Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Needless to say (or it should be), the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children.

Note how the authoritarian left once more contradicts itself, if doing so suits the purpose. North Korea does it all the time! As did Albania, until their hard-line Stalinist regime fell. And China, during the Cultural Revolution. Not to mention the old Soviet Union (When he first applied for Communist Party membership, Gorbachev as almost turned down flat because his father had been sent to the gulag during one of Stalin's purges.).

Chris:

Since I'm now simply silly with paranoia, am I excused from being tyrannical?

:lol:

Touche, sir!

But what you seemingly fail to comprehend sir, is that without those "sins" there would be no children.

Oh, I don't fail to comprehend it. But the sin did occur, and thus the children do exist.

Besides, the nature of the sin was an exertion of improper control over another person's life, not the creation of new human beings. It is in the same category, morally, as not allowing your wife her own checkbook, or keeping her chained to the bed. That children were produced in consequence is not, itself, what was wrong. So we cannot correct the matter by doing away with the children.

Now, then, we are forced to ask - is life in and of itself GOOD? Or is the absence of life sometimes better?

Life is good, but life must exist within limits. The absence of (some) life is necessary for the healthy existence of (other) life.

Nature follows this rule all the time. Trees produce vast numbers of seeds; how many of those seeds grow into new trees? Women produce far more ova than can ever become children, and for men the disparity is even greater. Nature culls and kills, or from another perspective, nature produces a superabundance of potential to make sure that part of that potential reaches actuality. But this means that most of the potential never makes it.

The number of potential human beings, represented by ova (if all were fertilized and brought to term), is far more than the planet can support. Most of those ova must die, and never become children or adults. The great majority of the deaths occur before fertilization ever occurs. Some few occur afterwards. Of those, most occur naturally, some few by deliberate induction (i.e., abortion).

Now in your ex-wife's case, it's pretty clear from what you said that she was a bit of a nutcase and was not motivated to abort from economic considerations, let alone environmental ones, but rather in order to exert control over you. (Which was just as wrong, IMO, as what you say you did.) So the matter gets a bit fuzzy there.

But what is clear enough is that, somewhere along the line, most of the potential human beings have to die without ever achieving their potential. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with God.

Chris:

Since I'm now simply silly with paranoia, am I excused from being tyrannical?

:lol:

Touche, sir!

But what you seemingly fail to comprehend sir, is that without those "sins" there would be no children.

Oh, I don't fail to comprehend it. But the sin did occur, and thus the children do exist.

Besides, the nature of the sin was an exertion of improper control over another person's life, not the creation of new human beings. It is in the same category, morally, as not allowing your wife her own checkbook, or keeping her chained to the bed. That children were produced in consequence is not, itself, what was wrong. So we cannot correct the matter by doing away with the children.

Now, then, we are forced to ask - is life in and of itself GOOD? Or is the absence of life sometimes better?

Life is good, but life must exist within limits. The absence of (some) life is necessary for the healthy existence of (other) life.

Nature follows this rule all the time. Trees produce vast numbers of seeds; how many of those seeds grow into new trees? Women produce far more ova than can ever become children, and for men the disparity is even greater. Nature culls and kills, or from another perspective, nature produces a superabundance of potential to make sure that part of that potential reaches actuality. But this means that most of the potential never makes it.

The number of potential human beings, represented by ova (if all were fertilized and brought to term), is far more than the planet can support. Most of those ova must die, and never become children or adults. The great majority of the deaths occur before fertilization ever occurs. Some few occur afterwards. Of those, most occur naturally, some few by deliberate induction (i.e., abortion).

Now in your ex-wife's case, it's pretty clear from what you said that she was a bit of a nutcase and was not motivated to abort from economic considerations, let alone environmental ones, but rather in order to exert control over you. (Which was just as wrong, IMO, as what you say you did.) So the matter gets a bit fuzzy there.

But what is clear enough is that, somewhere along the line, most of the potential human beings have to die without ever achieving their potential. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with God.

JDS:

I am a libertarian leftist, not an authoritarian one. I do not consider North Korea, Albania, China, or the Soviet Union model societies according to my political philosophy. As such, that they did this, that, or the other thing, means nothing to me.

JDS:

I am a libertarian leftist, not an authoritarian one. I do not consider North Korea, Albania, China, or the Soviet Union model societies according to my political philosophy. As such, that they did this, that, or the other thing, means nothing to me.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, in my view it was her body, and whether your wishes counted at all was up to her. Saving the children later, once they were actual (not merely potential) human beings was another matter. Of which I do approve, of course.

I disagree here. Since the father is responsible for the support of the child once born, he too should have a say in whether or not there will be a child for him to support. If mom decides to keep the child (and not abort or give it up for adoption) then dad has a legal responsibility for that child, even if he doesn't want to be a father. After all, he could have kept it zipped.

Similarly, mom cannot give the child away without dad concuring. I think the same thing should hold in utero. After all, she too could have chosen not to have sex.

If dad can't opt out after the sex act is complete, how is it right for mom to do so?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, in my view it was her body, and whether your wishes counted at all was up to her. Saving the children later, once they were actual (not merely potential) human beings was another matter. Of which I do approve, of course.

I disagree here. Since the father is responsible for the support of the child once born, he too should have a say in whether or not there will be a child for him to support. If mom decides to keep the child (and not abort or give it up for adoption) then dad has a legal responsibility for that child, even if he doesn't want to be a father. After all, he could have kept it zipped.

Similarly, mom cannot give the child away without dad concuring. I think the same thing should hold in utero. After all, she too could have chosen not to have sex.

If dad can't opt out after the sex act is complete, how is it right for mom to do so?

Mike:

In considering the respective rights between parents, we have to recognize that, during gestation, their de facto biological commitment differs. It's the mother who must go through the discomfort, pain, and risk of bearing a child. The father does not have any such obligation.

While I would hope that in any decent relationship both parties would consider the feelings and desires of the other, the woman's right to control her own body must take precedence over her lover's or husband's desire for a child.

Mike:

In considering the respective rights between parents, we have to recognize that, during gestation, their de facto biological commitment differs. It's the mother who must go through the discomfort, pain, and risk of bearing a child. The father does not have any such obligation.

While I would hope that in any decent relationship both parties would consider the feelings and desires of the other, the woman's right to control her own body must take precedence over her lover's or husband's desire for a child.

We boomers are still firmly planted in middle age, not elder status, and so by definition a fourth turning has not yet arrived ... but it is clearly coming.

It is not the events of the day but our reactions to them that define the character of a season, and while the rhetoric of our political and religious leaders is taking on a decidely 4T tone, their actions are solidly 3T. A wise man once said "Listen to what they say, but watch what they do!"

There is no sacrafice being demanded of the American people, unless running up your credit cards in defense of the economic speed bump is considered a sacrifice; to me this is pure 3T behavior.

Ashcroft tries to turn the Bill of Rights into the Bill of Suggestions, Bush tries to liken Saddahm Hussein to Adolph Hitler, Falwell & Robertson defame Islam as a religion of hate ... all of these extreme postures are getting little foothold in the American psyche. In the 4T positions like these will polarize the electorate, not bore them.

Our national leaders are rearranging economic deck chairs on the Titanic without even acknowledging that the ship is taking on water. They continue to ignore the existance of poverty, unemployment, hunger, homelessness, absent medical care, the failing education system --- just as the author's predicted --- lacking a fulcrum against which to leverage any of these problems, and instead talk about reducing Capital Gains taxes, as if anyone has had a Capital Gain in the stock market this year.

When the 4T really does arrive, it will be with the psychological snap of a whip and it will be LOUD. Terrorism is not the key to the 4T and not the threat to all things American that this administration would have us believe. Europe has lived with it for 50 years and has managed quite nicely. Terrorism is a danger to the American way of life from the inside, and could open us up to the facist scenario that the book posed, but this is something we will have done to ourselves.

Ben Franklin said that a people who choose safety over freedom deserve neither. We are at the end of 3T and are still selfishly choosing to protect our individual IRAs, 401(k)s, college funds, real estate values, and SUVs, and that is why there seems to be support for the errosion of freedoms we see happening every day.

Franklin was a boomer writing from a 3T place of concern, not knowing that he was entering a 4T and that we would become a people that would choose freedom over safety when the choice was live free or die. The danger of facism in an extended 3T fade like the one we are in today is that we won't have much freedom left to fight for left when the time comes.

When the 4T finally hits, we could come together in a way that will make the one-nation-under-god feeling of the days following 9/11 a reality that does not fade away in a few weeks, but that instead galvalizes us into one people that will not choose safety over freedom, but that will do what ever is required to be sure that freedom will win.

Stop worrying about when the 4th Turning will arrive and instead fight for your freedoms that are being erroded today. The way to guarantee a bad ending to the 4th Turning is to be sure that there is nothing much about America left worth fighting for.

We boomers are still firmly planted in middle age, not elder status, and so by definition a fourth turning has not yet arrived ... but it is clearly coming.

It is not the events of the day but our reactions to them that define the character of a season, and while the rhetoric of our political and religious leaders is taking on a decidely 4T tone, their actions are solidly 3T. A wise man once said "Listen to what they say, but watch what they do!"

There is no sacrafice being demanded of the American people, unless running up your credit cards in defense of the economic speed bump is considered a sacrifice; to me this is pure 3T behavior.

Ashcroft tries to turn the Bill of Rights into the Bill of Suggestions, Bush tries to liken Saddahm Hussein to Adolph Hitler, Falwell & Robertson defame Islam as a religion of hate ... all of these extreme postures are getting little foothold in the American psyche. In the 4T positions like these will polarize the electorate, not bore them.

Our national leaders are rearranging economic deck chairs on the Titanic without even acknowledging that the ship is taking on water. They continue to ignore the existance of poverty, unemployment, hunger, homelessness, absent medical care, the failing education system --- just as the author's predicted --- lacking a fulcrum against which to leverage any of these problems, and instead talk about reducing Capital Gains taxes, as if anyone has had a Capital Gain in the stock market this year.

When the 4T really does arrive, it will be with the psychological snap of a whip and it will be LOUD. Terrorism is not the key to the 4T and not the threat to all things American that this administration would have us believe. Europe has lived with it for 50 years and has managed quite nicely. Terrorism is a danger to the American way of life from the inside, and could open us up to the facist scenario that the book posed, but this is something we will have done to ourselves.

Ben Franklin said that a people who choose safety over freedom deserve neither. We are at the end of 3T and are still selfishly choosing to protect our individual IRAs, 401(k)s, college funds, real estate values, and SUVs, and that is why there seems to be support for the errosion of freedoms we see happening every day.

Franklin was a boomer writing from a 3T place of concern, not knowing that he was entering a 4T and that we would become a people that would choose freedom over safety when the choice was live free or die. The danger of facism in an extended 3T fade like the one we are in today is that we won't have much freedom left to fight for left when the time comes.

When the 4T finally hits, we could come together in a way that will make the one-nation-under-god feeling of the days following 9/11 a reality that does not fade away in a few weeks, but that instead galvalizes us into one people that will not choose safety over freedom, but that will do what ever is required to be sure that freedom will win.

Stop worrying about when the 4th Turning will arrive and instead fight for your freedoms that are being erroded today. The way to guarantee a bad ending to the 4th Turning is to be sure that there is nothing much about America left worth fighting for.

Originally Posted by mjkaminski

We boomers are still firmly planted in middle age, not elder status, and so by definition a fourth turning has not yet arrived ... but it is clearly coming.

Without debating the issue of which turning we're in (for the moment), according to S&H the Crisis begins when the first Prophets begin to enter elderhood, not when they have all reached elderhood. So by definition, you're in the Crisis immediately after they finish being "firmly planted in middle age".

Originally Posted by mjkaminski

We boomers are still firmly planted in middle age, not elder status, and so by definition a fourth turning has not yet arrived ... but it is clearly coming.

Without debating the issue of which turning we're in (for the moment), according to S&H the Crisis begins when the first Prophets begin to enter elderhood, not when they have all reached elderhood. So by definition, you're in the Crisis immediately after they finish being "firmly planted in middle age".

One of the finest posts I have ever read.

One of the finest posts I have ever read.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

One of the finest posts I have ever read.

Yeah, I agree with M. J. Kaminski 100%. By 1931, all the criteria for a 4T shift were present except that there was no war to use to analyze a few of the criteria. These were radical changes. We just haven't seen this radical change by now. None of the generations have met the S&H age marker for their new phase of life yet (21, 42, 63, 84, 105?...) as they had then, which explains why we just aren't acting like it. Boomers don't have a new wisdom or a willingness to commit to something higher, something new and higher than we've ever reached for before, and the Culture Wars are filling the boards. And I certainly don't see Xers giving up their partying and music and calling for a new Nazi code of conduct and dritte-Reich method of childrearing instead. People are even heralding grunge as being back. Silents are acting the same way they always did and yet remain in power. Pelosi even beat out not only Ford but also Kaptur. Without the reaction, you really don't have anything to call a Crisis except the fact that people responded in total shock in the short aftermath of 9-11 over a year ago. All that gives you is a shock in the past, which if it's enough to make whatever follows a Crisis no matter what, wouldn't be very useful at all in telling us what's ahead the next few years.



(BTW, we entered what was 1931 in relation of 9-11 to the stock market crash on November 14. On the calendar comparing 9-11 with the crash of 1929, November 14 came 3 days after the fourteen-month anniversary of the attack. That is the equivalent of January 1, 1931.)

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

One of the finest posts I have ever read.

Yeah, I agree with M. J. Kaminski 100%. By 1931, all the criteria for a 4T shift were present except that there was no war to use to analyze a few of the criteria. These were radical changes. We just haven't seen this radical change by now. None of the generations have met the S&H age marker for their new phase of life yet (21, 42, 63, 84, 105?...) as they had then, which explains why we just aren't acting like it. Boomers don't have a new wisdom or a willingness to commit to something higher, something new and higher than we've ever reached for before, and the Culture Wars are filling the boards. And I certainly don't see Xers giving up their partying and music and calling for a new Nazi code of conduct and dritte-Reich method of childrearing instead. People are even heralding grunge as being back. Silents are acting the same way they always did and yet remain in power. Pelosi even beat out not only Ford but also Kaptur. Without the reaction, you really don't have anything to call a Crisis except the fact that people responded in total shock in the short aftermath of 9-11 over a year ago. All that gives you is a shock in the past, which if it's enough to make whatever follows a Crisis no matter what, wouldn't be very useful at all in telling us what's ahead the next few years.



(BTW, we entered what was 1931 in relation of 9-11 to the stock market crash on November 14. On the calendar comparing 9-11 with the crash of 1929, November 14 came 3 days after the fourteen-month anniversary of the attack. That is the equivalent of January 1, 1931.)

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by TrollKing

geez, kevin, you make it sound like there's nothing special or intimate to share with a lover besides one's body. even if that were true, it's not really something that one can "squander".

These two statements taken together are almost unfathomable.

TK, whatever you think "it" is that Kevin is talking about, if "it" were an endless resource, by definition "it" would not be special. "It" would then be common, and you could get it anywhere.

the point i was making is that the "specialness" and "intimacy" of the relationship are not necessarily diminished simply because there have been other, previous ones.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by TrollKing

geez, kevin, you make it sound like there's nothing special or intimate to share with a lover besides one's body. even if that were true, it's not really something that one can "squander".

These two statements taken together are almost unfathomable.

TK, whatever you think "it" is that Kevin is talking about, if "it" were an endless resource, by definition "it" would not be special. "It" would then be common, and you could get it anywhere.

the point i was making is that the "specialness" and "intimacy" of the relationship are not necessarily diminished simply because there have been other, previous ones.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Now, then, we are forced to ask - is life in and of itself GOOD? Or is the absence of life sometimes better?

depends. quality of life makes all the difference. if that life sucks, and i mean really sucks (as opposed to just seeming like it sucks because you're depressed), then i think absence of life may actually be the better option. if i'm ever rotting away from alzheimer's or huntington's or another progressive, fatal disease along those lines, i'll be wanting to check out.

so i guess that "in and of itself".... no, it is not.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Now, then, we are forced to ask - is life in and of itself GOOD? Or is the absence of life sometimes better?

depends. quality of life makes all the difference. if that life sucks, and i mean really sucks (as opposed to just seeming like it sucks because you're depressed), then i think absence of life may actually be the better option. if i'm ever rotting away from alzheimer's or huntington's or another progressive, fatal disease along those lines, i'll be wanting to check out.

so i guess that "in and of itself".... no, it is not.


TK

Originally Posted by R. Gregory '67

On 2002-08-08 06:18, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

Well, it says it was published in March of 2001, so unless you are suggesting a catalyst prior to 9/11, it couldn't have been what made this book popular. Frankly I get a good laugh out of seeing the "A Good Citizen Eats Meat" section. At first that part shocked me. I couldn't IMAGINE that those things were actually printed in those days.

That was one of the book's more hilarious lines, but maybe not so amazing considering the thinking in the 1950s. There were four food groups that you were supposed to eat from every day, and meat was probably the only one of the four that the nutritionists at the time thought that Americans weren't getting enough of. So I could certainly see campaigns to get Americans to eat more meat.

Today we have groups and books saying that a good citizen does *not* eat meat, and they might similarly be made fun of 40 years from now.

That's exactly why it sounds so funny you could snicker at it. Today it comes off as politically incorrect due to the presence of vegetarians. We don't have any people who eat a lot of meat and forgo vegetables today, do we? And if there were they'd probably be viewed as politically incorrect troglodytes by liberals.

There are vegans who don't drink milk as well, but no one seems to have a problem with "A good citizen drinks milk" the same way they would with meat, even though meat is also forbidden from the vegan menu. In fact, we have "Got milk?" commercials today.

If people make fun of vegetarianism and statements that a good citizen does NOT eat meat forty years from now... Well, one of the items in the book did have a surprising message considering the previous pages before the end of the book. One of the latest items, from the early sixties, shows on the left page an American laughing hysterically at a picture of a Chinese man in a Mao coat and coolie hat with Chinese characters and chopsticks, with the message that this was how Americans perceived foreigners. The page at the right said "This is how they look at us" and this time it showed a Chinese man laughing hysterically at a picture that showed a man in full American businessman dress, with Western silverware pictured at the edge of the poster. That was quite a lesson.

By the way, can you tell what generation each of the nine Amazon reviewers belongs to? What generations can you figure out?

Hmm...

In order:

1. Boomer or Silent
2. 13er

I have a question, R. Gregory. What do you consider the dates for 13ers to be? I notice that you labeled the second review as 13er. The author specifically states in her 2002 review that she is a teen, which S&H and many of their posters would insist is no longer Gen-X. Where do you see Gen-X as reaching? I can see a logical case for extending Gen 13 beyond 1981 if what is meant by 13 is NOT being like S&H's civic/Hero archetype (talking about duty and optimistically cheering on the government, not being very different from what your parents wanted to make you, etc.) If nothing else. So where is it?

Originally Posted by R. Gregory '67

On 2002-08-08 06:18, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

Well, it says it was published in March of 2001, so unless you are suggesting a catalyst prior to 9/11, it couldn't have been what made this book popular. Frankly I get a good laugh out of seeing the "A Good Citizen Eats Meat" section. At first that part shocked me. I couldn't IMAGINE that those things were actually printed in those days.

That was one of the book's more hilarious lines, but maybe not so amazing considering the thinking in the 1950s. There were four food groups that you were supposed to eat from every day, and meat was probably the only one of the four that the nutritionists at the time thought that Americans weren't getting enough of. So I could certainly see campaigns to get Americans to eat more meat.

Today we have groups and books saying that a good citizen does *not* eat meat, and they might similarly be made fun of 40 years from now.

That's exactly why it sounds so funny you could snicker at it. Today it comes off as politically incorrect due to the presence of vegetarians. We don't have any people who eat a lot of meat and forgo vegetables today, do we? And if there were they'd probably be viewed as politically incorrect troglodytes by liberals.

There are vegans who don't drink milk as well, but no one seems to have a problem with "A good citizen drinks milk" the same way they would with meat, even though meat is also forbidden from the vegan menu. In fact, we have "Got milk?" commercials today.

If people make fun of vegetarianism and statements that a good citizen does NOT eat meat forty years from now... Well, one of the items in the book did have a surprising message considering the previous pages before the end of the book. One of the latest items, from the early sixties, shows on the left page an American laughing hysterically at a picture of a Chinese man in a Mao coat and coolie hat with Chinese characters and chopsticks, with the message that this was how Americans perceived foreigners. The page at the right said "This is how they look at us" and this time it showed a Chinese man laughing hysterically at a picture that showed a man in full American businessman dress, with Western silverware pictured at the edge of the poster. That was quite a lesson.

By the way, can you tell what generation each of the nine Amazon reviewers belongs to? What generations can you figure out?

Hmm...

In order:

1. Boomer or Silent
2. 13er

I have a question, R. Gregory. What do you consider the dates for 13ers to be? I notice that you labeled the second review as 13er. The author specifically states in her 2002 review that she is a teen, which S&H and many of their posters would insist is no longer Gen-X. Where do you see Gen-X as reaching? I can see a logical case for extending Gen 13 beyond 1981 if what is meant by 13 is NOT being like S&H's civic/Hero archetype (talking about duty and optimistically cheering on the government, not being very different from what your parents wanted to make you, etc.) If nothing else. So where is it?

Here are my attempts at figuring out the generation for each of the reviews.

1. This reviewer says he once served in the Marine corps and "can remember when putting on that uniform had meaning and value to me personally", so he can remember long ago. He says, "Somehow over the years, even that lost its luster." This sounds like a gradual fading from High to Awakening to Unravelling, or at least from Awakening to Unravelling, so he can be no younger than a Boomer. He says "We all need to focus back on core values--and to a degree, traditionalism," which sounds like either G.I. traditionalism or modern-day Boomer Culture War calls for tradition, but he also says "I would like to feel good about my country once again", as if he doesn't anymore. He also admits: "I have to admit, that certain concepts are over the top. I am also not naive, and am aware that governmental brainwashing is disturbing in particular venues within the text." This shows absence of completely solid support for the government, more Silent or Boomer than G.I. Together this sounds like Silent contradiction and nuances. Silents say that "We need to consider" the "many complex factors" in everything. In the middle of the G.I.-Silent-Boomer range, with the highest likelihood in the middle, he would most possibly be a Silent.

2. This poster clearly states she is a teen. She freely states that "most are of the nuclear-family-type: racist, sexist, and a whole bunch of -ists I can't even name" and that "it points out just what . . . propaganda our government has tried to throw at our parents and grandparents, and some of them believed it!" That doesn't sound like a 13-year-old or 12-year-old today speaking it, so it would be clearly out of what Justin '79 calls the "Barney, Pok?mon, Harry Potter, Mighty Morphine Power Ranger kids". Her generation becomes pretty clear.

3. He reminisces on those Centron films and citizenship assemblies back from school, in a "a more innocent and simple time". This is a classic Boomer childhood. And he even seems serious about wanting to bring back civic duty to his own children. He also admits he's become angry and cynical, which might be typical of a Joneser at the edge of X. A Joneser would still have entered school early enough to have remembered those videos, right?

4. This one is very simple, and complimentary in a simple kind of way with no edge or irony. The writer sounds as if she or he is 11 years old. The review also includes the line "It could even help your parents", as if the writer were intending the review to be targeted to another kid.

5. She/he/they? firmly state(s) that these lessons are "current for today's world" and that we should be helping teenagers learn things like these. This sounds like a Boomer hope for more civic-minded youth. The interest in nostalgia indicates the reviewer must be a Boomer or older. "Proper display of the flag" was also of interest. The poster could be a G.I., or judging by the name (chp7mary3), perhaps a long married G.I. husband and wife team. Possibly Boomer or G.I., and Silent would be also possible but atypical. I can't figure this one out for sure.

6. This reviewer recalls his Boy Scout manual from the early 1960's. That would date him as a Boomer for sure.

7. This poster is objecting to a Gen-X poster's making fun of the book. That comes off as a kind of Prophet correction. She disagrees with this humorous take, yet still complains that "It's no wonder everything is in the state it's in these days", which shows the kind of complaining a Boomer but not a Silent might have. My best guess is Boomer.

8. She views it ironically as "dorky fun"; and even the fact that she uses the word "dorky" is not something a Boomer would do. This is pure Gen-X irony and fun. She even ends it up with an ironic "Now I feel bad for laughing (almost)." The name is purely gothic: Azrael Abyss. Not only does this poster use a Gothic name, but even gives a mystical, mythical location: the Elysian Fields. It almost reminds me of the location names Justin '79 would use!

9. No irony, and actually likes the book. Thinks it can be used for more than just nostalgia. The person also says it's "especially applicable to government", which doesn't show thorough trust in goverment today...more like a Silent than a G.I. The reader also states "I intend to buy several for gifts". There's not much that gives away the reviewer's age, but having a lot of friends/family around would mean the reviewer is Boomer or Silent. This one generally comes off as pretty generic-sounding, but I could see the reviewer as either Boomer or Silent.

Here are my attempts at figuring out the generation for each of the reviews.

1. This reviewer says he once served in the Marine corps and "can remember when putting on that uniform had meaning and value to me personally", so he can remember long ago. He says, "Somehow over the years, even that lost its luster." This sounds like a gradual fading from High to Awakening to Unravelling, or at least from Awakening to Unravelling, so he can be no younger than a Boomer. He says "We all need to focus back on core values--and to a degree, traditionalism," which sounds like either G.I. traditionalism or modern-day Boomer Culture War calls for tradition, but he also says "I would like to feel good about my country once again", as if he doesn't anymore. He also admits: "I have to admit, that certain concepts are over the top. I am also not naive, and am aware that governmental brainwashing is disturbing in particular venues within the text." This shows absence of completely solid support for the government, more Silent or Boomer than G.I. Together this sounds like Silent contradiction and nuances. Silents say that "We need to consider" the "many complex factors" in everything. In the middle of the G.I.-Silent-Boomer range, with the highest likelihood in the middle, he would most possibly be a Silent.

2. This poster clearly states she is a teen. She freely states that "most are of the nuclear-family-type: racist, sexist, and a whole bunch of -ists I can't even name" and that "it points out just what . . . propaganda our government has tried to throw at our parents and grandparents, and some of them believed it!" That doesn't sound like a 13-year-old or 12-year-old today speaking it, so it would be clearly out of what Justin '79 calls the "Barney, Pok?mon, Harry Potter, Mighty Morphine Power Ranger kids". Her generation becomes pretty clear.

3. He reminisces on those Centron films and citizenship assemblies back from school, in a "a more innocent and simple time". This is a classic Boomer childhood. And he even seems serious about wanting to bring back civic duty to his own children. He also admits he's become angry and cynical, which might be typical of a Joneser at the edge of X. A Joneser would still have entered school early enough to have remembered those videos, right?

4. This one is very simple, and complimentary in a simple kind of way with no edge or irony. The writer sounds as if she or he is 11 years old. The review also includes the line "It could even help your parents", as if the writer were intending the review to be targeted to another kid.

5. She/he/they? firmly state(s) that these lessons are "current for today's world" and that we should be helping teenagers learn things like these. This sounds like a Boomer hope for more civic-minded youth. The interest in nostalgia indicates the reviewer must be a Boomer or older. "Proper display of the flag" was also of interest. The poster could be a G.I., or judging by the name (chp7mary3), perhaps a long married G.I. husband and wife team. Possibly Boomer or G.I., and Silent would be also possible but atypical. I can't figure this one out for sure.

6. This reviewer recalls his Boy Scout manual from the early 1960's. That would date him as a Boomer for sure.

7. This poster is objecting to a Gen-X poster's making fun of the book. That comes off as a kind of Prophet correction. She disagrees with this humorous take, yet still complains that "It's no wonder everything is in the state it's in these days", which shows the kind of complaining a Boomer but not a Silent might have. My best guess is Boomer.

8. She views it ironically as "dorky fun"; and even the fact that she uses the word "dorky" is not something a Boomer would do. This is pure Gen-X irony and fun. She even ends it up with an ironic "Now I feel bad for laughing (almost)." The name is purely gothic: Azrael Abyss. Not only does this poster use a Gothic name, but even gives a mystical, mythical location: the Elysian Fields. It almost reminds me of the location names Justin '79 would use!

9. No irony, and actually likes the book. Thinks it can be used for more than just nostalgia. The person also says it's "especially applicable to government", which doesn't show thorough trust in goverment today...more like a Silent than a G.I. The reader also states "I intend to buy several for gifts". There's not much that gives away the reviewer's age, but having a lot of friends/family around would mean the reviewer is Boomer or Silent. This one generally comes off as pretty generic-sounding, but I could see the reviewer as either Boomer or Silent.