A lot of changes and new items since I last tried this:
Crisis: Refugee crisis in Europe continues. Pope Francis calls the U.S.-Mexican border a "humanitarian crisis." The water problem in Flint, Michigan shows up, too.
Apocalypse: More X-Men: Apocalypse, naturally, but particularly because Deadpool did so well last weekend that it's raising comparisons and one-up attempts. There's a show called "You, Me, and the Apocalypse" on NBC - but probably for not much longer. And Amazon included a zombie apocalypse opt-out clause in a terms of service agreement.
Collapse: After an uninteresting first page, there are stories about the collapse of Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Ukraine's coalition government.
Cloverfield: Everything is about 10 Cloverfield Lane, a sequel (of sorts) to the monster-takes-Manhattan original.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
The Two Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Every 80 to 100 years, people look around and agree that whatever it is society is up to, it is no longer working.
That doesn't mean that everyone agrees on the solution, just that it's time to find one.
It may require a statement of purpose, and the powers that be may have their own ideas about how to respond to that.
It may result in a change that seems odd and unexpected in a did-they-really-do-that way.
It can easily end up as a total war, one that changes who are the players of the game, or even how the game itself is played
Apocalypse, sayeth Wikipedia, is an unveiling, a revelation, a gain of new knowledge. It has taken on its meaning of The End Times because of its association with The Revelation of St. John the Divine, which prophesies the new Kingdom of Heaven, and the tribulations which lead up to it.
I don't think Trump is War. I don't think Sanders is Famine. I don't think either is Death or Pestilence. They are loose about the land, though, and they are speaking to a belief that This Isn't Working. Sanders blames the banks and the 1%, and the government that has allowed them to do what they wish. Trump blames immigrants and ISIS, and the government that has allowed them to do what they wish. There is a connection here, and it's one that can be seen in the financial crisis, in the years leading to the financial crisis, in the response to Katrina, even in 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq: The government isn't doing what it should, what it is supposed to. We aren't even sure what it is supposed to do, anymore.
The American people supporting Trump and Sanders - and for that matter Cruz and Clinton - have all had a few months of schooling on Your Government and How It Works. Yet they have completely different ideas of what government should do. Whatever issues their proposed policies might have, though, both Trump and Sanders are espousing the idea that the government should do what the people want it to do. They are seen as proposing new solutions, not the status quo.
And that's why Bernie and Donald are both harbingers of a time, coming soon, when we are going to have to seriously agree to seriously disagree. People are ready to start choosing between bad alternatives - and between good ones as well. Want small government, expect an end to Too Big to Fail. Want free child care, expect liver wurst on rye. You can have a car with two doors, or with four doors, but not both at once.
Prepare to choose.
The American people supporting Trump and Sanders - and for that matter Cruz and Clinton - have all had a few months of schooling on Your Government and How It Works. Yet they have completely different ideas of what government should do. Whatever issues their proposed policies might have, though, both Trump and Sanders are espousing the idea that the government should do what the people want it to do. They are seen as proposing new solutions, not the status quo.
And that's why Bernie and Donald are both harbingers of a time, coming soon, when we are going to have to seriously agree to seriously disagree. People are ready to start choosing between bad alternatives - and between good ones as well. Want small government, expect an end to Too Big to Fail. Want free child care, expect liver wurst on rye. You can have a car with two doors, or with four doors, but not both at once.
Prepare to choose.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Now Leaving Flyover Country
We are leaving Flyover Country behind. Did you notice?
A map metaphor works well with history in a number of situations. There are different views you can use, depending on whether you care about what people do or what has changed or what has stayed the same. Whatever there is has to be at a useful scale. 1:1 maps aren't of much use in any way. A globe isn't helpful for getting to the grocery store, but is great to see how the continents are shaped. For a long enough trip, you may need a wide country-to-country view along with specific directions to get to the final address. With history, too, if we're trying to make sense of what's around us, the effective result is similar: There are these close and crowded districts that anyone can discuss easily, separated by long, wide, boring stretches that nobody ever asks about. Flyover country.
We've just left another of those sections, if the generational view is right at all, The period of time we left a few years ago - perhaps as much as ten years, now - is a time that will be treated in history books as less important, even least important, compared to the big wars that are easily managed. From Reagan's re-election until 2008, nobody is really going to comprehend what happened. They might understand why he was elected in the first place, but why was it so divisive? What did Clinton do that was different? There will be conjecture about 9/11 and the market meltdown and the Great Recession, and dissection of why different policies were exactly right and completely wrong and extended and helped quickly resolve the problems....for anyone who really wants to dig into it, and most folks probably won't, any more than most people can discuss what happened between 1928 and 1939.
(It's not certain that 2016 will be like 1939, of course, but (if you'll forgive further map metaphors) it feels like that's the direction we're heading, in approaching years.)
And it's too bad people won't think of it. If you lived through it you know that there was a lot to like about the time since the mid-1980s. It was exciting and vibrant and things were changing. There was the Web and full-immersion video games and computer generated graphics. Cell phones became smartphones, information went everywhere, digital media became streaming, solar cells went from spacecraft to rooftops. There is probably a way to make sense of some parts of it, along the way. There's no story, though, that has a beginning and ending, that ties video games and the web into the financial crisis and what's happened since.
That's probably because, for this little while, people individually did what they thought was important and worthwhile. Whether they are fought for just causes or not, wars require a lot of people moving in the same direction and agreeing on what is to be done. Individual efforts get lost in the larger pushes - one person invented the World Wide Web, but many people were involved in getting the U.S. into WWII. Those individual threads don't tie together as easily as larger government-supported efforts.
Now, though, people are getting tired of the government not doing much. While there's disagreement about what should be done, support for outsiders like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump point to a desire that the government should start being effective in a way it hasn't been. I'm not sure exactly what it will be, but I do think that people tired of confused foreign policy and unhelpful domestic policy will start demanding that the government do its job properly. There are good things and bad things that government can do, if this widespread support is real. Everybody will probably find something they don't like about how it's done.
Keep it in mind. We're leaving flyover country. It's going to get interesting again soon.
A map metaphor works well with history in a number of situations. There are different views you can use, depending on whether you care about what people do or what has changed or what has stayed the same. Whatever there is has to be at a useful scale. 1:1 maps aren't of much use in any way. A globe isn't helpful for getting to the grocery store, but is great to see how the continents are shaped. For a long enough trip, you may need a wide country-to-country view along with specific directions to get to the final address. With history, too, if we're trying to make sense of what's around us, the effective result is similar: There are these close and crowded districts that anyone can discuss easily, separated by long, wide, boring stretches that nobody ever asks about. Flyover country.
Big sections of history are flyover country. Sumer and Ur are the first civilizations, but everyone remembers the Egyptians. Rameses and Tutankhamen are 4000 years ago, but there's nothing interesting after that until Greece 1500 or so years later - flyover country. It's good to know about the Romans - until the death of Christ, anyway, at which point who cares about them? Turns out they are still the only interesting thing for roughly another 1500 years, when the Renaissance happens. There, everyone pays attention again...but it's kinda flyover country too, once you've seen a few of the paintings. At least until Columbus shows up, when people start paying attention again.
(It's not certain that 2016 will be like 1939, of course, but (if you'll forgive further map metaphors) it feels like that's the direction we're heading, in approaching years.)
And it's too bad people won't think of it. If you lived through it you know that there was a lot to like about the time since the mid-1980s. It was exciting and vibrant and things were changing. There was the Web and full-immersion video games and computer generated graphics. Cell phones became smartphones, information went everywhere, digital media became streaming, solar cells went from spacecraft to rooftops. There is probably a way to make sense of some parts of it, along the way. There's no story, though, that has a beginning and ending, that ties video games and the web into the financial crisis and what's happened since.
That's probably because, for this little while, people individually did what they thought was important and worthwhile. Whether they are fought for just causes or not, wars require a lot of people moving in the same direction and agreeing on what is to be done. Individual efforts get lost in the larger pushes - one person invented the World Wide Web, but many people were involved in getting the U.S. into WWII. Those individual threads don't tie together as easily as larger government-supported efforts.
Now, though, people are getting tired of the government not doing much. While there's disagreement about what should be done, support for outsiders like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump point to a desire that the government should start being effective in a way it hasn't been. I'm not sure exactly what it will be, but I do think that people tired of confused foreign policy and unhelpful domestic policy will start demanding that the government do its job properly. There are good things and bad things that government can do, if this widespread support is real. Everybody will probably find something they don't like about how it's done.
Keep it in mind. We're leaving flyover country. It's going to get interesting again soon.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Christmas Songs
At Hollywood and Highland today, heard the song It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year. Very cheerful and uplifting.
Which doesn't fit the mood of the day at all. Where are our depressing Christmas songs? We're solidly in our Crisis, so where is our White Christmas?
Was that really a Crisis tune, though, or did it just become famous then? When was it actually composed? The answer is (according to Wikipedia), nobody really knows. It says, though, that the first performance was Christmas Day, 1941 - also known as a few weeks after Pearl Harbor. They'd really earned their hopeful-but-not-happy Christmas song.
What other not-quite-happy ones are there? There's The Christmas Song, although that's more solemn than depressing. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, certainly counts, though - it's all about how your life can only get better from here. Both of those were from 1944 - when the War was ongoing, that is, even if there was some hope that it would be done in Europe soon.
Maybe that happy one was from the same time, though? Nope, 1963. Probably released a month after JFK, but still sounds like the cheery post-war period.
Which doesn't fit the mood of the day at all. Where are our depressing Christmas songs? We're solidly in our Crisis, so where is our White Christmas?
Was that really a Crisis tune, though, or did it just become famous then? When was it actually composed? The answer is (according to Wikipedia), nobody really knows. It says, though, that the first performance was Christmas Day, 1941 - also known as a few weeks after Pearl Harbor. They'd really earned their hopeful-but-not-happy Christmas song.
What other not-quite-happy ones are there? There's The Christmas Song, although that's more solemn than depressing. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, certainly counts, though - it's all about how your life can only get better from here. Both of those were from 1944 - when the War was ongoing, that is, even if there was some hope that it would be done in Europe soon.
Maybe that happy one was from the same time, though? Nope, 1963. Probably released a month after JFK, but still sounds like the cheery post-war period.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Crisis Resurgent
This is about the Crisis. Nothing more nor less.
I was looking forward to an observation about the Regeneracy, which is a proposed mechanism in the generational model for how people start to take control of the Crisis period. The thought was that decisions in renewable energy - electric cars and solar on rooftops - indicated that we were no longer interested in solutions to terrorism that required violence.
And then Paris happened.
I've waited a day to write, and a day to post, and then another day to consider some more. I'm going to do my best not to make policy recommendations, or to blame, or to suggest that If Only X Then Not Paris. Not that it has really helped.
There are a limited number of reactions, to the current situation in Europe - and, if you like, the world.
A.We can accept that asymmetric warfare is a fact of life, that it's too clear that a single person can have an extreme impact, and therefore that every few years a dozen or a hundred or so will die for political causes. We will expect our government forces at all levels to do what they can to reduce such, but accept that they won't eliminate them. And if that means increased surveillance and drone strikes and low-level combat, so it goes.
B. We can let other countries handle their own problems, and accept that they may have honor killings, destroy important cultural artifacts, and generally be unpleasant to the locals, potentially resulting in massive emigrations. We keep our nose out of such problems, and when someone points out that life sucks in Xlanistan, we can point to the results of these last 15 years for why we aren't going to do anything about it.
C. We can hold state or non-state actors responsible for actions they take responsibility for. If destroying them means destroying the other 90% of the country they currently occupy, then that's an unfortunate but unavoidable fact. Ignoring the Nazis for several years didn't bring World War II to a close any faster. We would have to mobilize in a real way to bring the problem to a resolution. While air strikes might be a part, boots on the ground, and lots of them, would have to be the goal, from the start and to the end.
Option A is the status quo, where we are now. It's a pragmatic option, although it does imply ubiquitous government involvement in your life. You may need to send some of your offspring into harm's way, and/or they will be at risk of being in the dozen or hundred who die on occasion.
Option B should appeal if you like your own freedom and don't expect you can help with anyone else. And it's really what we've done with problems in sub-Saharan Africa: Endless bloodshed and child armies? Make blood diamonds a thing and then ... and people will forget about the rest. The idea that we can starve the beast by using renewable energy (i.e. not oil) supports this one. Although if we reduce the money flowing into the Middle East significantly, short-term disruptions might make the problems worse for a while. And it doesn't help with the emigration problem.
Option C, though, feels like the way things are headed. It may not occur without a really massive attack, and some will certainly say, like Pearl Harbor, such an attack could be a false flag in some way. Daesh is managing to push too many buttons, finding ways to make liberals and conservatives unhappy, that it will have to happen.
(Which seems so obvious, that couldn't there be a reason they are doing it? Do they believe that chaos is in their best interest? Attacks on the Muslim world getting Pakistan's nukes on the market, perhaps?)
I was looking forward to an observation about the Regeneracy, which is a proposed mechanism in the generational model for how people start to take control of the Crisis period. The thought was that decisions in renewable energy - electric cars and solar on rooftops - indicated that we were no longer interested in solutions to terrorism that required violence.
And then Paris happened.
I've waited a day to write, and a day to post, and then another day to consider some more. I'm going to do my best not to make policy recommendations, or to blame, or to suggest that If Only X Then Not Paris. Not that it has really helped.
There are a limited number of reactions, to the current situation in Europe - and, if you like, the world.
A.We can accept that asymmetric warfare is a fact of life, that it's too clear that a single person can have an extreme impact, and therefore that every few years a dozen or a hundred or so will die for political causes. We will expect our government forces at all levels to do what they can to reduce such, but accept that they won't eliminate them. And if that means increased surveillance and drone strikes and low-level combat, so it goes.
B. We can let other countries handle their own problems, and accept that they may have honor killings, destroy important cultural artifacts, and generally be unpleasant to the locals, potentially resulting in massive emigrations. We keep our nose out of such problems, and when someone points out that life sucks in Xlanistan, we can point to the results of these last 15 years for why we aren't going to do anything about it.
C. We can hold state or non-state actors responsible for actions they take responsibility for. If destroying them means destroying the other 90% of the country they currently occupy, then that's an unfortunate but unavoidable fact. Ignoring the Nazis for several years didn't bring World War II to a close any faster. We would have to mobilize in a real way to bring the problem to a resolution. While air strikes might be a part, boots on the ground, and lots of them, would have to be the goal, from the start and to the end.
Option A is the status quo, where we are now. It's a pragmatic option, although it does imply ubiquitous government involvement in your life. You may need to send some of your offspring into harm's way, and/or they will be at risk of being in the dozen or hundred who die on occasion.
Option B should appeal if you like your own freedom and don't expect you can help with anyone else. And it's really what we've done with problems in sub-Saharan Africa: Endless bloodshed and child armies? Make blood diamonds a thing and then ... and people will forget about the rest. The idea that we can starve the beast by using renewable energy (i.e. not oil) supports this one. Although if we reduce the money flowing into the Middle East significantly, short-term disruptions might make the problems worse for a while. And it doesn't help with the emigration problem.
Option C, though, feels like the way things are headed. It may not occur without a really massive attack, and some will certainly say, like Pearl Harbor, such an attack could be a false flag in some way. Daesh is managing to push too many buttons, finding ways to make liberals and conservatives unhappy, that it will have to happen.
(Which seems so obvious, that couldn't there be a reason they are doing it? Do they believe that chaos is in their best interest? Attacks on the Muslim world getting Pakistan's nukes on the market, perhaps?)
Concerning which, notes of the sort "Where's the outrage on Lebanon/Baghdad/Kenya/Nasty Incident in Country Z" implicitly support Option C. If France is attacked because they are in Syria, then France can decide on a response. If everyone is being attacked everywhere, then it would seem a more unified resolution is called for. The clearer it becomes that this is a worldwide problem, the more it will require a forceful unified solution.
Not that I like the idea. It would mean, as David Kaiser noted, that the Crisis isn't going in a direction any of us might prefer. And it seems like what will happen next.
Not that I like the idea. It would mean, as David Kaiser noted, that the Crisis isn't going in a direction any of us might prefer. And it seems like what will happen next.
In 1991, Generations predicted that we would be in a Crisis period by now, and that the peak would start in 2020. That was a distant future date at the time, but is only half a decade away now. And a lot can happen in five years - I was thinking today how Pearl Harbor was only five years after Jesse Owens appeared in the Olympics in Berlin. Don't see how any of the options get better any time soon.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Today in Crisis
Haven't done this in a while:
Crisis: Something new since last time: The migrant crisis in Europe, as Syrians attempt to leave their country and go anywhere that isn't torn apart by, well, by the kind of mess that Syria is right now.
Collapse:Not much, actually - some structural failures of various sorts, including one that killed a man who had noted safety issues at his worksite. Also, the president of France note the danger of a "collapse" of the Schengen border area because of the migrant crisis.
Apocalypse: Mostly about the upcoming X-Men movie, still. Although one story about how a meteor over Thailand brought fears of an "asteroid apocalypse."
Cloverfield: Nothing, really - a recent story from someone who liked the movie.
Maybe things are a little better. For a little while.
Crisis: Something new since last time: The migrant crisis in Europe, as Syrians attempt to leave their country and go anywhere that isn't torn apart by, well, by the kind of mess that Syria is right now.
Collapse:Not much, actually - some structural failures of various sorts, including one that killed a man who had noted safety issues at his worksite. Also, the president of France note the danger of a "collapse" of the Schengen border area because of the migrant crisis.
Apocalypse: Mostly about the upcoming X-Men movie, still. Although one story about how a meteor over Thailand brought fears of an "asteroid apocalypse."
Cloverfield: Nothing, really - a recent story from someone who liked the movie.
Maybe things are a little better. For a little while.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
The Next Day
September 3, 1945, was a Monday - Labor Day, in fact. Japan's surrender had been signed the previous morning, and it was the first day of the post-World War II era.
Eleanor Roosevelt's daily article was about Labor Day. Not too surprising: she certainly had written many things ahead of time and it was probably not worthwhile to swap them out. It doesn't mention the surrender of Japan or atomic bombs or anything about the war - perhaps, if you like, the tone suggests that she knew it would be over shortly
Trinity had been on Monday as well, exactly 7 weeks earlier - 49 days from that to the day after the end of the war. A lot had happened even in that short period of less than two months. It can be helpful to consider history in these smaller pieces, to realize how short or long some periods of time really are. They can make momentous events that much more comprehensible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)