The Phases of the Four Great Awakenings by Robert William Fogel

I, like, The Patriot News Online, thought that, "Since this man is a prominent University of Chicago economist and Nobel Laureate, we thought it worth investigating."

Thus I begin this thread to explore, not only the timing, in terms of 'numbers,' but the much larger effect the Awakening has upon the Crisis (and associated 'High') that follows.


Click here to see all the reviews of the Fogel book.

Although I have not yet read Fogel?s ?The Fourth Great Awakening & The Future of Egalitarianism,? I found a nice summary of his ?four great awakenings? at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/256626.html. By way of temporal thumbnails, this is how they compare to S&H?s awakenings:

Fogel?s ?First Great Awakening??1730-1830 v. S&H?s ?The Great Awakening??1727-1746 (the 2nd turning of the Revolutionary Saeculum?1704-1794)

Fogel?s ?Second Great Awakening??1800-1920 v. S&H?s ?Transcendental Awakening??1822-1844 (the 2nd turning of the Civil War Saeculum?1794-1865)

Fogel?s ?Third Great Awakening??1890-? v. S&H?s ?Third Great Awakening??1886-1908 (the 2nd turning of the Great Power Saeculum?1865-1946)

Fogel?s ?Fourth Great Awakening??1960-? v. S&H?s ?Consciousness Revolution??1964-1984 (2nd turning of the Millennial Saeculum?1946-?)

Numerical congruency is not well served. With only this to go on, I am not yet so charmed by Fogel. Does he analyze S&H in his book? Has another wheel been reinvented awkwardly? S&H incorporate seasonality into their turnings, while Fogel does not seem so cyclically oriented. This tends to be a problem for me. What?s the physical driver? Where?s the natural process? Where?s Princess Summer-Spring Winter-Fall?

When I find the time, Marc, I?ll go looking for that damsel to see if she can kiss my froggie forehead.

Frogs notwithstanding, may I at least call you Mr. Emery, Croaker? :smile:

At anyrate, you wonder, "Numerical congruency is not well served. With only this to go on, I am not yet so charmed by Fogel. Does he analyze S&H in his book?"

A few reviews I have read call it 'curious' that Fogel did not mention or credit S&H in his book. A few others noted that Fogel seemed to have never 'heard of them.'

One thing is for sure, S&H, in Generations, noted that they were indebted to William McLoughlin's 1978 effort called Revivals Awakenings and Reform : An Essay on Religion and Social Change in America, 1607 to 1977 (Chicago History of American Religion).

Indeed, S&H write (in Generations), "McLoughlin's five American 'awakenings' correspond closely to the five 'spiritual awakenings' as we define them."

All the while, Fogel writes, "Readers familar with the work of the eminent historian of religion William McLoughlin... will recognize my indebtedness to him."

The plot thickens... ? Nah, unless on is a conspiracy theorist. I am not.

And, I suppose, this guy holds a pretty well balanced cyclical view I find appealing.

More later...

p.s. Anyone notice that in Generations, S&H mark the 'spiritual awakening' from 1967-80, while clearly marking the first year on a new 'civic' generation as beginning in the year 1982?

Duh?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2001-11-29 20:19 ]</font>

On 2001-11-29 20:15, Marc S. Lamb wrote:
p.s. Anyone notice that in Generations, S&H mark the 'spiritual awakening' from 1967-80, while clearly marking the first year on a new 'civic' generation as beginning in the year 1982?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2001-11-29 20:19 ]</font>

Marc, I hadn't noticed that, but I did notice in Generations that S&H have the crisis eralasting from 2003 to 2025, whereas the core crisis period is shorter -- from 2013 to 2025. I expect that a similar concept may be at work regarding the last Awakening -- that S&H may have the core period from 1967 to 1980 but the Awakening era may have started 11/22/63.

It may have to do with Social Moments, Regeneracy, and all that fun stuff. Anyone care to comment?

What I take from this is that all the real modelers of historical process work in relative isolation from one another. Some wheels are reinvented, reshaped, and there is no effective consolidation of effort for a disciplined peer review?the kind that works so well in science.

Who?s on The Committee for Making Sense Out Of History Enough To Do America Any Real Good?

I continue to be astonished that S&H turning theory hasn?t yet become common speak?a centralizing concept, popularized, as genes are becoming, for inspiring those isolated historical modelers to talk to each other?Nobel Prize or not.

Cycle studies are not considered to be "serious science" by most social scientists. There is little support for the activity and so most workers who do look at cycles are either non-academics, like S&H, or academics who do it as a sideline. One of the best reviews of the cycles field, Joshua Goldstein's "Long Cycles", was a reformulation of Goldstein's Ph.D. thesis. I don't think Goldstein has written on the topic again.

As far as S&H's cycle goes, what they have mostly done is *present* the cycle. They showed relatively little evidence for it, and haven't done much in the way of using it to produce testable predictions. What they have offered is a scaffold that requires a great deal of "filling in" by anyone who wishes to use it. Most cycle researchers would probably rather come up with their own cycles rather than do the "heavy lifting" required to develop the S&H concept into a usable concept. The only motivation for doing this heavy lifting would be if the S&H cycle were somehow "more accurate" than other cycles. By accurate I mean allow a user of the cycle to make correct predictions about future trends.

There is one group of people who are very interested in using cycles (and other tools) to make predictions. These are investment analysts and managers. In my own cycle work I write for this audience. Probably the most successful user of S&H's cycle has been Harry Dent, who writes for this same audience. Dent developed a novel synthesis of the S&H cycle with the ideas from the innovation school of the Kondratiev cycle.

Dent has become most famous in the late 1990's and has become best known for his prediction that the 1982-2000 secular bull market would last to 2007-2010. This prediction is completely consistent with S&H's prediction that the core crisis period will begin around 2013. If this prediction does not come to pass it will cast the same sort of pall on the saeculum as Ravi Batra's (and others) failed predictions about a 1990 Depression did for the K-cycle. The saeculum will then join the Kondratiev cycle and Schlesinger's political cycle as curiosities with no predictive power.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2001-12-01 06:15 ]</font>

Mike?

Your words ring clear to me. I think you are closer to a social scientist?s reality than I. The social sciences are once removed from the soft sciences (biology, ecology) and twice removed from the hard sciences (physics, chemistry), which underscores your point about predictive power. However, to me, there is almost no value in any science that lacks some measure of predictive power. This is why I?m so pissed off about ecology.

Ecology suffers badly from the lack of predictive power. To wit: the Spotted owls of the Olympic rain forest are protected under the Rare & Endangered Species Act to preserve their habitat, and the logging industry took a big hit in this regard, as you probably know. But now what?s become of those owls? They?re being overrun by Barred owls?big, nasty ones who treat them like Neanderthals: steal their food, rape their ?women,? and crowd them out. The loggers never did anything that bad, but now they?re paying for it with their jobs. It is true that ecologists never saw those Cro-Magnon owls coming. Their predictive models stunk! I still love that old growth forest, though, and all the birds. I?ll even hug tree when no one?s looking. But, damn it, where are the credible ?ecosystem? models with any PEREDICTIVE POWER?

I?ll agree that the arrival of Barred owls was not a cyclical event. Neither is an asteroid. But the cyclical events of human history played a predictable part in that process. Frontier-ism comes in waves! Isn?t that what saeculae are all about?

And I still ask, Where are the credible historical models? S&H work toward that goal, I think. Am I wrong for demanding some predictive power from historical models? What?s the point of modeling historical cycles if they can?t predict anything? What?s the point of studying human history if it doesn?t reveal something about the predictable nature of the beast? How can you catch a boomerang if it never returns?

Some very good observations, Mike Alexander.

The other day, I came across Professor Goertzel's The World Trade Center Bombing as a Fourth Generational Turning Point site, and I emailed him to compliment his work and suggest he might take a look at Generations and Turnings by the Numbers and weigh in on the matter. He replied with a simple "Thanks." What was unwritten literally leapt of the screen, "But no thanks."

Oh well. I have questioned several times, publically here at T4T, the absence of S&H at their own site since 911. To me, 911 has altered the generational landscape, but it appears that I am alone in my curiousity that S&H don't what to speculate on what those changes might mean to their theory. They were pretty bold, on the predictive nature of their theory, in their books. Why bug out now?

As Mike points out, this cycle business is pretty messy. Science doesn't like messes, it like things that 'fit nicely.' But human beings aren't built that way. Human beings come in two parts; one part science (the body), and one part voodoo (the soul). Hence, for every answer, in the cycles, there is an interesting rebuttal. That's just the way it is. :smile:

Still, the mind, imho, can comprehend common sense wherein matters of the soul are concerned. But this is just too subjective for proper peer review on a scientific level, as Mr. Emery points out. So a different 'level' is required. But I'm not sure what would define it? Can we predict the very year, as Mike seems to do? Or is there a plus, or minus factor that is reasonable? Say, two, or three, or maybe only + - four years?

Cycle theory, as a predictive tool, has an awful track record, as Mike points out. Funny thing, if I weren't so sure that S&H are right, I'd be looking to burn a few of witchdoctors at the stake myself! :smile: But my core instincts tell me they're right. And it is because their theory accounts to issues of the soul, and is not just a materialists wetdream, that I do take them seriously.

So it's just a matter of how to interpet the damn thing.

One final thing I'll address, is the very time we live in; like the twenties, we, today, see a lot of voodoo science. Blue tits come to mind, Mr. Emery. :lol: Global warming 'fits nicely' into this 'conceit of the present day' as well. Yech! (certain eyebrows raise at this point...) "Hey, you're stepping on my sacred turf!", they'll scream.

But this is too much fun, this cycle business. And I shalt have any other way.

Thus I'll tarry in the hilarity a little while longer. :smile:

Marc?

If it weren?t for a ?materialist?s wetdream? called the computer, you?d have no way to relieve your ?voodoo soul? in this chat room. Try that by way of prayer alone and see where you get. I?ll put out my voodoo antennae to see if I can pick you up. But I do agree with you about Mr. Emery. He?s the most worthless old bullfrog I ever knew.

If you can?t show me cycles somewhere the process, you can?t show me squat! My voodoo soul?godless to its rotten core?cannot ignore the materialistic wisdom in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.

Ribbitt!

I am not at all sure what your point is. Do think I somehow dimmish the material by acknowledging the needs of the soul? Or am I insulting the seen by insisting that the unseen exists?

Perhaps we could take our computer back to say, 1775 and see if the Britsih could forsee a means to keep those rascal patriots in line with it.

We can obviously improve and perfect the material. If we solve and penetrate the profound mystery of soul as if it were mere matter, would we then set about to perfect it, as we have ones and zeros?

Then would we render the preacher null and void, and stop this silly rotation in circles?



Ecclesiastes 3
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:

a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,

a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,

a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance,

a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away,

a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak,

a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

What does the worker gain from his toil?

I have seen the burden God has laid on men.

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live.

That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil--this is the gift of God.

I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and God will call the past to account.[1]

And I saw something else under the sun: In the place of judgment--wickedness was there, in the place of justice--wickedness was there.

I thought in my heart, "God will bring to judgment both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time for every deed."

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.

Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[2] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.

All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal[3] goes down into the earth?"

So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?


[1] Or God calls back the past
[2] Or spirit
[3] Or Who knows the spirit of man, which rises upward, or the spirit of the animal, which

[Croaker:] And I still ask, Where are the credible historical models? S&H work toward that goal, I think. Am I wrong for demanding some predictive power from historical models?

[Mike:] Not at all. This should be the goal of a cycle model if it is to have any utility (or meaning) at all. I would advance the idea that ALL cycle models will fail if used in isolation.

For example. Marc is a holder of the orthodox saecular view. He has (quite correctly I add) identified that today is "generationally" much closer to 1920 than 1930. He holds the analogous "orthodox" position to that of Eric von Baranov on the longwaves board (http://csf.colorado.edu/longwaves/). Simply put, Marc thinks its 1917 and Eric thinks its 1947. Both base their views on just the one cycle. I use both the K-cycle AND the saeculum to split the difference between them and think it's late 1929/early 1930.

Now the economic corollary to the orthodox saeculum is Harry Dent's prediction of Dow 35,000 by 2007-2010. Similarly Eric's view has had him very bullish over the past five years: see his 3/24/2000 report:
http://www.kondratyev.com/current_ad...mar24_2000.htm (NOTE: 3/24 was the absolute peak of the S&P500) He too believes that the stock market will reach MUCH higher levels (perhaps as much as 100000+ on the Dow) in the next 10-15 years.

In contrast with Dent and Eric I have been bearish since July 1999:

http://csf.colorado.edu/longwaves/oct99/msg00820.html
http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...Stanpor3a.html

Now both Eric and Dent (and Marc) may still be right. The Dow could still go to 35,000 by 2010. If we have instead seen the peak (in constant dollars) in 2000, then it will turn out that I was right. Time will tell.
Thus we can look at what the stock market does as ONE test of the cycle.

We can also look at politics. If my interpretation of the cycles is correct, Bush is scheduled to lose the 2004 election to an economically-liberal opponent (unless he suddenly becomes economically liberal). We are *way* too far away to speculate on what may happen in the 2004 election. Based on current trends I would think Bush will win. Nevertheless the cycle says he won't. This should be a good test too.

Other than these I can't think of any other clean-cut tests.

Wow! I'm relieved to know that I'm not the only materialist in the crowd. A 35K Dow by 2010? I'll croak to that. But how will that happen with the end of CHEAP oil only a few years away? All credible pundits agree on this. We're not ready for it. Some drastic changes in our nation's energy consumption will be needed to sustain such a soaring Dow...and America still has no National Enery Policy!

Materialistially speaking, I think we are close to the apex of another cyclical drama. 1920 to 1930 is a reasonable reference space in time. Winter is coming.

Gee, you make it sound as though this 'materialist' thing were a cult, or something, Mr. Emery. :lol:

I'm happy to see you've found a soul-mate. Stay tuned, k?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2001-12-01 18:03 ]</font>

Lamb of God?

Speaking of cults, here?s a materialistic question for you: If Jesus had been hanged instead of crucified, would all the Christians wear nooses around their necks instead of crucifixes?

There?s only one cult I know of that compels its followers to drink the blood and eat the flesh of a dead person?TRANSUBSTTANTIATED or not. Pray tell, Mr. Lamb: Why not just sacrifice a few chickens?

And please leave the frogs alone. Ribbitt!

On 2001-12-02 09:31, Croaker'39 wrote:

Lamb of God?

Speaking of cults, here?s a materialistic question for you: If Jesus had been hanged instead of crucified, would all the Christians wear nooses around their necks instead of crucifixes?
...

:lol: !!

To each his own cult, Croaker. That's my credos. --Lamb Of God :smile:

Amen, Brother of the Search.

Earlier in this thread, Marc Lamb brought up an interesting question: Where?s S&H been hiding? He notices an unusual reticence, especially since 911.

Marc makes a keen observation, and I?ll offer one plausible explanation. I think they?ve withdrawn to neutrality to study us chatters unbiasly, maybe as an orchestrated means of sniffing out the winds of persuasion. I?ll bet they even have a squadron of researchers drafting statistical conclusions about our vast and profound opinionations. We may be little more than laboratory mice whose droppings are the fertilizer of their next book.

In Fogel's book, he advances the idea that the bulk of the population could retire at age 55 if they saved 15% of their gross income into a "provident fund". These sort of ideas form the basis for conservative arguments that people would be better off if we invested the money in finanacial assets rather than the "pay-as-you-go" scheme of social security. The following page addresses Fogel's idea and shows why such savings schemes won't work and provides some background into why the pay-as-you-go method for social security is superior to a savings-based system.

http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...e/Fogelsav.htm

On 2001-12-01 16:13, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[Croaker:] And I still ask, Where are the credible historical models? S&H work toward that goal, I think. Am I wrong for demanding some predictive power from historical models?

[Mike:] Not at all. This should be the goal of a cycle model if it is to have any utility (or meaning) at all. I would advance the idea that ALL cycle models will fail if used in isolation.

For example. Marc is a holder of the orthodox saecular view. He has (quite correctly I add) identified that today is "generationally" much closer to 1920 than 1930. He holds the analogous "orthodox" position to that of Eric von Baranov on the longwaves board (http://csf.colorado.edu/longwaves/). Simply put, Marc thinks its 1917 and Eric thinks its 1947. Both base their views on just the one cycle. I use both the K-cycle AND the saeculum to split the difference between them and think it's late 1929/early 1930.

Now the economic corollary to the orthodox saeculum is Harry Dent's prediction of Dow 35,000 by 2007-2010. Similarly Eric's view has had him very bullish over the past five years: see his 3/24/2000 report:
http://www.kondratyev.com/current_ad...mar24_2000.htm (NOTE: 3/24 was the absolute peak of the S&P500) He too believes that the stock market will reach MUCH higher levels (perhaps as much as 100000+ on the Dow) in the next 10-15 years.

In contrast with Dent and Eric I have been bearish since July 1999:

http://csf.colorado.edu/longwaves/oct99/msg00820.html
http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...Stanpor3a.html

Now both Eric and Dent (and Marc) may still be right. The Dow could still go to 35,000 by 2010. If we have instead seen the peak (in constant dollars) in 2000, then it will turn out that I was right. Time will tell.
Thus we can look at what the stock market does as ONE test of the cycle.

We can also look at politics. If my interpretation of the cycles is correct, Bush is scheduled to lose the 2004 election to an economically-liberal opponent (unless he suddenly becomes economically liberal). We are *way* too far away to speculate on what may happen in the 2004 election. Based on current trends I would think Bush will win. Nevertheless the cycle says he won't. This should be a good test too.

Other than these I can't think of any other clean-cut tests.

i would respectfully suggest that all of the above are off by at least a decade. the period we are in now is probably the closest to 1907-1908 leading into world war I or 1962-63 leading into vietnam.

harry dent is, i believe, the most on target at the moment, but he goes astray in looking for deflation immediately after this boom is complete. i contend that the concern is not deflation but potentially runaway inflation. deflation will come later.

as for price targets, i would contend that they are an exercise in futility. the only thing that matters is the trend. when i first started trading 20 years ago my mentor told me that i would have to make a choice as to which i wanted more...to be right or make money. if i am more concerned with a price projection then i am more concerned with being right than making money. whether the dow finally peaks at 15,000 or 35,000 or 100,000 or whatever means little to me, nor should it mean very much to anyone else. what matters is the trend. THAT is the knowledge that allows you to make money.

the model i use has already gone through several successful tests since 1985 when i first formulated it. i was able to recognize then that we were in a "speculation" period which would be followed by a "liquidation", which was accomplished with the 87 crash. what should have followed then was a monetary expansion, a popular trough cycle war, a post war recession, and then a 20 year technology based boom that would suffer a bear market at approximately the midpoint or 10 year mark. all of these tests were successfully passed. the next test is whether or not we get 7-10 more years of prosperity in the economy, rising stock prices and finally see it all come to an end, probably in the 2009-2013 time frame with an unpopular peak war.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-12-07 09:25 ]</font>

enjolras?

I?ve considered your worthwhile points, and they seem agreeable to me. I have lingering doubts about what it all means. But 10 years don?t bother me too much. The resolution of most things historical is around 20 years, I think.

The thing that troubles me most is that Silents?my cohorts?remind me of the Compromise generation, elders in the 1840s and ?50s, who ?championed? ways to momentarily tolerate slavery while an inevitable war gathered in the dimly foreseeable future. They sensed a runaway train, carrying slavery to the North, and the deals they cut so obsequiously were scuttled in 1860 by the election of Lincoln. Henry Clay, an Artist, was a weasely Compromiser. Who is his archetype today? I?ll offer Alan Greenspan (a GI?) and the Great Prime Rate Compromise.

It?s all attitude. This is why we must talk.

Taking a Silent?s point of view of ?things,? I worry that we are too much like the Compromisers. I worry about another crisis of archetypal proportions--maybe another Civil War, because we can only be undone by ourselves. The Compromisers, authors of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, were trying to forestall a crisis over slavery. A full forty years later, and POP! What?s the archetype for slavery today? In a very real sense, it?s the relative impoverishment caused by capitalism. The good lives of capitalist nations are purchases at a marketplace where competitive labor costs are achieved directly as a result of relatively lower living standards?the lower the standards the cheaper the costs. Their disadvantageously dirt-poor lives translate to clearly competitive advantages for capitalists, who necessarily must exploit them to stay in business.

Consumerism and capitalism are a greedy pair. What war will come from that? I don?t know. But Robert (from The Future thread) directed me to this site:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...ete120701.html

for a very interesting point of view from a Canadian. Now I?m even more bothered about deflation.

The Silent could serve in an honorable role by championing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, petitioning, etc. (If I recall my history correctly) Edward R. Murrow-in response to McCarthyism-said that we should not confuse dissent with disloyalty. Unforetunately, Boomers could all too easily overlook that distinction during the Crisis.

croaker,

i still contend that those worrying about deflation now are worrying about the wrong thing. 20 year boom periods in the middle of an upwave typically have very little inflation and sometimes even have a little deflation. its all perfectly normal. that is normal until the peak war strikes.

you see, during a boom period like i contend we are in now, monetary policy is relatively easy to manage. there are generally no serious exogenous events that occur that can throw a monkey wrench into policy. and if there are any such events economic growth is normally strong enough to cover them up.

however, when the peak war occurs this acts as a large enough event that throws everything out of balance. debts that previously seemed manageable suddenly become unmanageable. growth slows, unemployment increases and so does inflation. suddenly monetary policy is like some wild horse that has escaped the corral and no one seems to know how to get back under control. the economy begins to jerk back and forth from one extreme to another making it very difficult for businesses to plan for the long term.

this is why the recession following the peak war is normally so deep, almost to the verge of being depression like. and it is then typically followed by inflation and this time around, since the world now operates on a total fiat based system, i fear that inflation will grow totally out of hand.

but every inflationary period of the past meets its end with some sort of drastic monetary contraction that also brings more conservative forces into power. volker did it in the 80s and ushered in the reagan era. there was a tightening in the early 20s in the u.s. that produced a recession and ushered in the conservative administrations of harding, coolidge and hoover. and it was hitler who tightened monetary growth in germany when he rose to power and brought the german hyperinflation under control.

but even this tightening did not bring about deflation. typically these contraction are followed by periods of wild excess and speculation in financial assets and it is only after that comes to a halt that you finally start to see deflation.

you might argue that we saw just a speculative bubble with the market decline we have seen recently. the only problem with that is that the normal catalysts did not occur. the boom period has only been 10 years in length since the last popular war, and there is normally a mid boom bear market anyway. there has been no inflation to speak of to warrant a jarring monetary contraction. granted, we did get a contraction in 2000 after the Y2K problem proved to be a false alarm, but that was nothing compared to the kind of contraction normally required and it has all been made up for since then and then some.

the conflict in afghanistan can hardly be called a true "war", and none has been officially declared, and it also does not have the unpopular tenor to it that normal peak wars possess. plus, it is occurring far too early in the cycle which is why i have likened it more to the cuban missile crisis.

i think your idea that this period may be somewhat like the civil war period is right on. the key issue this time around, i contend, is radical islam and the conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. this problem, i fear, will eventually drag us into what will amount to a no win situation that will one day strike a crippling blow to the position of the u.s as the paramount leader of the world and will lead to a massive shift in military and economic power from the western world to the eastern world.

To quote from the article posted by Mr. Emery, "Greenspan is no exception, his pretensions of being a free-market man notwithstanding. "We are all Keynesians now", declared the President who defaulted on America's foreign gold obligations."

Who was this 'President'? No matter. Truth is, when we decided to go off the 'gold standard,' we opted for a new deal: Look at the dollar bill getting warm in your wallet. It is an article of "faith." "Payable to the bearer upon demand," it says.

"In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
--James 2:17-18

I knew Mr. Emery. I worked with Mr. Emery. Mr. Emery was a friend of mine. And Croaker ain?t no Mr. Emery. By your standards, Lamb of God, he?s hasn?t even evolved up to reptiles. Ribbiitt!

enjolras, Tom, and Marc all bring needed resolution, at least partially. I?ll consider anything. As I read and ponder all of this, however, the evidence seems to accrue in favor of a 3T, which only raises my anxiety about what comes next. The Era of Good Feeling was long gone by the time Fort Sumter was fired upon. Turn, turn, turn. My biggest worry is not with foreign powers, however sleazy they may be, but with domestic rodents with 800 numbers and self-righteous attitudes?like Yu-No-Hoo.

It?s all attitude, croakers, and winter is setting in. The pond is freezing over. I have a frog?s faith in the seasons, and in the laws of nature.

One of my heroes is foreign?WAS foreign?Peter Blake of New Zeeland. He proved you can circumnavigate the globe, win the Whitbred and the Americas Cup, and still get murdered by a mud priest. I mourn his loss.