Have you ever heard this admonition? "Either we fight 'em over there or we fight 'em over here!"

I don't see why it is any different from all the fighting motivated by the so-called Domino Theory of the Vietnam era. We are still trying to keep those disruptive pests at bay while we run our global economy. And we are trying to do it peacefully, too, for Cod's sake. Except we seem to forget sometimes that we are running out of cod.

A 4T happens to coincide with a history lesson, doesn't it? Seems like we go to war over all kinds of limited resources. Seems like we kill innocent civilians over and over again in the name of Cod and Consumerism.

Seems like old times to me. If this isn't a nascent 4T, George Bush will make it so.


--Croakmore

Scott Peterson found guilty in the 1st degree of wife Lacy. Found guilty in the 2nd degree of baby son Conner.

Verdict found after 1/2 day deliberation and 2 jurors replaced.

Wow --- direct opposite of OJ deliberation and verdict.

Crowd of over 100 standing outside majority of which wanting guilty....

Moving toward 4T......

Originally Posted by Barbara

Scott Peterson found guilty in the 1st degree of wife Lacy. Found guilty in the 2nd degree of baby son Conner.

Verdict found after 1/2 day deliberation and 2 jurors replaced.

Wow --- direct opposite of OJ deliberation and verdict.

Crowd of over 100 standing outside majority of which wanting guilty....

Moving toward 4T......

I know that I previously dismissed the furor over the Scott Peterson trial as a very 3T preoccupation; I didn't realize that they were still pursuing charges for killing the unborn child (I guess I don't watch enough tabloid TV.) Now I see that this is a very 4T thing after all.

I read this...

"It seems like most people are waiting for some kind of superman to make everything better."

I totally agree with this. It would seem that largely we are simply built to follow authority, or at respect it, or be jealous of it- but true independence seems rare. I think this hurts us at many levels. On average, we all seem to want some grand poo-bah to look up to.

I mean YIKES!!!

It was on a disscussion of The Incredibles. I can post the link if you like.

Allan Dershowitz said on CNN today that the courts will soon be facing moral issues similar to those of the Scopes Monkey Trial back in 1925. Teaching evolution will be challenged once again; so will Roe v. Wade, marraige rights, and prayer in public schools. It all sounded like an onset 4T to me, or at least a prelude to one.

Quote of the morning by a CNN reporter: "The separation of church and state has been sacred in America." We just can't get away from it, can we?

--Croakmore

1925 was 3T, Croaker. Obviously, Scott Peterson is a 3T preoccupation. When most Americans think "moral values" are the same as the ones from the 1920s, we be 3T, no doubt.

However, what is different is that this time the culture wars go back 40 years. Thus, they won't abate and will be part of the 4T.

What really hurts us, is that we had a chance for a reform era, and 4 times we blew it.

First we elected Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress. We blew them out of the water because we didn't like his health care plan, and for that non-reason put right-wingers in control of Congress and kept them there.

Then, in 1996, we re-elected Bill Clinton. But instead of pursuing reform, we pursued the stain on Monica's dress.

Then, in 2000, another chance for a new start. We let George III steal the election. So instead we have war and destruction.

Now, the last chance has been lost. Because George started a war, we decided to keep him because there's a war.

4 chances, and we blew every one. Now there's no ability to ameliorate the coming crisis. We are allowing the Republicans to rule. That is a recipe for disaster. The Republicans of today are not merely one of the two parties; they are the party of error (to be polite). We have allowed it to flourish and take over our country.

We had, I thought, a chance in the late 20th century to enter America's golden age. That chance has now been lost, because every thoughtful, creative person now has to focus on the enormous task of turning our nation around before it destroys itself, and much of the world with it. A crisis mentality is the lot we have chosen for ourselves.

If there is a golden age, it will bloom in Europe soon.

I have made many correct predictions, using my cosmic tools. A Revolution in 1989 that would end the cold war. US wars in 1989 and 2001. Bush Sr.'s attack on Iraq, and Bush Jr.'s. The war in Bosnia. The list is long. However, I have also been wrong, and the errors have all been good things I predicted. I am very disillusioned now, finally. There will be no golden age, and no reform era.

Of course, Republican Bill Strauss hopes for a "golden age" after the crisis. He and I don't share the same definition of a golden age. His version is another 1950s, when everyone is well-behaved and prosperous after victory in the crisis. But even he admits that "first turnings" are periods when the spirit is dead and the arts are uninspired. Some "golden age." The latter is the real definition of a golden age, and it comes in the 2nd and 3rd turning, not the first. Whatever chance we had, is past, and won't come again. The next time around, according to the cycles, will be a much less impressive opportunity to the one we just blew.

We blew it VERY BIG TIME, folks. We had new inspiration. The Awakening was really spectacular for those who paid attention. New creativity came to us. We could have responded and joined the ride it would take us into higher human potential. New forms of art did appear, and we had more tools to use for creative expression and growth than any people has ever had. We instead chose to focus on the culture war, and fight against the new inspiration instead of cultivate it. Most if not all posters at this site are either simply unaware of this awakening, in spite of a reasonably good (though limited) introduction to it in T4T, or think it's irrelevant during a 3T (which amounts to the same thing); or just opposed to it. What a sorry mess this country is. No golden age. Just another crisis is all we can look forward to now, and probably a civil war.

I am not especially optimistic we will come out of it ahead. The stars offer hope that we will. I will cling to that. The 2020s potentially will be a time of tremendous energy and drive; not especially inspired or creative, but forward-looking and ambitious at least. A revolution that makes progressive changes is possible then. After the breakdown around 2010, we may see a recovery and new innovations in economics or ecology (probably in Europe), but I'm not sure any real "regeneracy" is in the offing until the 2020s. We will experience instead a period much like the 1850s and the 1930s, with mounting divisions and threats.

But I was wrong that the 1990s would launch a golden age, and that 1993, and 1996 or 2000, would be the start of reform eras much like the Wilson era, or the time of FDR, or the progressive era (1900s), or the 60s. So I could be wrong again, and we'll probably just see the nation tear itself apart. Unless some miracle happens, and George III blows it so badly that the nation rises up next year and explodes into regeneracy, mass deprogramming and awakening experiences, and action on all levels. And what are the chances of THAT?

Our generation has produced the likes of George W. Bush and company. That is not a good omen for the kind of leadership Boomers will provide over the next 25 years. I have just been too optimistic about America. We are stuck in the 18th century, and can't move. Mencken was right; noone ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Bush and Cheney are raking it in at our expense.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

[

But will it be the same 4T for everyone, as the last one was from 1941 thru 1945? Or will different regions have different conflicts that, while to some extent interrelated, nonethless fail to become World War III? Or will some of those be pulled into World War III, while others remain separate?

Hard to say, even with the saeculum it is quite hard to predict the future. Who on this forum could have forseen 911 back in 2000 for instance.

I knew that in the late Summer of 2001 the USA would go to war, and that our own interests would be at stake. I predicted this decades ago, not just in 2000. I never saw it as the start of the crisis era either, which I have also predicted for decades. I also knew that religion would be involved, and I think I should have also foreseen that air travel would figure.

Eric the Green is an interesting observer of the American Spirit. I also had hoped that we would have a chance to move in a different direction. I personally know nobody who wanted Bush reelected even though I live in an area of suburban Chicago that has historically been staunchly Republican. I personally thought that Kerry had a much better vision for America, and didn't think he was that unlikeable at all. While we have to put up with Bush for another four years, it now appears that a big shakeup is underway within the Cabinet, as there have been at least four resignations so far, and term two has yet to begin. Wonder what this indicates?

Your dialogue regarding your correct and incorrect predictions was interesting. Were you also among those who predicted that modern technology would give most Americans increased leisure time? That was one of the big ones that went wrong.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Eric the Green is an interesting observer of the American Spirit. ...

Your dialogue regarding your correct and incorrect predictions was interesting. Were you also among those who predicted that modern technology would give most Americans increased leisure time? That was one of the big ones that went wrong.

I think we were promised Amusement labelled as "Leisure" and not Leisure as it was or as it is, as the latter sort of Leisure doesn't fit well with the Brand Society. One can persue one's Leisure with very little outfit whereas Amusement is viable commercial concern.

Pieper shows that Greeks understood and valued leisure, as did the medieval Europeans. He points out that religion can be born only in leisure-a leisure that allows time for the contemplation of the nature of God. Leisure has been, and always will be, the first foundation of any culture. He maintains that our bourgeois world of total labor has vanquished leisure, and issues a startling warning: Unless we regain the art of silence and insight, the ability for nonactivity, unless we substitute true leisure for our hectic amusements, we will destroy our culture-and ourselves. These astonishing essays contradict all our pragmatic and puritanical conceptions about labor and leisure; Joseph Pieper demolishes the twentieth-century cult of "work" as he predicts its destructive consequences.

Leisure the Basis of Culture by Mr. Josef Pieper

Could our society in a late 3T contain an outbreak of leisure? Would one want to be left alone with one's thoughts? Much better to watch or listen or play at some amusement that will turn a reward for the provider. Las Vegas is our "Leisure" (sic) model; what would happen if it were Walden Pond? :shock:

Just a few months ago, progressive Thom Hartmann wrote an article about the book T4T.

Now, Maureen Farrell, a progressive like Hartmann does so in this article below. I would recommend that you click on the link (contained in the title of article) because the article includes many links to other articles.

The Next Big Thing

by Maureen Farrell
"Around the year 2005, a sudden spark will catalyze a Crisis mood. Remnants of the old social order will disintegrate. Political and economic trust will implode. Real hardship will beset the land, with severe distress that could involve questions of class, race, nation, and empire. Yet this time of trouble will bring seeds of social rebirth. Americans will share a regret about recent mistakes -- and a resolute new consensus about what to do. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake." -- From the Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, by William Strauss and Neil Howe, 1997

Nearly a decade ago, William Strauss and Neil Howe put forth an interesting theory: Every 80 years or so, they concluded, the U.S. faces a cataclysmic turning point that redirects the course of the nation. The first occurred during the Revolutionary War and the framing of our Constitution, the second, during the Civil War, and the third, during the Great Depression and World War II. And the fourth? You're soaking in it, Madge.

The America many of us knew has vanished into History's happy hunting ground and oddly enough, days of cigars and blue dresses, though surreal at the time, now seem oh-so-sweetly-carefree. If Mr. Bush proceeds with his "mandate," unsavory consequences will follow: Divisions between Americans will widen; the neoconservatives who pushed for war in Iraq will push for more; America will become further isolated from allies; the framework of international cooperation and rule of law we've relied in since WW II will continue to crumble; social conservatives will bulldoze the wall between church and state; policy decisions will be set by faith instead of reason, and America's new pariahs will start edging their way back into the closet. As legendary journalist Helen Thomas put it, we're in for "dark times."

And if you think the country has changed in the past four years, wait and see what's next.

"Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II," Strauss and Howe explained. "The risk of catastrophe will be very high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule. If there is a war, it is likely to be one of maximum risk and efforts -- in other words, a total war."

In 1997, when this thesis was presented, it probably sounded farfetched. But ask yourself: Could we "crack up geographically"? Could the nation "erupt into insurrection?" Might we "succumb to authoritarian rule"? Are we headed for total war? Not so kooky anymore, eh?

If we really are on the verge of another turning point, our current crisis will be more consequential than shakeups during the sixties or seventies or any time most of us have known. And this time around, we face the added insecurity of having George Bush at the helm. George Washington presided over the first turning, Abraham Lincoln guided us through the second and the third was managed by FDR. And while each man had more than his share of detractors, each was proven capable -- and none catered to a base as dangerous as G.W. Bush's.

"Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president," Thomas Friedman recently wrote of our revolutionary new age. "I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out."

Where will this era lead? If we remain divided, will we find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of a civil war? Are we, as some suggest, headed for World War IV? Is fascism in our future? Or will disgruntled citizens spark a new American revolution?

While your guess is as good as mine, signs point to any and all of the above. And a case could be made for each. Consider the following:

1. A Second Civil War

The Bush administration has done its damnedest to pit citizen against citizen and state against state, and has shamelessly worked to keep us misinformed and afraid. And unless Bush's arrogance causes him to overplay his hand, divisive tactics will most likely continue to work.

The day after the election, the Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel declared that we are "a country at war with itself," New York Times columnist Maureen Down pointed to Bush's election strategy of "dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule," and 60 Minutes' Steve Hartman joked about dividing the country into "the United Blue States of America" and "United Red States of America."

And in updated twists on our historical legacy, some have actually advocated succession and civil war -- adding yet another ironic footnote to Bush's "uniter, not a divider" vow.

Yes, there are two Americas and one would like to render the other permanently voiceless and irrelevant. But regardless how desperately some ache to install one party rule, the fissure is now so deep and so wide, it seems highly unlikely that America will "heal" or unite anytime soon. Examples of this great divide and its consequences include:

* The Guardian's Simon Schama explained that the U.S. is now "two nations that loathe and fear each other - Godly and Worldly America" and urged blue states to fight. "I don't want to heal the wound, I want to scratch the damned thing until it hurts and bleeds - and then maybe we'll have what it takes to get up from the mat," he wrote. ". . . You want moral values? So do we, but let them come from the street, not the pulpit. And if a fresh beginning must be made - and it must - let it not begin with a healing, but with a fight." Within a span of days, Bill Maher, Lawrence O'Donnell and democratic activist Bob Beckel suggested that it's time to let the South loose. "Upon further consideration, you CAN go," Maher said on his show, to laughter, applause and cheers. ". . . And take Texas with you." Meanwhile, during an appearance on Fox and Friends, Beckel mused, "I think now that slavery is taken care of, I'm for letting the South form its own nation. Really, I think they ought to have their own confederacy." And on the McLaughlin Group, O'Donnell explained why blue states would benefit. "The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government," he said.
* Taking a different approach, Mike Thompson wrote: "If the so-called 'Red States' (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the 'Blue States' (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter."
* On Nov. 3, Andrew Sullivan observed unease among gays, thanks to their role as lightening rods during this election. "Heading out to dinner last night, in a mainly gay neighborhood, I was struck by how many people looked shell-shocked, frightened, grim," he wrote.
* In the immediate aftermath of the election, one Internet message board discussed the "Secession of Northern States to Join Canada," while another (and I'm not making this up) discussed bringing back slavery in the name of Jesus Christ.
* Sensitive citizens, recognizing the impact Bush's election has on the rest of the world, united to say "sorry everybody." Bush supporters, whose photos are often worth more than a thousand words, countered with "we're not sorry." [BuzzFlash Note: At the time this posted, "werenotsorry.com" was no longer working.]
* After the election, Canada's immigration Web site saw a six-fold increase in visits from Americans and U.S. citizens' interest in New Zealand quadrupled as people looked for "a ticket out of Bushville."

Presently, things aren't looking good for the home team. But in the end, this deepening rift might be bridged if Americans can finally see that the threat from within does not emanate from Vermont or California or Alabama, but from Washington, DC. "They are the enemy," Gore Vidal said of the Bush/Cheney gang. "And they have targeted the American people. They don't like them. They don't care anything about them. They're interested in corporate America. . . .And they hate the people who stand for the old republic. They just don't like them. And that's the division here. And I think that's why Bush will fall in the long run, but how long a run it's going to be, I do not predict."

2. Another American Revolution

"Great mistakes in the ruling part, will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur," Thomas Jefferson's muse John Locke wrote. "But if a long train of abuses. . . all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people. . . it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which government was at first erected."

What "train of abuses" might knock us from our stupor? Glaring proof of Bush's Sept. 11 incompetence and assorted examples of negligence have not been enough to awaken ardent supporters. Common sense hasn't worked, either. If G.W. truly is the #1 man to keep us safe, why, one wonders, did New Yorkers, whose lives were most profoundly touched by the 9/11 terror attacks, overwhelmingly vote to give Bush the boot? Do they know something security moms don't?

Though GOP loyalists' rabid tendency to cling to ignorance and punish those who expose the truth has kept many in the dark, something has to give. And Bush's second term offers an opportunity, the way Richard Nixon's did, for a long overdue wake-up call. After all, former Nixonites John Dean and Kevin Phillips claim that this White House is even more corrupt than Nixon's, and yet, in 1968, Nixon won in a landslide, and America seemed to love him. Until the truth won out.

Fraud and deception have always been with us and the health of our nation has always depended on finding, identifying and punishing corruption whenever we can. "Our system worked, and we were all heroes, " Hunter S. Thompson wrote, of catching the Nixon et al in action.

What might spawn a revolutionary backlash this time? Evidence of impeachable offenses? More news from O-Hi-O? The Religious Right overstepping its Mobbish bounds? While the list is long, some possibilities include:

An economic crisis: Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that G.W. Bush's reelection could prompt the rest of the world to hit us where it hurts. "The dollar could slide still further, in spite of hitting an all-time low against the euro last week in the wake of George W. Bush's reelection," FT said. James Wolcott also raised concerns about "economic blowback" and Seymour Hersh predicted that the world will boycott U.S. markets. "I just see very hard times ahead," Hersh said.

Scandal: Though the scandals bubbling beneath the surface of this administration do not yet rise to Presidential penis level, they nevertheless involve matters of national security (Plamegate), the rule of law (Abu Ghraib), threats to democracy (Votergate) and war and peace (Yellowcakegate). "At some point in the next four years there will be a great scandal that will make Watergate look like a fraternity prank. All the elements are already in place," Salon.com recently asserted. "[Bush] has never been so beautifully set up than now for a cataclysmic, Nixon-like fall," Mark Morford wrote.

Iraq: The weekend before the election, Thomas Friedman told Bill Maher that the U.S. will likely leave Iraq within a year. "Bill, my sense is a year from now we're not going to be in Iraq, or we're not going to be in Iraq in any numbers, no matter what happens [in the election]," he said, before predicting that within three to six months, we'll see America's policy in Iraq as either a fixable policy failure or a futile fundamental failure of judgment.
Though those who still see Iraq as a vital part of the war would be enraged by America's withdrawal, the truth is, we either hightail it out of Iraq or stay the course and revive the draft. And either way, armchair warriors and security moms are in for one hell of a betrayal.

The draft: Let's not kid ourselves. With a stop-loss policy and recall of retired military personnel underway, the U.S. is already engaging in a "backdoor draft." And despite assertions that conscription questions were raised merely as part of John Kerry's campaign ploy, the truth is that this administration's actions continue to raise suspicions -- with former New York Times correspondent Christopher Hedges recently telling students that reinstatement of the draft is right around the corner.

3. World War IV

In Jan. 2001, on the eve of Bush's inauguration, speculation regarding a second Gulf War had already begun. One paper boldly noted that George W. Bush would embroil the U.S. "in at least one Gulf-War level-armed conflict in the next four years."

Unfortunately, that prescient paper was the Onion, and their scoop was a spoof. In time, however, tales of Bush's Saddam obsession and pre-2000 plans to attack Iraq surfaced in the mainstream.

Unfazed by repercussions, and contrary to myths that the neocons are "no longer in vogue," those who pushed for war in Iraq, are now pushing for further aggression. "Bush Win Puts US on Collision Course with Iran," the Sydney Morning Herald warned, while Jim Lobe further explained neocons' plans for the rest of the world.

Right after the election, Frank Gafney, an influential policy adviser with solid connections to the Bush administration, composed a checklist for Bush's second term -- including "regime change" in Iran and North Korea; adopting "appropriate strategies" for handling threats from Russia, China and Latin America; "deploying effective missile defenses at sea and in space, as well as ashore"; and advocating a continued hardline strategy against the Palestinians following the death of Yasser Arafat.

This follows a previously set game plan outlined by former Central Intelligence Agency Director and Committee on the Present Danger co-chair Director James Woolsey. Saying that the Cold War was World War III, Woolsey believes that our new war, the fourth world war, should hold "a new Middle East" as its objective and "make a lot of people very nervous" but that "our response should be, 'good!'"

But with Osama bin Laden reportedly gunning for America's red states and stories of Al Qaeda possibly smuggling nukes through Mexico, World War IV might not be as wonderful as Woolsey imagines.

4) A Fascist Fourth Turn

What have the last four years wrought? For starters, we're less noble, less tolerant, more loathed and more feared than any time in our lifetimes. And while American pride once denoted a sentimental sense of history and honor, it is now often tainted by false bravado and belligerent nationalism -- the kind the American Heritage Dictionary once included in its definition of fascism.

Like an American Charles Dickens, novelist Sinclair Lewis foresaw ghosts of fascism future, while a former Reagan official recently bemoaned the "brownshirting of America." And Keith Olberman's outstanding contributions to journalism and democracy aside, for the most part, questions about election irregularities, like those about WMD assertions, are scoffed at by the media -- bringing at least two characteristics of fascism to mind.

Most agree that if America devolves into a fascist state, religious zealots will be leading the charge. The introduction and passage of discriminatory legislation that marked Bush's first term will likely become commonplace, and as Tom Delay has hinted, the Christian Right will proceed with its plans to cram its agenda down everyone else's throats. ("We're going to put God back into the public square," he announced, the day after the election.)

"Small wonder that everywhere I go, people are talking about moving to Canada. That's the kind of joke you make when you no longer recognize your country," Leonard Pitts mused, pointing to "the soldiers of the new American theocracy" and our brave new world where a looming Armageddon shapes U.S. foreign policy and creationism trumps rationalism.

And so it follows that as Christian soldiers battle heathens at home and Evangelical Marines battle barbarians and Satan in Iraq, reason is viewed as an enemy of the state. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities," Voltaire said, possibly with Bush and his supporters in mind.

If cataclysmic change is in our future, however, it could also bring welcome relief. The end result of this next turning could be something to embrace. "By the 2020s, America could become a society that is good, by today's standards, and also one that works," Strauss and Howe wrote.

In other words, this could be the dark before the dawn. Perhaps security moms and armchair warriors need a rude awakening? Maybe those who voted for Bush need to be shaken from their slumber? Maybe will be there will be a rebirth, after the weeping and gnashing of teeth?

"Thus might the next Fourth Turning end in apocalypse -- or glory, " Strauss and Howe concluded. "The nation could be ruined, its democracy destroyed, and millions of people scattered or killed. Or America could enter a new golden age, triumphantly applying shared values to improve the human condition."

In time, perhaps, citizens will see that Bush has not made America any safer and that the internal threats we face are far greater than our differing points of view, and we can usher in an era rooted in truth, fairness and democratic principles. After all, though there are plenty of people who strive to win at all costs, for the most part, Americans (when they're not brainwashed or scared out of their wits) are a decent lot -- and value what is true and fair and just.

I don't know what the future holds, but I do not doubt for a moment that the Next Big Thing is upon us. Here's to the Fates. Let's hope that they are kind.

Reality TV Binge Leads to Higher Casualty Rate

Mon Nov 15,11:41 PM ET Entertainment - Reuters TV


By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Television networks are learning a harsh lesson in reality -- too many reality shows are a turn-off for viewers.



As broadcasters increasingly binge on unscripted shows starring ordinary folks willing to do almost anything for cash, romance or 15 minutes of fame, the burgeoning genre of reality TV appears to be wearing a bit thin with U.S. audiences.


At the very least, networks are seeing that the appeal of reality shows has its limits.


"You had a few really good reality programs ... and now they turn them out like they were bad two-hour movies," veteran TV producer Bernie Brillstein told Reuters on Monday. "And they're not so cheap to make anymore."


Inspired by the success of such blue-chip franchises as "Survivor" and "American Idol," the networks have increasingly loaded up on unscripted knockoffs as inexpensive prime-time alternatives, especially as comedies have declined in ratings.


"It's a Band-Aid," Brillstein said. He and other industry executives said the mainstreaming of reality shows has led them to suffer the same high casualty rates as conventional sitcoms and dramas.


"With quantity comes failure," Fox TV reality chief Mike Darnell was quoted as saying in Daily Variety. "It becomes a combination of mediocre shows or shows that are so similar to other shows, they don't stick out."


Nowhere has this become more apparent lately than at Fox, which currently devotes about 60 percent of its prime-time schedule to reality shows -- more than any other network.


After taking a dive with its much-ballyhooed boxing show, "The Next Great Champ," Fox TV stumbled with two more reality launches this month -- "My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss" and Sir Richard Branson's "The Rebel Billionaire."


HIGH HOPES FOR "IDOL"


Fox is still counting on a strong performance from the forthcoming fourth installment of its hit talent show "American Idol," which premieres in January.


Over at NBC, a hurriedly produced second edition of "Last Comic Standing" was laughed right off the network -- its finale ended up airing on cable's Comedy Central -- and "$25 Million-Dollar Hoax" debuted to mediocre numbers last week.


Earlier this season, ABC's "The Benefactor," starring the billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, proved such a ratings flop that the network wrapped it up more quickly than planned, condensing the last four episodes into two.


Even some of TV's reality stalwarts are showing some slippage. ABC's courtship contest "The Bachelor" has lost about a third of its audience compared with last season; NBC's Donald Trump show "The Apprentice" is down 18 percent in total viewers from the same point in its first run last winter and the NBC stunt show "Fear Factor" is down 15 percent from last season.


However, audiences have hardly turned their backs on reality shows altogether. "The Apprentice," CBS's "Survivor: Vanuatu" and ABC's "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" all rank in the top 10 in ratings among viewers aged 18 to 49, the group most prized by advertisers.


In fact, "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," has actually seen its overall audience soar 44 percent this season (to 16 million viewers) -- an apparent beneficiary of a trend that has seen viewers drawn more to uplifting, wish-fulfillment shows than to edgier competitions and practical-joke concepts.


In the end, however, the biggest limit to the commercial success of reality TV may be its limited shelf life in an industry whose business model hinges on the ability of producers to eventually sell their shows as reruns.





"Part of our business is to get (a show) to last so you can syndicate it," Brillstein said. "You can't syndicate this dreck."

I wonder how sales of "The Fourth Turning" are doing?

Something I find interesting is that Strauss and Howe have not become famous Cult heros or literary celebrities (3T).

Their books and theories have been the focus, rather than the authors (4T).

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Just a few months ago, progressive Thom Hartmann wrote an article about the book T4T.

George Washington presided over the first turning, Abraham Lincoln guided us through the second and the third was managed by FDR. And while each man had more than his share of detractors, each was proven capable -- and none catered to a base as dangerous as G.W. Bush's.

HA! She hasn't even read the book!

Originally Posted by Harv

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Just a few months ago, progressive Thom Hartmann wrote an article about the book T4T.

George Washington presided over the first turning, Abraham Lincoln guided us through the second and the third was managed by FDR. And while each man had more than his share of detractors, each was proven capable -- and none catered to a base as dangerous as G.W. Bush's.

HA! She hasn't even read the book!

She confused turnings with saeculums . . . . . . oh, boy.

Originally Posted by cbailey

I wonder how sales of "The Fourth Turning" are doing?

Something I find interesting is that Strauss and Howe have not become famous Cult heros or literary celebrities (3T).

Their books and theories have been the focus, rather than the authors (4T).

Of course not. The majority of people intuitively sense that something very bad is brewing, but few really want to admit it even to themselves. S&H aren't telling these folks what they want to hear...that a return to the rip-roaring good times of the 3T (or 2T or 1T) are just around the corner.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by cbailey

I wonder how sales of "The Fourth Turning" are doing?

Something I find interesting is that Strauss and Howe have not become famous Cult heros or literary celebrities (3T).

Their books and theories have been the focus, rather than the authors (4T).

Of course not. The majority of people intuitively sense that something very bad is brewing, but few really want to admit it even to themselves. S&H aren't telling these folks what they want to hear...that a return to the rip-roaring good times of the 3T (or 2T or 1T) are just around the corner.

True. There is also the cut-throat world of academia. Competition. Prestige. Jealousy. It can be very nasty.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by cbailey

I wonder how sales of "The Fourth Turning" are doing?

Something I find interesting is that Strauss and Howe have not become famous Cult heros or literary celebrities (3T).

Their books and theories have been the focus, rather than the authors (4T).

Of course not. The majority of people intuitively sense that something very bad is brewing, but few really want to admit it even to themselves. S&H aren't telling these folks what they want to hear...that a return to the rip-roaring good times of the 3T (or 2T or 1T) are just around the corner.

I frequently browse around to see how many sites are referring to "The Fourth Turning." Lots. Look at this Geneaology site:

"We build unique portraits of individual and families based upon patterns in generations that recur over time. These patterns or cycles are called saeculums and provide a natural rhythm to the social experiences of individuals and family groups.

We find relationships between saeculum generations and family members listed in our archives. We call these relationships themes and their stories portraits."


http://www.iwpinc.net/genealogy/Portraits/portraits.htm

Fortunately for S&H most link to Amazon.com.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Originally Posted by Harv

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Just a few months ago, progressive Thom Hartmann wrote an article about the book T4T.

George Washington presided over the first turning, Abraham Lincoln guided us through the second and the third was managed by FDR. And while each man had more than his share of detractors, each was proven capable -- and none catered to a base as dangerous as G.W. Bush's.

HA! She hasn't even read the book!

She confused turnings with saeculums . . . . . . oh, boy.

Yeah...(snort)...what an idiot!

Thanks for the good article by Ms. Farrell, Robert (Shemsu Heru).

I dunno, but every once in a while, I look back at other third turnings to compare.

Read this from the authors:

French & Indian Wars (Third Turning, 1746-1773) was an era of unprecedented economic and geographic mobility. Swept into a final war against New France in the 1750s, the colonists hardly celebrated Britain?s total victory (in 1760) before renewing thunderous debates over how to salvage civic virtue from growing debt, cynicism, and wildness. With colonial leadership at a low ebb, popular fears soon targeted the alleged corruption of the English Parliament and empire.

Sound *somewhat* familiar? :wink:

Dale Maharidge, the author of Homeland, has compared the mood of today to that of the early 1930s in his book. He would definitely agree that the US is in a 4T, and that the US is the most volatile it is been since that decade.

Rust & Rage in the Heartland

by DALE MAHARIDGE

[from the September 20, 2004 issue]

Working meant sparks and steel dust when I was a child. My father labored by day in a factory sharpening the milling tools that cut and form metal; after dinner he descended into our basement and a battery of machines, doing the same work as a side business. At age 12 I began grinding steel. I was on track to make this my living. Then I began writing and left blue-collar life. But I couldn't really leave it behind.

I was there for the steel-mill shutdowns in the late 1970s and later collaborated on Journey to Nowhere, about ruined steelworkers in Youngstown, Ohio, and the new homeless who were the victims of deindustrialization. One character in the book was Joe Marshall Sr., who had come back from the D-Day Normandy invasion to his job at US Steel's Ohio Works. A decade after his son was hired on, the company closed the mill and then dynamited it. Joe took us to the mile-long ruins in 1983. As he surveyed the rubble he said, "What Hitler couldn't do, they did it for him."

Joe spoke to the wind, not in response to any question of mine. It was a comment not of rage but of defeat, a sentiment we found among many others we documented. Despair was the norm.

A dozen years later, my collaborator, photographer Michael Williamson, and I returned to Youngstown, and traveled again across America. What was different, and startling, was the level of anger that we discovered. Defeat had morphed into wrath. In Warren, Ohio, there had just been a strike at a steel mill over a plan to sell it, which would have incurred debt and might have led to its shutdown. Homemade bombs were thrown and windows smashed in a fury. Some workers said they would have dynamited the blast furnace had they lost, effectively killing the mill. "Blowing it up would be better than going through that again," a worker said as someone gave me one of their bombs from the successful fifty-four-day strike, referring to the other shutdowns they had endured in nearby Youngstown.

Everywhere, we listened to people equally as bitter as the men of Warren--people who worked in textiles or the service economy. But what did the anger mean? It just seemed to be flailing, unfocused, drifting like the smoke from the bomb in the desert wind after we detonated it in the Mojave near old US Route 66. Even the full-band version of the song "Youngstown"--which Bruce Springsteen credits with having been inspired by our book--ends not with the steelman rising politically but simply eschewing heaven for the "fiery furnaces of hell."

Then came the morning that I watched the second tower go down from my Manhattan rooftop. I looked to the west beyond the New Jersey Palisades. I thought of the anger in the middle of the country. Beginning on Christmas Eve, I spent the next two and a half years largely in the nation's center. I drove thousands of miles and talked with hundreds of people. I went specifically to the places and people and events ignored by the national press.

What I found was that anger had now combined with fear, and together they had become a dangerous brew. Fear alone, of another terror attack, is a strong force in American politics. But fear connected with anger is an especially volatile combination. The 9/11 attacks were not solely the genesis but an amplifier of pre-existing tensions--rooted in the radically transformed American economy, from a manufacturing dynamo to that of millions of jobs of the Wal-Mart variety. One cannot displace millions of workers from high-paying jobs to low ones without a sociopolitical cost. It's a fundamental reality that was ignored during the rise of the so-called new economy.

Prick the anger whose surface may be pro-Iraq war and anti-Arab, dismissive of Abu Ghraib, and one hears of ruined 401(k)s, poor or no healthcare, lost work. There are 1 million fewer jobs today than when George Bush took office, and the loss of higher-paid manufacturing jobs has been stunning.

Where this mood will lead is unclear, but it cannot be overlooked by anyone concerned about the future of the United States.

On the first anniversary of 9/11 I went to a mosque in Chicago and found a smaller repeat of what had happened for three nights after the attacks, when thousands of whites had rallied near this building in the suburb of Bridgeview. This time, vehicles sprouting giant US flags raced down Harlem Avenue. There were horns and peeling rubber. Two bare-chested men had flags painted neck-to-navel on their bodies. Hundreds of flag-waving white people roared in unison, "USA! USA!"

Out of the cacophony Nancy and her son Jim stood out. They clutched American flags and sputtered indignantly when the cops ordered them home. I later trudged through the snow to their front door, hoping to peel back the curtain on their anger.

Nancy, 56, was reserved while her son, 35, talked harshly about Muslims. This went on for an hour, and then the conversation took a turn away from race and religion. Nancy spoke for the first time. From both now poured a deeper animosity. Her knee is blown out, and the HMO to which she belongs through her job selling window coverings for J.C. Penney had been refusing an implant. Nancy pulled back her top and showed a pain patch on her shoulder. She was battling to get the operation.

Jim excused himself. He returned with a shopping bag stuffed with papers. It dropped with a loud thud on the kitchen table. "These are my bills. Two hundred of them. Ten thousand dollars, one of them. Fifteen thousand, another," Jim said of some $200,000 in medical bills that followed two heart attacks.

Jim had no health insurance. He remains alive by dint of a sympathetic doctor who secretly slips him the $96 biweekly regimen of medicine.

Nancy had long ago made a foray into the stock market, losing $10,000. Then she watched the market going up at the end of the 1990s and decided to plunge back in. "My neighbor said buy this one stock. He bought it for $4. I bought it for $72, just before 9/11." She laughed a sick laugh. "Now it's worth $4."

Nancy and Jim were typical of those who marched at the mosque--every person I interviewed was unemployed, underemployed, hurting economically in some way. This group of Americans, who number in the millions, harbors deep-seated anger over corporate shenanigans, their lack of healthcare and good jobs, yet in interview after interview I found they are often the most fervent in their support of George W. Bush and his tough rhetoric.

Why? One answer is that Republicans have used "social issues" such as school busing, Willie Horton and gay marriage to speak to these Americans; they mine the anger in the code-language way they have been doing since Goldwater ran for President in 1964, deflecting attention from the true cause of their problems. And the Democrats have been timid, or unable to form a message to break through to them. Another is what happens in any wartime period, including World Wars I and II and the Vietnam era. Any time the nation is at war, there is a tendency toward nationalism.

But what I found after September 11 was different, and more complex. I kept thinking of what I had been told by John Russo, a labor studies professor at Youngstown State University, at the time of the 1996 steelworkers' strike in Ohio. Russo worried about the workers' growing wrath--he was seeing it mature into xenophobia and right-wing radicalism. "It's not unlike the anger in prewar Germany and prewar Italy," Russo said. And, he added, it was akin to the United States in the Great Depression. "In the 1930s, America could have gone in either direction."

I didn't wholly buy into Russo's argument. Yes, there was anger. Ohio, in the heart of the crippled Rust Belt, had the most white nationalist groups of any state in the Midwest--seventy-three--according to the Center for New Community in Chicago. Yet the anger didn't seem to be building into a political force or real threat. As I drew deeper into my research, however, I began to see some historical parallels. In 1920s Weimar Germany, people carted bushel baskets of money to buy a loaf of bread; the mark was valued at 4 billion to one US dollar at one point. Bank accounts became worthless, and with economic deprivation came growing anger. What did the government do? Instead of raising taxes on the rich, who could pay, it lowered them. The terrible conditions were actually good for the industrialists and landlords. They wanted the mark to tumble, because they were able to erase debts by paying them off with worthless marks. For a brief time late in the decade, things improved, but after 1929, working-class anger erupted.

In America, too, there were stresses in the 1930s. Father Charles Coughlin's radio hate ministry mid-decade had 10 million listeners. In hindsight it appears there could have been no historical outcome other than the election of Franklin Roosevelt. But what if there had been no FDR? Walter Lippmann wrote that the nation would have "followed almost any leader anywhere he chose to go." A cynical leader could have exploited fear, a course taken by so many other inferior leaders in times of chaos. Three years into Roosevelt's term Sinclair Lewis published It Can't Happen Here, about a fascist takeover of the United States. The novel became a historical footnote only because Roosevelt was able to pull enough of the right margin back to the center, or, as he often said, "slightly left of center."

On the eve of a presidential election seventy-two years after Roosevelt vs. Hoover, Americans are not rioting over food, and homeless veterans are not marching on Washington. But there are different ways for anger to erupt. An undercurrent has been building for three decades. Talk-radio is but one example of how the anger has grown. In 1980 there were about seventy-five stations in the nation that were all talk. There weren't that many conservative hosts. Now there are 1,300 all-talk stations, and conservatives rule. It's no coincidence that their popularity rose concurrent with the decline of the manufacturing economy, as anger deepened in American society. These shows were not a cause but a free-market response.

How bad is it? During the 2000 election we went to Texas and Tennessee to find some of the 11.6 million impoverished children--77 percent had at least one working parent, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Because their wages were Dickensian, many had to beg for charity food. During what was alleged the most booming economy in history, America's Second Harvest (the nationwide network of food banks) gave away 1 billion pounds of food in 2000, more than double the amount in 1990. Yet it wasn't enough--many food banks ran empty. The despair we saw in the homes of working Americans that election year was equal to that we saw among the homeless in the early 1980s. In many houses I peered into refrigerators and saw them empty. Never underestimate the anger of a parent who puts her child to bed hungry.

Many of the angry people I interviewed after 9/11, those who tune in faithfully to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, know their highly paid jobs are forever gone or threatened. Their mood, I imagine, is like those on the right during the 1930s who felt the economy would never again be fixed; Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others are their Father Coughlins.

And it's not just those on the bottom. A software engineer in Portland, Oregon, told me recently that some of his colleagues have turned hard right, are fearful for their jobs and are angry.

There are tens of millions of American workers living in a virtual depression, in a virtual Weimar. Their anger is real, as is their fear. Ignoring it is dangerous. The right has been addressing it in the form of appearing decisive with "preventive war," or by cranking up the xenophobia. When many of them go into the voting booth they will punch the card or pull the lever for a candidate who appears strong.

But of course not all the support for Bush comes from this camp. It doesn't have to be a majority of voters for this rage to have an impact. Given the closeness of the 2000 election and the continued volatility of a split body politic, tipping the scale just 1-2 percent will turn things. It's all about margins. The hard-right third of the electorate will likely never change. They were there in 1932, and they are with us today. All that needs to happen for the nation to re-elect George Bush, or another right-wing President in the future, is for a fraction of voters to buy into leaders who exploit the anger and fear. There are plenty of malevolent voices to fill the space unclaimed by a unifying, constructive voice.

If there isn't another terror attack, and the economy freezes in its current state of malaise for millions of Americans, we will likely muddle through without the anger taking a heavy toll. Like Sinclair Lewis's book, fears of America heading toward the end stage of a Weimaresque journey will be relegated to the dustbin. If there is another terror attack, however, or any of myriad things happen that turn the economy deeply down, who knows?

The solution lies in doing something both parties have ignored in their free-trade euphoria: helping working-class Americans with jobs and healthcare. That will not erase the fear of another terror attack, but it will dissipate some of the anger resulting from economic hardship. It would tip the margin back to a saner political course.

The soul of America will be decided by a fraction of the middle, where a lot of the anger resides. And that will require leadership.

If John Kerry wins, the right margin will rage against him, as it did against Clinton before him, and against FDR in the 1930s. The anger found in America is not going to dissipate. It must be dealt with. And that will take leadership. Is John Kerry the leader? He'd better find his inner FDR--fast. If he does not, that leader needs to rapidly emerge.

Is this evidence we are entering a 4T?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nationalid.htm

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Is this evidence we are entering a 4T?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nationalid.htm

I personally like the National ID Card idea, but there are many other aspects of Patriot Act II that scare me. And I'm sure the ID card will make others feel very uncomfortable.

This could be trigger-fodder.

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Is this evidence we are entering a 4T?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nationalid.htm

It has already passed the House, late yesterday, by an overwhelming margin (336 for, to 75 against), and is set to go straight to the Senate late today, where incoming Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada is quoted as saying, "This vote is not (going to be) close or controversial in any way." (The parenthesized words inserted into the quote are mine.)

Don't know quite what to think of this, but isn't the national ID card idea just a more universal take on what we already have, namely the social security card and number plus drivers licenses? Most people who have them already use their drivers licenses for other types of ID, such as to buy liquor if they are of legal age to do so.
The national ID would just expand that idea to those who don't drive.