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)

Originally Posted by Barbara

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.

I'm glad my Missionary grandpa was in accounting...he didn't lose his job until after the Depression was over-- in 1940. The lumber mill he worked for (owned by Mack Senate's brother) went belly-up. Shame they couldn't have held out for another year or two...there would have been plenty of demand for lumber after Pearl Harbor.

Originally Posted by Barbara

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.

I'm glad my Missionary grandpa was in accounting...he didn't lose his job until after the Depression was over-- in 1940. The lumber mill he worked for (owned by Mack Senate's brother) went belly-up. Shame they couldn't have held out for another year or two...there would have been plenty of demand for lumber after Pearl Harbor.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I'm glad my Missionary grandpa was in accounting...he didn't lose his job until after the Depression was over-- in 1940. The lumber mill he worked for (owned by Mack Senate's brother) went belly-up. Shame they couldn't have held out for another year or two...there would have been plenty of demand for lumber after Pearl Harbor.

KP, you wouldn't believe how many people (and businesses) were in that same situation after 1937 or so. The war solved many problems. What's remembered about kids joining the armed forces to fight in WWII is blind patriotism and a strong urge to kick some jap butt, but another reason for all those eager volunteers was that, because American needed all able bodied soldiers, it also didn't hurt it was a steady-paying job and a chance for adventure away from the dreary old Depressed US of A. This was a big reason for many young men and they got to look brave and courageous, too. Believe it or not. I've seen some of that in these last two Iraqi wars. Hadn't seen it much since Korea, which didn't really pan out like expected.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I'm glad my Missionary grandpa was in accounting...he didn't lose his job until after the Depression was over-- in 1940. The lumber mill he worked for (owned by Mack Senate's brother) went belly-up. Shame they couldn't have held out for another year or two...there would have been plenty of demand for lumber after Pearl Harbor.

KP, you wouldn't believe how many people (and businesses) were in that same situation after 1937 or so. The war solved many problems. What's remembered about kids joining the armed forces to fight in WWII is blind patriotism and a strong urge to kick some jap butt, but another reason for all those eager volunteers was that, because American needed all able bodied soldiers, it also didn't hurt it was a steady-paying job and a chance for adventure away from the dreary old Depressed US of A. This was a big reason for many young men and they got to look brave and courageous, too. Believe it or not. I've seen some of that in these last two Iraqi wars. Hadn't seen it much since Korea, which didn't really pan out like expected.

I would commend the writings of Mr. Paul Fussell on the Greatest Generation and the Crisis.

His version comports more closely to that of my late father's.

The Boys' Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-1945


Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War


Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic

I would commend the writings of Mr. Paul Fussell on the Greatest Generation and the Crisis.

His version comports more closely to that of my late father's.

The Boys' Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-1945


Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War


Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic

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.

Actually, Truman came back in vogue during the mid-seventies -- perhaps his legendary plain-speaking held appeal after Watergate. There was a hit one-actor show called "Plain Speaking", plus a best-selling book by the same title. President Clinton held Truman up as an idol (did he emulate Truman by hanging a sign in the Oval Office saying "The buck stops here" or is my memory faulty?

I agree with your larger point though, about the gritty Nomad President certainly being under-rated during his terms and for the remainder of his life.

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.

Actually, Truman came back in vogue during the mid-seventies -- perhaps his legendary plain-speaking held appeal after Watergate. There was a hit one-actor show called "Plain Speaking", plus a best-selling book by the same title. President Clinton held Truman up as an idol (did he emulate Truman by hanging a sign in the Oval Office saying "The buck stops here" or is my memory faulty?

I agree with your larger point though, about the gritty Nomad President certainly being under-rated during his terms and for the remainder of his life.

From 1975 and Chicago VIII. Anyone else remember this one?

America needs you
Harry Truman
Harry could you please come home
Things are looking bad
I know you would be mad
To see what kind of men
Prevail upon the land you love

America?s wondering
How we got here
Harry all we get is lies
We?re gettin? safer cars
Rocket ships to mars
From men who?d sell us out
To get themselves a piece of power

We?d love to hear you speak your mind
In plain and simple ways
Call a spade a spade
Like you did back in the days
You would play piano
Each morning walk a mile
Speak of what was going down
With honesty and style

America?s calling
Harry Truman
Harry you know what to do
The world is turnin? round and losin? lots of ground
Oh Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love
Oh woah woah woah

America?s calling
Harry Truman
Harry you know what to do
The world is turnin? round
And losin? lots of ground
Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love
Oh
Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love
Harry
Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love

Lyrics by Robert Lamm

From 1975 and Chicago VIII. Anyone else remember this one?

America needs you
Harry Truman
Harry could you please come home
Things are looking bad
I know you would be mad
To see what kind of men
Prevail upon the land you love

America?s wondering
How we got here
Harry all we get is lies
We?re gettin? safer cars
Rocket ships to mars
From men who?d sell us out
To get themselves a piece of power

We?d love to hear you speak your mind
In plain and simple ways
Call a spade a spade
Like you did back in the days
You would play piano
Each morning walk a mile
Speak of what was going down
With honesty and style

America?s calling
Harry Truman
Harry you know what to do
The world is turnin? round and losin? lots of ground
Oh Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love
Oh woah woah woah

America?s calling
Harry Truman
Harry you know what to do
The world is turnin? round
And losin? lots of ground
Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love
Oh
Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love
Harry
Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love

Lyrics by Robert Lamm

Originally Posted by Barbara

What's remembered about kids joining the armed forces to fight in WWII is blind patriotism and a strong urge to kick some jap butt, but another reason for all those eager volunteers was that, because American needed all able bodied soldiers, it also didn't hurt it was a steady-paying job and a chance for adventure away from the dreary old Depressed US of A. This was a big reason for many young men and they got to look brave and courageous, too. Believe it or not. I've seen some of that in these last two Iraqi wars.

Absolutely. My younger brother is in the Air Force Reserves, and has been on full-time status since September 11th. He is VERY pro-war and pro-Bush-- mainly because to him Iraq, Afghanistan and the WOT represent job security.

Originally Posted by Barbara

What's remembered about kids joining the armed forces to fight in WWII is blind patriotism and a strong urge to kick some jap butt, but another reason for all those eager volunteers was that, because American needed all able bodied soldiers, it also didn't hurt it was a steady-paying job and a chance for adventure away from the dreary old Depressed US of A. This was a big reason for many young men and they got to look brave and courageous, too. Believe it or not. I've seen some of that in these last two Iraqi wars.

Absolutely. My younger brother is in the Air Force Reserves, and has been on full-time status since September 11th. He is VERY pro-war and pro-Bush-- mainly because to him Iraq, Afghanistan and the WOT represent job security.

Originally Posted by Barbara

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)

Barbara, I nominate you for the job of making an intelligent post entirely out of emoticons. How about a haiku?

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Barbara

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)

Barbara, I nominate you for the job of making an intelligent post entirely out of emoticons. How about a haiku?

--Croaker

I've really enjoyed all the Truman posts. He will remain special to me because he was the first President I decided on my own to vote for; sadly, I was not old enough to. Had I been, I might have turned out to be a Democrat early on, instead of what I seem to finally be doing now.... :o

Kiff, the Chicago lyrics reminded me of a song by a Texas artist I've enjoyed for many years: Dana Cooper, who is most famous for his performances with one Shake Russell, really big in Austin and Texas (Song on the Radio). Dana's song I'm thinking of is called Harry Truman:

Harry Truman Harry Truman
can't go on without you in
without you in my life
you dropped the bomb then went to bed
you slept the sleep of the newly dead
Harry Truman make me your wife

McCarthur looked you up and down
you kicked his ass right out of town
a mans man with a sensitive side
but when Bess and Margaret call your name
they bring with them a ball and chain
give me hell...take me for a ride

President Harding knew just what do do
he kept a girl in his closet to....help him govern

Independence can be dull
here is something for you to mull
over in your mind
I can show you the world
c'mon Harry give it a whirl

Harry Truman Harry Truman
can't go on without you in
without you in my life
you dropped the bomb then went to bed
you slept the sleep of the newly dead
Harry Truman make me your wife

8)

Virgil, you hit the nail on the head about my comments with your mention of Paul Fussell. What a read, no matter the book of his! I think he was part of a triad with HL Mencken and Ernest Hemingway. Strange, Fussell, a late-wave GI who seemed more like a Silent, worshipped a Missionary who seemed more like a Lost (Mencken) (whom Hemingway also admired, and who also greatly influenced Fussell). I really think Fussell is a blend of the other two. He's a thoughtful, biting, haunting writer.

Having read the war books (which are good but sound a singular note after only a couple), I much prefer his other works like The Boy Scout Handbook, Class, and The Angi-Egotist. Oh! and Uniforms: Why We Are What We Wear. Required reading for anyone who wears one in their work or play, OR who wants to read ascerbic-yet-glorifying comments about them!

I must suggest that no serious interest in Fussell is complete though without reading his ex-wife's excellent memoir called My Kitchen Wars (Betty Fussell - she also wrote The Story of Corn). OMG, you learn ALOT about both Fussells' dark sides in that one. Their marriage was the quintessential Silent marriage and divorce with all the nuttiness in between, that other gens like to remember Silents best by. Here's a review tidbit:

From The Critics -- Publisher's Weekly
As befits a noted food historian and writer (I Hear America Cooking), Fussell recounts how the domestic wars of her childhood, marriage and family life played out in a succession of kitchens--in brilliant vignettes marked by appealing humor, biting irony and unflinching honesty. In the house where Fussell was born, the scene of her father's delight in squeezing oranges became, before Fussell was two, that of the death of her high-strung mother, with an open tin of rat poison mutely testifying to the cause. Until Fussell escaped to college, she endured the harsh restrictions of a hostile stepmother whose favorite appliance was the pressure cooker. At school, Fussell concentrated on the primary mission of every girl in the late 1940s: landing a man. (Barb adds: that'd be me, too) :oops:

When she married Paul, a literature student, the inevitable wedding present of that era--a Waring blender--symbolized the beginning of a sophisticated lifestyle. Paul focused on his career in academe, while Betty enthusiastically embraced her role as wife and mother, and turned entertaining into a competitive sport. In the 1960s, the Fussells' circle turned to erotic excess: Betty recalls drunken wife-swapping and her own illicit affair, and she offers gossipy tidbits about Kingsley Amis and Philip Roth.

Paul's book, The Great War and Modern Memory, brought him acclaim but, according to Betty, he continually demeaned her writing efforts. Their marriage failed after his homosexual affair with a student. Fussell was finally able to make her own way using what the French call a "batterie de cuisine" (kitchen artillery), displaying her considerable talents in such publications as the New York Times and nine of her own books. Agent, Gloria Loomis, Watkins Loomis Agency. First serial to the New Yorker; 8-city author tour. (Oct.) Copyright 1999 Cahners Business Information.

Great interview with Paul Fussell Here

I've really enjoyed all the Truman posts. He will remain special to me because he was the first President I decided on my own to vote for; sadly, I was not old enough to. Had I been, I might have turned out to be a Democrat early on, instead of what I seem to finally be doing now.... :o

Kiff, the Chicago lyrics reminded me of a song by a Texas artist I've enjoyed for many years: Dana Cooper, who is most famous for his performances with one Shake Russell, really big in Austin and Texas (Song on the Radio). Dana's song I'm thinking of is called Harry Truman:

Harry Truman Harry Truman
can't go on without you in
without you in my life
you dropped the bomb then went to bed
you slept the sleep of the newly dead
Harry Truman make me your wife

McCarthur looked you up and down
you kicked his ass right out of town
a mans man with a sensitive side
but when Bess and Margaret call your name
they bring with them a ball and chain
give me hell...take me for a ride

President Harding knew just what do do
he kept a girl in his closet to....help him govern

Independence can be dull
here is something for you to mull
over in your mind
I can show you the world
c'mon Harry give it a whirl

Harry Truman Harry Truman
can't go on without you in
without you in my life
you dropped the bomb then went to bed
you slept the sleep of the newly dead
Harry Truman make me your wife

8)

Virgil, you hit the nail on the head about my comments with your mention of Paul Fussell. What a read, no matter the book of his! I think he was part of a triad with HL Mencken and Ernest Hemingway. Strange, Fussell, a late-wave GI who seemed more like a Silent, worshipped a Missionary who seemed more like a Lost (Mencken) (whom Hemingway also admired, and who also greatly influenced Fussell). I really think Fussell is a blend of the other two. He's a thoughtful, biting, haunting writer.

Having read the war books (which are good but sound a singular note after only a couple), I much prefer his other works like The Boy Scout Handbook, Class, and The Angi-Egotist. Oh! and Uniforms: Why We Are What We Wear. Required reading for anyone who wears one in their work or play, OR who wants to read ascerbic-yet-glorifying comments about them!

I must suggest that no serious interest in Fussell is complete though without reading his ex-wife's excellent memoir called My Kitchen Wars (Betty Fussell - she also wrote The Story of Corn). OMG, you learn ALOT about both Fussells' dark sides in that one. Their marriage was the quintessential Silent marriage and divorce with all the nuttiness in between, that other gens like to remember Silents best by. Here's a review tidbit:

From The Critics -- Publisher's Weekly
As befits a noted food historian and writer (I Hear America Cooking), Fussell recounts how the domestic wars of her childhood, marriage and family life played out in a succession of kitchens--in brilliant vignettes marked by appealing humor, biting irony and unflinching honesty. In the house where Fussell was born, the scene of her father's delight in squeezing oranges became, before Fussell was two, that of the death of her high-strung mother, with an open tin of rat poison mutely testifying to the cause. Until Fussell escaped to college, she endured the harsh restrictions of a hostile stepmother whose favorite appliance was the pressure cooker. At school, Fussell concentrated on the primary mission of every girl in the late 1940s: landing a man. (Barb adds: that'd be me, too) :oops:

When she married Paul, a literature student, the inevitable wedding present of that era--a Waring blender--symbolized the beginning of a sophisticated lifestyle. Paul focused on his career in academe, while Betty enthusiastically embraced her role as wife and mother, and turned entertaining into a competitive sport. In the 1960s, the Fussells' circle turned to erotic excess: Betty recalls drunken wife-swapping and her own illicit affair, and she offers gossipy tidbits about Kingsley Amis and Philip Roth.

Paul's book, The Great War and Modern Memory, brought him acclaim but, according to Betty, he continually demeaned her writing efforts. Their marriage failed after his homosexual affair with a student. Fussell was finally able to make her own way using what the French call a "batterie de cuisine" (kitchen artillery), displaying her considerable talents in such publications as the New York Times and nine of her own books. Agent, Gloria Loomis, Watkins Loomis Agency. First serial to the New Yorker; 8-city author tour. (Oct.) Copyright 1999 Cahners Business Information.

Great interview with Paul Fussell Here

Tom Mazanec wrote in the ?Is the 911 Attack Triggering a Fourth Turning? thread:

I know I said we would know if 9-11 was the catalyst by Jan 1, 2005. In fact, by analogy with earlier 4Ts, I thought we would be pretty sure by Jan 1, 2004. Even if things had not hit the Regeneracy, they were usually well on their way by 2 years and a few months past the catalyst. Conversely, "sparks" usually seem to fade within a couple years. I thought by now we would be either going over the edge or pulling back...instead we seem to be riding the edge, with both 3T and 4T characteristics. The closest historical analogy I can think of is the way Slavery was a "hot" issue throughout the 1850s (maybe that bodes ill for the future), or *maybe* things before the Revolutionary War. Whichever event becomes seen in the future as the Catalyst, I think it will be related to 9-11 if not being 9-11 itself. Maybe Sunday, someone will use V-X or a "dirty" bomb to kill a couple thousand spectators at a football game, and that will become the Catalyst or the Regeneracy. Or maybe Bush will pull something off in his War Against Terrorism before the election that will snowball. Or maybe we will go another several years before Something Big happens. But 9-11 is either the Catalyst or a foreshadowing thereof.

As I was jogging the other day (and high on caffeine) a concept popped into my head that I want to share with my fellow T4Ter?s. If any of you have thought of this before, I apologize for the lack of originality.

This idea ties in with Tom?s quote above, because it may help explain why 911 seems ?so close, yet so far away? as a fourth turning catalyst.

The concept is the ?Catalyst Constellation Index? (though it may be screaming for new name).

This index is only relevant if one is in the orthodox, Strauss-n-Howian Saecularist school and believes (or at least strongly suspects) that generational interaction and alignment is the primary engine of saecular progression. More specifically, it comes from the assumption that when generations fully inhabit their respective life phase, society has become, for lack of a better word, ?ripe? for a new turning to begin. The old turning mood has become old and stale and the first waves of each generation are at least eyeing the next life phase/role, or are perhaps beginning to enter it already.

It is beginning at this point that society becomes most vulnerable to the sparks and trends of history in terms of those phenomena having the ability to affect a saecular mood change.

This concept assumes that the length of a phase of life is currently 21 years. However, in my conception of this index I believe this phase length used to be longer, affecting how to determine turning change ?ripeness?.

Lastly, I am assuming that Strauss & Howes? estimates for generational boundaries are correct (perhaps a big assumption, but more on that later).

Anyway, it goes like this. First, identify the age of the vanguard cohort of the generations that currently have their center of gravity in midlife, rising adulthood, and youth, respectively. Then line up those ages to the first three arithmetic permutations of 21 (i.e., 21, 42, 63). Then calculate how far off, up or down, each cohort is from these numbers. Add the differences. A result of zero indicates that, even though all the generations in question may not have passed or even hit the phase-transitioning age, the constellation as a whole indicates a fully ripe alignment. A positive number indicates a strong and rapidly growing probability of turning change, a low negative number indicates a weaker possibility, and a high negative number strongly indicates no immediate turning change likely.

Using this index, lets look at the last two turning transitions. Year X would be a hypothetical year with a ?perfect? constellational alignment. D is for delta, i.e., change.

Code:

    X	    1964	     D	    1984	      D
    63	    63	      0	     59	      -4
    42	    39	     -3	     41	      -1
    21	    21	      0	     23	      +2
   CCI		           -3		             -3

It seems that a Catalyst Constellation Index, or CCI, of ?3, at least based on the 21-year phase, is perfectly sufficient for a mood shift to begin.

Now lets view recent and future years.

Code:

'01     '02	   '03      '04      '05	  '06
 58	   59	    60	    61	    62	   63
 40	   41	    42	    43	    44	   45
 19	   20	    21	    22	    23	   24
 -9	   -6	    -3	     0	    +3	   +6

Based on the past two turning shifts one can see why the effects of 9/11/01 were so ambiguous. As I?ve stated in this thread, the Culture Wars third turning was mature in September 2001, but not yet ripe. I would guess that a CCI of ?9 still indicates a lot of yet-to-be expunged saecular immaturity. However, this year, 2003, corresponds perfectly to 1964 and 1984, and next year brings us to zero hour.

One of the reasons I made such a big deal first off about the assumptions I have made is that you can come up with different assumptions and/or tweaks on all but one of them and still find this index useful. Only the Mike Alexander-led Materialist Cause school cannot be reconciled to this (as far as I can see). [BTW, for the record, I do not want to dismiss this group. Though I strongly suspect a primarily generational engine at work, I am very open to Mike?s very impressive work. I wouldn?t be surprised if his work strongly interrelates with Strauss & Howe?s assumptions. I am just not sure how at this point.]

But debate over the other assumptions could make this index even more interesting. What if, for example, Strauss and Howe are dead wrong about the Boom/Xer boundary, as some contend? What if 1963 is the Xer vanguard (please, I am only musing, I am not intending to insult ?61ers and ?62ers!!!). Then the above chart changes significantly. And so on.

The tweak that most interests me, on a number of levels, is the need to change the 21-year phase in order to get the CCI to work on turning shifts prior to the 1T/2T change of 1964. This is fascinating because: One, it brings us head on into the generational compaction debate; and Two, if we can ascertain the proper ?ideal? alignment(s) for cycles prior to this Millenial Cycle we can better understand how far off of a CCI of zero a turning change is likely to come.

I apologize if it seems like I am making a big deal out of this. I realize that this index would only be a very rough gauge. It?s just that several cups of coffee and a good run through the neighborhood can get one all "exercised" over an idea.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Based on the past two turning shifts one can see why the effects of 9/11/01 were so ambiguous. As I?ve stated in this thread, the Culture Wars third turning was mature in September 2001, but not yet ripe. I would guess that a CCI of ?9 still indicates a lot of yet-to-be expunged saecular immaturity. However, this year, 2003, corresponds perfectly to 1964 and 1984, and next year brings us to zero hour.

If September 11th was the catalyst (and at this point I have no reason to believe otherwise) it wasn't that early. I'm not sure I formulated everything the way you did but I did do something similar a while back, possibly on this thread.

And then I plugged in 1929. I found that for one generational cutoff, Black Tuesday was right on time, for another one it was six years late, and for another one it was six years early. So while generations have something to do with turning (and vice versa) there are some points that are more directly demarcated.

A Phony Fourth effect is .... also similar to Bob Butler's theory, the similarity being that technology now motivates turning change.

Just ran into this phony fourth thread and have found it very interesting. Especially Barbara's comments on how things really changed during the depression. That idea of everyone's daily life being impacted has stayed with me because that really has not happened since 911. My interests have changed (I am obsessed with finding an alternative to oil) and my political leanings have changed (I am no longer mad at the left, and in fact am growing lefter by the minute ... the greener the better, and suddenly I love UNIONS???). But my life is still pretty cushy and cosy, though I do worry about the draft and my 20 yr old. It's law school for you buddy.

And that alone, the fact that I am thinking about a "luxury" coping mechanism like "law school", tells me I am not in the 4th. Yet.

What would it take to bring about the 4th? I like the idea of technology being part of the trigger. And I do think that 911 will be thought of as a trigger also.

There was an interesting article in Atlantic Monthly a while back about the House of Saud. They said that Saudi Arabia essentially pumps most of its oil from 6 wells that are fairly close to each other and would be easily taken out by a few well placed bombs. They also said that there are significant elements (well heeled elements) there who are saying it might be worth it to put a couple of the wells out of commission for a couple of years in order to take over in SA and to put the West out of commission.

25% of the world's oil supply sits under SA and 75% sits under the middle east. It is the mother of all energy crises waiting in the wings. Of course, we are in Iraq because the Bushes know that SA is either going, going, or gone. But Iraq is not SA. The middle east is where Russia was 100 years ago. They need to go thru 100 years of revolution before they come out on the other side. That means 100 years of instability, with every lurch and burp throwing world economies in the dumper.

If you want to know what will lead to the next 4T, it is the end of the oil era. And it can't happen a minute too soon.

From The Economist print edition Oct 23rd 2003:

The end of the Oil Age

Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them

?THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.? This intriguing prediction is often heard in energy circles these days. If greens were the only people to be expressing such thoughts, the notion might be dismissed as Utopian. However, the quotation is from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister three decades ago. His words are rich in irony. Sheikh Yamani first came to the world's attention during the Arab oil embargo of the United States, which began three decades ago this week and whose effects altered the course of modern economic and political history. Coming from such a source, the prediction, one assumes, can hardly be a case of wishful thinking.

Yet a generation after the embargo began, the facts seem plain: the world remains addicted to Middle Eastern oil (see article). So why is Sheikh Yamani predicting the end of the Oil Age? Because he believes that something fundamental has shifted since that first oil shock?and, sadly for countries like Saudi Arabia, he is quite right. Finally, advances in technology are beginning to offer a way for economies, especially those of the developed world, to diversify their supplies of energy and reduce their demand for petroleum, thus loosening the grip of oil and the countries that produce it.

Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality. Switching to these new methods will not be easy, or all that cheap, especially in transport, but with the right policies it can be made both possible and economically advantageous. Unfortunately, many of the rich world's governments?and above all the government of America, the world's biggest oil consumer?are reluctant to adopt the measures that would speed the day when the Saudis' worst fears come true.

The $7 trillion heist
If treating the West's addiction to oil will be costly, is it really worth doing? To be sure. Petro-addiction imposes mighty costs of its own. First, there is the political risk of relying on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oil still has a near-monopoly hold on transport. If the supply is cut off even for a few days, modern economies come to a halt, as Britain discovered when tax protestors blockaded some domestic oil depots two years ago. And despite what sound like large investments in new oil fields in Russia and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia's share of the world oil market will actually grow over the next two decades simply because it has such huge reserves of cheap oil. Geology has granted two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves to Saudi Arabia and four of its neighbours. Because of this continuing concentration of supply, the risk of a disruption to oil flows will continue to be a threat, and may even rise.

That points to a second sort of cost. According to one American government estimate, OPEC has managed to transfer a staggering $7 trillion in wealth from American consumers to producers over the past three decades by keeping the oil price above its true market-clearing level. That estimate does not include all manner of subsidies doled out to the fossil-fuel industry, ranging from cheap access to oil on government land to the ongoing American military presence in the Middle East.

The final disguised cost of oil is the damage it does to the environment and human health. Unlike power plants, which are few in number and so easier to regulate, cars are ubiquitous and much more difficult to control. The transport sector is a principal source of global emissions of greenhouse gases.

The only long-term solution to this connected set of problems is to reduce the world's reliance on oil. Achieving this once seemed pie-in-the-sky. No longer. Hydrogen fuel cells are at last becoming a viable alternative. These are big batteries that run cleanly for as long as hydrogen is supplied, and which might power anything in or around your home?notably, your car. Hydrogen is a fuel that, like electricity, can be made from a variety of sources: fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, renewables, even nuclear power. Every big car maker now has a fuel-cell programme, and every big oil firm is busy investigating how best to feed these new cars their hydrogen.

Another alternative likely to become available in a few years is ?bioethanol?. Many cars (quite a few of them in America) already run on a mixture of petrol and ethanol. The problem here is cost. At the moment, the ethanol has to be heavily subsidised. But that might alter when biotechnology delivers new enzymes that can make ethanol efficiently from just about any sort of plant material. Then, the only limit will be how much plant material is available (see article).



All in good time
Such changes will not occur overnight. It will take a decade or two before either fuel cells or bioethanol make a significant dent in the oil economy. Still, they represent the first serious challenges to petrol in a century. If hydrogen were made from renewable energy (or if the carbon dioxide generated by making it from fossil fuels were sequestered underground), then the cars and power plants of the future would release no local pollution or greenhouse gases. Because bioethanol is made from plants, it merely ?borrows? its carbon from the atmosphere, so cannot add to global warming. What is more, because hydrogen can be made in a geographically distributed fashion, by any producer anywhere, no OPEC cartel or would-be successor to it could ever manipulate the supplies or the price. There need never be another war over energy.

It all sounds very fine. What then is the best way to speed things up? Unfortunately, not through the approach currently advocated by President George Bush and America's Congress, which this week has been haggling over a new energy bill. America's leaders are still concerning themselves almost exclusively with increasing the supply of oil, rather than with curbing the demand for it while increasing the supply of alternatives. Some encouragement for new technologies is proposed, but it will have little effect: bigger subsidies for research are unlikely to spur innovation in industries with hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil-fuel assets. The best way to curb the demand for oil and promote innovation in oil alternatives is to tell the world's energy markets that the ?externalities? of oil consumption?security considerations and environmental issues alike?really will influence policy from now on. And the way to do that is to impose a gradually rising gasoline tax.

By introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the drilling in Alaska's wilderness. Crucially, this need not be, and should not be, a matter of raising taxes in the aggregate. The proceeds from a gasoline tax ought to be used to finance cuts in other taxes?this, surely, is the way to present them to a sceptical electorate.

Judging by the debate going on in Washington, a policy of this kind is a distant prospect. That is a great shame. Still, the pace of innovation already under way means that Sheikh Yamani's erstwhile colleagues in the oil cartel might themselves be wise to invest some of their money in the alternatives. One day, these new energy technologies will toss the OPEC cartel in the dustbin of history. It cannot happen soon enough.

jadams,

I agree that it likely that 9/11 will be seen as the trigger, even if we are really not rolling through a bonafide pre-regeneracy meltdown just yet. If said meltdown does kick in with fervor soon then it will be relatively easy (and convenient) to include that past two years in the 4T first phase. Just like we include 9/39-4/40 in (the European version of) World War Two even though we admit that period was a "Phony" War.

As for a technological trigger, I'd say probably not at the micro-level, very likely at the macro-level. The direct trigger itself is most likely to be something like 9/11 Revisited, or E2K04, or a Bush assassination (remember the 20 year rule), or maybe even something as mundane as the pulling of a controversial TV program, etc . . . .

But in the larger context, oh yeah. I think everyone realizes that the Oil Age, if not coming to an end, is coming in for some major adjustments. And since Oil is so tied up in a political, geopolitical, and economic complex of issues it'd have to have some bearing on the catalyst somehow, and a whole lot of bearing on the overall themes of the 4T, one way or another.

As for other technological issues, I am sure the Internet, Wireless, biogenetics, and nanotechnology will have effects as well (no-brainer there). The one way I could see a specific and direct techonological trigger would be if someone let loose genetically-engineered virus, or on the other hand, a very powerful and debiliatating global computer virus. Something like that. It is my working assumption/belief that just as there is an interplay between the individual and society in history there is also an interplay between culture and technological developments. IOW, does culture drive the technological developments or does technology drive the culture? I'd answer: Yes.

I agree with you 100% that our current dependence on oil has got to go! And pretty much for the reasons you specify. One more reason, albeit off-the-wall, for not slurping up so much oil. I have seen a pretty good case (though Brian doesn't seem all that impressed with it) that there is a whole huge portion of the biosphere "down there" living in the oil (as single-cell life). Removing their food and medium and damaging said biosystem may have unknown negative consequences (good SciFi story there -though already done in essence in the lame "Ugly Bags of Mostly Water" Star Trek TNG episode). I was very impressed on this topic by a book called The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. It was definitely an outside-the-box read and not by crackpot either.

One last thing your post triggered for me. Wouldn't it be best that we use natural forces to attain our hydrogen if we move in a comprehensive way toward a Hydrogen Society? I mean, using petroleum or atomic power to create the hydrogen at least partially defeats the purpose, does it not? Wouldn't it be better to use solar, wind, geothermal or tidal??

Anyway, thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Based on the past two turning shifts one can see why the effects of 9/11/01 were so ambiguous. As I?ve stated in this thread, the Culture Wars third turning was mature in September 2001, but not yet ripe. I would guess that a CCI of ?9 still indicates a lot of yet-to-be expunged saecular immaturity. However, this year, 2003, corresponds perfectly to 1964 and 1984, and next year brings us to zero hour.

If September 11th was the catalyst (and at this point I have no reason to believe otherwise) it wasn't that early. I'm not sure I formulated everything the way you did but I did do something similar a while back, possibly on this thread.

And then I plugged in 1929. I found that for one generational cutoff, Black Tuesday was right on time, for another one it was six years late, and for another one it was six years early. So while generations have something to do with turning (and vice versa) there are some points that are more directly demarcated.

E&M,

Would you direct me to where I could find the posts on your formulations? I'd love to read them.

Also, could you elaborate on the last sentence? If it is made more clear in the past posts and you can direct me to them then don't worry about it.

I lean in the direction of Strauss & Howe's generational alignment argument. As such, the leading-cohort constellation on 9/11/01 of 58, 40, 19 just screams "so close, but not quite".

Originally Posted by Sean Love

E&M,

Would you direct me to where I could find the posts on your formulations? I'd love to read them.

I'll recreate them here.

For the Millenial Saeculum, the last year of 3T should be:
The youngest Heroes (GIs) enter Late Elderhood in 1924+84=2008
The youngest Artists (Silents) enter Elderhood in 1942+63=2005
The youngest Prophets (Boomers) enter Midlife in 1960+42=2002
The youngest Nomads (Xers) enter Young Adulthood in 1981+21=2002

And the first year of 4T should be:
The oldest Artists enter Late Elderhood in 1925+84=2009
The oldest Prophets enter Elderhood in 1943+63=2006
The oldest Nomads enter Midlife in 1961+42=2003
The oldest Heroes (Millies) enter Young Adulthood in 1982+21=2003

If 11 Sep 2001 wasn't the Catalyst, then based on both the Boomer/Xer and Xer/Millie cutoffs, it should have happened this year anyway. I think the best analogy is 1773:2001 = 1775:2003. The Revolutionary War started the way it did as a direct result of the way the various Tea Parties, particularly Boston, were dealt with by King and Parliament.

For the Great Power Saeculum, the last year of 3T should be:
The youngest Nomads (Gilded) entered Late Elderhood in 1842+84=1926
The youngest Artists (Progressives) entered Elderhood in 1859+63=1922
The youngest Prophets (Missionaries) entered Midlife in 1886+42=1928
The youngest Nomads (Lost) entered Young Adulthood in 1900+21=1921

And the first year of 4T should be:
The oldest Artists entered Late Elderhood in 1843+84=1927
The oldest Prophets entered Elderhood in 1860+63=1923
The oldest Nomads entered Midlife in 1883+42=1925
The oldest Heroes (GIs) entered Young Adulthood in 1901+21=1922

By all measures, based on the generational lineup, Black Tuesday was late except for the Missionary/Lost cutoff.

Also, could you elaborate on the last sentence?

What I meant was that while you can do the math and maintain interdependence of generations and turnings, sometimes some event (not always a Catalyst) jumps out at you to base things around. I can see several in the 20th century (including most of my second-wave Boomer relatives having one last kid in 1998). That's why things don't always line up perfectly.

I lean in the direction of Strauss & Howe's generational alignment argument. As such, the leading-cohort constellation on 9/11/01 of 58, 40, 19 just screams "so close, but not quite".

And then there's 1929, which made sense for one cutoff but was late for the others. But despite being "late", and that many in 1930 and 1931 saw it as just another recession, Black Tuesday is clearly the Catalyst. For me, September 11th was likely the Catalyst based on what it's led to - but it didn't have to be. (I have started to hear more frequent references lately to a "post 9/11 economy.")

oops sorry, mistakenly posted this a new topic :oops:

One more reason, albeit off-the-wall, for not slurping up so much oil. I have seen a pretty good case (though Brian doesn't seem all that impressed with it) that there is a whole huge portion of the biosphere "down there" living in the oil (as single-cell life). Removing their food and medium and damaging said biosystem may have unknown negative consequences (good SciFi story there -though already done in essence in the lame "Ugly Bags of Mostly Water" Star Trek TNG episode). I was very impressed on this topic by a book called The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. It was definitely an outside-the-box read and not by crackpot either.

Now this is one of the reasons why I love this site. You guys are always coming up with the most amazing stuff. Now this I have to read.

Wouldn't it be best that we use natural forces to attain our hydrogen if we move in a comprehensive way toward a Hydrogen Society? I mean, using petroleum or atomic power to create the hydrogen at least partially defeats the purpose, does it not? Wouldn't it be better to use solar, wind, geothermal or tidal??

Absolutely. In the beginning I am sure that we will use the dirty fuels, but if the 4T works out sucessfully, isn't the new concensus that develops out of meeting the crisis supposed to enable society to tackle a lot of the big challenges??

I feel that the Fourth will not be "phoney" much longer, probably less time than it already has been. It is interesting to look at the following thread (because this was the Alternate History Discussion Forum, I dated the event as last January...but it could be next!):
http://www.alternatehistory.com/Disc...tml?1067383224