So you folks don't just think I'm whistling Dixie, on the Scott Peterson 3T silliness: the frontpage of the New York Times online comes...

Husband Held After 2 Bodies Are Identified
By NICK MADIGAN 10:15 PM ET
The husband of a pregnant Modesto, Calif., woman was arrested in connection with her death and that of the fetus

And from the Washington Post online, the headline "Peterson Bodies Identified"

And on Reuters, Scott's mug merits front and center... and on the AP Wire, Lacy's pic is headlined.

Look familiar?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Justin '79

Marc I recently wrote an e-mail to Strauss. I think that they are not exactly sure when they will pinpoint the catalyst. They also said that Millennials may still be being born. That boundary depends on the end of the crisis, not the beginning.

Ahh... the boundary depending on the END of the crisis? Then generations must be characterised more by coming of age than by initial impression, according to S&H's view!

This actually makes a great deal of sense. Consider the end boundary of the last Hero generation. S&H ended the GI Generation at 1924, the last cohort whose male members generally saw action during World War II. Subsequent cohorts, 1925, '26, '27 may have enlisted, but for most of them the war was over before they had a chance to be sent into battle. For example my father, born in 1926, enlisted in the Army upon graduation from HS in 1944. He was in the Phillipines, in preparation for the upcoming invasion of the Japanese mainland, when Mr. Truman dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This experience, of not having the opportunity (for better or for worse) to become death-dealing Heroes (or spouses of one) is what makes people born in 1925 and later Silent.

If the last cohort of men and women who fight in The Tenth Crusade turns out to be 1999, it's a good bet that that will be the last year of the Millennial generation.

They are still very hung up on the 1982 boundary which they chose well before the corresponding event to determined the boundary (the end of the 3T) - if it depends on coming of age how would S&H have had any idea in 1991?

Um....might Strauss and Howe simply made their best guess?

Might very well be... and in typical Boomer fashion they declared this guess as fact? :-)

Besides, 2T/3T boundaries are quite murky anyway, compared with 3T/4T. I mean, for the early Silents, not having fought in WWII was a major big deal-- I can't count how many Saturday afternoons my Dad fiddled away when I was a kid, daydreaming of being a war hero in front of televised combat films. Conversely, I doubt there are many 1982-84 Millies pining away for the grunge/gangsta era that they just missed being a part of.

Most of us don't seem to do much 'pining' per se... we consider this
http://20below.mainetoday.com/views/...ws101300.shtml
to be our musical era - and anyway, piecing together the 'coming of age' with a definition of 'coming of age' like going to college (isn't that the one you use?) means that it's no surprise that a member of the Class of 2001 could feel like a cusper, being one or not!

For days I have been asking my wife, who watches the news a lot more than I do, who the hell is Lacy Peterson and why is she important? I have yet to get an understandable answer.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Lacy Peterson?

She was cute, upper middle class, and pregnant.

Unlike those five dead, Phoenix prostitutes nobody gave a rat's behind about.

This was a surprise, but it does make sense:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...&cat=Holocaust
Nazi Hunter Wiesenthal Says His Work Is Done
(Reuters) - Renowned Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal was quoted as saying on Thursday he would soon close his files after nearly half a century because his work to track down the perpetrators of the Holocaust was complete. "I found the mass murderers I was looking for, and I have outlived all of them. If there's a few I didn't look for, they are now too old and fragile to stand trial. My work is done," the 94-year-old told the Austrian weekly magazine "Format." More

While the 3T is over, the celebrity circus isn't. However, this one can be
profitable for the audience, too, and mock the excesses of both celebrity and the stock market!

Standard Fair Use disclaimers apply.

America, prepare thyself for 'Celebdaq'

Hot Brit TV show: Spoof stock trading in stars

By Heidi Dawley

Tired of seeing the same old money-losing names in your portfolio? Thought about ditching the likes of IBM, Unilever and your dot.com dogs for something with a bit more bite?
What about taking a flyer on Brad Pitt (BRDPIT, price $3.83), Julia Roberts (JULIAR, price $3.93) and, for that dash of old money stability, Queen Elizabeth II (QUEEN, price $6.30)?
It?s all possible on one of Britain?s hot new TV and internet games. Called "Celebdaq," it?s the BBC?s spoof of Nasdaq, and it trades shares (virtual money only, of course) in celebrities from all walks of life.
The objective of the show is to assess how the various shares will perform the following week. Performance is based on the number of column centimeters each racks up in the British tabloids and broadsheets.
It is one of the BBC?s most promising new formats, which the corporation is currently touting at MIP-TV, the international TV festival in Cannes, France.
Having had success in the past with such hit formats as "The Weakest Link," "Teletubbies" and "Tweenies" overseas, the BBC has high hopes for "Celebdaq."
Even before the festival in Cannes, there were reports that U.S. production houses had approached the BBC about purchasing the format to develop an American version.
The controversial "Celebdaq" is the brainchild of Conrad Green, a driving force behind "Pop Idol" and "Big Brother," which also became hits in the U.S. ("Pop" as "American Idol").
"Celebdaq," which is similar to the U.S.'s Hollywood Stock Exchange, first launched as an internet game in July. But it was when the TV show debuted Feb.14 that the game really took off. Since then the number of registered players has doubled to 260,000, and the site now gets 1 million hits a day.
Broadcast on BBC3, a cable channel, the show consists of a half-hour segment on Friday nights plus a one-minute market update each night. The host, a veteran Wall Street reporter, presents it in pseudo business style. Currently the show gets an audience of about 100,000.
Celebrities? troubles pay dividends to players, literally.
After registering, each player gets $15,700 to buy their portfolio. The prices of the stocks are all based on supply and demand, just as in a real market.
Stocks in the portfolio can then be traded, dumping those who are out of the press for folks with higher profiles. On Fridays dividends are paid based on how much column space each star snags. Small cash prizes are given to top-performing investors.
The key to a winning portfolio? Choosing stars with a lot of dirty laundry is a good starting point. The best stocks to hold are those of ?really rich people in real trouble,? explains one expert.
Prince Charles (PRCHAS, price $14.05), a perennial favorite and top performer last week, managed a whopping 23,964 square centimeters of space in the tabloids, thanks to an report documenting problems in the way his royal household is run.
Not surprisingly the exchange has amassed plenty of column space itself for its ?morally dubious? nature.
The exchange is not the first of its kind. There are already two others -- popex.com for the music industry and Hollywood Stock Exchange for movies and stars. But it is the accompanying TV show that makes the BBC?s offering different.

"Gamblers have noticed it, too."


War, Uncertainty
Chip Away at Casinos





By John Curran
The Associated Press

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. -- There was a time when Rose Steeves of Derby, Conn., took the bus down to Showboat Casino Hotel twice a month to play the slot machines.

That was before Sept. 11, 2001, and before the United States went to war with Iraq. Now, the 64-year-old woman worries too much about "the bridge" to come that often.

"I'm just afraid about going over [New York City's] George Washington Bridge, that someone's going to try to bomb it," she said, sitting in the casino's bus depot on a recent afternoon, waiting to return home. "This is the first time I've come in a long time."

With the nation at war, the economy faltering and terrorism a lingering fear for some people, some gamblers are avoiding casinos.

Historically resilient during economic downturns, the business of slot machines, blackjack tables and roulette wheels is showing signs of softening.

"People still want to be entertained," says Lawrence Klatzkin, casino analyst for Jefferies & Co. "But the operators we talk to say that on Saturdays they're seeing a little less people, because they're watching the TV and not travelin


Gamblers have noticed it, too.

"You can see it on the Boardwalk, you can see it in the casinos, there's fewer people," says William McCormack, 73, of Toms River, a slot player at Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort. "The casinos are suffering."

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Atlantic City casino revenues dropped 8.3 percent in the first month, but rebounded the next month, which was the only full month of the war.

This time around, the hit has been smaller -- business was off 2.1 percent in March -- but there are still worries that war will spell trouble for casinos here and elsewhere.

"It's really too early to tell," says Todd Moyer, vice president of marketing at Trump Marina Hotel Casino. "There's really three factors affecting our business: the weather, the economy and the war. We've not been able to place them in any part order of what's affecting business the most.
"
Trump Marina's casino revenues fell 9.3 percent last month.

"Most of the operators we've talked to around the country said they saw an impact the first few days, but that things are hanging in there," says Eric Hausler, casino analyst for Deutsche Banc Securities.

"Business volumes appear to be good, the convention business is doing well. In 1991, the trends fell off a cliff, taking a hit hard and fast in January. We haven't seen that this time."

Some gamblers say they need a break from watching war coverage on television.

"I just wanted to get out and get something else on my mind," says Elizabeth Marics, 68, of South Plainfield, who was playing the slots at Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort.

Atlantic City's casinos lost business in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, but regained it -- and then some -- in the ensuing months, when East Coast gamblers were leery about boarding airplanes for Las Vegas but still wanted to gamble.

"So far, it's having a lot less of an effect on gaming markets than it is on traditional destination markets like Hawaii and Orlando," says Joe Greff, casino analyst for Fulcrum Global Partners, an investment research firm in New York.

Fewer customers isn't the only concern for casinos, some of which have beefed up security because it's wartime.

"We've stepped up our vigilance and added a few security posts," says Thomas Davis, president.

Originally Posted by David Krein

For days I have been asking my wife, who watches the news a lot more than I do, who the hell is Lacy Peterson and why is she important? I have yet to get an understandable answer.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Lacy Peterson?

She was cute, upper middle class, and pregnant.

That, and the fact that Laci just happened to hail from the same hometown as another national-headline murder victim-- Chandra Levy.

Dislaimer: The comments (mine) you are about to read are classified as "wasted disk space." Proceed with extreme caution.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

While the 3T is over, the celebrity circus isn't.

It would appear that if the annointed "intelligent" folks can't fit reality into their theoretical 4T box, all one has to do is change the definition of the "4T."

"It was in 1930, after all, that the flagpole sitters came down their poles because nobody cared about stunts any more. The year 1930 is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable (yet understudied) of this century. Let me recommend to anybody near a good library: Spend an hour or two perusing old Fortune, Life, and Time magazines from that year. Note what was going on--in style, attitude, and manner. It's very instructive." -- William Strauss, The Media thread (September 1, 1997)


p.s. I wonder if there is a "good library" near where our annointed "intelligent" poster lives? :wink:

Stern blasts FCC for its new crackdown reminiscent of the silly "anti-indecency" activity at the beginning of the last 4T:


http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/56684.htm

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

It would appear that if the anointed "intelligent" folks can't fit reality into their theoretical 4T box, all one has to do is change the definition of the "4T."

"It was in 1930, after all, that the flagpole sitters came down their poles because nobody cared about stunts any more. The year 1930 is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable (yet understudied) of this century. Let me recommend to anybody near a good library: Spend an hour or two perusing old Fortune, Life, and Time magazines from that year. Note what was going on--in style, attitude, and manner. It's very instructive." -- William Strauss, The Media thread (September 1, 1997)

This isn't a definition of the 4T. Here is the definition given at this site.

The Fourth Turning is a Crisis ?a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one. Old Artists disappear, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads enter midlife, Heroes enter young adulthood?and a new generation of child Artists is born.

Strauss and Howe have not demonstrated that a cessation of flagpole sitting or "the media circus" is a defining characteristic of all crises. It seems to have happened in the last crisis, but this observation may be relevant to just that particular crisis, not of crises in general.

Disclaimer: The comments (mine) you are about to read are classified as "wasted disk space." Proceed with extreme caution.

"It was in 1930, after all, that the flagpole sitters came down their poles because nobody cared about stunts any more. The year 1930 is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable (yet understudied) of this century." -- William Strauss, (September 1, 1997)

"The Fourth Turning is a Crisis ?a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one. Old Artists disappear, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads enter midlife, Heroes enter young adulthood?and a new generation of child Artists is born."

While it makes perfect sense that the silliness (though not humor, itself) of sitting on a flagpole would diminish (even while the dreary "marathon dance" craze was peaking) in the nightmarish convulsion of a real life and death crisis, "a decisive era of secular upheaval," it would appear the generational displacement thing does kinda go awry, with a sober analysis.

By that I mean, well you know what I mean: The famed GIs came-of-age beginning not in 1930, not in 1925, not even in 1921. But in 1919, at the ripe age of 18 (the year 2000, for the "Millennials).

And long before the first "flagpole sitter" was first spotted sitting atop a flagpole. :wink:

p.s. Not to digress, again from this strange ten year gap, but still, do you really sense, even in an evidentiary way, "a decisive era of secular upheaval" upon us? I don't. And I think this should even be less so for so-called liberals (who so hypocritically seem to want the "upheaval" so long as it's painless).

Well, that's enough "wasted disk space" for one day. Bye! :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

p.s. Not to digress, again from this strange ten year gap, but still, do you really sense, even in an evidentiary way, "a decisive era of secular upheaval" upon us? I don't. And I think this should even be less so for so-called liberals (who so hypocritically seem to want the "upheaval" so long as it's painless).

As I believe I have described, I do not apply the S&H definition directly to the times to determine where we are in the cycle. I don't think one can apply their definition directly. I use an aligned cycle for location.

There is an important issue that is routinely ignored when people here talk about where we are in the saeculum. This is, how did S&H tell which turning began when? For example how is it that 1821 is in a High but 1823 is in an Awakening? What factor(s) lets them know the turning change has occurred? Are these factors observable in real time, or are they knowable only in retrospect? After all, the unraveling/crisis turning change will be the FIRST one after the theory was discovered. In all the others they had a good deal of perspective in making their determinations.

Is it reasonable that a turning change be detectable in real time? If yes, how does one do so?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Dislaimer: The comments (mine) you are about to read are classified as "wasted disk space." Proceed with extreme caution.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

While the 3T is over, the celebrity circus isn't.

It would appear that if the annointed "intelligent" folks can't fit reality into their theoretical 4T box, all one has to do is change the definition of the "4T."

"It was in 1930, after all, that the flagpole sitters came down their poles because nobody cared about stunts any more. The year 1930 is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable (yet understudied) of this century. Let me recommend to anybody near a good library: Spend an hour or two perusing old Fortune, Life, and Time magazines from that year. Note what was going on--in style, attitude, and manner. It's very instructive." -- William Strauss, The Media thread (September 1, 1997)


p.s. I wonder if there is a "good library" near where our annointed "intelligent" poster lives? :wink:

Remember that well into the last 4T, the US and Canada were transfixed by the Dionne quintuplets. The celebrity circus doesn't come to a screeching halt in a 4T, except for peak crisis times (like when your city is getting bombed to smithereens).

I still say that we are in a 4T. Entertainment is noticeably cleaner than it was back in 2000. Tom Greens are disappearing. Music is cleaner than it was in 2000. The celebrity circus is all but dead. Let's go back to Lis Libengood's great review:

By the late ?20s and the early ?30s most of the forms of student cultural and lifestyle rebellion of the Roaring 20s had grown old; by the year 2000, most of the forms of student cultural and lifestyle rebellion of the 1990s were growing pass?. In both eras students who did protest were "sporadically defending old gains, not pioneering any new forms of social or sexual rebellion."

If anything, the pop culture perfectly reflects this trend. Hell, it is now going the opposite direction from the late 1990s. Sure, we still have a few raunchy hits; we still have Eminem, but the trend has definitely been towards more clean cut and bland. Compare how the culture has moved from Britney Spears to Avril Lavigne. Or just look at the success of Nelly against the "gangsta rappers" of the early to mid 1990s. Even Snoop Dogg cleaned up his act by rejecting marijuana. Yes, hip hop is still heavily laced with references to smoking the grass, but then again, remember how much the GIs loved the liqueor (sp?) during the final days of Prohibition. Rather than marijuana reflecting rebellion, or "acting bad", it now seems to reflect "partying", tension alleviation (as in "To Get By"), or even socialization. In fact, that seems to be what Hip Hop is about today....and status, with the "bling bling" songs. Also different is the youth perception of the music. Back in the 1990s, we were glad to see artists break new taboos in music. The worse the taboo, the better. We loved to see artists do things that would anger and shock. Those days feel long gone. In fact, we do not like constantly hearing songs about raunch, violence, or stupidity. In this day and age, we want to hear more uplifting songs. We want songs that give us comfort. S&H was totally correctwhen in the article, they said that we now want affirmation in entertainment. The music industry hasn't totally caught on yet. The consciousness of Hip Hop has definitely changed. Artists are releasing more and more politically themed songs, which don't get played on MTV, BET, or radio stations because they are still tied to the 1990s mindset of ?more edge?. The artists in Hip Hop are much more unified than before. The battles within Hip Hop are under heavy attack from within. Yes, we have ?50 Cent? now, but even so, he is breaking no new ground.

And recall that S&H mention in MR that the last of the Xer (read: 3T) influences will not disappear until the 2010s.

I believe it was this thread in which the Trent Lott fiasco was discussed last December, if I'm not mistaken.

Here is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on the pending Supreme Court case dealing with the anti-sodomy law in Texas:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Is Mr. Santorum going to lose his leadership position as Mr. Lott did?

What if North Korea nuked Soul or Tokyo with one of its missiles? Where would it find legal precedence to attack another country because it fears something about it? Where is the moral authority that stands above any such hostile act?

And, while I?m at it, where are Osama, Saddam, and the alleged WMD?

World wars of the 4T kind are precipitous things, ??and it's a hard, hard rain that's gonna fall.?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

p.s. Not to digress, again from this strange ten year gap, but still, do you really sense, even in an evidentiary way, "a decisive era of secular upheaval" upon us? I don't. And I think this should even be less so for so-called liberals (who so hypocritically seem to want the "upheaval" so long as it's painless).

There is an important issue that is routinely ignored when people here talk about where we are in the saeculum. This is, how did S&H tell which turning began when? For example how is it that 1821 is in a High but 1823 is in an Awakening? What factor(s) lets them know the turning change has occurred? Are these factors observable in real time, or are they knowable only in retrospect? After all, the unraveling/crisis turning change will be the FIRST one after the theory was discovered. In all the others they had a good deal of perspective in making their determinations.

Is it reasonable that a turning change be detectable in real time? If yes, how does one do so?

As far as detecting a turning change in real time goes, I'm not sure, but "how did S&H tell which turning began when?" Just before the Iraq War started Strauss and Howe wrote this for an obscure Swedish publication.

It would appear they have invalidated their theory, as postulated in their books.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I believe it was this thread in which the Trent Lott fiasco was discussed last December, if I'm not mistaken.

Here is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on the pending Supreme Court case dealing with the anti-sodomy law in Texas:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Is Mr. Santorum going to lose his leadership position as Mr. Lott did?

There are a few differences here. Lott is a Silent, brought in not just to replace Bob Dole as Majority Leader, but also to replace Newt Gingrich as the Republicans' front man in Congress. Also, his remarks became the ultimate scare ad (which could have been aimed particularly at Southern blacks.)

Santorum, OTOH, is a Boomer. And the sort of loudmouth Boomer Republican who stormed in with Newt Gingrich in 1994. In fact, he moved from the House to Senate that year by out-shouting Silent Harris Wofford. And what he said wouldn't scare anyone who isn't already scared.

Originally Posted by madscientist

I still say that we are in a 4T. Entertainment is noticeably cleaner than it was back in 2000. Tom Greens are disappearing. Music is cleaner than it was in 2000. The celebrity circus is all but dead. Let's go back to Lis Libengood's great review:

By the late ‘20s and the early ‘30s most of the forms of student cultural and lifestyle rebellion of the Roaring 20s had grown old; by the year 2000, most of the forms of student cultural and lifestyle rebellion of the 1990s were growing pass?. In both eras students who did protest were "sporadically defending old gains, not pioneering any new forms of social or sexual rebellion."

If anything, the pop culture perfectly reflects this trend. Hell, it is now going the opposite direction from the late 1990s. Sure, we still have a few raunchy hits; we still have Eminem, but the trend has definitely been towards more clean cut and bland. Compare how the culture has moved from Britney Spears to Avril Lavigne. Or just look at the success of Nelly against the "gangsta rappers" of the early to mid 1990s. Even Snoop Dogg cleaned up his act by rejecting marijuana. Yes, hip hop is still heavily laced with references to smoking the grass, but then again, remember how much the GIs loved the liqueor (sp?) during the final days of Prohibition. Rather than marijuana reflecting rebellion, or "acting bad", it now seems to reflect "partying", tension alleviation (as in "To Get By"), or even socialization. In fact, that seems to be what Hip Hop is about today....and status, with the "bling bling" songs. Also different is the youth perception of the music. Back in the 1990s, we were glad to see artists break new taboos in music. The worse the taboo, the better. We loved to see artists do things that would anger and shock. Those days feel long gone. In fact, we do not like constantly hearing songs about raunch, violence, or stupidity. In this day and age, we want to hear more uplifting songs. We want songs that give us comfort. S&H was totally correctwhen in the article, they said that we now want affirmation in entertainment. The music industry hasn't totally caught on yet. The consciousness of Hip Hop has definitely changed. Artists are releasing more and more politically themed songs, which don't get played on MTV, BET, or radio stations because they are still tied to the 1990s mindset of “more edge”. The artists in Hip Hop are much more unified than before. The battles within Hip Hop are under heavy attack from within. Yes, we have “50 Cent” now, but even so, he is breaking no new ground.

And recall that S&H mention in MR that the last of the Xer (read: 3T) influences will not disappear until the 2010s.

Except 1928 and possibly 1927 count as 'late 20s' as well...

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

p.s. Not to digress, again from this strange ten year gap, but still, do you really sense, even in an evidentiary way, "a decisive era of secular upheaval" upon us? I don't. And I think this should even be less so for so-called liberals (who so hypocritically seem to want the "upheaval" so long as it's painless).

There is an important issue that is routinely ignored when people here talk about where we are in the saeculum. This is, how did S&H tell which turning began when? For example how is it that 1821 is in a High but 1823 is in an Awakening? What factor(s) lets them know the turning change has occurred? Are these factors observable in real time, or are they knowable only in retrospect? After all, the unraveling/crisis turning change will be the FIRST one after the theory was discovered. In all the others they had a good deal of perspective in making their determinations.

Is it reasonable that a turning change be detectable in real time? If yes, how does one do so?

As far as detecting a turning change in real time goes, I'm not sure, but "how did S&H tell which turning began when?" Just before the Iraq War started Strauss and Howe wrote this for an obscure Swedish publication.

It would appear they have invalidated their theory, as postulated in their books.

____________________
I read it.
Why do you think the article invalidates the theory?

This war shit rocks. Did W. just open up a 55 gallon can of industrial strength ass whoop and pour it all over those Iraquis or what. This gives me some major wood.

On to Damascus, on to Pynogang, on to Paris....Just so long as we keep kicking ass and taking names.


We Love Nukes
We Love War
Exxon is worth dieing for


Better Dead than Red

Blood Makes the Grass Grow

I am pumped dudes

KICK THEIR ASS
AND
TAKE THEIR GAS


PARTY ON

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

As far as detecting a turning change in real time goes, I'm not sure, but "how did S&H tell which turning began when?" Just before the Iraq War started Strauss and Howe wrote this for an obscure Swedish publication.

It would appear they have invalidated their theory, as postulated in their books.

I read the article. It seems to me that they couched things so that the crisis could have started in 2001 or it could still be starting in the near future. They mention 2001 as a turning point, but then then compare to today with 20, 40, 60 years ago. Using this 20-year timing gives a projection of 2004 for the crisis, close to the 2005 date they give in T4T.

They have completely moved away from the original 88-year idea which implied the start of the next turning in the 2010's, but they had already done this in T4T; they simply weren't explicit about it.

This is the principal reason why I think your generational power analysis is flawed. It is a valid application of S&H's theory, but the theory appears to be flawed, S&H implicitly invalidated their theory in T4T, but did not deal formally with this issue. It won't be clear that they have abandoned their theory until they write another book in which they formally date the unraveling/crisis boundary as earlier than 2005. Since they dated the start of the Millie gen just nine years after the fact (and 7 years after the turning change) I would expect S&H will be able to publish this book as early as 2008, if it turns out that 2001 was the start of the crisis.

This site has been running for six years and I've been here for nearly three. Others have been here longer. It is not unlikely that it may still be here in 2008 and we can find out.

Originally Posted by R.D..

This war shit rocks.....I am pumped dudes

*yawn*


TK