Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, I was going to mention another President who was not cut out for it: Truman. He, too, had performed a mission prior to being VP, one that showcased his real talents. Stamping out Congressional / military waste, basically. The difference between Missionary Hoover and Lost Truman, though, was Truman's Nomadic qualities. He MADE his Presidential performance work, whether he was cut out for it or not..

As I've said before, I consider Harry Truman the most underappreciated President of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, I was going to mention another President who was not cut out for it: Truman. He, too, had performed a mission prior to being VP, one that showcased his real talents. Stamping out Congressional / military waste, basically. The difference between Missionary Hoover and Lost Truman, though, was Truman's Nomadic qualities. He MADE his Presidential performance work, whether he was cut out for it or not..

As I've said before, I consider Harry Truman the most underappreciated President of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Starkk

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Which is why I think the 2T started in 1966-7 and not 1963-4

Me, too, William, me, too. :wink: Don't we also agree on suspicioning that the 3T began sometime during Reagan's second term? Mine is largely based on the appearance of neo-ism in our politiks......

As a matter of fact, we do! :-)

What I see there, though, is a disillusionment with Reagonomics and that late 3T phase: starting in 1986 with Challenger, contininuing on through 86 and 87 with Iran Contra, and ending on Monday, October 19, 1987 with the Stock Market 'crash' being the nail in the coffin (and the recovery from that 'crash', going from a frightening scare to what turns out to be a mere blip, seems to be the hallmark of 3T disaster!)

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Starkk

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Which is why I think the 2T started in 1966-7 and not 1963-4

Me, too, William, me, too. :wink: Don't we also agree on suspicioning that the 3T began sometime during Reagan's second term? Mine is largely based on the appearance of neo-ism in our politiks......

As a matter of fact, we do! :-)

What I see there, though, is a disillusionment with Reagonomics and that late 3T phase: starting in 1986 with Challenger, contininuing on through 86 and 87 with Iran Contra, and ending on Monday, October 19, 1987 with the Stock Market 'crash' being the nail in the coffin (and the recovery from that 'crash', going from a frightening scare to what turns out to be a mere blip, seems to be the hallmark of 3T disaster!)

Originally Posted by Barbara

Well, I may as well announce it here. Sean's thread deserves the concession speech, especially since I gave an impassioned "We be 3T" post. :wink:

I'm back to being totally agnostic on the issue. One or two may have noticed I changed my tagline. Did that last night, but was too tired to write this then. Up until leaving here last year, I was agnostic, basing my position on trying to stay true to the S&H retrospective part of the theorum. Funny how being away a year can mold a POV, though. When I returned, I was flush with worldy ignorance of being a T4T meglomaniac. 8) I guess that honeymoon period has worn off now...

Also, I've now faced that part of me just does not want to believe that we are going to go through for a second time in my lifetime such a thoroughly wrenching era. Could we at least add one more turning to this theory to offset increased life span, or must we endure reruns in this arena, too? (joking sarcasm intended on that) :wink:

Something in you guys' last couple of posts of today, though, seals my decision to quit promoting the 3T continuum. While I stop just a wee bit short of actively promoting the 4T one as of now, I do recognize the odds. Were I more competitive, I suppose, I'd leap off the agnostic fence instead of sitting here with my legs dangling on the 4T side.

Although Seadog is not the first by far to present the mood change, that last comment of his on this subject was where I saw it clearly enough to say, yeah, looks like it to me, too. It was the timing, I suppose. :wink:

Thanks to all for the interplay. We are all learning here, I guess. (I would add the oops emoticon here except I'm not the least bit embarrassed. Call it the Silent in me....) 8)

Back to agnosticism, I see? I was myself agnostic when I first started posting here; but the longer I looked, the less and less signs I saw of a mood change with respect to 1998-2001 (signs of change are there, but I see them as more minor and trivial whereas half the people on this forum see something much more major in these shifts)

Late autumn sure can feel very frightening and wintry though... ;-)

Originally Posted by Barbara

Well, I may as well announce it here. Sean's thread deserves the concession speech, especially since I gave an impassioned "We be 3T" post. :wink:

I'm back to being totally agnostic on the issue. One or two may have noticed I changed my tagline. Did that last night, but was too tired to write this then. Up until leaving here last year, I was agnostic, basing my position on trying to stay true to the S&H retrospective part of the theorum. Funny how being away a year can mold a POV, though. When I returned, I was flush with worldy ignorance of being a T4T meglomaniac. 8) I guess that honeymoon period has worn off now...

Also, I've now faced that part of me just does not want to believe that we are going to go through for a second time in my lifetime such a thoroughly wrenching era. Could we at least add one more turning to this theory to offset increased life span, or must we endure reruns in this arena, too? (joking sarcasm intended on that) :wink:

Something in you guys' last couple of posts of today, though, seals my decision to quit promoting the 3T continuum. While I stop just a wee bit short of actively promoting the 4T one as of now, I do recognize the odds. Were I more competitive, I suppose, I'd leap off the agnostic fence instead of sitting here with my legs dangling on the 4T side.

Although Seadog is not the first by far to present the mood change, that last comment of his on this subject was where I saw it clearly enough to say, yeah, looks like it to me, too. It was the timing, I suppose. :wink:

Thanks to all for the interplay. We are all learning here, I guess. (I would add the oops emoticon here except I'm not the least bit embarrassed. Call it the Silent in me....) 8)

Back to agnosticism, I see? I was myself agnostic when I first started posting here; but the longer I looked, the less and less signs I saw of a mood change with respect to 1998-2001 (signs of change are there, but I see them as more minor and trivial whereas half the people on this forum see something much more major in these shifts)

Late autumn sure can feel very frightening and wintry though... ;-)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, yes. Good that you remembered this. The droughts started in 1930. Unemployment among Blacks was 50% in 1930. There's a direct connection there. Blacks were/are often the forgotten citizens in the last 4T, but they weigh heavily with me. Farmers, too. Those two groups never fully saw any of the gains or good lives of the decade before. When the drought started in the Great Plains, well, no more hoping for good times around the corner for them.

The 'Roaring 20s' as you pointed out, are something of a funhouse mirror version of reality. Poverty was common in the 20s, and the veterans of the Great War were not happy campers, even before the Depression. The politics were acrimonious, too, at least as much so as today.

Ironically, during much of the 20s, Hoover was known for being a humanitarian type. The association of the name 'Hoover' with hard-heartedness came later, and was mostly undeserved, one of the ironies of the time.

20s? Late 3T? Late 'autumn'? Like the chills of a mid-December snowfall? Sounds about right...

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, yes. Good that you remembered this. The droughts started in 1930. Unemployment among Blacks was 50% in 1930. There's a direct connection there. Blacks were/are often the forgotten citizens in the last 4T, but they weigh heavily with me. Farmers, too. Those two groups never fully saw any of the gains or good lives of the decade before. When the drought started in the Great Plains, well, no more hoping for good times around the corner for them.

The 'Roaring 20s' as you pointed out, are something of a funhouse mirror version of reality. Poverty was common in the 20s, and the veterans of the Great War were not happy campers, even before the Depression. The politics were acrimonious, too, at least as much so as today.

Ironically, during much of the 20s, Hoover was known for being a humanitarian type. The association of the name 'Hoover' with hard-heartedness came later, and was mostly undeserved, one of the ironies of the time.

20s? Late 3T? Late 'autumn'? Like the chills of a mid-December snowfall? Sounds about right...

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The 'Roaring 20s' as you pointed out, are something of a funhouse mirror version of reality. Poverty was common in the 20s, and the veterans of the Great War were not happy campers, even before the Depression. The politics were acrimonious, too, at least as much so as today.

Ironically, during much of the 20s, Hoover was known for being a humanitarian type. The association of the name 'Hoover' with hard-heartedness came later, and was mostly undeserved, one of the ironies of the time.

The 1920's were a economically mixed time of Australia, unemployment was high and industral conflict rife.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The 'Roaring 20s' as you pointed out, are something of a funhouse mirror version of reality. Poverty was common in the 20s, and the veterans of the Great War were not happy campers, even before the Depression. The politics were acrimonious, too, at least as much so as today.

Ironically, during much of the 20s, Hoover was known for being a humanitarian type. The association of the name 'Hoover' with hard-heartedness came later, and was mostly undeserved, one of the ironies of the time.

The 1920's were a economically mixed time of Australia, unemployment was high and industral conflict rife.

This tends to support the idea that 9/11 was a false turning:

For discussion purposes only, full article appears at the Washington Post website

SHANNON, Ireland (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday opposition to the U.S. President was encouraging Washington's enemies and hindering his 'war against terrorism'.

Rumsfeld was speaking after a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq where he sought to highlight progress on reconstruction efforts and dampen criticism of the U.S. presence there and the almost daily casualties in a guerrilla campaign against occupation.

He said if Washington's enemies believed Bush might waver or his opponents prevail, that could increase support for their activities.

"They take heart in that and that leads to more money going into these activities or that leads to more recruits or that leads to more encouragement or that leads to more staying power," he told reporters traveling with him on his plane.

"Obviously that does make our task more difficult."

"Terrorists studied...instances when the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in, and persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted to do," he said. "The United States is not going to do that, President (George W.) Bush is not going to do that."

It seems to me that, in absence of actual consensus, the government is trying to manufacture it. This strikes me as 3T behavior.

This tends to support the idea that 9/11 was a false turning:

For discussion purposes only, full article appears at the Washington Post website

SHANNON, Ireland (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday opposition to the U.S. President was encouraging Washington's enemies and hindering his 'war against terrorism'.

Rumsfeld was speaking after a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq where he sought to highlight progress on reconstruction efforts and dampen criticism of the U.S. presence there and the almost daily casualties in a guerrilla campaign against occupation.

He said if Washington's enemies believed Bush might waver or his opponents prevail, that could increase support for their activities.

"They take heart in that and that leads to more money going into these activities or that leads to more recruits or that leads to more encouragement or that leads to more staying power," he told reporters traveling with him on his plane.

"Obviously that does make our task more difficult."

"Terrorists studied...instances when the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in, and persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted to do," he said. "The United States is not going to do that, President (George W.) Bush is not going to do that."

It seems to me that, in absence of actual consensus, the government is trying to manufacture it. This strikes me as 3T behavior.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, yes. Good that you remembered this. The droughts started in 1930. Unemployment among Blacks was 50% in 1930. There's a direct connection there.

Yup, because weren't most Blacks in agriculture then? Sharecropping, to be specific?

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, yes. Good that you remembered this. The droughts started in 1930. Unemployment among Blacks was 50% in 1930. There's a direct connection there.

Yup, because weren't most Blacks in agriculture then? Sharecropping, to be specific?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Sean Love

I have been talking to loads of folks out here in Silicon Valley about the difference between this downturn and the one around 1989-94 (those were bad years for the valley). This is far, far, far, far worse. Heck, I'm losing customers left and right (as in they're going out of business). The only thing really hot right now (by personal, anecdotal observation) is Homeland Security stuff.

Yeah, but bear in mind that the whole nature of this downturn reflects in part the collapse of the tech bubble in the 90s, which was fairly clearly a bubble at the time. Silicon Valley is ground-zero of the downturn, esp. the collapse of the 'Internet changes everything' fantasy.

True.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Sean Love

I have been talking to loads of folks out here in Silicon Valley about the difference between this downturn and the one around 1989-94 (those were bad years for the valley). This is far, far, far, far worse. Heck, I'm losing customers left and right (as in they're going out of business). The only thing really hot right now (by personal, anecdotal observation) is Homeland Security stuff.

Yeah, but bear in mind that the whole nature of this downturn reflects in part the collapse of the tech bubble in the 90s, which was fairly clearly a bubble at the time. Silicon Valley is ground-zero of the downturn, esp. the collapse of the 'Internet changes everything' fantasy.

True.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

As I've said before, I consider Harry Truman the most underappreciated President of the 20th century.

I agree with you on that one.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

As I've said before, I consider Harry Truman the most underappreciated President of the 20th century.

I agree with you on that one.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, yes. Good that you remembered this. The droughts started in 1930. Unemployment among Blacks was 50% in 1930. There's a direct connection there.

Yup, because weren't most Blacks in agriculture then? Sharecropping, to be specific?

You got it. Or domestic help, servants, waiters, janitors, physical labor. Low end of the totem pole.....first to go when cutting back.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, yes. Good that you remembered this. The droughts started in 1930. Unemployment among Blacks was 50% in 1930. There's a direct connection there.

Yup, because weren't most Blacks in agriculture then? Sharecropping, to be specific?

You got it. Or domestic help, servants, waiters, janitors, physical labor. Low end of the totem pole.....first to go when cutting back.

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Back to agnosticism, I see? I was myself agnostic when I first started posting here; but the longer I looked, the less and less signs I saw of a mood change with respect to 1998-2001 (signs of change are there, but I see them as more minor and trivial whereas half the people on this forum see something much more major in these shifts)

Late autumn sure can feel very frightening and wintry though... ;-)

Brrrrr. :lol: Actually, I vacillate way too much to actually take a stand I can believe myself on for more than a few weeks at a time. Had to finally admit it to the mirror. :lol: :wink:

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Back to agnosticism, I see? I was myself agnostic when I first started posting here; but the longer I looked, the less and less signs I saw of a mood change with respect to 1998-2001 (signs of change are there, but I see them as more minor and trivial whereas half the people on this forum see something much more major in these shifts)

Late autumn sure can feel very frightening and wintry though... ;-)

Brrrrr. :lol: Actually, I vacillate way too much to actually take a stand I can believe myself on for more than a few weeks at a time. Had to finally admit it to the mirror. :lol: :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, I was going to mention another President who was not cut out for it: Truman. He, too, had performed a mission prior to being VP, one that showcased his real talents. Stamping out Congressional / military waste, basically. The difference between Missionary Hoover and Lost Truman, though, was Truman's Nomadic qualities. He MADE his Presidential performance work, whether he was cut out for it or not..

As I've said before, I consider Harry Truman the most underappreciated President of the 20th century.

:oops: [slaps self up side of head] :oops: Yes, you have, HC. Sorry 'bout that. :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oh, I was going to mention another President who was not cut out for it: Truman. He, too, had performed a mission prior to being VP, one that showcased his real talents. Stamping out Congressional / military waste, basically. The difference between Missionary Hoover and Lost Truman, though, was Truman's Nomadic qualities. He MADE his Presidential performance work, whether he was cut out for it or not..

As I've said before, I consider Harry Truman the most underappreciated President of the 20th century.

:oops: [slaps self up side of head] :oops: Yes, you have, HC. Sorry 'bout that. :wink:

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Barbara

Don't we also agree on suspicioning that the 3T began sometime during Reagan's second term? Mine is largely based on the appearance of neo-ism in our politiks......

As a matter of fact, we do! :-)

Cool! Hey, you and HC be sure to remember me when you guys finally find out we were right, ok? :wink: I may not be able by that time to 'puter anymore. :wink: :wink: Even odds I'll still be alive, tho -- I think I'm gonna live way too long. (and I have to see the 4T...bad barb, bad barb, get back on that fence!) :lol: :lol: :lol:

What I see there, though, is a disillusionment with Reagonomics and that late 3T phase: starting in 1986 with Challenger, contininuing on through 86 and 87 with Iran Contra, and ending on Monday, October 19, 1987 with the Stock Market 'crash' being the nail in the coffin (and the recovery from that 'crash', going from a frightening scare to what turns out to be a mere blip, seems to be the hallmark of 3T disaster!)

Well, William, it fits together....how 'bout
Disillusionment w/ Reaganomics + Stock Market Crash = Need to go Neo.

8) It's all about the bling bling. 8)