Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm not nearly as incensed by the older man/younger woman thing, or the "boss/subordinate" thing. It was clearly a consensual relationship -- if still wrong because the guy made a promise to another woman and didn't live up to it.

I don't care about the older man/younger woman thing in the absence of one person having career leverage over the other, when one has the power to ruin the other. But I do think the boss/subordinate thing is a big deal because despite the "clearly consensual" claims, we don't know what was said behind closed doors.

Originally Posted by ASB65

And David, you never answered my question. Perhaps you didn't see it. So I will ask it again...

You are a parent. Lets just say hypothetically that when one of your son's was 21 he had gotten an internship at some company. The president of that company was twice his age and was a married woman. And you discovered that while your child was at work, your son was going into that woman's office and performing oral sex on her. Would you have a problem with it? Would you just assume that it was completely consensual? Or would you feel like more than likely this woman was taking advantage of your son? Because, like I said, I would become unglued in that situation.

I feel that even though a 21 year old is legal considered an adult, I don't think they have maturity to parse these kind of things out. And more than likely, that woman would be hearing from both me and my husband.

Well, Amy, you would have to know one of my sons. . .I have not been privy to too many of the details of their sex lives, but I don't think either of them has done anything that he didn't genuinely want to do. I suppose I'd be a bit freaked by the situation you described, but I wouldn't be trying to take legal action against the woman, no.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

When the story first broke, I was more angry at Clinton for betraying his marriage vows -- YET AGAIN -- hadn't he learned his lessons from the Gennifer Flowers affair, the dumbass? I think the fact that he was married made the Lewinsky relationship worse as far as I was concerned. I'm not nearly as incensed by the older man/younger woman thing, or the "boss/subordinate" thing. It was clearly a consensual relationship -- if still wrong because the guy made a promise to another woman and didn't live up to it.

That was Bill and Hillary's business, not ours. Are you going to hold it against Jackie Kennedy and Lady Bird Johnson that they did not walk out on their husbands?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That was Bill and Hillary's business, not ours. Are you going to hold it against Jackie Kennedy and Lady Bird Johnson that they did not walk out on their husbands?

No, I was just empathizing with Hillary at the time.

A TV show that had many of us women saying "You go girl!


"The Good Wife" (TV Series)

The series focuses on Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies), whose husband Peter Florrick (Chris Noth), a former Cook County state's attorney, has been jailed following a very public sex and corruption scandal. Alicia returns to her old job as a litigator (after taking years out to be a mother) to provide for her two children.^[8] The series was partly inspired by the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal,^[9] as well as by other prominent American political sex scandals, particularly those of John Edwards and Bill Clinton:

Michelle [King]: We came up with the idea about a year and half ago. There had been this waterfall of these kinds of scandals, from Bill and Hillary [Clinton], to Dick Morris, to Eliot Spitzer, to name just a few. I think they’re all over our culture. And there was always this image of the husband up there apologizing and the wife standing next to him. I think the show began when we asked, "What are they thinking?" And Robert and I started talking about it from there. ... You know, what’s interesting about a lot of these political scandals is that the women are lawyers, too. Hillary [Clinton] is a lawyer. Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer. I think that got us thinking along those lines. That is, we knew she had to go back to work, and we had so many female lawyers to draw on.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Wife_(TV_series)

Originally Posted by Deb C

A TV show that had many of us women saying "You go girl!


"The Good Wife" (TV Series)

The series focuses on Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies), whose husband Peter Florrick (Chris Noth), a former Cook County state's attorney, has been jailed following a very public sex and corruption scandal. Alicia returns to her old job as a litigator (after taking years out to be a mother) to provide for her two children.^[8] The series was partly inspired by the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal,^[9] as well as by other prominent American political sex scandals, particularly those of John Edwards and Bill Clinton:

Michelle [King]: We came up with the idea about a year and half ago. There had been this waterfall of these kinds of scandals, from Bill and Hillary [Clinton], to Dick Morris, to Eliot Spitzer, to name just a few. I think they’re all over our culture. And there was always this image of the husband up there apologizing and the wife standing next to him. I think the show began when we asked, "What are they thinking?" And Robert and I started talking about it from there. ... You know, what’s interesting about a lot of these political scandals is that the women are lawyers, too. Hillary [Clinton] is a lawyer. Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer. I think that got us thinking along those lines. That is, we knew she had to go back to work, and we had so many female lawyers to draw on.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Wife_(TV_series)

I hate it when they make their wives stand up there next to them in the press conference. Talk about rubbing the salt in the wound. If it were me, I'd be telling my husband, "Screw that. I'm not standing there next to you, you SOB." But then maybe these women do if for the sake of their children. Hard to say.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I hate it when they make their wives stand up there next to them in the press conference. Talk about rubbing the salt in the wound. If it were me, I'd be telling my husband, "Screw that. I'm not standing there next to you, you SOB." But then maybe these women do if for the sake of their children. Hard to say.

Yeah, what I liked about the show, is that the betrayed wife decides not to be the 'stand by your man' wife to save his career. It depicts the pain and suffering that scandals inflict on the family that's in the public eye. In this character's role, as in the real life story of Spitzer's escapades with prostitutes, the wife says, "screw this public image BS, I have a family to protect, and I'm going to do just that, protect them."

Four previews of 2012 --

1. Ohio voters have rejected the Hard Right legislation that would ban collective bargaining for government employees.

2. Maine voters have restored same-day registration in time for the 2012 election.

3. On the Wake County (North Carolina) school board. voters have completed overturning a Republican majority on the county school board. That board had undone a successful desegregation program on behalf of the Koch political syndicate.

4. Mississippi voters have rejected an anti-abortion amendment to the state constitution that protects the fertilized egg from conception.

The AP has called these propositions and votes.


North Carolina and Ohio are swing states in 2012; Maine and Mississippi aren't. Republicans can't win on outlawing abortion and contraception, gutting union rights, and culling the electorate.

Originally Posted by Deb C

You have that right! That's why that old country western song about 'standing by your man' use to tick me off. I think it was written and sung by Loretta Lynn in regards to her husband's cheating ways.

And - there's a good reason why authority figures having sex with their patients, students, or interns, is against the law.

It was sung by Tammy Wynette. She may have been married to George Jones, another country singer. He was an alcoholic.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Four previews of 2012 --

1. Ohio voters have rejected the Hard Right legislation that would ban collective bargaining for government employees.

2. Maine voters have restored same-day registration in time for the 2012 election.

3. On the Wake County (North Carolina) school board. voters have completed overturning a Republican majority on the county school board. That board had undone a successful desegregation program on behalf of the Koch political syndicate.

4. Mississippi voters have rejected an anti-abortion amendment to the state constitution that protects the fertilized egg from conception.

The AP has called these propositions and votes.


North Carolina and Ohio are swing states in 2012; Maine and Mississippi aren't. Republicans can't win on outlawing abortion and contraception, gutting union rights, and culling the electorate.

KY kept their Dem governor as well.

In VA, it looks like the Dems will keep the majority in that state's senate. A lost there would have given the whole state over to the GOP making it more difficult for Obama to take the state next year. Its still very close with like 125 votes lead by the Dem in one of the state senate races.

Overall, looking good for a possible return to sanity or at least a path tonight.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I'm beginning to wonder if he lives in an alternate reality than the rest of us. I love how he tries to portray himself as a Washington outsider when he was a lobbyist. How much more of an insider can you get than that? Have you noticed how all these politicians and political talking heads refer him as a friend of theirs? Sounds like he is pretty connected to me.

I'll tell you one thing, I was pretty creeped-out by his constant referring to himself in the third person. That is pretty standard sophomore drama writing technique of identifying for the audience your sociopath.


I'm wondering if there is a duality going on there where its okay for little Herman to lie to protect big Herman because he firmly believes big Herman "never behaved inappropriately with anyone ever" and its not really big Herman that's lying so its okay.

... or, it all could be just the typical little head taking over for the big head, but in this case, it became permanent.


Hmm, I guess this is where Rani chimes in about my needing to know myself so as to not project onto others.

In an interesting race, an Arizona Republican state Senator Russell Pearce was defeated by a Republican challenger in a recall. Pearce was the author of several bits of racist and anti-immigrant legislation.

Pearce is a real piece of work.

I agree that the results in various states show that the Republican tide has crested and provoked a mild reaction. To me that would suggest that Obama may be re-elected and that the Republican-driven 4T might indeed be nearing its end. But I have to admit something else. I heard yesterday on NPR that the specific steps taken by Governor Kasich in Ohio (leaving aside for a moment the denial of union rights) were a less generous cost-of-living adjustment formula and a later retirement age for state workers. I probably would be in favor of both of those steps. . .

In Fairfax County, Virginia, Bill Strauss's widow Janie, chairman and 20-year member of the school board, won re-election in her district by about 1000 votes out of 25,000 cast. Her opponent was an Xer Mom who complained that Janie's policies in the crunch had kept class sizes lower in special ed and in the poorer parts of the district and higher in the richest parts--something Janie did not deny. Overall the Democrats gained one seat in the voting.

Originally Posted by annla899

It was sung by Tammy Wynette. She may have been married to George Jones, another country singer. He was an alcoholic.

Your right! I just recall when that song first came out, I thought it sent a terrible message to women in abusive relationships.

Thanks

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I agree that the results in various states show that the Republican tide has crested and provoked a mild reaction. To me that would suggest that Obama may be re-elected and that the Republican-driven 4T might indeed be nearing its end.

Huh?...Ok, I need some clarification here. I'm not following what you are saying. Are you saying that if Obama wins then we move on to stage 2 of the crisis with the Democrats in charge? Or are you saying that if Obama wins we move into the IT? Because I think you are saying the latter.

So what was the crisis then? Because having Republicans in charge does not constitute a crisis. I don't think we can wrap this whole thing up and problems of the world in solved a year. Many economists are saying it may take at least another 5 years before we start to see unemployment go back down to a reasonable level. We still have almost 1/3 of all homeowners underwater in their mortgages. Who knows how long it will take for the housing to recover. And then there is that whole national debt thing.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

.... the Republican-driven 4T might indeed be nearing its end.

Turnings are not driven by political parties. At best, they ride the wave.

The blame game is just so tiring at this point....

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Turnings are not driven by political parties. At best, they ride the wave.

The blame game is just so tiring at this point....

Certainly.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here is a closer look at the presidential candidates, using my revised statistical system based on my extensive research concerning which presidents and losing candidates had which planetary aspects in their charts, and other factors. I have summarized this in my score, indicating positive advantages vs. detrimental liabilities. I have listed them in overall order of presidential fitness and fortune this year.

Barack Obama 8-2. He has a few good aspects, indicating endurance, energy, perspective, personal ease, adaptability and rhetorical skill, and few liabilities except occasional unpopularity. His low positive score shows that his skills have their limits.

Mitt Romney 11-5. His skills include personal ease and optimism that pleases the public (a strong Moon-Jupiter conjunction is always a good indication), as well as perserverance and adaptive perspective. He has some flair with words, but he has a tendency to be wavering and nervous at times. His tendency to make drastic changes is well-known.

Ron Paul 12-5. He has aspects that indicate good strategic skill, focused energy and rhetorical flair. His chart is typical of missionary types with cult followings and radical or dogmatic attitudes. He has the same Mars-Uranus opposition that was so much trouble for Howard Dean. He is 76 years old too.

Newt Gingrich 11-5. Like Perry (below) his strength is mainly in his conservative, perservering Saturn aspects, plus his aggressive Mars in Aries. His flair for ideas shows up in his Mercury-Uranus conjunction in Gemini. He has weak adaptability, and his personal ease and confidence is not great (weak Jupiter). His overall strong score, the same as Romney's, is already keeping him in the race longer than was expected. He may be his next challenger. He is now 68 years old, which is getting up there.

Gary Johnson 18-4. He has a lot of skills, especially in his adaptability and steadiness, and few liabilities as a politician. Popular with conservatives for his tax and budget policies as NM governor, which were very effective, he could be a powerful dark horse candidate, except for one thing: he is going through his Saturn return now. A current Saturn return, or one upcoming in the next 3 years, is usually the kiss of death, unless a president has one during an election; even then it's a bad indication for his term. Johnson's Saturn Return will last several more months, and by then the primaries may well be over. It seems to be successfully keeping him out of the limelight. Perhaps if he got better known, he might be more successful in 2016. The Saturn return is one reason I predicted Howard Dean would lose in 2004. His weak Moon leaves him with less ability to connect with popular feelings than some other candidates.

Rick Perry 9-5. He has some aspects that make him a popular hero with a rhetorical flair, but they are not powerful, so he can't count on these too much. Conservative Saturn is very powerful in his chart, which makes him liked by conservatives and capable of a Spartan-like endurance, but hard to elect nationally, and this Saturn emphasis may also indicate his sluggish, unadaptable and rigid personal approach that shows up in debates.

Jon Huntsman, 9-6. He has some Jupiter aspects that make him likeable and positive, which is good for American politicians. He has some minor liabilities including a weak Mars-Uranus opposition that could make for unsteady behavior. He has a good reliable character, but since his Uranus is weak he is not very charismatic as a leader.

Herman Cain 6-6. Inspirational, adaptable, but unsteady. He does not have a lot of aspects seen in presidential charts.

Rick Santorum 7-7. He has good planning skills and perspective, and is a smart communicator, but has little else going for him. He may even be subject to spells of strange behavior.

Buddy Roemer, 10-13. Charismatic with powerful leadership skills and energy, he has already shown the tendency indicated in his chart to make himself unpopular and fail to get things accomplished.

Michelle Bachman, 14-13. She has a lot going on in her chart; a lot of skills, and a lot of liabilities-- including the reckless, firebrand Mars-Uranus opposition. The clincher is the fact that her Saturn Return is due in 2015, which indicates she would not be elected this time out.

Another factor sometimes considered is close connections to the USA chart. George W. Bush's Sun exactly aligned with the US Sun helped keep him in favor. Barack Obama has the USA Moon degree as his rising sign. His Venus is close to the USA Venus. These give him a good popular connection. Herman Cain has Saturn over the US Mercury (his financial ideas have appeal for their conservatism), and Ron Paul has his Venus conjunct the USA Neptune (which is related to his appealing desire for peace).

I have looked at some indications before the election too. These are not always completely reliable, but in general they indicate that this time the incumbent will win. Another factor is where Saturn is currently in the candidates' charts. These indications, plus the scores and interpretations above and the Saturn return cycles mentioned, forecast that Barack Obama will defeat Mitt Romney in November.

Forgetting astrology for a second, this is good political analysis Eric. You were right about Cain and right that the Newt would claw into the race. These were reasonable conclusions to reach as you think about how things would play out.

You say here Obama will win, but in another post you hedge a bit and say Obama will prevail although Romney "may" win. So, no matter what, you will have been right in your prediction and will have written proof of this.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I looked at the charts or planets for some of the candidates. Cain, Perry and Huntsman are not presidential material and will not be elected or nominated. Perry has the better chance among those three. Romney will be the nominee and has a chance to beat Obama. I still think Obama will win.

Here is another hedge. If Romney wins, you can say you saw it as a possibility. That is like betting on both sides of a coin toss --- heads and tails. This isn't a prediction. It is a certainty.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Turnings are not driven by political parties. At best, they ride the wave.

The blame game is just so tiring at this point....

I agree that turnings are not driven by parties. In fact parties seem to be irrelevant in the face of such gross systemic failure.

However, it is very important to point out the ideas that led to this calamity because their proponents have learned NOTHING. And those ideas my friend, turned the Republican party into a Gestapo for the Rich. They not only led the way, they intimidated,bought and coopted the Democrats AND the Media AND the Courts. They get tired of hearing it, too bad. The message has to be loud and clear to break through the hypnosis. It's like working with people who have been kidnapped by a cult.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Huh?...Ok, I need some clarification here. I'm not following what you are saying. Are you saying that if Obama wins then we move on to stage 2 of the crisis with the Democrats in charge? Or are you saying that if Obama wins we move into the IT? Because I think you are saying the latter.

So what was the crisis then? Because having Republicans in charge does not constitute a crisis. I don't think we can wrap this whole thing up and problems of the world in solved a year. Many economists are saying it may take at least another 5 years before we start to see unemployment go back down to a reasonable level. We still have almost 1/3 of all homeowners underwater in their mortgages. Who knows how long it will take for the housing to recover. And then there is that whole national debt thing.

OK, Amy, here's the thing. You are equating Crisis with economic crisis. I am not. To me the Crisis, the 4T, involves the creation of a new political order and some new institutions and values. And that was accomplished, sadly, by Bush II, who crippled the federal government by cutting taxes and going to war at the same time; tied us completely to Israel in the Middle East; and involved us in long-term military involvement there. Meanwhile, the Republicans in nearly the whole country have been dismantling state governments. For the last 16 months, ever since it became clear that Obamacare was going to be the only major reform (and it doesn't go nearly far enough), I have been convinced that these trends will not be reversed, economic crisis or no economic crisis, because there is no political will to do so.

So the question is, how far will they go? They have done enough harm already, but things could indeed get a lot worse even with a Romney victory and a Republican Congress. And with any of the other Republicans, I shudder to think. So I'm hoping these results show a reaction against the Republicans and herald good things for Obama.

Meanwhile, they also suggest that we're going to have a relatively liberal outcome on social issues, which is one thing to be happy about, anyway.

Unfortunately, we don't have unemployment figures for 1872-96, but I would think they were pretty high. And without any safety net. But they weren't regarded as a political problem, so the High continued and went into the Awakening all the same. . .

Let's look at the bright side. Europe is clearly in 4T mode now. (Behind us, as usual, if I'm right.) Governments are falling. National governments are being formed, a very revealing development. They are fighting to save the Euro. This is a painful process, but it's a tea party, if you'll pardon the expression, compared to what they went through last time.

I am worried about war with Iran and broader war in the Middle East. That, along with a Republican victory, is what might push this 4T in a much worse direction. Right now I just want us to get out of it alive. . .

Not jubulent, just thankful some typically red states, stopped the escalation of the right wing agenda:

Atlantic Monthly
NOV 9 2011, 8:15 AM ET
In state elections across the country Tuesday, voters rejected Republican attempts to pursue a far right-wing agenda

Democrats had a very good election night on Tuesday.

Their cherished causes prevailed, they kept their statehouses, and they saw one of the Tea Party's biggest champions unexpectedly lose a recall election in Arizona.

Though it's easy to read too much into the sparse data points of an off-year election, liberals were jubilant as the returns came rolling in Tuesday night, and the trend, in nearly every contested race across the country, was too obvious to ignore:

* The Republican governor and legislature in Ohio saw their attempt to roll back collective bargaining for public employees soundly repudiated by the state's voters.

* Mississippi's "personhood' initiative, which would have defined a fertilized human egg as a person and created a new front in the abortion wars, went down to defeat by a wide margin, despite leading in pre-election polls.

* Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear sailed to reelection -- though widely anticipated, his win showed Democrats can still prevail in red states with good candidates and campaign strategy.

* Russell Pearce, Arizona's state Senate president and the author of that state's controversial anti-illegal immigration law, lost a recall election to a Republican challenger who portrayed Pearce as an extremist.

Democrats also hung onto the Iowa state Senate and appeared poised to at least hold the GOP to a tie in the Virginia Senate. As of late Tuesday, Virginia Republicans had gained one seat and led by less than 100 votes in another, but needed to gain three to take over the chamber. And in Maine, voters threw out the legislature's attempt to tighten voting restrictions.

The trend was not absolute. Conservatives were victorious on other ballot issues, including one in Ohio to ban health-care mandates -- a symbolic strike against President Obama's health-care reform -- and one in Mississippi to require photo ID to vote. As expected, Republican Phil Bryant easily won Mississippi's gubernatorial election.

But there was no question that on the most controversial questions, voters seemed to recoil from the GOP's attempts to push further to the right. Pearce, in Arizona, was a case in point: He had proudly declared the state's upper chamber a "tea party Senate" and inspired similar immigration proposals across the country. Yet his heavily Republican district threw him out in favor of a fellow Republican with a more conciliatory stance.*

Similarly, the "personhood" initiative in Mississippi worried not just liberals but some in the pro-life movement, who thought it could hurt the anti-abortion*cause by alienating independent voters or tempting a Supreme Court smackdown. And in Ohio, conservative-leaning blue-collar voters took labor's side against Gov. John Kasich's attempt to roll back union protections even for police and firefighters.

Thus, Tuesday's results were more of a rejection of far-right proposals than a signal of approval to Democrats -- a sign that Republicans may have overreached their 2010 mandate and pushed the pendulum in the other direction.*

Originally Posted by jadams

I agree that turnings are not driven by parties. In fact parties seem to be irrelevant in the face of such gross systemic failure.

However, it is very important to point out the ideas that led to this calamity because their proponents have learned NOTHING. And those ideas my friend, turned the Republican party into a Gestapo for the Rich. They not only led the way, they intimidated,bought and coopted the Democrats AND the Media AND the Courts. They get tired of hearing it, too bad. The message has to be loud and clear to break through the hypnosis. It's like working with people who have been kidnapped by a cult.

What????? The Civil War crisis wasn't driven by the Republicans? The New Deal crisis wasn't driven by the Democrats? Please!

I would agree that the Republican Party has not achieved the same ascendancy that those two did, but it has imposed its values. Our political leaders are not arguing about their essential principles, "small government," austerity, lower taxes, war in the Middle East. They are arguing about the degree of implementation of those principles. That's the proof that they won. It doesn't mean we can't improve things on the margin, but it does mean that we have made lasting changes. And I'm as sorry about it as any of you.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, Amy, here's the thing. You are equating Crisis with economic crisis. I am not. To me the Crisis, the 4T, involves the creation of a new political order and some new institutions and values. And that was accomplished, sadly, by Bush II

Well, according to Strauss and Howe, the Crisis is about Boomers entering elderhood, Xers entering midlife, Millennials coming of age, and the new Adaptives being born, and will continue until that generational transition is finished, which will happen in the late 2020s.

If we can put the Crisis to bed merely because the Republicans lose next year's election, then the theory is wrong and there is no such thing as a Crisis.

LOL I wonder, if the GOP does lose next year, will David be declaring "we be 1T" while the demonstrations continue in the streets and the pressure for, and debate over, serious reform intensifies? I would not be surprised.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, Amy, here's the thing. You are equating Crisis with economic crisis.

And so is everyone else, even if they are not aware of the 4T theory. The creation of Homeland Security is not a crisis. It's not something the average person sits around worrying about. Even the wars had a little effect on most people in this country. Unless you have a relative or close personal friend serving overseas, it's not something most people think about on daily basis.

If you were to ask the average person on the street what their concerns are about the state of America today, I have no doubt at the top of list would be concerns about the economy whether that be unemployment, not being able make ends meet, loss of personal wealth in their homes or 401ks, and worries about job security, along with a list of other personal financial concerns. Secondly, they would probably mention ineffective government. And this would go under the umbrella of the right saying it's too big or the people on the left or the moderates saying it's corrupt. Political gridlock and bankrupt states would also fall under this umbrella. Another big one on their lists of worries would the national debt and how we are ever going to manage to pay it down.

These are the concerns of our crisis. And these are things that must be resolved before we can declare an end to the crisis. The things you mentioned are things that happened during the 3T that brought our country to where it is today.