Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 310







Post#7726 at 01-19-2004 03:45 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
01-19-2004, 03:45 PM #7726
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Repeal of the Patriot Act will require Congress to act, not a State Legislature. Even if the Legislature passes it unanimously, it means nothing, since States cannot overturn Federal actions.
Not true. Consider, they could take the route of California wrt medical marijuana: no state resources will be used to comply with the Act, and the state authorities will be actively non-cooperative with third parties trying to enforce the Act. That's pretty damned significant. After all, massive non-compliance renders a piece of legislation unenforceable and de facto void, even if it stays "on the books".

_______________

"The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius" -- Kuehnelt-Leddihn







Post#7727 at 01-20-2004 10:41 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
01-20-2004, 10:41 AM #7727
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

More evidence that we still be 3T: the Lottery started here in Tennessee this morning. (According to S&H, gambling and other high risk behavior is all too typical of 3Ts and of Nomad generations during 3Ts.)

Sales of tickets have already been pretty brisk, but get this: our very first ticket sale turned out to also be our very first winner.







Post#7728 at 01-20-2004 10:48 AM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
01-20-2004, 10:48 AM #7728
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Fred Reed on the "state of the (joke we call a) Union":



http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed25.html

(Standard discaimers)


A Brief Textbook of American Democracy

by Fred Reed


While the United States is freer and more democratic than many countries, it is not, I think, either as free or as democratic as we are expected to believe, and becomes rapidly less so. Indeed we seem to be specialists in maintaining the appearance without having the substance. Regarding the techniques of which, a few thoughts:

(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can?t say and about whom we can?t say it.

(2) A democracy run by two barely distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.

A parliamentary democracy allows expression of a range of points of view: An ecological candidate may be elected, along with a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian. These will make sure their ideas are at least heard. By contrast, the two-party system prevents expression of any ideas the two parties agree to suppress. How much open discussion do you hear during presidential elections of, for example, race, immigration, abortion, gun control, and the continuing abolition of Christianity? These are the issues most important to most people, yet are quashed.

The elections do however allow the public a sense of participation while having the political importance of the Superbowl.

(3) Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children?s schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn?t practical. In America, local jurisdictions set taxes on real estate and determine parking policy. Everything of importance is decided remotely.

(4) Huge unresponsive bureaucracies somewhere else serve as political flywheels, insulating elected officials from the whims of the populace. Try calling the Department of Education from Wyoming. Its employees are anonymous, salaried, unaccountable, can?t be fired, and don?t care about you. Many more of them than you might believe are affirmative-action hires and probably can?t spell Wyoming. You cannot influence them in the slightest. Yet they influence you.

(5) For our increasingly centralized and arbitrary government, the elimination of potentially competitive centers of power has been, and is, crucial. This is one reason for the aforementioned defanging of the churches: The faithful recognize a power above that of the state, which they might choose to obey instead of Washington. The Catholic Church in particular, with its inherent organization, was once powerful. It has been brought to heel.

Similarly the elimination of states? rights, now practically complete, put paid to another potential source of opposition. Industry, in the days of J. P. Morgan politically potent, has been tamed by regulation and federal contracts. The military in the United States has never been politically active. The government becomes the only game available.

(6) Paradoxically, increasing the power of groups who cannot threaten the government strengthens the government: They serve as counterbalances to those who might challenge the central authority. For example, the white and male- dominated culture of the United States, while not embodied in an identifiable organization, for some time remained strong. The encouragement of dissension by empowerment of blacks, feminists, and homosexuals, and the importing of inassimilable minorities, weakens what was once the cultural mainstream.

(7) The apparent government isn?t the real government. The real power in America resides in what George Will once called the ?permanent political class,? of which the formal government is a subset. It consists of the professoriate, journalists, politicians, revolving appointees, high-level bureaucrats and so on who slosh in and out of formal power. Most are unelected, believe the same things, and share a lack of respect for views other than their own.

It is they, to continue the example of education, who write the textbooks your children use, determine how history will be rewritten, and set academic standards?all without the least regard for you. You can do nothing about it.

(8) The US government consists of five branches which are, in rough order of importance, the Supreme Court, the media, the presidency, the bureaucracy, and Congress.

The function of the Supreme Court, which is both unanswerable and unaccountable, is to impose things that the congress fears to touch. That is, it establishes programs desired by the ruling political class which could not possibly be democratically enacted. While formally a judicial organ, the Court is in reality our Ministry of Culture and Morals. It determines policy regarding racial integration, abortion, pornography, immigration, the practice of religion, which groups receive special privilege, and what forms of speech shall be punished.

(9) The media have two governmental purposes. The first is to prevent discussion and, to the extent possible, knowledge of taboo subjects. The second is to inculcate by endless indirection the values and beliefs of the permanent political class. Thus for example racial atrocities committed by whites against blacks are widely reported, while those committed by blacks against whites are concealed. Most people know this at least dimly. Few know the degree of management of information.

(10) Control of television conveys control of the society. It is magic. This is such a truism that we do not always see how true it is. The box is ubiquitous and inescapable. It babbles at us in bars and restaurants, in living rooms and on long flights. It is the national babysitter. For hours a day most Americans watch it.

Perhaps the key to cultural control is that people can?t not watch a screen. It is probably true that stupid people would not watch intelligent television, but it is certainly true that intelligent people will watch stupid television. Any television, it seems, is preferable to no television. As people read less, the lobotomy box acquires semi-exclusive rights to their minds.

Television doesn?t tell people what to do. It shows them. People can resist admonition. But if they see something happening over and over, month after month, if they see the same values approvingly portrayed, they will adopt both behavior and values. It takes years, but it works. To be sure it works, we put our children in front of the screen from infancy.

(11) Finally, people do not want freedom. They want comfort, two hundred channels on the cable, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, an easy job and an SUV. No country with really elaborate home-theater has ever risen in revolt. An awful lot of people secretly like being told what to do. We would probably be happier with a king.

January 20, 2004


Fred Reed [send him mail] is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well.


Copyright ? 2004 Fred Reed
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#7729 at 01-20-2004 02:56 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
01-20-2004, 02:56 PM #7729
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Quote Originally Posted by Seadog '66
We have read where hundreds of cities and municipalities around the country have voted to not enforce the Patriot Act(s) within their jurisdictions. But have we seen an actual state take up the matter yet? God bless New Hampshire because a bill is now before the state legislature that would "nullify" the Patriot Act(s) within the state's borders. You would think it would pass easily so it will be entertaining to see the specific resistance this bill meets in the legislature.
I think Alaska has already passed a resolution opposing it. But as far as totally nullifying it, this is a brave move indeed. Kinda makes me wonder whether or not the issue of "states rights" has finally become separated in concept from that of "white supremacy."







Post#7730 at 01-20-2004 03:02 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
01-20-2004, 03:02 PM #7730
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Resistance to Patriot Act Gaining Ground

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-02.htm

In the GEN book, it is stated that a crisis era opens with growing collective unity in the face of perceived social peril. Whole the electorate is more polarized than at any time since the Civil War, both sides do seem to be arriving at a consensus that the USA PATRIOT Act must be opposed.

Resistance to Patriot Act Gaining Ground

Foes organizing in communities

by Thanassis Cambanis

More than two centuries ago, the patriots of Brewster shut down the Colonial courts on Cape Cod in one of the first acts of resistance against the tyrannical rule of King George III.

Now, deliberately evoking its Revolutionary history, Brewster Town Meeting has formally condemned the antiterrorist USA Patriot Act, united against the laws of a different leader named George.


While the act is largely symbolic -- federal law enforcement agencies, not local governments, enforce the Patriot Act's new search, seizure, and detention provisions -- the grass-roots opposition has forged an unlikely alliance of people angry at Washington's domestic handling of the war on terror. In Brewster, anger at the Patriot Act has drawn together libertarians, an antitax group, and a Unitarian congregation, as well as a more traditional coalition of civil libertarians and antiwar activists.

A similar story has already played out in 16 Massachusetts communities, and 16 more, including Salem, Waltham, Watertown, Gloucester, Beverly, and Bedford are preparing measures against the Patriot Act this spring.

Opponents of the antiterrorism measure say the nascent bipartisan groundswell in communities across the nation signals a growing dissatisfaction with the expansion of federal powers -- and will reshape the national debate if it continues to accelerate with support from disparate groups, from gun owners to librarians to fiscal conservatives.

The burgeoning nationwide movement has prompted three state governments, and 236 communities in 37 states, to pass resolutions against the Patriot Act. If the backlash continues to grow, opponents of the Patriot Act believe, their momentum will force Congress and the White House to address some of the law's unpopular elements.

"If anyone takes time to read the Patriot Act, there's no question that our First Amendment rights are being eroded," said James Geisler, treasurer of the Brewster Taxpayers Association, a 52-year-old group whose mission is to curtail government spending.

His family has been Republican "for a hundred years," Geisler said. But it was loyalty to the Constitution, not party politics, that drove the Taxpayers Association's board of directors to support the ultimately popular Brewster resolution.

Across the Commonwealth, Republicans, gun lobbyists, and libertarians have taken up the call against the Patriot Act. So have a cadre of previously apolitical people such as Jake Beal, 25, a self-described computer nerd who is now leading the drive for a resolution against the Patriot Act in Somerville.

"It's the first political issue I've taken an active stand in," said Beal, an MIT graduate student who characterizes himself as a conservative Democrat.

He was spurred to action after hearing the sheriff in his hometown of Portland, Maine, describe the federal government's new powers at a forum one year ago. The sheriff said immigration officials took a detainee suspected of terrorist activity to an undisclosed location and never told the detainee's family -- or local law enforcement officials -- where the suspect was taken or what charges he faced.

The Somerville group has collected 1,200 petition signatures and said the City Council is likely to consider the measure next month.

"These local efforts will build up the pressure nationally," Beal said. "Wouldn't you like to live in a community where you know that nobody is going to get `disappeared' by the federal government?"

Local resolutions aren't the only vehicle of grass-roots fervor.

Dozens of Commonwealth libraries have purged lending records -- or stopped keeping them -- to protect patrons from federal agents newly empowered to monitor their reading habits.

"What people read is their own business, and as professional librarians we don't feel it's appropriate to share that information," said Ann Montgomery Smith, librarian at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and president of the Massachusetts Conference of Chief Librarians of Public Higher Educational Institutions.

At her university library, Smith changed the computer system so that lending records are erased as soon as a book is returned.

The US Department of Justice says that such alarm over the Patriot Act is unfounded. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in Boston in September on a nationwide speaking tour to rally support for the legislation, said critics misrepresent the law.

Federal law enforcement officials in Massachusetts have said that they rarely, if ever, use the most controversial provisions of the act -- such as the measure allowing federal agents to secretly subpoena library records, or "sneak-and-peek" warrants that allow investigators to conduct a secret search.

Those assertions have done little to allay the increasing anxiety over the Patriot Act, which in New England has drawn in equal measures on strains of Yankee independence, social libertarianism, and liberal progressivism.

In New Hampshire last week, the Legislature began debating a bill to nullify the Patriot Act, sponsored by four Republican representatives who see the legislation as part of a larger trend of federal law overwhelming the independence of states.

The Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union is quietly paving the way for a statewide resolution, said Nancy Murray, who follows the issue for the union. Murray said that as more and more municipalities pass resolutions, state lawmakers will be compelled to follow suit. Alice Weiss, 62, began the petition drive that led to Brewster's resolution. She found that people she considered politically conservative quickly made it a common cause once they read the Patriot Act. It was after a session in the library studying the text of the bill with Weiss that the conservative Taxpayers Union secretary decided to back the anti-Patriot Act campaign.

"This is not a liberal town," Weiss said. "I was amazed at the support we got."







Post#7731 at 01-21-2004 12:25 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
01-21-2004, 12:25 PM #7731
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Bush's style is very 4t. Can there be a difference in agreement between the reds and the blues about this? So the reds are clearly 4t but the blues are still 3t? What happens then?







Post#7732 at 01-21-2004 02:24 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
01-21-2004, 02:24 PM #7732
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Gibbons, Howard Dean seems to be very 4T.

The Congress, on the other hand, seems stuck in 3T. From the Government Executive. Standard disclaimers apply.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., failed Tuesday in his effort to move the fiscal 2004 omnibus appropriations measure to a vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed to end debate on the Senate floor.

"We're not quite to 60 yet," Frist admitted before the vote. The final vote was 48-45 in favor of ending debate.

Despite weeks of lobbying senators on both sides of the aisle for speedy enactment of the $820 billion measure, Frist and Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, were unable to peel away enough Democratic votes and keep all GOP senators on board for cloture.

But the measure (H.R. 2673 <http://capwiz.com/govexec/issues/bills/?billtype=H.R.&billnumb=2673&congress=108>) is expected to pass before the current continuing resolution funding the government at fiscal 2003 levels expires Jan. 31, and a top Republican aide said it could be approved as early as this week.

Frist said if cloture fails he would continue to make the case to his fellow Republicans and Democrats that the bill contains necessary funding increases such as $3.1 billion more for veterans' health care and $2 billion for special education. A Frist spokeswoman later said that once this afternoon's cloture vote fails, a new cloture petition would be filed to force a vote Thursday. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., a critic of the bill, said it would likely pass Thursday.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Monday he expected the measure to go through, but not before assurances were granted that provisions opposed by Democrats and some Republicans -- such as a two-year delay of mandatory country-of-origin labeling of meat and produce -- would be addressed separately. Frist said he had not yet discussed the matter with Daschle but would later this week.

Representatives from groups such as the Florida Tomato Exchange, R-CALF and Public Citizen had scheduled a congressional "fly-in" Tuesday to lobby lawmakers for implementation of country-of-origin labeling, which is opposed by grocers and beef producers who say it will cost $3.9 billion in the first year and hurt small farmers and ranchers.

Democrats also oppose a provision lifting the broadcast media ownership cap from 35 to 39 percent and removal of language blocking Labor Department changes to overtime compensation rules. Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan of North Dakota said he believes the omnibus will ultimately pass. "I believe it will, regrettably," said Dorgan.

Frist said the omnibus would not be reopened to address Democratic concerns over last-minute GOP-negotiated provisions such as the country-of-origin language, and the only alternative to passage by the end of the month was a full-year CR lasting through Sept. 30.

"The time has come to pass this legislation and move on to next year's budget," Frist said.

President Bush is expected to deliver his fiscal 2005 budget request Feb. 2, after outlining his spending priorities in tonight's State of the Union address. Meanwhile, opposition to the omnibus from within Frist's own party has ratcheted up as conservatives are demanding that the administration and Congress draw the line on spending beginning with the 2004 omnibus. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he told Frist Tuesday he would oppose cloture due to the measure's price tag.

"I think we're out of control spending-wise. We need to get our fiscal house in order," he said.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., issued a statement saying members were being "strong-armed" into supporting the bill because it was loaded with home state earmarks.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#7733 at 01-21-2004 09:38 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
01-21-2004, 09:38 PM #7733
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Repeal of the Patriot Act will require Congress to act, not a State Legislature. Even if the Legislature passes it unanimously, it means nothing, since States cannot overturn Federal actions.
Not true. Consider, they could take the route of California wrt medical marijuana: no state resources will be used to comply with the Act, and the state authorities will be actively non-cooperative with third parties trying to enforce the Act. That's pretty damned significant. After all, massive non-compliance renders a piece of legislation unenforceable and de facto void, even if it stays "on the books".
Yeah, but odds are they won't be getting massive non-compliance.

II. It seems that the well being and security of the United States and of the sovereign states is not truly of paramount interest to the drafters of the USA Patriot Act since the drafters ignored concerns of the generals of our Joint Chiefs of Staff that our homeland security is at major risk because the federal government has relinquished its Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 responsibilities by its actions of having given the United States production and supply capability to foreign powers and influences, as a result of treaties like GATT, NAFTA, treaties with the World Trade Organization, and other ill begotten commercial treaties and agreements; which means that if we or our allies are attacked we are in serious jeopardy of not being able to supply our troops or our allies, especially if we are attacked by the powers to whom we have given our production capability.

III. With this in mind and to resolve this very serious homeland security situation, New Hampshire is additionally insisting that the nation and all the states rebuild our manufacturing and production capabilities and accomplish this rebuilding with a similar philosophy and the strategies our nation used when putting a man on the moon.


The addition of those sections makes it look suspiciously like campaign grandstanding of some kind.







Post#7734 at 01-21-2004 09:42 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
01-21-2004, 09:42 PM #7734
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Bush's style is very 4t. Can there be a difference in agreement between the reds and the blues about this? So the reds are clearly 4t but the blues are still 3t? What happens then?

That could happen, but I don't think it is. Bush himself may be in 4T mode. The vast majority of the rest of the country, blue and red alike, has slipped back into 3T mode. What makes it seem different is that this is 3T with a sense of outside danger, such as we had back in the eighties.

But the signs of the 3T (scattershot bits and pieces action, endless concern about procedures and process, fretting about 'fairness' and indifference to necessities (i.e. the public debt, whining about the UN) public indifference) are all alive and well.







Post#7735 at 01-22-2004 03:16 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-22-2004, 03:16 PM #7735
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Bush's style is very 4t. Can there be a difference in agreement between the reds and the blues about this? So the reds are clearly 4t but the blues are still 3t? What happens then?
That could happen, but I don't think it is. Bush himself may be in 4T mode. The vast majority of the rest of the country, blue and red alike, has slipped back into 3T mode. What makes it seem different is that this is 3T with a sense of outside danger, such as we had back in the eighties.

But the signs of the 3T (scattershot bits and pieces action, endless concern about procedures and process, fretting about 'fairness' and indifference to necessities (i.e. the public debt, whining about the UN) public indifference) are all alive and well.
Apparently, the more conservative members of this forums are nearly unanimous in thinking the 4T will be ushered-in on the heals of a foreign catalyst, but I'm starting to see a proclivity among the more left-leaning for an economic trigger. Of course, that's a very general statement, but I'l like to hear whether others see it too.

Of course, I'd like validation, but will settle for snide comments.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#7736 at 01-22-2004 03:45 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
01-22-2004, 03:45 PM #7736
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Apparently, the more conservative members of this forums are nearly unanimous in thinking the 4T will be ushered-in on the heals of a foreign catalyst, but I'm starting to see a proclivity among the more left-leaning for an economic trigger. Of course, that's a very general statement, but I'l like to hear whether others see it too.

Of course, I'd like validation, but will settle for snide comments.
Of course, that assumes that you believe that 911 was not the catalyst. Some of those who have maintained that 911 was the catalyst are what you would consider liberal. And 911 was certainly originated by foreigners.

Of course, I for one, am thinking that it looks more and more like 3T. Jeez, Congress can't even pass an appropriations bill funding the Federal Government programs -- the Federal fiscal year started last October 1.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#7737 at 01-22-2004 04:24 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
01-22-2004, 04:24 PM #7737
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Apparently, the more conservative members of this forums are nearly unanimous in thinking the 4T will be ushered-in on the heals of a foreign catalyst, but I'm starting to see a proclivity among the more left-leaning for an economic trigger. Of course, that's a very general statement, but I'l like to hear whether others see it too.

Of course, I'd like validation, but will settle for snide comments.
Well.. Maybe that's just because the leadership these days is "conservative". Certainly "their" war would be the big thing in their eyes. At the same time, the leaderships biggest failing in the eyes of its "liberal" opponents is economic.

Basically, I doubt that this divide is a result of clearly reasoned opinions quite so much as "rah-rah-team"-ing. (Not that there are no clearly reasoned opinions, of course, but I speak not of the margins, but of the main). Consider this validation or sniditude as you see fit :P







Post#7738 at 01-22-2004 05:05 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
01-22-2004, 05:05 PM #7738
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Quote Originally Posted by Seadog '66

http://www.lewrockwell.com/klassen/klassen52.html

(Standard disclaimers)



Turn Your Back

by Robert Klassen


I would like to thank Tom White for his excellent reminiscence and commentary on WWII. One little story he told tickled my imagination. The common Japanese folks at the time, he says, had the custom of turning their backs on the high and mighty folks, out of respect. I thought, isn?t that a curious custom?

Then I remembered the time that I went with my father-in-law to meet a plane at the Rapid City, South Dakota, airport, and there was the powerful Senator George McGovern casually entertaining an admiring crowd. My father-in- law wanted me to go over and shake his hand, but I turned around and went outdoors instead ? not out of respect. That was thirty years ago.

This year the eyes of the world are fearfully watching the most powerful man on Earth stumble through his script promising death and destruction to his enemies anywhere and everywhere on the planet, and everybody wonders who will be next in line for that evil puppet?s job? That is, for course, assuming that the elections aren?t cancelled in the name of national security.

I look at the roster of candidates, and I read what they do not say, and I think we?re in big trouble. For one thing, nobody is saying that they will renounce the usurped power of the office to make war. Nobody is saying that they will renounce the usurped power of the office to rule by executive order. Nobody is saying they will repeal the Patriot Act, or disband the office of Homeland Security. Nobody denounces our military occupation of dozens of foreign countries, or promises to bring our troops home. Nobody denounces the police state so carefully crafted over decades in the District of Criminals.

So the names may change in November, but nothing else will change, for no man will give up the power. I hear people speak of this in hushed tones. Common folks, working folks. They know. As a decorated Marine Corps veteran put it, "Look, get this straight, I love this country, but I hate this government."

In the election farce of 2000 roughly one-sixth of the US population put this guy into office, and nearly two-thirds of our population turned their backs on the whole business. I wonder how many will turn their backs in 2004?


January 19, 2004
One interesting article that I read a couple of months back is that citizens are not angry at any one party or faction, but at the entire political class itself. The more interesting question is that in the current political environment, where nearly everyone feels as if our government serves the corporations and not the people, what will happen once the mood becomes urgent?







Post#7739 at 01-22-2004 05:16 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
01-22-2004, 05:16 PM #7739
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Apparently, the more conservative members of this forums are nearly unanimous in thinking the 4T will be ushered-in on the heals of a foreign catalyst, but I'm starting to see a proclivity among the more left-leaning for an economic trigger. Of course, that's a very general statement, but I'l like to hear whether others see it too.

Of course, I'd like validation, but will settle for snide comments.
I think that the "catalyst" is the wrong word, while "driver" will be a more correct term. Many left-leaners believe that 9/11 was the catalyst, while many right-leaners do not believe that the catalyst began yet. Left-leaners tend to think that the 4T will largely be driven by economic concerns, while right-leaners think that it will be driven by concerns of terrorism.







Post#7740 at 01-22-2004 06:19 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
01-22-2004, 06:19 PM #7740
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Does sex still sell?

Does sex still sell?

NEW YORK (Billboard) --Christina vamps like a
burlesque stripper. Britney's gone from schoolgirl to
slut. Pink is punk.

Many of music's reigning divas are partying like it's
1999, even though the world has become a darker, more
uncertain and more anxious place since September 11,
2001.

With the economy in a funk and record sales down for
three years running, even established artists are
sexing it up -- no doubt encouraged by edgy industry
executives.

The problem is, the public just doesn't seem to be in
the mood for it, and the recent mediocre album sales
by Spears, Pink and similar artists may reflect a
classic case of mismarketing.

"When social and economic times are more threatening
and pessimistic, we actually prefer others with more
mature facial, body and personality characteristics,"
says Terry Pettijohn, a Ph.D. social psychologist at
Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pennsylvania.

If Pettijohn's observations are accurate, then
industry executives who are pushing artists to "tart
it up" are miscalculating the market and could be
damaging careers.

"Audiences are listening to lyrics more," says Ron
Vos, president/chief executive of Hi Frequency
Marketing in North Carolina. "They're focused on
content and story line, not dancing and having fun,
and they want the artist to reflect that."

Indeed, female artists who are succeeding on the radio
and on the charts have tapped into the nation's
post-September 11 soul-searching.

Vos, whose firm worked with Avril Lavigne and Norah
Jones, says these artists are writing music that's
about being in touch with your values. They portray
themselves as self-made people who write about their
feelings, he says.

'You sell yourself, and I just hate it'
Sex certainly sells. The concept has been around as
long as advertising. But Lavigne and Jones reflect a
different kind of sexuality that's much subtler, more
genuine and thus more alluring in a time of crisis.

Given the national mood, such nuances could easily be
the difference between strong and mediocre sales.

One of the hottest breakthrough groups of last year,
rock band Evanescence, is fronted by Amy Lee, who is
appalled by the crass marketing of some pop stars.
"Talking bad about Britney is like beating a dead
horse; I won't even go there," she says.

But what really bothers Lee are female artists who are
good writers or good singers but have gone from being
"really classy and cool to just stripping it all
away."

Jewel, for example, has gone from folk songstress to
cover girl, and 40-something Sheryl Crow struts
onstage in hot pants even as she bemoans that other
artists are being marketed like "porn stars."

"Obviously, sex is the most basic thing that you can
sell," Lee says. "I mean, you sell yourself, and I
just hate it."

From Spears' kiss with Madonna at the MTV Video Music
Awards to Pink's onstage antics at the Billboard Music
Awards, the trend toward trampiness shows no signs of
abating.

But some academic research suggests that it runs
counter to current economic, social and demographic
trends.

Last spring, Pettijohn and University of Georgia
professor Abraham Tesser presented a paper to the
American Psychological Society in Atlanta that
examined how the social and economic environment
affects human preferences.

"In times of trouble, strong, stable, supportive
people are favored," he says. "When times are good, we
tend to favor the fun person."

To reach that conclusion, the researchers studied the
public's preferences for actresses between 1932 and
1995.

Individuals preferred smaller eyes, thinner cheeks and
larger chins in bad times, and women with larger eyes,
fuller cheeks and smaller chins in good times, the
study found.

"The U.S. is always going back and forth between our
puritan values and our need for indulgences," says
Sharon Livingston of the Livingston Group, a Windham,
New Hampshire, marketing and research firm.

'A turn toward traditional values'
Currently, songs with a mellow, introspective approach
are finding a receptive U.S. audience, in part because
of the confusion and sense of change in the wake of
September 11, according to Ball State University pop
culture expert Richard Aquila.

That mood plays into the resurgence of the
singer/songwriter, where audiences are eager to hear
what the individual has to say, he says.

"There's been a turn toward traditional values,"
Aquila adds.

Alicia Keys is representative of the trend. Her songs
are introspective and soulful. Her image, while
sexual, also exudes strength and character. Not
surprisingly, her latest album is doing well on the
charts.

Norah Jones is sexy, Livingston says. But "she's using
libido in a gentle way and talking about
relationships. It's a more constructive use of her
libido, but she's still creating interest and
intrigue."

She's saying, "'Come be with me, and you'll feel good
about yourself,"' she explains.

Spears, of course, has played the sex card most often
and most blatantly in the face of declining sales.

Her biggest single, "... Baby One More Time," cut when
her image was more wholesome, spent 39 weeks on the
singles charts in 1998, including seven weeks in the
top spot.

Her last single to hit No. 1 on the charts was "I'm a
Slave 4 U" in 2001. It spent one week at the top.

Despite massive hype, Spears' latest album is posting
only so-so sales. And Pink's latest release is
suffering as well. Sales of "Try This" have fallen far
short of her previous blockbuster album.

According to a source, her label is privately worried
that she has been tarting it up too much. For her
part, Pink says artists are just using what they've
got.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with being sexy,
but people use what they have," she says. "If people
have a great voice, then you use your voice; if you
have a great mind, then you speak a lot; if you have a
great body, then you take your clothes off."

That may work if you're 20-something, but
Evanescence's Lee isn't the only person who finds the
trend disturbing among such established, talented
female artists as Toni Braxton, Liz Phair and LeAnn
Rimes.

Gina Vivinetto, pop music critic for Florida's St.
Petersburg Times, noted in an article last summer that
it's as if someone had issued a memo to every woman in
rock. "No matter how seriously she once took herself,
no matter how good her voice or her level of talent,
she must start looking like a tramp."
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#7741 at 01-22-2004 06:56 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-22-2004, 06:56 PM #7741
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Injured by our own hand

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Bush's style is very 4t. Can there be a difference in agreement between the reds and the blues about this? So the reds are clearly 4t but the blues are still 3t? What happens then?
That could happen, but I don't think it is. Bush himself may be in 4T mode. The vast majority of the rest of the country, blue and red alike, has slipped back into 3T mode. What makes it seem different is that this is 3T with a sense of outside danger, such as we had back in the eighties.

But the signs of the 3T (scattershot bits and pieces action, endless concern about procedures and process, fretting about 'fairness' and indifference to necessities (i.e. the public debt, whining about the UN) public indifference) are all alive and well.
Apparently, the more conservative members of this forums are nearly unanimous in thinking the 4T will be ushered-in on the heals of a foreign catalyst, but I'm starting to see a proclivity among the more left-leaning for an economic trigger. Of course, that's a very general statement, but I'l like to hear whether others see it too.

Of course, I'd like validation, but will settle for snide comments.
I think we are in a faux Crisis and the "Big One" will be a self-inflicted environmental catastrophe neither economic or foreign but by our own hand. The "blame" will be then sent on to either "economic" interests by the Progressive faction or "insert ethnic group here _______" by those styled conservative. Who wins that argument will provide the "solution" and provide the Gray Champ. Greedy Corporation XYZ or "The French"...you decide.

Sorry about the lack of validation. Was I snide enough?







Post#7742 at 01-22-2004 09:03 PM by Ocicat [at joined Jan 2003 #posts 167]
---
01-22-2004, 09:03 PM #7742
Join Date
Jan 2003
Posts
167

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Bush himself may be in 4T mode. The vast majority of the rest of the country, blue and red alike, has slipped back into 3T mode.
Interesting... I know Clinton was aware of Strauss' and Howe's work, and I have to presume that Bush is aware of it as well. That, coupled with the fact that fourth-turning presidents are pivotal historical figures would tend to incline a president toward a fourth-turning approach to policy. To what extent, if any, do you think Bush's knowledge of the theory might be consciously or unconsciously affecting his behavior as President?
No matter how small, every feline is a masterpiece.
-- Leonardo da Vinci







Post#7743 at 01-22-2004 09:29 PM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
01-22-2004, 09:29 PM #7743
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Quote Originally Posted by Corvis
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Bush himself may be in 4T mode. The vast majority of the rest of the country, blue and red alike, has slipped back into 3T mode.
Interesting... I know Clinton was aware of Strauss' and Howe's work, and I have to presume that Bush is aware of it as well. That, coupled with the fact that fourth-turning presidents are pivotal historical figures would tend to incline a president toward a fourth-turning approach to policy. To what extent, if any, do you think Bush's knowledge of the theory might be consciously or unconsciously affecting his behavior as President?
Junior does not read and would have no interest in this or any other theory even if he did read. But you can bet that those actually running the show, pulling his strings, writing his scripts, and devising strategy are aware of it. Even Limbaugh has been a fan of S&H for years now. You can bet that it has been factored into various projections in the intelligence community and this is the sort of data that the Bush people would be relying upon since their base is in the intel community.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#7744 at 01-22-2004 11:51 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
01-22-2004, 11:51 PM #7744
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Apparently, the more conservative members of this forums are nearly unanimous in thinking the 4T will be ushered-in on the heals of a foreign catalyst, but I'm starting to see a proclivity among the more left-leaning for an economic trigger. Of course, that's a very general statement, but I'l like to hear whether others see it too.

Of course, I'd like validation, but will settle for snide comments.
I have no idea what the trigger will be, or whether it will be domestic or foreign. It could be either. 911 could have been the trigger, if it had come a little later.

I do think, and have said, that there is a natural human tendency to look for the repeat of the detailed pattern of the previous Cycle. Even Strauss and Howe themselves fall into this trap from time to time, IMO.

It's natural because it's the Great Depression/WW II 4T was the most recent, and there are people still living who can remember it. Thus it seems a little more 'real' than the earlier ones. But every 4T is unique in detail, and there's no guarantee our upcoming one will begin with a domestic economic event, or an economic event at all, though it most certainly could.

Or it could begin with a foreign economic event, a currency meltdown or banking collapse in some other nation or region.

Or it could begin with a military event, and end with an economic one. There are lots of possibilities, and no realistic way to choose between them ahead of time. It'll all seem very obvious, when we look back from the other side, I'm sure.







Post#7745 at 01-23-2004 12:21 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-23-2004, 12:21 AM #7745
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
I have no idea what the trigger will be, or whether it will be domestic or foreign. It could be either. 911 could have been the trigger, if it had come a little later.

I do think, and have said, that there is a natural human tendency to look for the repeat of the detailed pattern of the previous Cycle. Even Strauss and Howe themselves fall into this trap from time to time, IMO.

It's natural because it's the Great Depression/WW II 4T was the most recent, and there are people still living who can remember it. Thus it seems a little more 'real' than the earlier ones. But every 4T is unique in detail, and there's no guarantee our upcoming one will begin with a domestic economic event, or an economic event at all, though it most certainly could.

Or it could begin with a foreign economic event, a currency meltdown or banking collapse in some other nation or region.

Or it could begin with a military event, and end with an economic one. There are lots of possibilities, and no realistic way to choose between them ahead of time. It'll all seem very obvious, when we look back from the other side, I'm sure.
HC,

I agree on all counts, though I am still partially open to the possibility that 9/11 triggered some strange, slow transtion (remember, like you said, all 4T's are unique).

I think John Xenakis's currency meltdown and debt implosion looks frighteningly possible. Regardless of the actual trigger, whatever is going to happen can happen now at any time, by my reckoning.

The Catalyst/Constellation Index (CCI) I came up with hits zero this year [1st Boom 61 (63 - 2), 1st Xer 43 (42 + 1), 1st Millie 22 (21 + 1): -2 + 1 + 1 = 0]. In 1964 and 1984, a CCI of -3 was enough. If you believe the first Boomer cohort's approach to 63 is more important, and therefore their shortfall should be weighted, then a weighted CCI still has 2005 as year zero.

At the outside, if the cresting of Prophet institutional power is key, then 2007 is ground zero of a 3T/4T switch. But I doubt it will wait that long for two reasons. One, generational compaction seems to be hurrying these turning changes along. Two, 9/11, if not the trigger itself, certainly primed the pump and made what's left of the 3T very anxiety-ridden and perhaps brittle.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#7746 at 01-23-2004 12:27 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
01-23-2004, 12:27 AM #7746
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Sean Love

HC,

I agree on all counts, though I am still partially open to the possibility that 9/11 triggered some strange, slow transtion (remember, like you said, all 4T's are unique).

I think John Xenakis's currency meltdown and debt implosion looks frighteningly possible. Regardless of the actual trigger, whatever is going to happen can happen now at any time, by my reckoning.

The Catalyst/Constellation Index (CCI) I came up with hits zero this year [1st Boom 61 (63 - 2), 1st Xer 43 (42 + 1), 1st Millie 22 (21 + 1): -2 + 1 + 1 = 0]. In 1964 and 1984, a CCI of -3 was enough. If you believe the first Boomer cohort's approach to 63 is more important, and therefore their shortfall should be weighted, then a weighted CCI still has 2005 as year zero.

At the outside, if the cresting of Prophet institutional power is key, then 2007 is ground zero of a 3T/4T switch. But I doubt it will wait that long for two reasons. One, generational compaction seems to be hurrying these turning changes along.
Actually, I don't think it's Idealist cresting that is the key, I think it's departure of the Adaptive restraining factor. This was an idea posited by S&H all the way back in Generations, that the mark of a Turning change (they didn't call them Turnings yet, though) was the sudden departure of the previously dominant Generation into post-Elderhood, which happens fairly abruptly. The true, genuine crest of Boomer insitutional power is far away yet.

Which fits this idea, because S8H suggested then (I think rightly) that Turnings are defined by what's absent. The missing element disappears fairly quickly at the transition time, while the new dominant factors takes some time to rise to full influence.

Thus, IMO, the reason 911 fizzled out was not that the first-wave Boomers weren't ready. I think they were. But the Silent had no intention of permitting things to spiral out of hand, and they retained sufficient power to stop it until passions cooled.

The true trigger will come when something happens, possibly something otherwise minor, that Boomers will want to magnify into a Crisis and the Silent won't be there, or won't be able, to stop them.







Post#7747 at 01-23-2004 12:30 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
01-23-2004, 12:30 AM #7747
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Sean Love
[ One, generational compaction seems to be hurrying these turning changes along.
I should add that I don't really believe that we've seen much if any Generational compaction. I think the Boomers are about 20 years long, Xers roughly 20 years. I measure 1T from 1945-7 through 1965-6, 2T from about 1965-5 to about 195-6. I think our current Turnings and Generations are running about 20 years each, with a few outriders.







Post#7748 at 01-23-2004 07:04 PM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
01-23-2004, 07:04 PM #7748
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Quote Originally Posted by madscientist
One interesting article that I read a couple of months back is that citizens are not angry at any one party or faction, but at the entire political class itself. The more interesting question is that in the current political environment, where nearly everyone feels as if our government serves the corporations and not the people, what will happen once the mood becomes urgent?
This column by a Baptist preacher and true conservative represents what most "conservatives" necessarily think of the Bush administration in their heart of hearts. The Bush administration is objectively and unambiguously a betrayal of just about everything they have ever believed in while opposing Democrats over these recent decades. But through cowardice, and in some cases through plain stupidity, they allow themselves to be manipulated by the Bush people and propagandists like Limbaugh and Hannity. A Democrat has to seriously adopt some of their issues and use it against the clearly "liberal" Bush administration before they will actually vote against the Bush administration. A guy like Dean has the right idea in many areas but he needs to go further.

I don't think it will happen as easily as Baldwin expects here. Plus Baldwin does not address the eminently riggable non-verifiable electronic balloting. I don't doubt for a minute that more people will cast their vote for the Democrat in November. But I also do not doubt for a minute that the final non-verifiable tallies will somehow show that more people voted for Junior. Some may smell foul play. The response will be: "PROVE IT!" How????? Hehehe. What a friggin' joke this Bush Republic is.



www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

(Standard disclaimers)


When Bush Loses In November, He Will Have No One To Blame
But Himself


By Chuck Baldwin
January 23, 2004


Let me be the first one to say it: President Bush is on track to lose
in November, and it won't matter who his Democratic opponent is.
His fabrications, deceptions, and prevarications are just too much
to stomach. His duplicity rivals anything in the previous
administration, a Republican name plate notwithstanding.

It's hard to think of anything this president has done right. His
policies are every bit as socialist (or fascist) as the most liberal
Democrat. We have lost more freedoms during the last three years
than we had lost during the previous thirty! Even though Bush has
enjoyed Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, neither
conservatives nor constitutionalists can point to a single victory
Bush has given them. Not one!

Babies are still being aborted at an escalating rate. The Bush
administration has done as much (or more) to promote the
homosexual agenda as any Democrat. Bush has proliferated the
growth of federal spending and corresponding federal deficits to
levels not seen in decades. Furthermore, he has created the embryo
of a giant Orwellian police state while at the same time offering
amnesty and legitimacy to foreign criminals who have invaded our
country. If all of that isn't bad enough, Bush even threw his
support behind the Clinton gun ban!

Due to Bush's dismal record, the Democratic nominee (whoever he
is) will have to work at losing this election. The facade of a
"wartime" president is wearing thin. Moreover, gas and oil prices
have skyrocketed since oilmen Bush and Cheney rode into
Washington, D.C. In addition, without a willingness to cut
spending, Bush's tax cuts are a fraud! And now Bush wants to
spend an additional billion dollars annually (where this money is
coming from nobody knows) to send men to Mars. Get real!

Beyond that, Bush has repeatedly stated that his war against Iraq
was fought for the purpose of "enforcing the demands of the
United Nations." Now, isn't that lovely? Does he really expect us
to re-elect him President of these United States after hearing that
he ordered more than 500 brave, patriotic Americans to die in Iraq
on behalf of the UN? Does he think we are a bunch of morons? He
must.

G.W. Bush deserves to be a one-term president. And the truth is,
the nation won't be worse off with a Democratic replacement. At
least with a Democrat in the White House, Republicans in
Congress might decide to actually oppose liberal policies.

With a liberal Democrat in the White House, a president might get
40% of his agenda through Congress. Bush, on the other hand, will
get 80% of his policies through Congress, and Bush's policies are
every bit as bad as any liberal Democrat's. So, you tell me who is
actually "the lesser of two evils."

(If you would like to track the ongoing Bush record, go to
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html.)

Therefore, when Bush loses in November, he will have no one to
blame but himself.

? Chuck Baldwin
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#7749 at 01-23-2004 07:22 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
01-23-2004, 07:22 PM #7749
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Sean Love
[ One, generational compaction seems to be hurrying these turning changes along.
I should add that I don't really believe that we've seen much if any Generational compaction. I think the Boomers are about 20 years long, Xers roughly 20 years. I measure 1T from 1945-7 through 1965-6, 2T from about 1965-5 to about 195-6. I think our current Turnings and Generations are running about 20 years each, with a few outriders.
Even with 20 year generations there has been considerable compaction from the ~27 year generations before 1700.







Post#7750 at 01-23-2004 09:08 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-23-2004, 09:08 PM #7750
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Sean Love
[ One, generational compaction seems to be hurrying these turning changes along.
I should add that I don't really believe that we've seen much if any Generational compaction. I think the Boomers are about 20 years long, Xers roughly 20 years. I measure 1T from 1945-7 through 1965-6, 2T from about 1965-5 to about 195-6. I think our current Turnings and Generations are running about 20 years each, with a few outriders.
Even with 20 year generations there has been considerable compaction from the ~27 year generations before 1700.
That is what I meant. We've seem to have gone from about a quarter of a century to about a fifth of one for generation and turning length from about the Transcendentals to the Silent. So what I meant was, that if we agree that 1946, 1964, and 1984 were the last three transitions (sorry, I support orthodoxy on that one) then I don't think the dynamic at play here is going to let things go much past 2004.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
-----------------------------------------