Unravelings

Most of The Grid is filled now. We've looked at the recurring Crisis periods that are often the most obvious part of history classes, the Awakenings halfway between them, and the Highs as one becomes the next. Or, as they are referred to now, the Fourth, Second, and First Turnings, respectively.

This leaves the Third Turning, also known as the Unraveling, a period that is often conspicuously ignored when history is discussed.  This is in large part because it's the low point of organizational power. Governments aren't able to do as much. Individuals, on the other hand, can.

Wikipedia has a page for Annus Miribilus - Year of Miracles/Wonders, years where multiple significant events happened.  Most of them are directly associated with individuals, and most of those occur in Third Turnings.

Looking at the exceptional activities of individuals - activities that are often remembered for just this reason - can give a better feel for these Turnings than trying to comprehend what governments are up to.

1714

First - 1714 - The Longitude Prize is offered by the English Parliament

The great age of navigation started in the early 15th century, when Portugal's Prince Henry "the Navigator" began explorations into the Atlantic and south along Africa, using instruments such as the compass and cross-staff. One of its most visible success stories was the (European) discovery of the American continents. In the 200 years following, colonies were set up by any countries that could manage the voyages required, and ships regularly sailed between Europe and the Americas. 

Nonetheless, navigation tools were still rudimentary.  Identifying how far north or south of the equator a ship was could be done by measuring how far above the horizon an astronomical object was. At the North Pole, for example, the North Star should be directly overhead. As one sails south, it would dip further and further down, until at the equator it would be at the horizon. In practice, measuring how the sun changed was used for this straightforward calculation. It had long been possible to make this determination, allowing ships at sea to easily determine their latitude.  However determining longitude - how far east or west had been sailed - was not nearly as simple. There was no effective method to do it accurately and effectively. 

The lack of a method was seen as a definite problem when four British warships were lost in 1707 near the isles of Scilly. The loss of 1400 lives off the southwest coast of Great Britain, because the sailors were uncertain about the location of their ships, led to concern about how to prevent it from happening again. (That the problem may have been in calculating latitude, not longitude, didn't change the perception of the issue.) There had been many proposals for how best to do so, many of which used astronomical observations, as latitude calculations did. Any of them might be useful, with enough additional work spent to refine them. How could the optimal plan be identified?

In 1714, the method chosen was the Longitude Prize, which was created upon the passage of the Longitude Act. The goal of the prize was to find an effective method for measuring longitude. The smallest price, for £10,000 pounds sterling, required accurate measurements within only 60 nautical miles; the largest would need to be twice as accurate, within 30 nautical miles. The prize was eventually awarded to John Harrison, who approached the problem as one of timekeeping rather than observation. He showed that a sufficiently accurate timepiece (chronometer) could be manufactured, yielding a consistent fixed time that could be compared to a ship's time based on local noon (i.e. when the sun was highest in the sky). The difference in time could be converted to distance from the locale represented by the chronometer. 

The prizes - the equivalent of millions of dollars today - were a significant investment not only in keeping ships safe, but also in allowing them to move quickly to their destinations. This made additional exploration possible and also improved the ability of Britain to trade with her colonies. 

Awakens

The name of the latest Star Wars movie is The Force Awakens. Which is to say, it includes a cognate of Awakening.

Which probably wouldn't have mattered much except for a recent meme about Mark Hamill (Boomer, 1951), who is now 63 - as old as Alec Guinness (G.I., 1914) was when the original Star Wars movie was released.  As a member of a Prophet archetype generation, it makes even more sense for him to take on a role like that of Obi-Wan Kenobi, i.e. the old and wise mentor to the new Hero.

In Generations, the original movie is mentioned as an example of the generational breakdown that is common in Hero stories: Young adult Hero (Luke, plus of course Leia), slightly older practical scoundrel Nomad (Han Solo), and wise elder mentor Prophet (Obi-Wan). The further implication of this grouping is that it's a Crisis period, that being how the generations show up in a Fourth Turning. The apocalyptic expectations of the first movie, with a planet-destroying weapon under the control of leaders willing to use it, supports this interpretation.

Something closer to how a Crisis-era battle would appear.

While this view is weakened by the first two sequels, it's the prequels that show a real Crisis war enveloping the galaxy. There are multiple hostile combatant groups, involved with massive armies and no clear view of how it can end up well - and, indeed, the resolution isn't in favor of the good guys. The focus is on Anakin/Vader, the villain of the series - so quite possibly a Nomad archetype, himself. The idea that the minor skirmishes of Yavin, Hoth, and Endor are the "real" Crisis doesn't stand up in comparison with these massive conflagrations. With that in mind, Empire and Jedi appear as Second Turning, not the Fourth, with the spiritual Force returning to prominence after being nearly extinguished by Palpatine. Luke goes from hotshot Hero, succeeding through the sacrifice of Kenobi, to warrior-priest Prophet, prevailing over the Emperor through sheer moral superiority.

Which brings us to this trailer and the upcoming film, which has the potential either to move the cycles around again, or to confirm one interpretation over the other. As it is including the original characters played by the original actors, it's presumably going to be set about forty years after the Rebellion's success.  If Endor was the peak of the Awakening, we would now be back into a Crisis; if a Crisis, we would be in Awakening again.

If The Force Awakens is a Second Turning story - as suggested by the title and the first movie - it would likely involve a spiritual component, which could be expected to involve the "awakening" Force. Perhaps someone has rejected the vanilla goody-goody Jedi way that Luke has been teaching. No doubt Luke accepts only the purest form of Yoda's lessons, having experienced firsthand the potential dangers of a more open interpretation. Naturally, an apostate breeds followers, although they would be limited by the rarity of Force-sensitivity. The protagonists may be taking on a smaller (and therefore individually more powerful) enemy group, and deciding through their actions the direction of the Republic going forward.

The existing movies, on the other hand, mostly indicate that this should represent a Fourth Turning. If so, the time since the Rebellion's success has been one of uncertainty, perhaps even chaos.  The Force-sensitive, lacking any guidance for a generation after the Palpatine's original success, may be a different sort of threat, a critical mass of proto-Vaders attempting to use their powers based on what they can teach themselves. Enough time has passed for a counter-rebellion to be in the planning stages, so that the former Rebels have to prepare, already, to defend what little they have managed to pull back together.  The combatants on either side, as in the prequels, are likely to be large armies involved in massive battles.

That's the prediction, anyway, all written before viewing the trailer, shown below:

And: The fourth word spoken in the trailer is "Awakening." There are specific references to the Light and the Dark sides. A non-clone in a stormtrooper uniform appears to be having an internal struggle. The battles shown are smaller, not apocalyptic.

Looks like a Second Turning story.

Thanksgiving

The Second Turning after the defeat of the Spanish Armada lasted from 1621 to 1649. Before going with King Charles I Dissolves Parliament (1629), the specific Grid item for that Second Turning was planned as The First Thanksgiving (1621). This seemed a good match for an Awakening period: The Pilgrims headed to the New World for fundamentally religious reasons, they saw their successes as the hand of Providence, and their Thanksgiving feast was a way to acknowledge God's involvement in their lives. 

English Dissenters: Just one of the topics that pops up when attempting to identify the historical context of Thanksgiving, and good luck trying to explain how any of them are related.

Although that’s all true, none of these indicators were strong enough to tie the harvest feast with the local natives to the concept of a Second Turning/Awakening. Or, perhaps it would be better to say, attempting to explain WHY these indicators DID strongly tie the events with the model kept requiring in-depth supporting documentation on disparate items like:

• What the clothes the Pilgrims wore said about them.
• The Vestments Controversy and the rise of Puritanism
• How Calvinism related to Puritanism and Separatism
• Why the Pilgrims were in the Netherlands, and why they thought it necessary to depart when they did (and why that probably does tie usefully to their Turning).
• How the Pilgrims managed to survive despite arriving too late in the season to farm effectively, while surrounded by native tribes who didn't necessarily want them there. 
• Why Tisquantum was there when they arrived, and the part he played in their successes.
• To what extent the colonists saw their situation in religious terms.

After a while, it became clear that there wasn’t a clear and concise way to assert that The First Thanksgiving was a memorable example of events in a Second Turning.  When 1629 was chosen instead, it came together much more easily.

History

The Los Angeles Times has an article about the "Reading Like a Historian" history curriculum from Stanford, which tries to make learning history easier and more interesting.

This blog is all about easily understood history. Anything on here that's more than a couple of lines started with a read-through of Wikipedia articles, followed by an online search for items difficult to believe - like Daddy Warbucks being (un-ironically) a conservative war profiter, or when trying to untangle what was behind the Spsnish match. And then followed by additional searches to support what Wikipedia says. Those searches can start from the very sources it references,  and will often continue to other similar ones just in case.

As the article and source place mention, being able to look up the original source can make historical events much more real.  Understanding what's being Luther's Theses is good, but now you can look them up online, examine every one, and from that have a personal opinion about what was the ultimate cause of the Reformation.  Or make an assertion about the event, even if it sounds far-fetched. Or even consider whether an inference about it has easily accessible support as opposed to simply being a wild guess.

Indeed, it's possible to do exactly that with the Times' article. Readers don't have to accept the Times' version of the story, because you can go directly to the Stanford curriculum, and decide for yourself if what the article says is correct. Everyone can understand for themselves what is happening, go in new directions from this initial source, and perhaps find information that makes the event more memorable.

That's the sort of thing that keeps this blog going.

Beginnings

The excellent David Kaiser has another Time.com article, looking at Obama and Immigration, with comparisons to Lincoln and F. D. Roosevelt.  It also looks quite directly at Strauss & Howe, going from those two previous presidents to note that they were both Crisis leaders, just as Obama is.  As Lincoln controversially suspended habeas corpus because half the nation had picked up and moved on; or Roosevelt  created an alphabet soup of federal agencies perhaps not completely supported by the letter of the Constitution; so has Obama attempted to remake immigration law without particular input  from  Congress.  In a Crisis, though, you do what you need to do - legalities are simply a different challenge to overcome.

The more surprising note there was an unequivocal assertion that the Fourth Turning started with 9/11. That's a minority view among folks who pay attention to this - 2001 is seen as too early, with Neil Howe preferring the 2008 financial crisis, and some still holding out for Katrina in 2005 as the beginning of the end for Bush and his legacy. Kaiser has come to the conclusion from a number of directions, particularly from the idea that September 11 was the start of George W. Bush's principles being taken seriously and even expanded by his successor Obama.

Regin

Another entry for the Data Wars: A sophisticated malware variant that Symantec suggests is supported not by some group of hackers, but a nation-state. The identity of the supporting state isn't given - probably because it isn't known. There are some clues, even allowing for false flags and red herrings:

• Russia has the most infections, followed closely by Saudi Arabia.
• Mexico is a distant third, but shares with those first two that it is an oil-exporting country.
• Then again, perhaps Russia is first because it's local - Symantec calls it an "espionage tool" and internal surveillance might be important.
• China isn't on the affected countries at all, and neither is the United States.
• References to Stuxnet, which is rumored to have been created by either the United States or Israel.

Although independent operators shouldn't be discounted: just because they are a group of hackers doesn't mean they don't have significant resources backing them.Then again, some significant resources may be backing them because these activities are helpful to their supporters.

Parlors

A visit to a frozen yogurt shop today brought up thoughts of Farrell's and similar "parlours" themed around the Gay 90s/Progressive Era/Third Great Awakening period. That they are clearly of a Second Turning is evident from the distinctive clothes that are worn there - brightly patterned shirts, straw hats, and what's up with the garters on the arms? So why does it seem natural for Main Street USA to have a themed ice cream parlor  - how did that period get associated with ice cream?

An attempt to investigate this question via Google kept pointing out just how closely the two were tied together. Search for Gay 90s ice cream and there's a shop called exactly that in Oregon; try 1900 ice cream and there's a place in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. There's the invention of the ice cream cone in 1904 at the St. Louis World's Fair - unless you think it was invented at in 1896. There still isn't much saying why this connection exists.

Based on cursory research, though, the connection seems more about business processes than generational associations. The ice cream maker - the old fashioned kind using rock salt and ice and a hand crank - was patented in 1843, at a point when ice (harvested from northern lakes) was becoming more commonly available. Ice making machines and refrigeration would follow over the next few decades. These made ice cream simple enough that opening new businesses around it was feasible - and with the primary ingredients being eggs, milk, flavorings and cold, the barriers to entry were low. This made a large number possible (and presumably profitable) at once, resulting in a strong association between the two.

(Video game arcades could be said to follow a similar path, which may explain why they are so strongly associated with the 1980s....but does that suggest that this sort of boom is more likely in a Second Turning?)

Football

UCLA beat USC in football tonight, 38-20.  The cross-town rivals first played on September 28, 1929 - about a week after the first warnings in the stock market, in particular a sudden drop on September 18, and about a month ahead of Black Thursday. Which puts it right at the end of the exciting days of the Third Turning. A fair number of significant rivalries - though by no means all football rivalries - can be traced to that time:

• Notre Dame - USC (1926)
• The Old Oaken Bucket (1925)
• Maryland-Virginia (1919)
• TCU-Texas Tech (1926) 
•  Or if you prefer: Texas A&M-Texas Tech (1927) or Texas-Texas Tech (1928)

(Knute Rockne was the Notre Dame football coach from 1918 to 1930, which happens to be mostly the Third Turning and also when it started up most of its rivalries.)

Some from other periods:

• Michigan-Notre Dame (1887)
• Harvard-Yale (1875)
• Army-Navy (1890)
• Berkeley-Stanford (1892)

That Third Turning was a distinctive time for college nostalgia, from raccoon coats to the various references that can be seen in the Marx Brothers' film Horse Feathers. No small part of that nostalgia appears to be simply the excitement of the time - the stock market was up, education was a way to get involved in the money-making that was happening, life could only get better. It's one of the nostalgic periods that makes the generational model because it's so clear that the time then was very much like the dot-com era of the most recent Third Turning - that these very similar periods keep coming back.

Immigration

One of the standard expectations of the Fourth Turning is that immigration will be curtailed. When there are dangers all around, the country needs to be more cautious about who can enter and who can leave.

Meanwhile, Obama is  granting what is effectively an amnesty to millions here illegally. Is it a counter-example, or an indication of where the model goes wrong?

Or is it really an example of that other great Fourth Turning indicator,  It's Time to Solve Problems: There is no consensus on what to do about immigration, but there is a consensus that something needs to be done. This is seen in both Obama's action and the GOP's reaction, which often sounds like "We have these problems, and now we have a President who is above the law, too!" The net public reaction may be more in favor of doing something as the Crisis continues on.

Coriolanus

What do the names in The Hunger Games mean? asked almost no one ever.  Still, an article on Slate makes interesting observations, such as the District residents having names from "plants or other earthy items"while Capitol characters have names with Roman influences - like President Coriolanus Snow, whose namesake was not only a Roman general but the subject of one Shakespeare's last tragedies.

It loses its way, though, when suggesting that "Shakespeare's Coriolanus supported the power of aristocrats over the common people, " giving him something in common with Snow.  The actual Roman recommended that pro-plebeian reforms should be rolled back (losing support from every part of society). While Shakespeare's version is no fan of the people either, the character's real problem is being a great warrior but a horrible politician.  He doesn't want to be a political leader, and has no talent for appealing to the common people. The aristocracy is no better, though - he may have even more contempt for the consuls and tribunes. Only his fellow warriors appear worthy of his respect.

(That Coriolanus is a general at the time of the Crisis period described later in the play indicates that he's probably a Nomad, giving him even more in common with  General George S. Patton (b. 1885, Lost).)

All of which is in opposition to what we know of President Snow. Too young to have been involved in the war, it's unlikely that he was ever a general at all. His actions at the start of Catching Fire indicate he is a skilled politician, charming Katniss' mother and even making Katniss believe, for a moment, that he really did care about the fate of Panem. While the choice of such a name must have some purpose, contrast seems the literary tool employed here.

Chocolate

It would be great to say that it's little things that really make people stand up and take notice. It's not obviously true, though, if previous Crisis period are any guide. There was nothing little about Pearl Harbor. Secession wasn't a minor issue. Maybe the original Boston Tea Party, where the tax on tea becomes symbolic of larger problems. A huge fleet heading for your homeland is the opposite of small.

Still, the possibility that chocolate might become unavailable seems like something that could get people to pay attention to what's going on around them, and possibly to demand changes.

Considerations

With a list of potential events the next thing to consider is: which one? Which says the most about the era? Which matches best with Turning? Which might yield something memorable?

If it wasn't clear from the list, any of these would be rough: None of them look like they'll  get through all of these hurdles. 

Copyright in the Statute of (Queen) Anne speaks to a consolidation of power in the Crown -and other interests - but not clear how to make it interesting. Unless you're an intellectual property wonk who likes looking back 300 years. 

Jacobites come up a lot, and there is probably something interesting about them and the Pretender. An assumption so far is that they are another group if outsiders bring persecuted. If that's not the case, though, the connection to the First is tenuous. 

It appears this was a golden age for piracy - probably right around when the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was set. Which could be made interesting. Piracy itself, though, isn't strongly connected to the First - it occurs without regard to turnings. Or seems to - if there's a connection to be made it could be worthwhile. 

Probably the best match on the face of it is the Commission for Building Fifty New Churches.  It has a recent echo in the Case Study houses that makes it seem even more like a First Turning infrastructure item. So maybe. 

The one I like the best - not saying much - is the Longitude Prize. We have the government encouraging exploration by supporting this important research. It might be interesting enough.

Or, maybe, I should check for other possibilities. One more time. 

Research

A few weeks ago I realized that the 1692 Salem witch hunts weren't quite in a First Turning after all. I skipped merrily past the period at the time, because it can take a while to identify a date that really represents an era.

Not always, of course: The most recent First had other choices including Kennedy Calling the Moon Shot, while in the previous second there were multiple other options for 1896. And Crisis periods are really easy, since there's always something happening somewhere.

The Augustan Age of Empire, though, is not one of those. It does feel like a First Turning, although the main indicator it has is unforgivable dullness. Not only is it difficult to find something appropriate to what is expected from a First (e.g. exploration, infrastructure, corruption, witch hunts) it takes some work to find anything interesting at all. The process being used may be part of the problem, although it's too convenient not to try:
1) Look up the first year of the Turning - i.e 1704  - on Wikipedia
2) Check what was posted for that year, which is often a good summary of what interesting things happened.
3) If available, pick an event that matches the expectations for the Turning
4) And then start turning it into an interesting and amusing post.

After going through every year through 1727, I found the following:

• The first copyright law in England (shows increased government influence and power)
• The Longitude Prize (government support of exploration, and for that matter helping infrastructure)
• The Commission for Building Fifty New Churches (Infrastructure)
• Jacobite rebellions - perhaps finding a post-war enemy? 
• Piracy - Blackbeard and others are active - an alternative enemy?

The best option right now appears to be The Longitude Prize. We'll see.

Coincidence

Granting that there's no evidence, really,  to prove a connection, Islamic State and Ukraine issues seem to keep coming up at the same time.

The MH17 wreckage is finally being cleaned up. It is surely no coincidence that this week Russia released "proof" that it was Ukraine that shot the passenger plane down. At the same time, Putin is making noises about what will happen next there.

Another beheading from Islamic State, meanwhile, has indicated to some that they are having operational difficulties. (Although that had also been noted before the beheading, including reports of a significant member of the group being injured in an airstrike.) In any case, it's not clear where ISIS can go next.  The death of Peter Kassig is tragic, but not surprising, and won't result in any changes to policies or tactics. Which raises the same question as ever: What is expected to be gained?

Beyond the activities themselves is that they are happening this same week. Coincidences happen, perhaps more so in geopolitical events where there are many countries and many interests among them. Indeed, if you are looking at generational cycles you expect related events during the same period - that's what the model says. Sometimes, though, events related in time are related in other ways as well.

And sometimes, yeah, there's no correlation between correlation and causation.

Avoidance

One site describing the Hollywood Ten's appearance before the HUAC described them as being disrespectful to the committee that had called them. The Life article from a few weeks after doesn't give that impression, really: Trumbo seems to be avoiding the question, trying to make the question be something else, but not being disrespectful. It might have been interpreted a bit differently at the time, of course.

To the extent it was true - and even if it's not - it's worth contrasting with Ronald Reagan's friendly testimony. He gives the impression that he is not in favor of outlawing the communist party, simply ensuring that any war of ideas can be fought fair and square. In a couple of instances, he responds to leading questions ("Were communists trying to dominate the union?") with statements that may answer as the committee might prefer ("Our side was trying to dominate the union, too") but which refute the goal of the question.

Previous posts have mentioned Rules for Surviving the Crisis, which come down to
* Stay out of war zones.
* Be on the winning side.

Now it may be worth considering possible corresponding Rules for Surviving the Witch Hunts of the First Turning:
* Don't pretend you can take on the government ... you can't.
* Avoid being something that the others might decide to dislike.
* Choose your battles.
* Given a choice between a smart spokesperson and one who can communicate effectively, choose the latter.

The Saeculum includes a cycle between maximum and minimum organizational power. Governments are most powerful at the peak of the Crisis, and remain so into the First Turning. While it may be tempting to dismiss that, it should not be forgotten.

1947

1947 - High - The Hollywood Ten

The subpoenas went out in September, just two years after the end of World War II. The House Un-American Activities Committee was interested in finding out if communists were a problem in Hollywood.

Forty-three of the subpoenas were sent to various representatives of the movie industry, from writers to actors to studio heads. Nineteen were received by people who were not supportive of the committee's aims, and intended not to respond to questions about their own politics. Eleven of those were called to testify. One was Bertolt Brecht, who had fled Nazi Germany for the United States. He would eventually answer their questions, insisting he was not a communist despite having written "revolutionary" plays, collaborated with other communists, and visited Soviet consulates.  (He would leave the United States to return to Europe the next day.) The remainder - unfriendly, unrepentant - were the Hollywood Ten.

While the Soviet Union has been an ally in the recent wars, concern for their long-term goals had become endemic even as Berlin fell. There were suspicions that they had been spying on U.S interests such as the atomic bomb projects - all but confirmed when they set off their own Fat Man-type bomb two years later.  Concerns about communism had existed at least since the October Revolution 30 years earlier. Whether moneyed classes fearing revolution, religious concerned about an atheist ideology, or regular people still in the habit of seeing an enemy plot behind every casual comment, there was plenty of reasons why communists might be feared. 

The ten unfriendly witnesses had their own fears of the situation. As educated members of society, they had been exposed to communism as a solution to many evils. The dangers of untrammeled capitalism had been clear in everything about the Great Depression. At that same time, supported by communist dogma and central planning, the Soviet Union was thriving. Several of those called were still communists, including one of the first to testify, Dalton Trumbo. He gave his name, address, place of birth (Montrose, Colorado), date of birth (December 5, 1905) and then attempted to defend his character rather than answer further questions. A written statement was brought forth, but refused by the committee as "not pertinent." Eventually, he was asked "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

Trumbo did not refuse to answer, but neither did he actually answer. He protested the question,  attempting to ask questions or make statements of his own, until the committee tired of the game and had him removed. These tactics were followed by the other nine called.

All of the Hollywood Ten would be cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions posed to them. They would be given jail sentences of up to twelve months, and afterwards were unable to work in Hollywood - blacklisted. They were the first, but not the last.

Cooper

Gary Cooper usually comes up in connection with High Noon, the western where a marshall is unable to get townspeople to help out when bad guys ride into town. Made at the height of the McCarthy era, it's a visualization of the adage that "for evil to triumph, good men need only do nothing." That anti-communist crusaders were able to ruin lives with the backing of the U.S. government was bad enough, but that nobody would do anything to stop it was the tragedy that this movie points out.

 Often brought up at this point in a High Noon discussion is that Cooper was a friendly witness for the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. That is, he supported government investigation into Communist infiltration of Hollywood productions. Here, less than five years later, he's taking an opposing stand. What happened?

While his testimony was friendly, it might have been less so if Cooper hadn't been able to convince the members of the committee that some of their sources were faulty. In response, for example, to a report that had him in front of a crowd of 90,000 people at a Philadelphia Communist convention, he replied:

COOPER: Well, a 90,000 audience is a little tough to disregard, but it is not true.

Oddly, the chairperson eventually says that he knows this is not true. And Cooper is clearly not especially political, except to the extent to which he's able to deflect the committee's questions. If one was going to ask what made the difference between 1947 and 1952, one could postulate that it was the rise of these anti-Communist crusaders, and seeing what sort of damage they could do - again, with government support - that started tilting his mind around.

Disney

This showed up while looking into the next Grid entry for First Turnings:

In October 1947, when the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) started investigating whether communists had infiltrated Hollywood, the first day saw testimony from two well-known friendly witnesses: Ronald Reagan and Walt Disney. Both were staunchly opposed to communism and considered it a threat in the post-war era.

Reagan was a studio actor who had recently been elected president of the Screen Actors Guild. Disney was the head of a movie studio, but one that was still a few years away from its first live-action film. Whatever else they might have had in common, they ended up in front of the HUAC on that same day.  It seems reasonable that may have been where they first met. (A search on the subject leads largely to conspiracy theorists and coverage of a Disney exhibit at the Ronald Reagan library.)

Both men, while quite willing to acknowledge a communist threat, seem uneasy about how the Committee might handle it.  When Reagan is asked about possible solutions, he suggests democracy:

Mr. STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, what is your feeling about what steps should be taken to rid the motion-picture industry of any Communist influences, if they are there? 

Mr. REAGAN: Well, sir . . . 99 percent of us are pretty well aware of what is going on, and I think within the bounds of our democratic rights, and never once stepping over the rights given us by democracy, we have done a pretty good job in our business of keeping those people’s activities curtailed. After all, we must recognize them at present as a political party. On that basis we have exposed their lies when we came across them, we have opposed their propaganda, and I can certainly testify that in the case of the Screen Actors Guild we have been eminently successful in preventing them from, with their usual tactics, trying to run a majority of an organization with a well organized minority. 

So that fundamentally I would say in opposing those people that the best thing to do is to make democracy work. 

His testimony ends in the same vein:
I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.

Disney is less conciliatory, perhaps influenced by a bitter strike a few years earlier that makes up a significant part of his testimony. While open to more aggressive options, he still has concerns about what might be lost:

Mr. SMITH: There are presently pending before this committee two bills relative to outlawing the Communist Party. What thoughts have you as to whether or not those bills should be passed? 

Mr. DISNEY: Well, I don’t know as I qualify to speak on that. I feel if the thing can be proven un-American that it ought to be outlawed. I think in some way it should be done without interfering with the rights of the people. I think that will be done. I have that faith. Without interfering, I mean, with the good, American rights that we all have now, and we want to preserve.

However they came to know each other, it was just over 7 years later -  July 17, 1955 -  that Disney would unveil his grand theme park, Disneyland, with Ronald Reagan helping out as host for the festivities.

Orthodoxy

Remember, you heard it here first:

Russia gets Religion

Is Vladimir Putin trying to rebuild a new Orthodox empire?

Which is to say, here's another indication that Russia is entering a Second Turning with the associated  spiritually-charged rebellion throughout society.  

Granted, this particular article is about Putin possibly making the Russian Orthodox church stronger, whereas the standard Awakening would be about youth pushing back against corruption and staid spiritual hierarchies. However, during an Awakening it's not unusual to see religious movements that support the status quo in addition to those opposing it.

Neutrality

Not quite a week after the mid-term elections, President Obama made a statement about net neutrality: He's for it.  The release includes four main "bright-line rules" on what this means, copied below:

• No blocking.  If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.  That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.

• No throttling.  Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.

• Increased transparency.  The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment.  So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.

• No paid prioritization.  Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee.  That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth.  So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

Is this the sort of big problem that we should be expecting The Government to solve during the Crisis? It seems within the authority of at least some part of the government to regulate how Internet Service Providers work, especially where the service requires infrastructure that supports a natural monopoly. There might also be a case in claiming that improving access is a public good which will offset the costs necessary for official government support - presumably because the improvement will consist of more than supporting viral video producers.

But are any of those reasons valid, and does this net neutrality proposal help with the problem? That's less clear. It can be difficult to see a difference between having Netflix pay extra because they are a competitor to cable companies, and Netflix having to make additional payments because their content consists of a significant fraction of all broadband usage. Still, for the President it's important to occasionally try for bigger projects, because in this gridlocked era the only way to make an impression is to swing for the bleacher seats.

1869

1869 - High - Transcontinental Railroad is completed at Promontory, Utah.

The two locomotives moved closer and closer, straight toward the other on the same section of track in the Utah desert. 

Moving east was the Central Pacific's 60, also known as Jupiter. When congressional funding had been approved for the Transcontinental Railroad, one requirement was that all iron had to be manufactured in the United States. As California did not have facilities capable of making a locomotive, Jupiter had been built in New York the previous year, shipped to San Francisco, transported to Sacramento (headquarters of the Central Pacific Railroad) and reassembled. It had traversed from there over 600 miles of track that had been laid across the Sierras, through Nevada and into Utah over the previous seven years. 

The westward-building Union Pacific railroad did not have these shipping difficulties, as it was able to use its tracks to ship from points east easily. The corresponding locomotive above, Union Pacific No. 119 had been in Ogden, Utah when it was unexpectedly chosen for this honor. The head of the Union Pacific, Thomas C. Durant, had his own locomotive which he had intended to take to the ceremony. When one of the bridges on the westward route washed out,  his engineer was unwilling to cross the river, although he did push the passenger cars across. Number 119 was brought down to take them the rest of the way.

As the two locomotives moved closer, they were about to finalize a link between the Atlantic and Pacific that would reduce travel times by an order of magnitude. It would be a symbolic connection across the continent, linking the original colonies, across the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains of the Louisiana Purchase, to the recent addition of California. Technically it was not a complete connection: The western end was in Sacramento, while the eastern end was at Council Bluffs, Iowa, where a ferry across the Missouri River was required to connect from eastern and central trains. And as the tracks continued to expand from east and west, there had already been opportunities to reduce travel times as the distance required for horse or stage sections continuously shortened, often by miles in a day.

These two trains met on May 10, 1869, at Promontory, Utah. A ceremonial golden spike had been driven to commemorate the completion of the first transcontinental railroad, and passenger service would commence soon after. While these two railroads and others would continue to expand across the country, this particular link between two sides of the country was a potent image of unity and exceptionalism, especially only four years after the end of the Civil War.

Stuff

Listening to Claire de Lune the other day reminded me of something.

I never quite liked the movie The Right Stuff.

It's not that there's that much wrong with it. It's not quite the movie of the book, though, and that means it's little more than a docudrama about a few years in the early United States space program. And as the book ends rather abruptly after some specific incidents, this means that the movie does, too.

I picked up the book a while back, and it's well worth while. Not only does it get across what was happened as the United States tried to catch up with the Soviets,  it includes historical context in an interesting and accessible way. A particular example is how "Our Rockets Always Blow Up." In the early 1950s, the United States' rockets had been having a problem getting off the ground. With those five words, Tom Wolfe is able to remind the reader that there are problems compared to the Soviet Union that were not being solved, that it was a big deal, and most of what the problem was: That  vehicles for lifting masses to orbit or even sub-orbital heights didn't work. (I haven't been able to confirm it, but the plot of the first James Bond film Dr. No - wherein an evil mastermind blows up U.S. rockets - sounds like it's related to the same issue.)

The movie, meanwhile, simply tells the story in the book.  This loses some of this historical context, although it is reintroduced where possible. In some cases it can get the meaning across by taking advantage of film as a visual medium. And the shot of the astronauts advancing is iconic. Still, it loses the near-gonzo feel of the source, which doesn't shy away from how pilots did their jobs ("flying and drinking and drinking and driving") and what perquisites they also indulged in. The straight presentation of the movie makes it much more sterile and less interesting.

Pipes

There have been a number of incidents where water delivery systems in Los Angeles have burst, causing significant damage.

The Los Angeles Times notes that many area water pipes are old ("average age ... is 58 years" which probably means that half are before 1956) and that most of the leaking ones are from before 1950.

The tone of the article suggests that it is unlikely that anything will be done about it. The current plan, it notes, would not be able to complete repairs for 300 years. There is an an earlier note about how the Los Angeles river was set in concrete during the previous Fourth Turning, which might mean that people are willing to make investments in infrastructure when the need is definite and has been put off for too long.

And it does sound like we might be at that point, here.

Throwbacks

The Russian economy might not be doing too well.


Apple malware  - evidently China-based - is becoming a problem.


And someone has noticed current history at least rhyming with 1937, if not repeating.

Heyday

There's evidence in the play and in the world around Shakespeare that Hamlet is an Artist/Adaptive.  For example, the play was written a few years after the Armada Crisis. Strauss and Howe call this First Turning "Merrie England," and it can be expected to be comparable to other 1Ts, like the one after World War II. Accepting that Hamlet is a teenager (as he acts) not a 30-year-old (as the less-than-reliable gravedigger indicates) he would have been born during that Crisis, over-protected and without the sense of elation that the Hero/Civic generation had.

In The Best Years of Our Lives, there's a section where Peggy, the daughter of one of the war veterans, complains that her parents don't remember what it's like to be in love, as she is. It is certainly reminiscent of Hamlet's complaint to his mother that "At your age, the heyday in the blood is tame." Unlike Gertrude, Peggy's mother and father respond with what it's like to be a bit older, and the experience of knowing how love changes over time - but that they still know what it means.

Elected

It's election day, so it seems appropriate - necessary, even - to make some noises about What Tonight Means.

The first thought that comes to mind is that a Senate changeover in a midterm election is practically news-free content, doubly so for the president's second midterm. 2014, 2006, 1998, 1986 - yep, control changed each time except Clinton's midterm in 1998, when the Republicans already controlled the Senate. (Before 1986, well, the Democrats had a long-time hold on the Senate going back to Eisenhower's 1954 midterm.) There are no additional bits of information available from control changing hands - one would likely do as well making predictions based on the roll of a die.

The Republicans have two years to do something with their position of power that might enable them to compete in the race for President.  Less than that, really: The presidential campaign starts tomorrow. The Iowa caucuses are 15 months away, and anyone who wants to be taken seriously will need to be a Name there shortly.

Strauss & Howe have noted that the Crisis starts to take shape around the time of what they refer to as the Regeneracy. It is a few years after the Catalyst that starts the Crisis, when people begin to move in a unified manner toward a goal.  Some have noted that the Regeneracy doesn't seem to be happening, yet, in this Fourth Turning. This election doesn't feel like it, either. There's a very mild sense of rejection, of almost wanting to change direction, of nearly being in favor of major changes.

Or perhaps it's the other way: Nobody cares about minor adjustments, what they want is radical reorganizations. There could be a groundswell of sentiment supporting attempts at something new, because the time has come to try.

1804

1804 - High - The Lewis and Clark Expedition ("Corps of Discovery") departs

On May 14, 1804, the men departed from their camp, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers,  for the Pacific Ocean. They carried provisions for when food was hard to find, , medals of silver for when natives were found, and weapons for whenever they might be necessary. They would be involved in one of the most extensive explorations sponsored by the still-young United States of America. 

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson had completed a controversial transaction: The purchase of millions of acres of land from France. In the aftermath of the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte had realized that defending the hard-won lands in the New World was not feasible.  The United States had initially pursued an acquisition of New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi River. This would help ensure the ability of the new country to use the great river for trade. When France unexpectedly offered all of it's holdings for relatively small additional price,  the negotiators realized the advantages of the deal. This land comprised a vast swath of the interior of the North American continent, and would greatly expand the boundaries of the United States. There were some questions to be resolved - including whether the land was still France's to offer - but it was eventually accepted. 

The acquisition concluded,  confirming what it included was of prime importance.  Jefferson tapped Meriwether Lewis with the task of exploring the lands, and William Clark was soon on the expedition as well. 

The expedition began using keel boats as they headed up-river. As they continued north and west, the river became slowly narrower, and slowly shallower.  By the end of the year, six months after the official start, the expedition was stopped for the winter in the territory of the Mandan nation. 

The expedition would continue traveling north and west for another year,  crossing the Continental Divide, eventually viewing the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean. It would not be until spring of 1806 that they would head back the way they came, arriving back at Camp DuBois in September of that year.

Uber

Uber is called a ride-sharing app, but it naturally involves a lot more than that. A consumer goes to the app and requests a ride from their location to a different location. The request goes to the company’s systems and is passed out to local drivers that are willing to complete the request - pick up the consumer, drop them off, collect payment. For a given fare, there would hopefully be a number in the area, and the closest one would be able to complete the trip in the shortest time, which is good for the consumer (fast response, they get where they’re going) and the driver (shorter trips means more more time spent driving.)

Practically, well, there are some issues. In order to be competitive with existing providers - that is, taxicabs - prices offered have been cut back. By some accounts, this has cut the effective wage of drivers to perhaps $12/hour - above minimum, but not by a lot. In response, drivers have tried protesting at Uber’s offices, attempting to negotiate with Uber as a group, and even refusing fares. Or to put it in labor terms, they’ve attempted collective bargaining and strikes.  The Teamsters are getting involved, helping pass Uber drivers’ demands on to Uber. (Although they can’t officially represent them as a union since Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees.)

During the 1920s, labor in the United States had difficulties. When the Great Depression hit, those difficulties became worse as existing union members were unable to pay dues. Then FDR was elected, changes to labor law were implemented that made unions more viable, and union membership increased through the end of World War II. It’s not clear whether this was a side effect of the Crisis, or coincidental. The interest of these Uber drivers in activities directly from the unionized labor playbook suggests that something similar is happening. Perhaps a Hero generation entering the workforce supports unity of effort; perhaps the recognition of a Crisis period makes people more willing to stand together.  Better evidence of a connection would be if more labor successes happen over the next few years.

Disneyland

Will Disneyland survive the Crisis?

There is the possibility that asymmetrical warfare is a bigger deal for a tourist attraction billed as "The Happiest Place on Earth," while further attempting to be known as - and to be - family-friendly. If safety became a concern there, attendance would plummet, which could further lead to questions about its viability, which might feed back and reduce attendance more. Disneyland was closed early in the day on September 11, 2001, in part because the possibility of an attack there was easily predictable. Nonetheless, that's not really the focus of this question.

Will a park built by the previous Hero generation still be of interest to the Millennials? Disneyland was built by Walt Disney in the 1950s, with nostalgia for the recent Awakening and excitement for the advances anticipated in the post-war period. There are merry-go-rounds, horseless carriages, rockets to the moon, animatronic pirates, imitation jungles. These won't match the nostalgia today's Hero generation cares about, and won't look forward in the same way that they may want to look forward after the Crisis ends. There's the possibility that interest in the park - and the other similar theme parks - will decline, perhaps quickly, at that time.

The people at Disney, of course, are smart enough to recognize the potential threats to their livelihood. There are reasons the parks are enjoyable aside from nostalgia and anticipation. There are reasons for attractions to become uninteresting aside from disinterest based on generational biases. A number of attractions are set up to give different experiences from ride to ride. Still, there are times it seems that today's young adults go there because their parents take them or took them.  At some point they'll look at a pirate or an elephant or a doll that looks like a child - built using technology that was incredibly advanced a half-century earlier - and wonder about their reason for being there. If we acknowledge that a lot of these people will have a similar outlook, we can imagine many of them abruptly deciding that they have better ways to spend their entertainment dollars.