On 2002-02-05 19:26, cbailey wrote:

Patton:

Are you hinting that msm is Mark S. Lamb.too?

I have had the thought that this 4T Forum consists of two or three History Grad students hired by Strauss and Howe to post their brains out.

I can just picture them in a room somewhere, far far away.

CBailey, I'm not sure if MSM is Marc but I noticed that he sounded like Marc as soon as he started posting, although that does not mean anything. However as soon as I read MSM's attribution of "no man is an island" to libertarianism earlier today, my "Lamb manure" alarm went off. "No man is an island" is Marc Lamb's stock expression with respect to libertarians. I thought, "Marc, you sly dog! You are getting found out sooner and sooner."

I don't know if MSM is Marc Lamb and my apologies to MSM if he is not. But if they are not one and the same, then they are twins separated at birth.

To all those other Xers out there, can't you just say WHATEVER. One person's insistent prophecy on this board is not gospel. This Robert Reed guy has been promising us that the death of alternative culture is "just around the corner" for the last more than two-and-a-half years. Why he has been continuing to predict thus, even though alternative culture has proven to the present to still exist successfully, is puzzling, but judging by the attitude he has expressed towards Gen-X culture there is no doubt that part of it is we wants to see our culture put six feet under. Don't worry guys, you and I continue to KNOW that Xers have not turned to a conservative and lifeless generation. We can prove just by seeing our own pop culture that it is indeed there.

On 2002-02-05 20:13, pharos wrote:
?To all those other Xers out there, can't you just say WHATEVER. One person's insistent prophecy on this board is not gospel. This Robert Reed guy has been promising us that the death of alternative culture is "just around the corner" for the last more than two-and-a-half years. Why he has been continuing to predict thus, even though alternative culture has proven to the present to still exist successfully, is puzzling, but judging by the attitude he has expressed towards Gen-X culture there is no doubt that part of it is we wants to see our culture put six feet under. Don't worry guys, you and I continue to KNOW that Xers have not turned to a conservative and lifeless generation. We can prove just by seeing our own pop culture that it is indeed there.

Well since quite a few Xers disagree with me on the Xers "circling their wagons", I will withdraw that view.

After 1991 messages we have arrived at the number of the year in which Generations was published.
:smile:

On 2002-02-05 19:26, cbailey wrote:
Patton:

Are you hinting that msm is Mark S. Lamb.too?

I have had the thought that this 4T Forum consists of two or three History Grad students hired by Strauss and Howe to post their brains out.

I can just picture them in a room somewhere, far far away.

Heh. This board, unlike most others, does attract intelligent people.

<font color=blue>Obviously, the tone of your post indicates to me that you are not trying to debate nor dialogue, but instead to bash</font>

Uhh, haven't you people ever heard of emoticons. You use them all over the place.

I said: :wink:

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

I object to the characterization of Robert as "mature" simply because, after making dozens of sweeping claims based on little evidence, he finally retracts one.

I will admit I'm wrong when facts prove I am. I have been the one, for example, arguing that we should wait until the 2002 elections to get a real clue about the current political trends.

Robert, on the other hand, finds biased articles from leftwing mags, posts them in their entirety to this forum (how rude!), and then draws conclusions from them. (At least when I posted snippets from biased right-wing mags, I was apologetic about it. Someone has to demonstrate that Robert's extreme views are not prevailing wisdom!)

What's more, he makes sweeping generalizations based on his "feelings".

The average X-er is about 30 years old right now. My Han Solo post was about "who you calling 'old', kid!".

Jeesh.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-06 04:34 ]</font>

On 2002-02-05 20:20, madscientist wrote:

Well since quite a few Xers disagree with me on the Xers "circling their wagons", I will withdraw that view.

[/quote]

No real need to do so. In 'Generations', I read that some of the Lost Generation tried to hang on to their youthful behavior patterns well into midlife, when they should have been 'circling their wagons' instead - and paid the price. Partly the price was that of having their bluff called by others of their own generation. Another part was the the formation of an alliance of FDR and young GI's to push the leftovers of such patterns out of public life. Might we get to see history repeat itself here, before all is said and done?;-)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-02-06 06:45 ]</font>

On 2002-02-06 03:56, msm wrote:
<font color=blue>Obviously, the tone of your post indicates to me that you are not trying to debate nor dialogue, but instead to bash</font>

Uhh, haven't you people ever heard of emoticons. You use them all over the place.

I said: :wink:

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Well, I apologize then. I wasn't having a particularly good day yesterday.

On 2002-02-06 04:12, msm wrote:
I object to the characterization of Robert as "mature" simply because, after making dozens of sweeping claims based on little evidence, he finally retracts one.

Actualy, when I stated that "Xers were circling wagons", I was referring to several articles that I have read back then around the time. I will not post anything unless I can back it up.

I will admit I'm wrong when facts prove I am. I have been the one, for example, arguing that we should wait until the 2002 elections to get a real clue about the current political trends.

So have I, for the most part. But from what I see in how people are acting, I still think we have crossed the threshold.

Robert, on the other hand, finds biased articles from leftwing mags, posts them in their entirety to this forum (how rude!), and then draws conclusions from them. (At least when I posted snippets from biased right-wing mags, I was apologetic about it. Someone has to demonstrate that Robert's extreme views are not prevailing wisdom!)

There is a reason I post the entire article on the website. Many sites delete their news articles as time passes. Also, I put the article on the website for the convenience of the reader. And of course I am going to make conclusions from articles that I post. So you just expect me to be quiet or something? :???:

[quote]What's more, he makes sweeping generalizations based on his "feelings".[/quotes] Actually, I make "conclusions" based upon what I already know, and how I can logically connect it my observations on the world.

Robert: <font color=blue>So you just expect me to be quiet or something?</font>

No, that's not what I'm saying, and besides, I wouldn't expect anyone who has single-handledly posted over 50% of the posts on this forum (if that 1991 figure was correct) to suddenly clam up. Obviously, you have a lot more time on your hands then me.

However, in a demonstration of the kind self-restraint that's possible, I will not post here again until after the 2002 general elections. I am still uncertain whether we are in 3T or 4T, or even to what degree I think S & H's theory has value, and it's not worth my time duking it out with naive kids who can't even distinguish between neoconservatives and fascists. I've seen this all before in the late 80's (anyone remember the so-called "rads" with their "NO MORE BUSINESS AS USUAL" slogans asking cops "Hey, nice gun! Have you ever shot anyone with it?" and thinking they were SOOO clever.)

My two cents worth:

First off, I honestly don't think that Marc Lamb has ever posted here under a name other than his own. I may disagree with Mr. Lamb about many issues, but I believe he is not hiding behind a pseudonym.

Based on the style of the postings I see here, "msm" is a different individual entirely; i.e., he/she is not Marc Lamb.

Second, about the "Xers circling the wagons" thing. I just turned 41 this week. As a first-wave Xer, I do feel like I am circling my wagons. By that I mean that I'm trying to simplify things in my life. I'm cleaning up the clutter. I'm concentrating on what really matters in life. I'm improving my personal habits. And I don't think I'm the only Xer doing this.

So Robert has a point. A good observation. And I enjoy his observations of all the generations.

Kiff '61




_________________
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure....You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world." -- Nelson Mandela

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiff '61 on 2002-02-06 08:15 ]</font>

Adding to Robert and Kiff's personal observations about xers "circling the wagons":

I have 2 Xer offspring..30 and 24..neither married. Both are in the process of changing their lives around. Both are weaning themselves from the "student life", and our family nucleus has become much more important to them.

S&H's generational theories and definitions have helped me be much more rational about my xer children's behavior (and mine) in the last few years. It helped me understand that I was not "the only one" going through these experiences with these Nomads, and that if you stood back a bit, detached, picked up "The Fourth Turning", you could make some sense of it.

So Robert...please continue to educate us about your generation...facts and feelings.

Least we forget..Part three of "The Fourth Turning " is entitled "PREPARATIONS."...and it talks mainly about "circling the wagons."
To do that, we all must be knowledgable of each others' "scripts".

Lets use some common sense.

First, about X-ers "circling the wagons". The first wave, those in their 30s or turning 40s, who have families and homes, are doing that. Obviously, the Justin '79 wave isn't going to be doing that now.

I might add that we late wave Boomers (a.k.a. Jonesers) are probably also "circling the wagons". We are certainly NOT accepting that we are OLD because we're not, we're just middle-aged.

Second, msm is an X'er and Marc Lamb is a late-wave Boomer. They are not the same person! :lol:

On "circling the wagons," as a result of our general lack of trust in institutions and sheer economics, Xers do everything later than the previous three gens. So, we enter into long-term relationships later, we buy property later, and we have children later. The above-mentioned three things require stability, commitment and, in the case of the two latter ones, money. Stability, commitment and money are things that we have found hard to come by.

But, more than half of us are in our 30s and early 40s. So, we have decided that it may be time to take a deep breath and embark on something frighteningly permanent. Sort of putting down a root or two or three.

I think what you may be seeing is a mid-30s quest for permanence in a society that would allow us to drift forever, if we wanted.

Our young adulthood has been the opposite of what I imagine to be that of the Silent Gen. For them, I am guessing, stability, security and comfort were the base-line lifestyle. Having the drifter lifestyle (you know, going On the Road), would have been socially and financially risky.

For us, the drifter life is the base-line out of social and economic necessity. There is no job security, we have huge student loans, and the real estate market is through the roof. Living in a rental house with our buds is actually the safe thing to do. Doing something more permanent is socially and financially risky.

But, we *are* in our 30s, so a lot of us are gulping hard and taking the plunge. This may be what you mean by "circling the wagons."

On 'circling the wagons':

I think the one common thread I have seen between those X'rs who are still living the high life and those (like myself) who are kicking back a few notches and starting to batten down is their current family status.


I have a wife and kid. Two other buddies of mine from high school are married with kids, another one is married, without. The rest of my friends are still single (and pretty much completely unattached). I am seeing clear evidence of trying to slow down, simplify, and focus on the important details of life in those of us with families. I suspect eventually those of my age group who remain unattached will settle down in their own ways, but right now, the single guys are still living the 3T life -- without much regard for the future.



Now, this is not to say that the proto-hobbits among us are without radicalism; rather other concerns have pushed our desire to act upon it to the back burner.



Then again,that may not be a particularly generational phenomenon at all.

In the last Saeculum, My Grandmother, a Lost Generation Nomad, was the only one of 5 siblings to have children. Her brothers and sisters, some married, some not, moved in with her from time to time and shared the raising of the kids.(Think "Grapes of Wrath" or "Everybody Loves Raymond") I think that happened alot during the Depression. Those little GI heros got plenty of attention from all those extended family members.

Can xers picture themselves in that situation? (Maybe not always with siblings, but with friends too?)

On 2002-02-06 19:49, cbailey wrote:
In the last Saeculum, My Grandmother, a Lost Generation Nomad, was the only one of 5 siblings to have children. Her brothers and sisters, some married, some not, moved in with her from time to time and shared the raising of the kids.(Think "Grapes of Wrath" or "Everybody Loves Raymond") I think that happened alot during the Depression. Those little GI heros got plenty of attention from all those extended family members.

Can xers picture themselves in that situation? (Maybe not always with siblings, but with friends too?)

Interesting question. My wife and I are already putting up the younger brother of one of my high school friends. Also, my sister is taking care of her husband's younger brother (he's thirteen now (the brother, not her husband)), in addition to her own three-year-old. One of my wife's brothers and his wife are sharing a house with extended family out on that side.



I remember when I was a kid, we lived 1000 miles from the nearest extended relatives. I'm wondering how living 20 feet from them is going to affect our kids.

I bet you someone comes out with a movie based upon Bush choking on a pretzel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

On 2002-02-04 05:47, msm wrote:

I'm not willing to accept this - yet. The poll which you are referring showed no such liberal victory. On the contrary, it showed a libertarian victory. Libertarians are more closely associated with conservatives than liberals. Just because kids want to legalize marijuana doesn't make them liberals. Famous conservative spokesman William F. Buckley has called for legalizing marijuana since the 1960's. That's a libertarian stance, not a "liberal" one.

It's a liberal stance AND a libertarian one. Liberals and/or libertarians, whether they're the same people or not, accept these positions at the same time! (As for William F. Buckley, his position on pot isn't typical for his political label, kind of like Pat Buchanan adopting a position against the death penalty or doing something you wouldn't expect his party to have. You see most conservatives in Congress saying NO WAY to marijuana!)

What if they had asked the kids "should the welfare state be expanded?". What if they asked the kids "should we establish a government-run health care system?" If they had asked questions like those, then we'd know whether the kids are moving left or right.

Now as for these questions, welfare and a government-subisidized health care system aren't considered cool in the teenage community. Heavy majorities of my classmates have said they disagreed with or even put down these programs, partly because they're seen as coming from the government and almost everyone my age I've ever met feels the government as an "assault" on their generation. Youth culture has a mass-distributed strain of thoughts about "hip to think" versus "not hip to think" running through it. The majority of the college-age population isn't going to give you the answer you're looking for, but that doesn't either support or negate the liberal positions they take on some issues. If the majority support gay marriage, then they are liberal on the issue of gay marriage. There may even be other issues, but that issue doesn't change.

In any event, that survey doesn't tell you what kids who didn't go to college think. It covers only the fresh students who went to four-year colleges. So whatever that survey says one way or the other, you're only going to hear a statement about the students who chose to go to "higher" universities, not about this age group in general.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jesse Manoogian on 2002-02-10 04:18 ]</font>

On 2002-02-04 06:21, msm wrote:
"statist conservatism" is also a contradiction in terms, madscientist! Conservatives are opposed to the trend of greater power of the State.

*exasperated*

No no no! You've got it all wrong!

Statism is practically the DEFINITION of conservatism!

Conservatives FAVOR adding greater power to the State. Conservatives want MORE government, they even want it in your bedrooms! Liberals want freedom, making LESS government and LESS power of the state.

"Oh, in San Francisco it's very liberal, they'll accept gays for who they are" -- instead of clamping down laws and restrictions on them -- the very stuff the government is made of. But as for Indiana? "Oh, that's such a conservative state. They'll never be accepted here". Ask people to name the five most conservative states in the union and they'll come up with Mississippi, Utah, possibly Alabama, Kansas, etc. -- all states full of people who want LESS freedom for people -- who believe the government needs to be making rules about more things.

On 2002-02-04 11:18, msm wrote:

I opened that link and began reading it. I quickly recognized it as being the sort of thing I've read many times before. There are people who try to redefine "anarchism" to mean something else, but they have always been in the minority.

I have heard many subtle variations on exactly what anarchy is. Keep in mind that after the Sex Pistols rarefied the meaning a little bit, the word "anarchy" or "anarchism" in its general punk sense has been VERY WIDELY thrown around. English is a living language, and political theorists aren't the only people speaking it. The common people have an effect on common perception of what a word means, too. Frequently I hear it applied to people who are completely against the current system and government and hate everything in it. Frequently. Adults who are definitely not themselves anarchists go around applying the word freely to young people who want to abolish a whole lot of rules.

I could write an essay about how when I say "black" I really mean "gray", but nobody would take me seriously.

If you worked out an essay that sincerely explains how the word "black" actually encompasses grey in its definition (or CAN encompass grey), I would certainly take you seriously. I still wouldn't agree with you though. (Probably.)

At least "libertarianism" has a place under the conservative tent.

No, libertarianism has a place under the classification for pushing for more FREEDOM. (That's what it's all about, in fact.) Libertarianism is under the LIBERAL tent.

"Anarchism", per se, is found only among people quite divorced from the real world. I would avoid the label if I wanted to be taken seriously.

I am going to admit it. I am a self-identified anarchist. And yet I know EXACTLY what is going on in the real world, I live every day, I see what I actually see and hear what I actually hear. Your charge that all anarchists are divorced from the real world is utter nonsense. Or are you defining separation from the "real world" as anyone who has real principles?

Anarchy is a great thought.
I love the kids who favor overthrowing the rules (legalizing pot, supporting gay marriage, promoting freedom of speech, hard rock and rap over stifling pop culture). But the main problem with anarchy is what does it stand for? I think that when Millenials realize that they need an ideology that is for rather than merely against something, they will merge their present-anarchism with a kind of liberalism. It will involve activist government that assists in solving social problems but it will not be reminicent of Great Power Cycle liberalism, which was really watered-down socialism. Rather, it may be more reminicent of Jacksonian or Jeffersonian liberalism but with a twenty first century features such as LIMITED activist government. President Clinton and, to a lesser extent, President Bush have already both embraced this vision of government. Take away the personal shenanigans from Clinton and the Enronomics of Bush and look at the fiscally conservative, socially active government being promoted by Boomers across the political spectrum after 911 with a Gray Champion smile placed on top of it. That's what awaits American Millenials soon. That's what they will demand.

jesse, no offense, but you seem to have very little grasp of how libertarianism fits into the whole political spectrum, or spectra, actually.

in a nutshell, there are two political axes-- the first representing the degree to which one advocates personal freedom vs. state-sponsored order, the second representing the degree to which one advocates economic freedom vs. state-sponsored equality.

generally:

liberals advocate a high degree of personal freedom (legalized marijuana, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc.) at the expense of order, but a low degree of economic freedom, preferring state-sponsored equality, exemplified in advocacy of higher taxes and government mechanisms to "level the playing field" economically.

conservatives are the flipside of this, advocating a high degree of economic freedom (lower taxes, laissez-faire business policies) at the expense of equality, while advocating a low degree of personal freedom, preferring instead governmental interference into personal lives regarding drug use, abortion, and gay-marriage.

libertarians prefer the freedom end on both of these axes, and authoritarians preferring state-sponsored order and equality over either personal or economic freedom.

so, you see, libertarianism is "under the liberal tent" on personal issues, but "under the conservative tent" on economic issues.

that is why it was suggested to see what the frosh thought on the subject of economic freedom v. equality issues such as welfare and health-care.

in the words (or letters, rather) of virgil, HTH.


TK

Oh, the NASDAQ bust. I remember hearing about NASDAQ. I only knew one techie who changed directions, but even all the Xers on the block who weren't techies didn't change at all after March 2000 (except some who just moved in since...hmmmm). I know lots of these people who are still designing video games or entrepreneurial online site schemes, and they tell me they don't feel behind the times. As for March in 2000, I didn't notice anything going on then. Don't know anyone who turned conservative, which most of us Xers certainly still aren't. Plenty of us are still McJobbing, not trying to do techno-anything right now but not settled into a career. There are these three Xer families on the block who are into standard business jobs, having to dress up to work and all, who were stricken and shocked up into tearing their hair out by NASDAQ dropping, but all of them were definitely conservative BEFORE the dip!

Of course, needless to say, we can still see Xers partying long after 2000. (And no one our age is telling us to cut it out). The call-in traffic and listener estimates for the alternative radio stations on the local dials haven't slumped between then and now. And looking at the airplay charts and billboard sale rankings I can't find any visible bust in the popularity of various alternative subgenres of music. In fact, Nickelback's alternative "How You Remind Me!" hit number ONE in sales just recently, something that, if you look at the billboard sales charts across the past decade, doesn't actually happen as often as you'd expect.

_________________
"Now we meet in an abandoned studio."

Every time
I see you falling
I get down
On my knees
And pray

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: voltronx on 2002-02-11 06:04 ]</font>