Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Hold on. Are you saying that the purpose of Holy Communion is to induce numbness, however major or slight, to inner wickedness?

Let go. The purpose of quaffing DeoCola Classic "It's the Real Presence" is not the same as quaffing DeoCola Diet or "New" Theo-free DeoCola Lite. The side effects are quite different as well. Symbolism is the corn-fructose of Progress.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's fun to research out-of-context quotes sometimes. What I learned in five minutes' looking:

• The site JPT cut-and-paste from misattributed the quote. It comes from an 1816 letter to Colnel Charles Yancey. (The 1811 letter to Duane was on a different topic altogether).
• The missing context is that Jefferson is talking about the behavior of Congressmen -- in particular as their personal opinions might relate to the opinions of the majority of the people (who they are supposed to represent).
• Another snip from the same letter: "Some of these indeed think that independence requires them to follow always their own opinion, without respect for that of others. This has never been my opinion, nor my practice, when I have been of that or any other body. Differing, on a particular question, from those whom I knew to be of the same political principles with myself, and with whom I generally thought and acted, a consciousness of the fallibility of the human mind, and of my own in particular, with a respect for the accumulated judgment of my friends, has induced me to suspect erroneous impressions in myself, to suppose my own opinion wrong, and to act with them on theirs. The want of this spirit of compromise, or of self-distrust, proudly, but falsely called independence, is what gives the federalists victories which they could never obtain, if these brethren could learn to respect the opinions of their friends more than of their enemies, and prevents many able and honest men from doing all the good they otherwise might do."

Jefferson's letters for anyone who wants to use primary sources.

I pulled the quotes from this page, maintained by UVA:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

It has various quotations arranged into categories, which is very useful for quickly finding out what Jefferson thought about a subject, even if the context can sometimes be obscured.

Even so, based on what you posted, I'm not sure that quote was particularly out of context.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The fact that the majority of people on this site interpret events otherwise would indicate that you can interpret it another way. This doesn't mean the majority is right, but your position isn't exactly self-evident.

When it comes to the interpretation of S&H's theories and their application to current events, my views are very fluid and flexible. There are only two things that I am fully convinced of, if there is validity in what S&H wrote:

1. The 4T began on 9/11/2001.

2. "Generation Jones" are Boomers.

On pretty much everything else, my views are not set in stone.

As for "the majority of people on this site", they are unfortunately not primarily interested in an objective analysis of the subject at hand. They're primarily interested in how the theories of S&H can confirm their biases and provide support for their political ideology.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When it comes to the interpretation of S&H's theories and their application to current events, my views are very fluid and flexible. There are only two things that I am fully convinced of, if there is validity in what S&H wrote:

1. The 4T began on 9/11/2001.

2. "Generation Jones" are Boomers.

On pretty much everything else, my views are not set in stone.

As for "the majority of people on this site", they are unfortunately not primarily interested in an objective analysis of the subject at hand. They're primarily interested in how the theories of S&H can confirm their biases and provide support for their political ideology.

Ah, but how do you define "Generation Jones"? I think of them as people in the cusp between Boom and X, or generally people born in the late 50s and early 60s. People born in 1958-1960 are Boomers and people born between 1961-1963 or 1964 are Xers, but all are "cuspy" and thus, Jonesers. That explains why people fight over whether a cusper like President Obama is Boom or X -- as a cusper, he's a bit of each.

If you are looking at a crowd of people who appear to be largely in their late 40s (say, the PTA of a middle or high school), "Jonesers" is a good generic term to use if you don't know what side of the divide individuals fall into.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It has various quotations arranged into categories, which is very useful for quickly finding out what Jefferson thought about a subject, even if the context can sometimes be obscured.

If the Inter Nets have taught me nothing else, it is that relying on excerpts is both unnecessary and dangerous. Such "quote pages" are good starting points, but they need to remain just that -- starting points. You're only a click or two away from the primary source, and will be a lot better off for having expended the energy to get there.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Ah, but how do you define "Generation Jones"? I think of them as people in the cusp between Boom and X, or generally people born in the late 50s and early 60s. People born in 1958-1960 are Boomers and people born between 1961-1963 or 1964 are Xers, but all are "cuspy" and thus, Jonesers. That explains why people fight over whether a cusper like President Obama is Boom or X -- as a cusper, he's a bit of each.

If you are looking at a crowd of people who appear to be largely in their late 40s (say, the PTA of a middle or high school), "Jonesers" is a good generic term to use if you don't know what side of the divide individuals fall into.

I think the Boom generation ends somewhere around '64-'65 - which, coincidentally, is the almost-universal definition of most sources other than S&H.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The 4T is upon us. Evil muslims slowly building secret armies since just after 9/11 are now preparing to conquer all of pakistan, then the world. Islamics are also developing secret arsenals of hundreds of nukes in iran and syria as well as the dozen they plan on capturing in pakistan, the pakistani arsenal has probably already fallen. When are you going to realize the threat, hundreds of nukes are being placed in our cities as well as those of europe and latin america. Thousands of cities in the western world may dissappear in a matter of seconds because of your ignorance and incompetence. We must kick out all the illegals, there are only here for the purposes of infiltration, the survival of civilization depends on it. We cannot allow ourselves to be branded in gods eyes as sodom because of the views of a fringe minority lifestyle, because if we do god will allow and authorize this attack to take place and the elect will be annihilated by the forces of satan because we betrayed the lord. Ban gay marriage the survival of christendom depends on it. When will you realize that thousands of islamic nukes are assembled to attack the west and ensure islamic world conquest, while further north, tens of thousands of russian nukes are being assembled for russia's own bid for world conquest.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and remember: The nine o'clock show is nothing like the seven o'clock show. Enjoy the veal!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When it comes to the interpretation of S&H's theories and their application to current events, my views are very fluid and flexible. There are only two things that I am fully convinced of, if there is validity in what S&H wrote:

1. The 4T began on 9/11/2001.

2. "Generation Jones" are Boomers.

On pretty much everything else, my views are not set in stone.

As for "the majority of people on this site", they are unfortunately not primarily interested in an objective analysis of the subject at hand. They're primarily interested in how the theories of S&H can confirm their biases and provide support for their political ideology.

The political 4T did not begin until people got disgusted with the lax, weak leadership of George Worthless Bush. Evidence: in 2004 Dubya was barely re-elected; in 2006 the Democrats won six Senate seats from incumbent Republicans and won the majority in the House. That itself suggests that the political realities had taken a sharp break. It is of course possible that the GOP might have limped along some in 2006 had it not been for the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina (America has traditionally excelled in responses to natural disasters).

The economic 4T did not begin until 2007. After both, Americans could have seen Barack Obama first as a genuine candidate for President... and elect him.

It is possible that Barack Obama is a Boomer in the sense that FDR was a Missionary just to fit the theory. FDR had several Reactive characteristics; he was more pragmatic and less dogmatic than his immediate predecessors. He abandoned the eugenicist, prohibitionist, and fundamentalist crusades of core Missionaries, which is very Reactive. He adopted much of the rest of the Missionary agenda -- conservationism, agrarian reform, and feminism because such were ... practical. He was more cautious than the usual Missionary. Sure, he could vituperate with as much hostility toward moral pariahs such as gangsters and fascists as any Missionary... but such was the norm for the Lost during the 1930s and 1940s, too. If Obama excoriates drug traffickers or pirates, then he won't be alone.

It might still be blasphemy to compare Obama to FDR, Lincoln, or Churchill... he has yet to accomplish what any of them could do at the ultimate test. But Dubya absolutely wasn't going to resemble any Grey Champion of the past. He is a shrewd speaker, he gets the moral priorities right (as in "We do not torture!"), he recognizes that every word has meaning, and he gets his way with Congress -- at least the majority.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The political 4T did not begin until people got disgusted with the lax, weak leadership of George Worthless Bush.

Your desire to write a history of GWB that suits your ideology is destroying your ability to see T4T and its theory objectively.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your desire to write a history of GWB that suits your ideology is destroying your ability to see T4T and its theory objectively.

If you think you are a paragon of objectivity you are deluding yourself. Your interpretations of S&H are just as influenced by your worldview as anyone else's.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I think the Boom generation ends somewhere around '64-'65 - which, coincidentally, is the almost-universal definition of most sources other than S&H.

1961/1962 isn't much of a stretch -- but anything later is.

Do you think of Ralph Reed and Ann Coulter as Boomers?

The cultural divide between Boom and 13th is huge. We Boomers stayed clear of 13th music and other fads. We saw Captain Kangaroo; Generation X saw Sesame Street. We remember variety shows on prime-time TV; Generation X missed them.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your desire to write a history of GWB that suits your ideology is destroying your ability to see T4T and its theory objectively.

Dubya would have been a bad President had he been a liberal.

So let me give you some objective measures of his awfulness as President:

1. He did not call upon a public ready to sacrifice to do so on 9/11.

2. He lied to get America into an aggressive war.

3. He gamed the meanings of words in bungled attempts to make his misdeeds look innocuous. Let's start with something unrelated to the War in Iraq: the so-called "Healthy Forests Initiative" which in fact was a call for clear-cutting of trees. Clear-cut a forest and there is no forest.

After that early whopper (before 9/11) I was convinced that his words meant little and his actions meant all.

4. He surrounded himself with flunkies.

5. He delegated unconstitutional authority to the unelected Party hack Karl Rove.

6. He let Karl Rove railroad Governor Don Siegelman (D, AL).

7. He said that torture was OK so long as it wasn't called torture.

8. He bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina -- and infused the relief effort with corruption.

9. He promoted a corrupt boom in real estate speculation and legalized loan-sharking.

9. And here's a big one for conservatives: He allowed things to get so bad that the government had to bail out large corporations -- some of them big players in the corrupt speculative boom -- with public funds.

Would any conservative have voted for a candidate who proclaimed that he was going to nationalize key industries? Someone so firm a believer in capitalist power, capitalist profit, and capitalist privilege ended up doing so.

Originally Posted by JPT

I think the Boom generation ends somewhere around '64-'65 - which, coincidentally, is the almost-universal definition of most sources other than S&H.

And...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1961/1962 isn't much of a stretch -- but anything later is.

Do you think of Ralph Reed and Ann Coulter as Boomers?

The cultural divide between Boom and 13th is huge. We Boomers stayed clear of 13th music and other fads. We saw Captain Kangaroo; Generation X saw Sesame Street. We remember variety shows on prime-time TV; Generation X missed them.

Oops. You stepped on something there. I watched Captain Kangaroo and his sidekick Mr. Greenjeans. (As for night TeeVee, to which generation does Mission Impossible watchers belong to? ) I liked the fuse thingie going across the screen and the smoldering tape recorder...
Variety shows, you mean things like Carole Burnett?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We saw Captain Kangaroo; Generation X saw Sesame Street. We remember variety shows on prime-time TV; Generation X missed them.

Im a core Xer('69) and I, as well as my younger brother('72) plus many of our peers at the time used to watch Captain Kangaroo as well as Sesame Street on a regular basis when we were little. I remember variety shows too, but had little interest in them. just sayin'....

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Variety shows, you mean things like Carole Burnett?

I remember Carol Burnett, Lawrence Welk, Donny & Marie and Sonny and Cher... those count as variety shows, right? Oh, and "Hee Haw"!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Do you think of Ralph Reed and Ann Coulter as Boomers?

Absolutely. Where do you think their ideological zeal (coupled with self-promotion) comes from? Ann Coulter is Boomer to the bone. Just a later Boomer (in other words, "Jones").

The cultural divide between Boom and 13th is huge. We Boomers stayed clear of 13th music and other fads. We saw Captain Kangaroo; Generation X saw Sesame Street. We remember variety shows on prime-time TV; Generation X missed them.

I was born in '75 (no doubt about where I fall), and I remember all of the above. Captain Kangaroo and variety shows were on the air well into the 80s.

While we're discussing which TV shows different generations watched, which ones would've been fans of Howdy Doody when they were little? My mother was quite the fan when she was in that age bracket.

As a Millie: Sesame Street (before they added politically correct characters to the show and started teaching Spanish as well as English to the little tykes), Nickelodeon (Are You Afraid of the Dark?, Doug, and Rocko's Modern Life !!!), Goosebumps (Fox had a TV show version of the books), Power Rangers, and as much as I hate to admit it the K - 1 years were Barney. The Disney Channel, but only when they showed old cartoons from the 1920s - 1960s during the school hours, that was how I spent my pre-school years, watching Donald Duck teach Huey, Duey, and Louy why not to smoke by forcing them to smoke a whole box of Cuban cigars that he later found out that they had bought for his birthday. I also saw other such pre-censored cartoons where Bugs Bunny got drunk, Mickey thought Pluto had rabies, Pete felt up and molested Minnie, and the crotchety old folks in the 1930s cartoons (Progressives or Missionaries?) were actually crotchety. Gosh those old cartoons were fun.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by stab1969

I remember Carol Burnett, Lawrence Welk, Donny & Marie and Sonny and Cher... those count as variety shows, right? Oh, and "Hee Haw"!

Ditto. Uh what about test patterns? (The black and white ones.)

Originally Posted by Chas'88

While we're discussing which TV shows different generations watched, which ones would've been fans of Howdy Doody when they were little? My mother was quite the fan when she was in that age bracket.

Im pretty sure it was a Boomer thing. Definitely before my time

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Power Rangers, and as much as I hate to admit it the K - 1 years were Barney.

~Chas'88

Barney and Teletubbies suck.

I had Johny Quest and the Hurculoids instead.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Ditto. Uh what about test patterns? (The black and white ones.)

I remember those too, but I think the ones I saw were pretty colorful... unless i was watching a black and white tv. I don't really see many of those these days now that I think about it

Originally Posted by Odin

Exactly. I am slightly below you, pretty much at the far "Left" end of the current Arc of Respectability (Mitchell's "Radical") and that would put me at the same place as who, Alexander Hamilton, maybe? That doesn't mean I'm a monarchist wannabe (though he did tell the Upper-Right Jefferson "Your people, sir, are a savage beast." or something of that nature, something I agree with...).

Actually, I think you have Hamilton and Jefferson reversed. Despite my libertarian sympathies with the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists must be regarded as the leading edge of post-Revolution politics. The Crisis ended with the Federalist triumph of the Constitution tempered by an Anti-Federalist Bill of Rights. Although the Federalists were dominant early in the High, they consistently lost ground throughout.

As for other political identities, here are my assessments:

McCain is probably lower-right, possibly even true bottom.
Goldwater strikes me as near the upper right, true right boundary.
The quintessential true bottom politician is Joe Lieberman.
Ron Paul is near the true top, upper right boundary and a good distance from the center.
Bill Maher is on the upper left, true left boundary but near the center.
Blogger Glenn Greenwald is similar to Maher, but further from the center and more likely to be actual upper left. Consider Greenwald as a good template for the future leading edge.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Absolutely. Where do you think their ideological zeal (coupled with self-promotion) comes from? Ann Coulter is Boomer to the bone. Just a later Boomer (in other words, "Jones").

I don't know about the ideological zeal of Rosie O'Donnell and Axl Rose, but they both have the pompous self promotion down pat. <cringe>

I'm fighting a yawn as I type this, because this is all old territory that has been covered a million times in a million places. But here we go, one more time for nostalgia's sake:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Dubya would have been a bad President had he been a liberal.

So let me give you some objective measures of his awfulness as President:

1. He did not call upon a public ready to sacrifice to do so on 9/11.

I don't even know what this means. This word "sacrifice" is obviously a left wing mantra which has some coded meaning I have yet to decipher. My first assumption would be that they mean "massive tax increases", but it seems to be much more than that. I know they would have liked a draft, because it would have made their job of undermining the war effort easier. Going to war is inherently a sacrifice, in various ways for nearly everyone.

Perhaps you will come up with the "go shopping" meme of the left. Another straw man. I'm prepared for the greatest hits.

2. He lied to get America into an aggressive war.

He did not lie, and you have no proof that he did. Intelligence agencies from across the globe, including places like France, all believed Saddam had large stockpiles of WMDs. He may have been wrong, but he did not lie. You are being disingenuous.

3. He gamed the meanings of words in bungled attempts to make his misdeeds look innocuous. Let's start with something unrelated to the War in Iraq: the so-called "Healthy Forests Initiative" which in fact was a call for clear-cutting of trees. Clear-cut a forest and there is no forest.

After that early whopper (before 9/11) I was convinced that his words meant little and his actions meant all.

Forests which are not cut back periodically are prone to massive, destructive wild fires. You may remember that we had a lot of them in and around National Parks in the 90s. We haven't had many since.

4. He surrounded himself with flunkies.

Ah...yes. No politician has ever done that. Rahm Emanuel, for example, would never qualify as a flunky. Nor James Carville, Paul Begala, etc. etc.

5. He delegated unconstitutional authority to the unelected Party hack Karl Rove.

Rove was a political/policy adviser in the White House. What exactly is unconstitutional about that?

6. He let Karl Rove railroad Governor Don Siegelman (D, AL).

Might have to fill me in on that major crime. Never heard of it.

7. He said that torture was OK so long as it wasn't called torture.

There was a long, drawn out debate in Congress over these issues throughout Bush's term. Everyone was involved, including Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.

8. He bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina -- and infused the relief effort with corruption.

The Democrat Governor of Louisiana blocked the federal government from taking over the operation. She and the mayor of New Orleans were directly responsible for the relief effort, and botched it horribly. The Democrats (and the media) did a great job of shifting the blame, though.

9. He promoted a corrupt boom in real estate speculation and legalized loan-sharking.

A variety of factors were involved, and both parties had a hand. Primarily, there was a push to extend mortgages to people who could not qualify, coupled with massive corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were protected from scrutiny by Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Wall Street component has more Republican blame attached to it, so of course that's what gets the focus now, while the rest of it is whitewashed.

9. And here's a big one for conservatives: He allowed things to get so bad that the government had to bail out large corporations -- some of them big players in the corrupt speculative boom -- with public funds.

Would any conservative have voted for a candidate who proclaimed that he was going to nationalize key industries? Someone so firm a believer in capitalist power, capitalist profit, and capitalist privilege ended up doing so.

By the time of TARP, Bush already had one foot out the door. The Republican base was pretty much unanimously opposed to it.

----

Now, with all of that out of the way, forget everything I just said.

It's irrelevant.

The FDR Administration was full of corruption, incompetence and legally questionable actions.

The question is: what does the S&H theory predict, and do the last 8 years since 9/11/2001 qualify as 4T? I don't even see it as debateable.

I wonder, out of curiosity, how long it's been since some people here actually read T4T all the way through. It might be a useful challenge - try to get everyone here to re-read it in full, and then re-boot their assumptions and interpretations.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Actually, I think you have Hamilton and Jefferson reversed. Despite my libertarian sympathies with the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists must be regarded as the leading edge of post-Revolution politics. The Crisis ended with the Federalist triumph of the Constitution tempered by an Anti-Federalist Bill of Rights. Although the Federalists were dominant early in the High, they consistently lost ground throughout.

As for other political identities, here are my assessments:

McCain is probably lower-right, possibly even true bottom.
Goldwater strikes me as near the upper right, true right boundary.
The quintessential true bottom politician is Joe Lieberman.
Ron Paul is near the true top, upper right boundary and a good distance from the center.
Bill Maher is on the upper left, true left boundary but near the center.
Blogger Glenn Greenwald is similar to Maher, but further from the center and more likely to be actual upper left. Consider Greenwald as a good template for the future leading edge.

Ah, thank you for the correction!