Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(10-19-2018, 04:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-19-2018, 03:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way?  Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.

They do not need to know how Republican voters think; they need only know what Republican policies  and their consequences are.

But I would go back to my comments a while ago about blue humor.  In a purely rational self interested world, one would need only underline the consequences.  With values, if attacked you attack back.  You resist by closing your mind and voting red.  I am not sure the onset of the main stream media and late night TV is productive.

At some point, harsh reality establishes the consequences. I can only imagine what it was like for people in the defeated Confederacy to see what used to be their slaves milling about and, as one gives them orders to toil for one, the former slaves say something to the effect that "Mister Lincoln emancipated us!" Or perhaps in Japan at the end of WWII, one sees some of the soldiers and sailors optimistic about conquering their way into a better world for Japan that they are back for the rice harvest as food stocks are getting low. Or in Germany one finds at the end of the war that the Allies are giving you a guided tour of Dachau.

Rationality is most obvious when the reality is harsh and unforgiving. Maybe if the Red side fully entrenches power we will recognize the harsh reality that the sole reason for our existence is to make people already filthy rich even filthier rich and that survival, no matter how bleak is a privilege. Raw reality is often unspeakably ugly and dehumanizing. My happiness depends upon the appreciation of some complexity.

Quote:This is why I would emphasize the best of red values, listen, and try to encourage others to listen in return.

Is it working?  It does not seem to be.   There seems to be a Right to Shoot Oneself in the Foot.

So what are the Red virtues? I can recognize old conservative virtues: trust in what is proved to work, including modesty, humility, reason, thrift, order, faith, integrity, hierarchy, formality, sobriety, work, and markets. There is no reason in a MAGA hat. I hear Trump and I hear rhetoric mocked in Why We Fight: Don't think, just obey your Leader!

I'm sorry: it may be new to America but it has been tried elsewhere at other times, and it has never worked well. It has brought injustice, cruelty, destruction, and shame.

Was there an unqualified better time in  America than America on the eve of the Trump victory? Maybe life was easier because real estate costs and taxes were not so high (high taxes reflecting the ever-rising cost of government), or that there were opportunities that no longer exist (as if anyone could be Henry Ford or Roy Kroc). This said, I would not want to be black where or when Jim Crow was a reality. It is not so long ago that homosexuality was a crime. 40-hour workweeks and 70-year lifespans for industrial workers seem far better than seventy-hour workweeks and 40-year lifespans, especially when the last few years of the 40-year lifespan required that children leave school to help support their worn-out parents. Sure, with a modest income one could buy a cottage by the lake -- but that is over.

Humor is the best analysis of news. The deadly-serious treatment of everything in the news on FoX News contrasts to what comedians say about what they see. It is telling that a study of whether people got reality right (that they disagreed with such statements as

1. Saddam Hussein had culpability in the 9/11 attack
2. Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction in violation of the armistice
3. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of international terrorism, and
4. the rest of the world agreed with the Bush 43 administration)

depended upon the sources that people had for news.


Those who relied upon the thirty-minute newscasts on network television (the limitations should be obvious) got it all wrong. People who relied upon newspapers, cable news other than FoX, the PBS News Hour (which can telescope sections of news coverage to fit what it sees appropriate to tell the story), or NPR got it right. So did people who watched the Daily Show, a comedic treatment of events.

Those who watched FoX News got it wrong. The problem is that such people watched a huge amount of what they thought was news.

So what was it about the Daily Show? It exposed the ineptitude of Dubya for what it was through parody and mockery.

(10-19-2018, 07:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Humor is the best analysis of news. The deadly-serious treatment of everything in the news on FoX News contrasts to what comedians say about what they see. It is telling that a study of whether people got reality right (that they disagreed with such statements as

1. Saddam Hussein had culpability in the 9/11 attack
2. Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction in violation of the armistice
3. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of international terrorism, and
4. the  rest of the world agreed with the Bush 43 administration)

depended upon the sources that people had for news.    


Those who relied upon the thirty-minute newscasts on network television (the limitations should be obvious) got it all wrong. People who relied upon newspapers, cable news other than FoX, the PBS News Hour (which can telescope sections of news coverage to fit what it sees appropriate to tell the story), or NPR got it right. So did people who watched the Daily Show, a comedic treatment of events.

Those who watched FoX News got it wrong. The problem is that such people watched a huge amount of what they thought was news.

So what was it about the Daily Show? It exposed the ineptitude of Dubya for what it was through parody and mockery.

Funny, I never heard the one about Saddam being involved in the 9/11 attack. I heard about the rest but not that one. How did the blue media outlets know that Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD's ? I have to admit that GW seemed like a wimp compared to Trump when it came to handling the blue media and all its crap.

(10-19-2018, 11:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-19-2018, 07:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Humor is the best analysis of news. The deadly-serious treatment of everything in the news on FoX News contrasts to what comedians say about what they see. It is telling that a study of whether people got reality right (that they disagreed with such statements as

1. Saddam Hussein had culpability in the 9/11 attack
2. Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction in violation of the armistice
3. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of international terrorism, and
4. the  rest of the world agreed with the Bush 43 administration)

depended upon the sources that people had for news.    


Those who relied upon the thirty-minute newscasts on network television (the limitations should be obvious) got it all wrong. People who relied upon newspapers, cable news other than FoX, the PBS News Hour (which can telescope sections of news coverage to fit what it sees appropriate to tell the story), or NPR got it right. So did people who watched the Daily Show, a comedic treatment of events.

Those who watched FoX News got it wrong. The problem is that such people watched a huge amount of what they thought was news.

So what was it about the Daily Show? It exposed the ineptitude of Dubya for what it was through parody and mockery.

Funny, I never heard the one about Saddam being involved in the 9/11 attack. I heard about the rest but not that one. How did the blue media outlets know that Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD's ? I have to admit that GW seemed like a wimp compared to Trump when it came to handling the blue media and all its crap.

I vaguely remember the September 11 thing.  The blue media rejected it more by analysis of motive.  While Saddam and Bin Ladin were both viewed as bad guys from the non-authoritarian perspective, they supported very different agendas and people, and were working against each other rather than together.  It is like the modern Syrian conflict, where the Baathists and remnants of Al Qaida are on opposite sides.   They correctly argued that the two would not work together on September 11, which had nothing to do with the WMDs.  The two men just had no reason to trust each other with what at the time were their greatest secrets.

CNN reports on there being an "Exhausted Majority" that is as sick of the extremes as I am.

CNN Wrote:Cable news depicts a divided country, with talking heads fighting from the left and right on deeply polarizing political issues. But according to a new study, the United States might not be as split as the media portrays.

More in Common, an initiative dedicated to understanding political polarization, recently released the results of their project called "The Hidden Tribes of America." They found that 67% of the country is what the organization calls the "Exhausted Majority," a group that is displeased by America's polarization and would like for people to find a common ground.

"There's a tremendous anxiety about the division and a sense with the majority of people that their voice isn't being heard," Tim Dixon, co-founder of More in Common, told Brian Stelter in the latest Reliable Sources podcast. "That it's these strident, hateful, often uncompromising us versus them voices" that are receiving attention.

Dixon cited the Brett Kavanaugh hearings as an example of the majority's distress. Their research found that 70% of people said they blame both the left and the right for the conflict over his nomination.

Now if that could be the center of a regeneracy, I could get enthusiastic.  We will see if any politicians push it, or whether the extremists remain dominant.  The conclusion is too late for the mid terms, but not for 2020.

My worry is that More in Common found what they hoped that they would find in their poll.  You can manipulate a poll result by wording the question in a biased way.

My concern is also that this has become an extremist web site, that the Industrial Age crises were centered on violence and partisanship, and the S&H perspective has got carried away as extremist as a result.

(10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way?  Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.

It stops being old news when interest rates soar and the debt is too high. Most of the Federal debt rolls over every 90 days, and is reissued at current rates. If interest grows from 2.5% to 6%, the annual interest grows from $25Billion to $60Billion on every Trillion dollars of debt. If the debt rises too fast, like it is at the moment, interest rates will also rise. So, long story short, stupidity can be fatal over time. Debt service on our $16Trillion debt costs us $400Billion annually. If it rises to $24Trillion and rates double, annual debt service rises to $1.2Trillion: over 30% of the Federal budget.

That's a wealth transfer scam for the debt holders, and the shaft for folks like us.

(10-20-2018, 05:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way?  Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.

It stops being old news when interest rates soar and the debt is too high.  Most of the Federal debt rolls over every 90 days, and is reissued at current rates.  If interest grows from 2.5% to 6%, the annual interest grows from $25Billion to $60Billion on every Trillion dollars of debt.  If the debt rises too fast, like it is at the moment, interest rates will also rise.  So, long story short, stupidity can be fatal over time.  Debt service on our $16Trillion debt costs us $400Billion annually.  If it rises to $24Trillion and rates double, annual debt service rises to $1.2Trillion: over 30% of the Federal budget.

That's a wealth transfer scam for the debt holders, and the shaft for folks like us.

Since when has debt been a major issue for the Democrats to address?

(10-21-2018, 10:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Since when has debt been a major  issue for the Democrats to address?

Since Reagan, at least.  For as long as borrow and spend has been going crazy.  

Grant you, the Democrats were once more into Keynes, borrow in bad times, balance in good, while the Republicans for a time leaned towards balance always.  That was before Reagan, however.

(10-21-2018, 10:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2018, 10:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Since when has debt been a major  issue for the Democrats to address?

Since Reagan, at least.  For as long as borrow and spend has been going crazy.  

Grant you, the Democrats were once more into Keynes, borrow in bad times, balance in good, while the Republicans for a time leaned towards balance always.  That was before Reagan, however.

Republican debt creation fits into their overall goal of taking away spending for social programs to help poor non-white people. If all of our tax money goes to debt service, then social spending can be reduced to fit inside a bathtub, as Reagan's associates described it.

(10-20-2018, 06:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]CNN reports on there being an "Exhausted Majority" that is as sick of the extremes as I am.

CNN Wrote:Cable news depicts a divided country, with talking heads fighting from the left and right on deeply polarizing political issues. But according to a new study, the United States might not be as split as the media portrays.

More in Common, an initiative dedicated to understanding political polarization, recently released the results of their project called "The Hidden Tribes of America." They found that 67% of the country is what the organization calls the "Exhausted Majority," a group that is displeased by America's polarization and would like for people to find a common ground.

"There's a tremendous anxiety about the division and a sense with the majority of people that their voice isn't being heard," Tim Dixon, co-founder of More in Common, told Brian Stelter in the latest Reliable Sources podcast. "That it's these strident, hateful, often uncompromising us versus them voices" that are receiving attention.

Dixon cited the Brett Kavanaugh hearings as an example of the majority's distress. Their research found that 70% of people said they blame both the left and the right for the conflict over his nomination.

Now if that could be the center of a regeneracy, I could get enthusiastic.  We will see if any politicians push it, or whether the extremists remain dominant.  The conclusion is too late for the mid terms, but not for 2020.

My worry is that More in Common found what they hoped that they would find in their poll.  You can manipulate a poll result by wording the question in a biased way.

My concern is also that this has become an extremist web site, that the Industrial Age crises were centered on violence and partisanship, and the S&H perspective has got carried away as extremist as a result.

Opposition to Kavanaugh was not "extremism." If the American people think that it is, then this so-called "exhausted majority" is a right-wing majority.

Kavanaugh was shoved onto the people in order to take away our rights and suppress the vote. The advent of the Kavanaugh kangeroo court is the decisive end of our democracy. Now the courts cannot stop districting that is intended to gerrymander away the votes of Democrats, or voter purges that are unfair to them. What's happening in Georgia and North Dakota now can continue with impunity. The National Park Service has been asked to stop any protests outside the white house, so this is the beginning of Trump's promise to have demonstrators carried out on stretchers like in the good old days.

Those who supported Kavanaugh were wrong, and those who opposed him were right. We do not have a conflict between extremists here. There are virtually no left wing extremists in the United States. What we have is a growing division between center-leftists and an extreme fascist right-wing. It is going to be up to the people to fight this descent into tyranny, which is a worldwide trend now. What is happening in Turkey, Central America, Brazil, China, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring, is happening here too under Trump and the Republicans. The only "left extremism" today is, as Goldwater might have said, in defense of our liberty.

The advent of the Kavanaugh kangeroo court might well mean that voting for Democrats is suppressed, so that those on the center-left have no alternative but civil disobedience or violent resistance. This center-left resistance suits the right-wing authorities just fine, as they can be accused of being "uncivil" as Ted Cruz and the other Republican senators on the committee say, or simply labelled as terrorists and communists, and that way they can get a solid majority of folks in red states to agree with them, and that's all they need to repress them and maybe put them away.

The only regeneracy possible today in the USA is a rising up of the center-left to resist this trend toward the tyranny of the oligarchic right-wing. A regeneracy in a 4T is NEVER a mamby-pamby call for compromise and civility. A 4T means that our country is in danger, and the people must rise up to save it. That's where we are. The regeneracy is happening, but it's not a call for civility per se. It is a call for truth, liberty and justice. How "civil" it is depends on how much it is resisted by tyranny. The more the regeneracy is suppressed by the Republicans, the less "civil" the regeneracy will be.

If we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then we must now give our last full measure of devotion, and resolve that our efforts shall not be in vain.

(10-19-2018, 11:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-19-2018, 07:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Humor is the best analysis of news. The deadly-serious treatment of everything in the news on FoX News contrasts to what comedians say about what they see. It is telling that a study of whether people got reality right (that they disagreed with such statements as

1. Saddam Hussein had culpability in the 9/11 attack
2. Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction in violation of the armistice
3. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of international terrorism, and
4. the  rest of the world agreed with the Bush 43 administration)

depended upon the sources that people had for news.    


Those who relied upon the thirty-minute newscasts on network television (the limitations should be obvious) got it all wrong. People who relied upon newspapers, cable news other than FoX, the PBS News Hour (which can telescope sections of news coverage to fit what it sees appropriate to tell the story), or NPR got it right. So did people who watched the Daily Show, a comedic treatment of events.

Those who watched FoX News got it wrong. The problem is that such people watched a huge amount of what they thought was news.

So what was it about the Daily Show? It exposed the ineptitude of Dubya for what it was through parody and mockery.

Funny, I never heard the one about Saddam being involved in the 9/11 attack. I heard about the rest but not that one. How did the blue media outlets know that Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD's ? I have to admit that GW seemed like a wimp compared to Trump when it came to handling the blue media and all its crap.

Brower has it exactly right above. The mainstream media and right-wing media went along with the propaganda that Iraq was a terrorist state with weapons of mass destruction and therefore needed to be overthrown to prevent another 9-11. Those of us who were informed, through public-supported media, knew quite easily that there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs, that Colin Powell's testimony was a lie, and that Iraq was not involved in any terrorist attacks except supporting Palestinian rebels fighting the terrorist state of Israel. 

But the P-NAC neo-con crowd (which included Bebe Netanyahu) had perpetrated a policy to defend Israel and "spread democracy" by making the Middle East safe for the oil oligarchy, and they knew a new Pearl Harbor would be needed to get public support for this "New American Century" project (P-NAC). They got their Pearl Harbor. So they got the support of many Democrats in congress as well as all the Republicans for this preventive war in Iraq, even though inspectors had already certified there were no WMDs, and even though even Bush admitted they were not responsible for 9-11. The facts did not matter. All that counted was the propaganda, and Bush's decision to avenge Saddam's attack on his Daddy and go forward with PNAC.

And thus came about two huge wars that expanded our national debt, thus making social spending less easy to obtain without increasing spending on debt service, thus fulfilling the Republican red-state goal to reverse the civil rights and great society era.

(10-21-2018, 10:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2018, 05:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way?  Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.

It stops being old news when interest rates soar and the debt is too high.  Most of the Federal debt rolls over every 90 days, and is reissued at current rates.  If interest grows from 2.5% to 6%, the annual interest grows from $25Billion to $60Billion on every Trillion dollars of debt.  If the debt rises too fast, like it is at the moment, interest rates will also rise.  So, long story short, stupidity can be fatal over time.  Debt service on our $16Trillion debt costs us $400Billion annually.  If it rises to $24Trillion and rates double, annual debt service rises to $1.2Trillion: over 30% of the Federal budget.

That's a wealth transfer scam for the debt holders, and the shaft for folks like us.

Since when has debt been a major  issue for the Democrats to address?

I can't fully speak for Dems, not being one myself, but my experience has them deficit spending when the economy is weak and running fully on tax revenues when the economy is strong.  The problem with the GOP: they use the exact opposite approach and trigger booms and busts.  We're in the midst of a tax cut boom right now.  The bust will arrive soon enough, and there is a secondary problem this time.  With the debt load so high already, using borrowed funds to put the economy back on its wheels will be much harder.

If I was a Dem, I would scream bloody murder that the GOP gets to party, the Dems get to clean up, and the GOP gets all the credit because it's always fun when they're being their typical irresponsible selves.

(10-22-2018, 11:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Opposition to Kavanaugh was not "extremism." If the American people think that it is, then this so-called "exhausted majority" is a right-wing majority.

Kavanaugh was shoved onto the people in order to take away our rights and suppress the vote. The advent of the Kavanaugh kangeroo court is the decisive end of our democracy. Now the courts cannot stop districting that is intended to gerrymander away the votes of Democrats, or voter purges that are unfair to them. What's happening in Georgia and North Dakota now can continue with impunity. The National Park Service has been asked to stop any protests outside the white house, so this is the beginning of Trump's promise to have demonstrators carried out on stretchers like in the good old days.

Those who supported Kavanaugh were wrong, and those who opposed him were right. We do not have a conflict between extremists here. There are virtually no left wing extremists in the United States. What we have is a growing division between center-leftists and an extreme fascist right-wing. It is going to be up to the people to fight this descent into tyranny, which is a worldwide trend now. What is happening in Turkey, Central America, Brazil, China, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring, is happening here too under Trump and the Republicans. The only "left extremism" today is, as Goldwater might have said, in defense of our liberty.

The advent of the Kavanaugh kangeroo court might well mean that voting for Democrats is suppressed, so that those on the center-left have no alternative but civil disobedience or violent resistance. This center-left resistance suits the right-wing authorities just fine, as they can be accused of being "uncivil" as Ted Cruz and the other Republican senators on the committee say, or simply labelled as terrorists and communists, and that way they can get a solid majority of folks in red states to agree with them, and that's all they need to repress them and maybe put them away.

The only regeneracy possible today in the USA is a rising up of the center-left to resist this trend toward the tyranny of the oligarchic right-wing. A regeneracy in a 4T is NEVER a mamby-pamby call for compromise and civility. A 4T means that our country is in danger, and the people must rise up to save it. That's where we are. The regeneracy is happening, but it's not a call for civility per se. It is a call for truth, liberty and justice. How "civil" it is depends on how much it is resisted by tyranny. The more the regeneracy is suppressed by the Republicans, the less "civil" the regeneracy will be.

If we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then we must now give our last full measure of devotion, and resolve that our efforts shall not be in vain.

So says someone with a closed mind, an extremist.

Extremism might in some ways be defined as leaving only violence open to solve the basic problem.  The Civil War and World War II certainly fit, and generally fit the Industrial Age when there was no other method to solve problems of authoritarian government short of violence.

The Great Depression was viewed by some as the failure of capitalist - democratic government, but was solved though politics with the communist revolution not happening.  The Consciousness Revolution similarly ended mostly with votes.  I am seeing the process in the US as becoming less authoritarian, more democratic, as time goes by.

But success in a process like that depends on both sides listening and both sides acknowledging reality.  In questions like prejudice and global warming, some people want the past more than the future.  In clinging to the past, the extreme options seems to leave no choice but to leave the conservatives as a powerless minority.

I am not seeing the spiral of violence budging beyond the few nuts phase.  We are having a few, maybe one person, sending mail bombs lately in a totally harmless way.  That's about it for blue-red violence lately.  Even Trump - who seems to think non-violence means the fuse didn't work - thinks little of the violent process.  The OKC - September 11th rejection of violence as a way to achieve political ends seems to be a new American core value.  That, and the states weather blue or red are really polka dotted.  There are a few population centers where a collective civilization of mutual support makes sense, surrounded by larger less populated areas where independence, self sufficiency and sometimes prejudice dominate.  There is no simple way of dividing that up.  Both depend on one another.  We have to get together and come up with something tolerable by all.

This being the case, the crisis has to end by a political process, and that means the two sides listening to each other and rejecting simplistic extremist answers.

(10-25-2018, 11:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-22-2018, 11:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Opposition to Kavanaugh was not "extremism." If the American people think that it is, then this so-called "exhausted majority" is a right-wing majority.

Kavanaugh was shoved onto the people in order to take away our rights and suppress the vote. The advent of the Kavanaugh kangeroo court is the decisive end of our democracy. Now the courts cannot stop districting that is intended to gerrymander away the votes of Democrats, or voter purges that are unfair to them. What's happening in Georgia and North Dakota now can continue with impunity. The National Park Service has been asked to stop any protests outside the white house, so this is the beginning of Trump's promise to have demonstrators carried out on stretchers like in the good old days.

Those who supported Kavanaugh were wrong, and those who opposed him were right. We do not have a conflict between extremists here. There are virtually no left wing extremists in the United States. What we have is a growing division between center-leftists and an extreme fascist right-wing. It is going to be up to the people to fight this descent into tyranny, which is a worldwide trend now. What is happening in Turkey, Central America, Brazil, China, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring, is happening here too under Trump and the Republicans. The only "left extremism" today is, as Goldwater might have said, in defense of our liberty.

The advent of the Kavanaugh kangeroo court might well mean that voting for Democrats is suppressed, so that those on the center-left have no alternative but civil disobedience or violent resistance. This center-left resistance suits the right-wing authorities just fine, as they can be accused of being "uncivil" as Ted Cruz and the other Republican senators on the committee say, or simply labelled as terrorists and communists, and that way they can get a solid majority of folks in red states to agree with them, and that's all they need to repress them and maybe put them away.

The only regeneracy possible today in the USA is a rising up of the center-left to resist this trend toward the tyranny of the oligarchic right-wing. A regeneracy in a 4T is NEVER a mamby-pamby call for compromise and civility. A 4T means that our country is in danger, and the people must rise up to save it. That's where we are. The regeneracy is happening, but it's not a call for civility per se. It is a call for truth, liberty and justice. How "civil" it is depends on how much it is resisted by tyranny. The more the regeneracy is suppressed by the Republicans, the less "civil" the regeneracy will be.

If we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then we must now give our last full measure of devotion, and resolve that our efforts shall not be in vain.

So says someone with a closed mind, an extremist.

Extremism might in some ways be defined as leaving only violence open to solve the basic problem.  The Civil War and World War II certainly fit, and generally fit the Industrial Age when there was no other method to solve problems of authoritarian government short of violence.

The Great Depression was viewed by some as the failure of capitalist - democratic government, but was solved though politics with the communist revolution not happening.  The Consciousness Revolution similarly ended mostly with votes.  I am seeing the process in the US as becoming less authoritarian, more democratic, as time goes by.

But success in a process like that depends on both sides listening and both sides acknowledging reality.  In questions like prejudice and global warming, some people want the past more than the future.  In clinging to the past, the extreme options seems to leave no choice but to leave the conservatives as a powerless minority.

I am not seeing the spiral of violence budging beyond the few nuts phase.  We are having a few, maybe one person, sending mail bombs lately in a totally harmless way.  That's about it for blue-red violence lately.  Even Trump - who seems to think non-violence means the fuse didn't work - thinks little of the violent process.  The OKC - September 11th rejection of violence as a way to achieve political ends seems to be a new American core value.  That, and the states weather blue or red are really polka dotted.  There are a few population centers where a collective civilization of mutual support makes sense, surrounded by larger less populated areas where independence, self sufficiency and sometimes prejudice dominate.  There is no simple way of dividing that up.  Both depend on one another.  We have to get together and come up with something tolerable by all.

This being the case, the crisis has to end by a political process, and that means the two sides listening to each other and rejecting simplistic extremist answers.

I think in comparison to people in more-advanced countries, my views would be considered center-left. To have the views that I have, you need to be morally-concerned and informed. If that's extremism, so be it.

The people must rise up, as I said. A 4T means a conflict. So far, it has not been a violent conflict, and I hope it won't be. But if the right-wing extremists who now control our government continue to cut off all means of peaceful opposition, by appointing right-wing hacks like Kavanaugh and suppressing voters and fair elections, then there's no doubt people will feel their only way to oppose them is with violence, or civil disobedience.

I hope that won't be the way, because the left would probably lose any attempt of violent revolution in the USA. Pretty much that would also be true of the right. Only foreign intervention would make a revolution successful in the USA; that's just the nature of our "beast."

Your belief that today's crisis has to end by "the two sides listening to each other," however, is not only a forlorn hope, but historically has never happened. It is a matter of facts, not just extremism, in what I'm saying. Political contests or wars decide what happens, not attempts to compromise and find something tolerable by all. The defeated faction just has to accept the outcome. As MacArthur said, there's no substitute for victory, and Reagan echoed that in his 1976 convention speech. Americans respect politicians who take a stand, and they vote for them. It's not a matter of extremism and rejecting simple answers. It's just historical fact. You claim to be fact-based, but I don't see when any 4T or 2T has been resolved in the USA by two sides listening to each other.

What we can hope for, perhaps, is that enough younger and independent minds are persuaded to support the blue side in elections so that a blue victory is obtained. It's possible, but the blue side needs to vote and get active. The alternatives to a blue victory in elections are:

1) a red victory, in which case our country declines and becomes a banana republic tyranny like Honduras, or 
2) that the country goes into a violent (or non-violent) civil war and splits apart (and I think a split-up country is not as difficult as you say), or perhaps 
3) some combination of a blue victory after some futile red violent rebellions. If I have to predict, this being a 4T, I have always predicted the latter #3 scenario as the most likely. 

Again, there is no 4T yet in history from which we escaped without violence, and also none so far from which we emerged without a progressive victory. And also, this 4T cannot be understood without understanding that started in 2008 and will last until at least 2028, and that the previous internal-conflict centered 4T began in about 1850.

If you are saying that the cycle is over, or never happened, so that we are not in a typical 4T, then that is a challenge for you to argue and demonstrate.

(10-25-2018, 02:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I think in comparison to people in more-advanced countries, my views would be considered center-left. To have the views that I have, you need to be morally-concerned and informed. If that's extremism, so be it.

The people must rise up, as I said. A 4T means a conflict. So far, it has not been a violent conflict, and I hope it won't be. But if the right-wing extremists who now control our government continue to cut off all means of peaceful opposition, by appointing right-wing hacks like Kavanaugh and suppressing voters and fair elections, then there's no doubt people will feel their only way to oppose them is with violence, or civil disobedience.

I hope that won't be the way, because the left would probably lose any attempt of violent revolution in the USA. Pretty much that would also be true of the right. Only foreign intervention would make a revolution successful in the USA; that's just the nature of our "beast."

Your belief that today's crisis has to end by "the two sides listening to each other," however, is not only a forlorn hope, but historically has never happened. It is a matter of facts, not just extremism, in what I'm saying. Political contests or wars decide what happens, not attempts to compromise and find something tolerable by all. The defeated faction just has to accept the outcome. As MacArthur said, there's no substitute for victory, and Reagan echoed that in his 1976 convention speech. Americans respect politicians who take a stand, and they vote for them. It's not a matter of extremism and rejecting simple answers. It's just historical fact. You claim to be fact-based, but I don't see when any 4T or 2T has been resolved in the USA by two sides listening to each other.

What we can hope for, perhaps, is that enough younger and independent minds are persuaded to support the blue side in elections so that a blue victory is obtained. It's possible, but the blue side needs to vote and get active. The alternatives to a blue victory in elections are:

1) a red victory, in which case our country declines and becomes a banana republic tyranny like Honduras, or 
2) that the country goes into a violent (or non-violent) civil war and splits apart (and I think a split-up country is not as difficult as you say), or perhaps 
3) some combination of a blue victory after some futile red violent rebellions. If I have to predict, this being a 4T, I have always predicted the latter #3 scenario as the most likely. 

Again, there is no 4T yet in history from which we escaped without violence, and also none so far from which we emerged without a progressive victory. And also, this 4T cannot be understood without understanding that started in 2008 and will last until at least 2028, and that the previous internal-conflict centered 4T began in about 1850.

If you are saying that the cycle is over, or never happened, so that we are not in a typical 4T, then that is a challenge for you to argue and demonstrate.

A typical 4T in the Industrial Age had with it a glorification of violence and a conviction that violence was the correct or necessary action to resolve the 4T.  I view the Great Depression and the US government's belief in the domino theory, and the Civil Rights movement as solved by political protest and votes by congress rather than crisis level violence.  So, yes, I believe there have been crisis level incidents not resolved by all out wars, and that crisis level changes in values can occur during the new age outside of 4Ts, are just as likely or more likely to occur in a 2T.

It may be that democracy was new enough to be thought impotent, that Industrial Age problems required violence, and this is no longer the case.  It may be that the see saw giving power to one party then the other gives more hope of lesser periods of domination by anybody.  It may be that values have shifted, that Americans believe with emphasis that domestic problems should not be resolved through violence, as ever so clearly declared after OKC and September 11th.  It may be that the existence of WMDs, computers and renewable energy caused a new age, much as the printing press, chemical weapons and steam power caused a shift to the Industrial Age, and that the pattens of the past age tell us nothing about the new.

At any rate, the spiral of violence is not advancing beyond the lone nut phase.  You have a blind faith that it will, based on Industrial Age patterns, while I suspect things have changed, and it won't.  You are just irrationally committed to Industrial Age values which the bulk of Americans seem to not share any more.

But then again, that is the nature of values.  One gets committed to them beyond their time.  Reality does not touch them until they can be clearly demonstrated wrong beyond doubt.  You are no more likely to shift beyond Industrial Age violent values than a red is likely to shift beyond the Second Amendment.

Isn't that the usual conservative error?  Clinging to old obsolete values that cannot solve current problems?  Eric the conservative?

So, yes, I believe that the crisis level issues of this period - including prejudice, protection of the environment, and global warming - can and will be solved by votes of congress rather than a war.  I see crises in the new age as much different than they were in the Industrial Age.  If you try to apply the lessons learned of the Industrial Age - which were valid at the time - you may be vastly incorrect today.  If you see the turnings as clockwork, as following some Industrial Age pattern, you may blind yourself to what is actually happening.

For example, you do not assume the spiral of violence will escalate out of control every four score and seven years, rather one monitors carefully the spiral of violence with an uncertain hypothesis that it might.

But I am repeating myself, typical of a values locked conversation.  You are not apt to comprehend a shift.  Extremists don't do shifts of this nature.

(10-28-2018, 10:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2018, 02:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I think in comparison to people in more-advanced countries, my views would be considered center-left. To have the views that I have, you need to be morally-concerned and informed. If that's extremism, so be it.

The people must rise up, as I said. A 4T means a conflict. So far, it has not been a violent conflict, and I hope it won't be. But if the right-wing extremists who now control our government continue to cut off all means of peaceful opposition, by appointing right-wing hacks like Kavanaugh and suppressing voters and fair elections, then there's no doubt people will feel their only way to oppose them is with violence, or civil disobedience.

I hope that won't be the way, because the left would probably lose any attempt of violent revolution in the USA. Pretty much that would also be true of the right. Only foreign intervention would make a revolution successful in the USA; that's just the nature of our "beast."

Your belief that today's crisis has to end by "the two sides listening to each other," however, is not only a forlorn hope, but historically has never happened. It is a matter of facts, not just extremism, in what I'm saying. Political contests or wars decide what happens, not attempts to compromise and find something tolerable by all. The defeated faction just has to accept the outcome. As MacArthur said, there's no substitute for victory, and Reagan echoed that in his 1976 convention speech. Americans respect politicians who take a stand, and they vote for them. It's not a matter of extremism and rejecting simple answers. It's just historical fact. You claim to be fact-based, but I don't see when any 4T or 2T has been resolved in the USA by two sides listening to each other.

What we can hope for, perhaps, is that enough younger and independent minds are persuaded to support the blue side in elections so that a blue victory is obtained. It's possible, but the blue side needs to vote and get active. The alternatives to a blue victory in elections are:

1) a red victory, in which case our country declines and becomes a banana republic tyranny like Honduras, or 
2) that the country goes into a violent (or non-violent) civil war and splits apart (and I think a split-up country is not as difficult as you say), or perhaps 
3) some combination of a blue victory after some futile red violent rebellions. If I have to predict, this being a 4T, I have always predicted the latter #3 scenario as the most likely. 

Again, there is no 4T yet in history from which we escaped without violence, and also none so far from which we emerged without a progressive victory. And also, this 4T cannot be understood without understanding that it started in 2008 and will last until at least 2028, and that the previous internal-conflict centered 4T began in about 1850.

If you are saying that the cycle is over, or never happened, so that we are not in a typical 4T, then that is a challenge for you to argue and demonstrate.

A typical 4T in the Industrial Age had with it a glorification of violence and a conviction that violence was the correct or necessary action to resolve the 4T.  I view the Great Depression and the US government's belief in the domino theory, and the Civil Rights movement as solved by political protest and votes by congress rather than crisis level violence.  So, yes, I believe there have been crisis level incidents not resolved by all out wars, and that crisis level changes in values can occur during the new age outside of 4Ts, are just as likely or more likely to occur in a 2T.

It may be that democracy was new enough to be thought impotent, that Industrial Age problems required violence, and this is no longer the case.  It may be that the see saw giving power to one party then the other gives more hope of lesser periods of domination by anybody.  It may be that values have shifted, that Americans believe with emphasis that domestic problems should not be resolved through violence, as ever so clearly declared after OKC and September 11th.  It may be that the existence of WMDs, computers and renewable energy caused a new age, much as the printing press, chemical weapons and steam power caused a shift to the Industrial Age, and that the patterns of the past age tell us nothing about the new.

At any rate, the spiral of violence is not advancing beyond the lone nut phase.  You have a blind faith that it will, based on Industrial Age patterns, while I suspect things have changed, and it won't.  You are just irrationally committed to Industrial Age values which the bulk of Americans seem to not share any more.

But then again, that is the nature of values.  One gets committed to them beyond their time.  Reality does not touch them until they can be clearly demonstrated wrong beyond doubt.  You are no more likely to shift beyond Industrial Age violent values than a red is likely to shift beyond the Second Amendment.

Isn't that the usual conservative error?  Clinging to old obsolete values that cannot solve current problems?  Eric the conservative?

So, yes, I believe that the crisis level issues of this period - including prejudice, protection of the environment, and global warming - can and will be solved by votes of congress rather than a war.  I see crises in the new age as much different than they were in the Industrial Age.  If you try to apply the lessons learned of the Industrial Age - which were valid at the time - you may be vastly incorrect today.  If you see the turnings as clockwork, as following some Industrial Age pattern, you may blind yourself to what is actually happening.

For example, you do not assume the spiral of violence will escalate out of control every four score and seven years, rather one monitors carefully the spiral of violence with an uncertain hypothesis that it might.

But I am repeating myself, typical of a values locked conversation.  You are not apt to comprehend a shift.  Extremists don't do shifts of this nature.

Well, you still hold to mechanical materialism, which I feel those of more advanced turn of mind shifted out of in the 2T. But you gave up on it, and stayed Orange, as it were. Being a Green and Yellow, I have actually shifted beyond war and violence; it has never been something I support. I have often been a peace activist. Still, I also am mindful of the fact that cycles bring things back, and we've never yet escaped a 4T without a major war. So, we'll see.

It's quite possible that we may avoid a major war, as I said, but not a conflict. We have the conflict; it won't be settled by superficial pleas to "listen to each other." The differences are too great. And minor wars may still happen, as they have still happened in recent years.

I don't think the Information Age will end the saeculum. If some younger minds can be open to new values, and get civically engaged, it's possible that our conflict will be settled civically, and we move to a greater consensus after the election victories of blue over red, and an effective center/left progressive administration and government in the 2020s. I hope it happens; my cosmic indicators, as I have said for decades about this one coming up, indicate this.

Of course, it's always the case that what I hope for, and what I predict, are necessarily two different things.

Quote:the crisis has to end by a political process, and that means the two sides listening to each other and rejecting simplistic extremist answers.

Manifestly not true, especially empirically, since it has never happened that way. A political process is one in which one side, candidate or party outvotes the other one. How "extreme" or "simplistic" the "answers" may be, varies. When two presidential candidates are involved, the skill of the candidates usually determines the outcome.

If you are looking for something new to happen in a new age, it sounds like you are looking beyond empiricism. Is this an opening happening in your world view? Empiricism does not in itself allow for new things to happen; it's always about what has been observed.

A challenge has come for Republicans and supporters of Trump, past or present. Trump stirred up this guy Bowers into hatred of immigrants. This Jewish congregation had been helping them. The Trump era is rife with conspiracy theories and neo-Nazi anti-semite movements in the USA. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP block any bills to limit or prohibit sales of AR-15s and other weapons of war which make mass shootings like this one so frequent. The voters need to hold Trump and the Republicans responsible now for this mayhem. Failure to do so is a judgement upon them.

(10-30-2018, 01:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]A challenge has come for Republicans and supporters of Trump, past or present. Trump stirred up this guy Bowers into hatred of immigrants. This Jewish congregation had been helping them. The Trump era is rife with conspiracy theories and neo-Nazi anti-semite movements in the USA. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP block any bills to limit or prohibit sales of AR-15s and other weapons of war which make mass shootings like this one so frequent. The voters need to hold Trump and the Republicans responsible now for this mayhem. Failure to do so is a judgement upon them.

I do think there is a spiral of rhetoric which precedes the spiral of violence.  Hate speech, including Trump's, does increase the chances of lone nuts going active.  People who try to fight such hate speech are called Social Justice Warriors and as limiting free speech, but you can see them trying to preserve lives.

Traditionally, you cannot limit a constitutional right without due process.  A trial that leaves someone a felon certainly counts.  Would a professional finding that someone is a threat to others suffice?  How much legal formality would have to be applied to give such a finding force of law?  The Supreme Court would have to answer that one, but that seems a step short of repealing the Second that might be worked towards.

It seems that most lone nuts before they went on their shooting sprees first used hate speech, in person or on social media. Would people support this being sufficient for a professional trained shrink to ban weapons ownership? Does anyone think such bans would be effective?

An unusual shooting. You can't even trust Man's Best Friend with a gun. From USA Today

LAS CRUCES, N.M. – Charlie's still a good dog.

That's what Sonny "Tex" Gilligan said days after Charlie – his 120-pound Rottweiler mix – accidentally shot him.
Gilligan, 74, a Doña Ana County resident, told the Sun-News that Charlie and his two other dogs – Scooter and Cowboy – went with him to hunt for jackrabbits in the desert west of Las Cruces on Oct. 25.
Gilligan was in the driver's seat of his parked pickup truck, along with the dogs, when he was shot.
"Charlie got his foot in the trigger of the gun and I leaned forward and he slipped off the seat and caught the trigger – and it shot," Gilligan said. "It was a freak accident but it's true, that's what happened." 
The shotgun – in the backseat of the pickup, along with Charlie – fired through Gilligan's front driver's seat. The bullet went through Gilligan's back, breaking a few ribs and shattering his collar bone, and caused other, severe injuries. 
Gilligan said he initially thought someone from outside the vehicle had shot him, but soon realized the shot came from his own gun.


Sonny Gilligan's two other dogs — Scooter, forefront, and Cowboy, in back — were also in the vehicle when Gilligan was shot by his third dog, Charlie. Gilligan is expected to make a full recovery. (Photo: Provided by Mark Gilligan)

"I was very fortunate I could get to my phone," Gilligan said. "The DASO (Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office) first-responders saved my life. If they waited 10 more minutes I would’ve died. I lost so much blood. I know I actually passed to the other side just before getting to the hospital but they were able to revive me through CPR and bring me back. I have so much appreciation to the doctors and first-responders who saved my life."

Gilligan's 911 call came in at 12:33 p.m.

Sheriff’s deputies, Border Patrol agents and New Mexico State Police went to the scene and found Gilligan next to his truck with a gunshot wound to the chest. He was transported via helicopter to University Medical Center in El Paso. 
 
[/url]
[url=https://eb2.3lift.com/pass?tl_clickthrough=true&redir=https%3A%2F%2Fbttrack.com%2FClick%2FNative%3Fdata%3DOuJifVtEKZqw3AQmb_7yW7OTHusBsinmUgr7sRXtKhDAK-SYM1xmSaGuLA-RJhr2tp7qDOp7s0ttcL4e77LxmqLAb0YU_ZcVgwEOTCyRIfv0NA1REoEujHarItWC-oxs0_wPKG3Hy9WJFHqRaNSgZur7cmwurxrKTPa3wjjN98eYkDRfc_Q_EZZGm5aH-BsY0z3GKDaUoAEWXvvrWaXgLkUUvxtrZ46-HzsrmiWC6qdP3ne9DBHJMhPNnloL37I_L-GzAqdq_C0zcO2olI1s9JvOmhIrNCT7n25iysItCMc3pwb4yA47biiggqLOS8LJNEq5_nplAKnoIvgUPvmyrCVESDubI-GJU5XzpSN0gk49WvEnC6LPIGry7U8lr0es290ycoPqq-UNFyZuAeOp8idKfl3fIjdFxloNtqfLO14Qe_ogFXMafXvhv1IJK55JjSOtmQdxCtq-qNX3e6IZKRdrUbmR-Bf98uY9pSMbEROMOdnM0]
Gilligan underwent several surgeries, and, though he's in critical condition, he should recover. He said he's being transferred to a rehabilitation center in Las Cruces on Wednesday. 
Gilligan said Charlie, Scooter and Cowboy were sent to "jail" – the Animal Service Center of the Mesilla Valley – following the shooting.
"Poor Charlie, he's a good dog," Gilligan said. "The sheriff's department said the only one they had trouble with was Cowboy. The other two were friendly. Charlie is the boss, but he's gentle." 
Gilligan joked that his son was able to "bond out" the dogs.
"It was an accident, although they tease me asking me if he did it on purpose," Gilligan said. "Truth is, (Charlie's) a big, loving dog and would never hurt anybody on purpose." 
Gilligan's son, Mark Gilligan, said he wasn't surprised to hear one of the dogs accidentally shot his father.
"They're kind of rowdy. They’re pretty rambunctious and full of energy," Mark said. "That’s why the owners gave them up. My dad has four acres of land so they can run free. So, it didn’t surprise me at all. When they see a cow or other animal they want to jump in the front." 
Gilligan said he still loves all his dogs. He said he rescued them as puppies.
"They're all rescue dogs. Charlie was advertised as a free puppy in El Paso," Gilligan said. "I got one of them at a flea market for $20 and adopted one."  
Follow Jacqueline Devine on Twitter: @JackieIsDevine

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...dog-shoots-

We'll, that is one shooter who didn't use bad language before going active!  Should his gun rights be suspended anyway?