Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What Gallup is known for is conducting multiple polls, of which you have presented a small, cherry-picked and misleading sample. The only question is whether you did the cherry-picking yourself or someone else did, which is to say, whether you are lying or merely passing on lies told by others.

The position of pro-choice PEOPLE is to oppose a complete BAN on abortion. Anyone who advocates that abortion be legal and up to the women in the first trimester may not be a pro-choice ACTIVIST, but is certainly pro-choice. At most, the cherry-picked poll you presented shows that pro-choice ACTIVISTS constitute a small percentage of the population, which we really didn't need you to tell us.

I'm not arguing that the pro-life position is now a clear majority position. I'm pointing out (and I am not coming up with this on my own, everyone in the political class knows it) that public opinion has been shifting towards the pro-life position and away from the pro-choice position. Not a huge shift, but a clear one.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Sounds like more of your own spinning. JPT, I have given you two opportunities to explain the meaning behind this statistic:

...to no avail. Your claims that Millennials support more restrictions does not hold out with evidence.

Best...

One question on one poll is not enough evidence to go on. You have to look at as many measurements as possible. The percentage of people 18-29 who think abortion should be legal in all circumstances has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. That's a pretty straightforward measurement. The question you're citing is much more vague and open to the interpretation of the person answering it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Of course there's no possibility you could be wrong about when the 4T started...

There's no possibility that I could be wrong about the birthyears of Boomers and Xers according to S&H's theory.

Where did you get that 62 age for the end of midlife? The only thing that happens at that age is that one becomes eligible for early Social Security benefits. 65 is generally considered the age of elderhood, as that is the traditional retirement age.

Also, you don't establish a transition point for one of the three generations and then count back 20 years, however convenient it would be for you. In 2001, the oldest Boomers were only 58, the oldest Xers 40, and the oldest Millennials 19, and that is too young. Which we can see by what happened: the 9/11 attack was a perfect event to create a Crisis mindset if we had been ready, but it didn't. Clearly, then, we weren't.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not arguing that the pro-life position is now a clear majority position. I'm pointing out (and I am not coming up with this on my own, everyone in the political class knows it) that public opinion has been shifting towards the pro-life position and away from the pro-choice position. Not a huge shift, but a clear one.

You can't judge that from one poll that measures only adherence to an extreme pro-choice position that even I wouldn't agree with. You need something more like this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/am...ife-lines.aspx

This is Gallup from which you took that cherry-picked and misleading poll. Note that the population self-labeling as "pro-choice" is growing, not shrinking. (Of course, there are problems with self-labeling and that applies to this as much as it does with "liberal" and "conservative," so I don't take that very seriously.)

From a lower poll, note that a slightly more nuanced (but still not perfect) poll distinguishes between those who want abortion legal under all circumstances and those who want it legal only under some. (I would fit into the latter category by the way -- and so would someone who wants abortion illegal except in cases of rape and incest. That's why this differentiation isn't perfect, but it's still better than what you presented.)

This poll measures these two positions along with those who want it illegal in all cases since 1975. We can see several constants. Where the numbers are given, the sum of those who want it legal always and legal sometimes are a fairly constant 75-83%. Although both are always fairly low minorities, of the two extreme positions more people usually want abortion always legal than want it never legal.

Now, that 75-83% overstates the pro-choice supporters, I believe, because there surely are some people who answered "sometimes legal" when they want it always illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and to protect a mother's life, and most would consider that a pro-life position. But it's unlikely to be a whole lot lower than that who support something roughly like the Roe v. Wade position, which is to say, a government can't ban abortion in the first two trimesters, but may in the third, and may impose reasonable restrictions consistent with privacy in the second. Note that this decision did NOT make abortion legal always, which is the extreme pro-choice position you presented before.

I also note that the number of people who think abortion should always be legal is growing recently at the expense of those who believe it should only be sometimes legal. However, given the way it's fluctuated up and down in the past, I don't think we should take this too seriously, either.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If that happens, then the theory will have been proven false, there is no such thing as a Crisis era, and we will not enter a High because there is no such thing as that, either.

I think you just proved a part of the theory with this "all or nothing" absolutism we've come to expect from boomers

But there are obviously things that are not contained in the theory. It is a simplification of incredibly complex systems, and it gives us a point to approach the system's deconstruction & analysis. There are some messy details missing, like generational cusps, or longer social cycles of regional unification and decentralization.

Civilization isn't some pop song with a mechanically precise 4/4 beat. There's a symphony of millions contributing off-beats, harmonies, and sometimes pure dissonance. That doesn't mean there isn't also a generally dominant rhythm.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If you look back at the last 1T, the country was anything but conservative. It was also the lst time we had a vibrant middle class. How did we get away from that?

I'll be the first ot admit that conservatives have done a bang-up jobof selling their philosophical wrapping. I'm not so sure that applies to the product inside. Some fo the most Tea Party-centric place in the country are populated by people drawing heavilkiy on entitlements or other governement programs, just to survive. Do you honestly think these folks really understand the implications of the policies they're demanding? What will happen if they win, the programs go away, the Blue areas of the country keep thier money at home, and the Red areas go down the tubes? Is that viable. Will they blame their self-inflicted wounds on "the liberals"?

That's every bit as true in western SC as it is in western VA.
I have a neighbor who'se job in so called private industry is actually dependant on quasi public agencies for the contracts that keep him employed.
Yet he views almost all public spending, excepting of course the contracts that keep him employed, as bloated wasteful fat. Somehow, someway his line level non managerial job is critical to the continuing functioning of the republic, but almost everything else the Feds. do would be shut down if he was granted his sincerest political wish.

And he is convinced that anyone elected to office will see things his way. His programs will be preserved but al others will be cut...

...And yes, my neighbor was born sometime between 1943 and 1960, sigh.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There's no possibility that I could be wrong about the birthyears of Boomers and Xers according to S&H's theory.

Where did you get that 62 age for the end of midlife?

The Fourth Turning...these are the ranges they give:

Elderhood: 63-83
Midlife: 42-62
Young Adulthood: 21-41
Childhood: 0-20

It looks to me like the only reason they climb up a year per stage is so they could preserve exact 20 year ranges. Obviously the basic outline is 20/40/60, and the generations and turnings are around 20 years. It's not an exact science. In any case, 2001 was clearly not too early according to S&H's standards. It was right on time, and the 4T should end somewhere around 2020.

Also, you don't establish a transition point for one of the three generations and then count back 20 years, however convenient it would be for you.

It's not a matter of it being "convenient". 9/11 fits everything described by S&H perfectly, as did the response to it. The committed leftists here just don't like it because they personally weren't on board. Has Obama changed any of Bush's anti-terrorism policies? Nope.

In 2001, the oldest Boomers were only 58, the oldest Xers 40, and the oldest Millennials 19, and that is too young.

That is not too young. It's right on time, like clockwork.

Which we can see by what happened: the 9/11 attack was a perfect event to create a Crisis mindset if we had been ready, but it didn't. Clearly, then, we weren't.

The idea that 9/11 did not create a Crisis mindset is absurd. Like I said, people here who are on the far left might be inclined to say it wasn't the right mindset because it "wasn't the 4T they wanted". But anyone with a shred of objectivity should be able to get past that and see that it all verfied S&H pretty convincingly. It's been 10+ years since 9/11, which means we could have another 10 to go, give or take a few.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Fourth Turning...these are the ranges they give:

Well, that doesn't fit very well with their own chronology of Turnings in prior saeculae, does it? It's been a while since I read it and I no longer own a copy, but somewhere there's a flaw either in their thinking or in your understanding of it.

It looks to me like the only reason they climb up a year per stage is so they could preserve exact 20 year ranges. Obviously the basic outline is 20/40/60, and the generations and turnings are around 20 years.

Pretty much what I mean, insofar as in prior saeculae Turnings used to be considerably longer than 20 years. In any case, I do quite clearly recall that they projected the 4T to begin sometime in the first decade of the 21st century, most likely around 2005. So no, 2001 wasn't "right on time," it was early, while what I believe is that the Crisis actually began a few years late. If you put it exactly when they said it would most likely start, you get Katrina, which some here do swear by.

It's not a matter of it being "convenient". 9/11 fits everything described by S&H perfectly, as did the response to it.

No. As I keep telling David, the GOVERNMENT'S response to it is utterly irrelevant for saecular purposes. What matters is the POPULAR response to it. Did we enter a lasting national mood change? No, we did not. We had a brief year or two of hysteria and then things quieted down. By the time Bush invaded Iraq, it was clear from that response -- a mere two years after 9/11 -- that it was being treated like a 3T war, very controversial, with no public consensus that we ought to be going, and with accusations all over the place that Bush lied to get us there. The contrast with the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or World War II could not be greater. Actually, what it did resemble strongly in terms of the popular response was the Mexican War.

Has Obama changed any of Bush's anti-terrorism policies? Nope.

As criticism of Obama, that's a sound and important observation. For purposes of dating the onset of the Crisis, however, it means doodly-squat.

The idea that 9/11 did not create a Crisis mindset is absurd.

Why?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, that doesn't fit very well with their own chronology of Turnings in prior saeculae, does it? It's been a while since I read it and I no longer own a copy, but somewhere there's a flaw either in their thinking or in your understanding of it.

Pretty much what I mean, insofar as in prior saeculae Turnings used to be considerably longer than 20 years. In any case, I do quite clearly recall that they projected the 4T to begin sometime in the first decade of the 21st century, most likely around 2005. So no, 2001 wasn't "right on time," it was early, while what I believe is that the Crisis actually began a few years late. If you put it exactly when they said it would most likely start, you get Katrina, which some here do swear by.

The exact sentence in the book is something like "somewhere around the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, maybe a few years before, maybe a few years after. 9/11 is definitely close enough to qualify.

No. As I keep telling David, the GOVERNMENT'S response to it is utterly irrelevant for saecular purposes. What matters is the POPULAR response to it. Did we enter a lasting national mood change? No, we did not. We had a brief year or two of hysteria and then things quieted down. By the time Bush invaded Iraq, it was clear from that response -- a mere two years after 9/11 -- that it was being treated like a 3T war, very controversial, with no public consensus that we ought to be going, and with accusations all over the place that Bush lied to get us there. The contrast with the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or World War II could not be greater. Actually, what it did resemble strongly in terms of the popular response was the Mexican War.

No point having that argument again, as it's purely subjective. But the response to 9/11 and the public reaction to it clearly were in the mold of a 4T, following almost wor for word what S&H wrote. The problem is looking at it in comparison to past 4T conflicts rather than on its own, and also assuming that it's over. Because it very well may not be.

As criticism of Obama, that's a sound and important observation. For purposes of dating the onset of the Crisis, however, it means doodly-squat.

Why?

I recommend getting a copy of The Fourth Turning and reading the last chapter. I've transcribed large parts of it here before, but I'm not interested in doing it again.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The other graph took an extreme pro-choice position -- that abortion should be legal in all circumstances without exception -- and measured ONLY attitudes toward that one extreme position. To illustrate just how extreme it is, I, myself, would disagree with it: I think there are circumstances in which it is appropriate to ban abortion, specifically in the last few months of pregnancy when the mother's health is not in danger. Anyone who believes that abortion should be legal at the mother's discretion in the first trimester of pregnancy should be considered "pro-choice" IMO, and yet many people who believe that might answer no to that poll question.

Exactly. I am for the most part pro-choice, but I am very concerned about abortion being misused for eugenic purposes. One can easily imagine a future where there is strong social pressure for parents to abort, say, fetuses that test positive for alleles associated with Autism, lest they give birth to a "burden on society".

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I think you just proved a part of the theory with this "all or nothing" absolutism we've come to expect from boomers

But there are obviously things that are not contained in the theory. It is a simplification of incredibly complex systems, and it gives us a point to approach the system's deconstruction & analysis. There are some messy details missing, like generational cusps, or longer social cycles of regional unification and decentralization.

Civilization isn't some pop song with a mechanically precise 4/4 beat. There's a symphony of millions contributing off-beats, harmonies, and sometimes pure dissonance. That doesn't mean there isn't also a generally dominant rhythm.

If one allows too much flexibility in a hypothesis it is likely to become unfalsifiable

Originally Posted by Odin

If one allows too much flexibility in a hypothesis it is likely to become unfalsifiable

Or conversely, if one rejects a model because it doesn't contain all of the information from the original system, what is the point of using simplified models?

Newtonian physics ignores relativistic details, but it is precise enough for most terrestrial purposes. And Newton wasn't "wrong" because his breakthroughs were imperfect by Einstein's standards. Since the model contains useful information, it is not falsified for providing incomplete information. More complete models can be built on the foundation of a useful one.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Fourth Turning...these are the ranges they give:

Elderhood: 63-83
Midlife: 42-62
Young Adulthood: 21-41
Childhood: 0-20

It looks to me like the only reason they climb up a year per stage is so they could preserve exact 20 year ranges. Obviously the basic outline is 20/40/60, and the generations and turnings are around 20 years. It's not an exact science. In any case, 2001 was clearly not too early according to S&H's standards. It was right on time, and the 4T should end somewhere around 2020.

It's not a matter of it being "convenient". 9/11 fits everything described by S&H perfectly, as did the response to it. The committed leftists here just don't like it because they personally weren't on board. Has Obama changed any of Bush's anti-terrorism policies? Nope.

That is not too young. It's right on time, like clockwork.

The idea that 9/11 did not create a Crisis mindset is absurd. Like I said, people here who are on the far left might be inclined to say it wasn't the right mindset because it "wasn't the 4T they wanted". But anyone with a shred of objectivity should be able to get past that and see that it all verfied S&H pretty convincingly. It's been 10+ years since 9/11, which means we could have another 10 to go, give or take a few.

Here are the official dates. Feel free to argue to your heart's content.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I don't really agree about the Civil War crisis starting before 1860. Now the revolutionary era did have a dual crisis: British tyranny set off the first after 1774, post-revolution anarchy set off the second in the 1780s. And I too have speculated that we could disintegrate to near anarchy in the next ten years, but I think its unlikely. If indeed Obama wins, I predict balancing the budget will become his mantra again---or rather, cutting he deficit--and if the economy recovers somewhat the crisis mood will pass, even though our economy will in some ways be weaker than at any time since the 1930s.

You know that we will disagree on this subject, but I look at the 1850s and I don't see an Unraveling. I see an era much like the one we are living in currently.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

You know that we will disagree on this subject, but I look at the 1850s and I don't see an Unraveling. I see an era much like the one we are living in currently.

~Chas'88

The Andrew Johnson Administration is more similar to the era we are living through than the 1850s. Obama is trying to be US Grant without the corruption--that is, Ike--instead.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here are the official dates. Feel free to argue to your heart's content.

There's nothing to argue about. The ?s are there for a reason. The 2T/3T date has always been dodgy to me since the first time I read T4T, but I'm not sure it matters that much.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Sounds like more of your own spinning. JPT, I have given you two opportunities to explain the meaning behind this statistic:

Millennials are strongly committed to the availability of abortion and are significantly more likely than the general public to say that at least some health care professionals in their community should provide legal abortions (68% vs. 58% respectively).

...to no avail. Your claims that Millennials support more restrictions does not hold out with evidence.

Best...

One question [blah blah blah]...

So you're admittingly wasting my time with this. Been real JPT.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Andrew Johnson Administration is more similar to the era we are living through than the 1850s. Obama is trying to be US Grant without the corruption--that is, Ike--instead.

The civil war hasn't happened yet. The equivalent is revving up and yet to come.
Obama is not trying to be Ike; he's trying to be Obama, but noone in DC can do what (s)he wants to do; we are too deadlocked.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Fourth Turning...these are the ranges they give:

Elderhood: 63-83
Midlife: 42-62
Young Adulthood: 21-41
Childhood: 0-20

It looks to me like the only reason they climb up a year per stage is so they could preserve exact 20 year ranges. Obviously the basic outline is 20/40/60, and the generations and turnings are around 20 years. It's not an exact science. In any case, 2001 was clearly not too early according to S&H's standards. It was right on time, and the 4T should end somewhere around 2020.

Same old nonsense. It is interesting that you and David make the same error. But whatever.
You'd have to change all the turning dates, moving them all back 4 or 5 years. 2005 was their guess in T4T. They were 3 years off, just as I predicted, and the 4T started just how and when I predicted.

It's not a matter of it being "convenient". 9/11 fits everything described by S&H perfectly, as did the response to it. The committed leftists here just don't like it because they personally weren't on board. Has Obama changed any of Bush's anti-terrorism policies? Nope.

9-11 fits nothing. I predicted 9-11; and I also predicted it would not be the 4T. I was right on both counts. The anti-terrorism policies are out of sight, out of mind unless you travel on airplanes; and even then only when you are boarding. Wars happen in all turnings. Iraq and Afghanistan wars are typical 3T wars, such as the Mexican War and WWI. The fact that I predicted a major US war starting in Summer 2001, shows that I do not predict just the things I want.

And how can a 2001 4T starting date fit S&H theory, when they said it would start in 2005? And when 9-11 happened, William Strauss compared it to the 1919 bombing on Wall Street, and when the 2008 meltdown happened, Mr. Howe said it was the start of the 4T.

The idea that 9/11 did not create a Crisis mindset is absurd. Like I said, people here who are on the far left might be inclined to say it wasn't the right mindset because it "wasn't the 4T they wanted". But anyone with a shred of objectivity should be able to get past that and see that it all verfied S&H pretty convincingly. It's been 10+ years since 9/11, which means we could have another 10 to go, give or take a few.

You can say "we'll show 'em, go right on shopping" is a new mindset; I don't. The corruption of US foreign policy to justify imperialism is not a new mindset; it's an old one, and a temporary blip on the radar screen. Torture and violations of the constitution are not new "mind sets;" they are impeachable offenses, and your guys belong in jail. We will go back to sane and sensible policies eventually; we already have started withdrawing from those totally unnecessary wars. We have 16 years to go. If you walk around in 2020 thinking you are in a new "high" you will be surprised; it will feel like you've run into a crashing tidal wave just a few years later. You wait and see. 2020 will only be the beginning of change and troubles. We will be adrift until at least then, wallowing in a crisis we can't solve.

Again, not what I want. But that's the breaks.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are considerably closer to the average American's views than Barack Obama is. If he wins re-election it will be because the Republicans failed at their own process, which appears to be very possible, and because voters are satisfied with leaving him held in check by a Republican Congress. He will never be given the kind of majorities he had from 2008-2010 again, that's for sure. And it will be a long time before any Democrat is. Over the last 32 years, the Democrats have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress twice, for a total of two years each. And both times the result was a massive Republican landslide in the House.

Before 1980 the American people were willing to make progressive change and move our country forward. Now they are not. That is the influence of the charming actor. Once deceived devotees like you become less predominant in the population, Americans will be more willing to innovate and move forward again, instead of clinging to the out-of-date free market and religious right and militarist ideology of Ronald Reagan and GW Bush. That tidal wave I warned you about, will be the millennials and others responding to the call for change and action.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Same old nonsense. It is interesting that you and David make the same error. But whatever.
You'd have to change all the turning dates, moving them all back 4 or 5 years. 2005 was their guess in T4T. They were 3 years off, just as I predicted, and the 4T started just how and when I predicted.

9-11 fits nothing. I predicted 9-11; and I also predicted it would not be the 4T. I was right on both counts. The anti-terrorism policies are out of sight, out of mind unless you travel on airplanes; and even then only when you are boarding. Wars happen in all turnings. Iraq and Afghanistan wars are typical 3T wars, such as the Mexican War and WWI. The fact that I predicted a major US war starting in Summer 2001, shows that I do not predict just the things I want.

And how can a 2001 4T starting date fit S&H theory, when they said it would start in 2005? And when 9-11 happened, William Strauss compared it to the 1919 bombing on Wall Street, and when the 2008 meltdown happened, Mr. Howe said it was the start of the 4T.

You can say "we'll show 'em, go right on shopping" is a new mindset; I don't. The corruption of US foreign policy to justify imperialism is not a new mindset; it's an old one, and a temporary blip on the radar screen. Torture and violations of the constitution are not new "mind sets;" they are impeachable offenses, and your guys belong in jail. We will go back to sane and sensible policies eventually; we already have started withdrawing from those totally unnecessary wars. We have 16 years to go. If you walk around in 2020 thinking you are in a new "high" you will be surprised; it will feel like you've run into a crashing tidal wave just a few years later. You wait and see. 2020 will only be the beginning of change and troubles. We will be adrift until at least then, wallowing in a crisis we can't solve.

Again, not what I want. But that's the breaks.

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't find astrology to be a persuasive authority on this. Nor do I think most other people here do.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

You know that we will disagree on this subject, but I look at the 1850s and I don't see an Unraveling. I see an era much like the one we are living in currently.

~Chas'88

Theory aside what Kaiser's is saying is likely to happen if Obama is re elected and the economy gets better. I don't see the crisis mood last past the duration of the great recession + negative backlash. The minor depression or whatever you want to call it.

I don't generally agree with JPT, but I'm still with him that the 'cut and run' v 'stay the course' debate of the Bush 43 era was an essential resolution of the Red / Blue divide. The Republicans thought using military force to expand their military zone of influence would be easy. The Democrats anticipated quagmire. Neither were entirely correct, but neither were entirely wrong. We did not end up putting troops near the oil. Our new grand embassy in Iraq is not the new capitol of the Middle East. However, we did significantly change Iraq for the better. Yet, it is not so much better that the cost in blood and treasure might be considered cheap. I don't think anyone would be eager to occupy another country the size of Iraq, oil or no oil.

Because as neither side can clearly say "I'm right, you're wrong" neither side is ready to admit that a major policy shift has taken place, that practical experience in the field has triumphed over ideology. Bush 43's late 2nd term Middle East policies and Obama's are too similar. A deeply decisive clash of world views has been resolved by conflict in the field. Nobody is going to be expecting to be greeted as liberators anymore. No one will claim that cultures cannot be changed at gunpoint, but they now know the cost in treasure and blood of such projects. It can be done, but it isn't worth it.

Of course, it wasn't a conflict of the scale of prior 4Ts. Weapons of mass destruction, proxy war, guerrilla tactics and terrorism have made direct confrontation between major powers obsolete. It just isn't profitable. The cost isn't worth the game. This has actually been obvious since World War I, but now it is even obvious to the sort of partisan ideologue egomaniacs that end up serving as heads of state.

Phase II of the crisis ought not to be undoing the Reagan Republican's grand social experiment of redistributing the wealth from the many to the few. It ought not to be just banishing voodoo economics, or just restoring fiscal policy to that of America's economic golden years of the 1950s and 1960s. It ought not to be just rejecting borrow and spend trickle down. It ought not to be simply admitting that you can't get something for nothing, one has to pay back loans.

There are basic ecological and economic forces in play deeper than that. Colonial imperialism left the planet divided between 'have not' former colonies and 'have' former mother countries. Jobs shall be exported until balance is achieved. Lack of resources and climate shift cannot be ignored. Peak oil, peak water, peak fish and perhaps peak human population can't be resolved by closing one's eyes, blocking one's ears, and loudly pronouncing 'I don't want to listen!'

Yet, I don't see any serious movement to do more than undo Reagan's excesses. I don't believe that will be enough.

It is hard to 'hope' that crisis disaster will bring the sort of clarity that allows great problems to be solved. I am convinced that the impending disaster has to be a very clear and present danger before a human population will let go of their values and do what has to be done.

Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by B Butler

I don't generally agree with JPT, but I'm still with him that the 'cut and run' v 'stay the course' debate of the Bush 43 era was an essential resolution of the Red / Blue divide. The Republicans thought using military force to expand their military zone of influence would be easy. The Democrats anticipated quagmire. Neither were entirely correct, but neither were entirely wrong. We did not end up putting troops near the oil. Our new grand embassy in Iraq is not the new capitol of the Middle East. However, we did significantly change Iraq for the better. Yet, it is not so much better that the cost in blood and treasure might be considered cheap. I don't think anyone would be eager to occupy another country the size of Iraq, oil or no oil.

Because as neither side can clearly say "I'm right, you're wrong" neither side is ready to admit that a major policy shift has taken place, that practical experience in the field has triumphed over ideology. Bush 43's late 2nd term Middle East policies and Obama's are too similar. A deeply decisive clash of world views has been resolved by conflict in the field. Nobody is going to be expecting to be greeted as liberators anymore. No one will claim that cultures cannot be changed at gunpoint, but they now know the cost in treasure and blood of such projects. It can be done, but it isn't worth it.

Of course, it wasn't a conflict of the scale of prior 4Ts. Weapons of mass destruction, proxy war, guerrilla tactics and terrorism have made direct confrontation between major powers obsolete. It just isn't profitable. The cost isn't worth the game. This has actually been obvious since World War I, but now it is even obvious to the sort of partisan ideologue egomaniacs that end up serving as heads of state.

Phase II of the crisis ought not to be undoing the Reagan Republican's grand social experiment of redistributing the wealth from the many to the few. It ought not to be just banishing voodoo economics, or just restoring fiscal policy to that of America's economic golden years of the 1950s and 1960s. It ought not to be just rejecting borrow and spend trickle down. It ought not to be simply admitting that you can't get something for nothing, one has to pay back loans.

There are basic ecological and economic forces in play deeper than that. Colonial imperialism left the planet divided between 'have not' former colonies and 'have' former mother countries. Jobs shall be exported until balance is achieved. Lack of resources and climate shift cannot be ignored. Peak oil, peak water, peak fish and perhaps peak human population can't be resolved by closing one's eyes, blocking one's ears, and loudly pronouncing 'I don't want to listen!'

Yet, I don't see any serious movement to do more than undo Reagan's excesses. I don't believe that will be enough.

It is hard to 'hope' that crisis disaster will bring the sort of clarity that allows great problems to be solved. I am convinced that the impending disaster has to be a very clear and present danger before a human population will let go of their values and do what has to be done.

Bob Butler 54

I was opposed to the Iraq invasion before it happened and still think that this was a major blunder. Iran seems to have gained much more than the USA. Nation building is a bad idea for us.


Energy resource constraints could be solved by aggressive development of both nuclear and solar power plants. Other alternative energy sources should be also used as much as possible. This would enhance our national security and mitigate the impact of our power plants on the planet .
In a rational world your comment "Weapons of mass destruction, proxy war, guerrilla tactics and terrorism have made direct confrontation between major powers obsolete. It just isn't profitable. The cost isn't worth the game." would be valid. Unfortunately you can't rule out irrational leaders starting a war despite the obvious reasons against war. We must remain prepared to defend ourselves with a strong military.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... Phase II of the crisis ought not to be undoing the Reagan Republican's grand social experiment of redistributing the wealth from the many to the few. It ought not to be just banishing voodoo economics, or just restoring fiscal policy to that of America's economic golden years of the 1950s and 1960s. It ought not to be just rejecting borrow and spend trickle down. It ought not to be simply admitting that you can't get something for nothing, one has to pay back loans.

There are basic ecological and economic forces in play deeper than that. Colonial imperialism left the planet divided between 'have not' former colonies and 'have' former mother countries. Jobs shall be exported until balance is achieved. Lack of resources and climate shift cannot be ignored. Peak oil, peak water, peak fish and perhaps peak human population can't be resolved by closing one's eyes, blocking one's ears, and loudly pronouncing 'I don't want to listen!'

Yet, I don't see any serious movement to do more than undo Reagan's excesses. I don't believe that will be enough.

It is hard to 'hope' that crisis disaster will bring the sort of clarity that allows great problems to be solved. I am convinced that the impending disaster has to be a very clear and present danger before a human population will let go of their values and do what has to be done.

Bob Butler 54

The issue is even deeper than you described, because there will soon be very few jobs to reassign anywhere for any reason. The pace of technological change is making humans redundant, and there is no political fix for that inside the capitalist system ... at least not in its current form. Very low cost production is of little use if there are no consumers to buy what's made. Thomas Edsall wrote a nice OpEd for the NY Times that covered the topic well, if not in depth. Here it is. It may be depressing, but I can't think of a better time to address something like this than the middle of a 4T.