Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by William J. Lemmiwinks

Good post.

Well, many aspects of the last 3T's culture wars did wrap up early in 4T. For example Prohibition ended and the "Monkey Trial" type cultural conflict went into remission. Even in our isolationism America was fairly united. It is on economic issues that I think there was more controversy than Strauss & Howe care to recall. The key here is that "survival" became paramount, and that trumped any 3T nonsense.

Yet, as you note, isolationism was a trans-turning survivor and not weeded out by the switch to survival mode. Indeed, entry into another European war could have been interpreted as reminiscent of 3T adventurism and thus "nonsense" and a luxury society could not afford. As soon as the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declard war on us, World War no longer seemed nonsensical and 3T, but essential to win and 4T in nature.

That's my quick take anyway.

This time 'round the closing of the Culture Wars will depend on whether or not the sides find a way to be self-contained, as the North and the South did in the Civil War cycle. This containment, or distinctiveness, doesn't necessarily have to be exclusively geographic, as the Spanish Civil War bears out.

As crazy as it sounds to me now, my T4T study does suggest to me that when a 4T mood kicks in, if the sides in the Culture Wars do not find a way to synthesize or otherwise desist, the survival mode aspect of the 4T mood may very well ratchet up the conflict to the level of civil war. Will Al Qaeda screw up that outcome (from their POV) and offer a uniting motif? God I hope so, if civil war is the alternative.

Well, I think that you can put your fears of a civil war to rest. There's nothing at all, beyond overheated rhetoric, to suggest that any segment of the American population is mobilizing or capable of mobilizing for war. It's just not demographically plausible. (I find it hard to imagine a scenario, for example, in which the extremely patriotic conservative Democrats that make up the rank and file of America's labor unions would take up arms against the government.)

I'm also of the opinion that the war in Iraq isn't nearly as big a deal as we imagine it to be at the moment. A couple months ago, much political hay was made of the statistic that more people died in the first year of the war in Iraq than in the first three years of Vietnam, but this was misleading at best, given the nature of America's involvement during the first three years of Vietnam and the nature of the conflict. It's more telling, in my opinion, that we suffered more casualties during the rigorous training for D-Day than we have in Iraq so far. That's a good example of the kind of sacrifices we're willing to put up with during a Crisis.

This is coupled with the fact that public sentiment concerning the war in Iraq is hard to pin down. Similarly, much political hay has been made about polls showing quite a bit of dissatisfaction with the President's handling of the war or with the war itself. But polls can be, and often are, misleading. They capture moments in time. A poll taken during the publicized siege of Fallujah, when facts on the ground were hard to come by and the objectives the military was trying to achieve were too complicated for a soundbite, would likely show more dissatisfaction. A poll taken after the beheading of Nick Berg, might show less.

This is because, as World War II taught us, public opinion is far more fluid than most people believe. Had pollsters queried the public about their opinions of American involvement in the war in Europe and Asia on December 6th, 1941 and December 7th, 1941, then there would have been a massive difference. This was a massive an obvious shift in public opinion, but smaller pebbles still do make smaller waves.

I bring this up because, using the neighborhood I grew up in as a reference point, it seems that at least some people who are dissatisfied with the President's handling of the war or the war itself have different reasons for their opinions than might be expected. During the Fallujah siege, for example, they were dissatisfied with the military's plan because they felt that the administration was putting potential civilian casualties ahead of the lives of our Marines by not allowing them to take charge of the city. They were dissatisfied because they perceived that our Marines were having their hands tied, not necessarily because they were against the war.

The war in Iraq is not seen by the public as a war for survival, or even a struggle for survival just yet. It's pretty likely that it won't be, but all of the ingredients are there, and the phase that the war moves into after Iraq may very well be.

I agree that right now a Civil War II scenario seems pretty outlandish. I'm just saying that once a 4T mood kicks in all sorts of things are possible. Either the Culture Wars will remit or worsen catastrophically.

I agree that Iraq is thus far a 3T war: Lots of early enthusiasm without much consensus or follow through.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Could this be a relatively-benign sign of what S&H referred to in "T4T" as Americans "choosing not to be burdened by choice"?

Yep, 4T alright. Sacrifice (ie., pain and doing without) is the beginning of wisdom, and the victory of guilt.

May guilt and pain triumph over plenty and "choice." Amen. 8)

Uh-buoy.

Marc, I really don't think anyone's feeling guilty over not providing me with the right style of khakis! I don't think sacrifice is quite the word either. It's more like...as HC implied, choosing between myriad similar items produces an incredible amount of stress, and wastes a lot of time that might be spent more productively. Considering that at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what style pants you buy, or what color car you drive home, simplification is indeed a form of wisdom.

A few nights ago I had a beer with an early-Xer conservative Republican from Nebraska. He lamented a great many things, most prominently the escalating price of gas (which makes shuttling his kids around to soccer games more difficult)...and the demise of the sort of neighborhood cohesiveness that apparently lingered in Nebraska well into the Awakening. I actually sympathized with his plight on these particular issues...although two-fifty-a-gallon gas hasn't really affected me much personally, I do wish I had kids to shuttle around and cheer at their games. And I do still miss the sort of neighborhood that was mine from about 1964-70.

Then I had a flash of insight. I said to him....what if the rising price of gas turned out to have a silver lining? Before his eyes started rolling, I expounded... OK, what if gas went to say $7 per gallon (ow!), and all the soccer moms and dads could no longer afford to drive 200 miles a week shuttling their kids to activities all over Clark County in 9 mpg SUVs? Might activities gradually be held closer and closer to home? Might people spend more time getting to know and forming friendships among their neighbors? In summary, might rising gasoline prices force us back, in maybe a decade's time, to the sort of neighborhoods most of us in our heart of hearts really want?

He didn't disagree with me.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Globalization is, primarily, a technological phenomenon.

No its not. It's a political thing. What enables globalization is faith that investments made abroad won't be confiscated for political reasons. Consider, the government of China is still officially Communist. Communist countries nationalized foreign investments in the past.

We believe those days are behind us. We believe that Red China will continue to support our government by continuing to buy huge quantities of US government paper. We believe this because we believe the Chinese government and people to be sensible, rational actors would could never in our wildest dreams engage in something as irrational as the Cultural Revolution.

Who is 'we'? I never believed any such thing, and still don't.

We meaning those who invest in China and other places without long histories of respect for property rights of foreigners.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Globalization is, primarily, a technological phenomenon.

No its not. It's a political thing. What enables globalization is faith that investments made abroad won't be confiscated for political reasons. Consider, the government of China is still officially Communist. Communist countries nationalized foreign investments in the past.

We believe those days are behind us. We believe that Red China will continue to support our government by continuing to buy huge quantities of US government paper. We believe this because we believe the Chinese government and people to be sensible, rational actors would could never in our wildest dreams engage in something as irrational as the Cultural Revolution.

Who is 'we'? I never believed any such thing, and still don't.

We meaning those who invest in China and other places without long histories of respect for property rights of foreigners.

Nor do I.

This is wishful thinking at best on part of greedy investors and corporate officers alike. At worst, it's that they really don't expect the gravy train to last forever and fully believe that the fu&*ing Red Chinese will eventually seize their companies' assets for the State...they also expect to be able to read the handwriting on the wall far enough in advance, and liquidate their investments before the hammer falls.

It is the latter I tend to believe, for you can believe that these people did not amass their riches by being stupid. They simply do not care about American workers, American consumers, or even the long-term viability of their very own American companies. All that matters to them is their own short-term profit... which is ironic, since it isn't like they can take it with them when they die anyway! But remember the old 80's adage: He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

No its not. It's a political thing. What enables globalization is faith that investments made abroad won't be confiscated for political reasons. Consider, the government of China is still officially Communist. Communist countries nationalized foreign investments in the past.

We believe those days are behind us. We believe that Red China will continue to support our government by continuing to buy huge quantities of US government paper. We believe this because we believe the Chinese government and people to be sensible, rational actors would could never in our wildest dreams engage in something as irrational as the Cultural Revolution.

The current Chinese leadership are cautious people who want stability and to make money. Once the red guard generation (China's version of the Boomers) comes to power. Things might change, however for the time being we should be concerned about China, however not panic.

Originally Posted by Tristan

The current Chinese leadership are cautious people who want stability and to make money. Once the red guard generation (China's version of the Boomers) comes to power. Things might change, however for the time being we should be concerned about China, however not panic.

If the Red Guard generation comes into power. As I read the Chinese awakening, it split into two phases. The early phases were reactionary. Mao was still around, preaching ideology above practicality. He managed to starve millions to death. After his death, the 'Four Modernization' period reversed the balanced between the 'Red' ideologues and the 'Expert' faction that was concerned with getting a real economy going. While the progress towards political freedoms ended when the 'silent' equivalents took power, the 'Experts' have been making slow steady progress against the 'Reds' on the economic front all the way through.

To me, the failure of the 'Great Leap Forward' and similar red programs as compared to the practical gains of the 'expert' programs makes me doubt that the Red Guard faction intends a repeat performance. If anything, I would not be surprised to see the Chinese People reject some of the more corrupt and rigid aspects of their autocratic system. Communism, given enough time, might just fade away. More likely, the People are going to have to sweep it away.

We'll have to see...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...224075,00.html

US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war

? Inquiry into Tehran's role in starting conflict
? Top Pentagon ally Chalabi accused

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian

An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.

According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.

The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.

The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."

Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."

Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib.

However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.

"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."

"As for Aras Karim [Habib] being a paid agent for Iranian intelligence, we have very good reason to believe that is the case," added the intelligence official, who did not want to be named. He said it was unclear how long this INC-Iranian collaboration had been going on, but pointed out that Mr Chalabi had had overt links with Tehran "for a long period of time".

An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials.

"This was 'sensitive compartmented information' - SCI - and it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib," the intelligence source said.

Mr Habib, a Shia Kurd who is being sought by Iraqi police since a raid on INC headquarters last week, has been Mr Chalabi's righthand man for more than a decade. He ran a Pentagon-funded intelligence collection programme in the run-up to the invasion and put US officials in touch with Iraqi defectors who made claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Those claims helped make the case for war but have since proved groundless, and US intelligence agencies are now scrambling to determine whether false information was passed to the US with Iranian connivance.

INC representatives in Washington did not return calls seeking comment.

But Laurie Mylroie, a US Iraq analyst and one of the INC's most vocal backers in Washington, dismissed the allegations as the product of a grudge among CIA and state department officials driven by a pro-Sunni, anti-Shia bias.

She said that after the CIA raised questions about Mr Habib's Iranian links, the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a lie-detector test on him in 2002, which he passed with "flying colours".

The DIA is also reported to have launched its own inquiry into the INC-Iran link.

An intelligence source in Washington said the FBI investigation into the affair would begin with Mr Chalabi's "handlers" in the Pentagon, who include William Luti, the former head of the office of special plans, and his immediate superior, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defence for policy.

There is no evidence that they were the source of the leaks. Other INC supporters at the Pentagon may have given away classified information in an attempt to give Mr Chalabi an advantage in the struggle for power surrounding the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30.

The CIA allegations bring to a head a dispute between the CIA and the Pentagon officials instrumental in promoting Mr Chalabi and his intelligence in the run-up to the war. By calling for an FBI counter-intelligence investigation, the CIA is, in effect, threatening to disgrace senior neo-conservatives in the Pentagon.

"This is people who opposed the war with long knives drawn for people who supported the war," Ms Mylroie said.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
We were tricked into invading Iraq by the Iranians?
Call me cynical, but it's hard to believe that Dick Cheney was duped.

Originally Posted by cbailey

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Call me cynical, but this is insane.

Advocate for the Devil would call you anything but "cynical." A bit partisan, but never cynical. In the fog of war the first thing obscured is the truth. As the true cynic HL Mencken noted during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, "their [the media] dispatches from the front are nothing more than rooting for the home team [the U.S.A.]."

Now that's real cynicism!

But now, wrt Iraq, on the other hand, we have a media that rarely if ever roots for the home team.

Now that's the power of positive thinking, in my book! :wink:

Originally Posted by cbailey

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
We were tricked into invading Iraq by the Iranians?
Call me cynical, but it's hard to believe that Dick Cheney was duped.

I hope it isn't so. We shall see.

The fact that until this war, Chalabi had not stepped foot in Iraq since 1958 (when he was thirteen) never gave me much confidence in him to actually lead the country.

• Santa Fe rethinking doggie seat belt proposal
  SANTA FE (AP) ? The city of Santa Fe is rethinking a proposed rewrite of its animal control ordinance that would have required dogs to wear seat belts in cars.

4T :wink:

. .. well, I wouldn't say THAT. Certainly our current neocon crew needed no encouragement from anyone to invade Iraq. However, we may have been encouraged to do so by the Iranians, and at the rate things are going, with the Shi'ites looking to take power in Iraq, they may turn out to be the big winners. Amazing, really.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. .. well, I wouldn't say THAT. Certainly our current neocon crew needed no encouragement from anyone to invade Iraq. However, we may have been encouraged to do so by the Iranians, and at the rate things are going, with the Shi'ites looking to take power in Iraq, they may turn out to be the big winners. Amazing, really.

And yet, Iran has a division of power between their conservative clerics and a solid democracy movement. Things are interesting.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. .. well, I wouldn't say THAT. Certainly our current neocon crew needed no encouragement from anyone to invade Iraq. However, we may have been encouraged to do so by the Iranians, and at the rate things are going, with the Shi'ites looking to take power in Iraq, they may turn out to be the big winners. Amazing, really.

David K '47

Yes. Amazing.

What a fudge-up. A complete and utter fudge-up. Brought to you by our very own Soft Trotskyites.

The Radical Center's Michael Lind accuses

Wikipedia

The National Review unwittingly confirms (worthy of M. Lamb's blather)

Rectify or Remove the content free Cant of "REFORM"

...The reformist impulse, the late historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote, "often wanders over the border between reality and impossibility." Because reformers habitually embrace utopian goals, results routinely fall short and breed disappointment.

To this old cycle of disillusionment has now been added something new. It's not just that reformers are frequently unrealistic. They've also become increasingly manipulative. Reform projects serve as vehicles for personal and partisan self-promotion. It's clever advertising to depict your adversaries as selfish, sinister or stodgy. Journalists do the same. I confess that I've attached reform to some of my favorite ideas.

What I'm arguing now is that our debates would be more candid, rigorous and productive if we abandoned the very notion of reform and concentrated on the actual virtues and vices of whatever is being proposed. Reform is a dangerous simplifier and filter, designed to screen out honest skepticism and dissent. The reform we really need is to drop the word altogether. Almost certainly, we won't get it.

Seduced by 'Reform'
by Mr. Robert J. Samuelson in the 2 June 2004 number of the Washington Post.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121608,00.html

More Girls Push Retailers to Sell Modest Clothing

A more modest look is in, some fashion experts say....

Shoppers are starting to see higher waistlines and lower hemlines, and tweeds, fitted blazers and layers are expected to be big this fall, Schanen said.

"It's kind of like a sexy take on a librarian," she said. "I think people are tired of seeing so much skin and want to leave a little more to the imagination."

The Web sites ModestApparelUSA.com and ModestByDesign.com ? where the slogan is "Clothing your father would be proud of" ? report that sales have skyrocketed over the past 18 months.

Many youngsters are frustrated by the profusion of racy teenage clothing, according to Buzz Marketing, a New Jersey-based firm that compiles feedback from teen advisers.

"There is just sensory overload. Kids are going to say enough already," said Buzz's 24-year-old chief executive, Tina Wells. "The next big trend I see is kids are going to look like monks."

4T anyone?! bwahahahaha!

Originally Posted by Paul Begala

Originally Posted by Robert J. Samuelson

To this old cycle of disillusionment has now been added something new. It's not just that reformers are frequently unrealistic. They've also become increasingly manipulative. Reform projects serve as vehicles for personal and partisan self-promotion. It's clever advertising to depict your adversaries as selfish, sinister or stodgy.

I hate the Boomers.

It is my contention that the single greatest sin a generation can commit is the sin of selfishness.

I have a big contention with Begala's contention, but regardless I have little doubt that America is headed to a bloody civil war. And to put it simply, this war will be fought over the misunderstanding of one word: selfishness.

Begala is an intense moralist, a twenty-first century Puritan. The only thing missing is the funny looking clothes. Everything else that would define a "Puritan" is written right there in his article. It is easy to compare Begala to another Puritan of his day, Franklin Roosevelt, because Roosevelt said exactly the very same thing in 1944:

• If ever there was a time to subordinate individual or group selfishness to the national good, that time is now. Disunity at home?bickerings, self-seeking partisanship, stoppages of work, inflation, business as usual, politics as usual, luxury as usual these are the influences which can undermine the morale of the brave men ready to die at the front for us here.

Thus the moralist speaks, demanding an end to "individual or group selfishness to the national good." Begala would no doubt cheer these very words while at the very same time doing as his does now: bicker, sow disunity, practise politics as usual, and engage in rabid partisanship.

Of course the reader might say, "But FDR was speaking during World War II, and things are much different today. So what Al Gore did the other day was right and just." Yes, it is always "different now" when the Democrats decide that it is. During the presidential campaign of 1944, Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate running against FDR, decided to make Roosevelt's handling of Pearl Harbor a political issue. There was talk that since we had broken the Japanese codes FDR probably knew about the attack before it happened. So Dewey obviously figured the American people might be in a mood to do exactly what Al Gore and the Democrats are doing today: stir up the mud and see what shakes out.

No doubt, in 1944, bickering over who knew what in December of 1941 would be to "practise politics as usual, and engage in rabid partisanship." Well, Dewey actually did opt out of this issue for the simple reason of "national good." General Marshall caught wind of Dewey's plans, and talked him out of it for the simple reason that it would tip the Japs off that we had indeed broken their codes.

No such opting out of pure partisanship and politics as usual in our post 9/11 war on terror. Nope, instead I am quite sure that Begala would defend his rapid anti-Bush rants as very patriotic stuff, and all the while accuse Bush of fighting a "selfish" war that is all about oil. Furthermore Begala would accuse Bush of denying the American people the chance to truly show their patriotic colors by not demanding that they junk their SUVs and do without heating and air conditioning.

And so the war, the real one in America, goes on and on.

But one day you liberals will be running the show, and you will demand that America "sacrfice" for the "national good." The issue may be over oil, or may be even over "gay marriage." That issue really doesn't matter. What matters is the meaning of "self," and who defines it.

On that score Begala is one big hypocrite. :wink:


Caution: Portions of this post were pre-recorded (bolded emphasis mine)

Two related stories. In isolation, they don't mean much, but they could be part of a larger trend. Standard disclaimers apply.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2619847

Dallas police use photos to scare prostitute patrons

Associated Press

DALLAS -- Men who pick up scantily clad women on
street corners or other places around town may get a
little more exposure than they bargained for.

The Dallas Police Department this week began posting
on its Web site the pictures of so-called "Johns"
arrested for soliciting prostitution. Names, birth
dates and hometowns of the alleged offenders are also
listed.

Some cities only publish the photos of those
convicted, but the Dallas site posts photos of those
arrested for prostitution-related offenses. Officials
say photos will be promptly removed if charges are
dropped or a defendant is found not guilty.

On the Dallas site, the photo gallery
labeled "indecency related offenses" features a
diverse catalog of men, many sitting in their
vehicles, seat belts still strapped, photographed at
the scene of their alleged crimes, which include
prostitution, public lewdness and indecent exposure.

The site has gotten lots of traffic since it went up
Monday, said Lt. John Dagen.

In the first 24 hours, the site had more than 4,100
hits, he said. During the next 24 hours, it got 7,000.
Many of the arrests featured were made by undercover
vice squads.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0402/10/b02-60215.htm

Tuesday, February 10, 2004


Police blitz nets 100 prostitutes

Detroit chief vows to keep pressure on the city's criminals

By David G. Grant / The Detroit News

DETROIT ? Undercover Detroit police arrested more than 100 prostitutes during a 24-hour blitz in west side neighborhoods that were targeted because of residents? complaints about prostitution near their homes.

Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings said the blitz is part of her promise to residents that the police department would put more focus on neighborhoods.

?I pledged to the community that police officers? efforts would increase the focus on prostitution and improve the quality of life in ... Detroit,? said Bully-Cummings.

The blitz began 6 a.m. Saturday in the 2nd (Schaefer), 4th (Fort Street), 6th (Plymouth), 8th (Grand River), 10th (Livernois), and 12th (Palmer Park) Precincts on the west side. Police arrested 95 women and nine men.

The prostitutes, who were all ticketed and will have to appear in court, ranged in age from 18- to 59-years old.

Assistant Police Chief Harold Cureton said officers drove around the targeted areas and when they spotted prostitutes flagging down johns, they were arrested before the act began.

?This was a focus on the prostitutes and not the men wanting to pay for the sex,? Cureton said. ?We (had) been going after the johns. We wanted to let the prostitutes know we have not forgotten about them.?

?We will be doing other operations like this throughout the city,? he added.

The freeway that's being rebult is only 14 years old, and disaster puts mildly the immediate consequences on traffic.

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjo...etchofdel.html

Key stretch of Del. 1 to be closed
Section between Del. 273, U.S. 13 split is crumbling
By PATRICK JACKSON
Dover Bureau reporter
06/18/2004

Just a year after state officials celebrated the completion of Del. 1, Transportation Secretary Nathan Hayward III said Thursday that a key stretch of the highway needs to be shut down next year so it can be completely rebuilt.

The concrete is crumbling along a segment between the U.S. 13 split at Tybouts Corner and Del. 273, which was the first section of the road built from 1987 to 1993.

The problem is common in concrete produced in the 1970s and '80s after environmental regulations changed the way it was made. Similar problems forced the state to rebuild sections of I-495 during the 1990s.

It will not be an easy thing to fix on a road that now is a main commuting artery for people living south of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal who work in northern New Castle County. Reconstruction will cost about $10 million and take a full construction season to complete. The work could begin next year.

"It's very sick pavement ... and there is no cure other than rebuilding," Hayward said. Legislators have included $1 million in the capital budget for next year to plan the work.

State officials conceded serious delays are inevitable.

"It's going to be awful," Hayward said. "There are already backups at the split. Can you imagine what that will be like when this goes to one lane? With all the growth since that road's been built, there are a lot of people who rely on it and not many good ways to get around without it."

It will mean an even earlier commute to a job in Wilmington for Chris Slusser, an engineer who lives in Caravel Woods near Lums Pond State Park.

"I already get up early to avoid problems now," he said.

The crumbling concrete cannot be chewed up and recycled - or paved over. The roadbed must be completely rebuilt, said Carolann Wicks, the Department of Transportation's chief engineer. Wicks said concrete highways with normal maintenance are expected to last 30 to 40 years.

Rep. Roger P. Roy, R-Limestone Hills, a co-chairman of the Legislature's Bond Bill Committee, said engineers predicted concrete crumbling on Del. 1 when the I-495 problems were discovered. But no one knew how long it would take a chemical reaction to eat away the highway to the point that it had to be replaced.

Senate Majority Leader Harris B. McDowell III, D-Wilmington North, said the problem suggests a failing by previous generations of DelDOT officials.

"It amazes me that the Romans laid concrete 2,000 years ago that's still in service and that we can't get concrete that lasts 30 years," he said.

Hayward and Wicks told the Bond Bill committee Thursday that DelDOT was exploring construction options to try to ease the impact on motorists.

Those options include shutting down one side of the highway at a time and using the other side for one-lane, two-way traffic. The state also could keep one lane open to traffic on both sides of the road. But it's going to be a nightmare for thousands of commuters no matter what option is chosen, Hayward said.

"We've had to close down major highways for work before, and we'll do what we can to make it easier," Gov. Ruth Ann Minner said . "But in the end, we'll all have to bite the bullet and tough this out."

Reach Patrick Jackson at 678-4274 or pjackson@delawareonline.com.

The current conduct of the war on terror shows both Third and Fourth Turning signs, the campaign in Afghanistan was a Fourth Turning operation, while the war since then has been a third turning affair, with some fourth turning traits. For example people do not seem as enthusiastic at the start about the war on terror as they were when the Gulf War started. They seem glummer in their mood and seeing the war as a necessary thing to be done, a very Fourth Turning response.

I think some outrage will occur in the near future which will turn the War on terror into a fourth turning conflict. The Boomers in response will demand the complete and total destruction of Al Qaeda and the nation will mobilse around the effort the kind which has not been seen since World War Two.

I probably had the most third turning reaction out of any Fourth Turning posters when 911 occurred, even before 911 when I learned about the outrages the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan I was demanding these people be destroyed and after 911 I was pretty gung ho for the war at the start and gotten soon tired of it.

Originally Posted by Tristan

The current conduct of the war on terror shows both Third and Fourth Turning signs, the campaign in Afghanistan was a Fourth Turning operation, while the war since then has been a third turning affair, with some fourth turning traits. For example people do not seem as enthusiastic at the start about the war on terror as they were when the Gulf War started. They seem glummer in their mood and seeing the war as a necessary thing to be done, a very Fourth Turning response.

I think some outrage will occur in the near future which will turn the War on terror into a fourth turning conflict. The Boomers in response will demand the complete and total destruction of Al Qaeda and the nation will mobilse around the effort the kind which has not been seen since World War Two.

I probably had the most third turning reaction out of any Fourth Turning posters when 911 occurred, even before 911 when I learned about the outrages the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan I was demanding these people be destroyed and after 911 I was pretty gung ho for the war at the start and gotten soon tired of it.

I think most Americans saw Afghanistan as something that had to be done (4T); increasingly, however, we're seeing Iraq as a bad call at the very least (3T). However that could change if, say, Al-Queda bring about the fall of the Saudi royal family, followed by similar actions in neigboring countries. This domino effect could start the Fourth Crusade in earnest.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I think most Americans saw Afghanistan as something that had to be done (4T); increasingly, however, we're seeing Iraq as a bad call at the very least (3T). However that could change if, say, Al-Queda bring about the fall of the Saudi royal family, followed by similar actions in neigboring countries. This domino effect could start the Fourth Crusade in earnest.

Or Pakistan. :shock:

Originally Posted by Hermione Granger

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I think most Americans saw Afghanistan as something that had to be done (4T); increasingly, however, we're seeing Iraq as a bad call at the very least (3T). However that could change if, say, Al-Queda bring about the fall of the Saudi royal family, followed by similar actions in neigboring countries. This domino effect could start the Fourth Crusade in earnest.

Or Pakistan. :shock:

Or Pakistan, indeed. The fall of Islamabad to Al-Queda or other fundamentalists, in light of fairly recent events (the bombing of the Indian Parliament building, terrorist attacks in Kashmir) might prompt India to stage a preemptive strike and launch the all-out nuclear war that's been threatening to break out on the Subcontient since the early 90s.

Back to the original theme of this thread, I'd note that the growing scandal at the major newspapers (Tribune, LA Times) that have inflated their circulation numbers looks very 4Tish. There is a loss of credibility element (such as the Catholic hierarchy experienced) and an outright fraud element (Enron) in the ability to charge rates based on fraudulent numbers.

While this does not extend directly to the news side yet, it does go straight to the credibility of management and then it is a short step.

At a minimum, this will reverberate around the advertising community and lead to lower revenues for the offenders. Layoffs, etc.

Confidence in yet another institution takes a blow.

Originally Posted by monoghan

At a minimum, this will reverberate around the advertising community and lead to lower revenues for the offenders. Layoffs, etc.

Confidence in yet another institution takes a blow.

You mean Michael Moore can lie straightface in a movie, and get rave reviews and box office to boot, but the folks who read The Los Angeles Times are gonna get upset over a few whoppers about their circulation numbers?

Get real. Only big business and the GOP get hurt by these kinds of stories. For liberals and Democrats this stuff is expected, nay demanded by the rank and file base. If anything revenues will probably go up at the Trib and Times, just like the NYT's did and Bubba's are.