Re: Excuse me, msm,
Yep. It's the sort of information one doesn't really want to make available to the casual terrorist wannabe, though those committed and connected enough to gather the amount of raw materials shown in Jordan will not be limited by technical knowledge.Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Re: Excuse me, msm,
Yep. It's the sort of information one doesn't really want to make available to the casual terrorist wannabe, though those committed and connected enough to gather the amount of raw materials shown in Jordan will not be limited by technical knowledge.
Can I be a Radical?
My problem is the lack of a radical view developing. On the 3T / 4T cusp the heirs of the Sons of Liberty and Abolitionists ought to have a view of what is profoundly wrong and how to fix it. Well, there is no lack of people who think something profoundly wrong in Washington. A solution to the 'vision thing,' and consensus on what the next level of civilization ought to be like and how to get there would be nice.
To date, the Establishment seem too secure for my taste.
Can I be a Radical?
My problem is the lack of a radical view developing. On the 3T / 4T cusp the heirs of the Sons of Liberty and Abolitionists ought to have a view of what is profoundly wrong and how to fix it. Well, there is no lack of people who think something profoundly wrong in Washington. A solution to the 'vision thing,' and consensus on what the next level of civilization ought to be like and how to get there would be nice.
To date, the Establishment seem too secure for my taste.
Or perhaps...
Or, alternately, the Democrats were the party of the future during the Depression / WW II crisis, advocating intervention in the economy and world power status. The Republicans resisted, with Hoover's balanced budget pre-Keynesian classic approach to economics, and with isolationism. In 1972 and thereabouts, the Democrats remained the party of the future, picking up anti-war, feminist, ecological and other awakening values. The Republican inherited FDR's economic and international interventionist policies.Sorry, dude, you ain't gettin' it. Democrats became a national party by guiding this country into the #1 position. Having thus done so, they then had a change of heart and repented of this sin in 1972. The GOP picked up the ball and continued to run with it. Go, America! You're still #1.
The problem is focus. FDR and democratic demand side economics was focused towards the working classes, while supply side focuses benefits on the investors. FDR and the Cold War era policies were based on containment of potentially expansionist autocratic regimes. Neocon policy seems tainted by oil interests. Thus, it isn't quite right to say the Republicans have fully caught up to where the Democrats were in 1941. They are still the party of the past.
Not clear. I see Iraq as a dry run for the crisis proper. Bush 41's Somalia intervention as modified by Clinton wasn't perfect. Lessons were learned, and applied in the Balkans and East Timor. Bush 43's first steps in the War on Terror might also provide major lessons learned... the need for international cooperation, the troop intensive requirements to win the peace, a greater emphasis on not just talking human rights, but living up to one's talk.
My Magic 8 Ball seems to be clearing up some. America is going to soon want out of Iraq as much as Iraq wants them out. Iraq ends up a truly independent state, not a Yankee neo-colony, not much more friendly or hostile to the US than other states in the region. The US ends up with few to no friendly bases in the Persian Gulf region. With Saddam gone, there are few to no reasons for anyone to invite the US back in. There might be fewer reasons for the US to want to go back in.
A half dozen years in the future, AIDS gives us Africa as a failed continent, the next step up from a failed state. At that point, we may have to reconsider the lessons learned from Iraq.
Thus, it is possible to view the divided opinions about Bush as typical 3T feuding, rather than assume Bush's policies are the best and final result of the regeneracy. I tend to agree that the issues related to Iraq are going to be vital, but the US changes too much to assume the Iraq policies will be followed throughout the crisis. While Bush seems reluctant to acknowledge mistakes, they are there, and whomever is in charge is apt to do things a bit different next time around.
Different mistakes, next time. It might take us a decade or two to get it more or less right.
Or perhaps...
Or, alternately, the Democrats were the party of the future during the Depression / WW II crisis, advocating intervention in the economy and world power status. The Republicans resisted, with Hoover's balanced budget pre-Keynesian classic approach to economics, and with isolationism. In 1972 and thereabouts, the Democrats remained the party of the future, picking up anti-war, feminist, ecological and other awakening values. The Republican inherited FDR's economic and international interventionist policies.Sorry, dude, you ain't gettin' it. Democrats became a national party by guiding this country into the #1 position. Having thus done so, they then had a change of heart and repented of this sin in 1972. The GOP picked up the ball and continued to run with it. Go, America! You're still #1.
The problem is focus. FDR and democratic demand side economics was focused towards the working classes, while supply side focuses benefits on the investors. FDR and the Cold War era policies were based on containment of potentially expansionist autocratic regimes. Neocon policy seems tainted by oil interests. Thus, it isn't quite right to say the Republicans have fully caught up to where the Democrats were in 1941. They are still the party of the past.
Not clear. I see Iraq as a dry run for the crisis proper. Bush 41's Somalia intervention as modified by Clinton wasn't perfect. Lessons were learned, and applied in the Balkans and East Timor. Bush 43's first steps in the War on Terror might also provide major lessons learned... the need for international cooperation, the troop intensive requirements to win the peace, a greater emphasis on not just talking human rights, but living up to one's talk.
My Magic 8 Ball seems to be clearing up some. America is going to soon want out of Iraq as much as Iraq wants them out. Iraq ends up a truly independent state, not a Yankee neo-colony, not much more friendly or hostile to the US than other states in the region. The US ends up with few to no friendly bases in the Persian Gulf region. With Saddam gone, there are few to no reasons for anyone to invite the US back in. There might be fewer reasons for the US to want to go back in.
A half dozen years in the future, AIDS gives us Africa as a failed continent, the next step up from a failed state. At that point, we may have to reconsider the lessons learned from Iraq.
Thus, it is possible to view the divided opinions about Bush as typical 3T feuding, rather than assume Bush's policies are the best and final result of the regeneracy. I tend to agree that the issues related to Iraq are going to be vital, but the US changes too much to assume the Iraq policies will be followed throughout the crisis. While Bush seems reluctant to acknowledge mistakes, they are there, and whomever is in charge is apt to do things a bit different next time around.
Different mistakes, next time. It might take us a decade or two to get it more or less right.
Re: Can I be a Radical?
We' just now beginning to see the hints of a radical Boomer tendency emerging. It's still flickering and unsteady, but I'm starting to hear, in things being said and insults being hurled, a hint of what S&H were referring to when they referred to Elder Idealist radicalism, and I think a few years from now we'll be seeing it bright and clear.My problem is the lack of a radical view developing. On the 3T / 4T cusp the heirs of the Sons of Liberty and Abolitionists ought to have a view of what is profoundly wrong and how to fix it. Well, there is no lack of people who think something profoundly wrong in Washington. A solution to the 'vision thing,' and consensus on what the next level of civilization ought to be like and how to get there would be nice.
To date, the Establishment seem too secure for my taste.
It's showing up a little more in America right now than in Europe, which fits if my suspicion that Europe is a few to several years behind us in the Cycle is accurate.
Re: Can I be a Radical?
We' just now beginning to see the hints of a radical Boomer tendency emerging. It's still flickering and unsteady, but I'm starting to hear, in things being said and insults being hurled, a hint of what S&H were referring to when they referred to Elder Idealist radicalism, and I think a few years from now we'll be seeing it bright and clear.My problem is the lack of a radical view developing. On the 3T / 4T cusp the heirs of the Sons of Liberty and Abolitionists ought to have a view of what is profoundly wrong and how to fix it. Well, there is no lack of people who think something profoundly wrong in Washington. A solution to the 'vision thing,' and consensus on what the next level of civilization ought to be like and how to get there would be nice.
To date, the Establishment seem too secure for my taste.
It's showing up a little more in America right now than in Europe, which fits if my suspicion that Europe is a few to several years behind us in the Cycle is accurate.
Re: Post 9.11 Torture Ethics
Historically, the American public has shown a distinct tendency to default to Option 1 when the chips are down. The Jacksonian component of American psychology tends to prefer either total peace, or ruthless all-out war with 'anything goes' the rule. It's certainly the Fourth Turning mode we saw at work in the Civil War and World War II.
I've already been hearing some people I know saying things that look a lot like Option 1 thinking.
Re: Post 9.11 Torture Ethics
Historically, the American public has shown a distinct tendency to default to Option 1 when the chips are down. The Jacksonian component of American psychology tends to prefer either total peace, or ruthless all-out war with 'anything goes' the rule. It's certainly the Fourth Turning mode we saw at work in the Civil War and World War II.
I've already been hearing some people I know saying things that look a lot like Option 1 thinking.
Jacksonian war
Actually, there are two modes of fighting accepted by Jacksonians.
#1. War in which both sides fight according to honor and the accepted rules of war. This includes a formal declaration of war and the decent treatment of POWs. This is a war fought hard, but it is possible to accord respect to an honorable opponent. Such an opponent may be allowed a conditional surrender, but the pre-war political goals must be abandoned.
Note-honorable opponents do not include terrorists who hijack airliners and fly them into skyscrapers.
#2. Those who want a dirty fight will get one.
Jacksonian war
Actually, there are two modes of fighting accepted by Jacksonians.
#1. War in which both sides fight according to honor and the accepted rules of war. This includes a formal declaration of war and the decent treatment of POWs. This is a war fought hard, but it is possible to accord respect to an honorable opponent. Such an opponent may be allowed a conditional surrender, but the pre-war political goals must be abandoned.
Note-honorable opponents do not include terrorists who hijack airliners and fly them into skyscrapers.
#2. Those who want a dirty fight will get one.
Re: Jacksonian war
In theory, yes. In practical terms, especially during Fourth Turnings, most historical cases of option 1 have shown a distinct tendency to drift toward Option 2 on the ground.
Re: Jacksonian war
In theory, yes. In practical terms, especially during Fourth Turnings, most historical cases of option 1 have shown a distinct tendency to drift toward Option 2 on the ground.
In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology. Although, liberals seem to want the country to stay on the same track as set out by Roosevelt. Sadly, in American turnings, it appears that the group pressing for major change is the one that prevails in the end. eg. the Revolutionaries, the North, New Deal. I fear that if the Dems don't come up with a more radical platform, we will go the way of other 4T groups that were content with the way the country was going in the 3T. :-(
Although those outcomes were desirable. Ours may be the first that sucks.
In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology. Although, liberals seem to want the country to stay on the same track as set out by Roosevelt. Sadly, in American turnings, it appears that the group pressing for major change is the one that prevails in the end. eg. the Revolutionaries, the North, New Deal. I fear that if the Dems don't come up with a more radical platform, we will go the way of other 4T groups that were content with the way the country was going in the 3T. :-(
Although those outcomes were desirable. Ours may be the first that sucks.
Vacuum
Some would posit that the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression and the antics of "That Man" were less than desired. And, the First Nations could argue that the "pressing for major change" by the Revolutionaries was largely pressed upon their wigwams and happy hunting grounds west of the Appalachians.
"Suck" may depend upon the positions in Progress.
Vacuum
Some would posit that the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression and the antics of "That Man" were less than desired. And, the First Nations could argue that the "pressing for major change" by the Revolutionaries was largely pressed upon their wigwams and happy hunting grounds west of the Appalachians.
"Suck" may depend upon the positions in Progress.
I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.
Religion always sets the general background tone of a society, that's just the way things are. You can never have a society where religion is purely a private matter, irrelevant to public policy. As for governmental policy, the GOP is no more theocratic than the Democrats.
They already have. It's the McGovernite philosophy. The Democrats have not been the party of Truman or Roosevelt in decades.
and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology.
I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.
Religion always sets the general background tone of a society, that's just the way things are. You can never have a society where religion is purely a private matter, irrelevant to public policy. As for governmental policy, the GOP is no more theocratic than the Democrats.
They already have. It's the McGovernite philosophy. The Democrats have not been the party of Truman or Roosevelt in decades.
and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology.
The outcome of the Civil War (600,000 dead and wounded and racial equality delayed by decades) was desirable? You have a peculiar definition of desirable.
The outcome of the Civil War (600,000 dead and wounded and racial equality delayed by decades) was desirable? You have a peculiar definition of desirable.
Acton Ellis wrote:
In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology. Although, liberals seem to want the country to stay on the same track as set out by Roosevelt. Sadly, in American turnings, it appears that the group pressing for major change is the one that prevails in the end. eg. the Revolutionaries, the North, New Deal. I fear that if the Dems don't come up with a more radical platform, we will go the way of other 4T groups that were content with the way the country was going in the 3T.
Although those outcomes were desirable. Ours may be the first that sucks.
The outcome of the Civil War (600,000 dead and wounded and racial equality delayed by decades) was desirable? You have a peculiar definition of desirable.
When I said that, I meant that the right groups won, not that everything worked out perfectly. You're right. The North could've handled reconstruction better but boy am I glad they won. Little persnickety are we?
Acton Ellis wrote:
In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy and policy being preemptive strikes whenever we feel like it? What we will be seeing is the Dems coming up with a truly competetive ideology. Although, liberals seem to want the country to stay on the same track as set out by Roosevelt. Sadly, in American turnings, it appears that the group pressing for major change is the one that prevails in the end. eg. the Revolutionaries, the North, New Deal. I fear that if the Dems don't come up with a more radical platform, we will go the way of other 4T groups that were content with the way the country was going in the 3T.
Although those outcomes were desirable. Ours may be the first that sucks.
The outcome of the Civil War (600,000 dead and wounded and racial equality delayed by decades) was desirable? You have a peculiar definition of desirable.
When I said that, I meant that the right groups won, not that everything worked out perfectly. You're right. The North could've handled reconstruction better but boy am I glad they won. Little persnickety are we?
The end of slavery probably outweighs the other effects of the civil war like the destruction of the South's industral base, it's economic colonization by the North and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I do not think there could been anyother way to abolish slavery outright.
