Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think anyone who knows me will be able to guess my preferred two are personal liberty and avoiding foreign adventures. Since we have big industry and big finance, we need big government to give the people a chance, and to do necessary income redistribution. Just my opinion, of course.

David K '47

I agree, but our nonpartisan may not, nor may he be aware of your proclivities. 8)

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

I actually think our government is rather small in some regards. Consider we have only 435 "representatives" in Congress, or 1 rep for every 666,667 people!
Compare that to the more egalitarian French National Assembly, which has 577 representatives in a nation of 63 million. That's one rep for every 108, 580 people. Sounds more "representative" to me.

I think the count of interest is "bureaucrats", though that may only be a guess. Nonpartisan may be thinking in $$$.

Thanks, Mr. Butler, you're post actually had substantive value. I agree with everything you said. It was interesting that when I suggested neither party was really what we need in America, I got blasted from the Left as a reactionary and from the Right as a liberal.

By the way, I am a Boomer, born in 1956.

I am not a Libertarian, although I like one or two of their ideas. Some of them, however, scare me. I once saw a Libertarian on TV responding to a reporter as he listed various government services. The reporter said "Social Security", the Libertarian said, "Abolish it." "Veterans Administration", "Abolish it." "Department of Health and Human Services", "Abolish it," and so forth. No, I do not share that view. It took us a long time to get into this mess, and I think we have to take it slowly but decisively, but we do have to get us out of it.

I believe it was DA who asked, "Small government, relative to what?" Well, relative to a $2.57 trillon budget with $400 billion in overruns. The only difference I see between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Dems want to tax and spend and the Republicans want to borrow and spend. Neither one of these approaches, in my opinion, is good for the majority of Americans.

When I say nonpartisan, I honestly mean exactly that. I do not identify with any party. The two major parties have become giant machines that live to propogate themselves by pork barrel politics and at the expense of liberty. Most of the smaller parties I have looked at may have a few good ideas, but always seem to espouse at least one or two nutjob ones.

I am neither rich or poor. I make about $100K a year but take care of my mother, and often my kids and my grandkids. Taxes are killing me. I often work with the government and see unbelievable waste, cronyism and a seriously flawed accounting system.

In reality I'm just Hamlet. I have no idea what the answer is, but I do know that it's not Bush or Kerry or the next two political machine cardboard cutouts.

Originally Posted by nonpartisan

I believe it was DA who asked, "Small government, relative to what?" Well, relative to a $2.57 trillon budget with $400 billion in overruns. The only difference I see between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Dems want to tax and spend and the Republicans want to borrow and spend.

It is a certifiable fact that cutting taxes has increased federal government revenues every single time since the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts of the mid 1960s. Allowing Americans to keep more of their earnings results in economic growth. Congressional spending, however, is another matter. But not really, because Americans by and large like lots of pork, and they like spending money on nifty military machines that kill people.

But I have noticed recently, and one born in 1956 ought to be familiar with the danger in this, that Bush is not only grabbing the "third rail of politics," he's going to try and refashion the beast. Not only that, but Bush is sure to catch a lot of hell for cutting some government wasteful programs and reducing the rate of growth with others. Lots of folks are going to be screaming bloody murder over these "draconian cuts" in Nanny government.

America always gets the government it wants. It's called a democracy, like it or not.

One reason I posted my rules for conservative discourse was to be able to note when posters had followed them.

Federal revenues, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, have fallen 12% over the last four years in absolute terms--despite INCREASES in the revenue from Social Security payroll taxes, which now account for about half of federal revenues. Personal and corporate income tax revenues fell over $200 billion a year--that's right--between 2001 and 2004. For a fuller discussion, those who are not fact averse can check back two or three posts on historyunfolding.blogspot.com. Those who are fact averse, of course, won't care.

David Kaiser '47

Originally Posted by nonpartisan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"

Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.

The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."

Omigod, now the tenants of the Founding Fathers are partisan democratic. So DA, what does that make you?

You don't want to know what he is.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Federal revenues, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, have fallen 12% over the last four years in absolute terms.

Warms my heart. 8)

It is a certifiable fact that increasing taxes has increased federal government revenues. Taxing Americans more results in economic growth.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by nonpartisan

"Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions.

Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?

I'm sick and tired of liberals demonizing conservatives and vice versa, so I'll demonize both of them. NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans in power bear a resemblance to the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. Both are proponents of big government and are trying to drink to unconsciousness at the keg of power.

Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?

I believe the size and role of government changes as civilization evolves. The Founding Fathers set a good policy for their time, a time when the vast majority of the people lived on the land. Still, each crisis presented problems that needed to be addressed. Each crisis transformed society to address these problems, if not necessarily to solve them for all time.

The problem of slavery had to be addressed. Industrial governments must play a larger role in regulating the economy and developing industry. It was prudent and proper for fascism and communism to be destroyed and contained, respectively.

So, no, 18th Century platforms aren't necessarily perfect for all time.

The question is what major flaws have to be addressed in our time. We have the Red and Blue dogmas flailing at each other. Both groups seem more concerned with clinging to 3T perspectives on the world, than identifying problems which need radical transformation to solve. This may continue until the problems become so crucial they cannot be ignored.

I would agree with you that the modern major parties are more concerned with power and serving corporatism than I would prefer. I would agree that 18th Century values might have much to say to the present, though I believe we must address the future. I can find values in both the Red and Blue platforms that also constructively illuminate flaws in modern society.

Still, the Red, Blue and Founding Father's perspectives must all yield to the nature of the 21st Century. All three value sets are clinging to the past more than addressing the future.

My own intuitions? Not enough emphasis is being given to individual liberties. As ever, the ruling class controlling the means of production has too much influence on government policy. Government should be no larger than necessary, but some problems are global in scope, and will require answers global in scope. Ecology driven collapse of third world economies, corporatist misplaced priorities, and terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction are problems which need answers. The Founding Fathers advice on such problems is in my view not sufficient. They were great men. They created great solution. They did not foresee our time.

We will all have to let go of old thought patterns, and desperately try pragmatic experiments. Come the high, the lessons learned from the desperate pragmatic experiments that worked during the crisis will be carved into stone. A new set of myths shall be written. Centuries hence, reactionaries stuck in the mud of the past will quote saints who today are yet awaiting their trials. The pragmatic and desperate people of our time will become anchors holding back the pragmatic and desperate people of the future. While there are many lessons to be learned from history, the first ought to be that one cannot cling to history. History, inevitably, moves on.

So if you cast distain on those living a turning or two in the past, I shall question your dwelling centuries in the past. I try to look to the future. It isn't easy. I can honor your values. I can agree that your values cast the problems of our time in an interesting light. I might even agree that the ultimate goal ought to be minimal government. Each region ought to police its own. No government or its corporate economic arms should try to exploit other areas. International use of military, political and economic force ought to be limited to prevention of grave human rights violations, rather than protecting and extending the influence of one culture over another.

But if the long term goal ought to be small government and international disengagement, the pragmatic solutions to real and immediate problems won't come from standing still and doing nothing. During the imperialistic age, great wrongs were done. The West created some vast inequalities. Our technological and thus economic, military and political power no longer protect us. As aircraft carriers rendered battleships obsolete, so too will terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction invalidate old ideas on military strength and projection of power. We shall need to create a 'soft landing.' Exactly how this is to be achieved, I do not know. I do know that no matter how many valuable answers may be found in the past, no matter how solid and applicable the positive values of the Red, Blue and Founding cultures might be, the answers to the test can't be found in the back of the book. We are going to have to create something new.

That is one awesome post!

Originally Posted by nonpartisan

By the way, I am a Boomer, born in 1956.

Oh my God, another one of us! You join Devil's Advocate, Tim Walker, Brian Rush (who used to post prolifically but hasn't been around much), and of course, Yours Truly! We can be a fiery bunch, but of course, we are Boomers, aren't we! :wink:

I am neither rich or poor. I make about $100K a year but take care of my mother, and often my kids and my grandkids. Taxes are killing me. I often work with the government and see unbelievable waste, cronyism and a seriously flawed accounting system.

Ack! A granddad my age! Makes me feel O L D ! Since my only child is 10 (and a surprising number of her friends have late-wave Boomer parents), its hard to imagine my peers with grandkids. But of course, at my age, my Mom had two! And I do have a biological niece who is 28. :shock:

Sorry about the digression. And BTW, your income would definitely put you into the "upper middle class" bracket.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Allowing Americans to keep more of their earnings results in economic growth. Congressional spending, however, is another matter. But not really, because Americans by and large... like spending money on nifty military machines that kill people.

It is a certifiable fact that increasing taxes has increased federal government revenues. Taxing Americans more results in economic growth.

Mine heart is still warm, the Wool Mohair Program etc., etc. ad infinitum notwithstanding. 8)

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Max

Surely this one's been discussed ad infinitum... ANY BODY care about
Michael Jackson? I haven't read one word about his case..don't care...
just let me know when it's over.

The celebrity gossip newsmags don't seem to care about it either.

Is it 4T or more that MJ is a sick puppy has-been?

I don't give a crap about the MJ trial either, or anything else that has to do with so-called "celebrity justice."

Hi Max!

I guess your positin on the Left Coast makes celebrity more a constant. We on the Right Coast are ambivalent to bored by it.

It's all over the news ie: "jury selection begins today!" and then we get to
see pictures of people standing in line. -Whoopie!

"nonpartisan"Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?

Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?

emphasis mine
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, initially when we all arrive here, "Yes".

The Conservatives come here because they are excited about the prospects.

The Others come here because they want to figure out how we can jump
directly into a 2T. :wink:

Originally Posted by nonpartisan

Thanks, Mr. Butler, you're post actually had substantive value. I agree with everything you said. It was interesting that when I suggested neither party was really what we need in America, I got blasted from the Left as a reactionary and from the Right as a liberal...

In reality I'm just Hamlet. I have no idea what the answer is, but I do know that it's not Bush or Kerry or the next two political machine cardboard cutouts.

Strauss & Howe through their generational system partially illustrate the nature of great political change. Thus, I expect, their system attracts people frustrated by a lack of change, hopeful that things might shift.

Strauss & Howe, in my opinion, don't say enough about the direction of change. The crises that have shaken and transformed the West over the last several centuries have pitted conservative, authoritarian, religious, rural 'red' factions against progressive, democratic, secular urban 'blue' factions. There have been three major phases: catholic v protestant, civil wars and revolutions, and external conflicts with remnant autocratic societies. In each case, the blue factions moved the culture forward, over the dead bodies of red resistance.

As a New Englander, I shall applaud the successful efforts of the Protestant, Roundhead, Patriot, Abolitionist and Allied factions in suppressing the Catholic, Cavalier, Redcoat, Confederate and Nazi factions. I honor my ancestors, some of whom wore blue uniforms. Looking at the old conflicts, I see privileged elements, autocratic elements, rigid fixed rule perspectives, being forced to bend to elements of society using technology to enable new forms of economic, political and economic power.

Thus, when I see various people advocating the Founding Father's, Libertarian, Red or Blue perspectives, my first inclination is to pin each set of values to a point on a timeline. The older the values, the further back in time the solutions advocated by the values are, the more obsolete the values are apt to be. Crises are created in great part because those who profit from an existing power structure resist solving grave problems confronting their society.

In any crisis, both factions create moral justifications for their positions. No matter how pretty these justifications, each faction struggles for pragmatic goals as well, for economic, political and/or military advantage. The overwhelming trend is that the autocratic, fixed rule, existing power structure loses some advantages it attempts to cling to. Changing technology forces society to adapt.

But there is a difference between conservative, progressive and radical. Before the crisis, and into the crisis, the conservatives and progressives bicker endlessly, attempting to establish a favorable compromise that might prevent a crisis from erupting. They fail. The crisis comes. The radicals create a new culture that solves the problems of the age. The compromiser debates preceding the crisis never go far enough to solve the problems. Crises exist because the conflicting factions would rather talk each other to death than adapt new perspectives.

And such is the nature of much conversation on this forum. People here are still advocating red and blue perspectives more than proposing solutions to the problems confronting us. Oh, we have the occasional visiting libertarian, and you're not the only one to honor the Founding Fathers. Still, most people here are red, blue, libertarian or founding first, and generation theory advocates a poor second. Very few people step outside of their home worldviews, to break down red-blue debates from a historical perspective. Rural cultures change slower. The cities are more strongly effected by technological change. Of course, old religious values will work better in rural areas, while urban areas need to adapt to changing circumstances more rapidly. The red / blue struggle, whether internal to the United States, or with respect to the West and Islam, is basic and ancient.

I have to question the idea that a 4T involves rising above partisanship. We are currently in a struggle between those who want to destroy government in the United States and those who want to preserve it. One side is going to win, and concessions to the others will be marginal. That's the nature of the struggle. If things get bad enough at home (and I think they will) that may defeat the anti-government forces as people realize we need authority and intervention from the top. But the Republicans, as in the 1930s, will still be dragged kicking and screaming to their own salvation, if that happens.

David K '47

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Strauss & Howe, in my opinion, don't say enough about the direction of change. The crises that have shaken and transformed the West over the last several centuries have pitted conservative, authoritarian, religious, rural 'red' factions against progressive, democratic, secular urban 'blue' factions. There have been three major phases: catholic v protestant, civil wars and revolutions, and external conflicts with remnant autocratic societies. In each case, the blue factions moved the culture forward, over the dead bodies of red resistance.

As a New Englander, I shall applaud the successful efforts of the Protestant, Roundhead, Patriot, Abolitionist and Allied factions in suppressing the Catholic, Cavalier, Redcoat, Confederate and Nazi factions. I honor my ancestors, some of whom wore blue uniforms. Looking at the old conflicts, I see privileged elements, autocratic elements, rigid fixed rule perspectives, being forced to bend to elements of society using technology to enable new forms of economic, political and economic power

This is easier said than done. For example the winning faction in each case is the progressive faction. What does progressive mean? One way to characterize progressive could be "in the direction of the future". The progressive factions would then be the faction of the future. Since the winners make the future, it stands to reason that progressive could mean the faction that won. And so it cannot be determined before the victor is known.

Urban vs. rural does mean something. But I don't see how the urban faction always wins. In the Revolutionary Crisis Great Britain was the more urbanized faction--and they lost.

Similarly religious versus secular means something, but I don't see how the Protestants were more secular than Catholics. Ditto for the Roundheads (Puritans) as compared to the Cavaliers. In fact, in the latter case, I would say the reverse might be more the case.

Similarly how were the Roundheads, who put in a dictator after their revolution, less authoritarian than the Cavaliers?

[quote="Bob Butler 54"]
But there is a difference between conservative, progressive and radical. Before the crisis, and into the crisis, the conservatives and progressives bicker endlessly, attempting to establish a favorable compromise that might prevent a crisis from erupting. They fail. The crisis comes. The radicals create a new culture that solves the problems of the age. [quote]

I'd like input on two things:

1) There seems to be some misalignment about the term "progressives", Bob, can you give examples of who the conservatives, progressives and radicals were in the past crises, and

2) Assuming the above quote is correct, who are today's radicals?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Strauss & Howe, in my opinion, don't say enough about the direction of change. The crises that have shaken and transformed the West over the last several centuries have pitted conservative, authoritarian, religious, rural 'red' factions against progressive, democratic, secular urban 'blue' factions. There have been three major phases: catholic v protestant, civil wars and revolutions, and external conflicts with remnant autocratic societies. In each case, the blue factions moved the culture forward, over the dead bodies of red resistance.

As a New Englander, I shall applaud the successful efforts of the Protestant, Roundhead, Patriot, Abolitionist and Allied factions in suppressing the Catholic, Cavalier, Redcoat, Confederate and Nazi factions. I honor my ancestors, some of whom wore blue uniforms. Looking at the old conflicts, I see privileged elements, autocratic elements, rigid fixed rule perspectives, being forced to bend to elements of society using technology to enable new forms of economic, political and economic power

This is easier said than done. For example the winning faction in each case is the progressive faction. What does progressive mean? One way to characterize progressive could be "in the direction of the future". The progressive factions would then be the faction of the future. Since the winners make the future, it stands to reason that progressive could mean the faction that won. And so it cannot be determined before the victor is known.

Urban vs. rural does mean something. But I don't see how the urban faction always wins. In the Revolutionary Crisis Great Britain was the more urbanized faction--and they lost.

Similarly religious versus secular means something, but I don't see how the Protestants were more secular than Catholics. Ditto for the Roundheads (Puritans) as compared to the Cavaliers. In fact, in the latter case, I would say the reverse might be more the case.

Similarly how were the Roundheads, who put in a dictator after their revolution, less authoritarian than the Cavaliers?

If you really want to dig into the Puritan / Patriot / Abolitionist tradition, I'd recommend Kevin Phillips The Cousins? Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, and the Triumph of Anglo?America. In short, the roundhead Puritan parliamentary faction of the English Civil War was centered near London, while the King drew most of his support from rural areas and from among the aristocracy, the 'Cavaliers.' As usual, there were many intertwined levels of conflict: economic, the expanding role of cottage industry in and near London; political, the conflict between King and Parliament; religious, with the King's followers tending towards the high church, while the urban faction was Puritan.

The conflict see-sawed back and forth. When the Roundheads were losing, they tended to immigrate to Boston and New England. When the Cavaliers were losing, they tended to immigrate to Virginia and the South. During the English Civil War finale, many from Boston returned to England to rejoin the fight. Centuries later, there was a extremely strong correlation between the dominant religion in an area of the US, and the likelihood that the region would secede from the Union.

The Cousin's Wars does an interesting job of tracing religious and political values as they immigrated across the Atlantic. He makes a case that the Cousin's Wars were a single interrupted conflict. While he didn't reference Strauss and Howe, he made a strong impression on how values and issues in the eternal red - blue conflict morphed from crisis to crisis. His book, of course, is a tale of the three basic internal conflicts that shaped the modern West.

When I broadly summarize the sides in this long struggle as rural, autocratic, conservative, religious against urban, democratic, progressive, secular, this is a very broad brush. This is a four fold definition. All four arrows pointing towards 'progressive' aren't relevant in each and every crisis.

As an example, during the era of Catholic - Protestant conflicts, both sides were obviously religious. During that era, the conservative side would be High Church, the Catholics, who insisted that their autocratic hierarchy was the only proper body capable of interpreting the Bible. The Protestants wanted the Bibles printed in native tongues, and encouraged readers to find meaning in the text themselves. While the word 'secular' might not work, the side that is 'progressive' seems obvious.

The American Revolution had many facets. One was colonial imperialism. The triggering economic problem was the desire of Boston area merchants to trade freely, avoiding British hulls sailing only to British ports while enforcing British Taxes. John Hancock was a smuggler. To this day, Jamaica Plain is the town just south of Boston, while Boston Bay is located right next to the colonial capitol of Jamaica. To justify the economic motivations, the Patriots embraced Enlightenment values... the Natural Rights of Man, taxation without representation being tyranny. While the economic and trade considerations brewed the storm, the moral and political aspects were important too. While I agree that the urban - rural benchmark doesn't work in the Revolutionary crisis, and religious issues were not a primary issue in the Revolution, the New England Patriots (Super Bowl Champions! Oops. Sorry.) were clearly heirs of the Puritans, and ancestors of the Abolitionists. The arrow of progressive, with 20 20 hindsight, seems clear to me.

Anyway, The Cousins? Wars makes a nice read if you want to understand the complexities of how issues and factions shift and move both during crises and between crises.

With respect to the current internal US Red - Blue conflict, rural, religious and conservative do seem to apply to the Red faction. The 'autocratic' label might mesh less well. It might be more inflammatory than illuminating. I won't insist on it. This would make the Blue faction, perhaps, urban, secular and progressive. I'll go for three out of four working.

But these are the conservative and progressive factions. As Nonpartisan asked, "Who are today's radicals?" Good question. Where are the Sons of Liberty, the Abolitionists, the supporters of Parliament who dare raise their banners against the King? Where is Martin Luther, hammering blasphemy to the doors of the Church? There are not enough of them, seeing the World through different perspectives, attempting to find new solutions to new problems. I'll repeat my nominations.

Arundhati Roy, attempting to promote the interests of the poor and fight corrupt Third World governments allowing First World corporations to exploit and manipulate.

Thomas Barnett, drawing The Pentagon's New Map, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/publi...gonsnewmap.htm charts the new bipolar borders between those who embrace modern ideas and those yet mired in the past. He has pegged the international Red Blue conflict fairly well, though he might not agree in all ways with Arundhati as to the key issues and who the bad guys are.

And the academic non-radical, Amy Chua, whose World On Fire shows hot the economic, class, ethnic, religious and political aspects of recent crises interact. She is a compromiser, not a radical. She would rather avoid a crisis than put a torch to civilization. Still, her perspective bridges those of Roy and Barnett.

But these are early days yet. These are three visions which look at the world from new and appropriate perspectives. They are radical, if not yet entirely popularized and accepted. They are also broad. It is one thing to propose new visions and values, another to implement functioning policies and tactics. We are just beginning to try to actually solve problems. We shall need a lot of trials, a lot of errors, a lot of lessons learned before, at the beginning of the High, we attempt to create a new society ready to stand for all time.

All time, or four score and seven years, whichever comes first.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

When I broadly summarize the sides in this long struggle as rural, autocratic, conservative, religious against urban, democratic, progressive, secular, this is a very broad brush. This is a four fold definition. All four arrows pointing towards 'progressive' aren't relevant in each and every crisis.

I saw the connection between the puritan/patriot/abolitionist thread. I don't see how it continues to this day in the way you are thinking. The problem is your characterization of the Depression Crisis. The "sides" you picked were the Allies versus the Nazis. This leaves out the Depression, which covers most of the Crisis. It also doesn't focus on the domestic sides--yet the Red and Blue characterizations today are domestic divisions.

Yet there were domestic divisions in the last crisis. There was a conservative verus progresssive struggle. Aligned with the progressives last time were what we call the Red Zone. It is possible that something similar could happened again. The progressives of this Crisis could be the neoconservatives who with their new policy of democracy installation could end up transforming the world in unexpected ways. Suppose a new government does take power in Iraq and orders the US to leave. And the US does leave. Suppose there is revolt or revolution in Iran with the result of a pair of fairly moderate Shia republics appearring in the Mideast.

This outcome would be transformational, even if it is not what the US set out to achieve. I am not saying this will happen, but if your stir the pot stuff can happen.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If you really want to dig into the Puritan / Patriot / Abolitionist tradition, I'd recommend Kevin Phillips The Cousins? Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, and the Triumph of Anglo?America.

Awesome book. I'm two-thirds of the way through it now!!!

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If you really want to dig into the Puritan / Patriot / Abolitionist tradition, I'd recommend Kevin Phillips The Cousins? Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, and the Triumph of Anglo?America.

Awesome book. I'm two-thirds of the way through it now!!!

I bet you are, you tea supping limey biscuit :wink:

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If you really want to dig into the Puritan / Patriot / Abolitionist tradition, I'd recommend Kevin Phillips The Cousins? Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, and the Triumph of Anglo?America.

Awesome book. I'm two-thirds of the way through it now!!!

I bet you are, you tea supping limey biscuit :wink:

My Irish Catholic and Scots/Scots-Irish Presbyterian ancestors say "hi". 8)

You know, if I were in Belfast I'd have to shoot myself since I'd be a walking civil war. :wink:

Only in America is a teacher charged with rape for making a 13 year old boy's dream come true...

Teacher charged with having sex with student, 13

Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Posted: 8:45 AM EST (1345 GMT)

Teacher Pamela Turner is free on $50,000 bond.

McMINNVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- An elementary school teacher has been charged with having sex with one of her students, a 13-year-old boy, at his home and at school, authorities said Tuesday.

Pamela Turner, 27, was charged Monday with 15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape for acts between November and January.

Turner, who teaches physical education at Centertown Elementary, lived at the boy's house "for a brief period of time when she was moving from residence to residence," Warren County prosecutor Dale Potter said. The boy's parents did not know anything about the relationship, he said.

Potter said Turner was arrested Monday in Clarkrange, her hometown about 55 miles northeast of McMinnville in central Tennessee.

Conviction on all counts could be punished by up to 100 years in prison. But Potter said it was more likely that a conviction would mean a minimum of a year to several years in prison.

Turner is free on $50,000 bond. She's been placed on leave by the school system.

A telephone message left at the home of her father, who lives in Clarkrange, was not immediately returned Tuesday evening.

Turner's husband filed for divorce in January, alleging inappropriate marital conduct, according to the Southern Standard newspaper in McMinnville.

Interesting post from Bob Butler, and I have at least one bone to pick:

The older the values, the further back in time the solutions advocated by the values are, the more obsolete the values are apt to be.

Values are generally fairly constant for long periods of time. For example, in various religions that have lasted well over several millenia, the core values are the same. It is which values people choose to emphasize at any given time that change. Also, the circumstances upon which and the methods by which they decide to further those values change with time.
For example, the concept of freedom and liberty (two different ideas, by the way, though we tend to conflate them) has been a value in western society for a long time (I use western because I am not as familiar with the east--so don't get your PC dander worked up). The extent of how that value is applied and the means by which it is applied have changed significantly, though. In the Greek "polis", these values were theoretically applied only to wealthy, free, male citizens. In the 20th century of the US, they are theoretically applied to all citizens. We tend to critique the methodology by which they are applied (inefficient, not always just) and the failings of the people who apply them (we are imperfect) but the value itself is still there.

This is why I do not take part in the red (funny when I was a 'red diaper baby' that term meant the opposite of what it does now!)state-blue state culture war arguments. I say a Pox on both their houses, because the pundits and commentators on both sides refuse to see that we have a similar set of underlying values but we argue about how they ought to be applied and to what extent we are able to apply them. The lack of respect for other points of view shown by both houses can only hurt all of us as this crisis comes together.

By the way, Jenny--I am 1961--so I am an X-er--just barely!

Originally Posted by elilevin

By the way, Jenny--I am 1961--so I am an X-er--just barely!

Why do I not see 1961ers as Xers??
I have no problem with 1962, but the year of Coulter, Hannity, Obama, Thune - seems a bit too SHRILL for me :?