Indeed, the falling dominoes in the Mideast and thereabouts beg the question: Does this mean 9/11 was the CATALYST after all?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Indeed, the falling dominoes in the Mideast and thereabouts beg the question: Does this mean 9/11 was the CATALYST after all?

Maybe it does, Kevin. Maybe the economic collapse just brought us deeper into the crisis. I'm rereading the 4th Turning now and there are more things that are beginning to pop out at me as I refamiliarize myself with the theory which indicate that 2001 is probably a more likely date than 2008 for the catalyst.

The generational make-up brings on turnings. At what life stage each generation is entering causes the turnings. This is stated over and over again in the book. It is the attitudes of the society and the generations and how they respond or react to the events that determines the crisis not the event itself. Artist adults will respond very differently to problems than say a prophet will and so on and so on. The oldest members of each generation were perfectly aligned in their life stage in 2000/2001. Each generation was entering it's new life stage, just like they are suppose at the beginning of each turning in 2001. It also clearly states that last civic child will be born 2 to 4 years before the crisis begins. My life has been immersed in parenting for going on 2 decades now. It has centered around kids, schools and other parents raising their children. I began parenting my nephew when his mother became ill in 1995 & eventually died. So I have been raising kids beginning with my nephew who was born 1989 to my youngest son was born 2003, and I can guarentee you we stopped producing millies right around the year 2000. There is no way a child born in 2004 or 2006 is millie. (And I could give you example after example as to why I feel this way.) If you want to believe in the concept of the theory, you have to go with the date of 2001 as the beginning of crisis, not 2008. 2008 is too late.

And shit generally hits the fan somewhere past the middle of the crisis cycle. I'm just finding it a little too coincidental that the middle east suddenly starts blowing up right about halfway through our crisis cycle and it's the same part of the world that brought us into the crisis to begin with.

But then again...I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Maybe it does, Kevin. Maybe the economic collapse just brought us deeper into the crisis. I'm rereading the 4th Turning now and there are more things that are beginning to pop out at me as I refamiliarize myself with the theory which indicate that 2001 is probably a more likely date than 2008 for the catalyst.

The generational make-up brings on turnings. At what life stage each generation is entering causes the turnings. This is stated over and over again in the book. It is the attitudes of the society and the generations and how they respond or react to the events that determines the crisis not the event itself. Artist adults will respond very differently to problems than say a prophet will and so on and so on. The oldest members of each generation were perfectly aligned in their life stage in 2000/2001. Each generation was entering it's new life stage, just like they are suppose at the beginning of each turning in 2001. It also clearly states that last civic child will be born 2 to 4 years before the crisis begins. My life has been immersed in parenting for going on 2 decades now. It has centered around kids, schools and other parents raising their children. I began parenting my nephew when his mother became ill in 1995 & eventually died. So I have been raising kids beginning with my nephew who was born 1989 to my youngest son was born 2003, and I can guarentee you we stopped producing millies right around the year 2000. There is no way a child born in 2004 or 2006 is millie. (And I could give you example after example as to why I feel this way.) If you want to believe in the concept of the theory, you have to go with the date of 2001 as the beginning of crisis, not 2008. 2008 is too late.

And shit generally hits the fan somewhere past the middle of the crisis cycle. I'm just finding it a little too coincidental that the middle east suddenly starts blowing up right about halfway through our crisis cycle and it's the same part of the world that brought us into the crisis to begin with.

But then again...I could be wrong.

Yes; somehow I don't feel obligated to accept your "guarantee." How do you know people 5 to 8 years old are or aren't millies?

I think 2003 or 2005 is the last birthdate for millies. The 2008 date for the start of the 4T works perfectly well with the generational alignment. The 3T was a bit long, but that's because a couple of previous turnings (the last 4T and 1T) were a bit too short. The cycle is staying the same length of about 80-plus years; it won't change. Any faster is not enough time for a generation to exist. You can take it to the bank that the crisis climax and end won't occur before the mid to late 2020s.

There is no possible connection between 9-11 and the risings in the Middle East-- none at all. These people rising now are not al qaida motivated in the least. Nor are they rising for or against al qaida. It has no relevance whatever. The catalyst for these risings is the world recession of 2008. Conditions have gotten worse since that economic crisis in these countries. In addition, there have been long standing experiences of repression and frustration, especially on the part of young people. They feel no connection with the issues of Islamic rebellion and the repressive governments who use fear of Islamic rebellion or terrorism to repress their people, with American backing due mainly to American support for Israel and the oil addiction. They want out of that long-standing system of fear of Al Qaida and Islamic rebellion, used to justify repression. That mindset dates back decades now, at least since the Iranian Revolution if not before, and has put their repressive rulers in power for 30 years now. They want to live in a normal country, with rights to express themselves and elect their leaders, and decent wages and working conditions. It has ZERO connection with those who flew airplanes into buildings on suicide missions as martyrs for Allah.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes; somehow I don't feel obligated to accept your "guarantee." How do you know people 5 to 8 years old are or aren't millies?

I think 2003 or 2005 is the last birthdate for millies. The 2008 date for the start of the 4T works perfectly well with the generational alignment. The 3T was a bit long, but that's because a couple of previous turnings (the last 4T and 1T) were a bit too short. The cycle is staying the same length of about 80-plus years; it won't change. Any faster is not enough time for a generation to exist. You can take it to the bank that the crisis climax and end won't occur before the mid to late 2020s.

There is no possible connection between 9-11 and the risings in the Middle East-- none at all. These people rising now are not al qaida motivated in the least. Nor are they rising for or against al qaida. It has no relevance whatever. The catalyst for these risings is the world recession of 2008. Conditions have gotten worse since that economic crisis in these countries. In addition, there have been long standing experiences of repression and frustration, especially on the part of young people. They feel no connection with the issues of Islamic rebellion and the repressive governments who use fear of Islamic rebellion or terrorism to repress their people, with American backing due mainly to American support for Israel and the oil addiction. They want out of that long-standing system of fear of Al Qaida and Islamic rebellion, used to justify repression. That mindset dates back decades now, at least since the Iranian Revolution if not before, and has put their repressive rulers in power for 30 years now. They want to live in a normal country, with rights to express themselves and elect their leaders, and decent wages and working conditions. It has ZERO connection with those who flew airplanes into buildings on suicide missions as martyrs for Allah.

Well Eric like I've said, raising kids has been my life for quite some time now. I have seen the changes in society, the schools and the ideology pertaining to children. I'll give you one example. I really don't have time to list all the examples of how a child born in 2003 is being raised in a completely different environment than a child born in say 1996, because my little boy has basketball practice and I have to go and sit there during his practice since it is no longer acceptable to just drop your kid off at a sports practice anymore...Oops, with that, now I'm giving you two.

My son who was born in 2003 has lock down drills at this school. I'll tell you what a lock down drill is. This is what my son told me when I picked him up from school after his first lock down drill in kindergarten. It's kind of like a fire drill but instead, when the alarm goes off all the kids have to go to a certain corner of the classroom and hide away from the windows, so that the "bad people" outside of the windows can't see them and get them. They didn't do things like when my son who was born in 1998 was in kindergarten. As a matter of fact, he walked home from school by himself when he was in kindergarten. Now in order for any child to be released from school at the end of the day, a parent or guardian must present the school with the child's number before they will let the child leave.

Again, I could go on and on.

I'm sure you know much more astrology than I do because that's what you do. Raising kids is what I do.

I agree with you that 9/11 was an Al Qaida thing and what is happening now in the middle east has nothing to do with Al Qaida. Well, at least for the time being. But I still don't think that it is out of the realm of possibility that as things go one, the US won't be drawn into it in some way. I don't know how that would happen, I'm just not ruling it out.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I'm sure you know much more astrology than I do because that's what you do. Raising kids is what I do.

I agree with you that 9/11 was an Al Qaida thing and what is happening now in the middle east has nothing to do with Al Qaida. Well, at least for the time being. But I still don't think that it is out of the realm of possibility that as things go on, the US won't be drawn into it in some way. I don't know how that would happen, I'm just not ruling it out.

I would say that it is entirely possible that 2003 is a new silent cohort, likely the first year, or at least on a cusp (I don't like the name Homelander for the same reasons I don't like 9-11 as the catalyst). But for 9-11 to be the catalyst, then the first new silent birthdate would be 1998 or even earlier. The millie generation in that case is 1982-1997 at the latest; only 15 years at the most. Archetypally, a generation is 21 years; typically about 20. The previous civic generation lasted 24 years.

You raise kids, but one person's experience does not define a generation.

The US could be drawn in; but again, that would have nothing to do with 9-11. We could go there to protect our interests, or even to help the rebels; but those interests and values started long before 9-11.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Indeed, the falling dominoes in the Mideast and thereabouts beg the question: Does this mean 9/11 was the CATALYST after all?

How does stuff happening in North Africa have anything to do with social cycles in the USA?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How does stuff happening in North Africa have anything to do with social cycles in the USA?

Because whatever is happening in some far off corner of the world obviously reinforces my beliefs about American society.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Because whatever is happening in some far off corner of the world obviously reinforces my beliefs about American society.

That's unexpected. I figured it was because not a sparrow falleth without it being about America somehow.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Maybe it does, Kevin. Maybe the economic collapse just brought us deeper into the crisis. I'm rereading the 4th Turning now and there are more things that are beginning to pop out at me as I refamiliarize myself with the theory which indicate that 2001 is probably a more likely date than 2008 for the catalyst.

Here's what I'll offer you: your kids probably are adaptives, regardless of when they were born. The creation of a generation is one of a myriad of factors, and the reason we have generational behavior is the aggregation of the behavior of millions of people.

For an individual, what is going to make them "Millenial" vs. "Homelander" will be more than a date in time. It's not just "2 to 3 years before the turning." Here are just some of the many factors that would influence whether someone has civic or adaptive attitudes:

Boomer Parents (Millenial) or Xer Parents (Homelander)?
Grew up in material security (Millenial) or insecurity (Homelander)?
Knew political irrelevance (Millenial) or turmoil (Homelander) as a child?

And of course, this is just differentiation in childhood, and I would argue the greatest generational differentiation takes place on the cusp of adulthood. If we were looking at Xers and Millenials, these would be the markers of the differences:

Silent Parents (Xer) or Boomer Parents (Millenial)?
Had autonomy (Xer) or watchful parents (Millenial)?
Had familial instability (Xer) or stability (Millenial)?
Had low (Xer) or high (Millenial) school security?
Grew up in social turbulence (Xer) or stability (Millenial)?

Which is not to mention other, very specific markers that people use on a regular basis to distinguish themselves from younger people: stuff like whether you remember the Challenger explosion, or the Reagan Administration, or what kind of TV shows you watched as a kid.

That's why we have cusps: because obviously these things will vary from person to person, even people born on the same day. But there will be probabilities determined by the year that make you more likely to fit one category or the other.

The line drawn between Millenials and Homelanders will be similar: full differentiation won't take place until the end of the crisis, and people that seem to have Homelander traits will still end up identifying as Millenials later if they end up sharing a common experience in young adulthood that people slightly younger didn't have. I would guess many of the GIs born in the 1920s had Silent traits, but they considered themselves apart of the older generation because of the common experience of facing World War II as young adults.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Indeed, the falling dominoes in the Mideast and thereabouts beg the question: Does this mean 9/11 was the CATALYST after all?

The Time magazine article on the Generation That's Making A Difference (or however they phrased it) in the region makes it perfectly clear the protesting young people are Prophets. Or at least, Time thinks so. It even draws comparison's to Europe's 1848.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Here's what I'll offer you: your kids probably are adaptives, regardless of when they were born. The creation of a generation is one of a myriad of factors, and the reason we have generational behavior is the aggregation of the behavior of millions of people.

For an individual, what is going to make them "Millenial" vs. "Homelander" will be more than a date in time. It's not just "2 to 3 years before the turning." Here are just some of the many factors that would influence whether someone has civic or adaptive attitudes:

Boomer Parents (Millenial) or Xer Parents (Homelander)?
Grew up in material security (Millenial) or insecurity (Homelander)?
Knew political irrelevance (Millenial) or turmoil (Homelander) as a child?

And of course, this is just differentiation in childhood, and I would argue the greatest generational differentiation takes place on the cusp of adulthood. If we were looking at Xers and Millenials, these would be the markers of the differences:

Silent Parents (Xer) or Boomer Parents (Millenial)?
Had autonomy (Xer) or watchful parents (Millenial)?
Had familial instability (Xer) or stability (Millenial)?
Had low (Xer) or high (Millenial) school security?
Grew up in social turbulence (Xer) or stability (Millenial)?

Which is not to mention other, very specific markers that people use on a regular basis to distinguish themselves from younger people: stuff like whether you remember the Challenger explosion, or the Reagan Administration, or what kind of TV shows you watched as a kid.

That's why we have cusps: because obviously these things will vary from person to person, even people born on the same day. But there will be probabilities determined by the year that make you more likely to fit one category or the other.

The line drawn between Millenials and Homelanders will be similar: full differentiation won't take place until the end of the crisis, and people that seem to have Homelander traits will still end up identifying as Millenials later if they end up sharing a common experience in young adulthood that people slightly younger didn't have. I would guess many of the GIs born in the 1920s had Silent traits, but they considered themselves apart of the older generation because of the common experience of facing World War II as young adults.

I do agree that we probably really won't know for certain where the millie/homelander line is until after the crisis is resolved. The birthdate of 1925 as the cut-off for the GI was based on whether you or not you were old enough to fight in WW2. The actual cut-off date of the millies will depend if they are old enough to actually participate in the crisis as an adult.

But when you start breaking it down to over-protected vs under-protected or balanced childhoods it is quite clear to me that there was big change in parenting and "the rules" for children that happened around 2000. And this is what I keep going back to in my mind. I just have a hard time seeing my 7 year old as being part of the same generation has my 22 year old nephew. Now with my 12 year old, it could go either way. And I'm not talking about their individual personalities or even how they are being raised in my household. I'm talking about how I see their peers being raised and how the schools have changed or how the attitudes of society towards children and parenting have changed. We went into over-protective mode with Columbine and it intensified with 9/11. A child born in 2004 or 2006 is not being raised in the same environment (by that I mean society, again not my home environment) as one who was born in 1990. There are vast differences.

As far as millies having boomer parents. Nope there are plenty of millies with Xer parents. I know quite a few. As matter of fact, most all of my nephews are core millies and they all had Xer parents. All early Xers (born 1961 to 1966) were old enough to have had children by the mid to late 80's and a lot of them did. So I'm not so sure that the rule of which generation is the parent to another applies. Look at Chas. He is a core Xer and he has silent parents.

I guess in my mind, my 7 year old (b. 2003) is probably an homelander, the 12 year old (b. 1998) is probably a cusper and I would guess on the millie side. But we will see.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How does stuff happening in North Africa have anything to do with social cycles in the USA?

It pretty clearly doesn't, at least if you believe the news magazines.

Though Newsweek's cover story (or one of them) seemed to be about what Obama did wrong concerning Egypt. Didn't the Greeks have a word for that sort of thinking? (Begins with an H.)
I guess if we have nasty weather tomorrow, there'll be a story about what the President could have done to prevent it? Gaaah.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I do agree that we probably really won't know for certain where the millie/homelander line is until after the crisis is resolved. The birthdate of 1925 as the cut-off for the GI was based on whether you or not you were old enough to fight in WW2. The actual cut-off date of the millies will depend if they are old enough to actually participate in the crisis as an adult.

But when you start breaking it down to over-protected vs under-protected or balanced childhoods it is quite clear to me that there was big change in parenting and "the rules" for children that happened around 2000. And this is what I keep going back to in my mind. I just have a hard time seeing my 7 year old as being part of the same generation has my 22 year old nephew. Now with my 12 year old, it go either way. And I'm not talking about their individual personalities or even how they are being in my household. I'm talking about how I see their peers being raised and how the schools have changed or how the attitudes of society towards children and parenting have changed. A child born in 2004 or 2006 is not being raised in the same environment (by that I mean society, again not my home environment) as one who was born in 1990. There are vast differences.

As far as millies having boomer parents. Nope there are plenty of millies with Xer parents. I know quite a few. As matter of fact, most all of my nephews are core millies and they all had Xer parents. All early Xers (born 1961 to 1966) were old enough to have had children by the mid to late 80's and a lot of them did. So I'm not so sure that the rule of which generation is the parent to another applies. Look at Chas. He is a core Xer and he has silent parents.

I guess in my mind, my 7 year old (b. 2003) is probably an homelander, the 12 year old (b. 1998) is probably a cusper and I would guess on the millie side. But we will see.

Mikaela, age 10 1/2, is Xer-reared and probably Millie by cohort, but Sarah is convinced it's a terribly dangerous world out there. Not that Sarah trembles in fear; she just takes what she sees as sensible precautions. So Mikaela rides her bicycle around the neighborhood - with the family. But her longest distance for a single ride is 26 miles. A marathon. She's more tightly protected and regulated than her Silent (GI-reared) grandmother was!

Her brother and cousins, ages 6-down, are probably Homies.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Mikaela, age 10 1/2, is Xer-reared and probably Millie by cohort, but Sarah is convinced it's a terribly dangerous world out there.

She's more tightly protected and regulated than her Silent (GI-reared) grandmother was!

Her brother and cousins, ages 6-down, are probably Homies.

I know Pat. It's insane. I can't believe how over-protected these kids are these days. It just blows my mind. The schools are locked to the public. They aren't even allowed to bring cupcakes to school on their birthdays because they have sugar in them and sugar is unhealthy. And parents are afraid to let their kids out of their site...I'm still trying to figure out exactly when that happened. I know when my 22 year old nephew was my son's age he was riding his skateboard all over the place. The 12 year old kids on my street don't ever leave the block.

There is even a policeman who is stationed inside our intermediate school. I'm not talking about a security guard. I mean an actual policeman. And who he is protecting these kids against? All the doors to the school are locked at all times. No one can get inside anyway. I guess he is protecting them from each other. We are talking 11 & 12 year olds here.

It is a strange thing, if true. The crime rate is down. What are parents afraid of? Arabs in airplanes? Maybe the increase in concealed weapons? Had the mood of fear really been that strong during all the Bush years? Years of no real challenges to the security and safety of the status quo?

It may be different in different regions. I have seen no indication of this kind of fear or lock-downs here in northern CA, and I have recently been a substitute teacher as well as a resident. But we're quite different than deep red states. And skateboards are big here of course. The youth still dress like late Gen X.

Which generation your parents are has little to do with which generation you are. Otherwise all children would be born to parents about 40 years old. Early cohorts from one generation frequently have children in the later cohorts of the next.

Originally Posted by ASB65

As far as millies having boomer parents. Nope there are plenty of millies with Xer parents. I know quite a few. As matter of fact, most all of my nephews are core millies and they all had Xer parents. All early Xers (born 1961 to 1966) were old enough to have had children by the mid to late 80's and a lot of them did. So I'm not so sure that the rule of which generation is the parent to another applies. Look at Chas. He is a core Xer and he has silent parents.

Wow, when did I all of a sudden gain 20 years? I guess I went from being 22 to 43 on Monday.

On a serious note, I like to think of the cusps like a grayscale spectrum. Where each dot is a transition from one extreme to the next, and when comparing a dot to the dots on either side of it, it doesn't look all that different, but when stepping back and comparing dots farther apart, one sees the difference. However it doesn't change that the transition from one to the other is a gradual and more individualized evolution.

Grayscale spectrum:



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is a strange thing, if true. The crime rate is down. What are parents afraid of? Arabs in airplanes? Maybe the increase in concealed weapons? Had the mood of fear really been that strong during all the Bush years? Years of no real challenges to the security and safety of the status quo?

It may be different in different regions. I have seen no indication of this kind of fear or lock-downs here in northern CA, and I have recently been a substitute teacher as well as a resident. But we're quite different than deep red states. And skateboards are big here of course. The youth still dress like late Gen X.

Which generation your parents are has little to do with which generation you are. Otherwise all children would be born to parents about 40 years old. Early cohorts from one generation frequently have children in the later cohorts of the next.

In this purple state, I've noticed some cracking down in the public schools that wasn't there when I went through the system up 'till 2006. In fact the changes didn't start to happen until the year after my cohorts graduated--the year most of the youngest Silent & War Baby administrators retired or were replaced with Jonesers and early Xers.

And here's my Parenting graph which would determine the majority of parent-to-kid relations:

Parents --> Kids

Interbellum Cusp --> Beatnik Silent
Jitterbug GI --> Hot Rod Silent
Swing GI --> War Baby Cusp
Greatest Cusp --> Aquarian Boom
Beatnik Silent --> Disco Boom
Hot Rod Silent --> Jones Cusp
War Baby Cusp --> Atari X
Aquarian Boom --> Nintendo X
Disco Boom --> Gen Y Cusp
Jones Cusp --> Neo-Disney Millennial
Atari X --> Gen Z Millennial
Nintendo X --> Homeland Cusp
Gen Y Cusp --> New Silent Wave 1
Neo-Disney Millennial --> New Silent Wave 2
Gen Z Millennial --> New War Baby Cusp
Homeland Cusp --> New Prophet Wave 1

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is a strange thing, if true. The crime rate is down. What are parents afraid of? Arabs in airplanes? Maybe the increase in concealed weapons? Had the mood of fear really been that strong during all the Bush years? Years of no real challenges to the security and safety of the status quo?

Of course it is true! I'm not making it up. Why would you even question me and insinuate I might be lying about that? God, Eric.

It beats me what they are afraid of, and this is not the parent's doing. It's the school administration who sets these rules and policies. I did ask the principal why they needed a policeman inside the school every day. She just answered, "Well, we just want to keep all the kids safe."...But I don't think it's Arabs in airplanes they are afraid of. If I had to guess, I think it goes back to Columbine and the school shootings. From what my son described to me of the lock down drills, I think those also go back to Columbine. The "bad people" that they are suppose to hide away from the windows from, are probably gunmen that open fire at schools. The Columbine incident had a major impact on the schools and how they operate. And probably a bigger influence on the changes than 9/11 did. Of course, 9/11 didn't help the fear any either.

The other thing that most schools do now (and I know they do it in California because our school uses a program that came out of the California schools) is they have anti-bullying seminars. This also goes to back to Columbine. Bullying is a big deal in schools these days and they have zero tolerance rules. They don't want some kid who has been bullied to go off the deep end and start shooting up his/her classmates.

Originally post by Chas'88
Wow, when did I all of a sudden gain 20 years? I guess I went from being 22 to 43 on Monday.

Sorry Chas, I typed that wrong. I meant millie. Maybe it was a Freudian slip.

Originally Posted by James50

The thought that crossed my mind from these events is that George Bush and the Iraq invasion is really what kicked this off. It was said at the time that the example of a functioning Arab democracy would do more than any army to change the dynamic of the Middle East. When and if, as I suspect, this revolt spreads to Iran (not Arab, of course, but Shia), we will know for sure. It may happen sooner than anyone expects. Functioning democracies in the Middle East would be good for the world and mankind. If it happens this year, it will occur simultaneously with the near final pullout of US troops from Iraq. How ironic.

My other thought: Saudi Arabia will be the last to go.

James50

Prediction confirmed. Iranian crackdown in progress. Elsewhere, Bahrainians serving as desperate proxies for their fellow Sunnis the Saudis.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Just some quick notes for those interested:

This isn't getting a ton of coverage in the United States, but one of the major players in the current Egyptian uprising is the group "We Are All Khaled Said". Said was a young man who was beaten to death by the police last year in broad daylight outside of a cafe. The trial of the cops was set to begin this past week until the date was changed abruptly, probably as a result of the unrest in Tunisia and elsewhere. Said has not become an Islamist martyr and is unlikely to (apparently, the cops were trying to bring him in on drug-related charges).

The big story yesterday was that the Muslim Brotherhood came off the fence in favor of the protests. Since then, the group has changed its tune -- its official line now is that only a military coup can save Egypt. That's one hell of an about face. The obvious read there is that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't think it will benefit if the protestors win.

My Arabic isn't what it used to be, but I've watched some of the footage of the demonstrations that has made it out. None of it shows protestors using Islamist slogans or imagery. I've even seen a few signs in English that make it clear that this is a political movement aimed at taking down Mubarak. My own take on that is that the protestors want the West to know that this isn't an Islamist uprising.

Mubarak has dismissed his government, but instead of appeasing the protestors, it only intensified their demonstrations. The National Democratic Party's headquarters were completely ransacked and are still burning. (The NDP is the ruling party.)

The sun is up now and the first pictures out of Egypt today suggest that it was one hell of a night. Although things are a little quieter now, as of a few minutes ago police had opened fire on protestors at Tahrir Square. Cell phone service apparently just went back on line. First reports indicate a lot of bodies at the Cairo morgue and something like twenty burned out military vehicles around the NDP headquarters.

Make of all that what you will.

EtA: Al-Jazeera is reporting at least twenty dead in Alexandria. I haven't heard anything yet about what's going on right now in Suez City, where the police reportedly came under RPG fire.

Thanks , I missed this. Good to know.

You have Arabic? Sweet!

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I'm not so positive that Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria are in 2Tings, but then again I don't know enough about their individual histories to take a guess. Iran definitely is in a 2Ting, but the other countries I'm not so sure about.

~Chas'88

Which would mean by Rose's reasoning means a unstable political sphere in the event of successful revolution. Interesting.

Originally Posted by James50

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has been talking for a good while about a "higher education bubble." in which we continue to raise the cost of higher education while at the same time reducing the opportunities to people with the education. What does this have to do with Tunisia?

here.

James50

Historically revolts are organized by disaffected middle class educated types. The purity of their motives does, of course, vary greatly. But whether they want freedom or to merely supplant the oppressors, the successful revolutionary leaders had letters.

Originally Posted by the grey badger

oh, it's good for halliburton, so it's good enough for me
give me that old time corruption, give me that old time corruption, give me that old time corruption, and hope some trickles down.

.lol!.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

For more proof that Egypt is 4Ting and not 2Ting:



Read the whole article, here.

~Chas'88

I actually find this aspect of the Egyptian crisis the most interesting for it's implications. A similar response to social dislocation could likely arise naturally in the United States. Also of note is the severe constriction of inter urban travel as a result of road closure by Bedouins. Given our extreme dependence on long haul distribution to meet nutritional needs of our urban populations the implications suggest...gardening.

Originally Posted by ASB65

It will interesting to see how it all turns out. I have a feeling the president will be overthrown, but it might take a while. The last reports I heard, the military is not fighting the people. So that's a good sign for the Egyptian people. But the big question that remains is who will take over? The whole democracy thing hasn't exactly worked out too well in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then those situations are different. There were outside forces in play with Iraq and Afghanistan. This time it's the people who are rising up. So it might turn out better for Egypt. However, there is still a good possibility that Taliban type people could take over. And look at what happened to Iran when the Shaw was overthrown.

Still, I have no doubt that we have CIA people over there working behind the scenes already. Egypt is just way too important to us, for us not to somehow get involved and try and steer the ship. We just can't help ourselves. We are just too greedy not to try and play God.

Hey Amy! So now that the armie's in charge, what do you think. Good for the CIA, no? How 'bout for Egypt's people? I have not paid close enough attention myself to yet have an opinion.