Originally Posted by jds1958xg

I've been rereading T4T, and found a few statements towards the end of the book, which I think are worthy of being brought together for further reflection. On page 325, S&H state that 'When the Crisis hits, Boomers will need to defuse the Culture Wars at once.' Obviously, this has NOT been done. If anything, they have been intensified in the atmosphere of increased urgency attending the pre-regeneracy phase.

With the Iraqi invasion Bush has decided to end the Culture Wars and assert his compromise for a new values regime regeneracy. Prior to 9/11 he was an active market fundamentist but a passive spiritual fundamentalist. 9/11 converted him to a belief that America's mission must be both free markets at home and freedom for those oppressed abroad. The Left must now by default argue against free markets at home and against U.S. military intervention in the name of freedom abroad. The result of an Iraqi invasion will likely determine which side wins and takes charge of the soon to arrive (2004 election) regeneracy.

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

With the Iraqi invasion Bush has decided to end the Culture Wars and assert his compromise for a new values regime regeneracy. Prior to 9/11 he was an active market fundamentist but a passive spiritual fundamentalist. 9/11 converted him to a belief that America's mission must be both free markets at home and freedom for those oppressed abroad. The Left must now by default argue against free markets at home and against U.S. military intervention in the name of freedom abroad. The result of an Iraqi invasion will likely determine which side wins and takes charge of the soon to arrive (2004 election) regeneracy.

I have noticed the Bush administration has been sort of big on substance and little on actual policy, when it comes to pleasing the Christian Right crowd, a few crumbs here and there, however nothing earth-shaking. The Bush administration seems to fully focus on the outer world issues, not the inner world ones.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

I've been rereading T4T, and found a few statements towards the end of the book, which I think are worthy of being brought together for further reflection. On page 325, S&H state that 'When the Crisis hits, Boomers will need to defuse the Culture Wars at once.' Obviously, this has NOT been done. If anything, they have been intensified in the atmosphere of increased urgency attending the pre-regeneracy phase.

Of course, the culture wars (in any 3T-4T) seem to greatly intensify once the 4T begins, as each side does a final push toward the finish line, because once your side loses at regeneracy, that's it. Your agenda is dead. Pre-regeneracy phases have been filled with social chaos. The time between 1773 and 1776 is known for intense hatred between loyalists and patriots. The time between 1929 and 1933 was filled with protesters demanding relief. Our time is filled with anti-war demonstrations, and recently, an increasing number of pro-iraq-war rallies, and the two sides just HATE each other.

Originally Posted by bubba

Yes I am new, Mrs. Lamb and Meece just amaze me in the ability they have to ignore reality and spin anything into a harbinger of their version of utopia.

I may be wasting my breath but I thought I would try.

Bubba--

Thanks for standing in for me, but you should know that I am the official Lamb-chopper on this site. It worries me when someone else is doing a good job at that. He needs a preemptive strike or two to get him out of his bunker.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside, I have concluded that this "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevalent in these threads, has it's roots deeply seated in the notion of "moral relativism": the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Thus, when Bubba held court, while dropping bombs and sending U.S. troops all over the world, all was well. But now that Dubya does it, even in the aftermath of 9.11, he suddenly invokes "unpleasant Stalinesque images."

Oh sure, you might claim that you are more concerned about civil liberties at home being trounced on. But the Clinton's blatant use of the FBI, in the travel office firings and Filegate, the senseless killing of women and children at Waco, and the ease by which a sitting president lied straightface to the American people, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge belies your supposed fears.

You accepted all of this stuff when Clinton held court, but now that a Republican holds the reigns of power, "unpleasant Stalinesque images" are just around the corner.

Look who's talking. The Bush Administration passes a Patriot Act which basically guts the Bill of Rights and radically shifts the balance of power into the Executive Branch of government. Now, they have proposed a Total Information Awareness campaign, and are preparing a successor to the original Patriot Act, meaning that further constitutional rights will be erased, and could even pave the way to a total dictatorship. And to add to this, Bush is recreating "big government" that would supposedly make any "socialist" envious.

But what is your reaction to all of this? Oh nothing much. Just cheer these actions on...which by the way makes you (personally) just as bad as us libruhs.

Perhaps, if you really believe that conservatives are far superior, then you should actually support the principles on which you claim to stand. You seem to be more attached to the word itself rather than the actual ideology.

Assuming that we are indeed in a Fourth Turning, that explains the difference. Remember how our tolerance of abuses of power dropped after the Boston Tea Party.

You liberals are just hypocrites, plain and simple. Your supposed "ethical truths" are known only to you, and your ever shrinking group. Amd have no basis whatsoever in fact or reality.

And the same doesn't apply to conservatives? What you have described is the way Prophet generations act. Remember that Prophets are blind to the shortcomings, and contradictions of their own philosophies, and yes, that includes supposed conservatives.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Of course, the culture wars (in any 3T-4T) seem to greatly intensify once the 4T begins, as each side does a final push toward the finish line, because once your side loses at regeneracy, that's it. Your agenda is dead. Pre-regeneracy phases have been filled with social chaos. The time between 1773 and 1776 is known for intense hatred between loyalists and patriots. The time between 1929 and 1933 was filled with protesters demanding relief. Our time is filled with anti-war demonstrations, and recently, an increasing number of pro-iraq-war rallies, and the two sides just HATE each other.

An agenda does not entirely die during the regeneracy. They die at the climax of the Crisis. In the previous Crisis, there were many other agendas after Roosevelt won. Huey Long's agenda lasted up until his assassination in 1935. The Nazi agenda did not "die" until after the Allies triumphed, and nearly succeeded in a coup sometime in the mid 1930s. The communist agenda did not die until 1939, when the American communist leadership supported the Soviet non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.

Even in the Revolutionary Crisis, there were fierce debates about the future of slavery up until the ratification of the constitution. And during and after the way, there were fights between a centralized government and a decentralized one.

Also, a Crisis can take a sudden turn in direction, as Pearl Harbor shows. After the fighting between corporate America and the socialist left during the 1930s, they were able to solve their differences for the war.

So even with all of this bickering between the pro-war and anti-war persons, a sudden event can totally change the direction of the Crisis.

Originally Posted by a madscientist

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside, I have concluded that this "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevalent in these threads, has it's roots deeply seated in the notion of "moral relativism": the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Look who's talking. The Bush Administration passes a Patriot Act which basically guts the Bill of Rights and radically shifts the balance of power into the Executive Branch of government.

Mr. Reed, yesterday, a disgruntled famer, who had for three days vitually shutdown an important section of Washington D.C., was finally "repressed" in a fine "unpleasant Stalinesque" manner. It was a scene of utter hilarity and inept gestapoism.

The so-called repressive, Bill of Rights gutter, The Patriot Act, has been in effect for some-eighteen months. And your shrill charge of "radically shifts the balance of power," of anything, is not only groundless it is ridiculous. And making it, in light of the facts, makes you look nearly as buffoonish as than those charged in Washington with law enforcement.

Nevertheless, there was a larger point, about "moral relativism," I was seeking to make. And it is a point that differeniates those on the left from those on the right:

To wit, from The Claremont Institute:

R.I.P. (Six-Feet) Deep Thinker
So Much for Marx

"On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think?."

Don't panic. Last I heard, Rush is alive and well and spreading sweetness and light across the fruited plain.

These words were spoken by Friedrich Engels at the graveside of Karl Marx, who died 120 years ago today, on March 14, 1883.

Engels went on: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history." That was the great contribution of that greatest of thinkers to his fellow men?a particular idea of History with a capital aitch. What this idea of History means, in part, as Engels writes elsewhere, is that there is no "immutable ethical law," no "permanent principles which stand above history." Specifically, "all moral theories" are "the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time?: morality has always been class morality." No idea wrought more slaughter, oppression, and misery in the 20th century than this gift to the world from Karl Marx.

Marx is long dead, but as Herman Belz reminds us in the Spring 2003 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, his ideas live on in various iterations at the highest levels of authority in the American academy. Belz reviews Marxist historian Eric Foner's book, Who Owns History? Foner is past president of the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians.

Marx's "economic conditions" and his "classes" have become a little pass?. Some of his contemporary intellectual heirs have substituted "culture," "race," or "gender" in their place. Still, the analysis is essentially the same: all morality is relative (except for this one!). And the misery and oppression dragged into the 21st century by these bad ideas will be with us for a long time. -- I. Boone, contributor to the Claremont Review of Books (Posted March 14, 2003)

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I have noticed the Bush administration has been sort of big on substance and little on actual policy, when it comes to pleasing the Christian Right crowd, a few crumbs here and there, however nothing earth-shaking. The Bush administration seems to fully focus on the outer world issues, not the inner world ones.

Yes, prior to 9/11 Bush only dabbled in the Culture Wars, e.g. his stem cell research decision, but since 9/11 he has focused almost exclusively on two secular issues: The War on Terror and the economy. His spiritual fundamentalism has almost entirely manifested itself in the War on Terror, but the Christian Right has also recently ignored the inner world issues and has fully backed Bush on the War on Terror. It is only after the Crisis climax that the new values regime of the victor implants itself in the inner-world culture.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by bubba

Actually Mr. Lamb, you suffer what all too many liberals do and that is a propensity to take yourself and everything else way too seriously.

Lighten up.

Cute.

If you really are a conservative, propensity or no propensity, you won't last very long at this site. Few have. :wink:

ummm.

This number cruncher counts at least 6 that regularly post besides yourself (and your clone "Marc Lamb" without the "S"): jds1958, HopefulCynic68, Monoghan, SJ, Crispy, and AlexMNWI. So stop playing the victim card -- it is as unattractive on you as it is on the liberals you so famously deride. :P

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by bubba

Actually Mr. Lamb, you suffer what all too many liberals do and that is a propensity to take yourself and everything else way too seriously. Lighten up.

Cute. If you really are a conservative, propensity or no propensity, you won't last very long at this site. Few have. :wink:

This number cruncher counts at least 6 that regularly post besides yourself (and your clone "Marc Lamb" without the "S"): jds1958, HopefulCynic68, Monoghan, SJ, Crispy, and AlexMNWI. So stop playing the victim card -- it is as unattractive on you as it is on the liberals you so famously deride. :P

I would offer another perspective:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:03 pm

• "The price of freedom is plainly visible here."
  --Entrance sign to the Chillicothe, Ohio Veterans Hospital

Originally Posted by jcarson71

Republicans, take note: Such bickering is the stuff that elections are lost over. If you hate listening to whining, complaining Democrats, you better get used to that shrill noise because there's a lot more of it where it came from.

I am a Republican, and I took note already.

Not since 1934, when FDR solidified his New Deal base in that "off-year" election, has the Party with a first term president manged to gain seats of either House in Congress. Last November, with the Iraq war under fierce and foremost debate, the Republican Party scored a stunning reversal of this sixty-nine year trend. Not only did the GOP add to their majority in the House, they were able to gain a majority in the Senate (having lost it with the switch of Jim Jeffords in 2001).

Our supposed frustration, here at this website, is not about this at all. That debate is over. What we find objectionable at this "nonpartisan" site, is what we truly believe is unreasonable "shrill noise" from the left. Positing that Bush is Adolf Hitler, Napolean or pick-your-favorite despot is not just silly to us, but in this messy post-Clinton era, it is quite infuriating to read this crap on a daily basis in these threads.

I think Captain Eagen, who has castigated me a time or two for getting too partisan in these threads, and has been quite reasonable with everybody on both sides of the aisle here, to have become fed up after having a long-time poster here basically spit in his face -- ala the Vietnam era -- was understandably a little much to endure. Surely any reasonable person, grateful that military men and women are putting their lives on the line every day in faraway places, apart for their loved ones for long periods of time, would understand that getting spit in the face in these threads might result in a harsh reply (or unreasonable) in return.

I am not at all surprised that no one posting in these threads might reasonably understand this response by Captain Eagen, as I would consider most posters here with a single clue as to the "price of freedom," ot the "cost of liberty." This, in spite of all their bookish learnin'.

Most conservatives don't stick around these threads for very long. I have been told to leave many times by the very same poster that spit at Mike Eagen's profession. S&H never post here. Sanford, another pretty reasonable guy, got fed up and left a few days ago. Now, the Captain.

If you're somehow surprised, and I really don't think you are, I would think the last thing any of you all should do would be to look in the mirror. Any honest attempt at that might result in a reversal of the election trends since Reagan. And I, for one, wouldn't want that to happen.

Maxine (justmom), another departed conservative poster, put it this way:

It really broke my heart to see the people here. I am 34 and very conservative, but, it was my hope that I would see some coming together with ideas and solutions to real problems and all I see is " ME" ! It's all about me and what I want damn-it and up yours if you don't agree with me.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by bubba

Actually Mr. Lamb, you suffer what all too many liberals do and that is a propensity to take yourself and everything else way too seriously.

Lighten up.

Cute.

If you really are a conservative, propensity or no propensity, you won't last very long at this site. Few have. :wink:

ummm.

This number cruncher counts at least 6 that regularly post besides yourself (and your clone "Marc Lamb" without the "S"): jds1958, HopefulCynic68, Monoghan, SJ, Crispy, and AlexMNWI. So stop playing the victim card -- it is as unattractive on you as it is on the liberals you so famously deride. :P

:lol: :lol: :lol: We ought to be hearing "conservatives" talk about "unfair competition" and "equal time" any day now!

Originally Posted by "Marc Lamb

Our supposed frustration, here at this website, is not about this at all. That debate is over. What we find objectionable at this "nonpartisan" site, is what we truly believe is unreasonable "shrill noise" from the left. Positing that Bush is Adolf Hitler, Napolean or pick-your-favorite despot is not just silly to us, but in this messy post-Clinton era, it is quite infuriating to read this crap on a daily basis in these threads.

I think Captain Eagen, who has castigated me a time or two for getting too partisan in these threads, and has been quite reasonable with everybody on both sides of the aisle here, to have become fed up after having a long-time poster here basically spit in his face -- ala the Vietnam era -- was understandably a little much to endure. Surely any reasonable person, grateful that military men and women are putting their lives on the line every day in faraway places, apart for their loved ones for long periods of time, would understand that getting spit in the face in these threads might result in a harsh reply (or unreasonable) in return.

I am not at all surprised that no one posting in these threads might reasonably understand this response by Captain Eagen, as I would consider most posters here with a single clue as to the "price of freedom," ot the "cost of liberty." This, in spite of all their bookish learnin'.

Most conservatives don't stick around these threads for very long. I have been told to leave many times by the very same poster that spit at Mike Eagen's profession. S&H never post here. Sanford, another pretty reasonable guy, got fed up and left a few days ago. Now, the Captain.

If you're somehow surprised, and I really don't think you are, I would think the last thing any of you all should do would be to look in the mirror. Any honest attempt at that might result in a reversal of the election trends since Reagan. And I, for one, wouldn't want that to happen.[/size]

Maxine (justmom), another departed conservative poster, put it this way:

It really broke my heart to see the people here. I am 34 and very conservative, but, it was my hope that I would see some coming together with ideas and solutions to real problems and all I see is " ME" ! It's all about me and what I want damn-it and up yours if you don't agree with me.

[/quote]

Gosh, I missed all the announcements of people who have left the list.

I take exception to the assertion that all of us on this list except the six named in a post above are liberals and that we (all of us) have equated George W. with Hitler, etc.

I am probably not a conservative but neither am I a liberal in the sense that you are calling these folks liberals. I am opposed to the imposed dichotomy as I make up my own mind on issue and I am not terribly impressed with either political party.

I have had grave misgivings about this war and yet I support our troops--of whom my nephew is one. I have concerns about the patriot act and yet I think it is ludicrous to compare George W. Bush with Saddam Insane...whoops, Hussain. There is a huge difference between a president who is figuring out how to deal with the issues of the day and who may not do exactly what I want (if I could figure that out) and a brutal dictator.

Anyway, Marc, I have read posts in which you lash out at folks and attack their persons and their views rather than discuss the issues, too.

I have come to ignore such posts and generally respond to those that interest me.

I

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by bubba

Actually Mr. Lamb, you suffer what all too many liberals do and that is a propensity to take yourself and everything else way too seriously.

Lighten up.

Cute.

If you really are a conservative, propensity or no propensity, you won't last very long at this site. Few have. :wink:

ummm.

This number cruncher counts at least 6 that regularly post besides yourself (and your clone "Marc Lamb" without the "S"): jds1958, HopefulCynic68, Monoghan, SJ, Crispy, and AlexMNWI. So stop playing the victim card -- it is as unattractive on you as it is on the liberals you so famously deride. :P

:lol: :lol: :lol: We ought to be hearing "conservatives" talk about "unfair competition" and "equal time" any day now!

No need. We're well on our way to neutralizing the liberal advantage in many areas, all joking aside, especially with the rise of the Internet and other forms of 'altenative media'. It's still unquestionably true that the traditional media tilt liberal, but that matters less with each passing day.

Why do you think Daschle, etc, are suddenly whining about conservative media bias? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No need. We're well on our way to neutralizing the liberal advantage in many areas, all joking aside, especially with the rise of the Internet and other forms of 'altenative media'. It's still unquestionably true that the traditional media tilt liberal, but that matters less with each passing day.

Why do you think Daschle, etc, are suddenly whining about conservative media bias? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Depends on what you define Liberal or Conservative, These terms have different meanings in different times or places.

I use for at least in a Unravelling the terms Awakening and Anti-Awakening when defining people's politics. Since University graduates are more likely to hold awakening views than High School dropouts. The press in general which has a lot of university graduates has a bias towards the Awakening side in it's coverage.

Originally Posted by David '47

I would agree that Bush was being the valient soldier if I had even one small reason to credit him with that kind of thinking. Bush's reason for this war is not clear, but doing it for the good of the world sounds unlikely.

After all, this is the guy that says our part in fighting terrorism is to shop-'til-we-drop! He's also the one that's running the whole show behind closed doors. Even Republicans are getting weary.

He has another few months to fool "some of the people", then it's over.

You hope. But history says the odds are probably slightly with Bush. When national security becomes a major issue, the Democrats are playing against the grain.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by eameece

The ultimatum that Bush and Blair gave to the Security Council was, Saddam must admit that he has WMD.

The solution any competent diplomatic warmonger would have offered is:
Provide a full accounting of the WMD we say is missing.

I suspect this condition was crafted as a failsafe. Saddam has called the bluff of the US at every step in this process. Instructed to provide documentation, he did (before the deadline). Instructed to let inspectors in, he did. Instructed to let inspectors have complete freedom of movement and total access -- he did. Instructed to allow U2 overflights -- he did. Instructed to destroy Al Samouds (though he disputes whether they actually pass the prohibited limit) -- he did. Frankly, Bush & co. couldn't afford another compliance on Hussein's part.

There haven't been any real compliances, Justin. ALL of them were for show, in the hope that public opinion would rally around him. It did, everywhere except where it mattered.

Folks, let me say to begin with that one reason I rarely join the debate about the 'regeneracy' is that I don't believe we've even reached the real beginning of the Crisis yet, which appears to put me in the minority on the board. I think we (meaning the United States) are still in very late 3T.

So what's all the current shouting about? IMO, it's like a 'line squall', a sort of pre-storm moving ahead of the major storm center. Remember, 3T is perfectly compatible with warfare. The Cold War remained in effect throughout the entire Awakening and the first half of the 3T, and at times the situation between the USA and USSR was IMO moredangerous than our current global status, in terms of the potential for disaster.

I also think that a big factor in the current tension about the supposed American 'unilateralism' is that the rest of the world, esp. Europe and the European Union, and much if not most of the staff of the UN, are also in 3T, and in fact not as far along as we are. IMO much of all this is ascribable to a basic tendency of 3T societies to utterly recoil from hard-line confrontations. Often that carries over into early 4T, but not with the same utter determination to avoid any hard lines or hard edges.

Now, Bush is a Boomer, and I think, in him, for good or ill, we're getting a pre-taste, much diluted, of what's waiting ahead. Now, for all the talk of a 'rush to war', there's been no such thing. Instead, Bush allowed things to go on diplomatically so long that it began to look as if he was going to back down. OTOH, he does appear to have a 4Tish determination to finish what he started, even if he waits a year to do it to satisfy the demands of the diplomats.

Thus I do think many of the world-wide war protests are indeed anti-Bush protests, in part because he's an American right-winger, but also because he's acting in a very mildly 4Tish way. And that is not something that a society or group in the depths of 3T likes to contemplate. That applies to the USA, to, where many people are still thinking 3T, and where the cultural/religious/'attitude' disputes continue to rage unabated. Note that as the 2004 elections near, there are signs emerging in the polling data of the same old deadlock reappearing in the electorate.

Even people who've never heard of S&H's theories have been noting that the current emotional/political outlook in Europe bears an eerie resemblance to the 1920s, complete to similar phrasing of views by groups that apparently have no idea that something much similar occured decades earlier.

If I'm right, the good news is that we don't actually have an early Fourth, at least not quite yet, though it could yet come before time. The bad news would be, that if I'm right, this is just the prologue, and we really Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by eameece

The ultimatum that Bush and Blair gave to the Security Council was, Saddam must admit that he has WMD.

The solution any competent diplomatic warmonger would have offered is:
Provide a full accounting of the WMD we say is missing.

I suspect this condition was crafted as a failsafe. Saddam has called the bluff of the US at every step in this process. Instructed to provide documentation, he did (before the deadline). Instructed to let inspectors in, he did. Instructed to let inspectors have complete freedom of movement and total access -- he did. Instructed to allow U2 overflights -- he did. Instructed to destroy Al Samouds (though he disputes whether they actually pass the prohibited limit) -- he did. Frankly, Bush & co. couldn't afford another compliance on Hussein's part.

There haven't been any real compliances, Justin. ALL of them were for show, in the hope that public opinion would rally around him.

How do you know this? I like to see support when I see claims like this.

It did, everywhere except where it mattered.

Now THIS is probably true.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Now, Bush is a Boomer, and I think, in him, for good or ill, we're getting a pre-taste, much diluted, of what's waiting ahead. Now, for all the talk of a 'rush to war', there's been no such thing. Instead, Bush allowed things to go on diplomatically so long that it began to look as if he was going to back down. OTOH, he does appear to have a 4Tish determination to finish what he started, even if he waits a year to do it to satisfy the demands of the diplomats.

Actually I heard from people who have their sources in the US military, that the attack on Iraq was being planned for early 2003 a few months back. It took a long time for the military campgain to be planned and everything to go into place, also the planning time was used to convince public opinion domestically and abroad of the merits of the attack.

Thus I do think many of the world-wide war protests are indeed anti-Bush protests, in part because he's an American right-winger, but also because he's acting in a very mildly 4Tish way.

The protests against America?s decision to go to war are actually a showing of public resentment outside the USA against US power and its use of regardless of which party rules in Washington, we saw a similar sorts of protests during the Kosovo campaign or when Clinton decided to bomb Iraq in 1998.

To give an Australian example they were no protests, when Australia decided to intervene in East Timor, actually the same people who are protesting against the war actually were calling for intervention in East Timor :o

I bet you many of these opponents of the war in Europe and Australasia would be supporting the action if they country decided they would take out Saddam Hussein alone.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Now, Bush is a Boomer, and I think, in him, for good or ill, we're getting a pre-taste, much diluted, of what's waiting ahead. Now, for all the talk of a 'rush to war', there's been no such thing. Instead, Bush allowed things to go on diplomatically so long that it began to look as if he was going to back down. OTOH, he does appear to have a 4Tish determination to finish what he started, even if he waits a year to do it to satisfy the demands of the diplomats.

Actually I heard from people who have their sources in the US military, that the attack on Iraq was being planned for early 2003 a few months back. It took a long time for the military campgain to be planned and everything to go into place, also the planning time was used to convince public opinion domestically and abroad of the merits of the attack.

Oh, no question they've used the time to prepare extensively. It's been quite clear for months that war was inevitable. But to say that the delay benefited the USA diplomatically is clearly wrong, it only gave the opposition time to rally.

Thus I do think many of the world-wide war protests are indeed anti-Bush protests, in part because he's an American right-winger, but also because he's acting in a very mildly 4Tish way.

The protests against America?s decision to go to war are actually a showing of public resentment outside the USA against US power and its use of regardless of which party rules in Washington, we saw a similar sorts of protests during the Kosovo campaign or when Clinton decided to bomb Iraq in 1998.

Similar sorts, but on nothing like this scale. I think in part it's a matter, too, of Boomers (and their foreign counterparts) emerging from their cocoons between then and now, and in part because nobody really believed Clinton would expand the Kosovo operation very far. It wasn't in his self-interest.

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by eameece

The ultimatum that Bush and Blair gave to the Security Council was, Saddam must admit that he has WMD.

The solution any competent diplomatic warmonger would have offered is:
Provide a full accounting of the WMD we say is missing.

I suspect this condition was crafted as a failsafe. Saddam has called the bluff of the US at every step in this process. Instructed to provide documentation, he did (before the deadline). Instructed to let inspectors in, he did. Instructed to let inspectors have complete freedom of movement and total access -- he did. Instructed to allow U2 overflights -- he did. Instructed to destroy Al Samouds (though he disputes whether they actually pass the prohibited limit) -- he did. Frankly, Bush & co. couldn't afford another compliance on Hussein's part.

There haven't been any real compliances, Justin. ALL of them were for show, in the hope that public opinion would rally around him.

How do you know this? I like to see support when I see claims like this.

For one thing, it's been his pattern for over a decade now: under pressure, give just barely enough to cause the least resolute of your opponents to back off, then resume. That's only what you'd expect of someone trapped in Hussein's position, actually.

More signficantly, if Hussein were sincere, it would be easy to show it. There'd be no arguments about what could and could not be inspected, no arguments about how many U2 planes could fly, the weapons would be destroyed with industrial speed, not a few rockets at a time. Note that even now, Hussein is dragging his feet every step of the way, or was before the fighting started. Actual cooperation could settle the whole business in a few weeks, but he had no desire to cooperate. That made the entire inspections regime a joke.

The Empire Needs New Clothes


By Thom Hartmann
TBWT Guest Contributor
Article Dated 3/20/2003

E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

It's easy to vilify George W. Bush as a cynical warmonger, anxious to attack Iraq to repay the oil companies that funded his election campaigns. But to do so is to make a dangerous and fundamental error, and such a myopic view of the Bush administration's policies puts America's future at risk.

The reality is that the current administration has a clear and specific vision for the future of America and the world, and they believe it's a positive vision. In order to put forward an alternative vision, it's essential to first understand the vision of America held by the New Right.

The core of the neoconservative vision was first articulated on June 3, 1997, in the Statement of Principles put forth by the Project For The New American Century. Signed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, Gary Bauer, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Steve Forbes and others from the Reagan/Bush administration, it clearly stated that "the history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

Frankly acknowledging that America is a small portion of the world's population but uses a large percentage of the world's oil and other natural resources, Poppy Bush is famous for having said, "The American lifestyle is not negotiable."

McMansions for two-person families, a transportation infrastructure based on 6,000-pound SUVs carrying single individuals, cheap Chinese goods at Wal-Mart and cheap Mexican food in the supermarket - all of this is not anything America intends to give up. We're king of the hill, and we intend to stay that way, even if it means going to war to keep it.

At the core of this is oil. When the administration's people say American involvement in Iraq is "not about oil," they're often responding to charges that they're only going after profits for American oil companies. They speak truth, in that context, when they say the war isn't about revenues from oil - the profits will only be a desirable side-effect. What the war is really about is the survival of the American lifestyle, which, in their world-view, is both non-negotiable and based almost entirely on access to cheap oil.

The same year Cheney, et al, wrote their papers on The New American Century, I wrote a book about the coming end of American peace and prosperity because of our dependence on a dwindling supply of oil. "Since the discovery of oil in Titusville, PA, where the world's first oil well was drilled in 1859," I wrote in The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, "humans have extracted 742 billion barrels of oil from the Earth. Currently, world oil reserves are estimated at about 1,000 billion barrels, which will last (according to the most optimistic estimates of the oil industry) 'for almost 45 years at current rates of consumption.'"

But that doesn't mean that we'll suck on the straw for 45 years and then it'll suddenly stop. When about half the oil has been removed from an underground oil field, it starts to get much harder (and thus more expensive) to extract the remaining half. The last third to quarter can be excruciatingly expensive to extract - so much so that wells these days that have hit that point are usually just capped because it costs more to extract the oil than it can be sold for, or it's more profitable to ship oil in from the Middle East, even after accounting for the cost of shipping.

The halfway point of an oil field is referred to as "The Hubbert Peak," after scientist M. King Hubbert, who first pointed this out in 1956 and projected 1970 as the year for the Hubbert Peak of US oil supplies. Hubbert was off by four years - 1974 saw the initial decline in US oil production and the consequent rise in price. In 1975, Hubbert, who is now deceased, projected 2000 for a worldwide Hubbert Peak. Once that point had been hit, he and other experts suggested, the world could expect economy-destabilizing spikes in the price of oil, and wars to begin over control of this vital resource.

Most of the world has now been digitally "X-rayed" using satellites, seismic data, and computers, in the process of locating 41,000 oil fields. Over 641,000 exploratory wells have been drilled, and virtually all fields which show any promise are well-known and factored into the one-trillion barrel estimate the oil industry uses for world oil reserves.

And of that 1 trillion barrels, Saudi Arabia has about 259 billion barrels and Iraq is estimated by the US Government to have 432 billion barrels, although at the moment only about 112 billion barrels have been tapped. The rest, virgin oil, can be pumped out for as little as $1.50 a barrel, making Iraqi oil not only the most abundant in the world, but the most profitable. This at a time when virtually all American oil fields (except the Alaska North Slope) have dwindled past the Hubbert Peak into $5 to $25 per barrel pumping costs.

Thus, we see that our "lifestyle" - our ability to maintain our auto-based transportation systems, our demand for big, warm houses, and our appetite for a wide variety of cheap foods and consumer goods - is currently based on access to cheap oil. If we assume that the American people won't tolerate a change in that lifestyle, then we can extrapolate that our very security as a stable democracy is dependent on cheap oil.

Viewed in this context, the rush to seize control of the Middle East - where about a third of the planet's oil is located - makes perfect sense. It's a noble endeavor, in that view, maintaining the strength and vitality of the American Empire.

Of course, there are a few cracks in this vision. In order to have such a new American century, we must be willing to foul our waters and air with the byproducts of oil combustion and oil-fired power plants, and tolerate the explosions in cancer they bring. We must be willing to gamble that raising CO2 levels won't destabilize the atmosphere and tip us into a new ice age by shutting down the Great Conveyor Belt warm-water currents in the Atlantic. We must be willing to hold the rest of the world off at the point of a bayonet, and to take on the England/Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine type of terrorism that inevitably comes when people decide to assert nationalism and confront empire.

And, perhaps most distressing, the third George to be President of the United States must be willing to clamp down on his own dissident citizens the same way that King George III of England did in 1776. These are the requirements of empire.

The last American statesman to put forth a different vision was President Jimmy Carter, who candidly pointed out to the American people that oil was a dwindling domestic resource. Carter said that we mustn't find ourselves in a position of having to fight wars to seize other people's oil, and that a decade or two of transition to renewable energy sources would ensure the stability and future of America without destabilizing the rest of the world.

It would even lead to a cleaner environment and a better quality of life. Carter put in place energy tax credits and incentives that birthed an exploding new industry based on building solar-heated homes, windmill-powered communities, and the development of fuel alternatives to petroleum.

Ronald Reagan's first official act of office was to remove Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House. He then repealed Carter's tax incentives for renewable energy and killed off an entire industry. No president since then has had the courage or vision to face the hard reality that Carter shared with us.

And so now we discover these oddities. Osama bin Laden, for example, explicitly said that he had attacked the US because we had troops stationed on the holy soil of his homeland - a position not that different from Northern Irish, Palestinian, Tamil, and Kashmiri terrorists. And our troops are there to protect our access to Saudi oil, a dependence legacy we inherited from Reagan's rejection of Carter's initiatives.

If we are to hold a vision of America that doesn't depend on foreign sources of oil and doesn't require the enormous expenditures of money and blood to project and protect empire, simply saying "stop the war" isn't enough. We must clearly articulate a vision of what America could be in a world in balance, a world at peace, and a world where the planet's vital natural resources are protected and renewed. This is the ultimate family value, the highest patriotism, and the most desperately needed story to guide the next generation of Americans.

As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1961 Inaugural Address, "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Thom Hartmann is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann and in multiple submission, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

The last American statesman to put forth a different vision was President Jimmy Carter, who candidly pointed out to the American people that oil was a dwindling domestic resource. Carter said that we mustn't find ourselves in a position of having to fight wars to seize other people's oil, and that a decade or two of transition to renewable energy sources would ensure the stability and future of America without destabilizing the rest of the world.

It would even lead to a cleaner environment and a better quality of life. Carter put in place energy tax credits and incentives that birthed an exploding new industry based on building solar-heated homes, windmill-powered communities, and the development of fuel alternatives to petroleum.

Ronald Reagan's first official act of office was to remove Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House. He then repealed Carter's tax incentives for renewable energy and killed off an entire industry. No president since then has had the courage or vision to face the hard reality that Carter shared with us.

That's because the 'hard reality' Carter presented wasn't real.

The truth of the matter, unpleasant as many who support Carter's view find it, is that the most likely alternative to oil/coal is not a wind/solar driven world, but a world running on nuclear fission. Yet Carter was never enthusiastic about that.

Originally Posted by bubba

bubba wrote:
Mr. Meece, while I agree with you that one?s normative views will color their judgment I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that separating ones normative views from analysis is not possible. One can and if one has a disciplined mind go a long way towards separating their normative views from accepting what is. For example I believe that social security should be privatized, I also accept that the political consensus to do so is not present and is not likely to ever be present. You could do the same, you don?t like the war, but it is clear that at a minimum half the country and probably more has bought into it. Accepting that something has occurred does not mean that one approves of it. For example I believe that laws against ticket scalping are absurd, however, I accept and acknowledge that in many jurisdictions it is against the law.
Those who take the position that it is not possible to separate one?s normative views from analysis are individuals who simply wish to replace scholarship with partisan diatribe.

Nonsense. Noone can separate their views from their analysis. You have admitted that you are a conservative, which is just what I thought you were from your post. Your normative views are implied in everything you say. To claim total objectivity is simply a sharade to make your conservatives views and goals more acceptable to people. Total objectivity does not exist; ever.

Your analysis of "what has occured" is based partly on your views. Now S&H have said they like posts that are less partisan. Yet they themselves (especially William Strauss) are exceedingly partisan (see their posts about Clinton before the 2000 election). The Fourth Turning is written from a moderate to conservative viewpoint, and a social conservative viewpoint.

To some extent, yes you can look at what has occured without bias. You can cite evidence that we are in a 4T. But to assume you can do so totally without "normative" views is either naive or a deceptive smokescreen, mush like Bush claiming he is "liberating" the Iraqis by invading their country in an unprovoked aggressive attack just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Finally Mr. Meece, I made no predictions as to how this fourth turning will end, I do not know if it will be a victory for the left or the right or something else all together. I simply cited evidence that I believe it has arrived. Go back and read my post I never said any particular group would get its way I simply recited some facts and said these facts support the supposition that the national mood has changed. Your response to my post is classic evidence of how failing to separate ones normative views from analysis leads to failing to see what is there.

But my main point was that your analysis is based on incorrect ideas about what a fourth turning is. Historically it has proceeded in quite a different way from what you describe today. You also ignored the peace movement and implied that it is not occuring.

Take your response to what I said about the 2000 election. I made no comment about who I believe won or what I think a just or fair outcome would be I simply said I don?t think the national mood would tolerate 30 (days) or so of not knowing who won the election right now.
.....

What in the world does that have to do with what I said? I simply stated that the national mood would not tolerate it today as it did in 2000. Do you see how your partisanship is keeping you from seeing what is there?

Your statement was very partisan, implying that what happened after Nov.2000 was simply "legal wrangling" that would not be tolerated in a 4T period. The FACT is that fraud had occured. Perhaps in a real 4T mood, in which the people were ready for real change, such fraud would not be covered up and people would demand that it be redressed-- especially if the presumed winner was someone like Bush whose mission was to end the social and institutional change going on.

You are incorrect that 4Ts consist entirely of people rallying behind their president in order to win a war, which puts everything else aside. Nonsense. The Tories in the Revolution and the anti-war riots during the Civil War, plus the labor unrest during the depression, prove otherwise. To claim that the very real concern that fraud might have tampered with our democratic process, would not occur in a 4T, and that the people would just accept the fraud, is questionable. In fact, the people might have demanded the truth a lot sooner than they did. It might depend on whether the "total war" was going on. True, the 2000 election fraud might have been squelched if it was, so that "horses would not be changed in midstream." However, if the 4T was in a stage of domestic revolution or civil war, just the opposite might have occured.

Thus, your picture of what a 4T is, is seriously compromised by your conservative views, which tend to make you emphasize only those trends during a 4T which are conservative. That is exactly what you did in your post. It is more honest to admit your bias, and that it colors your views, than to deceive people into believing that you have no bias and can separate it from everything you say.

M. Troll King might wish to marginalize my views by claiming I am as partisan as Mr. Lamb, but that ad hominum is only a means of not facing the truth of what I am saying instead of having to deal with it. In fact, I am quite capable of recognizing facts, Troll, even if trolls are not. I cited lots of facts in my post, and in this one. Or can trolls read?

On another subject, I think those who point out turnings may be drastically different in the future because of our longer life spans and quicker maturity, have an excellent point (which I've alluded to before myself). If instead of an archetype in the crib and the nursing home, we have the same archetype as quickly-maturing children and seniors who are still youthful and active, a turning would have two generations of the same archetype active in place of where there are now none. This could turn the whole turning upside down and make awakenings into crises and crises into awakenings! This trend would be especially noticeable if it is true that, as many claim, we have now entered 4T and turnings are shorter/quicker.

And by the way this would further erode bubba's picture of 4Ts. If 4T become more like awakenings, because Artists are maturing quicker and dying later, and thus asserting their desire for justice more loudly, what becomes of the compliance with repression and war which he pictures as the essence of 4T?

The only change I could see that might disrupt this trend, would be if the current alleged 4T ends up making the USA into a third world country. Then the cycle would slow down again, and life spans would shorten. Failing that, the turnings could end up cancelling themselves out, and a very different picture of historical process could emerge.

Originally Posted by eameece

Nonsense. Noone can separate their views from their analysis.....

M. Troll King might wish to marginalize my views by claiming I am as partisan as Mr. Lamb, but that ad hominum is only a means of not facing the truth of what I am saying instead of having to deal with it.....

so which is it, eric? can you separate your (quite lefty) views from your analysis, or are you partisan to the left?


TK