A Silent Speaks!

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

I think America is about to write another page of world history. It?s Hollywood, isn?t it? B movie? Phony Western? Definitely bad acting, with too many gimmicks and explosions. What would Ronald Reagan think?

Ha, what do you suppose Bonzo would think? --Scared Croakless

Here are some more Croaker '39 quotes:

"What's so unique about Uncle Joe [Stalin], Marc? America has fiddled with scoundrels ever since the Europeans arrived. And then there's Saddam What's-His-Name today, we fiddled with him, too. Oh, and Hitler and Tojo, back in the 1930s. Those were tricky and unpredictable times, but not so for to the Great Wizard of Hindsight...memsaheeb."

"As long as I can remember there were extreme Roosevelt haters. I don't think they ever really understand the times. But, hey, what's a Great Depression/World War II, 4T crisis? Just another Tarzan episode. Those who hate FDR, I think, slither beneath us down in the ooze. Fossils are made that way."

"And so, my T4T friends, I honor the birth of what history has proven to be a durable and redeeming legend of a saintly man: Jesus of Nazareth, champion of the Individual Heart. May we, in his name and by all other means, find more patience and kindness in the coming year."

Nobody born between 1925 and 1945 has occupied the White House. What is it about you guys, anyway? :wink:

Seeing all the left-wingers running around in panic, like chickens with their heads cut off, is good news indeed. Why? Because they couldn't care less if there were any real risk to a war with Iraq (as, indeed, there is--though less a risk than not going. The only thing that could get them this upset is the belief that GWB will win reelection. And that is good news indeed. 8)

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Seeing all the left-wingers running around in panic, like chickens with their heads cut off, is good news indeed. Why? Because they couldn't care less if there were any real risk to a war with Iraq (as, indeed, there is--though less a risk than not going. The only thing that could get them this upset is the belief that GWB will win reelection. And that is good news indeed. 8)

What about those of us "lefties" who are worried about both? :o

After all, the President has not exactly been generous with the Federal largess needed to fund basic programs to protect us in the event of another terrorist attack. I'm talking about more border patrol staff, aid to State and local government "first responders" to disasters (given their economic distress, they can't shoulder the additional burden without Federal help), more funds for smallpox vaccinations, and the like? The New Republic, which these days is hardly a bastion of dovelike sentiment, blasts the President in its cover article "The September 10th President", which details all the ways in which the President has skimped on homeland security, instead putting his tax cuts first. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

...Nobody born between 1925 and 1945 has occupied the White House. What is it about you guys, anyway? :wink:

Yes, we are a scrawny lot. I think it was the polio epidemic, combined with sulfa drugs and asbestos. We broke a fever with penicillin and Joe MaCartrhy. "Tail-gunner Joe," remember? And then the first animal-rights speech in American history: "We're keeping Checkers." Yettchhh! If you can choke that down, you can swallow just about anything.

Hey, I'm taliking about yer boys, Marc. So pay attention! I can match you two of yours for every one of our scoundrels. Do you want to play winter golf?

--Croaker

War hysteria is all around us

03/09/03




drug into Moham mad that would paralyze his lungs so he couldn't breathe. Then he would put Moham mad on a respira tor. If Mohammad didn't answer a question, he would turn the respirator off for a while, then turn it back on again. Wheeler said his method was a lot better than something low-tech like lop ping off a hand with a chainsaw. Then he was dismissed with thanks and the network went to a commercial for Di-Tech Dot Com.

I don't call Wheeler a maniac merely because he is. He is a carrier of the present war mania, which obviously also infected the producer who booked him and the hosts who interviewed him. War mania is running high and it's coming at us from all directions - not just from war-mongers but from peaceniks as well.


Information from Our Advertisers




Toledo Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is anti-war. So am I. But we parted company the other day when, in a newspaper interview, she compared Osama bin Laden to America's founding fathers who fought to win independence from England.

She might as well have called Abe Lincoln an imperialist tyrant for making war on the South to prevent it from gaining freedom from the union. This kind of warped and unrestrained reasoning is a product of war mania, too. It's in the air like pollution and we breathe it in daily in these tense and horrible days.

I saw some of it during the anti-war rally in London, where one protester marched down the street carrying an American flag with a big swastika painted on it.

A peace symbol? OK. Bush in a cowboy hat? OK. But a swastika on an American flag in London? Thousands of Americans died or shed their blood to help our British allies when the Nazis had them with their backs against the wall. George Bush, whatever anybody thinks of him, is no Nazi. Saddam Hussein, whatever anybody thinks of him, is no Hitler, either.

The first casualty of war is truth. The first casualties of war mania are common sense and restraint. Frankly, I don't see much of either in the present war policy. War supporters see plenty of both.

They say it's only common sense to strike Iraq before Iraq strikes us. But no evidence has been presented that Iraq intends to strike us. Or that it had anything to do with 9/11.

The president says too much restraint has been showered on Saddam. That he is Hitler-lite. And that it's high time we neutralized him.

Well, we bomb him every day. We have U.N. inspectors running all over his country and troops on his borders ready to strike. Nobody was doing that to Hitler in 1938. Had they been, it surely would have prevented war.

The irony here is that the president's policy has divided a country that ought to be celebrating now. We've captured the man who masterminded the World Trade Center attacks. That's a cause for pride, hope and rejoicing. And even without Jack "the Ripper" Wheeler's humane strangulation technique, Mohammad reportedly is furnishing information that might lead to the capture of bin Laden who, all Americans agree, is our public enemy No. 1.

Jack Wheeler represents a point of view that violates all of our principles. So does a pre-emptive war against a nation that poses no immediate threat to us.

You have to be careful in war not to become the thing you hate. Are we being careful enough?


Contact Dick Feagler at:

dfeagler@plaind.com, 216-999-5757




? 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Men under 35 in particular felt that they were being treated as sexual objects by predatory young women.

Ok Boys. time to hit the beach in France! Who's with me?

:lol:

Thanks for the tip Marc!

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Men under 35 in particular felt that they were being treated as sexual objects by predatory young women.

Ok Boys. time to hit the beach in France! Who's with me?

:lol:

Thanks for the tip Marc!

Another reason to get my passport renewal in the mail. :wink:

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Men under 35 in particular felt that they were being treated as sexual objects by predatory young women.

Ok Boys. time to hit the beach in France! Who's with me?

:lol:

Thanks for the tip Marc!

Oops==you want the Big Orgy thread, don't you ES? :lol:

It would be nice to be treated as a sexual object by hordes of adoring, young, nubile late-Xer/early-Millie women, but I'm afraid my honey would have a problem with it. So I suppose that means I shall have to pass :cry: Maybe next incarnation!

Speaking of France, when I was there in '95 I was seated on the Metro across the row from a very attractive 20-ish gal in a black miniskirt....when suddenly she did a Sharon Stone/Basic Instinct right there on the train (definitely 3T)!

You'll love Paris 8)

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

...Nobody born between 1925 and 1945 has occupied the White House. What is it about you guys, anyway? :wink:

Yes, we are a scrawny lot. I think it was the polio epidemic, combined with sulfa drugs and asbestos. We broke a fever with penicillin and Joe MaCartrhy. "Tail-gunner Joe," remember? And then the first animal-rights speech in American history: "We're keeping Checkers." Yettchhh! If you can choke that down, you can swallow just about anything.

Hey, I'm taliking about yer boys, Marc. So pay attention! I can match you two of yours for every one of our scoundrels. Do you want to play winter golf? --Croaker

Here's my favorite Boomer/Silent exchange of all time (Vice Presidential debate of 1996):

Gore: I just want to say that, unlike the rest of his party, Jack Kemp is a decent fellow, who, unlike the other Republicans, doesn?t hate blacks and other minorities.

Jack Kemp: Thank you, Al. Thank you very much.

When Kemp said ?Thank you,? some in the audience actually laughed. Maybe they thought he was kidding, being sarcastic. But Kemp continued with, ?No, I really mean that?


Thanks, Jack. :wink:

Originally Posted by The London Times

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Ok Boys. time to hit the beach in France! Who's with me? :lol:

Thanks for the tip Marc!

Oops==you want the Big Orgy thread, don't you ES? :lol:

It would be nice to be treated as a sexual object by hordes of adoring, young, nubile late-Xer/early-Millie women...

Younger men were said to be more unhappy than their elders. The 25-35 group felt that women ?consume men and abuse them sexually?. The saddest group seemed to be those aged 20-25, who the magazine defined as ?subjugated and feminised?.

Folks, while you all find this funny (and I, too, made light of the story) now, mass rape and pilliage are quite common during fourth turns. The infamous and hideous Rape of Nanking is a prime example.

The radical feminism of the late sixties was an assault on men, a backlash to a male-dominating, real or imagined, generation. Bouncing back the other way could have some real nasty consequences for women, children and society in general.

The safeguards you mention might be helpful without destroying civil liberties. New surveillance technologies-if confined to the coasts and borders of the country, and airports-would leave civil liberties intact. It would be a pain in the ass to need a passport and visa just to visit Canada, but tolerable.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

The radical feminism of the late sixties was an assault on men, a backlash to a male-dominating, real or imagined, generation. Bouncing back the other way could have some real nasty consequences for women, children and society in general.

Yah - this has been on my mind on and off for the past decade or so.

If you look at the contributions of male and female, you see that the female carries life, nurtures it and (in our culture) provides the characteristics that provide stability (home, family, etc).

Males can be violent and are biologically driven to wander and impregnate as many females a possible.

Compare the contributions. Look at nature. Lion males spend their time fighting and wandering and it is the lionesses that provide the stable family.

How human males got control of the power structures and have dominated western society for so long is beyond me, but if you look at it, what do we (males) bring to the table compared to females?

There are many feminists who have been making this argument for years.
In the increasingly female-dominated societies of the west, the push has been to make men into women by feminizing them.

This goes against male biology and cannot be done without contorting men into something they are not.

I'm just thinking back to my Dad and Mom's generation (Silents). In the late 50's, you were expected to get married and have kids.

Today, unless you are one of those French-like sissy males, you wont even get a second look from females.

I have first hand knowledge of this. I am pushing 40 and have never even been on a formal "date" in my life because I refuse to change into something other than what I am natually supposed to be. As a result, I have no offspring or companionship and will probably die alone and earlier than I would have otherwise done.

I imagine that this scenario is being played out all over the western world. Either men contort themselves into something they are not (and suffer the consequences of turning into sissies) or they end up without a mate/companion and without offspring.

Many of them are doing without. The northern European nations (Sweden, Norway, etc) actually have declining populations. This is not just because of men opting out, but with the pill and abortions, so are women.

We need to face the fact that we all have our biological roles and that if we choose (and we can choose) different paths, we cannot eliminate all of the consequences of these choices.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Today, unless you are one of those French-like sissy males, you wont even get a second look from females.

from where i sit, that sounds utterly preposterous. the women i've known have little to no interest in "sissy males". the standard complaint is they're "a nice guy, but.....".

Originally Posted by takascar2

I have first hand knowledge of this. I am pushing 40 and have never even been on a formal "date" in my life because I refuse to change into something other than what I am natually supposed to be.

i've only been on a couple formal "dates" myself..... i think it's just a common social pattern of the last 20 years for relationships to develop datelessly.

Originally Posted by takascar2

I imagine that this scenario is being played out all over the western world. Either men contort themselves into something they are not (and suffer the consequences of turning into sissies) or they end up without a mate/companion and without offspring.

well, yeah, you can't run around "impregnating as many females as possible" and expect to end up with a companion (though i guess you would get the offspring). and you can't really blame women for wanting more stability than that.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by takascar2

Today, unless you are one of those French-like sissy males, you wont even get a second look from females.

from where i sit, that sounds utterly preposterous. the women i've known have little to no interest in "sissy males". the standard complaint is they're "a nice guy, but.....".

Oh, yeah.

I agree with TK wholeheartedly. And you don't even have to be a "sissy" in order to be branded as a "nice guy, but...", and not just in France, either.

A large majority of late-wave Boomer and Xer women go out of their way to paint guys who aren't complete assholes as weak and ineffective. After years and years of repeated exposure to such bullshit, many hard working, intelligent, dependable and (yes, ladies) strong men suffer a gradual yet ultimately catastrophic loss of self-confidence around women, as they begin to believe what they are told by them over, and over again. Myself, it took me well over a decade to get my confidence back after what I experienced in college.

Thanks, Gloria Allred. We all really owe you so much.

Easy, Mr. Parker, and consider the fact that you were in college when all this nonsense occured.

Think, my dear Boomer cohort, with your brains and not your testosterone.

Hell, even John Wayne knew how to do that! :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Easy, Mr. Parker, and consider the fact that you were in college when all this nonsense occured.

Think, my dear Boomer cohort, with your brains and not your testosterone.

Hell, even John Wayne knew how to do that! :wink:

That's right, Marc. I do believe I said it took me over a decade to recover, but recover I did. I still feel obliged to stick up for the younger guys who went through the same shit, and haven't recovered yet. I'm an idealistic Boomer, remember!

Re: 3T vs 4T

I certainly am not saying I agree with everything said in the following article:

Our World-Historical Gamble

but the content seems very 4T-ish, with its presentation of the current international issues (Al Qaeda, Iraq, North Korea, etc.) and the Bush administration's approach to them as representing a major and unavoidable crisis and an inevitable turning point in history.

I believe S&H refer to a the tendency to portray problems as big and to address them in big ways as 4T-ish behavior.

It is because this historical deadlock must be broken that the unavoidable conflict arises between the old order caught up in its impasse and the new order erupting through it. And, as Hegel observes, "It is precisely at this point that we encounter those great collisions between established and acknowledged duties, laws, and right, on the one hand, and new possibilities which conflict with the existing system and violate it or even destroy its very foundations and continued existence, on the other?." This fact explains why the old concepts and categories are of so little use in guiding us to an understanding of such transformative events, because the essence of the world-historical is the disclosure of new and hitherto unsuspected historical possibilities - it is their absolute novelty, their quality as epiphanies, that accounts for their inevitable collision with, and transcendence of, the old categories of understanding.

Today we are in the midst of this collision. It is the central fact of our historical epoch. It is this we must grasp. Unless we are prepared to look seriously at the true stakes involved in the Bush administration's coming world-historical gamble, we will grossly distort the significance of what is occurring by trying to make it fit into our own pre-fabricated and often grotesquely obsolete set of concepts. We will be like children trying to understand the world of adults with our own childish ideas, and we will miss the point of everything we see. This means that we must take a hard look at even our most basic vocabulary - and think twice before we rush to apply words like "empire" or "national self-interest" or "multi-lateralism" or "sovereignty" to a world in which they are no longer relevant. The only rule of thumb that can be unfailingly applied to world-historical transformations is this: None of our currently existing ideas and principles, concepts and categories, will fit the new historical state of affairs that will emerge out of the crisis. We can only be certain of our uncertainty.

It seems that the World Order put in place in the 1940's is running on fumes, having become mortally wounded circa 1989. Bush the First's "New World Order" was a noble, if ineffectual, attempt to make something of the disintergration. But it will require a much more wrenching catharsis to truly reorder the world stage and create a functional new template to workin within and from.

I see world history (at least in the Modern era) going through periods of relative order and periods of relative flux if not disorder. I would propose 1945-1989 as an example of the first, as well as 1871-1914 and 1815-1848. I would propose 1789-1815, 1848-1871, 1914-1945 (and recent history as the first sizable fraction of a period) representing the latter. I would guess that, if we don't blow ourselves to Kingdom Come in the meantime, circa 2020 would usher in a workable New Order. I am by no means married to these dates.

Though the timing of this has much to do with the Saeculum, I don't think it does so entirely. But what I perceive as periods of flux seems to roughly coincide with late third turnings through fourth turnings.

There surely is extraordinary conflict and realignment coming our way.

Originally Posted by John Wayne

Re: 3T vs 4T

I certainly am not saying I agree with everything said in the following article:

Our World-Historical Gamble

Thanks for the lead, John Wayne. I found this article to be one of the more interesting pieces I have read recently about Iraq.

I do indeed see the language of 4T in it.

I found two aspect of the articel the most thought provoking. The first was the second to last paragraph:

Once the world-historical magnitude of the risk is understood, it is possible for men of good will to differ profoundly over the wisdom of this or that particular response - and not only possible, but necessary. But this must be done in a climate free of pettiness and personalities: the cult of naive cynicism - that oxymoron that characterizes so much of what passes today for intellectual sophisitication - must be dismantled and as soon as possible if we are to make our response as intelligent and as creative as it must and can be. To call prudence appeasement is wrong. But to call the United States' response a bid for empire is simply silly.

No one's crystal ball is in such good shape that they can afford to be too vehement in denouncing those who disagree with them. Fear and trembling is the first order of the day, both on the part of those who counsel action and those who do not. (From Our World-Historical Gamble)

I think a lot of discussion here and elsewhere has been more of the naive cynicism type than a type more humble and done in "fear and tembling."

That wording is, in itself, 4T.

Another thought I had while reading this article was that if, as he says, the Islamic world-or parts thereof- is basing demands and desires on a fantasy that has little accomodation to reality, then the same could be said for large segments of the anti-war movement. For example, the woman that I discussed on another thread of this site (topic: Boomer Despair?) who equated the United States with Iraq, was in just as much denial of the nature of reality as are the Palestinians who believe that they can push the Jews into the sea, walk in and take over a modern state and make it work by fiat.

Thanks again, John Wayne! This article is certainly something one can chew on![/quote][/u]

Originally Posted by Sean Love

It seems that the World Order put in place in the 1940's is running on fumes, having become mortally wounded circa 1989. Bush the First's "New World Order" was a noble, if ineffectual, attempt to make something of the disintergration. But it will require a much more wrenching catharsis to truly reorder the world stage and create a functional new template to workin within and from.

I see world history (at least in the Modern era) going through periods of relative order and periods of relative flux if not disorder. I would propose 1945-1989 as an example of the first, as well as 1871-1914 and 1815-1848. I would propose 1789-1815, 1848-1871, 1914-1945 (and recent history as the first sizable fraction of a period) representing the latter. I would guess that, if we don't blow ourselves to Kingdom Come in the meantime, circa 2020 would usher in a workable New Order. I am by no means married to these dates.

Though the timing of this has much to do with the Saeculum, I don't think it does so entirely. But what I perceive as periods of flux seems to roughly coincide with late third turnings through fourth turnings.

There surely is extraordinary conflict and realignment coming our way.

You might be interested in George Modelski's stuff.

http://faculty.washington.edu/modelski/

Originally Posted by John Wayne

Re: 3T vs 4T

I certainly am not saying I agree with everything said in the following article:

Our World-Historical Gamble

but the content seems very 4T-ish, with its presentation of the current international issues (Al Qaeda, Iraq, North Korea, etc.) and the Bush administration's approach to them as representing a major and unavoidable crisis and an inevitable turning point in history.

I believe S&H refer to a the tendency to portray problems as big and to address them in big ways as 4T-ish behavior.

"Our World-Historical Gamble" is a worthy read, and accurately portrays the need for a new alternative to the sovereign state as the core element of politics. Unfortunately, I perceive its author as too Clauswitzian. I would agree that having all nation states wielding weapons of mass destruction is unstable and unsatisfactory. However, the United States returning to the principle of 'might makes right,' freely and unilaterally voiding a state's right to exist, is more than just a gamble. Safeguards against rogue WMD terrorism must be invented. Arbitrary use of force won't do it.

I also see the paper as 'On to Richmond' style simplistic. He is advocating military solutions. He is not addressing very real religious, economic, political, ethnic and moral concerns. The Middle East's problem is not just a gap between wealth and the knowledge to put together a modern nation. It is not just fanatics fantasizing. (Surely, these words have the same root?) There are dire problems that have to be solved. Ethnic and national borders are not meshing. Democracy and human rights are established in local cultures. Wealth is not distributed. Saying that established wealthy powers have a right to invade and remake the Middle East is also a fantasy, the White Man's Burden revised. The tensions won't go away until the base causes are addressed, nor will the weapons of mass destruction.

But he does make a firm case that sovereignty might be obsolete. I would say that sovereignty should not be revoked arbitrarily. I would say it should not be revoked without demonstrable cause. If we are going to return to strong nations destroying weak ones, there should be a process and set of standards involved.

You know in the BRAND new Beastie Boys song "World Gone Mad"

they have a line about Bush's "Midlife crisis war"...

what does it mean

Senate bans partial birth abortions

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...3-103841-1681r


Isn't it lovely how in this time of impending war with Iraq the government still has time to do what really matters? :-;

I vote 3T

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Isn't it lovely how in this time of impending war with Iraq the government still has time to do what really matters? :-;

You think that's good, what about the (In-)Justice Department raiding Chong Glass a couple weeks ago? During a "Level Orange", if I recall correctly? Those terrorist bong-suckers :x

How many terrorist joints do you suppose have been passed around amongsts the troops squating over there in the vast kitty litter? Probably less than what went 'round in the Vietnam.

--Croaker