Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Do I have to belabor the obvious for you? The complete sentence is as follows, with the new stuff in bold:

The republican lawsuits, on the other hand, affected the way Clinton did his job as he and his team was forced to spend time defending himself in front of the House and Senate that he should have been able to spend serving his country.

The only trouble is that Bill Clinton had no interest in serving anyone but himself. He demonstrated this over and over.

That's the answer to the question of why Clinton made all those warlike, anti-Saddam statements in late 1998 after Saddam threw out the UN inspectors. You know, those statements, and those of some prominent Democrats, that are 180 degrees from what they are saying today.

Clinton didn't have time to invade Iraq in 1998 because he was so worried about defending himself in the House and Senate. Yeah right.

[quote="monoghan"]

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Do I have to belabor the obvious for you? The complete sentence is as follows, with the new stuff in bold:

The republican lawsuits, on the other hand, affected the way Clinton did his job as he and his team was forced to spend time defending himself in front of the House and Senate that he should have been able to spend serving his country.

The only trouble is that Bill Clinton had no interest in serving anyone but himself. He demonstrated this over and over.

And that makes him different from any other 3T baby boomer president HOW?

That's the answer to the question of why Clinton made all those warlike, anti-Saddam statements in late 1998 after Saddam threw out the UN inspectors. You know, those statements, and those of some prominent Democrats, that are 180 degrees from what they are saying today.

Clinton didn't have time to invade Iraq in 1998 because he was so worried about defending himself in the House and Senate. Yeah right.

There are at least two ways to answer that:

1) Just because they severely affected his ability to run his country doesn't mean they crippled his decision-making ability completely (with someone like Clinton it could very easily be a 30% drop in performance instead, still allowing him to do the majority of what he wanted to do)

2) Making those warlike statements and ordering those bombings made him seem more 'presidential' and thus was another way of 'defending' himself (how can your mind be only about sex when you want to put your finger on the trigger too?)

[quote="mmailliw"]

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Do I have to belabor the obvious for you? The complete sentence is as follows, with the new stuff in bold:

The republican lawsuits, on the other hand, affected the way Clinton did his job as he and his team was forced to spend time defending himself in front of the House and Senate that he should have been able to spend serving his country.

The only trouble is that Bill Clinton had no interest in serving anyone but himself. He demonstrated this over and over.

And that makes him different from any other 3T baby boomer president HOW?

We've only had 2 so far. The jury remains out on Bush, so far has has yet to show the maniacal, absolute focus on self-interest that Clinton did. There's a lot we haven't seen the full story of yet, it's possible he'll turn out to be equally bad, but improbable. Few even of the Boomers are so uttelry, absolutely self-absorbed as Clinton was and is.

That's the answer to the question of why Clinton made all those warlike, anti-Saddam statements in late 1998 after Saddam threw out the UN inspectors. You know, those statements, and those of some prominent Democrats, that are 180 degrees from what they are saying today.

Clinton didn't have time to invade Iraq in 1998 because he was so worried about defending himself in the House and Senate. Yeah right.

There are at least two ways to answer that:

1) Just because they severely affected his ability to run his country doesn't mean they crippled his decision-making ability completely (with someone like Clinton it could very easily be a 30% drop in performance instead, still allowing him to do the majority of what he wanted to do)

All he wanted to do was chase girls and raise money for his party (and thus indirectly for himself) and for himself, and of course maintain himself as the center of the money, attention, and power. He didn't mind indulging in a little malice along the way for others, though.

2) Making those warlike statements and ordering those bombings made him seem more 'presidential' and thus was another way of 'defending' himself (how can your mind be only about sex when you want to put your finger on the trigger too?)

If Clinton did indeed use the military as a defense against the suits, then he was by that action demonstrating his unfitness for office. Which he did, and was. If the missile attacks came as a defense against the lawsuits (and bad PR), which they did, that in no way means that the lawsuits are partly responsible for the missile attacks.

And no, his mind was never 'only on sex'. I wish it had been, he'd have done less harm that way. It was also on money, power, attention, and doing what he could to harm his domestic enemies.

[quote="HopefulCynic68"]

Originally Posted by mmailliw

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Do I have to belabor the obvious for you? The complete sentence is as follows, with the new stuff in bold:

The republican lawsuits, on the other hand, affected the way Clinton did his job as he and his team was forced to spend time defending himself in front of the House and Senate that he should have been able to spend serving his country.

The only trouble is that Bill Clinton had no interest in serving anyone but himself. He demonstrated this over and over.

And that makes him different from any other 3T baby boomer president HOW?

We've only had 2 so far. The jury remains out on Bush, so far has has yet to show the maniacal, absolute focus on self-interest that Clinton did. There's a lot we haven't seen the full story of yet, it's possible he'll turn out to be equally bad, but improbable. Few even of the Boomers are so uttelry, absolutely self-absorbed as Clinton was and is.

Bush *does* put on a good PR show... the general impression that he gives out is being likeable but dumb; the primary reason Bush seems more likeable than Clinton is that Bush seems to let his advisors do the 'dirty work' (even in the aftermath of E2K, Bush wouldn't refer to himself as 'president' or 'president elect', letting Rove and Fleischer do most of the speaking involved) whereas Clinton took on the responsibility of doing all that himself

That's the answer to the question of why Clinton made all those warlike, anti-Saddam statements in late 1998 after Saddam threw out the UN inspectors. You know, those statements, and those of some prominent Democrats, that are 180 degrees from what they are saying today.

Clinton didn't have time to invade Iraq in 1998 because he was so worried about defending himself in the House and Senate. Yeah right.

There are at least two ways to answer that:

1) Just because they severely affected his ability to run his country doesn't mean they crippled his decision-making ability completely (with someone like Clinton it could very easily be a 30% drop in performance instead, still allowing him to do the majority of what he wanted to do)

All he wanted to do was chase girls and raise money for his party (and thus indirectly for himself) and for himself, and of course maintain himself as the center of the money, attention, and power. He didn't mind indulging in a little malice along the way for others, though.

I'm pretty sure he had some political ideals as well (at least by 3T standards) and this sounds *VERY* boomerish to me

2) Making those warlike statements and ordering those bombings made him seem more 'presidential' and thus was another way of 'defending' himself (how can your mind be only about sex when you want to put your finger on the trigger too?)

If Clinton did indeed use the military as a defense against the suits, then he was by that action demonstrating his unfitness for office. Which he did, and was. If the missile attacks came as a defense against the lawsuits (and bad PR), which they did, that in no way means that the lawsuits are partly responsible for the missile attacks.

And Bush had been using the War on Terrorism to advance his exact same tax cuts that he had supported a few months earlier in a time of peace and surplus; only with the new name of "economic stimulus".

And no, his mind was never 'only on sex'. I wish it had been, he'd have done less harm that way. It was also on money, power, attention, and doing what he could to harm his domestic enemies.

in other words... typical baby boomer stuff. Some on this board have argued that because Bush is a little less like that and defers a lot more to his advisors, he actually has a good bit of Silent in him as well (whereas Clinton, of course, is pure Boomer despite being born in the same year :-))

I can believe that Bush is more cuspish due to his advisors and the way in which he speaks, etc (although his position on the Lott issue reveals him as being on the Boom side of this cusp) but I personally would like to see a Silent or possibly even an early wave Xer as president rather than yet another 1946-born Boomer

[quote="mmailliw"]

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by mmailliw

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Do I have to belabor the obvious for you? The complete sentence is as follows, with the new stuff in bold:

The republican lawsuits, on the other hand, affected the way Clinton did his job as he and his team was forced to spend time defending himself in front of the House and Senate that he should have been able to spend serving his country.

The only trouble is that Bill Clinton had no interest in serving anyone but himself. He demonstrated this over and over.

And that makes him different from any other 3T baby boomer president HOW?

We've only had 2 so far. The jury remains out on Bush, so far has has yet to show the maniacal, absolute focus on self-interest that Clinton did. There's a lot we haven't seen the full story of yet, it's possible he'll turn out to be equally bad, but improbable. Few even of the Boomers are so uttelry, absolutely self-absorbed as Clinton was and is.

Bush *does* put on a good PR show... the general impression that he gives out is being likeable but dumb; the primary reason Bush seems more likeable than Clinton is that Bush seems to let his advisors do the 'dirty work' (even in the aftermath of E2K, Bush wouldn't refer to himself as 'president' or 'president elect', letting Rove and Fleischer do most of the speaking involved) whereas Clinton took on the responsibility of doing all that himself.

It's easy to do all your speaking yourself when you are utterly indifferent to the truth.

All he wanted to do was chase girls and raise money for his party (and thus indirectly for himself) and for himself, and of course maintain himself as the center of the money, attention, and power. He didn't mind indulging in a little malice along the way for others, though.

I'm pretty sure he had some political ideals as well (at least by 3T standards)

He was a liberal, save where that conflicted in any way with his self-interest. Most of the actual ideals in that administration were lodged in the person of Hillary Clinton, whose defining quality is that she would make an even scarier president than he did.

and this sounds *VERY* boomerish to me.

Most Boomers, while leaning more toward self-absorption than the other Generational types, are nothing close to as sociopathically self-absorbed as Clinton.

If Clinton did indeed use the military as a defense against the suits, then he was by that action demonstrating his unfitness for office. Which he did, and was. If the missile attacks came as a defense against the lawsuits (and bad PR), which they did, that in no way means that the lawsuits are partly responsible for the missile attacks.

And Bush had been using the War on Terrorism to advance his exact same tax cuts that he had supported a few months earlier in a time of peace and surplus; only with the new name of "economic stimulus".

No equivalence. The Bush tax cuts don't result in the deaths of bystanders, and represent a genuine policy. One may agree with it or disagree, but it remains a genuinely supported policy with a constituency.

Clinton caused deaths to maintain his poll ratings and distract attention from his legal/PR problems (i.e. Kosovo, the aspirin factory, etc).

And no, his mind was never 'only on sex'. I wish it had been, he'd have done less harm that way. It was also on money, power, attention, and doing what he could to harm his domestic enemies.

in other words... typical baby boomer stuff.

Having known many Boomers, I can say that most of them are little or nothing like Clinton. If he does represent a broad strand of Boomer attitude, then Heaven help the world in 4T.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

If Clinton did indeed use the military as a defense against the suits, then he was by that action demonstrating his unfitness for office. Which he did, and was. If the missile attacks came as a defense against the lawsuits (and bad PR), which they did, that in no way means that the lawsuits are partly responsible for the missile attacks.

And no, his mind was never 'only on sex'. I wish it had been, he'd have done less harm that way. It was also on money, power, attention, and doing what he could to harm his domestic enemies.

I am not a fan of Clinton the man. In many ways, the debate about Clinton is so 3T, it is about the politics of stalemate and nothing getting done. I'd as soon leave the issue of Victorian purity taking on 60s free love morality as an odd footnote of cycle theory. Yes, the establishment will cling to the morality of the previous generation of prophets, while the progressives will adapt the values of the more recent awakening. Inevitable struggle, but do both parties collectively have to tie up the government while doing so? A plague on both their houses.

But in one way the 2000 change of shift from Clinton to Bush the Younger and Sharon is more immediate and important. Clinton might have echoed the attitudes of the Great Compromisers of the Pre Civil War era: Webster, Douglas and the like. I watch spirals of violence. In a time approaching Crisis, I watched them very carefully. Clinton attempted to defuse the spirals. He did well with Waco / Ruby Ridge / OKC, Northern Ireland, and the Balkans. He did less well with Israel and Palestine. He tried. He tried in the spirit traditional in an unraveling compromiser. One sees the problems, and tries to put out the fires before the explosion.

In 2000, we got Sharon and Bush the Younger. They are more closely akin to the Abolitionists and Secessionists. They are not about avoiding the conflict. They see Good and Evil. They see compromise as failure. They see a need to stand firm and make the world as they desire it to be.

Mind you, I don't like Sharon or Bush the Younger. They are drifting towards 4T confrontational attitudes, but they are conservatives clinging to older values. They are not championing a new vision of the future. They are apt to be remembered as in opposition to the change to the brave new era... assuming they don't prevent any brave new era from happening.

2000 was a baby step into the 4T. Early days still...

The Madness of King George or the calculated deceit of his scriptwriters? Either way, it sounds pretty 4T.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._wh/bush_faith

(Usual disclaimers)



Bush Increasing Religious Allusions

Tue Feb 18, 4:40 PM ET

Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites), often portrayed as using a strict good-and-evil compass to navigate national issues, has always peppered his speeches with exhortations to moral and civic duty. With war, tragedy and terrorism confronting him now, his allusions to spirituality and morality seem to be increasing.

"I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems," Bush told a convention of religious broadcasters last week. Referring to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said, "We carried our grief to the Lord Almighty in prayer."

Earlier, in his State of the Union address, he said, "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."

Hours after the shuttle Columbia disintegrated, Bush turned to religion and a quote from the book of Isaiah to help console the nation.

"The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home," the president said.

Expressions of faith and values are familiar ground for American presidents, and this one, who became a born-again Christian in the 1980s after concluding he was drinking too much, is no exception. Yet lately, Bush has gone beyond his usual broad remarks on the power of faith in general to use language and ideas specific to Christianity.

It is a welcome message for some, particularly the evangelical Christian conservatives whom Bush is courting as he seeks a second term. Some others are uncomfortable.

"This president is using general references and, beyond that, terminology and vocabulary that come straight out of a very particular religious tradition, which is evangelical Christianity," said the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, a Louisiana pastor and executive director of the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, an umbrella interfaith group.

"I think his rhetoric implies a lack of appreciation for the vast pluralism of religion in this nation," Gaddy said.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bush speeches have started sounding "more and more like a sermon in a church" and risk alienating significant chunks of his constituency.

"When presidents start to become theologians on a regular basis, they begin to exclude people from their audience," Lynn said.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Bush is comfortable speaking about religion because of its importance to him personally.

"The president when he speaks, speaks in a very inclusive way, very respectful ... of the fact that we are a nation whose great strengths come from the fact that we have people of so many faiths and people who have chosen not to have any particular religious affiliation," Fleischer said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush reflected on the challenges facing the nation as it prepares for possible war:

"We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history. May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America."

In Nashville, Bush praised Americans' "deep and diverse religious beliefs." But he also singled out a special place for Christianity, calling the gospel that the broadcasters share over the airwaves "words of truth."

More generally, the president has delivered several passion-filled speeches recently on behalf of his proposal to spend billions more to combat AIDS (news - web sites) abroad. In Grand Rapids, Mich., the day after his State of the Union address, Bush said the humanitarian crisis is a chance "a moral nation" cannot pass up to use its riches and know-how for good.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

In 2000, we got Sharon and Bush the Younger. They are more closely akin to the Abolitionists and Secessionists. They are not about avoiding the conflict. They see Good and Evil. They see compromise as failure. They see a need to stand firm and make the world as they desire it to be.

Mind you, I don't like Sharon or Bush the Younger. They are drifting towards 4T confrontational attitudes, but they are conservatives clinging to older values. They are not championing a new vision of the future. They are apt to be remembered as in opposition to the change to the brave new era... assuming they don't prevent any brave new era from happening.

2000 was a baby step into the 4T. Early days still...

No new vision? I wonder if the desire to preempt Saddam - and who knows who else later? - is not something entirely new, unwittingly created by Osama and Company. As the leftists keep yelling about maintaining the status quo of appeasement, looking the other way, not rocking the Middle Eastern boat, it would seem that the left has no new ideas for the future.

Would W. Bush have maintained the status quo without 9-11? Probably. But the War on Terror has forced the leadership to try something new via preemptive warfare.

That "Old Europe" is squealing about this shows you that a new vision of the future is being formed, one that excludes them more and more!

Pat Buchanan suggests that the post-Cold War world we have known is now gone. He says that we are entering a new era with an Iraq invasion, one of great foreboding. It sounds like Pat is saying 4T.



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31110

(Usual disclaimers)



Costs of war already coming in


Posted: February 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Patrick J. Buchanan


? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Had President Bush never used all that barstool bellicosity about an Axis of Evil, "pre-emptive strike," "regime change" and "weeks, not months," he could now claim


victory in his showdown with Saddam.

For it is only through Bush's resolute leadership that U.N. arms inspectors are back in Iraq. With steady pressure, Bush could have hundreds more swarming all over that country, to where it would be inconceivable that Saddam could mount an assault on his neighbors.

Without war, Saddam could be back in his box. But Bush set the bar for himself too high. Now, though war is not necessary to contain Iraq, Bush cannot pull back from it. To send 200,000 troops to the Gulf, then bring them home with Saddam still in power, would cripple U.S. credibility.

One wonders if the president ever asks himself: Who got me into this? Who persuaded me to surrender my freedom of action?

While the war has not yet begun, the costs are already coming in. Europe is bitterly divided and increasingly anti-American. NATO is split. Tony Blair, a loyal ally, is in a hellish spot.

Polls show only one-in-10 Britons favor war without a new U.N. resolution, and France will veto any new resolution. And as the winter window for war closes, France's position is unlikely to change. For the anti-Bush posture of Jacques Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, is wildly popular on the continent.

Belgium, France and Germany may be isolated inside NATO, but most Europeans back Paris, Berlin and Brussels in the clash with Washington. And with animosity toward Bush soaring on the continent and across the Arab and Islamic world, the U.S. ability to lead through suasion is being lost. The drive for hegemony is isolating America.

How can a new world order rooted in American values be erected now, with George W. Bush as architect? Not in recent memory has an American president been so reviled abroad.

While this caricature is grossly unjust and in large measure the work of anti-Americans abroad, the president, his War Cabinet and the War Party have contributed to America's isolation. For this year-long campaign to paint Saddam Hussein as the new Hitler ? a mortal peril to the Middle East, America, the world, even civilization itself, according to John McCain ? with George W. Bush cast in the role of Churchill, is just not believable. Sustaining this fiction is taking a heavy toll on our credibility.

First, there remains not a fiber of evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11. Despite the Stakhanovite efforts of our war propagandists, the "Prague connection" between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence proved nonexistent. Colin Powell's indictment of Saddam's arms violations now appears to have been overdrawn. The British paper he cited was hyped and plagiarized from academic scribblings. The al-Qaida cell in Iraq seems to be in territory controlled by our Kurdish allies, not Saddam.

As for the tape in which bin Laden calls on Iraqis to launch suicide attacks on invading Americans, the White House claims this conclusively ties Saddam to Osama. It does no such thing. On the tape, bin Laden uses terms such as infidel, apostate and socialist to describe Saddam, for whom his affection is comparable to that of the late Ayatollah Khomeini for the novelist Salman Rushdie.

When it comes to aiding terrorists, Saddam is not even in a league with Iran or Syria. His missile capacity is inconsequential alongside that of Iran or North Korea. His nuclear program has been moribund for years, while Iran is mining uranium and building reactors, and North Korea is producing fissile material. North Korea is the rogue state proliferator of missiles, Pakistan the proliferator of nuclear technology. Nor is Iraq the reason F-16s over-fly our homes each night here in Washington and we drive by Stinger missile batteries on the way to work.

Nevertheless, it is Iraq against whom we are going to war, and few in this city think the president ? having sent all those troops to the Gulf ? can now simply declare victory and get out. No way. Delenda est Iraq. Iraq has to be destroyed.

Yet, there is a sense here that this invasion of a country that never sought war with us will bring an end to the post-Cold world we knew and vault us into a new era, the outlines of which we cannot see.

Most of us, however, look to it with greater foreboding than those neoconservatives who now anticipate with wild surmise the war for empire they have finally got.

"Nevertheless, it is Iraq against whom we are going to war, and few in this city think the president ? having sent all those troops to the Gulf ? can now simply declare victory and get out. No way. Delenda est Iraq. Iraq has to be destroyed. "

I have to wonder whether the issue of Bush's "credibility" seems far more important in the world of Washington D.C. than in the rest of the country. For the past year it has seemed to me that this entire Iraq war idea has been propelled along by a rather small group of people in the White House who only talk to each other and have convinced themselves that their obsession with Saddam Hussein is shared with the rest of the nation.
Here's an unlikely scenario: Bush and company come to their senses and decide that this whole thing is a loser (I said that it's unlikely!) They magnanamously (?) agree to let the UN dither and hem and haw, and in a month or so begin quietly moving troops out of the Gulf to other places and , most importantly, they don't stir the pot any more. Something or other will take people's attention elsewhere. Americans have a notoriously short attention span and by the time that the re-election primaries and all get started, the non-war that never happened will be rather old news.
What I'm trying to say is that the "we can't back down now" mentality exists only in the minds of the White House inner circle. There won't be national protests if we don't go to war. Karl Rove could probably spin it to make Bush look good (well, as good as possible ). I know, I know, it ain't gonna happen.
The administration seems to be doing its damnedest to bring on the Fourth Turning.

Originally Posted by SJ

That "Old Europe" is squealing about this shows you that a new vision of the future is being formed, one that excludes them more and more!

And conversely, exclude us from Europe to the point that we haven't seen since at least before WWI.

Are you ready for The Big Flu? This new and credible article says, ?The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population.?

Not the best time perhaps to send 250,000 troops off to a chicken war.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Originally Posted by American Scientist

For Immediate Release: February 14, 2003

World Unprepared for Next Deadly Influenza Pandemic

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC - In 1997, humanity came perilously close to a global epidemic of deadly influenza. Computer models suggest it could have claimed the lives of a third of the world's population, making it much worse than the horrific pandemic of 1918. As it was, only six people died, and all of them had contracted the virus from live chickens sold in Hong Kong poultry markets.

Are you ready for The Big Flu?
This new and credible article says, ?The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population.? Not the best time perhaps to send 250,000 troops off to a chicken war. --Croaker

Uh, Croak, ya is just slightly behind the curve on this "flu" thing:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2001 7:39 am Is the Fourth Turning Coming?

The Great Influenza Epidemic of 1919
Most folks don't know of the many great catastrophies occured in the previous third turning world between 1908 and 1929. One such devastating event occured just as "the war to end all wars" was ending. It came out of nowhere, an unseen enemy that struck with such ferocity as to completely shut down entire cities for days, weeks and months.

Recently, PBS did a documentary on this story which was quickly forgotten once it passed. Here are some pull quotes from that program.

"In New York, 851 people died of the flu in a single day. But the greatest horror came to Philadelphia. In one week in October, the death rate there was seven hundred times higher than normal."

"Over 11,000 people would die in Philadelphia alone that October."

"In 31 shocking days, the flu would kill over 195,000 Americans. It was the deadliest month in this nation's history."

"The epidemic killed, at a very, very conservative estimate, it killed 550,000 Americans in ten months, that's more Americans than died in combat in all the wars of this century, and the epidemic killed at least 30 million in the world and infected the majority of the human species."

And for the Lost generation of that time, here is a real kicker:

"In Washington, Victor Vaughan was working late, trying to make sense of the hellish chaos. He uncovered an unnerving fact. Usually, influenza kills only the weak -- the very young and very old -- but this time it had a different target. People in the very prime of life -- from 21 to 29 -- were the most vulnerable of all."

I recall reading in T4T (or in Generations?) that S&H believed a shocking moment would occur for the current Xer generation PRIOR to the fourth turn. Could this very moment be the moment they were refering to? To learn more about the devestating by an unseen enemy, click here...

I've posted this story/prediction so many times here, folks began thinking I had gotten the flu myself.


p.s. Reminds me of that stupid "evolution debate" that has seen it's "eternal return." :wink:

Lambster, Darwin loves you. So don't get your fleece in a bunch. ol' buddy. Yeah, I know, you're probably just sad that Dolly died.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Are you ready for The Big Flu? This new and credible article says, ?The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population.?

Not the best time perhaps to send 250,000 troops off to a chicken war.

--Croaker

CHINA February 20, 2003
Mystery illness in the south blamed on strain of chlamydia

BEIJING -- An unusual strain of chlamydia -- one not transmitted through sexual contact -- probably caused an illness that killed at least five people, sickened hundreds more with pneumonia and spread fear in southern China, authorities said Wednesday.
But one official acknowledged that some experts disagreed with the diagnosis and said the conclusion may have been hastened by politics and public panic.
The chlamydia strain was found in two specimens taken from people who died, the official at the Guangdong Provincial Disease Control and Prevention Center said Wednesday.
Chlamydia is most commonly known as a sexually transmitted disease. However, the official said, a related strain, pneumonia chlamydia, is typically spread through secretions from the respiratory tract. He added that the specimens were still being examined and analyzed.
Last week, panic in the province reached fever pitch as residents began wearing protective masks and rushed to buy up medicine and supplies to guard against the mystery illness.

Is the Right To March A Security Issue?

Email this story

Printer friendly format



By Bruce Ackerman
Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale, is author of "We the People."

February 18, 2003


This is a dark time for constitutional liberty, but the fate of Saturday's peace demonstration in New York deserves a footnote in tomorrow's history books. The demonstrators proposed a march past the United Nations to Central Park to support the role of the UN inspectors in Iraq and to denounce the prospect of unilateral warfare. But Mayor Michael Bloomberg, citing security concerns, said no.

The most the mayor would allow was a rally at the plaza in front of the UN for 10,000 participants. The overflow was herded into "pens" that the police constructed for miles down the center of First Avenue. Once a demonstrator entered his assigned pen, he wasn't allowed to fraternize with people in other pens. While others marched with dignity throughout the world, hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers were kept behind barricades.

This policy was nothing new. The Bloomberg administration has banned all protest marches in Manhattan since September 2002. Nevertheless, the federal courts upheld the city, enabling it to maintain its hardline position.

For all his sound and fury during eight years in office, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani never imposed such a sweeping prohibition. Suddenly, the only people who can march are innocuous folk, engaged in ethnic celebration. The city has granted a permit for 120,000 marchers to strut their stuff at the St. Patrick's Day parade. Only the UN protesters and their ilk are left to freeze in their pens.

As someone who made his fortune creating a media company, Bloomberg certainly knows that the First Amendment doesn't protect only marchers on St. Patrick's Day. The Constitution is especially concerned with the threat of political suppression. During the 1960s, federal judges were tireless in striking down the countless pretexts used by Southern cities to suppress civil rights marches against segregation.

But the federal courts failed to rise to the occasion this time around. When the march organizers went to court, federal judges rubber-stamped the pretexts advanced by the Bloomberg administration. The city emphasized that the St. Patrick's Day organizers work with the police in advance to assure against security risks. In contrast, the peace organizers could not say for sure how large their parade would be. Given this uncertainty, the courts upheld the city's decision to ban the march as a reasonable safeguard against violence.

Of course, political protesters never can control the timing of national crises - and yet their right to march has been a central part of the First Amendment tradition. The city offered no evidence of any clear and present danger to public safety, and the Saturday demonstration occurred without significant incident. If the bare risk of disorder suffices for suppression, we have come to the end of the road.

Hoping to narrow the sweeping force of her opinion last week, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones pointed to the fact that "the nation and the city are currently at the second highest security alert." This makes the decision worse, not better. We are only at the beginning of an endless war against terrorism. Are fundamental political rights to be contingent on FBI decisions to change the alert from yellow to orange? Such a power can be blatantly abused for partisan ends. Nevertheless, the court of appeals affirmed Jones' decision, and time ran out before the full U.S. Supreme Court could give serious consideration to the matter. So the marchers were kept in their pens, creating a precedent that will haunt us in the future.

This is not the first time the lower courts have crumpled in the defense of civil liberties after Sept. 11. Most notoriously, they have upheld the president's power to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial by declaring them "enemy combatants." As these precedents mount, it is time for all of us to reconsider the grim constitutional order we are so hastily creating.

Perhaps it is a good thing that the Supreme Court hasn't allowed itself to enter the fray too quickly. A pause will allow it to appreciate the high stakes involved. But in the meantime, events in New York should caution us about the frightening ease with which our most precious liberties can disappear.
Copyright ? 2003, Newsday, Inc.

Ok, folks, this is it. We are now eighteen months into the supposed fourth turn, and I can hereby submit the best evidence I've seen that this is indeed the case:

Posted on Sat, Feb. 22, 2003

Jo-Ann propers during downturn
Crafts retailer displays remarkable capability to perform in recession
By M.R. Kropko
Associated Press

Jo-Ann Stores Inc. had the makings for success when terrorism and a recession bruised the U.S. economy.

The Hudson-based crafts and fabrics retailer saw its stock value climb as Americans sought the comforts of home.

``With all the uncertainty out there, it seems that there is a return to traditional values,'' said chairman and chief executive Alan Rosskamm. ``There's more caring for friends and family and there is nothing more personal than a handmade gift. It is irrefutable that when the economy tanked, this industry did very well.''

Jo-Ann's stock performance was not strong through most of 2001, and it has weathered some bumps along the way.

Still, the retailer founded in a small shop in Cleveland by German refugees 60 years ago has grown to include 919 stores in 48 states.

On Sept. 10, 2001, Jo-Ann shares closed on the New York Stock Exchange at $5.81, about half the value as when 2000 began. In September 2002, the company's shares peaked at $33.75, a gain nearly six times over.

My wife brought this story to my attention, today. I was a bit baffled by it at first. I asked, "So what does this mean?" "People are nesting." She replied simply.

I felt a little cold chill. :o

Another article which may give Mr. Lamb another little cold chill. From the Washington Post magazine section, standard disclaimers apply.

Word Champions
St. Ann's secret weapon in the pop-culture wars

By Kevin Merida
Sunday, February 23, 2003; Page W11


It took me all of 40 seconds to be charmed by Phillip Gasperetti. I took off my coat, and he poured me hot coffee on an icy evening. What would you like in it? One sugar or two? He plays Vivaldi on the violin and baseball on the diamond. He reads widely: World War II history, Charles Dickens, Lemony Snicket. One of his oil paintings, a pastel-colored tree, hangs in the dining room. And he plays Scrabble, awfully good Scrabble, once scoring 410 against the CD-ROM genius player known as Maven.

Phillip Gasperetti is 10 years old and in the fifth grade.

Scrabble is why I've paid Phillip a visit. He's one of the top-rated players at St. Ann's Academy, the small Catholic school in Northwest that will represent the District in the first National School Scrabble Championship in Boston this spring. And he's training like a prizefighter.

"You have to be poker-faced," he says, explaining his strategy. Honest, this kid is 10. "You can't let your emotions show." Meaning you can't get too excited when you see a 108-point, triple-word-score opportunity spelling ZINGS and DEFEATS in one play. That's called "hooking."

But why Scrabble? The game's been around since Harry Truman was president. My parents spent many long weekend nights in the 1960s spelling unusual words on a board when they had little money for other entertainment or no babysitter for the kids. Is Scrabble in the midst of some kind of renaissance?

"Well," says Phillip, pausing to ruminate, "it's a very educational game, as you can see, because it uses words. And also, I think it boosts discipline."

I want to clone Phillip Gasperetti, or at least help protect him from the pop-culture madness that is draining the intellectual curiosity out of so many young people. I'm talking about cynical, adult-produced madness: mindless, foul-mouthed movies and mindless, foul-mouthed music. Reality TV and reality video games. Raunchy radio. And enough Internet junk to fill the Grand Canyon.

My latest pop-culture rant is aimed at the overhyped "American Idol," which isn't really about hope or talent or launching musical careers, but about cruelty and humiliation. Who will flop on national television? Who will Simon diss this week? Will any contestant break down and cry? Which one will exit with expletives for the judges?

It may be entertainment, but it's not Scrabble.

Scrabble "stimulates the brain," says Joe Edley, director of clubs and tournaments for the National Scrabble Association, an organization of 10,000 competitive players. "It's addictive, but in a positive way." Addictive enough to be creating junkies from Mel Gibson to Coolio. Some say the Scrabble surge is a 9/11 byproduct, the result of a return to family game nights. Others say a rebirth was ignited by Stefan Fatsis's 2001 bestseller, Word Freak: Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius and Obsession in the World of Competitive Scrabble Players.

But it's one thing for adult tournament players to get geeked up spelling QIVIUT (the woolly hair of a musk ox) or for old-schoolers to reconnect with a game out of nostalgia. It's another thing -- an inspiring thing -- to watch kids claim the game as their own, enhancing their analytical abilities, honing decision-making skills, funning and learning simultaneously. Scrabble is now played by more than a million kids in 20,000 schools nationwide, according to the National Scrabble Association.

At St. Ann's, a school of some 240 students (pre-K through eighth grade) that's been around for more than 120 years, a whole Scrabble subculture has taken root. Last spring Phillip's mom, Wanda Fleming, who grew up in Washington playing Scrabble, inquired about starting a club at St. Ann's. The principal agreed, and notes went out to parents. In 24 hours, 16 kids had signed up for this school year -- more than expected. The club started meeting in the fall on Wednesdays after school. The PTA contributed money. The school joined the National Scrabble Association. And when it was time to enter the first national school championship tournament, St. Ann's was the only District school to apply and hold a qualifying tourney.

Fleming and her husband, David Gasperetti, have been tireless coaches. They bought the Scrabble boards. They taught the kids about "rack management" (try never to have more than one of the same letter, except E). They drilled them in playing two-letter words (DE) and U-less Q words (QWERTY). They always bring food. Once, they even brought a movie to practice, "The Wedding Planner," in which Jennifer Lopez plays Scrabble. The point: "Other people play Scrabble, not just rocket scientists and nerds," says Fleming.

And now, she adds, "it's sort of a coveted thing to be in the Scrabble club, because there's a waiting list."

At St. Ann's, to play Scrabble is to be cool.

Take that, "American Idol."

Kevin Merida's e-mail address is meridak@washpost.com.


? 2003 The Washington Post Company

By the way, when Kevin and I were snowed in last week in Washington, D.C., we played lots of Scrabble. :wink:

On the news this morning it was announced that the television networks will launch two dozen reality shows this fall.

That 1918 - 1920 Flu epidemic is still remembered in my family.

The Lost Generation was the hardest hit. My great grandmother lost two of her sisters in 1920. My other great grandmother died that same year.

Pretty scary.

As for this Bush II vs. Clinton in temperament lets remember some things.

Bush is a Cancer. Clinton was a Leo. It sounds dumb, but look at other Leo males, Mick Jagger for instance. Even the Leo males I know are like that, absorbed with attention and the spotlight, and sex.
Even Leo females..like Madonna.
You have to be self absorbed to think you can run this country and you want your name in the history books and have your photo sprinkled everywhere.


So its not just a Boom trait. Boom traits are lumping in words like good and evil. Boomers sink their teeth into those things.
My Mom, a former anti-war Vietnam protestor wants this war, not because she feels Saddam is a threat, but because the administration has convinced her that he is evil.
Boomers can cite Christ as a political philosopher (like Bush) and get away with it.

As for Clinton, I have had the kind of relationship that he had with Monica with several women, and if you asked me if we had sex, I would say no, because we didn't have sex.

I understand this confusion. I know that all of your grandchildren or whatever were just so upset that the President is such a dirty man, but for us Xers (even if I am late wave) seeing people get so upset after we watched god knows how many episodes of Threes Company, Love Boat, Fantasy Island etc. is just ridiculous and hilarious.

J

Originally Posted by Abominable

As for this Bush II vs. Clinton in temperament lets remember some things.

Bush is a Cancer. Clinton was a Leo. It sounds dumb, but look at other Leo males, Mick Jagger for instance. Even the Leo males I know are like that, absorbed with attention and the spotlight, and sex.
Even Leo females..like Madonna.
You have to be self absorbed to think you can run this country and you want your name in the history books and have your photo sprinkled everywhere.


So its not just a Boom trait. Boom traits are lumping in words like good and evil. Boomers sink their teeth into those things.
My Mom, a former anti-war Vietnam protestor wants this war, not because she feels Saddam is a threat, but because the administration has convinced her that he is evil.
Boomers can cite Christ as a political philosopher (like Bush) and get away with it.

As for Clinton, I have had the kind of relationship that he had with Monica with several women, and if you asked me if we had sex, I would say no, because we didn't have sex.

I understand this confusion. I know that all of your grandchildren or whatever were just so upset that the President is such a dirty man, but for us Xers (even if I am late wave) seeing people get so upset after we watched god knows how many episodes of Threes Company, Love Boat, Fantasy Island etc. is just ridiculous and hilarious.

J

And what would your mom's sign be?

Originally Posted by Abominable

As for this Bush II vs. Clinton in temperament lets remember some things.

Bush is a Cancer. Clinton was a Leo. It sounds dumb, but look at other Leo males, Mick Jagger for instance. Even the Leo males I know are like that, absorbed with attention and the spotlight, and sex.
Even Leo females..like Madonna.
You have to be self absorbed to think you can run this country and you want your name in the history books and have your photo sprinkled everywhere.


So its not just a Boom trait. Boom traits are lumping in words like good and evil. Boomers sink their teeth into those things.
My Mom, a former anti-war Vietnam protestor wants this war, not because she feels Saddam is a threat, but because the administration has convinced her that he is evil.
Boomers can cite Christ as a political philosopher (like Bush) and get away with it.

As for Clinton, I have had the kind of relationship that he had with Monica with several women, and if you asked me if we had sex, I would say no, because we didn't have sex.

I understand this confusion. I know that all of your grandchildren or whatever were just so upset that the President is such a dirty man, but for us Xers (even if I am late wave) seeing people get so upset after we watched god knows how many episodes of Threes Company, Love Boat, Fantasy Island etc. is just ridiculous and hilarious.

J

This Xer objected to Clinton, since he was getting away with behavior he'd prosecuted in others; to wit, sexual harassment. Sex may not be in itself an adequate reason for punishment, but neither is the involvement of sex in other crimes grounds for acquittal from those crimes.

Besides, Clinton was a rapist. But, hey, that's all cool in the Porn Belt (aka Blue States), isn't it?

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

But, hey, that's all cool in the Porn Belt (aka Blue States), isn't it?

unlike the "red states", which are, of course, devoid of porn.


TK

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

This Xer objected to Clinton, since he was getting away with behavior he'd prosecuted in others; to wit, sexual harassment. Sex may not be in itself an adequate reason for punishment, but neither is the involvement of sex in other crimes grounds for acquittal from those crimes.

Besides, Clinton was a rapist. But, hey, that's all cool in the Porn Belt (aka Blue States), isn't it?

And we know that Mr. Clinton is a rapist.....how??? I was as disgusted as anyone else by WJC's sexcapades with Monica, Paula, Gennifer et al, but there is no proof whatsover that the man ever forced himself on these women or anyone else. If there had been such proof, you can believe that he certainly would not have escaped removal from office in 1998.

Meanwhile, here in Red Ohio, the age of consent for sex was lowered to fourteen back in the 1990s!!! (I wonder which Republican lawmaker's butt was saved by that little bit of legislation?). Don't tell me that the RZ is some sort of last bastion of morality in America. People are just as sleazy here as everywhere else, if a tad less honest about it.