Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not a big time Boomer basher. My generation has plenty of idiots in it as well. It just frustrates me to no end when I reflect. The last few weeks before this attack, we have been listening to Boomers argue over a social security "lock box". How do you think that this sounds to people my age who will never have or really care about (I'll take care of myself) social security? Meanwhile, we now see that the only "lock box" that really matters, our freedom, had been smashed right before our eyes. Please, I'm begging you Boomers to wake up and smell the rubble. Start protecting our (real) freedoms and stop looking at the world through rose colored John Lennon style glasses. I won't go so far as to blame you for this, but many in your generation my accept some of the blame. I have been expecting this and none of my friends were surpized. I'm just glad it wasn't worse. I think that if more people from my generation were in power, we would not be fighting (read pandering to comstituency groups) over social programs as much as getting real in the world that we live in. Maybe, I pray, things will change.
I think that you give my generation too much credit on the "heroic" side. I volunteered for Desert Storm, but I really didn't do anything heroic over there. I would go again if I didn't have two little kids and health problems now. A lot of my friends are wanting to go to war, but I think that would be true of any generation that has seen what we have seen over the last few days. I think that many in my generation are just a little too comfortable to volunteer to get themselves killed somewhere. My greandfather (WW II) was the kind of guy that I consider a real hero. If you would have known him, you could really see what I mean. Here is what my dad (a boomer) told me about my grandfather, "When I was a kid, I would look at him and men like him and think 'That's what I'll be like as a man. I can't wait to go up and be like him' but it never happened. I never became a man like those men. I understand now that they were unique".
My father is a good guy, but I know that he had to work at it a lot harder than my grandfather did. To him heroism came naturally, it dosen't come naturally to me or the men in my generation. I hope that we (with a few Millies) can find the reslove that we need.
Boomers are a generation that has so much talent that it leaves me in awe. But, like the quintesstial Boomer president Bill Clinton, it is talent laid waste by enormous self endulgence and superficiality. Please, as a fellow American, harness that talent and start to focus it with a clear head. Read a little FA Hayek (Road to Serfdom) or even Thomas Sowell (Conflict of Visions) and
try to understand. Enough inncoent lives have been laid at the alter of a generation that refuses to see the world as it is. It repeat, it's time to get real.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom1971 on 2001-09-16 06:36 ]</font>

On 2001-09-16 00:42, richt wrote:
make that "... a _devout_ agnostic..."

Does this mean you truely believe that you don't know? Do advise on what a course of devotion is for the Unconvinced.

I've been thinking about the nature of our official response so far in connection with the request for Boomers to do something effective. Understand that it is still the early wave of the Boom in charge for the most part. They are still very close to the Silent, as is evidenced by Bush's cabinet. That may or may not be a good thing. Those that Gen X (or 13ers, I prefer the term myself, but since no one in the world outside our website knows what one means, I've taken to using X) wants to see and hear from are those born in the second half of the Boomer generation, and it will likely be several years before they are in the top positions...unless of course, this late wave Silent, early wave Boomer coalition fails miserably.

Speaking of late wave Boomers, and maybe this is more to 13ers' liking, NJ's Congressman Andrews ('58) who is on the armed forces committee, was being interviewed yesterday on Fox. John Gibson (who I'd be is an early wave Boomer) asked him, a tiny bit incredulously (a week ago he'd have been downright indignant), if America was ready to fight a "dirty" war, and Andrews answered with a very steely look, "We'd better be."

Also, one of the younger Boomer Fox reporters (I don't know his name) got so outraged at a former ambassador to Iraq (definitely a Silent, if not a GI) for saying that we should stop to consider the feelings of the terrorists' sympathizers that the reporter cut him off.

Now, whether it's a good idea to let the bottom half of the Boom cut loose yet or not, I don't know. I'm standing practically at the midpoint between the two halves with my brain in the first half and my gut in the second half. I too am looking for leadership I can relate to and believe in.

Regarding whether leading edge millenials are truly only 19-20ish...

There are certainly many heroic genX/13ers in attitude; the question is how the rest of the culture *perceives* them.

I have noted that all the acadmic performance standards, graduation standards, etc. have been instantiated for young adults now 20.

I know too many 40-50 year olds who have a blurry perception of the difference between an 25 year old and a 35 year old to think that there's a different perception of these groups - but that's just anecdotal.

Lis, your comment about the Congressman born in 1958 who apparently stated that we better be ready to fight a "dirty war" seems perfectly consistent with a Nomad worldview to me: Remember that the Nomad (Liberty) Francis Marion was accused by the British (during the American Revolution) as not wanting "to fight like a Christian or a gentleman." And S&H predict in their "13ers Entering Midlife" section (T4T) that 13ers "won't care if they have to win ugly."

And haven't I seen posts by you on the Generation Jones message board? Your "handle" sounds familiar (I used to post there a lot myself, but not as much lately; it seems that the whole board has gone cold).

I thought you might be interested in what the mood is here in the U.K. Generally very sombre and largely supportive.

Our P.M. is a Boomer too and his full support for whatever the U.S. may do has had widespread public backing (if published opinion polls are anything to go by). There have been some knee jerk anti-american reactions but from generally predictable quarters.

As a Boomer myself my initial reaction was I confess of the fire from the sky variety but...

Your great strength as a nation is the building of a mighty army in a righteous cause which is unleashed with awesome destructive power on the enemy's heartland.

Will this be the way to victory here? Who is the enemy? It may be that this atrocity is the presager of the War between Civilisations: The War between the West & Islam. But Terrorism is easy to condemn, terrorists are hide to identify. It seems to me at the moment we are faced with a dark, deadly morally ambiguous conflict fought in the shadows (for which we in the U.K. are perhaps better skilled). Is the time ripe for the genius of your nation for sudden and massive force in the cause of right?

Whatever you decide our thoughts and prayers are with you

Anthony, you haven't seen Gen Jones posts by me because I don't really buy into the Gen within a Gen idea. I do believe that there are vast changes over the course of a generation (obviously), but I still believe that the boundaries set by S&H are as good as it gets.

No generational boundary is a brick wall; it's more of a bend in a river. There will always be 1942 Silents who are more Boomer than Silent and 1943 Boomers who are more Silent than Boomer. Depending upon where one was raised and by whom, there can be people five years into one generation who feel more a part of another. The boundaries are generalizations...the point at which the majority are decidedly different from those before them.

In some ways I feel very close to the early wave Boomers, but in others I feel very distant from them. Part of the reason for that, I'm sure, is that I have virtually no contact with Boomers (other than in this website) these days. Practically everyone I know and associate with is a 13er/Xer, including my husband. If you are a '58 Boomer and have primarily associated with people younger than you, you are naturally going to have a greater understanding and sympathy for their worldview than for that of someone born in '43. And it's probably that fact that makes GCs come from the latter half of each Prophet generation. They are still Prophets in manner, in attitude, in vision, but they have a finger on the pulse of the Nomads who are their friends and who they will need to carry out tough measures and the Heroes who are their kids and who they will need to be the workhorses of the Crisis.

Pindiespace:


However, I feel that the lure to heroic violence will be strong for some within these movements. It will only hinder changes that need to be made for a successful end to the crisis.


I think you're wrong. I think this will have a dampening effect, just as the OKC bombing did on the militia movement and the radical right. The protest movement will take extra pains to police the tiny fraction of nuts within it that engage in sporadic violence. I also think, unfortunately, that the protests themselves will be somewhat dampened for a while, which may create an utterly false impression.


Thing is, the legitimate protesters and bin Laden shared (one) common target (though bin Laden has others, too, that are NOT shared). But I don't think that's true of the violent fringe. Those folks have always struck me as out not to make a point, but just to make havoc. Their behavior was 3T to the max. Bin Laden's is 4T.


Lis:


Also, one of the younger Boomer Fox reporters (I don't know his name) got so outraged at a former ambassador to Iraq (definitely a Silent, if not a GI) for saying that we should stop to consider the feelings of the terrorists' sympathizers that the reporter cut him off.


That's too bad, although if the ambassador actually used that phrase, "consider the feelings of the terrorists' sympathizers," then I can understand. My view: screw their feelings, but do consider their causes and whether they have any right on their side. In my opinion, they do, though definitely not enough to justify what they did. And we need to fix our own behavior while fixing their wagons.


Anthony:


Lis, your comment about the Congressman born in 1958 who apparently stated that we better be ready to fight a "dirty war" seems perfectly consistent with a Nomad worldview to me


It is also, however, consistent with the views of Thaddeus Stevens that "instruments of war are not chosen on account of their harmlessness," or with General Sherman's simple comment that "War is hell" and his conduct of the war. Nomads have NOTHING on Prophets when it comes to ruthlessness. In fact, I predict that when Xers do come to power, we'll be glad for leadership that's a bit LESS ruthless and a bit gentler.

Hi, Nick. Long time. Thanks for your words. And welcome to all the old timers who've come back and to all the new voices here.

Anthony, sorry, I forgot to answer the other question you asked. I switched from just using my name (Lis Libengood) to using the Lis '54 because several had suggested we use our birthyear. I started in the old website back the first year it was up. I just haven't been posting recently because of other pressing duties.

I just heard Brit Hume say on Fox News, "We have just confirmed [by this weeks events] that there is evil in the world."

Duh.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-09-16 09:02 ]</font>

Marc, since you are petty enough to continue using that signature, I have decided to adopt one of my own. And mine at least makes a point pertinent to the Crisis.


Fundamentalism is now the enemy, whatever form it takes and whatever God it invokes.

On 2001-09-16 06:47, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2001-09-16 00:42, richt wrote:
make that "... a _devout_ agnostic..."

Does this mean you truely believe that you don't know? Do advise on what a course of devotion is for the Unconvinced.

It was intended as a tongue-in-cheek phrase. I should have used a symbol to express that, perhaps. Actually, though this is not the time and place to discuss it, I do not know whether or not God exists, and if so whether or not God has anything to do with the portrayals made by various religions on Earth, and am "devout" in that my recognition of that fact has solidified over time, even as I explore religious beliefs, and as I have turned away from the outright atheism to which I subscribed as a younger man. I am a "devout agnostic" in that I am unable to accept, and could argue against (if I didn't wisely choose to refrain from doing so), both atheists and believers in God.

So yes, in a way it is that I truly believe that I don't know (to "know" that I don't know is too bold a statement, as the human mind can change what it "knows" over time); it's also that I truly know that I don't believe in either absolute.

Anyway, I wrote that phrase to by witty, I guess, and got called on it. It does contain meaning for me, and that's the best I can do to explain it. I'll leave it at that, so as not to clutter up this topic.

I suppose one good thing about this is that tolerance of extremists on any side will stop, as well it should.

So do you consider Fawell and Robertson "extremist," Ms. Lis?

If so are they, and those who like them, to considered in the same league as Usama bin Laden?

And if so, should all these American citizens be arrested and jailed if they cease not to say things others disaprove of?

And if they resist such arrest, should they be hunted down and shot?

Do advise.

Has anyone been thinking about WWI? It too began with a prophet generation president determined to make the world safe for democracy. It became the war to end all wars, etc. Idealistic hype was tuned to the max. However, this came after several years of pretending isolationist policy could prevail (Lusitania through multiple sinkings of US naval and shipping vessels with considerable loss of life. The rapid surge to war fever in early 1917 bears resemblance. The determination and fortitude (fight until it is finished [we didn't and got Hitler instead], etc) are identical. Yet somehow, we managed to get back on 3T track two years later, in spite of it. Perhaps in a few years...?

If they are found to be aiding, harboring, and funding terrorist groups, certainly.

Also, please remember that tolerating a behavior simply means allowing it to continue without comment, without challenge, and without consequences. Those consequences don't have to be physical. They can be political and financial, too.

Ms. Lis qualifies, "If they are found to be aiding, harboring, and funding terrorist groups, certainly."

What in the hell would lead you to think this, Ms. Lis?

Is there even a shred of evidence that Fawell and Robertson are in anyway associated with "terrorist groups"?





Please, I would like to hear it.

On 2001-09-16 11:20, Lis '54 wrote:
If they are found to be aiding, harboring, and funding terrorist groups, certainly.

Also, please remember that tolerating a behavior simply means allowing it to continue without comment, without challenge, and without consequences. Those consequences don't have to be physical. They can be political and financial, too.

What about the White House entertaining leaders or close associates of "terror" such as the head of the PLO or the political arm of the IRA? Did this send a message? What of the release of those who committed violence to "free" Puerto Rico? What of Mr. Cheney's former employer dealing with questionable states such as Iraq and Libya? Will this sort of behavior be allowed, go underground, or be ended?

I'm new to this list, though I've visited the 4T site before, having read S&H's books. I teach a course called Contemporary American Studies at a high school in NH, and over the past few years (especially after reading Generations and T4T), the course has taken on a decidely "generational cycles" view.

I usually open the course by discussing the cycles as outlined by S&H, and then (because my students are Millenials) addressing the issue of their being a "hero" generation. They are often fascinated by the notion, and immediately recognize the accuracy of much of the descriptions (partly, I suspect, because they WANT it to be true, as well as the persuasiveness of the argument).

The course covers the major events -- insofar as those events are ones that we PERCEIVE to be major -- from Hiroshima to the Reagan years (it's a one semester course, so we just scratch the surface). When we discuss the impact of the Cold War and Boomer/Silent fears of nuclear destruction, I have asked them what they perceive to be the great threat to them in a post-Soviet world. Over the past few years the consensus moved from AIDS to terrorism. Since 1998, they have become increasingly aware of America's role of "villain." Still, it was all a bit academic, as you can imagine, and not truly personal.

The events of the past week have evoked many questions from my current and some former students about whether or not WTC-911 has precipitated the 4T. And, like so many of you on this forum, my response has been "it's too soon." I thank those of you (especially S&H) who have posted your very insightful and thoughtful comments about the current situation and its impact. They will go a long way to assuring students who feel as yet unready to bear the burden we have (unconsciously) been preparing them for.

I will say this about my students' personal reactions to 911. The era of extreme individualism is not yet over, in their minds. While this tragedy may usher in a transitional period in which every institution, from Hollywood to Harvard, rethinks its worldview, a firm resolve and a willingness to sacrifice their lives has not even begun to emerge. Though I am sure there is increased interest in military service, I have not heard of any mass enlistments, nor have my students shown any interest -- they simply aren't angry enough, at least not at anything specific. The US Army still promotes itself as "the Army of one" and so individualism is still very much a virtue.

When asked to rank the verbs "to create," "to achieve," "to serve," and "to change," they invariably placed "achieve" at the top. They were all quite unsure about "to serve" -- it has not yet become important enough. It may.

Uh, Marc, you were the one that attached F&R to my statement and asked the hypothetical, not me.

I stand by the statement that ALL extremists and radicals will be less tolerated, regardless of their political stripe. And yes, Virgil, I imagine that includes tolerance of the business dealings of many people.

I haven't read all the posts yet so I may be repeating. The one little piece of info I find most interesting is that the two men who led the fight against the hijackers on the plane that crashed near Pittsburg were Gen X'ers. Real take charge types who on a moment's notice with just minimal information (one's wife told him about the TWC crashes) decided to take over and then took over. They reminded me of all the other reactives in history who, faced with a dirty job, simply did it and did not debate or worry about the consequences. Faced with their first test, the Gen X'ers passed with honors.

Ms. Lis notes that, "Uh, Marc, you were the one that attached F&R to my statement and asked the hypothetical, not me."

I don't mean to a confrontational here, but you didn't use the word "terrorists" in your first comment, "I suppose one good thing about this is that tolerance of extremists on any side will stop, as well it should."

Instead of F&R, I could have used ACT UP, or the well documented evironmentalist extremist groups out there as a hypothetical.

Obviously by clarifying your first statement, I now understand that your reaction would have been the same.

"I stand by the statement that ALL extremists and radicals will be less tolerated, regardless of their political stripe."

So I'm feeling much better now. Thanks.:smile:

In response to the last message, I don't believe that the pledge to bring down fire and brimstone is by any means the response of all Boomers. There are lots of us who are turning to spreading kindnesses and love of country, just like the "Millies."

This brings me to something I'd like to ask Bill and Neil: Did you intend, in your books, to disparage the Boomers, as a generation? Because it seems to me that that idea does come across rather strongly in your books (I realize you both may be Boomers but that doesn't change my perception) ... and the kind of divisive thinking reflected by the earlier post emphasises that idea.

Okay, you want indications that we may actually be in a 4T? New civic spirit and stuff? I just read at another website that the Oakland Raiders, not satisfied with having given blood and donated money after the 911 disaster, went out and helped renovate a community recreation centre in a poor Oakland neighbourhood, trying to make the world better and help out the kids and stuff.