A reliable NY newspaper (not the Times, I said reliable) has information that Mr. Rush Limbaugh has been self-medicating. :o


That someone in the entertainment industry would be in such a position... well I am saddened but not surprised. I wonder if he will get the support for being a "victim" that many an athlete or actor has received. Mr. Strawberry and Mr. Downey (sp?) come to mind.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

A reliable NY newspaper (not the Times, I said reliable) has information that Mr. Rush Limbaugh has been self-medicating. :o


That someone in the entertainment industry would be in such a position... well I am saddened but not surprised. I wonder if he will get the support for being a "victim" that many an athlete or actor has received. Mr. Strawberry and Mr. Downey (sp?) come to mind.

When I first read last night that he's a junkie, I was reminded of a period before I quit listening to him altogether when he was sounding like he was woozy or drunk during the show. People were calling in asking if he was on drugs. He scoffed and denied it and proceeded to accuse the then Clinton administration of tampering with his network transmission. Well, I guess that may be what he really sounded like after all, if he was all doped up. Tapes of those shows ought to be collector's items now.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

A reliable NY newspaper (not the Times, I said reliable) has information that Mr. Rush Limbaugh has been self-medicating. :o


That someone in the entertainment industry would be in such a position... well I am saddened but not surprised. I wonder if he will get the support for being a "victim" that many an athlete or actor has received. Mr. Strawberry and Mr. Downey (sp?) come to mind.

When I first read last night that he's a junkie, I was reminded of a period before I quit listening to him altogether when he was sounding like he was woozy or drunk during the show. People were calling in asking if he was on drugs. He scoffed and denied it and proceeded to accuse the then Clinton administration of tampering with his network transmission. Well, I guess that may be what he really sounded like after all, if he was all doped up. Tapes of those shows ought to be collector's items now.

Whaaaat???? I thought only those heathen liberals did drugs???????

Makes ya really hate those pot-smokin' pinkos, doesn't it? Now we have a truer meaning for the term "Rush."

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Makes ya really hate those pot-smokin' pinkos, doesn't it? Now we have a truer meaning for the term "Rush."

so THAT'S why they call it Mount Rush-more!!! :lol:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Makes ya really hate those pot-smokin' pinkos, doesn't it? Now we have a truer meaning for the term "Rush."

so THAT'S why they call it Mount Rush-more!!! :lol:

Mark it! Schadenfreude is acceptable!

First Limbaugh, now Robertson. What are these guys smoking?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

First Limbaugh, now Robertson. What are these guys smoking?

that pat! what a nut!


TK

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

First Limbaugh, now Robertson. What are these guys smoking?

Not directly related, but this finally clicked for me a few days ago and this seems to be a conventient place to post it. Remember when Robertson ran for President in 1988, and he talked about a "silent majority" that would come out for him? What if he really said "Silent majority?"

As for this statement - I'm sure his affiliate in Raleigh had their usual disclaimer running across the bottom of the screen. (Along the lines of "It's his opinion, not that of this station or its parent company," but I don't remember the exact words. They're ready to push the button for it any time he mentions Israel.)

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

In some ways, I think a 4T doesn't mean that things don't unravel anymore - they just unravel faster and are more wont to crash. The cataylst is the point where crashing becomes spectacular. (Meanwhile we try to go on with our daily lives but one thing or another starts to get in the way.)

Yes.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

In some ways, I think a 4T doesn't mean that things don't unravel anymore - they just unravel faster and are more wont to crash. The cataylst is the point where crashing becomes spectacular. (Meanwhile we try to go on with our daily lives but one thing or another starts to get in the way.)

Yes.

Well, I waited a while for a bit more than just a "Yes," here, but simplicity it seems has consequently stood the test of time...

Does a simple "Yes," to such a quote as this, place both the poster and the postee in the same bucket? A bucket full of _______ ?

Consider that a cataylst is a "substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate," one might concur with brillance of the poster. But given that the poster wishes to believe a "4T doesn't mean that things don't unravel anymore - they just unravel faster and are more wont to crash," one must also concur that "anything goes" wherein a "Merriam-Webster, Incorporated" is concerned.

True enough, the Hoovervilles sprang up amid the stupidity of a "Chicken in every pot" false prophecy, but let us not be decieved about FDR's Folly either:

• A quote of Franklin Roosevelt that helps to illustrate his character and the general feeling of the time come from his conversation with Tugwell. "There is nothing inside that man but jelly," Roosevelt said angrily. "Maybe there never was anything else. Why didn't Hoover offer the men coffee and sandwiches, instead of turning Pat Hurley and Doug MacArthur loose?" This illustrates the generosity of Roosevelt's spirit in contrast to the rudeness and inattentivenss of his opponents in the Republican party. -- Book reviewer of The Glory and the Dream

That grown men, veterans of WWI seeking their $1000 "bonus," would actually travel over three thousand miles for mere "coffee and sandwiches" instead of the bonus has got to be one of the most laughable notions of the twentieth century!

It has been said that the "victors write history." Such was obviously the case, and continues to be so, with the 1930s. Such histories often turn out to be a " bucket full of _______ " with a resounding "Yes" echoing long after the real facts are known. "Yes," I really came three thousand miles to get my thousand dollar bonus, but, sure, I'll be just tickled pink with some "coffee and sandwiches," Mr. President. :wink:

Mr. Lamb, you are one cruel individual. FDR helped to put a safety net under disadvantaged people, as imperfect as it was and is. What do you do with folks of devastating misfortune? Let them just die out there on Highway 61? You claim no fondness for Darwinian evolution, but you are definately in favor of natural selection. You are a bleeting contradiction.

--Croaker

Folly in the name of compassion...

Great myths about the great depression

Thomas Sowell
October 9, 2003
Creators Syndicate, Inc.

• "Mr. Lamb, you are one cruel individual. FDR helped to put a safety net under disadvantaged people, as imperfect as it was and is. What do you do with folks of devastating misfortune?"

They say "truth will out" but sometimes it takes a long time. For more than half a century, it has been a "well-known fact" that President Franklin D. Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. That view was never pervasive among economists, and even J.M. Keynes -- a liberal icon -- criticized some of FDR's policies as hindering recovery from the depression.

• "If the word "folly" seems a little dismissive, read the book first."

Only now has a book been written in language that non-economists can understand which argues persuasively that the policies of the Roosevelt administration actually prolonged the depression and made it worse. That book is "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. It is very readable, factual and insightful -- and is endorsed by two Nobel Prizewinning economists.

If the word "folly" seems a little dismissive, read the book first. Someone described FDR's trust-busting Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold as being like one of the Marx brothers who went into government by mistake. That description would apply to many of the others around FDR, including his much-vaunted "brain-trust" of presumptuous and self-righteous people.

It is painfully obvious that President Roosevelt himself had no serious understanding of economics, any more than his Republican predecessor, Herbert Hoover, had. The difference was that Roosevelt had boundless self-confidence and essentially pushed some of the misconceptions of President Hoover to their logical extreme.

• "The grand myth for decades was that Hoover was unwilling to use the powers of government to come to the aid of the people during the Great Depression but that Roosevelt was more caring and did."

The grand myth for decades was that Hoover was unwilling to use the powers of government to come to the aid of the people during the Great Depression but that Roosevelt was more caring and did. In reality, both presidents represented a major break with the past by casting the federal government in the role of rescuer of the economy in its distress.

Scholarly studies of the history of these two administrations have in recent years come to see FDR's New Deal as Herbert Hoover's policies writ large and in bolder strokes.

Those who judge by intentions may say that this was a good thing. But those who judge by results point out that none of the previous depressions -- during which the federal government essentially did nothing -- lasted anywhere near as long as the depression in which the federal government decided that it had to "do something."

In "FDR's Folly," author Jim Powell spells out just what the Roosevelt administration did and what consequences followed. It tried to raise farm prices by destroying vast amounts of produce -- at a time when hunger was a serious problem in the United States. It imposed minimum wage rates that priced unskilled labor out of jobs, at a time of massive unemployment.

• "...when the economy was showing some signs of revival, until their monetary contraction touched off another big downturn."

Behind both policies was the belief that what was needed was more purchasing power and that this could be achieved by government policies to raise the prices received by farmers and workers. But prices do not automatically translate into greater purchasing power, unless people buy as much at higher prices as they would at lower prices -- which they seldom do.

Then there were the monetary authorities contracting the money supply in the midst of the biggest depression in history -- when the economy was showing some signs of revival, until their monetary contraction touched off another big downturn.

With policy after policy and program after program, "FDR's Folly" traces the high hopes and disastrous consequences. It would be funny, like the Keystone cops running into one another and falling down, except that millions of people were in economic desperation while this farce was being played out in Washington.

• "Some of the people who most admired and almost worshipped FDR -- poor people and blacks, for example -- were hurt the most by amateurish tinkering with the economy by Roosevelt's New Deal administration. "

Perhaps worse than any specific policy under FDR was the atmosphere of uncertainty generated by incessant new experiments. Billions of dollars of investment were needed to create millions of jobs for the unemployed. But investors were reluctant to risk their money while the rules of the game were constantly being changed in Washington, amid strident anti-business rhetoric.

Some of the people who most admired and almost worshipped FDR -- poor people and blacks, for example -- were hurt the most by amateurish tinkering with the economy by Roosevelt's New Deal administration. This book is an education in itself, both in history and in economics. It is also a warning of what can happen when leaders are chosen for their charm, charisma and rhetoric.



Posted for discussion purposes only.

[quote="===="]...Some of the people who most admired and almost worshipped FDR -- poor people and blacks, for example -- were hurt the most by amateurish tinkering with the economy by Roosevelt's New Deal administration. This book is an education in itself, both in history and in economics. It is also a warning of what can happen when leaders are chosen for their charm, charisma and rhetoric.[quote]

Agreed, I have not read the book. And I, too, oppose the persuasion of "charm, charisma, and rhetoric." Those are highly ambiguous terms, however, because, to me, all religions, at their dogmatic cores, are concerned with "charm, charisma, and rhetopic."

I'd challenge you to rewrite history without FDR ever showing up. Would we be better off or worse off now without him? I came from squalor, so he looked pretty good to me. Ultimately, the FDR in us probabaly needed to be invented sooner or later.

Yes, a 4T is when things begin to unravel further. Someone proclaimed that we are not in a 4T yet because there has been no paradigm shift. However, we ARE in a paradigm shift, and have been since the 1950s. The 4T is only the completion of the paradigm shift that started in the 1T, and accelerated during the 2T. A 4T begins when society begins to perceive that unsolved social problems are tearing apart the political, economic, and social fabric. A 4T sees the rise of a new and different kind of radicalism. This time, people search for large, radical solutions rather than radical paradigms. For instance, Bacon's Rebellion was such a radical solution to the perceived problems of natives, bad government, and caste tensions, as was the Glorious Revolution 0f 1689. During the Revolution, an insurrection, and the creation of a constitutional republic were the radical solutions to the social problems of the time. The Civil War was a solution to the problems arising from slavery. During the prior 4T, the rise of the many different forms of socialism and fascism, the rise of the welfare state, and World War II were radical solutions to social problems that stretched from the end of Reconstruction.

The question to ask is whether America is beginning to converge towards larger and more radical solutions to social problems. The War on Terror certainly qualifies. The Howard Dean campaign itself is a large and radical solution to perceived problems of youth disconnect from politics. The Apollo Alliance, which is a plan to rid America of fossil fuels and quickly implement a hydrogen economy and revitalize the economy (with major union support), is also a larger and more radical solution than in the past. The Recall campaign also qualifies.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Yes, a 4T is when things begin to unravel further. Someone proclaimed that we are not in a 4T yet because there has been no paradigm shift. However, we ARE in a paradigm shift, and have been since the 1950s.

Oh, yes, I agree completely. And we'll continue in this same unraveling "paradigm shift" until everybody gets on the same page on this capitialistic nonsense. Let's face it, Capitialism doesn't work! And until the governments of the world take our countries back from the monied interests we are going to continue to unravel.

Workers of the world unite! 8)

Originally Posted by madscientist

The question to ask is whether America is beginning to converge towards larger and more radical solutions to social problems. The War on Terror certainly qualifies. The Howard Dean campaign itself is a large and radical solution to perceived problems of youth disconnect from politics. The Apollo Alliance, which is a plan to rid America of fossil fuels and quickly implement a hydrogen economy and revitalize the economy (with major union support), is also a larger and more radical solution than in the past. The Recall campaign also qualifies.

Yes, these appear to be more radical than what happened in the '90's, when problems were allowed to fester whilst the stockmarket whizzed on.
Whether any of these will be the actual way we solve the problem as we move toward the climax of the crisis and its resolution doesn't really matter. Whether they are workable doesn't really matter. What does matter is that people are beginning to think up and work together (in small alliances right now) to try different solutions to perceived problems.
This, along with the fact that we are no longer ignoring problems while hoping they'd go away and nothing would change, seems to indicate a very different mood.

*** ***

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

An implication is that during the next High there will be hints of the next Awakening. Aging Boomers take note! The toddlers of today will question what you will have labored for. *** ***

What else is new? Imagine how those Missionaries who were still around felt about the 60s- especially if they had been part of the winning faction during the 20s and early 30s. The losers, OTOH, might have been a little happier about it, at least those of the losers who found their causes being revive during the 60s.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by madscientist

The question to ask is whether America is beginning to converge towards larger and more radical solutions to social problems. The War on Terror certainly qualifies. The Howard Dean campaign itself is a large and radical solution to perceived problems of youth disconnect from politics. The Apollo Alliance, which is a plan to rid America of fossil fuels and quickly implement a hydrogen economy and revitalize the economy (with major union support), is also a larger and more radical solution than in the past. The Recall campaign also qualifies.

Yes, these appear to be more radical than what happened in the '90's, when problems were allowed to fester whilst the stockmarket whizzed on.
Whether any of these will be the actual way we solve the problem as we move toward the climax of the crisis and its resolution doesn't really matter. Whether they are workable doesn't really matter. What does matter is that people are beginning to think up and work together (in small alliances right now) to try different solutions to perceived problems.
This, along with the fact that we are no longer ignoring problems while hoping they'd go away and nothing would change, seems to indicate a very different mood.

Yep. Before the heroic generation can throw itself into huge projects that remake the culture, there has to be some idea of what shape the future must take, and how to get there from here. Howard Dean isn't trying to sell himself as the great man getting ready to remake the world, but his agenda might have the beginnings of a crisis plan. We might be getting over the 'hide head in sand and hope the problems go away' phase, and into the 'big plans without enough support to implement them' phase. It might take another major catalyst before the true Fourth Turning starts to roll fully.

Here's Dick Morris' take on what's happening and why. Take it with a bit of salt (after all, it is Dick Morris), but pay attention. He might just have stumbled onto something.

Standard disclaimers apply.

The raging fury against the political establishment

Dick Morris
The Political Life


There is always a temptation to put a partisan spin on
voter anger and pretend it is directed at one or the
other of our political parties. Republicans celebrate
the upheaval of the Democrats in California. Democrats
chuckle at Bush?s dive in the polls. Republicans have
their share of fun in watching first Howard Dean and
then Wesley Clark eclipse the best and the brightest
among the Democratic candidates.

But the fact is that none of these three political
earthquakes is directed at a party.

All are directed against the political establishment
in general. It is the political class that the voters
are angry at, not just its practitioners in either
party. Voters are in such a froth at the political
establishment that anything is possible as this
election year takes shape.

Leading all other causes of this massive anger is the
sense of having been deceived over the issue of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However
aggressively the administration tries to spin David
Kay?s report to indicate that Saddam was, indeed,
worth ousting, the plain fact is that any 7-year-old
watching television believed that Bush and Co. had
plain evidence of masses of weapons scattered about
the country.

The fact that they are not there is galling to voters.

Just as Bush Sr. tripped over raising taxes after
pledging ?read my lips: no new taxes,? so Bush Jr. is
finding it hard to overcome his own statements earlier
in the year. Bush is deeply wrong if he believes that
the current good economic news will bail him out of
his midterm doldrums. Bush I didn?t lose over the
economy. He fell over a lack of credibility. Bush II
will not recover with a good economy. He needs to
bridge the credibility gap he has created.

Most of us don?t think Bush lied. We can?t bring
ourselves to think that. But we do think that we were
misled through malfeasance or incompetence, and we
don?t like it one bit. The fact that Americans
massively approve of ousting Saddam is quite beside
the point. We don?t like being fed a fantasy as a
justification for a war.

But the anger in America has deeper causes than just
Bush?s credibility. Voters feel that the political
class is introverted, self-absorbed and as impervious
to outside influences as Catholic bishops. They see
our political leaders as ignoring our needs and wishes
in a self-perpetuating oligarchy of power. The
lifetime tenure the members of the House awarded
themselves in cahoots with their respective state
legislatures through massive gerrymandering is but one
example of this arrogance of power.

The hardest thing to do in politics is to be an
insider and still think like an outsider.

Senators and congressmen must be able to dine with
presidents and still think like factory workers. The
groupthink inside the Beltway can be numbing and few
politicians really understand how to reach out through
it to grasp what Americans are thinking.

The hothouse of adulation within the capital and the
frequent frost of public reactions outside of it
create a fog through which it is hard to see.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger?s election and the surge of
Dean and Clark in the Democratic polls come as beacons
reminding us of the voter anger that lies just beyond
the Beltway. Its raw, almost uncivilized quality cuts
across party lines and leads to a ubiquitous call to
throw the incumbents out.

Ponder for a moment how the Democratic establishment,
rooted so deeply in California so as to make it
virtually a one-party state, could be so easily swept
aside.

Think about the fact that four candidates representing
the cream of the Democratic Party?s congressional
leadership ? a former vice presidential candidate,
their former floor leader in Congress, their most
charismatic senator and the latest Clinton Southern
wannabe ? have been swept aside by an unknown former
governor of Vermont with a good Internet list and a
previously unknown general from the army, albeit one
with no great military victories to his credit.

Only in an environment laced with voter discontent and
anger could such drastic upheavals be possible. It?s
not a good year to venture out to the polls.

So the professional baseball team owned by the corporatist Chicago Tribune lost.

Tonight the professional baseball team partially owned by the corporatist New York Times will try to keep alive their hopes for a World Series victory in more than a saeculum.

And Dennis Kucinich announces that he is running for president at the behest of the Goddess of Peace, for all the children of the world.

Some things transcend even The Fourth Turning theory.

Originally Posted by monoghan

...And Dennis Kucinich announces that he is running for president at the behest of the Goddess of Peace, for all the children of the world.

Some things transcend even The Fourth Turning theory.

"We are the newts; we are the pollywogs..."

Too much focus on the last crisis. History doesn't repeat, it rhymes. If you seek a model look to the Armada or Glorious Revolution crises.

I'm picturing Osama bin Drake, singeing the beard of King George W. Then I'm picturing King George W. launcing his great floatilla into the fickle maw of the English Channel. Drake was a pirate, a terrorist of considerable repute, and he knew all about those waters. King George W. is a pipsqueak, who had never gone to sea. I wonder what might be his tragedy in the metaphorical North Sea.