Originally Posted by Seadog '66

I don't know if this is evidence of 3T or 4T but this is without a doubt the dumbest, least substantive criticism of a political candidate I have ever read in my life. It is so unique that it is worthy of inclusion here:


"... The real question liberty lovers should be asking themselves about Schwarzenegger is whether he is a moral man. Much of his movie career would suggest otherwise.

The use of strong vulgarity, obscene language and gratuitous profanity in so many of his movies tells me he is not a man with a moral core – not someone who is a good role model for children."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34254



So because the candidate agreed to read movie scripts which demanded that he channel his breath over his vocal chords, over his tongue, and through his teeth in such a way that he made sounds recognizable to English speakers as "four-letter words" but possibly recognizable to non-English speakers as words for "dish," "goat," "automobile," similar innocuous terms, or nothing at all, the candidate reveals that he is not a "moral" man and is unfit for public office. If Arnold is unfit for office, it certainly is not because of some arbitrary and insignificant words he may have uttered in order to emphasize a point. There is no necessary correlation between language used and moral fiber. However there is a correlation between inability to tolerate irrelevant random noises produced by the vocal chords and inability to deal with reality. What century is this? By any chance, are there stocks out in front of the court house? :lol: 3T or 4T?

Be careful what you wish for, Joseph Farah, you might get another Jimmy Carter (who is a fine, admirable, valued man but was a lousy prez).....

And, BTW, Reagan broke up his family with Jane for Nancy. Guess Farah thinks that's ok under his stringent standards... I think he's guilty here of what he accuses Feinstein of, fitting the facts to match his point.

Heard some Hispanic CNN commentator today say very seriously (and piously) that once the soccer moms really really think about Ahnold's sex-filled past of 30 years ago, they'll be very alarmed and concerned......

You know I think it's all very 3T...... :wink:

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

I don't know if this is evidence of 3T or 4T but this is without a doubt the dumbest, least substantive criticism of a political candidate I have ever read in my life. It is so unique that it is worthy of inclusion here:


"... The real question liberty lovers should be asking themselves about Schwarzenegger is whether he is a moral man. Much of his movie career would suggest otherwise.

The use of strong vulgarity, obscene language and gratuitous profanity in so many of his movies tells me he is not a man with a moral core – not someone who is a good role model for children."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34254



So because the candidate agreed to read movie scripts which demanded that he channel his breath over his vocal chords, over his tongue, and through his teeth in such a way that he made sounds recognizable to English speakers as "four-letter words" but possibly recognizable to non-English speakers as words for "dish," "goat," "automobile," similar innocuous terms, or nothing at all, the candidate reveals that he is not a "moral" man and is unfit for public office. If Arnold is unfit for office, it certainly is not because of some arbitrary and insignificant words he may have uttered in order to emphasize a point. There is no necessary correlation between language used and moral fiber. However there is a correlation between inability to tolerate irrelevant random noises produced by the vocal chords and inability to deal with reality. What century is this? By any chance, are there stocks out in front of the court house? :lol: 3T or 4T?

Be careful what you wish for, Joseph Farah, you might get another Jimmy Carter (who is a fine, admirable, valued man but was a lousy prez).....

And, BTW, Reagan broke up his family with Jane for Nancy. Guess Farah thinks that's ok under his stringent standards... I think he's guilty here of what he accuses Feinstein of, fitting the facts to match his point.

Heard some Hispanic CNN commentator today say very seriously (and piously) that once the soccer moms really really think about Ahnold's sex-filled past of 30 years ago, they'll be very alarmed and concerned......

You know I think it's all very 3T...... :wink:

Originally Posted by Barbara

Be careful what you wish for, Joseph Farah, you might get another Jimmy Carter (who is a fine, admirable, valued man but was a lousy prez).....

And, BTW, Reagan broke up his family with Jane for Nancy. Guess Farah thinks that's ok under his stringent standards... I think he's guilty here of what he accuses Feinstein of, fitting the facts to match his point.

Farah can be extremely good on liberty issues but there is a range of issues upon which he is simply obnoxious. For example, he has been one of the most ardent supporters (indeed promoters) of the Bush people's military aggression in Iraq (which may in fact be related to his nearly unconditional support of the Israeli government). All he can talk about is how bad Saddam was and how great it is that the Iraqi people are rid of him. He doesn't give a damn about the fact that hundreds of American boys have been sacrificed fighting some other country's war, a total waste of their existence and all the time, love, and care their parents invested in raising them. Hundreds of them will never return home to their wives, children, parents, and friends for no legitimate reason whatsoever, but that doesn't faze Pharisee Farah one iota. When the Bush people literally emulate Lucifer with their habitual unrepentant deceit, Farah is silent. But when a movie star reads a ridiculously trivial, totally insignificant four-letter word in a script, Farah proscribes the actor from membership in society. This is exactly what is wrong with so much of what passes for Christianity today: no sense of proportion and no discernment whatsoever. I can only hope that Farah is well compensated by the relevant lobbies for his incessant propaganda and gross departure from rationality. Someone please keep these Pharisees and Puritans at bay so that we might breathe without offending them.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Be careful what you wish for, Joseph Farah, you might get another Jimmy Carter (who is a fine, admirable, valued man but was a lousy prez).....

And, BTW, Reagan broke up his family with Jane for Nancy. Guess Farah thinks that's ok under his stringent standards... I think he's guilty here of what he accuses Feinstein of, fitting the facts to match his point.

Farah can be extremely good on liberty issues but there is a range of issues upon which he is simply obnoxious. For example, he has been one of the most ardent supporters (indeed promoters) of the Bush people's military aggression in Iraq (which may in fact be related to his nearly unconditional support of the Israeli government). All he can talk about is how bad Saddam was and how great it is that the Iraqi people are rid of him. He doesn't give a damn about the fact that hundreds of American boys have been sacrificed fighting some other country's war, a total waste of their existence and all the time, love, and care their parents invested in raising them. Hundreds of them will never return home to their wives, children, parents, and friends for no legitimate reason whatsoever, but that doesn't faze Pharisee Farah one iota. When the Bush people literally emulate Lucifer with their habitual unrepentant deceit, Farah is silent. But when a movie star reads a ridiculously trivial, totally insignificant four-letter word in a script, Farah proscribes the actor from membership in society. This is exactly what is wrong with so much of what passes for Christianity today: no sense of proportion and no discernment whatsoever. I can only hope that Farah is well compensated by the relevant lobbies for his incessant propaganda and gross departure from rationality. Someone please keep these Pharisees and Puritans at bay so that we might breathe without offending them.

If we aren't living in the middle of some serious Unraveling right now, I don't know what else to call it. I sure don't think that Bush and Co. are ushering in the wonderful regeneracy. We're in a world of s***.

If we aren't living in the middle of some serious Unraveling right now, I don't know what else to call it. I sure don't think that Bush and Co. are ushering in the wonderful regeneracy. We're in a world of s***.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

If we aren't living in the middle of some serious Unraveling right now, I don't know what else to call it. I sure don't think that Bush and Co. are ushering in the wonderful regeneracy. We're in a world of s***.

We are in the pre-regeneracy 4T. The reality that the economy is not coming back is only just sinking in to augment the Bush people's desired state of perpetual war abroad. The Bush people are cast in the role of Hoover. The regeneracy cannot yet be clearly seen.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

If we aren't living in the middle of some serious Unraveling right now, I don't know what else to call it. I sure don't think that Bush and Co. are ushering in the wonderful regeneracy. We're in a world of s***.

We are in the pre-regeneracy 4T. The reality that the economy is not coming back is only just sinking in to augment the Bush people's desired state of perpetual war abroad. The Bush people are cast in the role of Hoover. The regeneracy cannot yet be clearly seen.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Farah can be extremely good on liberty issues but there is a range of issues upon which he is simply obnoxious.

--snip---

But when a movie star reads a ridiculously trivial, totally insignificant four-letter word in a script, Farah proscribes the actor from membership in society. This is exactly what is wrong with so much of what passes for Christianity today: no sense of proportion and no discernment whatsoever. I can only hope that Farah is well compensated by the relevant lobbies for his incessant propaganda and gross departure from rationality. Someone please keep these Pharisees and Puritans at bay so that we might breathe without offending them.

Well, hehe, if the guy knows theoretical liberty, he apparently does not know how to apply it evenly, or as a Christian should IMB.

Agreed with today's "uses" of Christianity in general. But from what I've read of Farah, do you really think he is a lobbyist hired gun or was that your humor? I had gotten the distinct impression he was very sincere and passionate in his assertions..... :o . I had thought that Farah represented a distinct and sincere voice in America, as HC would probably remind us.

This reminds me of Joe Scarborough, who I guess I'd have to rate as more favorable in conviction than Farah at least used to be. I watch Joe regularly, and do not agree with him on many things, but he strikes me as quite willing to disagree vigorously and audibly with his party when their actions don't jive with his convictions. I admire that very much, regardless of what his posit is. And, of course, I'm quite desperate :wink: to hear anyone talk so fervently about their opposition (and mine) of the way we are totally mishandling immigration. Joe regularly feeds me well in that regard. :wink: But on the drug war he regularly raises my blood pressure. I'm pretty in line with Bill Maher on that one. BELIEVE IT. OR NOT. :o 8)

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Farah can be extremely good on liberty issues but there is a range of issues upon which he is simply obnoxious.

--snip---

But when a movie star reads a ridiculously trivial, totally insignificant four-letter word in a script, Farah proscribes the actor from membership in society. This is exactly what is wrong with so much of what passes for Christianity today: no sense of proportion and no discernment whatsoever. I can only hope that Farah is well compensated by the relevant lobbies for his incessant propaganda and gross departure from rationality. Someone please keep these Pharisees and Puritans at bay so that we might breathe without offending them.

Well, hehe, if the guy knows theoretical liberty, he apparently does not know how to apply it evenly, or as a Christian should IMB.

Agreed with today's "uses" of Christianity in general. But from what I've read of Farah, do you really think he is a lobbyist hired gun or was that your humor? I had gotten the distinct impression he was very sincere and passionate in his assertions..... :o . I had thought that Farah represented a distinct and sincere voice in America, as HC would probably remind us.

This reminds me of Joe Scarborough, who I guess I'd have to rate as more favorable in conviction than Farah at least used to be. I watch Joe regularly, and do not agree with him on many things, but he strikes me as quite willing to disagree vigorously and audibly with his party when their actions don't jive with his convictions. I admire that very much, regardless of what his posit is. And, of course, I'm quite desperate :wink: to hear anyone talk so fervently about their opposition (and mine) of the way we are totally mishandling immigration. Joe regularly feeds me well in that regard. :wink: But on the drug war he regularly raises my blood pressure. I'm pretty in line with Bill Maher on that one. BELIEVE IT. OR NOT. :o 8)

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

If we aren't living in the middle of some serious Unraveling right now, I don't know what else to call it. I sure don't think that Bush and Co. are ushering in the wonderful regeneracy. We're in a world of s***.

We are in the pre-regeneracy 4T. The reality that the economy is not coming back is only just sinking in to augment the Bush people's desired state of perpetual war abroad. The Bush people are cast in the role of Hoover. The regeneracy cannot yet be clearly seen.

mandelbrot, I have been a consistant believer that we be 3T. I believe that the current and future economic actions taken by the Bush admin. will produce a catalyst that makes 9/11 look like a false moment, and just that we, too, have been a victim of terrorism (along with WTC in 1992 and OKC).

But I will say this: if I am proven wrong, I believe Seadog's statement will probably be why. Combine the 9/11 tragedy, an economy that continues to recover in name only (stats and experts continue to say yes, many more people start to say, why can we not feel it and why are we losing our jobs) and our Quixotic foreign policy gameplan.

Yet, I can't help remembering Marc's statement: What a Boring 4T. To regenerate from most of these latest events and those likely to happen in the next 2 years even, leaves even me bored as 4T's have gone. Perhaps it will be a light one, but the Awakening was way too contentious for that, IMO.

I just do not see how most Americans are feeling much of anything negative beyond media-induced fear or reservation at this point. Which I consider more 3T. Things from that standpoint are more similar to 1991, really.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

If we aren't living in the middle of some serious Unraveling right now, I don't know what else to call it. I sure don't think that Bush and Co. are ushering in the wonderful regeneracy. We're in a world of s***.

We are in the pre-regeneracy 4T. The reality that the economy is not coming back is only just sinking in to augment the Bush people's desired state of perpetual war abroad. The Bush people are cast in the role of Hoover. The regeneracy cannot yet be clearly seen.

mandelbrot, I have been a consistant believer that we be 3T. I believe that the current and future economic actions taken by the Bush admin. will produce a catalyst that makes 9/11 look like a false moment, and just that we, too, have been a victim of terrorism (along with WTC in 1992 and OKC).

But I will say this: if I am proven wrong, I believe Seadog's statement will probably be why. Combine the 9/11 tragedy, an economy that continues to recover in name only (stats and experts continue to say yes, many more people start to say, why can we not feel it and why are we losing our jobs) and our Quixotic foreign policy gameplan.

Yet, I can't help remembering Marc's statement: What a Boring 4T. To regenerate from most of these latest events and those likely to happen in the next 2 years even, leaves even me bored as 4T's have gone. Perhaps it will be a light one, but the Awakening was way too contentious for that, IMO.

I just do not see how most Americans are feeling much of anything negative beyond media-induced fear or reservation at this point. Which I consider more 3T. Things from that standpoint are more similar to 1991, really.

None of us can "prove" that we are in 3T or 4T. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we may be able to look back and say "Obviously the fourth turning had already begun with 911 (or not)".
The touchstone which I keep coming back to is the generational constellation of that book by Strauss and Howe. (remember them? :wink: ) And of those generations I refer to my own, boomer (1950), which keeps me from skating on thin ice by pretending to understand anyone else's gen.
We boomers are supposedly going to be Elders in the 4T. S and H discuss all the various characteristics of the Elder gen in the book, I'm not going to rehash it again here.
Boomers are not in Elder mode at this time. I also don't think that the other generations are quite into their appointed positions yet, but I'm going to stick with my own group which I understand somewhat better.
I believe that this shift into a more sober, serious frame of mind is beginning to happen ( the beginning of awareness of mortality, death of parents, all those wonderful things) but it certainly is only beginning to show up on the social radar at all.
To give credit where due, Marc has consistently pointed out the problem of the generational constellation over the last couple of years....we tend to want to define 3T/4T by events, not by generational positions, which is not how S and H define turnings in the book.

None of us can "prove" that we are in 3T or 4T. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we may be able to look back and say "Obviously the fourth turning had already begun with 911 (or not)".
The touchstone which I keep coming back to is the generational constellation of that book by Strauss and Howe. (remember them? :wink: ) And of those generations I refer to my own, boomer (1950), which keeps me from skating on thin ice by pretending to understand anyone else's gen.
We boomers are supposedly going to be Elders in the 4T. S and H discuss all the various characteristics of the Elder gen in the book, I'm not going to rehash it again here.
Boomers are not in Elder mode at this time. I also don't think that the other generations are quite into their appointed positions yet, but I'm going to stick with my own group which I understand somewhat better.
I believe that this shift into a more sober, serious frame of mind is beginning to happen ( the beginning of awareness of mortality, death of parents, all those wonderful things) but it certainly is only beginning to show up on the social radar at all.
To give credit where due, Marc has consistently pointed out the problem of the generational constellation over the last couple of years....we tend to want to define 3T/4T by events, not by generational positions, which is not how S and H define turnings in the book.

Yes, mandelbrot, thank you for remembering that primary tenet in all this. I was outwardly remiss in posting it, although I do very much keep it in my mind. I happen to think that increased life spans will perhaps change this S&H tenet some what, but even if everyone still died earler than they do now, we aren't quite lined up right. Others have argued recently that we do, but again, I tend to see our longer lives, plus a longer stay at each gen phase of life, as exacerbating the lack of line-up.

Yes, mandelbrot, thank you for remembering that primary tenet in all this. I was outwardly remiss in posting it, although I do very much keep it in my mind. I happen to think that increased life spans will perhaps change this S&H tenet some what, but even if everyone still died earler than they do now, we aren't quite lined up right. Others have argued recently that we do, but again, I tend to see our longer lives, plus a longer stay at each gen phase of life, as exacerbating the lack of line-up.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Yes, mandelbrot, thank you for remembering that primary tenet in all this. I was outwardly remiss in posting it, although I do very much keep it in my mind. I happen to think that increased life spans will perhaps change this S&H tenet some what, but even if everyone still died earler than they do now, we aren't quite lined up right. .

Fully agreed. First-wave Xers just entering midlife by the S&H definition. One would think that things are just barely beginning to line up.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Yes, mandelbrot, thank you for remembering that primary tenet in all this. I was outwardly remiss in posting it, although I do very much keep it in my mind. I happen to think that increased life spans will perhaps change this S&H tenet some what, but even if everyone still died earler than they do now, we aren't quite lined up right. .

Fully agreed. First-wave Xers just entering midlife by the S&H definition. One would think that things are just barely beginning to line up.

Originally Posted by Zola

First-wave Xers just entering midlife by the S&H definition. One would think that things are just barely beginning to line up.

Those entering Late Elderhood this year were born in 2003-84=1919 - a good bit before the first Silents.
Those entering Elderhood this year were born in 2003-63=1940 - a few years before the first Boomers.
Those entering Midlife this year were born in 2003-42=1961 - the same year as the first Xers.
Those entering Young Adulthood this year were born in 2003-21=1982 - the same year as the first Millies.

So for the younger generations, it should be this year. I don't think, though, that anything that could happen this year or next will be as much of a shock to the system as September 11th was, no matter how big it is.

Originally Posted by Zola

First-wave Xers just entering midlife by the S&H definition. One would think that things are just barely beginning to line up.

Those entering Late Elderhood this year were born in 2003-84=1919 - a good bit before the first Silents.
Those entering Elderhood this year were born in 2003-63=1940 - a few years before the first Boomers.
Those entering Midlife this year were born in 2003-42=1961 - the same year as the first Xers.
Those entering Young Adulthood this year were born in 2003-21=1982 - the same year as the first Millies.

So for the younger generations, it should be this year. I don't think, though, that anything that could happen this year or next will be as much of a shock to the system as September 11th was, no matter how big it is.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Originally Posted by Zola

First-wave Xers just entering midlife by the S&H definition. One would think that things are just barely beginning to line up.

Those entering Late Elderhood this year were born in 2003-84=1919 - a good bit before the first Silents.
Those entering Elderhood this year were born in 2003-63=1940 - a few years before the first Boomers.
Those entering Midlife this year were born in 2003-42=1961 - the same year as the first Xers.
Those entering Young Adulthood this year were born in 2003-21=1982 - the same year as the first Millies.

So for the younger generations, it should be this year. I don't think, though, that anything that could happen this year or next will be as much of a shock to the system as September 11th was, no matter how big it is.

My guess, since I'm more and more convinced that we still be 3T after all, is that 'critical mass' will be reached when three of the four generations mentioned above reach their proper alignment. Since two of them are already there, and the next would be Boomers (per above specifications), then 1943 + 63 would be 2006. So, since we do appear to be sliding back into 3T now, after a brief foretaste of 4T, it may arrive on time after all. As for what could become the actual catalyst, either a nuclear war somewhere on the Asian continent (I can envision at least three possible scenarios for this, in different parts of Asia), another economic collapse, or both, would have a way of making 9/11 diminish somewhat in the collective memory, IMO.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Originally Posted by Zola

First-wave Xers just entering midlife by the S&H definition. One would think that things are just barely beginning to line up.

Those entering Late Elderhood this year were born in 2003-84=1919 - a good bit before the first Silents.
Those entering Elderhood this year were born in 2003-63=1940 - a few years before the first Boomers.
Those entering Midlife this year were born in 2003-42=1961 - the same year as the first Xers.
Those entering Young Adulthood this year were born in 2003-21=1982 - the same year as the first Millies.

So for the younger generations, it should be this year. I don't think, though, that anything that could happen this year or next will be as much of a shock to the system as September 11th was, no matter how big it is.

My guess, since I'm more and more convinced that we still be 3T after all, is that 'critical mass' will be reached when three of the four generations mentioned above reach their proper alignment. Since two of them are already there, and the next would be Boomers (per above specifications), then 1943 + 63 would be 2006. So, since we do appear to be sliding back into 3T now, after a brief foretaste of 4T, it may arrive on time after all. As for what could become the actual catalyst, either a nuclear war somewhere on the Asian continent (I can envision at least three possible scenarios for this, in different parts of Asia), another economic collapse, or both, would have a way of making 9/11 diminish somewhat in the collective memory, IMO.

Yet, I can't help remembering Marc's statement: What a Boring 4T.

Land's sakes, Barbara, we're only two years into it, not even, by date. Things were just starting to heat up in 1775; the first actual shots were fired that year, and that should be compared to what happened two years ago on 9/11 for excitement -- the catalyst in that Crisis was a bunch of nuts dressing up like Indians and throwing tea into a harbor. I guess the news wasn't terribly boring in 1931 but it was pretty danged depressing, no pun intended, with no solutions offered. 1863 was pretty exciting, terminally so for an awful lot of folks, but the Civil War was an unusually compacted 4T.

None of us are old enough to remember the early years of a Crisis, Barbara, not even you.

I wish I could realistically hope that this would be a boring Crisis, but considering the trio of awesome problems bonking on us, one of which hasn't really manifested yet and none of which we've properly faced, I can't.

Problem One: the world order of the Millennial Saeculum has broken down. It was a bipolar order resting on the superpower competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Union gone, the U.S. is overly tempted to try to rule the world solo, and the rest of the world no longer looks to the U.S. to protect them from the Commies. The result is growing chaos. Add in the proliferation of WMDs, and cross-reference the situation with our economic and environmental woes, and you have a recipe for catastrophe in that one problem alone. It's bloodied our nose, and we've made some mostly inappropriate and certainly inadequate responses.

Problem Two: the economies of the advanced nations, with their balanced blend of capitalist and socialist policies, which produced such awesome prosperity during the first half of the MilSaec, are being undermined by the development of the global economy. Postwar prosperity rested on the ability and willingness of government to regulate capitalism for the benefit of all without trying to completely replace it, i.e. on said balanced approach, which avoided the pitfalls of either pure capitalism or pure socialism. As corporations have become international, though, they have escaped the power of national governments to regulate them, and have returned to their old bad ways. Real wages are declining, consumer markets are declining along with them, dragging profits down, and we are faced with a negative spiral straight out of the nineteenth century, but on a global scale. This problem has struck us, too, if less dramatically than Problem One, but it is largely under the radar and certainly no proper solutions have been proposed.

Problem Three: Human consumption of natural capital has reached, or is rapidly reaching, collision point with scarcity. We are faced with a resource and environmental disaster of epic proportions, and a drastic need to switch from a low-efficiency, high-throughput, population-growth economy to a high-efficiency, low-throughput, population-shrinkage economy. Unlike the first two problems, Problem Three has yet to impact us significantly, although water shortages have begun manifesting in various parts of the world. We won't see the full shock until about 2010. But this problem, which should dominate the second half of the Crisis, will be the worst and hardest of the three -- and none of them are what you could call easy.

Boring Crisis? I wish.

Yet, I can't help remembering Marc's statement: What a Boring 4T.

Land's sakes, Barbara, we're only two years into it, not even, by date. Things were just starting to heat up in 1775; the first actual shots were fired that year, and that should be compared to what happened two years ago on 9/11 for excitement -- the catalyst in that Crisis was a bunch of nuts dressing up like Indians and throwing tea into a harbor. I guess the news wasn't terribly boring in 1931 but it was pretty danged depressing, no pun intended, with no solutions offered. 1863 was pretty exciting, terminally so for an awful lot of folks, but the Civil War was an unusually compacted 4T.

None of us are old enough to remember the early years of a Crisis, Barbara, not even you.

I wish I could realistically hope that this would be a boring Crisis, but considering the trio of awesome problems bonking on us, one of which hasn't really manifested yet and none of which we've properly faced, I can't.

Problem One: the world order of the Millennial Saeculum has broken down. It was a bipolar order resting on the superpower competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Union gone, the U.S. is overly tempted to try to rule the world solo, and the rest of the world no longer looks to the U.S. to protect them from the Commies. The result is growing chaos. Add in the proliferation of WMDs, and cross-reference the situation with our economic and environmental woes, and you have a recipe for catastrophe in that one problem alone. It's bloodied our nose, and we've made some mostly inappropriate and certainly inadequate responses.

Problem Two: the economies of the advanced nations, with their balanced blend of capitalist and socialist policies, which produced such awesome prosperity during the first half of the MilSaec, are being undermined by the development of the global economy. Postwar prosperity rested on the ability and willingness of government to regulate capitalism for the benefit of all without trying to completely replace it, i.e. on said balanced approach, which avoided the pitfalls of either pure capitalism or pure socialism. As corporations have become international, though, they have escaped the power of national governments to regulate them, and have returned to their old bad ways. Real wages are declining, consumer markets are declining along with them, dragging profits down, and we are faced with a negative spiral straight out of the nineteenth century, but on a global scale. This problem has struck us, too, if less dramatically than Problem One, but it is largely under the radar and certainly no proper solutions have been proposed.

Problem Three: Human consumption of natural capital has reached, or is rapidly reaching, collision point with scarcity. We are faced with a resource and environmental disaster of epic proportions, and a drastic need to switch from a low-efficiency, high-throughput, population-growth economy to a high-efficiency, low-throughput, population-shrinkage economy. Unlike the first two problems, Problem Three has yet to impact us significantly, although water shortages have begun manifesting in various parts of the world. We won't see the full shock until about 2010. But this problem, which should dominate the second half of the Crisis, will be the worst and hardest of the three -- and none of them are what you could call easy.

Boring Crisis? I wish.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Agreed with today's "uses" of Christianity in general. But from what I've read of Farah, do you really think he is a lobbyist hired gun or was that your humor? I had gotten the distinct impression he was very sincere and passionate in his assertions..... :o . I had thought that Farah represented a distinct and sincere voice in America, as HC would probably remind us.

Prior to 911, I enjoyed reading his columns because he represented himself as being somewhere between a conservative and a libertarian and he definitely had not been bought off or otherwise corrupted by the Bush people as had so many other commentators on the Right with their incessant absurd cheerleading of the Bush people's continuous enactment of the Democratic agenda. But since 911 Middle East talk has dominated his columns and from the Likud Party point of view at that (note Farah's complete disregard for the cost in American blood and treasure much less the utter lack of justification for American involvement in that mess over there in the first place). His commitment to something so outside America's interests is so total that surely he is either a hard core Christian dispensationalist or a paid lobbyist. Either way, I don't care. I am an American concerned about my own country, not in false theology or somebody else's country. So I rarely ever bother to read one of Farah's columns all the way through anymore. And here in one of his rare columns unconcerned with the Middle East, he goes off on a pointless pharisaical rant. It really is very disappointing.

This reminds me of Joe Scarborough, who I guess I'd have to rate as more favorable in conviction than Farah at least used to be. I watch Joe regularly, and do not agree with him on many things, but he strikes me as quite willing to disagree vigorously and audibly with his party when their actions don't jive with his convictions. I admire that very much, regardless of what his posit is. And, of course, I'm quite desperate :wink: to hear anyone talk so fervently about their opposition (and mine) of the way we are totally mishandling immigration. Joe regularly feeds me well in that regard. :wink: But on the drug war he regularly raises my blood pressure. I'm pretty in line with Bill Maher on that one. BELIEVE IT. OR NOT. :o 8)

I really do not know what Scarborough is saying these days. In light of the unbelievable propaganda in the American establishment media, I began by no longer watching American news of any sort and ended by ceasing to watch television altogether. I never could fathom those funky college professors who did not own a TV set as a matter of "principle" but surprisingly I find that I do not miss the mess one bit.