There seems t be some here who believe that a 4t has to follow a certian pattern, disunity ends, everyone joins hands and sings the national anthem together before going off to fight a crises war.

No, 4t's do not always unite a country. Look at the American civil war, it came very close to creating a permanent disunion. There is no preordained outcome for a 4t.
More to the point, Ireland has been on its own timeline scince the potato famine. They lost half of their population to death and emigration. No one else suffered such a disaster at this time, therefore they are on their own cycle. Also, the independence movement of 1916 and the recent ending of the time of troubles both happened about a lifetime later respectivly as successor crises. Scince the potato famine 4t, Ireland has been a case study in a country where a crises has occured "on time."

While I have tried as best I can to ignore the Paris Hilton donnybrook, the poaster here who talked about her looking down on those who work for a living brought back memories of another woman, much older and less beautiful, who did much the same thing several years back, and, yes, she also ending up doing jail time. I'm referring to Leona Helmsley, who endured considerable more scorn than has Paris. Was that because she was around 70 and less beautiful? Was it, in both cases, just their hubris catching up with them?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

While I have tried as best I can to ignore the Paris Hilton donnybrook, the poaster here who talked about her looking down on those who work for a living brought back memories of another woman, much older and less beautiful, who did much the same thing several years back, and, yes, she also ending up doing jail time. I'm referring to Leona Helmsley, who endured considerable more scorn than has Paris. Was that because she was around 70 and less beautiful? Was it, in both cases, just their hubris catching up with them?

It is so easy and so satifsying to so many people to heap scorn on the heads of women who behave badly and lack the offsetting humility or (as in Marilyn Monroe's case) vulnerability that softens people's hearts. As was said of the Empress Mathilda, (participant in one of England's 4th Turnings, along with her cousin Stephen who was "Gentle, good, and did no justice") "A high stomach can be forgiven in a man, but not in a woman."

Paris Hilton is arrogant and spoiled, and so in most minds is in sore ned of a setdown. She is also a much easier target than the people who are really screwing us over - the rich, powerful, arrogant, and spoiled men in power.

Leona Helmsley was old, ugly and arrogant, everyone's view of the Wicked Stepmother of the fairy tales. Come to think of it, Paris is out of the fairy tale mold, too, or "How come I have to sit in the ashes and scrub the floor while she gets to go to the ball with the Prince? And she doesn't even deserve it!"

But Leona was no worse than The Donald, but he was seen as behaving appropriately for one in his position.

"I'm a sharp, hard-driving businessman. You're a robber baron. She's a bitch who needs to be put down."

Originally Posted by Tristan

This is the analysis I did I posted in another thread

Tristan, does that mean that India's 4T was REALLY around 1955, when they declared themselves a Republic, instead of around 1948?

I'm afraid you proved my point. Some beliefs can only be held by ignoring all the facts.

Dk

The patience for the war against Al Qaeda has evaporated. This I would say is a very 3T trend.

Where We Fight
On which battlefields will we wage war against al Qaeda?

By Cliff May

America is at war with al Qaeda — on that surely we can agree — and we know that al Qaeda has bases in Pakistan. In fact, it is probable that Osama bin Laden resides at one of those bases. But we can’t fight al Qaeda in Pakistan because Pakistan is an ally, and America does not violate the territorial integrity of its allies.

Al Qaeda is active in Gaza, according to Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence. Al Qaeda supports Hamas which has just waged a bloody — and successful — civil war against Fatah, its Palestinian rival. But we’re not about to invade Gaza in pursuit of al Qaeda. Even Israel, which withdrew from Gaza two years ago, is not eager to return there.

In Lebanon, Fatah al-Islam, which is fighting the Lebanese government, is believed to be linked to al Qaeda. But the last time U.S. troops were in Lebanon, they were attacked by suicide bombers dispatched by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization directed by the regime in Tehran. There is no way the U.S. is going to send troops into Lebanon again.

Groups linked to al Qaeda are in Somalia. We have supported Ethiopian troops fighting there. But a serious effort by Americans against al Qaeda in Somalia seems unlikely.

Al Qaeda cells operate in Europe. But it is problematic for American operatives to kill or capture terrorists there: To do so sparks allegations from the “human rights community” and the media about violations of international law, torture and secret prisons. Also, as has happened in Italy, it can lead to criminal prosecutions of Americans thought to be involved. So America’s ability to fight al Qaeda in Europe is limited.

There are probably al Qaeda cells in the U.S. too. One hopes the FBI is monitoring them. But until the members of these cells commit crimes, there is not much that can be done. On what basis could Mohammed Atta, ringmaster of the 9/11/01 hijackers, have been arrested on 9/10/01?

What’s more, some judges and legal activists are now insisting that even combatants illegally in the U.S. are entitled to all the rights enjoyed by American citizens. If this view prevails, fighting al Qaeda within the U.S. will become even harder.

That leaves only two places where we know for sure al Qaeda and its associates are operating actively — and very lethally — and where the U.S. can send its best warriors against them with the approval of the local, elected governments. Those places are, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan.

But many politicians, looking at polls showing Americans fatigued by a war that was not supposed to be so prolonged or arduous, now favor withdrawing from Iraq — retreating from the battlefield al Qaeda calls the central front in their jihad against us.

And does anyone seriously believe that, after leaving Iraq, we would not soon exit Afghanistan as well? How many suicide bombings of police academies, market places and mosques would be required to get us out — slaughters that the major media will, as usual, blame not on the killers but on the “foreign occupation”?

If this is where members of Congress want to go, they ought to be honest about where it leads: Al Qaeda will still be waging a war against us, but we will no longer be waging much of a war against al Qaeda.

To be sure, the war we’ve been fighting is not the war Americans signed up for when President Bush made the decision to enter Iraq four years ago. In the 20th century, international conflicts took the form of great European armies clashing. In the 21st century, Pentagon strategists thought conflicts would consist of short, decisive battles with small, well-trained American forces wielding high-tech weapons to produce “shock and awe” and break the enemies’ will to fight.

Our enemies had other plans. They decided to fight from the shadows — kidnapping, torturing and mass-murdering whatever victims are at hand, relying on key groups in the West to blame the carnage not on them but on us, thereby eroding our will to fight.

Today’s wars, military analyst Tom Donnelly has written, are “like the frontier fighting of the 19th century — in the American West but also in the far-flung outposts of the British Empire … the prime directive for U.S. land forces is neither deployability, nor mobility, nor lethality, but sustainability.”

And right now, sustainability appears to be the capability most lacking — not among America’s troops in the field but among the political classes in Washington. Almost a decade ago, Osama bin Laden said that Americans were “unprepared to fight long wars.” Secure in his Pakistani redoubt, he must be pleased that his analysis is proving so uncannily accurate.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Tristan, does that mean that India's 4T was REALLY around 1955, when they declared themselves a Republic, instead of around 1948?

I'm afraid you proved my point. Some beliefs can only be held by ignoring all the facts.

Dk

India is different David.

I see no reason why Ireland does not share same saeculum as rest of Europe. The troubles in Northern Ireland for example are a clear second turning event, they started in 1968 when the 'adapting the system' civil rights movement turned into a 'smash the system' radical republican insurgency.

Did Roosevelt know what to do about that depression? Did he know how to win that war or did the Germans know how to win even less? Do our bitchen pols know how win that war on terror or do the terrorist types know how to win it even less? Will Apple cut a minimum price deal with my employer (not a retailer, by the way) to prevent them from selling me the quad core Mac Pro I use everyday for less than a grand (rather than the 2.5k they presently sell for)? Stay tuned kids.

Originally Posted by Tristan

The patience for the war against Al Qaeda has evaporated. This I would say is a very 3T trend.

Where We Fight
On which battlefields will we wage war against al Qaeda?

By Cliff May

Mr. May is a well recognized advocate for the Administration, and is dis-Mayed that the American people have disclaimed the current strategy and tactics devised by his faction. Therefore he seeks to equate a change in strategy with a surrender and/or a disarmament, a tactic well deployed by him and his colleagues for over four years now. There are, I am sure, some lefty loonies who think we can turn our backs completely on a dangerous enemy; but even someone like Mr. Semo '75, whom Mr. May would dismiss as a member of the "Blame America First" crowd (note to Mr. Semo: I would not agree with Mr. May), thinks we should oppose al-Qaeda. The only question is how and with what tools. The people of the United States have decided that Mr. May's chosen tools and tool-wielders are not effective. The resistance those such as Mr. May are putting up against such a shift is blocking public discourse as to our next strategy, something I am not particularly happy about. But I would not confuse that with a 3T belief that we could somehow turn our backs on all of this. Only a fool on the level of Dennis Kucinich could think otherwise, and the American people are not constituted primarily of Kucinich-level fools.

I'm starting to think the Libby sentence commutation might well be nominated for catalyst status. Reading a transcript of a recent White House press briefing, one got the impression of sharks circling and blood in the water. The reporters were not accepting the usual bull, and were firing questions with a long missing in-your-face attitude.

A Los Angeles Times editorial, Shame on Bush -- and us, echoes the shift. For discussion purposes...

Someday, historians will ponder our strange collective passivity in the face of Bush-Cheney madness. Why did the editorial boards of our major newspapers either parrot the administration line or raise only muted criticism on so many issues, and for so long? Where were the tough journalistic questions? Why didn't more members of Congress protest the administration's blatantly unjustified policies and transparent constitutional outrages?

For that matter, when Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft and countless others found that the administration was, at Cheney's insistence, adopting policies they knew to be irresponsible and even illegal — when they found they had been locked out of the decision loop entirely — why didn't any of them go public with their protests back when it would have made a difference?

It's hard not to conclude that collectively, we were all too cowardly, slothful or puffed up with our own self-importance to ask the right questions and stand up for principle. The administration didn't trick us; we tricked ourselves.

Someday, the Bush era may come to seem like a bad dream, a shameful, inexplicable interlude in American history. We're right to be outraged by Bush and Cheney, but we should also save a bit of outrage for when we look in the mirror.

Nixon left office when it became clear that his lies and evasions could no longer be tolerated by the Republican senators. If impeachment came to a vote, he would have lost it. To support Nixon at that point would have cost the Republicans too much political capitol. They had to cut their losses.

Bush 43 is no where near that far along. He still has the support of many within the Republican party, but he might have just lost the main stream media.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm starting to think the Libby sentence commutation might well be nominated for catalyst status. Reading a transcript of a recent White House press briefing, one got the impression of sharks circling and blood in the water. The reporters were not accepting the usual bull, and were firing questions with a long missing in-your-face attitude.

A Los Angeles Times editorial, Shame on Bush -- and us, echoes the shift. For discussion purposes...



Nixon left office when it became clear that his lies and evasions could no longer be tolerated by the Republican senators. If impeachment came to a vote, he would have lost it. To support Nixon at that point would have cost the Republicans too much political capitol. They had to cut their losses.

Bush 43 is no where near that far along. He still has the support of many within the Republican party, but he might have just lost the main stream media.

He already lost most of the American people. Depending on how this turns out, this may be a catalyst, in addition to the Katrina fiasco.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm starting to think the Libby sentence commutation might well be nominated for catalyst status. Reading a transcript of a recent White House press briefing, one got the impression of sharks circling and blood in the water. The reporters were not accepting the usual bull, and were firing questions with a long missing in-your-face attitude.

A Los Angeles Times editorial, Shame on Bush -- and us, echoes the shift. For discussion purposes...



Nixon left office when it became clear that his lies and evasions could no longer be tolerated by the Republican senators. If impeachment came to a vote, he would have lost it. To support Nixon at that point would have cost the Republicans too much political capitol. They had to cut their losses.

Bush 43 is no where near that far along. He still has the support of many within the Republican party, but he might have just lost the main stream media.

LBJ famously said "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the war." It's looking like the same thing is occurring.

The catalyst for the 4T?

You have got to be kidding.

Do you really think most Americans care about this story whatsoever?

It is the quintessential Washington insider brou-ha-ha.

Originally Posted by wvally

The catalyst for the 4T?

You have got to be kidding.

Do you really think most Americans care about this story whatsoever?

It is the quintessential Washington insider brou-ha-ha.

I tend to agree. However, like the public's support for Paris Hilton going to jail, it could be seen as a sign that people's attitudes are changing; perhaps Republican elites aren't standing for it any more.

Originally Posted by wvally

The catalyst for the 4T?

You have got to be kidding.

Do you really think most Americans care about this story whatsoever?

It is the quintessential Washington insider brou-ha-ha.

Not kidding.

I wouldn't call it The Trigger. I'd nominate it as one of many turning points of note. Certainly, it isn't apt to eclipse September 11th or Katrina in the history books. Libby's fate barely matters.

Still, if the main stream media's attitude reflected in recent encounters with the administration holds, it could be a watershed of sorts. The administration's ability to put spun reality in front of the People may be significantly impacted. If eyes began to open with Katrina, the Press at least is now fully awake.

The NY Times editorial calling for a withdrawal from Iraq might stand as an example. For years the conservatives called the MSM liberal, while the liberals called it corporate owned conservative. Both saw bias against their own points of view. If the professionals are going to eye everything coming out of the White House with skepticism, that could turn into a big deal.

For discussion purposes....

The Road Home

Published: July 8, 2007


It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

•

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow... (Snip...)

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Not kidding.

I wouldn't call it The Trigger. I'd nominate it as one of many turning points of note. Certainly, it isn't apt to eclipse September 11th or Katrina in the history books. Libby's fate barely matters.

Still, if the main stream media's attitude reflected in recent encounters with the administration holds, it could be a watershed of sorts. The administration's ability to put spun reality in front of the People may be significantly impacted. If eyes began to open with Katrina, the Press at least is now fully awake.

It's an indicator of what the mood is today. I agree with you that it has significance. But only in that it is one of many events that have occurred since 2005 that one could reasonably call a "cascade."

I believe Katrina was "The Catalyst" if there ever was one, and we are in the early years of the 4T. Most everything that has happened since in terms of politics and national mood has spiraled out from that event. The reaction to Libby is a reflection of that changed national mood. I think Katrina is the closest indicator we are going to get, in terms of marking a date in history when the 3T ended and the 4T began.

We may not be able to say so with confidence until 2008 or maybe even after, but I believe this is what it will come back to- that Katrina was it.

Originally Posted by MillinnealJim

We may not be able to say so with confidence until 2008 or maybe even after, but I believe this is what it will come back to- that Katrina was it.

I issued a catalyst warning on this forum when Katrina was 100 miles or so off shore. I'd watched the PBS special on what would happen if a Big One hit New Orleans, and made the catalyst call just on the magnitude and course of the storm, not knowing how the administration was going to respond. There was a while, before the major networks found out the levees were gone, when I thought I was wrong, that the bullet had been dodged...

This is the first catalyst warning I've posted since. It just reminds me of Watergate. There was a shift from when a few reporters were chasing an obscure unimportant story, to a sharks circling blood in the water feel among the media. Nixon lasted for quite a while beyond that point, but that was the beginning of the siege.

It seems to me that what started with Katrina is hitting a critical point just now. You're right. The full T4T community might not have an official consensus for years and years on whether this is a particularly notable moment. I'm just making a subjective early heads up.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I issued a catalyst warning on this forum when Katrina was 100 miles or so off shore. I'd watched the PBS special on what would happen if a Big One hit New Orleans, and made the catalyst call just on the magnitude and course of the storm, not knowing how the administration was going to respond. There was a while, before the major networks found out the levees were gone, when I thought I was wrong, that the bullet had been dodged...

This is the first catalyst warning I've posted since. It just reminds me of Watergate. There was a shift from when a few reporters were chasing an obscure unimportant story, to a sharks circling blood in the water feel among the media. Nixon lasted for quite a while beyond that point, but that was the beginning of the siege.

It seems to me that what started with Katrina is hitting a critical point just now. You're right. The full T4T community might not have an official consensus for years and years on whether this is a particularly notable moment. I'm just making a subjective early heads up.

Oh, I dunno. My reaction to the Libby pardon was essentially all of one hyphenated made-up word:

Ho-hum.

Frankly it's easier for me to see the jailing of Paris Hilton as Catalyst. Barely.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Oh, I dunno. My reaction to the Libby pardon was essentially all of one hyphenated made-up word:

Ho-hum.

Don't be so quick to dismiss it: a recent poll indicated that 55% were following the story "closely", and that is correlated with support for impeachment (which now reaches 40%, including 10% of Republicans.)

I expect that a decade from now in retrospect this will be viewed in a similar fashion to the "Saturday Night Massacre": the point at which the public in general finally begins to understand that the President sees himself as above the law. Your reaction indicates that you're already there; but there's another 40% of the population that isn't there... yet. (And another 20% who won't go there, ever.)

Because it was a natural disaster, I don't see how Katrina can actually be a catalyst any more than, say, Mount St. Helens was. The response may have opened our eyes to some of our government and society's deficits, but can't see how it can actually be the catalyst because things haven't really changed that much, as most Americans still seem very snug in their money centric, corporate driven, auto dependent lifestyles. I am now inclined to believe that a real shakeup will only occur when things get to the point where many well-educated one-time yuppies spend considerable time in unemployment lines.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I issued a catalyst warning on this forum when Katrina was 100 miles or so off shore. I'd watched the PBS special on what would happen if a Big One hit New Orleans, and made the catalyst call just on the magnitude and course of the storm, not knowing how the administration was going to respond. There was a while, before the major networks found out the levees were gone, when I thought I was wrong, that the bullet had been dodged...

This is the first catalyst warning I've posted since. It just reminds me of Watergate. There was a shift from when a few reporters were chasing an obscure unimportant story, to a sharks circling blood in the water feel among the media. Nixon lasted for quite a while beyond that point, but that was the beginning of the siege.

It seems to me that what started with Katrina is hitting a critical point just now. You're right. The full T4T community might not have an official consensus for years and years on whether this is a particularly notable moment. I'm just making a subjective early heads up.

Thing is the Saturday Night Massacre occured less than 1 year into Nixon's Second term (and the story had been building for that entire year). Vietnam was winding down (for the U.S.). So there was still time and "space" in the News Cycle for pressure to build to push Nixon out before it became a moot point. Now, we're 2 1/2 years into the second term with an already besieged White House. Iraq and the '08 campaign are dominating the news cycle. The conventional wisdom seems to be that getting subpoenas enforced through the courts is not going to happen before November '08. Everyone would rather ignore Bush and wait him out rather than expending lots of effort beating their head against a wall for 18 months. I expect a continuation of the "death by a thousand cuts" as the Democrats keep the drumbeat of negative stories and investigations going. Congress will pass more restrictions on Iraq policy which Bush will by and large ignore.

Once the Iowa caucuses pass, the transition will be pretty well complete. I expect the White House to be used as a pinata in debates but otherwise pretty much ignored in the National Debate over the future direction of the country assuming they don't find some new and spectacular way to get attention (like attacking Iran or stumbling into some other major catastrophe).

Originally Posted by MillinnealJim

It's an indicator of what the mood is today. I agree with you that it has significance. But only in that it is one of many events that have occurred since 2005 that one could reasonably call a "cascade."

I believe Katrina was "The Catalyst" if there ever was one, and we are in the early years of the 4T. Most everything that has happened since in terms of politics and national mood has spiraled out from that event. The reaction to Libby is a reflection of that changed national mood. I think Katrina is the closest indicator we are going to get, in terms of marking a date in history when the 3T ended and the 4T began.

We may not be able to say so with confidence until 2008 or maybe even after, but I believe this is what it will come back to- that Katrina was it.

I think "cascade" is the word, from little things to bigger and bigger things. So many it is hard to remember them all.
- 2000 supreme court rules against Florida recount
- when was enron? (remember Junior was involved in that too)
- 911 ( and don't forget our saudi friends)
- No more taxes for the rich (haunting)
- Just go shopping (also haunting)
- war on terror
- suspending habeas corpus
- illegal wiretapping
- giving US Army to oil corporations free of charge to fight their war to protect their oil profits
- iraq occupation
- Plame affair
- Abramoff scandal
- Tom deLay and K street
- No bid contracts in Iraq, Halliburton et al
- I know I am forgetting some other big financial scandal!
- swift-boating John Kerry... I also cannot remember why things turned so rapidly and so badly immediately after the 2004 election. Was it:
- HURRICANE KATRINA??!
- Fitzgerald investigation
- All the interesting gay outings like Mark whosit and the gay emails, and that preacher with the gay prostitute, and the Military Studs.com guy who they hired as a shill for Bush's press conferences
- cheney shoots somebody (it's all gettting kind of funny)
- Illegal aliens dust up
- my short term memory is fried. I can't remember the order of it all, but I do think that the Libby "commute" is a bigger deal than I expected. Ask yourself, why not a pardon? Got to keep him on the hook until Junior is out of office? IMAGINE WHAT LIBBY KNOWS ABOUT EVERYTHING

Well, what did I miss? And what the heck was Junior doing with Daddy and Pooty Poot at Kennebunkport? That spells something big don't it? Is it oil? Or Cheney loss of power? Or what?

In any case, I have been surprised how many people brought up the Libby pardon during the holidays. Even people I thought were politically clueless. There's a sense of helplessness that is starting to feel like DESPERATION.

And notice the msm...they do not change their tune unless their corporate masters tell them to. Interesante.

And I think we will have one more thing to add to the list... constitutional crisis. I don't think it will be "just" an impeachment. Things are just getting too wacked out of control.

I don't know what to expect anymore, but someone once wrote in the forum that Bush was the catalyst and I am beginning to agree.

Originally Posted by jadams

I don't know what to expect anymore, but someone once wrote in the forum that Bush was the catalyst and I am beginning to agree.

Exactamundo! Fascism is funny like that.

Originally Posted by DonRobbie

Everyone would rather ignore Bush and wait him out rather than expending lots of effort beating their head against a wall for 18 months. I expect a continuation of the "death by a thousand cuts" as the Democrats keep the drumbeat of negative stories and investigations going. Congress will pass more restrictions on Iraq policy which Bush will by and large ignore.

Another reason why people would rather ignore bush for 18 months -- Vice President Cheney scares people. The prospect of him occupying the White House is much scarier than Gerry Ford.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Another reason why people would rather ignore bush for 18 months -- Vice President Cheney scares people. The prospect of him occupying the White House is much scarier than Gerry Ford.

Many people (myself included) think Cheney IS the President in all but name and W is the front man for people do despise while Cheney gets away.

Originally Posted by Odin

Many people (myself included) think Cheney IS the President in all but name and W is the front man for people do despise while Cheney gets away.

Exactly. Junior runs nothing but his TV clicker.