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 325







Post#8101 at 04-26-2004 02:04 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-26-2004, 02:04 AM #8101
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Faux News is still the most popular source of, er, infoganda.
And when the liberals and the traditional media are prepared to squarely face why Fox News has surpassed its competition, they'll be able to do something about it.







Post#8102 at 04-26-2004 12:34 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
04-26-2004, 12:34 PM #8102
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Re: Empire Building

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Sbarro
The US, though, set the seed for its own downfall by rebuilding the economies of Japan and Germany which ultimately posed a greater threat than any Soviet tank.
Wow, what penetrating insight. I bet you can walk on water, too. 8)
Of course he does, Marc. Him and Eric Meece both do, to hear each of them talk.







Post#8103 at 04-26-2004 12:34 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
04-26-2004, 12:34 PM #8103
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Re: Empire Building

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Sbarro
The US, though, set the seed for its own downfall by rebuilding the economies of Japan and Germany which ultimately posed a greater threat than any Soviet tank.
Wow, what penetrating insight. I bet you can walk on water, too. 8)
Of course he does, Marc. Him and Eric Meece both do, to hear each of them talk.







Post#8104 at 04-26-2004 02:51 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-26-2004, 02:51 PM #8104
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Re: Fourth Turning

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by V. Hansen

All U.S. construction is subject to open audit and assessment. A zealous media has not yet found any signs of endemic or secret corruption. There really is a giant scandal surrounding Iraq, but it involves (1) the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, in which U.N. officials and Saddam Hussein, hand-in-glove with European and Russian oil companies, robbed revenues from the Iraqi people; and (2) French petroleum interests that strong-armed a tottering dictator to sign over his country's national treasure to Parisian profiteers under conditions that no consensual government would ever agree to. The only legitimate accusation of Iraqi profiteering does not involve Dick Cheney or Halliburton, but rather Kofi Annan's negligence and his son Kojo's probable malfeasance.
Not, mind you, that our national traditional media has wanted to touch the story. Indeed, Time magazine recently tried to spin it away, when it started to look as if they couldn't ignore it any longer. They really, really wish this would go away.

I made an error here. It should have been Newsweek, not Time, who tried to spin the story away in their April 26 edition.

My apologies to Time, HopefulCynic68 regrets the error. :lol:







Post#8105 at 04-26-2004 02:51 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-26-2004, 02:51 PM #8105
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Re: Fourth Turning

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by V. Hansen

All U.S. construction is subject to open audit and assessment. A zealous media has not yet found any signs of endemic or secret corruption. There really is a giant scandal surrounding Iraq, but it involves (1) the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, in which U.N. officials and Saddam Hussein, hand-in-glove with European and Russian oil companies, robbed revenues from the Iraqi people; and (2) French petroleum interests that strong-armed a tottering dictator to sign over his country's national treasure to Parisian profiteers under conditions that no consensual government would ever agree to. The only legitimate accusation of Iraqi profiteering does not involve Dick Cheney or Halliburton, but rather Kofi Annan's negligence and his son Kojo's probable malfeasance.
Not, mind you, that our national traditional media has wanted to touch the story. Indeed, Time magazine recently tried to spin it away, when it started to look as if they couldn't ignore it any longer. They really, really wish this would go away.

I made an error here. It should have been Newsweek, not Time, who tried to spin the story away in their April 26 edition.

My apologies to Time, HopefulCynic68 regrets the error. :lol:







Post#8106 at 04-26-2004 11:08 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
04-26-2004, 11:08 PM #8106
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Empire Building

Quote Originally Posted by Sbarro
. . . but Truman could scare the American public into believing the lie about the Soviet threat . . .
Yep, Comrade Stalin was a swell guy. We hadn't a thing in the world to worry about.

What drugs do you take sir? :shock:
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#8107 at 04-26-2004 11:08 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
04-26-2004, 11:08 PM #8107
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Empire Building

Quote Originally Posted by Sbarro
. . . but Truman could scare the American public into believing the lie about the Soviet threat . . .
Yep, Comrade Stalin was a swell guy. We hadn't a thing in the world to worry about.

What drugs do you take sir? :shock:
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#8108 at 04-27-2004 09:07 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
04-27-2004, 09:07 AM #8108
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Getting ready for 4T

or 3T indulgence?

Atkin's gone a-muck and amok as well?



Blue Zone hearts and minds--Are we turning French? :

Though animal brains, intestines, hearts, and other "variety meats," as they're known in the trade, have generally been assigned to the scrap heap in American butcher shops, in Europe there is a venerable tradition of dining on tripe, sweetbreads, and the like. That tradition sprung out of agrarian necessity, as did the resulting conviction that if you're going to be so indulgent as to slaughter an animal, you'd better make use of all of it, even the nasty bits. Today, Europeans rich and poor dine on offal, but it has retained a certain earthy reputation. The Italians call it la cucina povera, or "poor food," as a reminder of the utilitarian origins of these dishes.
Red Zone rebellion-- are we going caveperson? :

What draws chefs and diners to this curious cuisine? The reactionary nature of the food clearly plays a part; currently there's an anti-PC tendency among diners who want to outdo even ardent carnivores in sheer carnivorousness. This is clearly the appeal for Bourdain, who declares, with characteristic hyperbole, that Henderson's food is "a thumb in the eye to the establishment, an outrageously timed head butt to the growing hordes of the politically correct, the PETA people, the European Union. ..."

You are what you eat! :shock:







Post#8109 at 04-27-2004 01:27 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
04-27-2004, 01:27 PM #8109
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

It's the great Hollywood cover-up!

It's the great Hollywood cover-up!

By Olivia Barker, USA TODAY
Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe scandal seems to be signaling the end of a skin-saturated sartorial era

Designers and retailers are trotting out clothes that are full-skirted and buttoned up ? downright matronly compared with Jackson's tear-away bustier. And the public, including celebrities, is following suit, trading in tiny, torso-taunting togs for tweedy Chanel (or Chanel-esque) suits and billowing, booty-shrouding dresses.

?Christina Aguilera swapped chaps for trousers during a recent appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, looking more debutante than Dirrty girl.

?Though few would expect she would face perjury charges in a purple pasty, the typically skimpily clad Lil' Kim arrived at Manhattan court this month with both breasts snugly covered up in a dark coat, her arm cradling a classic Hermes Birkin bag, ? la Martha Stewart.

?Jennifer Garner donned voluminous vintage Valentino for the Oscars, showing "just the right amount of skin," as Lucky fashion director Hope Greenberg puts it ? and became the belle of the show.

The modesty initiative continued when Victoria's Secret canceled its annual televised runway show.

Some stars have it both ways. Before the same Super Bowl game that spotlighted Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction," Beyonc? belted out the national anthem in a chic white suit, a demure departure from her typically abbreviated attire. But Beyonc?'s more minimal get-ups came out of the closet during her recent tour. (And no doubt, Aguilera will resurrect those chaps for her tour, starting next month.)

But considering the belly billboards that have paraded abs and navel rings down red carpets, main streets and shopping malls for the past several years, it's not surprising that prim is in, observers say.

The skin-tight, skin-baring look is going away "simply because it's dull," says In Style fashion director Hal Rubenstein.

"It really has begun to look tired," says Paul Raffin, president of Express. The company used to push something called the Bikini jean, which scarcely accommodated bikini underwear. These days, jeans are all but absent from the fall line, which focuses on trim, polished pantsuits.

The Gap, too, is following the cues of design houses such as Oscar de la Renta and Milly by offering floaty, frilly skirts.

"There's a new definition of what looks sexy and what looks appropriate," Raffin says. "There's a new sophistication" that young women "really have not been exposed to, no pun intended.

"There's very little left to show anyway. Everything has been revealed."

The conservative thread weaving through pop culture is not only indicative of fashion's fickleness. It's a sign of the general zeitgeist, Rubenstein says.

"It's not a happy time in this world," he says. "What those '50s-inspired clothes represent is the illusion of times being calmer."

There are practical problems, too. "Nobody wants to be humiliated," Greenberg says. And when you opt for an outfit that's "super sexy," there are so many ways for things to, well, malfunction. "You put yourself at risk for ridicule. Celebrities are probably tired of running that risk."
"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#8110 at 04-27-2004 05:43 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-27-2004, 05:43 PM #8110
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Re: Fourth Turning

Quote Originally Posted by Sbarro
The overreaching leaves America with no choice as predicted in Paul Kennedy's book the "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". They either put in more and watch their empire drain or pull out defeated.
Perhaps. However, Paul Kennedy would disagree. Kennedy himself indicated a few years ago (~2002) that he doesn't think the kind of thinking Sbarro is using is accurate, because what the U.S. is doing is so EASY for the U.S. that it doesn't count as "overreaching".

Somewhere recently, somebody said that at the current rate, we could fight in Iraq for hundreds of years before the total U.S. casualty rate matched one year in Viet Nam.

The U.S. is still fighting with just its little finger.







Post#8111 at 04-27-2004 10:39 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-27-2004, 10:39 PM #8111
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Re: Fourth Turning

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Sbarro
The overreaching leaves America with no choice as predicted in Paul Kennedy's book the "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". They either put in more and watch their empire drain or pull out defeated.
Perhaps. However, Paul Kennedy would disagree. Kennedy himself indicated a few years ago (~2002) that he doesn't think the kind of thinking Sbarro is using is accurate, because what the U.S. is doing is so EASY for the U.S. that it doesn't count as "overreaching".

Somewhere recently, somebody said that at the current rate, we could fight in Iraq for hundreds of years before the total U.S. casualty rate matched one year in Viet Nam.

The U.S. is still fighting with just its little finger.
Which is one of the reasons I think we are still operating in a Third Turning pattern. But it's true that the media coverage and the relative newness (we haven't done this for a while) makes this entire business seem bigger than it really is, compared to past wars.







Post#8112 at 04-28-2004 09:13 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
04-28-2004, 09:13 AM #8112
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: Fourth Turning

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Sbarro
The overreaching leaves America with no choice as predicted in Paul Kennedy's book the "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". They either put in more and watch their empire drain or pull out defeated.
Perhaps. However, Paul Kennedy would disagree. Kennedy himself indicated a few years ago (~2002) that he doesn't think the kind of thinking Sbarro is using is accurate, because what the U.S. is doing is so EASY for the U.S. that it doesn't count as "overreaching".

Somewhere recently, somebody said that at the current rate, we could fight in Iraq for hundreds of years before the total U.S. casualty rate matched one year in Viet Nam.

The U.S. is still fighting with just its little finger.
Which is one of the reasons I think we are still operating in a Third Turning pattern. But it's true that the media coverage and the relative newness (we haven't done this for a while) makes this entire business seem bigger than it really is, compared to past wars.
The problem isn't just in casualty rates. One also has to contend with deficits and utilization of ground forces. Currently, nigh on half our ground forces are pulling occupation duty, while nigh on another half are recovering from an occupation tour while gearing up for another occupation tour. The regulars are so overworked that reserve units are being kept in the field for over a year, and soldiers are not being allowed to muster out. Continuing the current level of force utilization would put the all volunteer army and National Guard system at severe risk.

If the economy were in better shape, a return to Cold War manning levels might be sufficient to sustain current operational levels. Doing this without raising taxes will be hard. Paying off the supply side deficit while returning to Cold War manning levels will put considerable stress on the economy. Thus far, Bush 43 has been reluctant to either grow the military or increase taxes.

We will have to see who gets elected, and /or whether Bush 43 will be more willing to raise taxes after getting over that 4 year hump. We might only be fighting with one finger, but getting more fingers into things won't be trivial.







Post#8113 at 04-28-2004 01:00 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-28-2004, 01:00 PM #8113
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

When you note the fraction of our military in Iraq, it is also relevant to note that our military has less than half the number of people in it than it did during the Korean War.

The U.S. is currently making due with the increased "productivity" of our forces, due to the revolutions in military technology that go along with the technological phase-change our society is going through.

That is the main reason Paul Kennedy was wrong, BTW. His predictions of a decline in the relative power of the U.S. were based on 1970's economic trends.

That would be like predicting that Great Britain was going to decline relatively, when the Industrial Revolution was still in its infancy.

===

Changing the subject, this should be noted here, if it hasn't already:

Tillman?s Generation

There is a temptation to say that Pat Tillman demonstrated a courage and ethic belonging peculiarly to a previous generation?perhaps Tom Brokaw?s Greatest Generation?one in which athletes and movie stars served. But that would be a mistake. This generation should not be underestimated. The young men of today?s military have done something which the Greatest Generation did not have to do: they volunteered to serve after the Brokaws of the world lost faith in the American military. These soldiers have fought valiantly in Afghanistan after the press all but forgot them, and in Iraq after the press, yielding to unfounded accusations, forgot who they were. They have seen recent military victories cast as defeats. They answered the call to higher duty, only to have the elites question it as lower-class service. And despite politicians using the shameful rhetoric of "quagmire," the number of volunteer soldiers is increasing.







Post#8114 at 04-28-2004 01:04 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-28-2004, 01:04 PM #8114
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by msm
The U.S. is currently making due with the increased "productivity" of our forces, due to the revolutions in military technology that go along with the technological phase-change our society is going through.
My noting this should not be construed as approval. In my opinion, Bush's greatest mistake was to NOT push for a larger military in late 2001, and to not encourage an increased recruitment drive.

The argument then was that it would take too long to train new recruits anyway. But by now, they would have been done training.

Rumsfeld's wish to use the new technology and management techniques to revolutionize our armed services was all well and good - during peacetime. After 9/11, Bush should have insisted in at least a 50,000 increase.

In Rumsfeld's defense, though, at least he's moving a lot of troops out of Europe, where they are no longer needed.







Post#8115 at 04-28-2004 01:11 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-28-2004, 01:11 PM #8115
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Robert Alt
These soldiers have fought valiantly in Afghanistan after the press all but forgot them, and in Iraq after the press, yielding to unfounded accusations, forgot who they were.
What in the world is this guy talking about? I've seen profile after profile of servicepeople that are over in the Middle East, whether it's in the local paper, on the local TV news, NPR, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, the New York Times, or wherever. On Friday night, Ted Koppel is going to read more than 500 names of servicepeople that have been killed in action in Iraq.

The press loves the soldiers. They may not love the big brass, Donald Rumsfeld, or the CINC, but they get a lot of print and airtime from the regular guys (and gals).







Post#8116 at 04-28-2004 04:16 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
04-28-2004, 04:16 PM #8116
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Blitzkreig and Europe

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Rumsfeld's wish to use the new technology and management techniques to revolutionize our armed services was all well and good - during peacetime. After 9/11, Bush should have insisted in at least a 50,000 increase.

In Rumsfeld's defense, though, at least he's moving a lot of troops out of Europe, where they are no longer needed.
The other question is whether we should focus our entire force towards winning the war, or whether we should retask some if it towards winning the peace. The high tech stuff doesn't seem overly helpful to occupation forces. Since the end of the Cold War, we have been doing far more low intensity peacekeeping stuff than blitzkrieg, but Rumsefeld seems determined that all our forces must be trained and equipped for blitzkrieg. This generally leaves us with the wrong army for the job.

Taking some of our stuff out of Europe is a start. At this point, while I'm less angry at Europe than many Americans, they ought to be able to defend themselves from external threats, and police their own ethnic stupidity.







Post#8117 at 04-28-2004 05:08 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
04-28-2004, 05:08 PM #8117
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Blitzkreig and Europe

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Quote Originally Posted by msm
Rumsfeld's wish to use the new technology and management techniques to revolutionize our armed services was all well and good - during peacetime. After 9/11, Bush should have insisted in at least a 50,000 increase.

In Rumsfeld's defense, though, at least he's moving a lot of troops out of Europe, where they are no longer needed.
The other question is whether we should focus our entire force towards winning the war, or whether we should retask some if it towards winning the peace. The high tech stuff doesn't seem overly helpful to occupation forces. Since the end of the Cold War, we have been doing far more low intensity peacekeeping stuff than blitzkrieg, but Rumsefeld seems determined that all our forces must be trained and equipped for blitzkrieg. This generally leaves us with the wrong army for the job.

Taking some of our stuff out of Europe is a start. At this point, while I'm less angry at Europe than many Americans, they ought to be able to defend themselves from external threats, and police their own ethnic stupidity.
Rumsfeld made the same assumption that did-in Robert McNamara: that technology is capable of replacing people. It is - in a fight. In Vietnam: we won the fight; in Afghanistan and Iraq: same concllusion, perhaps even more-so.

None of that affects pacification, one whit. You can accomplish that only three ways:
  • Continue to pound your enemy into the dust until any will to resist is gone: the WW-II model.
  • Create a relationship of trust with your adversary that allows them to relate to you positively: currently not achieved anywhere.
  • Win quickly, then hunker-down for the long haul: the Korean model.
It goes without saying that we need to try for the second option, but be prepared for the third. :?

In the future, we need to remember this Hobson's choice before we enter the fray.
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#8118 at 04-28-2004 05:52 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-28-2004, 05:52 PM #8118
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Re: Blitzkreig and Europe

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
In the future, we need to remember this Hobson's choice before we enter the fray.
Um, who says we didn't. Where were you when this debate was going on? I clearly remember hearing, from miriad sources, before the Iraq invasion, arguments along the lines of "Yeah, it'll probably take at least five years. Too bad we didn't start in 1991; it'd already be mostly over."







Post#8119 at 04-28-2004 06:05 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-28-2004, 06:05 PM #8119
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Re: Blitzkreig and Europe

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Rumsfeld made the same assumption that did-in Robert McNamara: that technology is capable of replacing people.
Oh, yeah, it's so much like when we conquered North Vietnam in a month and put Ho Chi Minh's ass in jail.

That old line about not getting into a land war in Asia should have been "Don't get into a land war in East Asia".

Arabia is different. Once, an Israeli general agreed to give a reporter the exclusive secret to his unprecedented military success...

"Fight Arabs." he said.







Post#8120 at 04-28-2004 09:30 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-28-2004, 09:30 PM #8120
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Re: Blitzkreig and Europe

Quote Originally Posted by msm
That old line about not getting into a land war in Asia should have been "Don't get into a land war in East Asia".

Arabia is different. Once, an Israeli general agreed to give a reporter the exclusive secret to his unprecedented military success...

"Fight Arabs." he said.
Works fine as long as you're defending your country against them. Works a lot less well when you're trying to occupy and pacify their country. Seems to me the Israelis are still taking a lot of casualties from that one.

If we'd invaded North Vietnam and jailed Ho, we'd have had a million troops in 'Nam, or more, instead of half a million, taken even more casualties, and pulled out probably about when we did. But assuming such action didn't start World War III, it would probably have delayed the taking of Saigon by a year or two.







Post#8121 at 04-28-2004 11:47 PM by Vince Lamb '59 [at Irish Hills, Michigan joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,997]
---
04-28-2004, 11:47 PM #8121
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Irish Hills, Michigan
Posts
1,997

And now for something more "fluffy"--parental controls taken to the next level and Hollywood's objection to same. Standard disclaimers apply.

New DVD player filters violence, sex and swearing, and Hollywood is unhappy
By Gary Gentile
The Associated Press



LOS ANGELES ? People wanting to automatically mute the foul language in "Seabiscuit" or skip the violence in "The Patriot" have a new option ? a DVD player from RCA that filters content deemed objectionable.

Thomson, which owns the RCA brand, is selling the players in some Wal-Mart and Kmart stores as well as on Wal-Mart's Web site even as the filtering software they employ faces a legal challenge from Hollywood.

"I think there may be a market for something that gives the parent more control and does it in a way that doesn't alter the original presentation," said Dave Arland, an RCA spokesman.

The filtering software is from ClearPlay, which had offered it previously for watching DVDs on computers and began talking to RCA last year about a stand-alone player.

The partners are hoping the current stir over broadcast decency, spurred by Janet Jackson's breast-baring Supper Bowl show, will help boost sales.

"The reality is people have pushed the limit so far, that there are people who want to have that kind of control," Arland said.

The DVD player carries a suggested retail price of about $79 and ships with 100 filters for movies such as "Daredevil" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl."

Filters for newer releases are available each week through a monthly subscription of $4.95, though getting them into the player is cumbersome. The filters are downloaded over the Internet and burned onto a CD for transfer to the DVD player. ClearPlay's library currently contains filters for about 500 movies.

Various filtering levels


RCA has other parental control features on its products, including V-Chips in its television sets, which allow parents to block certain programs in their entirety.

A more recent feature included on select TV sets is called "KidPass," a timer that allows parents to set a limit on daily viewing in 30-minute increments.

The company even tried a DVD-filtering device in 1998 called "scene-snip." The option, developed by RCA, allowed parents to screen a movie and mark scenes they found objectionable. The player would then skip over those scenes when the movie was played. That player was dropped because it was too expensive at a time when DVD players were rapidly falling in price, Arland said.

ClearPlay works in a similar fashion, with employees for the Salt Lake City company watching the movies and noting objectionable areas.

Various filters are then created in four broad categories: violence; sex and nudity; language; and "other," which includes explicit drug use.

Viewers have options within each category. Under language, for instance, viewers can filter for six levels, including "vain reference to the deity" or "strong profanity." Viewers can filter out only the most "graphic violence," or choose a more restrictive "moderate violence" option.

Bad language gets muted and questionable scenes are skipped over.

DVDs also can be watched unfiltered. No filters are created for extra content, including deleted scenes and documentaries. For movies where violence is central, such as "The Passion of the Christ," no filter will be created at all, said Bill Aho, ClearPlay chairman.

"Consumers have always done it," Aho said. "They've covered their eyes or they've stopped the movie or they've fast-forwarded it. This is a practice that has existed ever since the VCR."

Hollywood speaks out


Hollywood studios are not covering their eyes ? or holding their tongues.

"ClearPlay software edits movies to conform to ClearPlay's vision of a movie instead of letting audiences see, and judge for themselves, what writers wrote, what actors said and what directors envisioned," the Directors Guild of America (DGA) said in a statement.

"Ultimately, it is a violation of law and just wrong to profit from selling software that changes the intent of movies you didn't create and don't own," the statement said.

The DGA and studios filed a lawsuit in 2002 against ClearPlay and a Colorado video-rental store, CleanFlicks, which uses its own software to decode a DVD, alter it for content, then burn a new, edited version, back onto a DVD for rental.

The lawsuit is still pending. ClearPlay contends its software is not illegal because it does not alter the original DVD.

RCA's Arland said the company is monitoring the lawsuit but decided to introduce the model after major retailers expressed interest in the technology.

Analysts question how successful the new DVD player will be, especially considering that an existing parental control technology, the V-Chip, is barely used.

"I think they'll sell a few units, but I don't see a groundswell of demand," said Todd Chanko, an analyst with Jupiter Research. "It's only been since Janet Jackson that the FCC has decided to start reminding parents they even have V-Chips."

ClearPlay's Aho said he does not favor censorship and would not want to see regulators dictate the content of films or TV shows.

"If anyone is trying to censor here, it's the studios telling families you shouldn't be able to do this," Aho said.

"That strikes me as having the earmarks of censorship as opposed to us saying, 'Let's give people a choice.'

"If you want to watch 'Kill Bill ? The Director's Cut,' if there is one, then great," Aho said. "That's your choice. But if I choose to watch 'Gladiator' maybe with a little less blood, that's my choice."
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."







Post#8122 at 04-29-2004 05:31 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
04-29-2004, 05:31 AM #8122
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by msm
That old line about not getting into a land war in Asia should have been "Don't get into a land war in East Asia".

Arabia is different. Once, an Israeli general agreed to give a reporter the exclusive secret to his unprecedented military success...

"Fight Arabs." he said.
John Keegan's A History of Warfare provides another perspective on this. He distinguishes between to very different styles of warfare.

Infantry Phalanx warfare he attributes primarily to the Greeks. The saying "Come back with your shield, or on it" is key. When an army is all infantry, and one guy breaking leaves a whole in the shield wall, a culture of duty develops which makes a man stand and fight.

Light horse bowmen develop an entirely different approach to warfare. The Asian steppes horse bow armies were manned by herders. In peace time, the horse bowmen learned how to break small packs of animals away from larger herds, how to force animals to go where desired. Horse bow tactics are based on herding techniques, not standing in rigid formations. It is far more fluid and instinctive.

And a key principle of horse bow tactics is that if you are the one taking excessive casualties, run away, reset, try again. One is not always the herder, but is sometimes the herded. A large part of being on a fast horse is being able to break away from unfortunate circumstances.

Thus, light horse bow battles were often much less lethal than phalanx battles. It was possible to break enemy formations into fragments too small and confused to fight effectively, without causing extreme casualties. There was more maneuver in horse bow battles, less blood.

In 1948, the Israeli heirs of phalanx culture met the Arab heirs of light bow culture. It turned out that with World War II era weapons, the phalanx 'come back with your shield or on it' ethic was more valuable than the horse bow 'he who fights then runs away, lives to fight another day' culture. Mind you, with each war, the Arab's culture changed somewhat. In time, if the overt wars had continued, the cultural differences in how wars are to be fought would have balanced out.

So there is something to the 'fight Arabs' comment. Still, I wouldn't count on it remaining perpetually true. Cultures change. Given necessity, an Arab martial culture compatible with modern weapons could develop.







Post#8123 at 04-29-2004 10:44 AM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-29-2004, 10:44 AM #8123
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
So there is something to the 'fight Arabs' comment. Still, I wouldn't count on it remaining perpetually true. Cultures change. Given necessity, an Arab martial culture compatible with modern weapons could develop.
Oh, absolutely, I agree. It's just a cultural difference.

However, some analysts argue that the difference in martial culture is tied to other, non-martial cultural differences. If they are right, the Arabs won't have militaries effective against the West until their culture changes dramatically, probably rendering Western vs. Arab wars uneccessary.

Put very crudely and simply, if they were smart, they wouldn't be terrorists.

===

China's military culture is very comparable to Western military culture. Much of East Asia is influenced by that. Hence the wisdom of not getting involved in a land war in East Asia, where their greater numbers would actually be effective (unlike Arabia).







Post#8124 at 04-29-2004 11:02 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
04-29-2004, 11:02 AM #8124
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
So there is something to the 'fight Arabs' comment. Still, I wouldn't count on it remaining perpetually true. Cultures change. Given necessity, an Arab martial culture compatible with modern weapons could develop.
Oh, absolutely, I agree. It's just a cultural difference.

However, some analysts argue that the difference in martial culture is tied to other, non-martial cultural differences. If they are right, the Arabs won't have militaries effective against the West until their culture changes dramatically, probably rendering Western vs. Arab wars uneccessary.

Put very crudely and simply, if they were smart, they wouldn't be terrorists.

===

China's military culture is very comparable to Western military culture. Much of East Asia is influenced by that. Hence the wisdom of not getting involved in a land war in East Asia, where their greater numbers would actually be effective (unlike Arabia).
I guess it depends on your definition of effective. A culture that can't win, due to ineffective techniques on the large scale, might be able to be defeated either. You can take their land in a day, but you'll have to sit on it day in and day out to hold it. Move, and it is recliamed. Stay, and suffer hit and run attacks.

That was the Vietnam model, and is the emerging Iraqi model. All guerilla war is similar. The argument that armies must convert to heavy weapons or suffer defeat is specious. Tactics have more to do with success than weaponry - except in the most extreme cases. If a terrorrist destroys a city with a suitcase bomb, even that will no longer apply.
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#8125 at 04-29-2004 11:45 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
04-29-2004, 11:45 AM #8125
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: Phalanx and Horsebows

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Quote Originally Posted by msm
Put very crudely and simply, if they were smart, they wouldn't be terrorists.

===

China's military culture is very comparable to Western military culture. Much of East Asia is influenced by that. Hence the wisdom of not getting involved in a land war in East Asia, where their greater numbers would actually be effective (unlike Arabia).
I guess it depends on your definition of effective. A culture that can't win, due to ineffective techniques on the large scale, might be able to be defeated either. You can take their land in a day, but you'll have to sit on it day in and day out to hold it. Move, and it is recliamed. Stay, and suffer hit and run attacks.

That was the Vietnam model, and is the emerging Iraqi model. All guerilla war is similar. The argument that armies must convert to heavy weapons or suffer defeat is specious. Tactics have more to do with success than weaponry - except in the most extreme cases. If a terrorrist destroys a city with a suitcase bomb, even that will no longer apply.
Yep. Terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction is an unsolved problem. The United States has been unable to seal its borders against illegal drugs. I don't see how we could defend them against chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If someone effectively and repeatedly exploits this vulnerability, all the money we've spent on modern smart weapons might end up being a classic example of 'fighting the last war.'

Thus, I'm not sure we should be calling the terrorists 'stupid' just yet.
-----------------------------------------