Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 393







Post#9801 at 05-01-2005 11:01 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-01-2005, 11:01 PM #9801
Guest

Re: Deep, man.

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
Interesting. You realize, of course, that this casts Star Trek's recurrent Borg theme as pre-seasonal Fourth Turning horror... This would suggest that certain creative types of people sensed a 4T Crisis on the horizon as early as 1990, before The Fourth Turning was even written.
Gee, would that include S&H's "dark" observation on the 1982's Blade Runner; or their positive insights on the "Abort it!" Rosemary's Baby of 1968? Or, how about that recently alluded to Soylent Green doom and gloom?

Golly, the 4T Crisis was on the horizon as early as 1968!
See what I mean?
  • "The Republicans are in, aren't they?" --Radio host Fred Allen (from 1956 documentary on the "Roaring Twenties")
Democrats "in"? Good. GOP "in"? Bad.

Such is the "political cycle" of history. :wink:







Post#9802 at 05-01-2005 11:38 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-01-2005, 11:38 PM #9802
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
Interesting. You realize, of course, that this casts Star Trek's recurrent Borg theme as pre-seasonal Fourth Turning horror... monsters that can do far worse then kill you, by turning you into one of THEM. They're like late 20th-early 21st century vampires, wolfmen and Frankensteins all rolled up into one, and then some. This would suggest that certain creative types of people sensed a 4T Crisis on the horizon as early as 1990, before The Fourth Turning was even written.
Interesting point, and I suspect it might be valid. The Borg in some ways were horror-style villains. Furthermore, the Silent ethos utterly permeated the STTNG series writing, which made the Borg, in their implacability, particularly horrific.

The Adaptive archetype collectively deads above all else (if S&H are right) the return of the Crisis mood they knew in childhood. The Borg might well be a product of that fear.







Post#9803 at 05-01-2005 11:45 PM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
05-01-2005, 11:45 PM #9803
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Interesting point, and I suspect it might be valid. The Borg in some ways were horror-style villains. Furthermore, the Silent ethos utterly permeated the STTNG series writing, which made the Borg, in their implacability, particularly horrific.

The Adaptive archetype collectively deads above all else (if S&H are right) the return of the Crisis mood they knew in childhood. The Borg might well be a product of that fear.
I thought the Borg represented the conformist corporate drones and the menance that many people see of the major corporations.
"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"

L. Ron Hubbard







Post#9804 at 05-01-2005 11:47 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-01-2005, 11:47 PM #9804
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion:

p.s. sigh but such is what passes for non-confronted high intellectual discussion here. Why stop now, eh?
Marc, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended, because I'm speaking as ally of yours, more or less, in these debates.

I share your wish for a more civil discourse, and for a more on-topic debate, but this isn't the way to obtain it. I know the point you're getting at, but making it that way doesn't achieve anything, since the satire is lost on many of those its aimed at. It tends to toss us right back into the arguments over personalities and politics that you're satirizing.

We have a civil and relevant discussion about the S&H theory going on here, why not join in and encourage it by participating in it?







Post#9805 at 05-01-2005 11:51 PM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
05-01-2005, 11:51 PM #9805
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."
In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.
"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"

L. Ron Hubbard







Post#9806 at 05-02-2005 12:02 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-02-2005, 12:02 AM #9806
Guest

Retry?

  • "Come the mid-1960s, the Silent fell under the trance of their free-spirited next-juniors, the Boomers." --Biography.com
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
Interesting. You realize, of course, that this casts Star Trek's recurrent Borg theme as pre-seasonal Fourth Turning horror...
Interesting point, and I suspect it might be valid. The Borg in some ways were horror-style villains. Furthermore, the Silent ethos utterly permeated the STTNG series writing, which made the Borg, in their implacability, particularly horrific.
Gee, was that before, or after, the Boomer "trance" they fell under?

Golly, needless to say, that evil "law and order" Nixon, a Republican, guy was their ultimate Darth Vader "horror-style villain", eh? Abort, abort, abort!

p.s. Who was it that S&H alluded to as the "abort... something... retry..." generation? What future "trance" will thus the Gen Xers fall under?







Post#9807 at 05-02-2005 12:08 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-02-2005, 12:08 AM #9807
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Semo '75
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Regarding my above comments about horror movies and Turnings, we can take that forward, IMO, to the 3T, where the theme shifts again.
You're killing me here, HC. You've baited me into a conversation that has eaten up my Sunday.
8) :twisted:

It's a hazard of the forum.

I can only hope that I have the time to follow up; as you can see, this is a topic that interests me quite a bit.
Me too. I found your points in response interesting, when I get a moment I plan to respond to them.

One point about Myers, though, in a sense he was an innocent victim, though this is only known to the relative handful who read the novelization of that first Halloween movie.







Post#9808 at 05-02-2005 12:12 AM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
05-02-2005, 12:12 AM #9808
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

The transition from the prior 1T to the following 2T is another dramatic example of how things overlap. It is generally accepted on this board that the Kennedy Assassination was the beginning of the 2T.
But not universally accepted. I am a dissenter on that point, I think the 2T started (in terms of national average) around 1965-66, and I think it ended (again as a broad national matter) right around 1986.
I agree with Brian Rush saying that the Awakening started in 1964 at least for the US with the first of the long hot angry summers. In Europe the last 2T started with Prague Spring and May 68?.

On the other hand I would agree with Strauss and Howe's end date for the Awakening in 1984. Transitions from 1T-2T and 3T-4T are very dramatic, while transitions from 4T-1T and 2T-3T are pretty gradual and harder to make totally precise judgements.
"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"

L. Ron Hubbard







Post#9809 at 05-02-2005 12:18 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-02-2005, 12:18 AM #9809
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
[Marc, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended...
Done. The floor is yours. Please continue with something worth reading, here.

p.s. Tristan, you completely missed my point (which I regret trying to make).







Post#9810 at 05-02-2005 08:12 AM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
05-02-2005, 08:12 AM #9810
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

If the transitiion from 3T to 4T is dramatic, then we have obviously not reached the 4T as yet, as it seems to be pretty well confirmed that 9/11 did not put America in a real 4T mode. In many ways, however, I felt that the 2T t0 3T transition was rather abrupt, as the Boomer gen shifted from hedonistic to workaholic almost overnight. To me at least that was an abrupt, dramatic shift. Another post on this forum I read over the weekend indicated that 1986 was the year when the 2T/3T shift became apparent. So if we are to go with the 20-year phase, then next year, 2006, will be the year we reach the 4T.







Post#9811 at 05-02-2005 09:35 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-02-2005, 09:35 AM #9811
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan Jones
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."
In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.
Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#9812 at 05-02-2005 09:45 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
05-02-2005, 09:45 AM #9812
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

It's over...

Quote Originally Posted by the political philosopher, Mr. R. Orbison
It's over!

Quote Originally Posted by Wa[i
Po[/i]]As the president passed the 100-day mark of his second term over the weekend, the main question facing Bush and his party is whether they misread the November elections. With the president's poll numbers down, and the Republican majority ensnared in ethical controversy, things look much less like a once-a-generation realignment.
Doubts About Mandate for Bush, GOP







Post#9813 at 05-02-2005 09:47 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-02-2005, 09:47 AM #9813
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

I'm enjoying the discussion about horror films and turnings. How do such films as The Ring, Final Destination and 28 Days Later fit in to your theory, HC?







Post#9814 at 05-02-2005 11:42 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
05-02-2005, 11:42 AM #9814
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Quote Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster
Quote Originally Posted by Tristan Jones
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."
In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.
Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.
Also, there are those who have suggested that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus' lawfully wedded wife, and that, in later centuries, a Church that had become thoroughly enamored of (not to say 'obsessed with') the idea that lifelong celibacy and chastity were far superior morally over marriage went to the lengths (and depths) of dragging her good name through the mud as part of a systematic cover-up of that "embarassing" fact. :oops: :wink:







Post#9815 at 05-02-2005 01:18 PM by A.LOS79 [at Jersey joined Apr 2003 #posts 516]
---
05-02-2005, 01:18 PM #9815
Join Date
Apr 2003
Location
Jersey
Posts
516

aaa








Post#9816 at 05-02-2005 02:27 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
05-02-2005, 02:27 PM #9816
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Quote Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.
Actually, according to Jewish law, Jesus, as the son of an unmarried Jewish woman, would be legitimate. He would not be considered a mamzer. A mamzer is the child of an adulterous relationship in which the mother is married, but not to the father of the child. This differentiation is because although it was socially unacceptable, sex before marriage (fornication) was not considered a sin equal to adultery, which is mentioned in the ten commandments.

In the customs of Judea and Galilee under the Romans, there were three methods of marriage. One was to have sexual intercourse that was publically known--usually by the couple moving in together (equivilent to common law marrriage). Another was a public declaration by the families (betrothal). The last, called Kiddushin was betrothal followed by a ceremony in which the Ketubah (marriage contract) was read and signed. All were accepted, but the first was considered a low-class method. Only in the third way were the rights of the woman preserved by the Ketubah. By the end of the Talmudic period (about 500 CE) the last two were made into one ceremony.

With respect to the legal recognition of who the father is, when a woman becomes pregnant, the child is considered the child of her husband--no matter what the kid looks like! If she has no husband, then the man who steps forward to claim the child is considered the father, and the child is considered legitimate. It is through the mother that the child recieves status as a member of the people Israel. This was done because for 500 or more years before the Common Era (the time of Jesus), Israel and Judea were repeatedly overrun, invaded, conquered and governed by others. These wars were associated with much rape and mayhem. By making the rules work this way, a woman who was raped and made pregnant by mauraders, foreign soldiers or whoever, was protected and her child was also protected.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#9817 at 05-02-2005 02:34 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-02-2005, 02:34 PM #9817
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Re: aaa

Your post completely lost me. Was there supposed to be a link to something?

I'd appreciate some clarification.


:?: :? :?:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#9818 at 05-02-2005 03:27 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
05-02-2005, 03:27 PM #9818
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Re: aaa

Quote Originally Posted by Bat Mitzvah Girl
Your post completely lost me. Was there supposed to be a link to something?

I'd appreciate some clarification.


:?: :? :?:
Jenny,

Are congratulations in order?

I had my Bat Mitzvah on Shabbat Chol ha-Moed Pesach 15 years ago, at the age of 32. Did you just have one during Pesach?
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#9819 at 05-02-2005 03:37 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-02-2005, 03:37 PM #9819
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Re: aaa

Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
Jenny,

Are congratulations in order?

I had my Bat Mitzvah on Shabbat Chol ha-Moed Pesach 15 years ago, at the age of 32. Did you just have one during Pesach?
Yes, a group of nine of us (8 women and a lone man) became b'nei mitzvah Saturday afternoon. After the Shabbat Torah-reading service, we had a quick havdallah service and then celebrated our b'nei mitzvahood (or however you want to phrase it) and the end of Pesach by eating challah and then going in for a catered dinner.

I was able to do my four lines of Torah with some competency, so I feel tremendously relieved! And it was a lovely service. Roadbldr '59 came to be with me on that special day; as I write this, he is probably boarding his plane to take him back home. I think he got a kick out of the dor v'dor (translation -- generation to generation) part of the service. :wink:

He was joined by my mother, one of my sisters, my brother, and other family and friends, and of course, my daughter, who will become Bat Mitzvah in about 2 1/2 years.

It was wonderful.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#9820 at 05-02-2005 03:42 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-02-2005, 03:42 PM #9820
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
Quote Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.
Actually, according to Jewish law, Jesus, as the son of an unmarried Jewish woman, would be legitimate. He would not be considered a mamzer. A mamzer is the child of an adulterous relationship in which the mother is married, but not to the father of the child. This differentiation is because although it was socially unacceptable, sex before marriage (fornication) was not considered a sin equal to adultery, which is mentioned in the ten commandments.

In the customs of Judea and Galilee under the Romans, there were three methods of marriage. One was to have sexual intercourse that was publically known--usually by the couple moving in together (equivilent to common law marrriage). Another was a public declaration by the families (betrothal). The last, called Kiddushin was betrothal followed by a ceremony in which the Ketubah (marriage contract) was read and signed. All were accepted, but the first was considered a low-class method. Only in the third way were the rights of the woman preserved by the Ketubah. By the end of the Talmudic period (about 500 CE) the last two were made into one ceremony.

With respect to the legal recognition of who the father is, when a woman becomes pregnant, the child is considered the child of her husband--no matter what the kid looks like! If she has no husband, then the man who steps forward to claim the child is considered the father, and the child is considered legitimate. It is through the mother that the child recieves status as a member of the people Israel. This was done because for 500 or more years before the Common Era (the time of Jesus), Israel and Judea were repeatedly overrun, invaded, conquered and governed by others. These wars were associated with much rape and mayhem. By making the rules work this way, a woman who was raped and made pregnant by mauraders, foreign soldiers or whoever, was protected and her child was also protected.
Hmm, it sounds like you have something to teach the good priest who wrote Rabbi Jesus who is supposedly such an expert on 1st Century Judaism. :wink:

Beth El Hebrew Congregation (a Reform temple) didn't teach me much about who is considered a mamzer, so I accepted the good priest's word for it. :lol:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#9821 at 05-02-2005 04:11 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
05-02-2005, 04:11 PM #9821
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan Jones
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."
In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.
I am pretty sure the Catholic church very quietly recanted the Magdelene as prostitute thing a little while ago. They consciously mashed the two Marys together, and now that ppl are allowed to read the bible, they took em back apart. This is of course over something like an 800 year period.







Post#9822 at 05-02-2005 04:47 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
05-02-2005, 04:47 PM #9822
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
... I am pretty sure the Catholic church very quietly recanted the Magdelene as prostitute thing a little while ago. They consciously mashed the two Marys together, and now that ppl are allowed to read the bible, they took em back apart. This is of course over something like an 800 year period.
I've always been partial to the possibility of Mary Magdalene as the financier of at least one itinerant Jewish Rabbi. In a way, it makes sense, since he needed to keep his entourage fed, clothed and on-message. I don't remember sending the fishermen out to fish, but everyone ate.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#9823 at 05-02-2005 06:56 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
05-02-2005, 06:56 PM #9823
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

washingtonpost.com
Doubts About Mandate for Bush, GOP
By John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 2, 2005; A01

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY



The day after he won a second term in November, President Bush offered his view of the new political landscape.

"When you win there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view," he said, "and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as president . . . and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together."

Six months ago, this comment was widely viewed as more than just a postgame boast. Among campaign strategists and academics, there was ample speculation that Bush's victory, combined with incremental gains in the Republican congressional majority, signaled something fundamental: a partisan and ideological "realignment" that would reshape politics over the long haul.

As the president passed the 100-day mark of his second term over the weekend, the main question facing Bush and his party is whether they misread the November elections. With the president's poll numbers down, and the Republican majority ensnared in ethical controversy, things look much less like a once-a-generation realignment........................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100948_pf.html
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt







Post#9824 at 05-02-2005 08:11 PM by Steven McTowelie [at Cary, NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 535]
---
05-02-2005, 08:11 PM #9824
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Cary, NC
Posts
535

Re: aaa

Quote Originally Posted by Bat Mitzvah Girl
Your post completely lost me. Was there supposed to be a link to something?

I'd appreciate some clarification.


:?: :? :?:
I think it was supposed to be a chart comparing evidence supporting the idea that we're in a 3T versus evidence supporting the idea that we're in a 4T. Unfortunately it's hard to do charts and tables on this forum. I think this is what was meant:

3T Evidence: Terry Schiavo drama, Michael Jackson trial, Stronger Culture Wars, Election 2004(was gridlock, no landslide like 2000)

4T Evidence: Social Security panic, Iraq, 9-11, Homelanders have started(2004)







Post#9825 at 05-02-2005 08:26 PM by Steven McTowelie [at Cary, NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 535]
---
05-02-2005, 08:26 PM #9825
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Cary, NC
Posts
535

That's our Bush!

I tend to agree with the list of 3T evidence above. I have often stated that the 2004 election results matching the 2000 results is a sure sign of a lack of political realignment/regeneracy - what you would expect in a Fourth Turning. But it has occurred to me lately that the re-election of Bush does fit the Fourth Turning idea of putting faith in leadership despite its obvious deficiencies...

I buy the SS reform on the table as a 4T indicator. It's finally being discussed, and that's definitely new. But 9/11 and Iraq I don't think are reliable indicators. A Homelander initial birthyear of 2004 means we're still 3T, so that's misplaced.
-----------------------------------------