb 8 )on Coast to Coast AM (formerly the Art Bell show). I can't guarantee whether you'll like it or not, just that its supposed to be happening. He's supposed to speak about crisis cycles.
That's the best that I can do for you today.

Damn it, I need to subscribe to heard the interview, I hope William Strauss can get a transcript of the interview.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

In response to the post, found here, on "Boomer Senior Citizen's" and such:

Please keep in mind, the prevailing impetus among the baby-boomer crowd is our main fault: We, boomers were, more likely than not, loved and adored as kids. Our parents wanted us.

When the [Silent] Surgeon General Joslyn Elders declared "every child, a wanted child," she epitomized a generational shift so profound as to be very recognizable to a generation that, more likely than not, was wanted. In her famous "they have a love affair with the fetus" speech, she was in effect preaching the New Left gospel, a gospel wherein the salvation of society lay in the genesis of a new "wanted" generation, a generation who's surviving members were only those that were truly "wanted," while the remaining unwanted members were discarded.

To many baby boomers, who remember their own wanted childhoods and the sacrifices their parents made for them, these words spoken by the chief medical officer in America had a chilling sound to them. To others, they have the sound of life and beauty. To still others, they have absolutely no sound at all.

I will not apologize for the words I post in this forum, nor will I apologize for continuing the argument over whether our Surgeon General's vision of a "brave new world" is the best for America, or not.

But I will apologize for standing by, in my ignorance of coming of age, and not screaming louder that, in the meantime of how to create that "wanted" generation of the New Left, an entire generation is being lost.

For that, I am truly sorry.

Here's a question: Is Gen X the most aborted generation in history, or is it the Millennials (or even the Homelanders)? I honestly don't know. Put a different way: were there more abortions per capita per year (legal and otherwise) between 1961 and 1980, between 1981 and 1999, or since 2000? If the answer is Gen X (and the authors apparently believe such to be the case), then Dr. Elders' words are even more chilling than Marc realizes-- the surviving members of that New Lost Generation weren't especially wanted either. Nor perhaps were many early Millies-- Baby On Board signs not withstanding.

Marc may feel guilty for remaining silent while helping to create Jocelyn Elders wanted generation (presumably the Millies), but what the hell-- at least he has kids. What leaves me cold is this: I will probably never have children for one sad reason: because back when i was young enough marry, help create them, and raise kids before either retiring or dying on them, women simply weren't interested. They were too busy having sex with way-cool virtual strangers, and then offing their would-have-been offspring like one would discard a dirty handkerchief. Back in the 70s and early 80s I was very pro-life, since IMHO at-will-abortion-on-demand-for-whatever-reason tilted the playing field against guys like me who actually wanted to become responsible husbands and fathers. Now....well, maybe I'm too numb to care one way or the other.

Brave new world indeed.