All of the GI's in my family, both sides, are dead. By that I mean, all GI cohort descendants of my (Missionary and Lost) great-grandparents are gone.

What's more, there is only ONE Silent in that entire downline. This first-cousin-once-removed is a 1942 cohort with a terminal illness. So the Silents are practically unrepresented in my family, except that Mom, Dad, one aunt, and one uncle-in-law (her husband) are very early Boomer War-Baby cuspers with Silent tendencies.

Now most of the Prophet Boomers in my family are moving into more elder-like roles, slowly but surely, to one degree or another. In fact, only one Boomer uncle still has young children (a case of opsipatria). The Xers are now either ALL engaged, married, or married with children.

We've all moved up a notch. Our parents have become the grandparents. We have become the parents. And new batch of young Millies and a few budding Homies have fully taken our place.

Ah, the circle of life.

Any other Silent-less families out there?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Except for the math (if you were born in 1930, you'd be turning 76 today, not 80), this describes my mother's anguish to a tee.

For about three months after 9/11, she felt queazy; she knew instinctively that Something Had Changed. It probably brought back memories of WWII.

Since 2002, she and my Boomer/Xer cusp sister have been searching for the Great Democratic Gray Champion to Save our Country.

I'm not sure if the issue is that it brought back memories, or if elders perceived that we are rapidly regressing.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

All of the GI's in my family, both sides, are dead. By that I mean, all GI cohort descendants of my (Missionary and Lost) great-grandparents are gone.

What's more, there is only ONE Silent in that entire downline.

Of my GI and Silent relations that were alive on September 11th, half of each group are now dead.

My last Silent grandparent (my father's stepmother) died last November. My last living grandparent is a 1920 cohort GI.

Yeah, I can't think of any Silents in my family. All of my grandparents were/are G.I.'s and all their kids are Boomers. And actually, I'm only one of two Millies from the next family generation after that--it's almost all Xers. Millies didn't start showing up until THEY started having kids.

Originally Posted by albatross '82

Yeah, I can't think of any Silents in my family. All of my grandparents were/are G.I.'s and all their kids are Boomers. And actually, I'm only one of two Millies from the next family generation after that--it's almost all Xers. Millies didn't start showing up until THEY started having kids.

Hmm. My parents are '38 and '44 (definitely Silents), and my only living grandparent is '15 (that's Lost, right?)

Originally Posted by Finch

Originally Posted by albatross '82

Yeah, I can't think of any Silents in my family. All of my grandparents were/are G.I.'s and all their kids are Boomers. And actually, I'm only one of two Millies from the next family generation after that--it's almost all Xers. Millies didn't start showing up until THEY started having kids.

Hmm. My parents are '38 and '44 (definitely Silents), and my only living grandparent is '15 (that's Lost, right?)

No, 1915 is middle GI cohort. Losts end at either 1900 (according to Strauss & Howe) or as late as 1905 (according to some posters here).

BTW, in my family calculations, I started with all known descendants of my great-grandparents, which expands the field considerably. Even with that wide of a net (scores of people), only two Silents. I just remembered a 1925er that I incorrectly calculated as a GI in my previous post above. It's possible I missed another one, but still, isn't that strange?

My 1913 GI parents are more or less hale and hearty at 92, having survived Burt Lancaster, Vince Lombardi, John Garfield, and Richard Nixon. Between the two of them they have two siblings left, my '23 GI uncle (whose birth resulted in the death of my maternal grandmother), and his early Silent brother. They began with a total of 14 siblings! I only remember one grandparent; both my grandmothers were dead long before I was born. I did meet a couple of missionary great-aunts and uncles, though.

I have many, many silent cousins, because my father had 9 older siblings, but I don't see them. My 1943 brother, college class of '64, is a real *Silent. His wife is '42, thus genuine. One of their Xer daughters is married, no kids yet; my *Millennial is getting married in July.
David K '47

Originally Posted by GuruOfReason

The authors predicted that at the cusp, "eightyish Silent be deeply anguished." This article points to the anguish hitting many 80 year olds today. One thing about the article that is debatable is whether or not the challenges of our era will equal that of the Depression and War era. The author thinks that the challenges of that era are far greater than our era. Of course, it is likely that the challenges will become as great as society enters Crisis.

Also, this article, and other things I have been reading increasingly speaks of the obsolescence of the status quo in public affairs.

The dismay of our elders sums up U.S.

Published on: 03/30/06

An eerie sense of calm has settled over the nation's affairs — a dead calm.

It's not merely that the Bush administration has run aground on its own illusions. The real problem runs deeper, much deeper, and at its core, I think, lies the fact that out of fear and laziness we insist on trying to address new problems with old ideologies, rhetoric and mind-sets.

To put it bluntly, we don't know what to do, and so we do nothing.

Run through the list: We have no real idea how to address global warming, the draining of jobs overseas, the influx of illegal immigrants, our growing indebtedness to foreign lenders, our addiction to petroleum, the rise of Islamic terror . . .

Those are very big problems, and if you listen to the debate in Congress and on the airwaves, you can't help but be struck by the smallness of the ideas proposed to address them. We have become timid and overly protective of a status quo that cannot be preserved and in fact must be altered significantly.

The Republicans, for example, continue to mouth a cure-all ideology of tax cuts, deregulation and a worship of all things corporate, an approach too archaic and romanticized to have any relevance in the modern world, as their five years in power have proved.

The GOP's sole claim to bold action — the decision to invade Iraq in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001 — instead epitomizes the problem. The issue of Islamic terrorism is complex and difficult, and by reverting immediately to the brute force of another era, we made the problem worse.

Unfortunately, the Democrats don't offer an alternative. They mouth no ideology whatsoever, their imagination, ingenuity and courage apparently having petered out 30 years ago. They can't bring themselves to acknowledge that the modern litany of problems will require us to invent new roles for government, and to rework the relationships between citizens, corporations and country.

But we can't even talk about such things. Our public discourse — which ought to be the source of renewal and energy in a democracy — has been stripped of meaning, with rudeness now mistaken for eloquence and anger substituting for insight.

All that has led to a sense of helplessness atypical of the American character. In an accurate reflection of our national mood, only 29 percent in a recent Gallup Poll said they were satisfied with the country's direction, a number that can't be explained away solely by our predicament in Iraq. The Gallup numbers haven't consistently been above 50 percent since the spring of 2002, long before most Americans were even aware an invasion loomed.

But more compelling to me than numbers are the e-mails, probably dozens of them in total, that have trickled into my in-box over the past year or so from older Americans all around the country.

"I am 79 . . . I am 84 . . . I was born in 1931," they start out. "I fought with the Eighth Army in Korea . . . We lost our oldest son in Vietnam . . . My husband served in the Pacific . . . I taught school for 35 years," they continue, each recounting their personal contributions to this country and establishing their own perspective on its history.

Then comes the statement that breaks your heart. The words vary from author to author, but the sentiment does not:

"This is not the country I wanted to leave my grandchildren . . . Is this what we sacrificed so much for all those years? . . . I really don't understand how it has come to this. . . . We took for granted that in America it would always be better for the next generation, but I can't see that's the case anymore. . . . Where did we go wrong?"

These people are concerned not for themselves, but for what they may soon leave behind. And that concern for the future is all the more remarkable because it is so rare among those of us who are their children and grandchildren.

Unlike our elders, we refuse to tax ourselves to pay for our wars, our roads, our government. We elevate leaders who promise us tax cuts and free services and cheap oil and the strongest military in the world, and we shun any who dare to suggest that sacrifice might be necessary for such things.

Of course, as a nation we have faced worse. The generation that endured the Great Depression only to be hit with World War II had to confront challenges that make our own pale in significance.

But when people of that generation express sincere dismay about where we're headed today, it's gotta make you wonder.

This is about as complete a review and commentary on the discussions we've been having on this forums as I could have written myself, given the talent Jay Bookman obviously has. I don't know whether it's good that others see it too, or just more depressing. As Bookman points-out, we don't need anyone to point-out the problems; we need solutions.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

BTW, in my family calculations, I started with all known descendants of my great-grandparents, which expands the field considerably. Even with that wide of a net (scores of people), only two Silents.

Heh, if I went back to my great-grandparents I'd probably have over a thousand people. My one living grandparent has over 100 descendants: 5 kids + spouses, 30 grandkids + spouses [all married except 2], and who knows-how-many great-grandkids [40 at last count.] Slacker. :wink:

Originally Posted by Finch

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

BTW, in my family calculations, I started with all known descendants of my great-grandparents, which expands the field considerably. Even with that wide of a net (scores of people), only two Silents.

Heh, if I went back to my great-grandparents I'd probably have over a thousand people. My one living grandparent has over 100 descendants: 5 kids + spouses, 30 grandkids + spouses [all married except 2], and who knows-how-many great-grandkids [40 at last count.] Slacker. :wink:

Be fruitful and multiply.

I'm not really thrilled with where we're at. I'm hoping for regeneracy, but not much finding it. I was flipping through the Daily Kos, and found one of those flickering reasons to maybe hope.

Originally Posted by Frank Luntz

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don't want to be told what's wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They're not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on "solutions" will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it's time for a change. They're looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don't want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they'd be Republicans.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won't sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,' they complained. Tell us what you're going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It's also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn't generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

Now, if the candidates actually started following said advice...

Well, finally, a sound gameplan from the Democratic side that should be policy.

Let's hope to see a candidate come from this framework.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm not really thrilled with where we're at. I'm hoping for regeneracy, but not much finding it. I was flipping through the Daily Kos, and found one of those flickering reasons to maybe hope.

Originally Posted by Frank Luntz

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

Now, if the candidates actually started following said advice...

Bob, you should give some context where this comes from. First, Frank Luntz is one of the GOP's top spinmeisters. He now professes to have had some recent change of heart, but his "free advice" is suspect at best. "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" comes to mind.

Second, the study was commissioned by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC, not to be confused with the DNC), a center-right think tank supported by the Clintons et al. Not at all surprisingly, Luntz' conclusions were exactly what the DLC wanted to hear: "Don't be confrontational; keep to the middle." Luntz is infamous for "shaping" the results of his focus groups.

Third, the targets of the study were the 2008 Dem Presidential candidates, not the 2006 Congressional candidates. As such, the main focus was on how the candidates could differentiate themselves from each other at this early stage, not how they could improve their electoral chances against the GOP. Keep that in mind.

All in all, the "Commandments" are pure snake oil. For example, the last: "Winning is everything. And the only thing. [Duhhh] As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win." Hunh?? I remember REALLY wanting to win in 2004.

Originally Posted by Finch

Bob, you should give some context where this comes from. First, Frank Luntz is one of the GOP's top spinmeisters. He now professes to have had some recent change of heart, but his "free advice" is suspect at best. "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" comes to mind.

Possible. I noted Kos wasn't entirely enthusiastic about the source. Still, even if Luntz doesn't really believe in a decisive change in government, and is trying to convince his enemies to use the dated and unworkable tactic of being beholden to the people, some of the commandments might be worth hoping for. As I said, I'm more desperate for signs of regeneracy than fully convinced that it is underway. The politicians are so used to the unraveling way of doing things, any shift is worth looking for.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm not really thrilled with where we're at. I'm hoping for regeneracy, but not much finding it. I was flipping through the Daily Kos, and found one of those flickering reasons to maybe hope.

Originally Posted by Frank Luntz

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don't want to be told what's wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They're not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on "solutions" will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it's time for a change. They're looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don't want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they'd be Republicans.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won't sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,' they complained. Tell us what you're going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It's also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn't generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

Now, if the candidates actually started following said advice...

I'm afraid that so much attention will accrue to the 10th Commandment, that the other 9 will be ignored. I say, get rid of the 10th, and go with the gut and what's right. You don't win by trying to win, you win by playing harder and doing better. Trying to win is exactly what the 3T Dems set as a goal. They failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm not really thrilled with where we're at. I'm hoping for regeneracy, but not much finding it. I was flipping through the Daily Kos, and found one of those flickering reasons to maybe hope.

Originally Posted by Frank Luntz

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don't want to be told what's wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They're not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on "solutions" will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it's time for a change. They're looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don't want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they'd be Republicans.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won't sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,' they complained. Tell us what you're going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It's also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn't generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

Now, if the candidates actually started following said advice...

They would lose, badly.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm not really thrilled with where we're at. I'm hoping for regeneracy, but not much finding it. I was flipping through the Daily Kos, and found one of those flickering reasons to maybe hope.

Originally Posted by Frank Luntz

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don't want to be told what's wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They're not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on "solutions" will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it's time for a change. They're looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don't want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they'd be Republicans.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won't sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,' they complained. Tell us what you're going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It's also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn't generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

Now, if the candidates actually started following said advice...

They would lose, badly.

I partially disagree with #10. While winning may be everything, the candidate who espouses Commandments 1 through 9 may indeed be feared by the Democrats in power for this very reason.

Having said that, I don't think he or she would lose at all, let alone badly. I also don't think there's anyone currently in the public spotlight willing to step up to the plate. But I believe there is someone unknown to us today who will do so, in time for the 2008 Elections. We'll see.

How the GOP Became God's Own Party

I'm not absolutely in love with all 10 of the 'Commandments' in the above post. I do agree with the spirit. It is easy to be negative. Everybody knows there is a lot wrong with the country. It is even easy to say we need change.

The problem is a lack of politicians who think the people are ready for change. During the unravelling, trying to do anything major was political suicide. There was so much ideological posturing, nothing could be done. The politicians of today grew into their profession learning the lesson that those who tried to serve the People lost. Turning against this lesson will be very very difficult. A few of the posts, above, rejecting the Ten Political Commandments seem to me to be rejecting regeneracy.

Which is possible. Again, the major power benefiting the most from the status quo often fights to maintain the status quo come the crisis. The opposite faction, striving to right wrongs and to adapt society to changing technology and circumstance generally triumphs militarily and transforms society.

There is no lack of people saying what is wrong. I've yet another "Bush Sux" article, below. The question is how to fix it. Somebody, indeed, has to step up to the plate. Otherwise, as I've warned many a time, we'll end up playing the role of George III, Jefferson Davis, Hoover and Hitler.

For Discussion Purposes...

Originally Posted by Kevin Phillips for the Washington Post

Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.

We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.

Indeed, there is a potent change taking place in this country's domestic and foreign policy, driven by religion's new political prowess and its role in projecting military power in the Mideast.

The United States has organized much of its military posture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks around the protection of oil fields, pipelines and sea lanes. But U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East has another dimension. In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.

The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.

President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions...

More...

Kevin Phillips is the author of "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" (Viking).

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

BTW, in my family calculations, I started with all known descendants of my great-grandparents, which expands the field considerably. Even with that wide of a net (scores of people), only two Silents. I just remembered a 1925er that I incorrectly calculated as a GI in my previous post above. It's possible I missed another one, but still, isn't that strange?

Not really. My lineage has very few GIs, and those that do/did exist were on the cusps. No one on either side of my family was born between 1901 and 1920.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

How the GOP Became God's Own Party ...

There is no lack of people saying what is wrong. I've yet another "Bush Sux" article, ... The question is how to fix it. Somebody, indeed, has to step up to the plate. Otherwise, as I've warned many a time, we'll end up playing the role of George III, Jefferson Davis, Hoover and Hitler.

This particular article has the importan t property of being the product of a disillusioned supporter. Phillips even does a mea culpa, of sorts, accepting his role in creating what he now criticizes. He speaks less effectively to me, who believed this all along, than he does to someone that still is in the Bush camp. In that, he is trying to fix something.

Eventually, we will turn away from the folly we're pursuing - not because of ideology, but because it's unsustainable. Where we will land is still an open question.

/ / /

Teach a person how to fish...) School of Progress.

Originally Posted by No Person Left Unlined (Angleland-Division)

"Angling does not discriminate against gender, race, age or athletic ability"

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

On topic - I met with a friend last week who I spent a month with in an educational program during the summer of 2002.

We both commented that 2002 seemed like a million years ago.

What changed?

You became a parent. :wink:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Finch

Originally Posted by albatross '82

Yeah, I can't think of any Silents in my family. All of my grandparents were/are G.I.'s and all their kids are Boomers. And actually, I'm only one of two Millies from the next family generation after that--it's almost all Xers. Millies didn't start showing up until THEY started having kids.

Hmm. My parents are '38 and '44 (definitely Silents), and my only living grandparent is '15 (that's Lost, right?)

No, 1915 is middle GI cohort. Losts end at either 1900 (according to Strauss & Howe) or as late as 1905 (according to some posters here).

BTW, in my family calculations, I started with all known descendants of my great-grandparents, which expands the field considerably. Even with that wide of a net (scores of people), only two Silents. I just remembered a 1925er that I incorrectly calculated as a GI in my previous post above. It's possible I missed another one, but still, isn't that strange?

GI's started in 1905, I believe. All four of my grandparents were late, late Losts - 1901 - 1904. Both parents are Silents (1930, 1938). All of my aunts and uncles are Silents as well, except the oldest (Nov 1925) who is just at the very end of the GI's. Me and my sibs are all Xers (1962 - 1965).

= = =