Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


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

Thread: Political Archetypes - Page 11







Post#251 at 05-08-2009 07:06 AM by Arkham '80 [at joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,402]
---
05-08-2009, 07:06 AM #251
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,402

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I strive for objectivity, but don't always achieve it. There are some here who I do not believe have any interest in objectivity at all.
If I were a (neo/theo/whatever)conservative, I might argue that only God can be objective. The rest of us are hopelessly limited by our perspectives.
You cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. -- Heraclitus

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman

Arkham's Asylum







Post#252 at 05-08-2009 08:56 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-08-2009, 08:56 AM #252
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
I know, I'm going back a little bit, but here is where the idea of how to explain the difference in how we view Majority-Minority using Literature.

Odin & The Grey Badger see Majority-Minority interaction as: The Lottery by Shirley Jackson - people/ideas are singled out democratically and are openly but "fairly" put to "death" by a mob which for some strange reason keeps to a "barbaric" tradition that has long since lost its original meaning.

JPT sees Majority-Minority interaction as: Fuente Ovejuna by Lope de Vega - people are suppressed by a self-important entitled jerk who takes advantage of his supremacy and lords it over everyone else. The people revolt and kill him, and stick together in saying that: "Fuente Ovejuna" aka the town as a whole killed the bad seed of a knight when inquisitioned by the governor. The King comes in and pardons everyone for fear that their wrath might come to him next. Fuente Ovejuna in Spanish means: Sheep Fountain.

I see Majority-Minority interaction as: Cafe Nigeria - a little known Hungarian short story that's in a similar (but not the same) vein to Brave New World by Adolous Huxley - people are suppressed/screwed/beaten and for some odd reason they like it enough (or think that they should like it enough because everyone else does) to say "give me more" and leave tips. (How else did GWB get a second term?) All of this of course takes place behind the Red Curtain both literally and figuratively.

So we have an American, Spanish, and Hungarian viewpoints conflicting. Who's right? I'd have to say that we're all a little right in our own ways:

People openly and democratically vote out the minority to the "nether regions" are essentially led & convinced into continuing to screw themselves because it's a long standing tradition that they've been convinced that they "like" or "should like". When someone has finally convinced them of their negative interpretation of the situation they've been put into, the people realize that they've had enough of the tradition, that they don't like it anymore, and they gather together & revolt. They are then led into a new tradition which equally screws them and are told to like it because it's "better than the old system" and they convince themselves that they in fact do "like it".

~Chas'88
Good post! I am reminded of one of Arkham's quotes:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#253 at 05-08-2009 09:23 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-08-2009, 09:23 AM #253
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
Oops. You stepped on something there. I watched Captain Kangaroo and his sidekick Mr. Greenjeans.
Bunny Rabbit, Mister Moose, and the ping-pong balls!

(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?
Yep, all of those. And Laugh-In. Sock it to me, baby!







Post#254 at 05-08-2009 11:57 AM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
05-08-2009, 11:57 AM #254
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Good post! I am reminded of one of Arkham's quotes:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
Thank you, I do have a few of them in me. And as for the quote: quite indubitably.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#255 at 05-08-2009 12:00 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
05-08-2009, 12:00 PM #255
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Wink INTP's gone wild

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Reed View Post
It is so funny to see INTPs get into nasty flame wars over fanboyism (Fanboy1: Digimon is far better than Pokemon. Fanboy2: You are an idiot...Pokemon is the original show and blah blah blah...DIE!!!!). It is sad when any VI or EMACS article or thread is essentially flame bait.
Oh yes. Here are some others:
YARTS
grammar and usage (We had a 3 month thread on what "should" meant, sheesh. )
and of course politics in its assorted forms.

Oh, and here's a couple of "masterpieces" I got today. Names/emails redacted to protect the guilty
Quote Originally Posted by INTP list

009/5/6 <redacted>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <redacted>
> To: <intp@cheshirecat.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:04 AM
> Subject: Re: So it begins...
>
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:44:41PM -0400, <redacted> wrote:
>>
>>> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:31:45PM -0400, <redacted> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > <snip>
>>> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> ...No. I'm talking about people who commit minor damage(cut fences),
>>> >> trespassing, breaking/entering, and theft. These actions are against
>>> >> the
>>> >> law but they should not be acts of terrorism.
>>> >>
>>> >> Groups like the ELF are a gray area. Since you brought it >>
>>> up(firebombs)
>>> >> I'll entertain the subject. Doesn't terrorism imply the coercion and
>>> >> attack of people? ELF isn't a real organization but its cells have >>
>>> made
>>> >> it
>>> >> a priority to cause property damage, not murder. Why is it that if
>>> >> someone
>>> >
>>> > They don't care if people die. It's all about the animals and trees.
>>> > If people get hurt in the process, so what - they're the ones causing
>>> > the damage to begin with...right?
>>> >
>>> >> burns down someone else's abandoned house they will get charged with
>>> >> arson
>>> >> but if they burn down an empty corporate property it is an act of
>>> >> terrorism?
>>> >
>>> > I would vote, yes.
>>> >
>>> > <redacted>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> <redacted>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Thank you for the honest lack of content and reasoning in your replies.
>>> Really, as an INTP it makes me respect you and your opinion that much
>>> higher.
>>>
>>
>> I don't feel like making a feeble attempt to define terrorism. It is
>> inconsistent in application, and that is just one example. Others:
>> the way church arson is prosecuted and the mere existence of hate
>> crime laws. Don't think I subscribe to the Federal Gov'ts guidelines
>> for determining exactly who might be a domestic terrorist.
>>
>> <redacted>
>>
>> <redacted>
>>>
>>
> <What is your pointyt exactly!
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> We seem to have become an angry bunch.


With the same thread there's this:

Quote Originally Posted by INTP list
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 07:14:08PM -0400, <redacted> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:27:44PM +0100, <redacted> wrote:
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <redacted>
> >> To: <intp@cheshirecat.net>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:23 PM
> >> Subject: Re: So it begins...
> >>
> >>
> >> ><redacted> I'm with <redacted>. Your arguments lack dimension; you sound like a high
> >> >school kid talking shit.
> >>
> >> <Seconded!
> >
> > You can't second an ad hominem response.
> >
> > <redacted>
> >
>
> <redacted>, I invite you to point out any ad hominem that is communicated but
> could you please first learn what an ad hominem is?
>
> Here, I've done half the work.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<redacted> implied that what I said is crap because I sound like a high
school student talking shit. How is that not ad hominem?

<redacted>
>
> <redacted>
Nice, isn't it? Pretty much the only sane thing in that mess is the remark:
"We seem to have become an angry bunch." ... And to think, I'm one of the moderators of this stuff.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#256 at 05-08-2009 03:21 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-08-2009, 03:21 PM #256
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
If I were a (neo/theo/whatever)conservative, I might argue that only God can be objective. The rest of us are hopelessly limited by our perspectives.
It's not that hard to be objective. Most people actually are. Where lack of objectively or seeming irrationality comes is is that frequently there is a hidden agenda. It is this hidden agenda that provides the quite objective and rational reason for the belief that seems irrational and subjective.

I'll give you an example. We are introducing a new product in our production plant. We plan to run in a 16,000 liter vessel. If you add up the kg of the solid ingredients charged to the tank and liters of the liquid ingredients charges you get a total of 15,300 liters. If you sum up the material usage for a process variant that has been employed by the chemists on the project you get 15,700 liters. When the chemists asked about the maximum operating volume in this vessel the production engineer said 14,000 liters.

From this exchange came the belief that we need to reduce the total amount charged to the vessel by either 8.5% or 11%, depending on the process variant (the process that had been piloted vs. the one the chemists prefer). Of course, volumes don't actual add up. Usually if you mix a liter each of two different miscible liquids you get a mixture with a volume of less than 2 liters. Also this simply sum assumes that the density of the solids is one (that kg is equal to 1 liter). We engineers routinely measure all out volumes in the lab and so I took my and Omar's lab data and determined that the actual volume we saw was equal to 94.5% of the sum of the volumes and so the 15,300 liter volume will actually be 14,500 liters.

This is still above 14,000 liters, but we then went to the lead operator in the plant and had him look up the actual high level alarm on the vessel of interest (the high level alarm rings when a high level is reached and so defines the maximum normal operating volume for a vessel). It was 15,000 liters and so our position was we can run the reaction as it was piloted without any changes.

The chemists (and their manager) are not yet satisfied. We have spent several weeks working on alternate processes.

Now why is there this difference in opinion about a matter as mundane as how much will fit into a vessel? It's politics of course, and all about the hidden agenda.

To see it some background is needed. After years of development by Discovery R&D the reaction in question had achieved an "oral yield" of 50%. By oral yield I mean the yield value given in meetings. The actual yield was 44%. But when the process was run at pilot scale to generate data for regulatory agency approval they obtained product that did not meet the expected specifications although the yield was the expected 44%.

To meet specs a recrystallization was added which gave an overall yield of 25%. At this yield it was questionable whether the product would be viable. Nevertheless Discovery R&D threw the project over the wall to us for implementation into production. An executive decision was made to incorporate the recrystallization into the regular process and hopefully make up for most of the yield drop by process optimization. Our chemists (the ones I reference above) modified the two step crystallization to achieve a 43% overall yield, nearly as good as achieved by Discovery in a single step crystallization (although worse the the 50% "oral yield").

When the engineers started working on it, Omar modified the process by replacing the first crystallization step with the recrystallization step and so making the process a one step process again. This is the process implemented in our second round of regulatory pilot runs in which we got a 56% average yield, handily beating the 50% "oral yield" that existed in the heads of senior management (and nowhere else).

There was a time when the engineers were pursuing the (still unoptimized) modified one-step process and the chemists still were pursuing the the optimized two step process. In meetings with project management the chemists supported "their" two step process while the engineers supported "their" one step process. In the end the data supported the engineers and th chemists adopted that approach (they are scientists after all and so are strongly affected by data).

But now it was sort of Engineers 1 Chemists 0. So in this latest issue about volume, the chemists, wishing to implement something of "theirs" into the what looks like it may be a successful project hold out for their approach while the engineers want to run what worked in the past and which will fit into the vessel regardless of what the production engineer (now on family leave) said.

Why is this important? Well Pfizer has a new policy in which if you wish to rate employees as "exceeds expectations" you MUST rate someone as "below expectations" in a 1:3 ratio one below for every three above). And since the company is always downsizing as a result of it's insatiable merger policy, a low rating has potentially serious repercussions.

In response to this new mandate, our management try to rate everyone as "meets expectations", but were told they MUST use the whole range. Hence they have to put some employees who have done solid work in the past, but who were never superstars, into the lower category.

This is me. I don't work 70 hours a week like Omar and haven't been a superstar in 15 years. My main project in 2001-2003 was eliminated after the Pfizer-Pharmacia merger. My main project in the 2003-2006 period was canceled when Pfizer sold Consumer Products division to J&J. The project I am talking about has been my main project since 2006.

Since I don't work 70 hours a week and I turned down a three month developmental assignment away from home I am not a star (and have never considered myself as one). Amongst nonsuperstars, those who have had a hit recently are not going to go into the lower category--so it was my role this year.

The perception of involvement in hits is what shapes one's rating amongst the non-superstars. That is was YOUR process improvements (and not some else's) is what won in the end can matter. And this is what drives the politics. Its not the scientists themselves who play politics (after all, until this year politics never affected us, and even now only I and a few others have seen any effects). Also it is likely I will keep my job and so I will probably be unaffected anyway, but now I am aware of ithese things.

Rather, it is their management that plays the game. The underlying issue about reactor volume is something along these lines: "chemists cannot do what engineers do, yet it seems that engineers can do what chemists do, so why do we need chemists?" Now of course the best chemists do things none of us engineers can do. But we could be organized as a unit of engineers and chemists reporting to an engineer manager instead of two units, one reporting to a chemist and one to an engineer.

But unless you have all this background (and think about in in the way I have presented) the whole argument about volumes seems silly.







Post#257 at 05-08-2009 03:24 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-08-2009, 03:24 PM #257
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
Oh yes. Here are some others:
YARTS
grammar and usage (We had a 3 month thread on what "should" meant, sheesh. )
and of course politics in its assorted forms.

Oh, and here's a couple of "masterpieces" I got today. Names/emails redacted to protect the guilty


With the same thread there's this:


Nice, isn't it? Pretty much the only sane thing in that mess is the remark:
"We seem to have become an angry bunch." ... And to think, I'm one of the moderators of this stuff.
Here you are dealing with an issue that is simply loaded with hidden agendas.







Post#258 at 05-08-2009 03:29 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
05-08-2009, 03:29 PM #258
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
It's not that hard to be objective. Most people actually are. Where lack of objectively or seeming irrationality comes is is that frequently there is a hidden agenda. It is this hidden agenda that provides the quite objective and rational reason for the belief that seems irrational and subjective.
Again, my acting class' teachings come in handy:

What's your character's motivation?

When it's: 'to stay alive'

You know you be
in an Agatha Christie



Ich mache Spass!

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#259 at 05-08-2009 03:38 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
05-08-2009, 03:38 PM #259
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
It's not that hard to be objective. Most people actually are. Where lack of objectively or seeming irrationality comes is is that frequently there is a hidden agenda. It is this hidden agenda that provides the quite objective and rational reason for the belief that seems irrational and subjective.

I'll give you an example. We are introducing a new product in our production plant. We plan to run in a 16,000 liter vessel. If you add up the kg of the solid ingredients charged to the tank and liters of the liquid ingredients charges you get a total of 15,300 liters. If you sum up the material usage for a process variant that has been employed by the chemists on the project you get 15,700 liters. When the chemists asked about the maximum operating volume in this vessel the production engineer said 14,000 liters.

From this exchange came the belief that we need to reduce the total amount charged to the vessel by either 8.5% or 11%, depending on the process variant (the process that had been piloted vs. the one the chemists prefer). Of course, volumes don't actual add up. Usually if you mix a liter each of two different miscible liquids you get a mixture with a volume of less than 2 liters. Also this simply sum assumes that the density of the solids is one (that kg is equal to 1 liter). We engineers routinely measure all out volumes in the lab and so I took my and Omar's lab data and determined that the actual volume we saw was equal to 94.5% of the sum of the volumes and so the 15,300 liter volume will actually be 14,500 liters.

This is still above 14,000 liters, but we then went to the lead operator in the plant and had him look up the actual high level alarm on the vessel of interest (the high level alarm rings when a high level is reached and so defines the maximum normal operating volume for a vessel). It was 15,000 liters and so our position was we can run the reaction as it was piloted without any changes.

The chemists (and their manager) are not yet satisfied. We have spent several weeks working on alternate processes.

Now why is there this difference in opinion about a matter as mundane as how much will fit into a vessel? It's politics of course, and all about the hidden agenda.

To see it some background is needed. After years of development by Discovery R&D the reaction in question had achieved an "oral yield" of 50%. By oral yield I mean the yield value given in meetings. The actual yield was 44%. But when the process was run at pilot scale to generate data for regulatory agency approval they obtained product that did not meet the expected specifications although the yield was the expected 44%.

To meet specs a recrystallization was added which gave an overall yield of 25%. At this yield it was questionable whether the product would be viable. Nevertheless Discovery R&D threw the project over the wall to us for implementation into production. An executive decision was made to incorporate the recrystallization into the regular process and hopefully make up for most of the yield drop by process optimization. Our chemists (the ones I reference above) modified the two step crystallization to achieve a 43% overall yield, nearly as good as achieved by Discovery in a single step crystallization (although worse the the 50% "oral yield").

When the engineers started working on it, Omar modified the process by replacing the first crystallization step with the recrystallization step and so making the process a one step process again. This is the process implemented in our second round of regulatory pilot runs in which we got a 56% average yield, handily beating the 50% "oral yield" that existed in the heads of senior management (and nowhere else).

There was a time when the engineers were pursuing the (still unoptimized) modified one-step process and the chemists still were pursuing the the optimized two step process. In meetings with project management the chemists supported "their" two step process while the engineers supported "their" one step process. In the end the data supported the engineers and th chemists adopted that approach (they are scientists after all and so are strongly affected by data).

But now it was sort of Engineers 1 Chemists 0. So in this latest issue about volume, the chemists, wishing to implement something of "theirs" into the what looks like it may be a successful project hold out for their approach while the engineers want to run what worked in the past and which will fit into the vessel regardless of what the production engineer (now on family leave) said.

Why is this important? Well Pfizer has a new policy in which if you wish to rate employees as "exceeds expectations" you MUST rate someone as "below expectations" in a 1:3 ratio one below for every three above). And since the company is always downsizing as a result of it's insatiable merger policy, a low rating has potentially serious repercussions.

In response to this new mandate, our management try to rate everyone as "meets expectations", but were told they MUST use the whole range. Hence they have to put some employees who have done solid work in the past, but who were never superstars, into the lower category.

This is me. I don't work 70 hours a week like Omar and haven't been a superstar in 15 years. My main project in 2001-2003 was eliminated after the Pfizer-Pharmacia merger. My main project in the 2003-2006 period was canceled when Pfizer sold Consumer Products division to J&J. The project I am talking about has been my main project since 2006.

Since I don't work 70 hours a week and I turned down a three month developmental assignment away from home I am not a star (and have never considered myself as one). Amongst nonsuperstars, those who have had a hit recently are not going to go into the lower category--so it was my role this year.

The perception of involvement in hits is what shapes one's rating amongst the non-superstars. That is was YOUR process improvements (and not some else's) is what won in the end can matter. And this is what drives the politics. Its not the scientists themselves who play politics (after all, until this year politics never affected us, and even now only I and a few others have seen any effects). Also it is likely I will keep my job and so I will probably be unaffected anyway, but now I am aware of ithese things.

Rather, it is their management that plays the game. The underlying issue about reactor volume is something along these lines: "chemists cannot do what engineers do, yet it seems that engineers can do what chemists do, so why do we need chemists?" Now of course the best chemists do things none of us engineers can do. But we could be organized as a unit of engineers and chemists reporting to an engineer manager instead of two units, one reporting to a chemist and one to an engineer.

But unless you have all this background (and think about in in the way I have presented) the whole argument about volumes seems silly.
My dad would completely understand all of this. He was an Industrial Engineer for most of his career until Industry left PA.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#260 at 05-08-2009 04:42 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-08-2009, 04:42 PM #260
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Is this intended as a wierd stab at humor? If so, I missed the laugh.
Maybe I should have been more specific. I strive for objectivity when it comes to analyzing the ideas of S&H and their application to real world events.

When something turns into a purely POV-driven, non-S&H discussion about politics, etc. that's a different story.







Post#261 at 05-08-2009 05:21 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
05-08-2009, 05:21 PM #261
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Your desire to write a history of GWB that suits your ideology is destroying your ability to see T4T and its theory objectively.
I have made every effort to ensure that my disdain for Dubya is not solely for ideology. A late 3T tends to bring our weak, ineffective leaders with laissez-faire attitudes toward short-sighted greed. Late 3T leaders as a rule little challenge people to change their ways for any objective other than enriching and indulging themselves. Such types include Presidents Pierce, Fillmore, Buchanan, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Dubya. When the 4T strikes with such a leader at the helm, a society is in deep trouble -- adrift in a storm with a captain unwilling even to read the map for the shoals. I have contrasted his father, no less a conservative, who acted honorably in foreign policy. I have also noticed that Barack Obama has adopted the political techniques of Ronald Reagan in achieving his political agenda, and that I expect similar results from his methods, so perhaps my disdain for Reagan in his time (which was before Howe and Strauss wrote Generations) was partisan and ideological. I can now understand why Reagan won re-election in a landslide in 1984. Hint: I expect something similar, if not so lopsided, for Obama in 2012.

I stated that had Dubya been a liberal he would have been a disaster in view of his style of management. The complaints that I have shown have little to do with Dubya's place on the political spectrum. A President who ended up nationalizing huge chunks of American financial and productive industry as the result of a socialist program by design would have been a bad President.

... Do you like socialism -- if by socialism I mean extensive ownership and operation by government in productive enterprises? Good reason exists for not nationalizing industry -- most notably that when the government is an owner it develops overt conflicts of interest incompatible with economic freedom. Conservatives of every stripe have opposed such socialism on principle. Tellingly, the post-Commie governments in central and Balkan Europe were quick to sell off state enterprises so that they could fit the norm of western Europe -- social democracy, which depends upon an efficient and productive private sector. But what President presided over the greatest takeover of private industry in American history? One of the most right-wing and anti-egalitarian Presidents that we have ever known. He blundered into it through his hare-brained scheme to promote heavy consumer borrowing to create the illusion of prosperity -- an illusion that blew up.

... Do you like devious efforts to shade language in attempts to conceal the evil that people do? Is it no less wrong to "rub out" (gangland), "liquidate" (Stalinist), or "resettle" (Nazi) than it is to simply murder people? Bureaucratic euphemisms are part of life, but anyone who uses "enhanced interrogation techniques" as an attempt to conceal the reality of torture can only demonstrate the deceitfulness and culpability of an administration. An administration that uses such language in knowledge of what it conceals -- crime -- is culpable at the least in obstruction of justice. So far as I know, Dubya is far worse at that than the weak leaders that I have pilloried in an earlier paragraph in this post.

... Do you think it appropriate for the powers of government to devolve to persons neither

(1) elected to high office
(2) hired by the government (most obviously civil servants, the diplomatic corps, and the commissioned military) and subject to firing for misconduct or incompetence, or
(3) appointed by the President and confirmed by the legislature (most obviously cabinet officers and federal judges)

... such as a Party Boss like Karl Rove? Political parties are not branches of government in a democracy. Political parties can be such in dictatorships in which Party Bosses are the de facto leadership and the formal government (even if nominally elected) is window-dressing, as in the old Soviet Union. To be sure, I have no use for a despotic executive, either... but if any Administration had a tendency to initiate a dictatorship through a political Party, Dubya's did. It made only baby steps -- but steps toward a cliff. If you believe in democracy, then you have no tolerance for the machinations of Karl Rove.

What Dubya did was wrong irrespective of its purposes and even good intentions.

You, JPT, seem more guilty of trying to fit T4T theory to your ideology than I.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#262 at 05-08-2009 08:54 PM by stab1969 [at Albuquerque, NM joined May 2007 #posts 532]
---
05-08-2009, 08:54 PM #262
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
532

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I like Jefferson Airplane and I'm WAY to young to be a Boomer.
Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
And I'm too old to be a Boomer and I like them.
What's interesting is most of the members of Jefferson Airplane were Silents or Silent/Boom cuspers. there was even a GI at one point, Papa John Creach, born in 1917
Last edited by stab1969; 05-08-2009 at 09:11 PM.







Post#263 at 05-08-2009 09:22 PM by MJC [at joined Apr 2007 #posts 260]
---
05-08-2009, 09:22 PM #263
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
260

Quote Originally Posted by stab1969 View Post
What's interesting is most of the members of Jefferson Airplane were Silents or Silent/Boom cuspers. there was even a GI at one point, Papa John Creach, born in 1917
A member of the Airplane who was JFK's age cohort? A torch has been passed, dude--toke it up!

-----







Post#264 at 05-08-2009 09:28 PM by stab1969 [at Albuquerque, NM joined May 2007 #posts 532]
---
05-08-2009, 09:28 PM #264
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
532

Quote Originally Posted by MJC View Post
A member of the Airplane who was JFK's age cohort? A torch has been passed, dude--toke it up!

-----
yep, he was their fiddle player:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John_Creach







Post#265 at 05-08-2009 09:48 PM by MJC [at joined Apr 2007 #posts 260]
---
05-08-2009, 09:48 PM #265
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
260

Wink

Quote Originally Posted by stab1969 View Post
yep, he was their fiddle player:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John_Creach
Yeah, I had heard of him before, I just didn't realize that he was quite that old. Kind of strange to realize he was Kennedy's age; it's a definite anomaly considering the youth-revolution times.

Then again, the best thing about 60s counterculture rock was the way it tried to bridge generational gaps: The Band, The Grateful Dead, even The Doors and Jimi Hendrix--it's kind of of eerie to hear those ghosts in their music, which still makes it stand apart even today.

-----







Post#266 at 05-18-2009 01:04 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
05-18-2009, 01:04 PM #266
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

political achievement

Different turnings compared.

Is there a pattern?







Post#267 at 05-18-2009 02:24 PM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
05-18-2009, 02:24 PM #267
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Quote Originally Posted by TimWalker View Post
Different turnings compared.

Is there a pattern?
If this 4T resembles the Glorious, it should be a highly "political" 4T with under-average (for a 4T) bloodshed, right?
My Turning-based Map of the World

Thanks, John Xenakis, for hosting my map

Myers-Briggs Type: INFJ







Post#268 at 05-21-2009 12:59 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
05-21-2009, 12:59 PM #268
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368








Post#269 at 06-20-2009 10:41 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-20-2009, 10:41 PM #269
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
LOL!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I thought that it would be quite easy to see. A lot of Milliennials that I've run into who are unaware of Generational Theory have this persona of thinking that anyone that opposes Multiculturalism and Racial Equality as "bad" and that groups that oppose these much needed reforms need to be "suppressed". Luckily with the election of Obama, this occurred without any need for a "Witch Trials".

Now, if Obama were to "fail" and it looked like the revitalized Right might just take back control, and Leftie Boomers got neurotically desperate I could see them taking advantage of this Millennial mindset to "weed out" the "unfaithful".

Also, the Witch Trials only ended when a true a new-money fringe group rich frontiersman well known for killing Indians & having lived on the edge/frontier of society was appointed governor of Massachusetts. From his behavior he seems to have been a Nomad, but I'm not familiar enough with that period of history to say for sure. However he reminds me of an Eisenhower & Washington-like figure.

So we should all be hoping that Obama is a glorious and triumphant sucess. Because I for one would rather not go down that path, but if it's necessary... I'll be sure to make frequent visits to Wien--maybe even buy an apartment there or perhaps a little out of the way cabin in the mountains somewhere... Afterall, the first to go in the Witch Hunts were those odd eccentrics who didn't agree with the group mindset--and large group mindset scares Individualistic Independents like me.

~Chas'88
Given the rhetoric I'm seeing in the left-wing blogosphere aimed against anti-choice people, homophobes , racists, and teabaggers following the recent acts of right-wing terrorism the risk of witch hunts just went up by a lot.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#270 at 06-20-2009 11:11 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-20-2009, 11:11 PM #270
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
To Odin:
I think your turning analogies for the saecula are sound (i.e. we are in Mega-Awakening right now). I'm not sure about your generational analogies though. Since Awakenings are marked by the transition of Artists into leadership roles, I would describe the current saeculum as having an Artist tinge. To me, this makes more sense. Artists are all about maintaining existing institutions and adding ad hoc revisions to essentially sound rules is very much their style. Thus I would associate the bottom of the chart with Artists. This puts Heroes as pro-authority, Nomads as pro-simplicity and Prophets as anti-authority.
Good point. I'll speculate that each archetype has an influence over 2 saecula. The Prophet archetype at a mega-saecular level, for example emerges in the the 4T of the Mega-Awakening, reaches it peak of dominance in the Mega-Unraveling 4T, and then fades away by the Mega-Crisis 4T.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
Also, a Mega-Unraveling may sound harsh, but it's really just a time to clear out the clutter. The last Mega-Unraveling cleaned out absolute monarchy and considerable religious superstition and ushered in secular, representative government -- not exactly the end of the world.
As this next one may clear out the Military-Industrial Complex, Christian Fundamentalism, Nationalism, and the incestuous relationship between Corporation and State.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#271 at 06-21-2009 11:38 AM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
06-21-2009, 11:38 AM #271
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

I can also see a lot of resistance on the Boomer left toward libertarianism, because it breaks with their common mindset of Republicans as fundamentalist bigots.

People on the Boomer left in general easily dismiss Republicans as stupid with such an annoying fashion that it's easy to spot. I think that's why a lot of them supported Hillary Clinton.







Post#272 at 06-21-2009 12:52 PM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
06-21-2009, 12:52 PM #272
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

future direction....

Quote Originally Posted by writerGrrl View Post
I can also see a lot of resistance on the Boomer left toward libertarianism, because it breaks with their common mindset of Republicans as fundamentalist bigots.

People on the Boomer left in general easily dismiss Republicans as stupid with such an annoying fashion that it's easy to spot. I think that's why a lot of them supported Hillary Clinton.
By choosing Obama over Clinton I think the Democrats chose a candidate who can appeal to the left-leaning libertarians in a way that Clinton could not. (And also someone who appealed more to the progressive core of the party as well). The significant swings in the mountain west seem evidence of this. Clinton would have never put up as good numbers in CO and MT for instance. At the same time the party started to give up more of the bottom right people (ie Appalachian working class whites) which set the stage for the Republicans, once they realize that there won't be a second coming of Ronald Reagan to move in behind the Democrats. Thus, I think the Democrats will ultimately inch in a more left-libertarian direction while the Republicans trail them towards the bottom. If the Democrats had chosen Clinton I think there was a risk that the Republicans could cut in front of them had they played their cards correctly (not that they would have done that).

I think the support of Clinton was a mix of legitimate support and a genuine belief that she was the only candidate that could win. In part this was due to Bill Clinton's success in winning for the Democrats by uniting Appalachia with the North East, Upper Midwest and West. Geographically Obama traded Appalachia for the midlands (ie Central PA, OH, IN) as well as the Mountain west. What the Clinton supporters missed could be expressed in several ways, the progressive millennial generation, the rising Republican support in Appalachia making the 90's coalition hard to reunite and the rising discomfort of libertarians with the Republican party making it possible for Obama to make significant gains. Suddenly there were significantly more people on the left side of the chart that the right candidate could pull together and both win the election and ensure a bright future for the party.







Post#273 at 06-21-2009 02:24 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
06-21-2009, 02:24 PM #273
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by writerGrrl View Post
I can also see a lot of resistance on the Boomer left toward libertarianism, because it breaks with their common mindset of Republicans as fundamentalist bigots.

People on the Boomer left in general easily dismiss Republicans as stupid with such an annoying fashion that it's easy to spot. I think that's why a lot of them supported Hillary Clinton.
The GOP has become increasingly anti-intellectual, which has a tendency to drive out those with any college education whatsoever. Because the Millennial Generation is the best educated generation for its age, such bodes ill for keeping one group of people who used to be reliable GOP voters (white people with above-average intelligence).
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#274 at 06-21-2009 04:47 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
06-21-2009, 04:47 PM #274
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by writerGrrl View Post
I can also see a lot of resistance on the Boomer left toward libertarianism, because it breaks with their common mindset of Republicans as fundamentalist bigots.

People on the Boomer left in general easily dismiss Republicans as stupid with such an annoying fashion that it's easy to spot. I think that's why a lot of them supported Hillary Clinton.
As a Boomer liberal, my beef with libertarianism is that I believe that society needs a strong government to take care of society's needs that are not addressed by the private sector. In Economics 101, I learned about such concepts as "market failure" and the "tragedy of the commons".

Of course, I supported Obama from the get-go (or at least once it became clear that it was a Clinton/Obama race).

I don't view libertarians or Republicans as stupid or necessarily bigotted (although there are some worrisome indications that Ron Paul may be or may have been bigotted). I just happen to disagree strongly with the ideas that the Libertarian and Republican parties promote.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#275 at 06-21-2009 09:14 PM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
06-21-2009, 09:14 PM #275
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

Talking

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
As a Boomer liberal, my beef with libertarianism is that I believe that society needs a strong government to take care of society's needs that are not addressed by the private sector. In Economics 101, I learned about such concepts as "market failure" and the "tragedy of the commons".

Of course, I supported Obama from the get-go (or at least once it became clear that it was a Clinton/Obama race).

I don't view libertarians or Republicans as stupid or necessarily bigotted (although there are some worrisome indications that Ron Paul may be or may have been bigotted). I just happen to disagree strongly with the ideas that the Libertarian and Republican parties promote.
FOOD, SHELTER & WATER are the most basic necessities that a human needs and government regulates.

As a States rights believer, I will defer to the state on certain issues and the US Government should respect the State's right to self-determination. The Federal Government is supposed to be protecting our land from and maritime borders. I supported both Ron Paul and Barack Obama in 2008. To knee-cap a country that is down with more regulations (Stimulus Package) and more taxes, (Energy Cap/ Carbon Credits) will do more harm than good.

This country needs to graduate more Doctors/Nurses before we destroy another industry with a Chinese type single payer health insurance program. I made the suggestion to make the Federal Government workers health system the model, why not. Smack the Xer's/Millies over the head who can purchase health insurance through their employers and decide not too. Do not handicap those who are paying with a duplicity of another tax for being smart about it.

Break down the legislation alittle and let this economy breath some before we knee-cap another industry.
-----------------------------------------