Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe

Crisis -era wars were all large, deadly and decisive. Homefront resolve conformed to the vision of elder leaders, and the outcome totally redifined the kingdom, nation or empire...Wars in a Fourth Turning find the broadest possible definition and are fought to unambiguous outcomes.
The Fourth Turning, page 119.

People, we have not seen wars like this since 1945...until now. North Korea survived the Korean War, North Vietnam actually beat us, and Saddam thumbed his nose at us for over a decade after the first Gulf War.
But the Taliban regime in Afganistan and Hussain in Iraq are history.
We be 4T.

Well, let's review the first sentence from S&H. I notice the words "large" and "deadly". Do you believe this applies to the "Battle of Iraq" or the "Afghanistan Incursion"?

We aren't there by this standard.

That depends on whether you are living in America, or living in Afghanistan or Iraq. The people there might have a different viewpoint than we do. And the reason the death toll is so low is because we went in with overwhelming superiority, instead of playing around like we did in the wars 1946-2000.

We beat puhover enemies. Both were 2nd rate military actions against 3rd rate foes. We didn't win so much as they quit.

If either the Taliban or Saddam had been half as well liked by the average Afghani or Iraqi, they might have been aboe to fight a protracted war, possibly to a standstill. I would assume that future operations will involve such foes, unless we go after some of the worst African dictators.

North Korea and (especially) North Vietnam were pushover enemies too, compared to America of the time. Yet we did not push them over - heck,
North Vietnam pushed *us* over!

Originally Posted by ....

Clinton was impeached. Looks like 4T's been here for awhile. Responsibility for own actions. Integrity still counts.

p.s. The 4T sign, I'll believe, is when the Times itself goes down in flames.

The Lewinsky scandal was a typical carnivale scandal of a Unravelling, do different to the Teapot Dome Scanadal (If something similar had happended to JFK this would have never been reported to the press, much less the president being impeached). The New York Times being exposed for journalistic plagarism is something else all together.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

They thought at the time that Versailles settled the above issue. However, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, all Versailles did was to infuriate Germany without permanently weakening it, thus Versailles went too far and yet not far enough - both at the same time, and in just the right combination to guarantee future trouble.

Marc Lamb asked the Wonk:

What were the "issues that led up to WWI" that went "unresolved"?

Titus, thank you for answering for the Wonk. :wink:

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Titus, thank you for answering for the Wonk. :wink:

Hey! What about me and Gavril Princip?!?

no consideration... that's what i get... :cry:

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by ....

Clinton was impeached. Looks like 4T's been here for awhile. Responsibility for own actions. Integrity still counts.

p.s. The 4T sign, I'll believe, is when the Times itself goes down in flames.

The Lewinsky scandal was a typical carnivale scandal of a Unravelling, do different to the Teapot Dome Scanadal (If something similar had happended to JFK this would have never been reported to the press, much less the president being impeached). The New York Times being exposed for journalistic plagarism is something else all together.

According to the Press a similar thing DID happen with JFK and an intern, and we're just finding out about it now -- 41 years later. :oops:

Netscape News reports Soccer Mom Is Now Security Mom. I particularly liked the part about how "Debbie Creighton, 34, spends her days watching Fox News, fearing a new attack and craving a strong President."

Craving? She a craven woman? With Fox News and all...

Very sad to read about craven woman clutching child. I?m holding out for a 5T, ?cause this 4T stuff is getting old.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Don't know about "most" engineers but over the course of my career I have always been paid for overtime, in addition to my salary.

Interesting. As for me, I've been on salary since I started engineering (the company switched over in the early 80's when they were bought by Mercedes-Benz). Intel's engineers are salaried, as are those at Tektronix, Fujitsu, C2HM Hill, Fluor-Daniels, Consolidated MetCo, and most other major companies I am aware of. Maybe your experience pertains mainly to government-payroll (whether direct or contracted) engineers? I wonder how the rest of your package compares...

Perhaps. The companies I worked for here in Ohio provided civil engineering services to the Ohio Department of Transportation, City of Columbus, Franklin County Public Works, the West Virginia Department of Highways and a host of other governmental agencies. I recall being pleasantly surprised when i moved here that i would also be paid for OT in addition to my salary, much like when i worked for the State of Washington (where we were considered "salaried" and also paid for time-and-a-half OT). Prior to that time, my understanding was that in private industry one's salary included however many hours were necessary to do the work.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Prior to that time, my understanding was that in private industry one's salary included however many hours were necessary to do the work.

HarHarHarHar!

That's exactly what they told me when I got on salary here.. "Now, you should know that your salary is calculated based on an expected 45-hour week, since that's the average week engineers were putting in when we went away from hourly pay (back in the 80's)." Our office is full from six in the morning until 5 in the evening. And not many people take hour-long lunches.

I guess, though, that in a sense salary for any job sort of takes into account the total expected amount of work -- since people, knowing that workload, decide to work for that pay.

I guess, though, that in a sense salary for any job sort of takes into account the total expected amount of work -- since people, knowing that workload, decide to work for that pay.

Salary, like hourly wages, with or without benefits, and with or without overtime pay, takes into account only one thing: what the company believes it has to pay to get the employees it needs.

Your company, Justin, works you and the other engineers those long hours for the same reason every company does what it does to its employees, i.e. because it can get away with it. It could not get away with paying you an Indonesian factory-worker's salary with no benefits because you'd quit. Otherwise it would. But if it knows it will pay no penalty for penalizing you in some way, then it will do so.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I guess, though, that in a sense salary for any job sort of takes into account the total expected amount of work -- since people, knowing that workload, decide to work for that pay.

Then why the har har har?

This atricle is posted for educational and discussion purposes only:

U.S. Sees Likely Al Qaeda WMD Attack Within 2 Years



UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States sees a high probability the clandestine al Qaeda network will try to launch a chemical, biological or nuclear attack within two years, the U.S. government said in a report made public on Monday.

"Al Qaeda will continue to favor spectacular attacks but also may seek softer targets of opportunity such as banks, shopping malls, supermarkets and places of recreation and entertainment," the United States told the United Nations in the report.

"Al Qaeda will continue its efforts to acquire and develop biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. We judge that there is a high probability that al Qaeda will attempt an attack using a CBRN weapon within the next two years," said the report.

The report, prepared before last month's triple suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia which killed 35 people, did not say whether it thought such an attack would take place inside the United States or elsewhere.


Dated April 17 but just released by the world body, the report was prepared in response to a U.N. Security Council resolution requiring the 191 U.N. member-nations to crack down on al Qaeda -- by, for example, freezing its assets and tracking its agents -- for its role in Afghanistan leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


The group led by Osama bin Laden is blamed by Washington for the suicide hijack attacks, which killed thousands in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.


Washington said al Qaeda remained the "top concern" of U.S. law enforcement authorities.


There were hundreds of ongoing counter-terrorism investigations in the United States directly associated with the group, most of them on the East and West coasts and in the U.S. Southwest, it said.


But the greatest threat to U.S. security was possible "sleeper cells" that have not been identified or detected, it said. "Identifying and neutralizing these sleeper cells remains our most serious intelligence and law enforcement challenge," the report said.



06/09/03 15:33

Make of it what you will.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I guess, though, that in a sense salary for any job sort of takes into account the total expected amount of work -- since people, knowing that workload, decide to work for that pay.

Then why the har har har?

One must be able to laugh at one's self. Also, it's especially funny how the HR goons try to rationalize the situation. I am by no means dissatisfied with my compensation (for now), which just makes the weaselese even funnier.

I'll post this article first, and comment afterward.

California's runaway recall
Robert Novak (archive)


June 9, 2003


LOS ANGELES -- The movement to replace just re-elected Democrat Gray Davis as governor of California is beginning to look like a runaway train with nobody at the controls. The state's voters may go to the polls this fall to decide whether Gov. Davis shall be removed, would then probably vote him out and, on the same ballot, select his successor. Nobody can predict that successor, or even whether the winner would be a Republican or Democrat.


While bipartisan establishment politicians remain in denial, realists now are taking the recall movement seriously. Dave Galliard, a Sacramento-based political consultant seeking signatures for recall petitions, says 520,000 voters have signed. He is aiming for 1.2 million, providing insurance that the required 897,000 valid names are collected. If this is done by July 18, an election must be held in September or October. Gov. Davis, at 21 percent approval in a recent private labor union poll, cannot be expected to survive.

That is not what President Bush's strategists want to hear. They fear the recall could elect a popular Democrat to replace the weakened Davis, making it more difficult for Bush to carry the state that would ensure his re-election. They cannot stop the train at this point, however. The recall movement has characteristics of anti-establishment resentment that in 1978 passed the famous Proposition 13 tax cut.

Seven months after winning a second term against neophyte Republican candidate Bill Simon, Davis has lost support from everybody except organized labor. His campaign team, headed by Garry South, is reassembling to fight the recall. But this is the same team that won in 2002 by savaging Simon without defending Davis, who never prepared voters for his tax increases to solve the state budget crisis.

Similarly, Republican leaders have changed their attitude since a recent visit to the state capital in Sacramento by the conservative congressman who triggered the recall movement: Rep. Darrell Issa, a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. Issa called Republican Leader Jim Brulte off the Senate floor to detail his plans to fund the movement -- $700,000 contributed by him so far with more coming. Since then, Brulte's hostility to a recall has changed to neutrality.

As the recall originator, Issa must be considered a leader in the winner-take-all non-party election on the same ballot as the Davis removal question. But he is not the only Republican hopeful. State Sen. Tom McClintock, an anti-tax advocate, is running to Issa's right. Simon, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Secretary of State Bill Jones have been privately testing support.

All may be dwarfed by a liberal Republican: former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. After losing to conservative Simon in the 2002 GOP primary, Riordan has asked for White House help in clearing out the rest of the Republicans. Since that is patently impossible, Riordan may run as an independent.

Gerald Parsky, the investment banker who is Bush's main political agent here, has not joined the recall movement. "I understand why people in California would be upset by the financial crisis," Parsky told me, "but my first priority is the re-election of the president and getting the financing necessary to accomplish this."

Other Republican critics of the recall see a nightmare scenario where Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the state's most popular politician, enters the race and easily wins -- replacing a 21 percent favorable Democrat with a 62 percent favorable. But Feinstein is on record against Davis's recall and can hardly urge voters to vote for her on the same ballot.

The same conflict afflicts other Democrats who are more likely to run than Feinstein: Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, State Treasurer Phil Angelides and maybe San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. It least affects State Senate President John Burton, who detests Davis and is ready to run. (One of Burton's supporters, a well-known Democrat, told me he is tempted to sign a Davis recall petition.)

Fear by leading Republicans that any one of these Democrats probably will replace Davis reflects the GOP establishment's defeatism, resulting from the state party's 2002 wipeout. The prospects for a recall, however, have lifted spirits of California grassroots Republicans, who hope a low-turnout autumn election will defeat the Democrats. Whether or not that appraisal is realistic, it is becoming too late to stop the runaway recall.

Now, on to our discussion. 3T or 4T?

I have a feeling the general leftist response will be, "3T, because you did the same thing to Clinton." However, I suspect that most on the right will respond, "4T, because this time it might just work." California seems to have been behind the curve in comparison to the nation as a whole; the Bright Red States (Deep South, Intermountain West) entered 4T in the mid-1990s (I'm tempted to say the 1994 election), the Purple-Red States (i.e., the swing states) entered in E2K, the Northeast entered it on 9/11, and now California is making up for lost time. Note that the people behind the recall petition are quite willing to exacerbate problems in order to find permanent solutions, rather than papering them over for the sake of stability.[/i]

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Note that the people behind the recall petition are quite willing to exacerbate problems in order to find permanent solutions, rather than papering them over for the sake of stability.

Agreed, and from that standpoint I'd agree that it looks 4T. However, it's worth keeping in mind that the 'problems' being exacerbated are political power strategems. The discomfort felt by the average Joe over this whole thing must fall far short of significant. I doubt he'd look at Bush's or the Democrat's re-election woes as a problem for himself.

Just a thought. Good article, though.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Now, on to our discussion. 3T or 4T?

I have a feeling the general leftist response will be, "3T, because you did the same thing to Clinton." However, I suspect that most on the right will respond, "4T, because this time it might just work." California seems to have been behind the curve in comparison to the nation as a whole; the Bright Red States (Deep South, Intermountain West) entered 4T in the mid-1990s (I'm tempted to say the 1994 election), the Purple-Red States (i.e., the swing states) entered in E2K, the Northeast entered it on 9/11, and now California is making up for lost time. Note that the people behind the recall petition are quite willing to exacerbate problems in order to find permanent solutions, rather than papering them over for the sake of stability.[/i]

4T in the mid 1990s?
yuh huh

I don't think we've hit 4T yet.

By the way where do they get these ultra waspishly named candidates?

"Gray Davis"?

That ranks right up there with "Strom Thurmond" and my all time favorite

"Mitt Romney"

Who the fuck names a kid Mitt?




Gosh I'm feeling patriotic today, Mitt!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Note that the people behind the recall petition are quite willing to exacerbate problems in order to find permanent solutions, rather than papering them over for the sake of stability.

Agreed, and from that standpoint I'd agree that it looks 4T. However, it's worth keeping in mind that the 'problems' being exacerbated are political power strategems. The discomfort felt by the average Joe over this whole thing must fall far short of significant. I doubt he'd look at Bush's or the Democrat's re-election woes as a problem for himself.

Just a thought. Good article, though.

Well, I doubt if many of the events in previous 4Ts seemed particularly relevant to most people. I doubt, for instance, if most South Carolinians cared one way or the other about the Boston Massacre. Ultimately, how a 4T turns out probably comes down to which side does a better sales job.

I know this is contrary to Brian Rush's belief that the Left always wins, but I just don't buy that theory. Even if you accept the Union side in the Civil War--of which I'm not entirely convinced--it's hard to believe that grand historical forces caused General J. E. B. Stuart to decide to disobey orders and carry on a raid around the whole Union Army. If not for this and other very small decisions (such as the decision by local partisans to attack the British forces at King's Mountain--IMHO, the real turning point of the American Revolution, as opposed to Saratoga), the various 4Ts would have turned out entirely differently.

Originally Posted by Justin-79

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Now, on to our discussion. 3T or 4T?

I have a feeling the general leftist response will be, "3T, because you did the same thing to Clinton." However, I suspect that most on the right will respond, "4T, because this time it might just work." California seems to have been behind the curve in comparison to the nation as a whole; the Bright Red States (Deep South, Intermountain West) entered 4T in the mid-1990s (I'm tempted to say the 1994 election), the Purple-Red States (i.e., the swing states) entered in E2K, the Northeast entered it on 9/11, and now California is making up for lost time. Note that the people behind the recall petition are quite willing to exacerbate problems in order to find permanent solutions, rather than papering them over for the sake of stability.[/i]

4T in the mid 1990s?
yuh huh

I don't think we've hit 4T yet.

By the way where do they get these ultra waspishly named candidates?

"Gray Davis"?

That ranks right up there with "Strom Thurmond" and my all time favorite

"Mitt Romney"

Who the fuck names a kid Mitt?




Gosh I'm feeling patriotic today, Mitt!

Who gives a rat's ass if he's a WASP? Do you support making political decisions on the basis of "who's up, who's down?" Maybe you should support Eminem for President.

However, it's worth keeping in mind that the 'problems' being exacerbated are political power strategems.

You might want to hear from a Californian on the subject before drawing that conclusion, Justin.

Gray Davis' unpopularity doesn't stem from his tax increase or the budget crisis or his mishandling of the energy crunch or any of those things, although in small ways all of them contribute. He's not incompetent. He's corrupt. He isn't even subtle about it. Make big contributions to his campaign chest, and he'll throw you a bone, to the loss of the public good. And he's also arrogant beyond belief.

Campaign finance reform is, IMO, a 4T issue in America. Worldwide it's not -- but it is part of the need to put a leash on corporate power, which is a worldwide issue in other forms. So the recall can be considered a 4T movement, internal to California though it be.

(Any partisan Republicans who want to make hay over the fact that a Democrat is such a blatant example of rampaging campaign-finance corruption feel free. That the Dems do it too is no secret.)

I wouldn't have a problem with Riordan winning. He's my favorite California Republican by a long measure. I would have voted for him in 2000 if he'd won the nomination, but he didn't. There are some Democrats I'd prefer, of course.

Issa? No way!

Whether "the left" always wins in every local skirmish in the Crisis depends on what you mean by "the left." I have a problem with a single spectrum of political opinion, as some already know. Conservatives always lose, though, because a Crisis is always a time of progressive change. The winners, at least locally and at least temporarily, may be socialists, liberals, fascists, fundamentalists, or environmentalists, but they are never conservatives.

If the South had won the Civil War, against all odds, slavery was still doomed and industrialization still inevitable. If the British had beaten the American rebels, American independence would still have come, and democratic reform would have engulfed England itself all the faster. The victory of progress in such times is not dependent on small local chances.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by Justin-79

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Now, on to our discussion. 3T or 4T?

I have a feeling the general leftist response will be, "3T, because you did the same thing to Clinton." However, I suspect that most on the right will respond, "4T, because this time it might just work." California seems to have been behind the curve in comparison to the nation as a whole; the Bright Red States (Deep South, Intermountain West) entered 4T in the mid-1990s (I'm tempted to say the 1994 election), the Purple-Red States (i.e., the swing states) entered in E2K, the Northeast entered it on 9/11, and now California is making up for lost time. Note that the people behind the recall petition are quite willing to exacerbate problems in order to find permanent solutions, rather than papering them over for the sake of stability.[/i]

4T in the mid 1990s?
yuh huh

I don't think we've hit 4T yet.

By the way where do they get these ultra waspishly named candidates?

"Gray Davis"?

That ranks right up there with "Strom Thurmond" and my all time favorite

"Mitt Romney"

Who the fuck names a kid Mitt?




Gosh I'm feeling patriotic today, Mitt!

Who gives a rat's ass if he's a WASP? Do you support making political decisions on the basis of "who's up, who's down?" Maybe you should support Eminem for President.

Marshall Mathers? Way too WASPY!

It isn't that he is a Wasp. Your regular Waspy name is something like George Walker Bush, or Richard Milhous Nixon.

It's those guys that take it one step beyond, to utter madness that I applaud.

The Mitt Romneys, the Gray Davises, the J.Danforth Quayles.

Bravo my WASPy rich leaders. You put regular WASPs like Tom Daschle to shame with your rad WASPy names!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the South had won the Civil War, against all odds, slavery was still doomed and industrialization still inevitable. If the British had beaten the American rebels, American independence would still have come, and democratic reform would have engulfed England itself all the faster. The victory of progress in such times is not dependent on small local chances.

Once again, Brian demonstrates that he does not subscribe to the "for want of a nail" theory of history.

Eric Hoffer might have had Brian in mind when he wrote The True Believer.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

However, it's worth keeping in mind that the 'problems' being exacerbated are political power strategems.

You might want to hear from a Californian on the subject before drawing that conclusion, Justin.

Gray Davis' unpopularity doesn't stem from his tax increase or the budget crisis or his mishandling of the energy crunch or any of those things, although in small ways all of them contribute. He's not incompetent. He's corrupt. He isn't even subtle about it. Make big contributions to his campaign chest, and he'll throw you a bone, to the loss of the public good. And he's also arrogant beyond belief.

Campaign finance reform is, IMO, a 4T issue in America. Worldwide it's not -- but it is part of the need to put a leash on corporate power, which is a worldwide issue in other forms. So the recall can be considered a 4T movement, internal to California though it be.

(Any partisan Republicans who want to make hay over the fact that a Democrat is such a blatant example of rampaging campaign-finance corruption feel free. That the Dems do it too is no secret.)

I wouldn't have a problem with Riordan winning. He's my favorite California Republican by a long measure. I would have voted for him in 2000 if he'd won the nomination, but he didn't. There are some Democrats I'd prefer, of course.

Issa? No way!

Whether "the left" always wins in every local skirmish in the Crisis depends on what you mean by "the left." I have a problem with a single spectrum of political opinion, as some already know. Conservatives always lose, though, because a Crisis is always a time of progressive change. The winners, at least locally and at least temporarily, may be socialists, liberals, fascists, fundamentalists, or environmentalists, but they are never conservatives.

If the South had won the Civil War, against all odds, slavery was still doomed and industrialization still inevitable. If the British had beaten the American rebels, American independence would still have come, and democratic reform would have engulfed England itself all the faster. The victory of progress in such times is not dependent on small local chances.

Brian, that's not an argument, it's a tautology. Of course the winners won't be conservatives in the sense of "no change"; if they were, it wouldn't be a 4T, which is by definition a time of change. In this case I expect the classical liberals will beat out the socialists, although I can't predict the future. I believe, in spite of my more pessimistic moments, that the downfall of the USSR marked a huge turning point in human affairs, and that this 4T will enshrine a new post-socialist era for the next several decades. (I have a sneaking suspicion, too, that classical liberalism is not the final stop here--that, in fact, classical liberalism will be replaced by a more "right-wing" philosophy in the next 4T . But, once again, I can't predict the future).

Incidentally, don't be so sure your side represents progress. The meaning of that word, like "liberal," is pretty much 180 degrees removed from what it was 150 years ago. In the nineteenth century, progress was, in my view correctly, believed to mean replacing medieval technology like windmills with modern technology like steam engines, in order to rid the world of starvation and backbreaking labor; now progress is defined by our academic and cultural elites to mean replacing modern technology like nuclear power with medieval technology like windmills, with the implicit acceptance of starvation and backbreaking labor.

But, hey, who cares? It's much easier to get laid nowadays, even if the profs want to send us back to the Dark Ages. That's "progress" for you.

I agree, though, about Davis being corrupt and arrogant. This is why so many Republicans hate him bitterly. (You don't see a recall petition against Washington State's Gary Locke, for instance, even though he's probably even to the left of Davis). Specifically, Davis reminds us of the worst traits of W. J. Clinton; and, as an added benefit, he is so lacking in Clinton's phony charm that we see the possibility of bringing swing voters along this time.

I also agree that CFR is a 4T issue, and IMHO that's not so much saying something good about CFR as it is saying something bad about 4Ts in general. Free speech reform is not justified by historical cycles or anything else.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the South had won the Civil War, against all odds, slavery was still doomed and industrialization still inevitable. If the British had beaten the American rebels, American independence would still have come, and democratic reform would have engulfed England itself all the faster. The victory of progress in such times is not dependent on small local chances.

Once again, Brian demonstrates that he does not subscribe to the "for want of a nail" theory of history.

Eric Hoffer might have had Brian in mind when he wrote The True Believer.

Reminds me of Poul Anderson's excellent story, "Cold Victory," in which two characters are debating whether the old dictatorship on Earth was overthrown as a result of Great Men, or because of Historical Forces. A veteran (named Crane) of the decisive space battle shows up and argues that neither was the case: that the battle had been decided by pure chance. Specifically, Robert Crane, an officer in the winning space navy, captured his brother, Benjamin Crane, serving on the opposite side. My memory's a bit shoddy, but I seem to recall that Benjamin Crane tried to deceive him as to the Loyalist's battle plan. Robert Crane, who knew his brother's way of thinking, saw through his lies and prepared a trap, destroying the Loyalist's armada.

Someone thanks Robert Crane for his services...only to find that it's Benjamin Crane--the Loyalist--who is telling the story. Robert Crane, the hero of the war, had been killed in the battle.

Incidentally, Poul Anderson at the time of publication was a hard-core liberal (although he moved rightward later in life), yet he still didn't buy into the Historical Forces theory.

Not that this has anything to do with anything...

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the South had won the Civil War, against all odds, slavery was still doomed and industrialization still inevitable. If the British had beaten the American rebels, American independence would still have come, and democratic reform would have engulfed England itself all the faster. The victory of progress in such times is not dependent on small local chances.

Once again, Brian demonstrates that he does not subscribe to the "for want of a nail" theory of history.

Eric Hoffer might have had Brian in mind when he wrote The True Believer.

Incidentally, why should we assume that the South would have abandoned slavery if it had won the war? I would expect just the opposite: that Calhounism would be seen as the wave of the future, and might even be adopted in the southwestern Union states--which were not overly enthusiastic about the war. Winning is usually its own best argument.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the South had won the Civil War, against all odds, slavery was still doomed and industrialization still inevitable. If the British had beaten the American rebels, American independence would still have come, and democratic reform would have engulfed England itself all the faster. The victory of progress in such times is not dependent on small local chances.

Once again, Brian demonstrates that he does not subscribe to the "for want of a nail" theory of history.

Eric Hoffer might have had Brian in mind when he wrote The True Believer.

Having read Hoffer's book, I can see where you're coming from on that, as Brian exhibits all the signs of being an Enviro-Communist fanatic, or as I put it on another thread, a watermelon.

Brian, that's not an argument, it's a tautology. Of course the winners won't be conservatives in the sense of "no change"; if they were, it wouldn't be a 4T

Exactly. We agree, then. And as genuine conservatives (unlike the fascists, fundamentalists, and corporatists who have usurped the name in modern American politics) are protectors of tradition, order, and peace, conservatism loses in times of social moment.

Incidentally, don't be so sure your side represents progress. The meaning of that word, like "liberal," is pretty much 180 degrees removed from what it was 150 years ago. In the nineteenth century, progress was, in my view correctly, believed to mean replacing medieval technology like windmills with modern technology like steam engines, in order to rid the world of starvation and backbreaking labor; now progress is defined by our academic and cultural elites to mean replacing modern technology like nuclear power with medieval technology like windmills

Oh, pshaw. There speaks the technologically ignorant.

That "medieval technology" you're referring to was, of course, never used to produce electricity in the Middle Ages, nor did it have anything like the precision, sophistication, and efficiency of the modern version, which in every respect far exceeds nuclear technology, which is (relatively speaking) a dinosaur: big, clunky, inefficienty, grossly centralized, unsuited to local control, and an inviting target for terrorists.

It is the anti-greens who champion antiquated technology, not the greens, and for a very simple reason: that antiquated technology is also expensive technology that serves to line the pockets of some very powerful interests.

As to why I think my side is on the side of progress and will triumph in the 4T, I'll sidestep into something else you said for illustration:

Incidentally, why should we assume that the South would have abandoned slavery if it had won the war?

Because industrialization, not Calhounism, was "the wave of the future," come hell or high water, and no matter who won the war. A nation that industrialized had such a huge advantage over any that did not that those that didn't condemned themselves to second-rate or third-rate status. And the Confederacy, being inhabited by proud Americans, would not have been willing to do that.

And industrialization and slavery don't mix for a very simple reason. Industrial production must meet the demands of a volatile consumer market, and be able to expand or reduce the work force on short order. Chattel slavery is just too awkward for that purpose, because slaves have to be bought and sold by the man, not rented by the man-hour. And that is why, although slavery had been just as morally wrong for thousands of years as it was in the 19th century, it did not end until the Industrial Revolution buried it.

Similarly, today: We will have a green economy because we have to. We will have a global governing structure because we have to. And that is true no matter who wins any particular local election, or any particular war, or any particular diplomatic maneuvering. We will do it because we have no choice, moan and deny and struggle though we will between here and there.

Which does not mean that those little "for want of a nail" scenarios make no difference at all, of course. It would have made a great deal of difference for Americans if the Confederacy had won the civil war, even though slavery was still doomed. And in the same way, it will make a great deal of difference for America's position in the future order whether we lead the world into it or must be overcome to get there. We and our descendants will, I think, like things much better in the former case.

But get there we will, either way.