Originally Posted by Barbara

Incidentally, just heard that the blackout investigation looks now to be narrowed down to a big transmission line near Cleveland that has been in sub-standard and degrading shape for some time, and has about 50 lines from Canada and US on the Lake Erie Loop feeding into it. A study of record logs has shown a drop loss there first. Simply not maintaining and upgrading infrastructure may be the culprit (huge investment costs there, and who pays in a world of bottom lines under microscopes). A Congressional bailout to modernize the grid will follow.

For whatever it's worth...

The big mall in my town and half the town lost power one sunny afternoon. They frantically searched for a cause. Then one of the maintenence people found the blackened corpse of a rat.

Yep. The enterprising little rodent had been eating the plastic cover of a major line, and the backfeed happened so fast it knocked out half the town.

It would be incredibly ironic to find that the initial surge had been caused by squirrels or nesting birds, but if companies are cutting costs and not walking the lines as often as they used to, there is that much more time for critters to wreak unintentional havoc.

AlexMnWi Wrote:

NBC Nightly News ran a story about how NYC reacted much better to this blackout than to the 1977 blackout. The story seemed very 4T... it had lots of cooperation themes, and so forth.

Take a look at this:

Where Have All the Looters Gone?
Why there wasn't more crime during the blackout.
By David Greenberg
Posted Friday, August 15, 2003, at 2:03 PM PT



Times Square: Dark but not demoralized

With the odd exception of Ottawa, Ontario, none of the major metropolises hit by Thursday's blackout faced social disorder on a large scale. In New York City last night, street life was not a fearful tableau of pandemonium but a convivial scene of neighbors and strangers sharing candlelight, radio news, and small talk.

In contrast, the last time the lights went out in New York?1977?chaos reigned.

So, what changed?

First, recall the scene in 1977. On July 13, a series of lightning bolts between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. disabled key high-voltage power lines, sending 9 million New Yorkers into darkness. Electricity wasn't fully restored for 25 hours. In what Mayor Abraham Beame called a "night of terror," New York's impoverished neighborhoods?from the South Bronx and Harlem to Jamaica in Queens and Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn?erupted in spontaneous sprees of looting and arson.


Tearing grates off storefronts with crowbars, pillagers smashed windows and made off with TV sets, liquor, rifles, diamonds, sneakers?even 50 new Pontiacs hot-wired and driven out of a Bronx showroom. Arrests in New York numbered 3,776 and would have been higher had the police not chosen to forgo apprehensions in favor of simply trying to contain the marauding. In his Newsweek column, George Will invoked Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Even if news reports prove to have been overly rosy?this morning Mayor Michael Bloomberg reported just one blackout-related death in New York City overnight?neither Gotham nor Detroit nor Cleveland suffered anything remotely like the anarchy of 1977. "New Yorkers showed that the city that burned in the 1970s when facing similar circumstances," Bloomberg said, "is now a very different place."

The reasons for the variance range from the technical to the sociological. One small but significant difference is the timing. The current blackout began shortly after 4 p.m. Thursday, with more than four hours of daylight remaining. Government officials, police, and security guards had ample time to mobilize, and, despite the reports of stranded commuters sleeping in Bryant Park, many more people could get home safely. Moreover, the general recognition that the city was ready for trouble helped deter it.

Another possible reason for the muted reaction this time around, some have suggested, is the residue of Sept. 11. Although early news reports largely discounted terrorism as a likely cause of the power outage, the thought naturally occurred to city dwellers?especially New Yorkers?almost immediately. A collective vulnerability and the felt need to unite against a potentially grave external danger may have ratcheted up people's sense of public duty. And the relief people experienced on learning that terrorists presumably weren't to blame helped foster a neighborly bonhomie.

It seems probable, though, that even if this latest blackout had happened before the 2001 attacks, we still wouldn't have seen a replay of 1977. A post-9/11 civic responsibility may have augmented the exemplary behavior, but it didn't create it. The real difference between 1977 and 2003 is the change in the condition of New York and America's Northeastern cities, including in their poorer enclaves.

At the time of the 1977 blackout, analysts were hailing an urban crisis. In the inner cities, decades of feckless or ill-considered social policies had made problems like crime, housing, and drug use seem insoluble. To some, the social order itself seemed to be collapsing. All of America was facing an economic downturn, as high unemployment and inflation?along with the much-discussed national "malaise"?prompted questions about whether the country would ever regain its former prowess. In the summer of 1977, joblessness was acute, reaching Depression-era levels. Many saw the blackout violence as a response to economic suffering and hopelessness.

New York in particular was in bad shape, struggling to climb out of bankruptcy. Films such as The Warriors (1979) and Escape From New York (1981) captured the city's late '70s feeling of blight and despair. Among the many casualties of the hard times was the morale of the police department. At the time of the blackout, cops were rebelling against the mayor's plan to put only one officer in every patrol car, and on the fateful night, only 8,000 of the city's 25,000-person force reported for duty, while some who showed up stood by passively as looters rampaged.

Racial problems in Northern and Midwestern cities had also become inflamed. The riots of the late 1960s had tapered off, but among many urban blacks, resentment remained high, fueling the nighttime looting. "Being that the lights are out and the niggers are going hungry," a black New York teenager told Newsweek, "we're going to take what we want, and what we want is what we need." Of course, in 1977 the vast majority of New Yorkers of all groups obeyed the law. But the high number of African-Americans among the looters indicated that racial tensions were a key part of the equation.

Not only were all these problems severe in 1977, but they seemed to be getting worse. The nighttime disorder seemed almost unsurprising?a culmination of long-festering frustrations. In contrast, as any casual subway rider can tell you, today things seem to be on the upswing, even with the city's latest economic woes. The reasons for the recent turnaround remain contested, but they include the general prosperity of the 1990s, new and more effective policing strategies, and demographic trends (there are now fewer young men and teenagers in the age brackets most likely to commit violent crimes).

Perhaps most important, New Yorkers (and other city dwellers) have a greater sense of investment in their metropolis. Large numbers of immigrants, who have a stake in their businesses and communities, have changed the face of the city's neighborhoods. And while inequities still burden poor black neighborhoods, the deep sense of grievance that once gripped them has abated. A virtuous cycle has taken hold, in which civic pride has led all manner of New Yorkers to care more about their city.

George Will notwithstanding, the crown jewel of the Empire State?for now, at least?has neither declined nor fallen.

First, recall the scene in 1977. On July 13, a series of lightning bolts between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. disabled key high-voltage power lines, sending 9 million New Yorkers into darkness. Electricity wasn't fully restored for 25 hours. In what Mayor Abraham Beame called a "night of terror," New York's impoverished neighborhoods?from the South Bronx and Harlem to Jamaica in Queens and Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn?erupted in spontaneous sprees of looting and arson.


Tearing grates off storefronts with crowbars, pillagers smashed windows and made off with TV sets, liquor, rifles, diamonds, sneakers?even 50 new Pontiacs hot-wired and driven out of a Bronx showroom. Arrests in New York numbered 3,776 and would have been higher had the police not chosen to forgo apprehensions in favor of simply trying to contain the marauding. In his Newsweek column, George Will invoked Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

A priceless recall of "my generation." Call us the "quagmire generation," a bunch of kids raised on the phony Lost/GI, Norman Rockwell/Walt Disney "accentuate the positive" version of "social justice."

Our sense of "social justice" would change all that. Ours was a calling down of the "fires of heaven" upon all who stood in the way of such "social justice." We would have none of this "incremental change" b.s.

We wanted whatever we wanted NOW!!!

• "Being that the lights are out and the niggers are going hungry," a black New York teenager told Newsweek, "we're going to take what we want, and what we want is what we need."

Ronny Reagan would later give us just what we wanted, really: Government goodies without a responsible government. Salvation is a "gift," unearned, and unpaid for save for a few rich folks about to flip the bill.



It's a beautiful thing. :wink:

Originally Posted by ....

We wanted whatever we wanted NOW!!!

• "Being that the lights are out and the niggers are going hungry," a black New York teenager told Newsweek, "we're going to take what we want, and what we want is what we need."

Ronny Reagan would later give us just what we wanted, really: Government goodies without a responsible government. Salvation is a "gift," unearned, and unpaid for save for a few rich folks about to flip the bill.



It's a beautiful thing. :wink:

we need to claim victory on this goodies sh t and get on with the more important stuff in this 4t

like not only making the rich pay more but just making them pay all of it

from each according to their means to each according to their needs

thats our motto

Bush and Blair and many people called neoconservatives believe that moral objectives in politics are universally applicable imperatives. If so, then either national cultures do not significantly differ; or they do not matter; or they are infinitely malleable under the touch of enlightened reformers. But all three propositions are false, and antithetical to all that conservatism teaches about the importance of cultural inertia and historical circumstances.



Democracy everywhere? by Mr. George Will.


...Such incitements to foreign policy hyperkinesis can draw upon the messianic triumphalism voiced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in last month's address to a rapturous Congress:

``There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. ...
``Ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

Neoconservatives seem more susceptible than plain conservatives are to such dodgy rhetoric and false assertions.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Bush and Blair and many people called neoconservatives believe that moral objectives in politics are universally applicable imperatives.

A global push for a capatalist empire demands this.... :wink:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Bush and Blair and many people called neoconservatives believe that moral objectives in politics are universally applicable imperatives. If so, then either national cultures do not significantly differ; or they do not matter; or they are infinitely malleable under the touch of enlightened reformers. But all three propositions are false, and antithetical to all that conservatism teaches about the importance of cultural inertia and historical circumstances.



Democracy everywhere? by Mr. George Will.


...Such incitements to foreign policy hyperkinesis can draw upon the messianic triumphalism voiced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in last month's address to a rapturous Congress:

``There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. ...
``Ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

Neoconservatives seem more susceptible than plain conservatives are to such dodgy rhetoric and false assertions.

I want to make one other comment about George Will's essay, Virgil. I wonder if Mr. Will is to encounter the same sort of denagration and dissing about being unpatriotic and unAmerican that others have faced by noticing the same Quixoticism in our WOT, that which Kiff and others have posted about. In fact, had someone else's name accompanied this piece, would they be labelled thus? Will's argument is quite similar to many who have opposed the Iraqui war and occupation. No mea culpa?

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I think one reason is that its daytime.
1977: Nighttime, darkness on the streets, and mass looting.
2003: Daytime, sunlight, no looting yet.

If power's not on by nightfall in NYC, then it would be interesting if there wasn't looting.

The scale of the looting will be a good indication of generational mood, if it is on the scale of 1977, then it is a 3T sign, if the scale of looting is a lot less than 1977, then it is a 4T sign.

uhh... wasn't 1977 a 2T year?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Part of an article:

As darkness fell, city dwellers turned to candles and flashlights as scattered parts of the electrical grid came back on. People gobbled ice cream from street vendors before it melted, and gathered around battery-operated radios for updates.

Su Rya, 69, in batik shirt and shorts, guarded a store on 125th Street in Harlem. But when asked about talk that looting might break out, he said, "That's barbershop talk. It's a different generation now."

Marveled another man, "You can actually see the stars in New York City."

(Emphasis mine)
Thus far, a 4T sign. I still want to see what happens after midnight if streetlights aren't up yet.

Actually, it fits S&H's original descriptions of late 3T. The rioting in the last superblackout in NYC in '77 was an Awakening phenomenon.

FINALLY... someone mentioned 1977 without implicitly treating it as 3T!

Consider the words of S&H in Generations, in chapter 13, regarding the likely reaction to a hypothetical nuclear-terrorism threat in NYC in 3T (they called it an 'inner-driven era' then):

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe in chapter 13 of GENERATIONS

Alternatively, suppose this hypothetical nuclear terrorism were to happen...in the middle of the current Inner Driven era. By then, the span of roughly a quarter century will have entirely reshaped the likely national response--which would caution, conciliation, and deferral. Silent Cabinet officers would consult allies, form committees, review options, and invite full public discussion. After initiating multilater negotiations, leaders would generally try to wait things out. The crisis would frustrate but not anger Boomers, (who would trade philosophic remarks about how it was bound to happen sooner or later) and would hardly ruffle young 13ers (many of whom might rush toward the city to sell or volunteer transportation to families wanting to leave). Official evacuation plans would be expensive and overcomplicated and would elicit little public confidence that they would work as intended. Most people would stay calm and simply make their own plans. Chances are, the nation would squeeze by the immediate threat undamaged, but leave its underlying causes either unsolved or, at best, mildly ameliorated.

That obviously doesn't fit the current situation exactly, but then, S&H meant it to apply to the early 90s, which they then saw as middle 3T, though I've come to suspect that it was actually early 3T. Also, they were talking about a situation far worse than the blackout in question.

Note that in the blackout, most of the people got home on their own. There wasn't a lot of excitement, and pragmatism was the order of the day. It remains to be seen out the aftermath will be handled. If the result is a lot of committees and debate, and very little actual action, it'll be strongly 3Tish.

Note further that the first thing the government did was to assure everyone that it wasn't terrorism, not an attack. According to S&H, in the same discussion that I quoted from above, that would be the very opposite of behavior to be expected in 4T.

Al Quaida is now claiming responsibility (credit?) for the blackout. (See Drudge report) It sounds like B.S. to me, just lots of raving and rhetoric. whatever.....

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

Al Quaida is now claiming responsibility (credit?) for the blackout. (See Drudge report) It sounds like B.S. to me, just lots of raving and rhetoric. whatever.....

Gadhafi (is that how he spells it these days?) used to take credit for just about everything.

Originally Posted by Buster Brown

Why in G-d's name would Boomers "want" a High? They spent the entire Awakening trying to destroy everything the High they grew up in was noted for - and the arrival of the next High spells death for them (or, if it comes too soon, an ignored or even despised elderhood, like that experienced by the Transcendentals).

Yeah, but they weren't in charge in that High, it wasn't based on their dreams, but rather on the Missionaries' dreams. Also, they probably don't consciously want a 'High', if you aren't familiar with S&H you don't even know what that refers to in our context. They want a world in whcih their dreams have come true.

Unfortunately, they can't agree on the dreams.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Bush and Blair and many people called neoconservatives believe that moral objectives in politics are universally applicable imperatives. If so, then either national cultures do not significantly differ; or they do not matter; or they are infinitely malleable under the touch of enlightened reformers. But all three propositions are false, and antithetical to all that conservatism teaches about the importance of cultural inertia and historical circumstances.



Democracy everywhere? by Mr. George Will.

...Such incitements to foreign policy hyperkinesis can draw upon the messianic triumphalism voiced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in last month's address to a rapturous Congress:

``There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. ...
``Ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

Neoconservatives seem more susceptible than plain conservatives are to such dodgy rhetoric and false assertions.

I want to make one other comment about George Will's essay, Virgil. I wonder if Mr. Will is to encounter the same sort of denagration and dissing about being unpatriotic and unAmerican that others have faced by noticing the same Quixoticism in our WOT, that which Kiff and others have posted about. In fact, had someone else's name accompanied this piece, would they be labelled thus? Will's argument is quite similar to many who have opposed the Iraqui war and occupation. No mea culpa?

"Only Nixon can go to China." :lol:

In fact, though, he didn't oppose the war, he pointed out the Boomerish overconfidence of the leaders.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

In fact, though, he didn't oppose the war, he pointed out the Boomerish overconfidence of the leaders.

Yes, but it is like walking a tightrope -- what is seen as isolationist considerations in that respect that oddly unite the paleocons and many anti-war proponents in this matter. And he doth pick and choose, like he's realizing now that he philosophically needs to. :wink:

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

In fact, though, he didn't oppose the war, he pointed out the Boomerish overconfidence of the leaders.

Yes, but it is like walking a tightrope -- what is seen as isolationist considerations in that respect that oddly unite the paleocons and many anti-war proponents in this matter. And he doth pick and choose, like he's realizing now that he philosophically needs to. :wink:

Not necessarily. I myself thought Bush and Blair were getting carried away with crusading thinking, a year ago, even as I agreed with the specific necessity of dealing with Hussein. I think we're seeing early hints of the sort of thinking later Boomer leaders are likely to try to bring to the table.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

In fact, though, he didn't oppose the war, he pointed out the Boomerish overconfidence of the leaders.

Yes, but it is like walking a tightrope -- what is seen as isolationist considerations in that respect that oddly unite the paleocons and many anti-war proponents in this matter. And he doth pick and choose, like he's realizing now that he philosophically needs to. :wink:

Not necessarily. I myself thought Bush and Blair were getting carried away with crusading thinking, a year ago, even as I agreed with the specific necessity of dealing with Hussein. I think we're seeing early hints of the sort of thinking later Boomer leaders are likely to try to bring to the table.

HC, that's all well and good. And, it's got a great chance of being true, call it postmodern transcendentalism. But my emphasis was on Will's commentary. He's a 1941 Silent and a former professor of political philosophy, and he's now definitely questioning the practical wisdom of that Boomer crusading thinking. Too late even, but maybe he was a trusting neosoul......yeah, I know, he's supposed to not be a neo, but he's been carpooling with 'em enough. :wink:

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

Al Quaida is now claiming responsibility (credit?) for the blackout. (See Drudge report) It sounds like B.S. to me, just lots of raving and rhetoric. whatever.....

Gadhafi (is that how he spells it these days?) used to take credit for just about everything.

It took me a day to snap, but you mean Molamar? YEAH, he DID used to do that, didn't he? Interesting observe. How soon we forget.......

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Gadhafi (is that how he spells it these days?) used to take credit for just about everything.

one quick point: he doesn't spell it in our alphabet. like other words from languages with other alphabets (al qaeda, osama, etc.), it's spelled phonetically, so it varies with the speller.


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I myself thought Bush and Blair were getting carried away with crusading thinking, a year ago, even as I agreed with the specific necessity of dealing with Hussein. I think we're seeing early hints of the sort of thinking later Boomer leaders are likely to try to bring to the table.

This thinking is exactly why the administration is having problems in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I myself thought Bush and Blair were getting carried away with crusading thinking, a year ago, even as I agreed with the specific necessity of dealing with Hussein. I think we're seeing early hints of the sort of thinking later Boomer leaders are likely to try to bring to the table.

This thinking is exactly why the administration is having problems in Iraq.

Agreed, but aren't both Powell and Rumsfeld Silents? Most important now perhaps is what the Nomads bring to the table, and I don't think they are ready quite yet to take their seats.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I myself thought Bush and Blair were getting carried away with crusading thinking, a year ago, even as I agreed with the specific necessity of dealing with Hussein. I think we're seeing early hints of the sort of thinking later Boomer leaders are likely to try to bring to the table.

This thinking is exactly why the administration is having problems in Iraq.

What kind of "thinking"? Crusading thinking? So because Bush and Blair were crusading thinking, a year ago, some American GIs are getting shot at and killed in Iraq now?

Am I missing somethin' here?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

What kind of "thinking"? Crusading thinking? So because Bush and Blair were crusading thinking, a year ago, some American GIs are getting shot at and killed in Iraq now?

Am I missing somethin' here?

Yes you are. I was refering to Hopeful's thinking, not the president's.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Gadhafi (is that how he spells it these days?) used to take credit for just about everything.

one quick point: he doesn't spell it in our alphabet. like other words from languages with other alphabets (al qaeda, osama, etc.), it's spelled phonetically, so it varies with the speller.

Correct. In fact, the arabic letter most often transliterated as "Q" or "G" (as in Gadhaffi, Qatar, or Al Q'aeda) is unique to arabic languages, and has no analog in Romance (or Saxon, Cyrillic, or Sinic) languages whatsoever. It's pronounciation is decribed a number of ways -- most frequently as "a 'k' where the glottal is formed at the far back of the roof of the mouth". I find it easiest to describe as a kind of 'short gag'; it sounds like it falls somewhere between 'k' and 'g', but is neither.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Gadhafi (is that how he spells it these days?) used to take credit for just about everything.

one quick point: he doesn't spell it in our alphabet. like other words from languages with other alphabets (al qaeda, osama, etc.), it's spelled phonetically, so it varies with the speller.

Correct. In fact, the arabic letter most often transliterated as "Q" or "G" (as in Gadhaffi, Qatar, or Al Q'aeda) is unique to arabic languages, and has no analog in Romance (or Saxon, Cyrillic, or Sinic) languages whatsoever. It's pronounciation is decribed a number of ways -- most frequently as "a 'k' where the glottal is formed at the far back of the roof of the mouth". I find it easiest to describe as a kind of 'short gag'; it sounds like it falls somewhere between 'k' and 'g', but is neither.

I had always wondered about that. Thanks Justin.

You know, I've picked up some Farsi phrases from Persian friends over the years, and they have a sound that is, as far as I can tell, exactly like the one you describe. For example, "Oh-lah-GGeh Naffa'am" meaning "stupid donkey" (better translated into English as "dumb ass") has that sound which I represented as a "GG" here.

Now Farsi is an Indo-European language and therefore should not have that sound. But I have discovered that Farsi has a whole bunch of Arabic loan words and I guess they borrowed the sound as well.

Any thoughts while we're wildly off-topic??

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

In fact, though, he didn't oppose the war, he pointed out the Boomerish overconfidence of the leaders.

Yes, but it is like walking a tightrope -- what is seen as isolationist considerations in that respect that oddly unite the paleocons and many anti-war proponents in this matter. And he doth pick and choose, like he's realizing now that he philosophically needs to. :wink:

Not necessarily. I myself thought Bush and Blair were getting carried away with crusading thinking, a year ago, even as I agreed with the specific necessity of dealing with Hussein. I think we're seeing early hints of the sort of thinking later Boomer leaders are likely to try to bring to the table.

HC, that's all well and good. And, it's got a great chance of being true, call it postmodern transcendentalism. But my emphasis was on Will's commentary. He's a 1941 Silent and a former professor of political philosophy, and he's now definitely questioning the practical wisdom of that Boomer crusading thinking. Too late even, but maybe he was a trusting neosoul......yeah, I know, he's supposed to not be a neo, but he's been carpooling with 'em enough. :wink:

He's also periodically raised pretty much those same points. For that matter, I've been rereading a collection of his columns from the middle eighties of late, under the title of The Morning After. It's spooky how well many of them could just as easily apply to today. Twenty years, and in many ways nothing has changed. I wouldn't count on that stasis lasting much longer.