Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with
> it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will
> eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will
> happen. ...

> We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will
> likely be the end of civilization. ...

> We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003). ...

> We had our civil war in 1995-2000. ...

I don't know, Mike. I'm getting the feeling that you're completely
losing it. Maybe you never fully recovered from that 1990s civil war
we had.

Sincerely,

John

As it occured in his mind, perhaps he took more damage from it than the rest of us?

I will explain. 4Ts don't repeat because we learn the solutions to the old problems. In 2000-2002 the same thing happened that happened in 1929-1932. The stock market crash produced a deflationary trigger. Back then it caused the Great Depression because policy exacerbated the imbalances resulting from the trigger. This time policy countered the effects of the trigger and the deflationary spiral did not get underway. No spiral, no depression. So we didn't get the deflationary crunch that John expects and that is why the Dow didn't collapse to below 4000 back in 2003 as John predicted. It's not going to happen. The Depression spark came and was stamped out without sparking anything.
************************************************** *********
The civil war involved one of Bob's spirals of violence that was not stopped in time and so got out of control leading to conflagration. Right on schedule, another one developed in the 1990's as Bob had noted in the past. But it failed to ignite into a larger struggle. Why? Because the side behind the violence in the 1990's, social conservatives, was not marginalized politically. Rather, they impeached the sitting Democratic president and in 2000 put in one of their own. Today you hardly ever hear a right winger wailing about how the government of George Bush is oppressing them. There is no need for a spiral of violence reflecting Red concerns about a Blue-led government oppression.

In the antebellum era legislators were not permitted to even talk about slavery, it was a forbidden topic. Obviously a political solution is not going to be found for a problem that cannot even be discussed and so it will be dealt with through violence. Back in the early 1990's a lot of attention was brought up about how political correctness attempted to place a gag on what can be discussed. PC died and all sorts of rancorous debate has developed (e.g. Ann Coulter). There has been no gag imposed. The Red side (the one with the greivance) has been plenty loud and politically active--eliminating the need for violence.

The spark that would ignite a Red:Blue spiral was stamped out this time because we learned as a society that problems have to be talked about, even if just to blow off steam.
************************************************** *********
Given that the US fired off all of its nukes in the last 4T isn't there a concern that if a crisis were to be forced on us like last time, we might do it again? Should this happen again it will lead to nuclear holocaust which would almost certainly mean the end of civilization.

Since we have had nukes for a long time, our political system has probably developed the ability to prevent crises forcing us to do anything like blow up the world.

What the crisis might be like can be seen in the mildly alarming postings about how Americans haven't cut their gas use yet with rising gas prices. The prospect that we might pay $10 or $15 or $20 for a gallon of gas is so horrible that we need a crash program to prevent this from happening or my gosh we might have to drive less. Yes we might be "forced" to drive less or buy a smaller car or ride a bike or whatever, but that really isn't a crisis being forced on us--its just an minor irritation compared to what the Iraqis, Lebanese or Sudanese are going through.

Whatever irritations the 4T brings, we can be sure that the American hype machine will make it play as a disaster of the first magnitude. The fear generated by the hype will drive a response without anything having to happen that is worse than the prettty nasty stuff that has already happened in this 4T.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The spark that would ignite a Red:Blue spiral was stamped out this time because we learned as a society that problems have to be talked about, even if just to blow off steam.

Welcome to America, where problems might be problems.

There seems to be a consensus amongst many, including some in this thread, that America should focus on being part of a multi polar world rather than playing the role of hegemon. A look at the real cost to our economy and our democracy of continuing current polices long term shows them to be unsustainable as things are going now. If this idea for a paradign shift gains traction, it will run headlong into the entrenched interests that Eisenhower warned about as the military-industrail complex. We're already seeing signs that the ruling class is tone deaf to the will of the people. One example is the "immigration reform" bill, which reads to most Americans as a method to legalize the undocumented laborers while making moves to close the border that are mostly symbolic and more or less designed to fail.

What we may see slowly starting to develop is a 4t that will be the elite against the common people. The giant institutions like transnational corporations and their supporting think tanks ect. that have battened themselves on what could be called the "imperial reigngelt" are going to fight this emerging kind of decentralized system that would make them obsolete. They will have allies in the corporate media, indeed to a certain extent they are the same people, that will use the usual tatics like fear that we have seen so much of scince 911 to attempt to scare people into accepting the role of serf that the increasing centralization of econonic and political power is leading to.

Does anyone else see this "neo feudalist" challenge to American democracy as possibly a major problem of the coming 4t?

Obligation went up and down the hierarchy of the feudal system. What we seem to be creating is something quite different. The order below God (or nature's God) seems indifferent to its obligation to provide for justice. The next seem not to see to the spiritual and security needs of either those above or below. The freemen refuse to act as if they were freeman and have become self enserfed. The servile sink into an even more servile state. And, then we have the slaves.

But, the several Estates and the several Mobilites and those in between are all seeking to push their obligations onto someone else. That the lowest order should be so feckless comes as no surprise; that the highest orders are likewise indifferent to their obligations points to a system much less honorable than a feudal one. It may look like the late Roman Republic-Early Empire with its seeking of thrills and cheap corn at all levels. Clodius and Milo might be the model for our neo-Commercial Republicanism.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Does anyone else see this "neo feudalist" challenge to American democracy as possibly a major problem of the coming 4t?

Yes. I wouldn't describe it as 'neo feudalist.' Through America's history, there has often been a tension between elite Establishments and progressive reform movements. Crises are often times of reform, of casting old Establishments out of power, of empowering new Establishments. In some respects, the current situation seems to fit the pattern. The Military Industrial Complex might be akin to other Establishments with vested interests, from George III and the British Nobility, to the slave owners, to the Robber Barons.

At minimum, there is a problem with campaign finance. Politicians cannot gather the funds to be elected without accepting legalized bribes from large business interests. This seems to give major business groups a veto power over any reform favoring the interests of the People. Some mechanism to block this seems necessary, even if it is just a resolution by a lot of voters not to vote for anyone who accepts big money from the Establishment.

Direct vote computer democracy is the more extreme possibility. Representative democracy does pretty good when there is a single litmus test issue. The pace of life and change is now fast enough that there are numerous issues of importance in play in any given election cycle. Taking a strong stance on any controversial issue looses a candidate a lot of votes. Thus, it is tempting for candidates to avoid taking strong stances, but to run on broad principles, values, and a pretty smile. Arguably, in the modern multi issue environment, representative democracy simply doesn't work. The People need direct input to shape government policy on an issue by issue basis.

Many do not believe direct vote network democracy could happen in the short term. I'm a bit dubious, myself. Still, larger changes generally do come out of a crisis than are anticipated at the 3T / 4T cusp. Thus, I will bring up the possibility as the occasion arises.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

At minimum, there is a problem with campaign finance. Politicians cannot gather the funds to be elected without accepting legalized bribes from large business interests. This seems to give major business groups a veto power over any reform favoring the interests of the People. Some mechanism to block this seems necessary, even if it is just a resolution by a lot of voters not to vote for anyone who accepts big money from the Establishment.

One plausible scenario is that some principled moralist will use Big Business money to get himself (or herself) elected President... then do what is necessary for the good of the Nation, Corporate America be damned. This President could very well prove so wildly popular among ordinary people, that he wouldn't need bribes to get reelected... nor would anyone hanging onto his coattails.

Ironically, such a GC is much more likely to emerge from the Republican side of the aisle than from the Democrats... since only a closet-rogue GOPer would stand a chance of blindsiding the Establishment in this manner.

The Clarett is in the Jug!

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The Clarett is in the Jug!

Mr. S., your smooth veneer hides some nasty spikes. :wink:

OK, I’ve watched this for a little while. I agree with Mr. Gingrich but I have no idea as to his reason for saying it. After all he is a politician. Are we in WW III? Well, if you look at WW II to see when it started most people realized it had begun in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. But Japan had invaded Manchuria in 1931 which, resulted in our support of China, and Hitler entered the demilitarized areas in 1936 (but the French did nothing!!). So when did it really start?

Personally I am very concerned with the Chinese military buildup. The last 7 or 8 years we have witnessed one of the largest peacetime military buildups since Japan in the 1920s. I don’t know any case in history where a large buildup in an armed force was not used. And that’s just what we know about. Don’t forget the Korean War either, where China said they would stay out of it, but then did a massive mobilization while keeping it hidden. We were caught totally off guard and almost pushed off the peninsula.

Have we have been watching this war on terror so intently that we have failed to keep tabs on our old “Cold War” enemies? If a crisis is coming to us as Mr. Strauss says (I think he’s right) then it will not come from the terrorists. They might be the trigger, or the excuse, but the real might and power will come from areas of power and strength. That would be China and Russia. The Islamic world definitely has the will to do it but not the technology to effectively deploy a modern fighting force. However, China is extremely wealthy right now and has an enormous populace. There is a large part of that populace that is unsettled. From what I understand they have about 50 million men who will never have the opportunity to have a mate, wife, etc. due to their population imbalance caused by having too many sons versus daughters. Tradition can be a terrible thing. Russia is not broke anymore and they do have plenty of nuclear technology to devastate us should they choose to do so.

What I see emerging is an alliance of Iran, China and Russia that may already be in place. The USA and Britain will be attacked first but only to the extent to destroy their conventional military forces. These are the capabilities that we saw roll through Iraq three years ago virtually unscathed. Europe will tremble. It will soon be attacked by Russia on its eastern and southern flanks. Iran will attack westward toward Israel to put an end to the mess there and try to unite the Islamic world in “wiping Israel off the map”. China will attack to the east aimed not at Taiwan, but directly at the US. Taiwan is a diversion and besides, if the US falls, then Taiwan will capitulate. In the long run you are better off if you don’t have to attack your own people. It needs to be noted that China has the largest merchant fleet in the world and it ships most of its “stuff” to the USA. So it’s not unusual to see lots of ships coming in our direction. Perfect scenario for a surprise attack.

Just as the 1930’s were the prelude to WW II, we are now seeing the same posturing around the world and with the 4T/ Crisis scenario upon us, everything is in place to have a really big war. We just need a trigger, or, if the trigger has already occurred (Iraq maybe) then is it possible that they are already in the preparation phase and the attack will be calculated and timed to their advantage? That would be the best way to do it, but I'm just Brainstorming!!!



Have a good day!!

Maybe the Chinese are planning to seize the oil of Central Asia? (Think Caspian Sea.)

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Maybe the Chinese are planning to seize the oil of Central Asia? (Think Caspian Sea.)

Great minds think alike. Of course, they'll create a big problem for themselves in the long run, but today's China often seems determined to repeat every western mistake of the 20th century in this one. :?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Maybe the Chinese are planning to seize the oil of Central Asia? (Think Caspian Sea.)

Great minds think alike. Of course, they'll create a big problem for themselves in the long run, but today's China often seems determined to repeat every western mistake of the 20th century in this one. :?

That there is a terrifying proposition... :shock:

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Maybe the Chinese are planning to seize the oil of Central Asia? (Think Caspian Sea.)

Great minds think alike. Of course, they'll create a big problem for themselves in the long run, but today's China often seems determined to repeat every western mistake of the 20th century in this one. :?

That there is a terrifying proposition... :shock:

There is even historical precedent: China did indeed take the 'stans (at least as a sphere of influence) for about a hundred years waaaaaay back around 500 AD. And China always places high value on their historical claims.

And we might even go along with it... suppose we develop non-oil-based technology while China irrevocably commits itself to an oil-based economy. That could be a net win for the West.

My supervisor forwarded this to his staff. What strikes me is that wild optimism characterizes societies at the dawn of the Awakening. For those of you old enough, remember the mood around 1965:

• We were Going to Eliminate Poverty!
• We were Going to Put a Man on the Moon!
• We were Going to Find a Cure for Cancer!
• We were Going to Create a Color-Blind Society!

Contrast that with the mood in this editorial, written at the dawn of a Crisis Era, at the darkest time, before the Regeneracy.

The early stages of the Iraq war may have been a watershed in American optimism. The happy talk was so extreme it is now difficult to believe it was sincere: “we will be greeted as liberators”; “mission accomplished”; the insurgency is “in the last throes.” Most wildly optimistic of all was the goal: a military action transforming the Middle East into pro-American democracies.

The gap between predictions and reality has left Americans deeply discouraged. So has much of what has happened, or not happened, at the same time. Those who believed New Orleans would rebound quickly after Hurricane Katrina have seen their hopes dashed. Those counting on solutions to health care, energy dependence or global warming have seen no progress. It is no wonder the nation is in a gloomy mood; 71 percent of respondents in a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll said the country is on the wrong track.

These are ideal times for the release of “Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit,” by Joshua Foa Dienstag, a U.C.L.A. political theorist. Mr. Dienstag aims to rescue pessimism from the philosophical sidelines, where it has been shunted by optimists of all ideologies. The book is seductive, because pessimists are generally more engaging and entertaining than optimists, and because, as the author notes, “the world keeps delivering bad news.” It is almost tempting to throw up one’s hands and sign on with Schopenhauer.

Pessimism, however, is the most un-American of philosophies. This nation was built on the values of reason and progress, not to mention the “pursuit of happiness.” Pessimism as philosophy is skeptical of the idea of progress. Pursuing happiness is a fool’s errand. Pessimism is not, as is commonly thought, about being depressed or misanthropic, and it does not hold that humanity is headed for disaster. It simply doubts the most basic liberal principle: that applying human reasoning to the world’s problems will have a positive effect.

The biggest difference between optimists and pessimists, Mr. Dienstag argues, is in how they view time. Optimists see the passing of time as a canvas on which to paint a better world. Pessimists see it as a burden. Time ticks off the physical decline of one’s body toward the inevitability of death, and it separates people from their loved ones. “All the tragedies which we can imagine,” said Simone Weil, the French philosopher who starved herself to death at age 34, “return in the end to the one and only tragedy: the passage of time.”

Optimists see history as the story of civilization’s ascent. Pessimists believe, Mr. Dienstag notes, in the idea that any apparent progress has hidden costs, so that even when the world seems to be improving, “in fact it is getting worse (or, on the whole, no better).” Polio is cured, but AIDS arrives. Airplanes make travel easy, but they can drop bombs or be crashed into office towers. There is no point in seeking happiness. When joy “actually makes its appearance, it as a rule comes uninvited and unannounced,” insisted Schopenhauer, the dour German who was pessimism’s leading figure.

As politicians, pessimists do not believe in undertaking great initiatives to ameliorate unhappiness, since they are skeptical they will work. They are inclined to accept the world’s evil and misery as inevitable. Mr. Dienstag tries to argue that pessimists can be politically engaged, and in modest ways they can be. Camus joined the French Resistance. But pessimism’s overall spirit, as Camus noted, “is not to be cured, but to live with one’s ailments.”

President Clinton was often mocked for his declarations that he still believed “in a place called Hope.” But he understood that instilling hope is a critical part of leadership. Other than a few special interest programs — like cutting taxes on the wealthy and giving various incentives to business — it is hard to think of areas in which the Bush administration has raised the nation’s hopes and met them. This president has, instead, tried to focus the American people on the fear of terrorism, for which there is no cure, only bad choices or something worse.

Part of Mr. Bush’s legacy may well be that he robbed America of its optimism — a force that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and other presidents, like Ronald Reagan, used to rally the country when it was deeply challenged. The next generation of leaders will have to resell discouraged Americans on the very idea of optimism, and convince them again that their goal should not be to live with their ailments, but to cure them.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My supervisor forwarded this to his staff. What strikes me is that wild optimism characterizes societies at the dawn of the Awakening. For those of you old enough, remember the mood around 1965:

• We were Going to Eliminate Poverty!
• We were Going to Put a Man on the Moon!
• We were Going to Find a Cure for Cancer!
• We were Going to Create a Color-Blind Society!

Contrast that with the mood in this editorial, written at the dawn of a Crisis Era, at the darkest time, before the Regeneracy.

Nice article, Jenny. Today, many people fear that we will enter a new Dark Age as civilization collapses. But then again, so did people after 1930.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My supervisor forwarded this to his staff. What strikes me is that wild optimism characterizes societies at the dawn of the Awakening. For those of you old enough, remember the mood around 1965:

• We were Going to Eliminate Poverty!
• We were Going to Put a Man on the Moon!
• We were Going to Find a Cure for Cancer!
• We were Going to Create a Color-Blind Society!

Contrast that with the mood in this editorial, written at the dawn of a Crisis Era, at the darkest time, before the Regeneracy.

Originally Posted by Mr. Daniel Larison

Where the pessimists will not go, of course, because they do not believe in any ultimate solution of any kind, is to the Christian answer to the human predicament, but in their assessment of the predicament they are that much more realistic than the people who seek to sugar-coat the nature of the world with promises of a better tomorrow and grandiose schemes for reform and progress. The Christian pessimist, if I can use such a term, acknowledges the finitude and createdness that are integral to our being, but he also places his hope in deliverance that is from beyond the ages and an adoption into the divine life of God.

The pessimist’s recognition that no advance comes except at a price (and sometimes too high a price) and a related insight that you abolish a structure in human life in the name of emancipation only to find it re-emerging in its “black market” forms elsewhere (as Chantal Delsol has argued in Icarus Fallen) point to a certain structure and logic in reality that I think even the pessimists in their embrace of the absurd tend to miss. This recognition of the costs of any change, though not framed in specifically conservative language, also can be seen as standing in close relation to conservative critiques of all forms of social engineering and the common sense view that there is no free lunch.

...No Fall this autumn!

Today, I had to escape the compound (psst, don't tell the American taxpayer that I was playing hooky for an hour or so!) to cross Constitution Ave. and visit the Museum of American History (and Technology) or as some are fond of calling, "The Nation's Attic". It will be closed tomorrow for renovations for two years.

It really is a hodgepodge compared to all the other Smithsonians lining the Mall, with nooks and crannies and completely unrelated exhibits from one section to another. It does have rooms of progressions in first ladies' inaugural ball gowns; technologies - transportation over there, electricity and communications over here; and it has a very special exhibit of the "Price of Freedom" that begins with artifacts of the French-Indian Wars and progresses through the litany of our military endeavors ending with steel beams from the WTC and the subsequent materials from the current Iraq excursion -- the rooms with the crisis wars (e.g., 60 million worldwide deaths from WW2) felt particularly laden with a sense of inevitability.

Then there are the other exhibits in varying states of closure. The juxtaposing of exhibits for Honky Tonk music history with Cecilia Cruz salsa with Ray Charles gave just a hint of the bewildering and joyful array of American music and cultures. And the latest temporary exhibit of polio - iron lungs, wheel chairs, equipment from Salk's and Sabin's labs, and photos of vaccinations of baby boomer kids with parallels with today'S AIDS and potentially with SARS or Bird Flu gave one mixed feelings of hope and a feeling of just wanting to hurry to the exit and avoid contact with all these other people from all over the globe!

Leaving the museum, I stopped and looked back at the entrance. I could not help but wonder what history we will have lived through when, hopefully, I’ll be standing here again, two years from now, waiting to enter for the museum’s grand re-opening. I think it was either hopeful pessimism or optimistic forebodding. ;-)

I see the duplicate post problem hasn't yet been solved! :eyesroll:

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Nice article, Jenny. Today, many people fear that we will enter a new Dark Age as civilization collapses. But then again, so did people after 1930.

I maintain that much of what the Awakeners wanted to change they did, if not as successfully or thoroughly as they would have liked:

*Poverty, at least here in America, has been drastically reduced.

*We did put a man on the moon, several in fact, and are mulling over the idea of going back... probably during the next High.

*More people survive cancer than die of it nowadays. There's even a new "magic bullet" vaccine against cervical cancer... more are sure to follow.

*The racism which lingers in society today pales in comparison with that of 1965!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I maintain that much of what the Awakeners wanted to change they did, if not as successfully or thoroughly as they would have liked:

*Poverty, at least here in America, has been drastically reduced.

*We did put a man on the moon, several in fact, and are mulling over the idea of going back... probably during the next High.

*More people survive cancer than die of it nowadays. There's even a new "magic bullet" vaccine against cervical cancer... more are sure to follow.

*The racism which lingers in society today pales in comparison with that of 1965!

But how much of that had anything to do with the Awakening other than being coterminous in time?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

But how much of that had anything to do with the Awakening other than being coterminous in time?

The theme might have been "Big Government Solves Big Problems." Again, optimism and willingness to Tax and Spend in order to get things done. You might try to redefine the awakening as to not include Tax and Spend liberalism, so one can pretend it didn't have its positive side, but that would be a quite a skewed reading of history.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

But how much of that had anything to do with the Awakening other than being coterminous in time?

For those of you old enough, remember the mood around 1965:

• We were Going to Eliminate Poverty!
• We were Going to Put a Man on the Moon!
• We were Going to Find a Cure for Cancer!
• We were Going to Create a Color-Blind Society!

It had a lot to do with optimistic GIs in power. As Roadbldr '59 acknowledged, the GIs did manage to slash poverty rates among the elderly (who before the 70s were the poorest group in America) and they did put a man on the moon. Progressive GIs, along with the Silents, integrated American society. As for cancer, advances have been made, but it's slow...

I think that in the 60s, you had the generational lineup for some Big Changes and as a result, you had the space program, Civil Rights, indexing of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, and environmental protection. All the legacy of the GIs and Silents.

Generational allignments flavor the mood of a turning. A while back, I wrote about taking my older nephew to get his high school senior pictures made and seeing hundreds of 1988 and 1989 core millinnals en masse for the first time. We had college night at his school this week and my earlier impressions were reinforced. The intellegent questions that they asked of the recruiters and the confedence with which they asked them was totally natural. Against the adult tone of our times, these young people are optimistic about their futures and that optimism seemed to be infectious. By the end of the meeting, the older boomer and X'er parents and guardians seemed to be in better spirits than they had at the beginning of the meeting.

For the first time in about 20 years, we are starting to get a sizable number of adult civics in our population. Their natural optimism is going to be needed as the darkness of the 4t becomes more notable. A lot of challenges lie ahead, and a lot of the work will have to be done by the millies, my personal confedence in our ability to meet these challenges grows everytime I see large groups of millies.

Experts warn U.S. is coming apart at the seams

By Chuck McCutcheon
Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON — A pipeline shuts down in Alaska. Equipment failures disrupt air travel in Los Angeles. Electricity runs short at a spy agency in Maryland.

None of these recent events resulted from a natural disaster or terrorist attack, but they may as well have, some homeland security experts say. They worry that too little attention is paid to how fast the country's basic operating systems are deteriorating.

"When I see events like these, I become concerned that we've lost focus on the core operational functionality of the nation's infrastructure and are becoming a fragile nation, which is just as bad — if not worse — as being an insecure nation," said Christian Beckner, a Washington analyst who runs the respected Web site Homeland Security Watch (www.christianbeckner.com).

The American Society of Civil Engineers last year graded the nation "D" for its overall infrastructure conditions, estimating that it would take $1.6 trillion over five years to fix the problem.

"I thought [Hurricane] Katrina was a hell of a wake-up call, but people are missing the alarm," said Casey Dinges, the society's managing director of external affairs.

British oil company BP announced this month that severe corrosion would close its Alaska pipelines for extensive repairs. Analysts say this may sideline some 200,000 barrels a day of production for several months.

Then an instrument landing system that guides arriving planes onto a runway at Los Angeles International Airport failed for the second time in a week, delaying flights.

Those incidents followed reports that the National Security Agency (NSA), the intelligence world's electronic eavesdropping arm, is consuming so much electricity at its headquarters outside Washington that it is in danger of exceeding its power supply.

"If a terrorist group were able to knock the NSA offline, or disrupt one of the nation's busiest airports, or shut down the most important oil pipeline in the nation, the impact would be perceived as devastating," Beckner said. "And yet we've essentially let these things happen — or almost happen — to ourselves."

The Commission on Public Infrastructure at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said in a recent report that facilities are deteriorating "at an alarming rate."

It noted that half the 257 locks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers on inland waterways are functionally obsolete, more than one-quarter of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete, and $11 billion is needed annually to replace aging drinking-water facilities.

President Bush, asked about the problem during a public question-and-answer session in an April visit to Irvine, Calif., cited last year's enactment of a comprehensive law reauthorizing highway, transit and road-safety programs.

"Infrastructure is always a difficult issue," Bush acknowledged. "It's a federal responsibility and a state and local responsibility. And I, frankly, feel like we've upheld our responsibility at the federal level with the highway bill."

But experts say the law is riddled with some 5,000 "earmarks" for projects sought by members of Congress that do nothing to systematically address the problem.

"There's a growing understanding that these programs are at best inefficient and at worst corrupt," said Everett Ehrlich, executive director of the CSIS public infrastructure commission.

Ehrlich and others cite several reasons for the lack of action:

• The political system is geared to reacting to crises instead of averting them.

• Some politicians don't see infrastructure as a federal responsibility.

• And many problems are out of sight and — for the public — out of mind.

"You see bridges and roads and potholes, but so much else is hidden and taken for granted," said Dinges of the Society of Civil Engineers. "As a result, people just don't get stirred up and alarmed."

But a few politicians are starting to notice. In March, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., joined Sens. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Tom Carper, D-Del., in sponsoring a bill to set up a national commission to assess infrastructure needs.

That same month, the CSIS infrastructure commission issued a set of principles calling for increased spending, investments in new technologies and partnerships with business. Among those signing the report were Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

"Infrastructure deficiencies will further erode our global competitiveness, but with the federal budget so committed to mandatory spending, it's unclear how we are going to deal with this challenge as we fall further and further behind in addressing these problems," Hagel said in a speech last year. "We need to think creatively."

From my own readings of history, such an article could've easily been
written in the years 1931, or in 1774. But as it looks right now, we
have not yet reached the regeneracy, although it may now be very
close. At all of those moments, people perceived that the critical
societal infrastructure was disintegrating. The US auto industry is
already in shambles. The auto companies are again cutting production.
The consumption binge of the US is at (or has passed) its end point.
And now, housing is in trouble, with dire recession predictions. And
on top of all of this, the public seems to be fed up with Republicans
AND Democrats. With these and other troubles, 2007 looks like it is
going to be nasty.

On a side note, it has been said that natural disasters seem to happen
more during Crisis Eras. I disagree. I merely think that society is
more vulnerable to them. Imagine if the Dust Bowl occurred in the
1950s, 1970s, or the 1990s. I doubt that people would've suffered as
much as the societal infrastructure was much more intact. But it
would probably seem devastating in 2010. Imagine if Katrina happened
in 1955, 1975, or 1995. I cannot picture the same fiasco occurring
during these periods.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

....
On a side note, it has been said that natural disasters seem to happen
more during Crisis Eras. I disagree. I merely think that society is
more vulnerable to them. Imagine if the Dust Bowl occurred in the
1950s, 1970s, or the 1990s. I doubt that people would've suffered as
much as the societal infrastructure was much more intact. But it
would probably seem devastating in 2010. Imagine if Katrina happened
in 1955, 1975, or 1995. I cannot picture the same fiasco occurring
during these periods.

In exactly the same way that tornados seem to aim at trailer parks.

When in effect, the trailer parks are just the most vulnerable of the random selection of shit that tornados hit. More damage, more death, more news cameras.

BTW good catch that article.