Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Generational Boundaries







Post#1 at 07-01-2001 12:39 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:39 AM #1
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

You may read archived posts from this topic by following this link to the old forum site. The most recent messages in this topic are included below for your convenience.







Post#2 at 07-01-2001 12:40 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:40 AM #2
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Mike Alexander '59
Date posted: Thu Jun 28 20:45:01 2001
Subject: What's wrong with hippies?
Message:
Justin, you seem to be prejudiced against people your own age following the hippie lifestyle. My step daughter's boyfriend ('79) certainly looks like a hippie (long hair and all that). He is a really nice guy, although he has little ambition (something that bothers my step daughter a little). I suspect they will marry someday, which is fine with me. He has a good heart and my step daughter (pre-med, 4.0 avg) will make tons of $$$. This could certainly work.

Basically, he is a lot like me, rather than my step-daughter's father, who is nothing like him (but much like her). So I take it as a compliment :smile:







Post#3 at 07-01-2001 12:40 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:40 AM #3
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Anthony '58 (Anthony '58 )

Date posted: Fri Jun 29 7:16:36 2001
Subject: School shootings
Message:
My take on this school-shooting business is that it's all very generational: Millennials have far less tolerance for "gender deviance" among themselves than either Post-Busters or Baby Busters had - and it's because the Millennials are being raised this way by the group that makes up the plurality of their parents: The evangelical "Boomlets" born 1950 to 1957. A few years ago there was this story about a boy in junior-high school in Pacifica (San Mateo County) whose mother sued the local district because teachers weren't doing anything about the bullying the kid had to put up with on a constant basis (the kid denied he was gay, but was nearly a foot shorter than the other boys in his class; apparently anti-gay epithets figured prominently in the abuse he suffered, which included several beatings, at least one of which resulted in hospitalization).

All of this, of course, was on prominent display at Columbine, and also figured in the most recent incident, outside San Diego (apparently some of the victims aren't quite as "wimpy" as everyone thought).

The saeculum is definitely at work here - although not in a very pleasant way, to me at least.







Post#4 at 07-01-2001 12:40 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:40 AM #4
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Justin
Date posted: Fri Jun 29 8:56:33 2001
Subject: Anthony
Message:
Im not sure if agree with your boundaries for busters and post busters. But i will say I get along with and understand my 57,58 and 60 uncles and aunts alot more than my boomer relatives or millennial relatives (who are the weirdest).
Those last few cohorts are pretty swing. ive met 58ers that are Boomer to the core, complete with a negative jugement of my generation. But Ive also met people that age that are pretty cynical, so I get along with them fairly well. I think that the idea of a baby boomer is such a sterotype that it totally leaves the last wave of the boom out of the equation, and that last wave is really cool, because it is less hot air and self praising BS, but is still has a deeply ingrained sense of justice, and i think is optimistic in the sense that they have a vision of a perfect world. I feel like their morality is deeper, and isnt as curved into excess like my generation. My generation is full of people that do stupid things for no reason. Were defintely (not me, but my peers) are wild and often ignorant.







Post#5 at 07-01-2001 12:41 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:41 AM #5
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Justin
Date posted: Fri Jun 29 8:57:58 2001
Subject: traits
Message:
so from the perspective of traits, your numbers might be fairly close. historically, i see otherwise.







Post#6 at 07-01-2001 12:41 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:41 AM #6
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Craig '84
Date posted: Fri Jun 29 12:27:26 2001
Subject: give me a head with hair
Message:
Now that I've thought about it a little bit, boys' hairstyles seem to fall into four basic categories.

1. The shaven category. This is all those boys who have little or no hair. Teens with buzz-cuts or skinhead looks fit in here, as well as the ones who look like Brad Hargraves or who have just a few spikes with the rest shaven. Some butch. It seems we don't care much about hair...someone made baldness cool a few years ago.

2. The long rocker category. The boys who have really big or long hair like Aerosmith, or like Kurt Cobain, or someone in Phish, or who try to look like any hair band. These boys are rockers and not really into the hippie thing.

3. Teenage boys with short but not really short hair. Longer than the people who shave their heads, like crew cuts or just plain and short without buzzing. These kids are what we often call the narcs, the guys who speak up for their teachers and their rules and get scorned by everyone else for it.

4. And then there's the boys who bleach their hair blonde. Some may bleach the roots and tips and stuff different colors like candy corn or dye their hair...they all seem to have their hair in little spikes of some sort...Calvin Klein hair with bleached, or punk or Everclear or Sugar Ray. Later. -Craig







Post#7 at 07-01-2001 12:41 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:41 AM #7
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Susan
Date posted: Fri Jun 29 19:18:14 2001
Subject: more on hippies and others
Message:
Justin, while it may be annoying to have any "natural" behavior labeled "hippie" behavior, it's not necessarily an insult. To many people, a hippie is a positive thing to be: just an easy way to say "cool person who follows natural instincts." Unfortunately, it's gotten negative connotations because of its association with the Woodstock Boomers, drugs, and easy sex. But a person of any age can be a hippie. In fact, Justin, among your cohort group of late Xers, there seem to be a number of "neohippies"--that is, long-haired, easy going guys who don't necessarily burn flags, smoke pot or have an Indian guru, but who are nevertheless environmentally and socially aware. The main difference between these late Xers and their Woodstock predecessors is that the former are far less judgemental and condemning of those who hold differing views, and their social awareness has a practical, rather than a spiritual, basis. They are probably less likely to "sell out" later, as well. They also do not divorce themselves entirely from the Establishment, and continue to attend school, hold jobs, etc. because it is necessary for them to do so, and it has simply not occurred to them to "tune in, turn on, and drop out."

While on the topic of late wave Xers, it seems that a good-sized chunk are of the career-oriented, trend-following variety, and affect a snotty, "I'm too cool for you" air. Browse through one of the current trendy entertainment magazines in particular to get the idea. These are the ones who are sporting navel rings and saying "whatever." Riot grrls seem to fit this stereotype esoecially well. So do the self-consciously "cool" cast members of shows like "The Real World." Not all, or even most, late Xers are like this, however. It's an unfortunate, though intriguing, stereotype--and like all stereotypes, it tends to stick. I'd say there are actually more 1977-1981 cohorts who are neohippies, or just plain regular folks who don't fit into any particular stereotype, who are just living their lives, wearing boring clothes, and minding their own business.

I appreciate your comments about Jones cohort Boomers, Justin. You seem to like us :smile: (Sorry Anthony, but I just can't bring myself to use the term "Buster"--ugh!)







Post#8 at 07-01-2001 12:41 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:41 AM #8
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Anthony '58 (Anthony '58 )

Date posted: Sat Jun 30 0:43:21 2001
Subject: Hippies vs. Post-Hippies
Message:
When I was a kid I honestly thought "hippie" was short for "hypocrite!" A bunch of young people moaning about how "immoral" the Vietnam War was, yet at the same time having sex without even the thought of getting married. Very odd, I must say! Why didn't they just be honest about what their true motive was - a simple instinct for self-preservation! (They didn't want to go 10,000 miles away and get shot at - who does?) And Strauss & Howe, for their part, in "The Fourth Turning" itself, spout two prominent pieces of Boomer nonsense - and on the same page, no less! What I'm referring to is their reference to "Vietnam's civil war" and, right afterward, their characterization of South Vietnam as "a morally questionable ally."

Civil war? I was under the impression that the definition of a "civil war" was when two groups within the same country fight for control of that country's government and institutions. What you had in Vietnam was one country (North Vietnam) invading and trying to annex another (South Vietnam). Civil war? I think not.

And as far as the "morally questionable ally" business goes - "questionable" compared to what? A bunch of subhuman butchers who cut children's tongues out and slashed people's throats with palm leaves? And despite multiple references to the Crisis era that culminated in World War II throughout the book, they couldn't have called Joseph Stalin a "morally questionable ally" at least once?

Going back to one of my posts of a few days ago, lets do what S&H suggest by taking the Iran hostage standoff and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and try to replay their effect had they taken place in 1969-70 instead of 1979-80. What would the response on America's college campuses have been like? In the case of Iran, student demonstrators probably would have demanded that we give in to the Iranian hostage-takers and hand the Shah over to them - to the Boomers on campus, the Shah would have represented "imperialist oppression" of the worst sort. Afghanistan? I'm sure the SDS etc. would have turned the Afghan freedom fighters into the villans, calling them "immoral" or whatever. And there would have been angry protests demanding that the Olympic boycott be rescinded. Quite different from what the mood actually was among the college-age crowd in 1980 - quite different because they belong to a completely different generation! And from Marvin Harris to Doug Coupland, a lot of people would agree.







Post#9 at 07-01-2001 12:42 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:42 AM #9
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Justin
Date posted: Sat Jun 30 14:39:23 2001
Subject: Re:Anthony
Message:
79-80 was your senior year in college right?
Hmm. Well I dont think having sex without thinking of getting married is immoral. Like another Nomad minded person (supposedly im a nomad) I agree with Hemingway's quote "whats moral is what feels good after, and whats immoral feels bad after." I feel alot better after sex, than after napalming villages in Vietnam. Hmm murder and premarital sex arent really in the same league. As for the Shah, I can understand why the Iranians were so pissed off. They wanted to hang on to their culture, and not watch it be destroyed by globalization, Coca Cola and the like. I guess they took the hostages to feel powerful, which Im sure we did to them a few thousand times over in order to assert our control over the region. But these questions go on forever. In 91 I feel the mood was the same amongst my cohort as it was among yours in 79-80. They wanted to turn Iraq into a parking lot. But I was ignorant then. Because the US bulldozed thousands of Iraqi soldiers alive in the desert while they were in their trenches, and Saddam Hussein is still in power. A real successful war that one was.







Post#10 at 07-01-2001 12:42 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:42 AM #10
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Eric Meece
Date posted: Sat Jun 30 18:35:34 2001
Subject: the Buster reveals his colors
Message:
"Boomer nonsense - and on the same page, no less! What I'm
referring to is their reference to "Vietnam's civil war" and, right afterward, their characterization of South Vietnam as "a morally questionable ally."
You know me; I can't resist the chance to set straight a conservative.

The Vietnam War was a war between two factions who wanted to control Vietnam, which was one country and not two. It was also an anti-colonial war against France supported by the USA (1946 to 1954) and then against the US invaders (1965-75) You didn't know this Anthony?? Who is spouting "nonsense"?? As for morally questionable, I take it you approve of mass imprisonment of political enemies, corruption and military dictatorship? Comparison to Stalin (and no doubt he was not just questionable, but totally immoral), does not change the facts about South Vietnam.
Eric







Post#11 at 07-01-2001 12:42 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:42 AM #11
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Craig '84
Date posted: Sat Jun 30 20:26:35 2001
Subject: Eric
Message:
Of course the rules on building your house go too far. Government doesn't just get carried away...it gets VERY carried away. People are getting in trouble with the law just because of what COLOR their house is, for goodness sake! As for the Internet, I was thinking about people trying to close down Napster and all those lyrics sites, although you're right that the censorship of porn and "indecency" is wrong too. Why do kids need to be protected about seeing pictures of boobies and butts? We all have them! And when people go after naked 17-year-olds taking photos of themselves...that just crosses the line. As for the government regulating what kind of calculator I can buy...I needed some "clincher" after all my other examples and was trying to think of the most bizarre thing I could think of for the government to restrict...I looked around the desk by the computer hoping for inspiration...and I saw a standard pocket calculator sitting there. Voila`. But truly,the world is replete with all sorts of bizarre laws and it seems that anything you are doing now is probably illegal. It's illegal to tape songs off the radio on a cassette for your own personal use. It's illegal to return swimsuits to the store after you've bought them. In some cities it's even illegal to bathe on a Sunday or ride a horse backwards or something like that. I'd like to start my own joke restaurant at home that serves up turds from both human and animal on little plates, but it's probably illegal to feed someone turds, and it's also probably against the law to say you're running any kind of restaurant without a license, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were illegal to pick an animal turd off the ground in nature. I mean, their FECES doesn't hold any DNA from endangered species, does it?

As for other teens...most of us are pretty "liberated, rebellious and/or libertarian". To survive in a world like this with schools like these without going nuts and not being able to do anything, you have to be. It's not just me, but everyone else at my school too who's like that. As for why I prefer Generation X over the Millennial Generation...it's obvious if you look at the core defining marks of each generation: X = cynical and ratty and survivalist; Millennial = obedient and loves the system. 1984 cohorts are obviously NOT like the latter, they're anything but. When you get a birthyear where most of the members rebel against authority, it can NOT possibly be considered Millennial. For that reason, we're in Generation X, almost by default. -Craig







Post#12 at 07-01-2001 12:42 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:42 AM #12
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Craig '84
Date posted: Sat Jun 30 20:41:00 2001
Subject: Hippies
Message:
Everyone here already knows my attitudes towards marriage, so I won't go into that by now. Susan, sometimes we call what you are describing as "hippie chick" or "hippie chic". Generation Y doesn't mind hippie things as much as people born 1976 and before because we never knew the sixties firsthand and few of us had parents who were hippies. That way we couldn't say that being a hippie was eeeeewwww because your parents were hippies and it was uncool to be like your parents...whereas early Xers could have that excuse against liking hippies. When all you've ever known is the eighties and nineties...a culture centered around erradicating social conventions must look VERY appealing. Since it becomes a fad the elementary and junior high kids will of course get into it, because they see older girls wearing it and it's "cool" to be like the older kids...but with high school students hippie style is very much an antiestablishment thing. We know very well what Woodstock was like and what hippies believed in in the sixties and stand for...and if someone is a "narc" (as we most often call them) they're never going to wear hippie clothes or listen to hippie music because they have a problem with what the hippies stand for. I don't know why it's more popular with the girls than the boys though...the male equivalent seems to be harder rock, with skull rings and eighties hair band looks. -Craig







Post#13 at 07-01-2001 12:43 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-01-2001, 12:43 AM #13
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Craig '84
Date posted: Sat Jun 30 20:56:37 2001
Subject: School shootings
Message:
"My take on this school-shooting business is that it's all very generational: Millennials have far less tolerance for `gender deviance' among themselves than either Post-Busters or Baby Busters had - and it's because the Millennials are being raised this way by the group that makes up the plurality of their parents: The evangelical `Boomlets' born 1950 to 1957."

Don't think the kids doing the shootings (born mostly from 1980-1984) are an intolerant generation. Our beliefs are nothing like our parents'! What I said about gender roles being reinstituted in the High speaks volumes about how we see gender roles. Our parents, on the other hand, are mostly conformist and into that "family values" garbage where gays, transvestites, lesbians, single people and people who don't conform to Traditional Gender Roles are all seen as evil. In junior high a lot of us thought it was cool to beat up and make fun of gays..."That's so gay" was everywhere. But now in high school everyone seems to realize that homophobia isn't cool...it's just buying in to the idea that homosexuality is wrong, which is simply one of those repressive rules they say you "have to follow". We can see that the really cool thing to be, is openly accepting of gays. I wonder if everyone's views are opposite those of their parents...from the van guard of my age group, it looks as this is probably the case and is more accurate than the idea that people pick up their attitudes from their parents. Except possibly, for the Boomers (today). -Craig







Post#14 at 07-04-2001 04:09 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:09 AM #14
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Craig '84
Date posted: Sat Jun 30 23:34:41 2001
Subject: Chris
Message:
"Also, the big reasons why suburbia happened are (not exhaustively):...1)A bizarre notion stretching from the 17th century to present that the wilderness or rural areas are somehow better than not-rural areas...2)America really didn't have much of an urban society until the Industrial Revolution hit our shores in full swing. The IR was the worst thing to happen to cities until Modernist Architecture and the automobile slum (err, subsidy). Europe had an urban culture far before the IR, so Europeans had nice(r) cities than we did. Still do, I think....3)World War I proved to devastate our vision for a grandioise future that involved (among other things) really nice urban areas. By the 1920s, people were shifting to cars....4)The Great Depression and World War II pretty much ended anything new construction of privately owned structures. Nothing new was built except for (surprise) roads. By 1945, our cities were falling apart. And it was obvious: imagine not being able to fix your home for 15 years....5) Oh yeah, the train companies from 1880s to the 1920s were asking for it. Imagine Bill Gates running Amtrak. No one liked them....
6)Federal subsidies artificially cheapened the costs of living far from cities....7) Many programs to "save" the cities in the 1950s failed. The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961: Jane Jacobs) documents this. Imagine your house getting bulldozed because it was too dense/not modern enough.
I see. So suburbs got started by white flight and people thinking the fifties was modern (and the twenties weren't by that standard?) As for people thinking rural was cool? And trying to get as close to rural and far away from urban as you can get? It sounds from what you guys describe like moving to the suburbs represented the quintessential fifties experience and fifties G.I. values. No wonder people always associate the fifties with the Levittown and portray the fifties in suburbs. It was where it was happening, or rather where square was happening. Is the conformist, conservative origin of suburbs why kids in the suburbs feel there's nothing to do and become alienated and hate their hometown? As for #6 (Federal subsidies artificially cheapened the costs of living far from cities....), that again sounds like more G.I. culture.

"Fair enough, but how many actually went as a percentage of the US population? Were these off-the-street fellows, or richer than average?" Actually, I don't know...but I'd assume a lot of World War I veterans.

"It was also noted in the 1890s that C02 would also warm the planet. Hitler and economic depression scored higher on the Concerning Things and Events list. By 1945, they were pretty much done with saving the world, mentally. Besides, what are you gonna do? Sue them? People aren't perfectly enlightened. The Republican generation should have known the slavery wasn't good either, but many of them still had slaves well into the 19th century." So you're saying that the G.I. generation DID know about CO2 and endangered species but didn't care that much? This just shows that I was saying, that the GI's didn't do much that was "great" at all.

"[On the other hand, '82 cohorts are in college now and the next few years have all entered high school. And we're STILL rebelling. We're even rebelling when we're old enough to rebel.] `We'? Who is the `we' that you speak of rebelling?" Generation Y...1977, 1978, 1979...which includes the birthyears like 1982 and 1984 that S&H classify as Millennial. You and I are both in the "we".

"The vast majority of '82 people seem to spend their time getting up, going to school/work, coming home, watching TV, going to bed, and repeating these actions the following day." As for that...you're just leaving things out. What about taking trips to Naples or the beach or Tahoe over the week end? What about doing some drugs and going to parties? What about hanging out and the malls and visiting the shopping centers? Or buying things? Spending time with their boyfriend or girlfriend? Trying to catch the latest movie, or at least the good ones? Etc.

"The `we' that I encounter is very busy, and wishes things were more organized so as to make life a bit more convenient and less of a hassle, on a daily basis. The roads had to ought to stay paves, the lights should stay on, and mufflers should be on all cars, just to name a few." It sounds like you have a pretty weird group of friends. Frankly I don't see how people would worry about whether cars had mufflers if they have threatening cops, unfair school policies and hoping those terrible laws change to worry about. Not to mention having STD's, China invading Tibet, etc.

"It is the TRUTH that authority is wrong? Thanks. I have been searching for truth, but now I have you to tell me that the TRUTH is that authority is wrong. Actions can be wrong. Facts can be wrong, but authority is a status. Authority in and of itself isn't wrong. Government in and of itself isn't wrong." It's wrong to start a system where the rules go that people agree that someone is right or wrong about something and someone should be obeyed just because of who they are, rather than what they're saying. The meaning of the enforcement of that status is what makes that status wrong. For instance, wasting a bunch of food is wrong. If the student wants to throw away some diligently prepared food but the teacher won't let him, the teacher is right and the student is wrong. If the teacher tells his students that they all have to throw their food away and a student refuses to and says it's wrong to waste food, then the student is right and the teacher is wrong. But if you go by the rules that invests the teacher with AUTHORITY, you insist that the teacher is right and the student is wrong. Now you insist that if the student wants to throw away some diligently prepared food but the teacher won't let him, the teacher (and therefore the idea that wasting food is wrong) is right. While if the teacher tells his students that they all have to throw their food away and a student refuses to and says it's wrong to waste food, the teacher is also right and the student is wrong, and therefore wasting food is right and refusing to do so is wrong. All in the person and not in the action itself? How can that be a good system for determining morals for anything?

"I don't think you can really be serious that authority is all that is wrong (or have I misread you?)." All authority is wrong, but not all that is wrong is authority.

"[And bringing up the Boomers like that, doesn't fit any of the facts at all.] Please present."

It's like this: S&H says that people born 1982 and afterwards are going to respect the government and die for their country once they come of age, and if you notice that most of them are acting like Xers it's only because the full Millennial personality has yet to emerge, they haven't discovered their own identity yet, etc. And they say that looking at teens now is like looking at Boomers in 1962 (or however old the oldest Boomers were when they were the same age that '82 cohorts happen to be currently). The argument is that in 1962 Boomers were acting like Silents, being obedient instead of rebellious, and everyone thought they would turn out to be even more conventional than the Silent generation...then they became shocked when they saw what Boomers looked like by 1965, as if the Boomers had themselves changed. Excuse me, but since when were the Silents a conformist generation? If you're going to expect them to be like the generation before them, then shouldn't you have expected them to be alienated, recessive "Rebels without a cause"? Who shock G.I. standards? No way did the Silent teens trust the Establishment. Come on, you think the urban juvenile delinquents liked the Establishment at all? And as for the rock and roll teens and the twentysomethings who were making the music, their values just weren't compatible with the Establishment. The Establishment was too rigid to accept what they were doing. Who read The Catcher in the Rye? Silents. Even those who weren't sitting in the clubs to read beat poetry almost seemed to act as if they were the original rebels. If sociologists really expected the Baby Boomers to be extremely docile to authority, then wouldn't that make the Silent generation MORE rebellious than the Boomers were supposed to be? The idea that Boomers were supposed to be obedient before they broke free of the Silent mask is based on a completely false premise about Silents. It's almost rewriting the facts to find a twisted way to explain something. I don't BELIEVE that anyone would actually have said that the Boomers would turn out conformist due to looking at the generation before them. Is there any recorded proof that this actually happened? S&H use that as an analogy to today, and say that the Xer persona is only because the teens haven't discovered completely who they are yet, just as the Boomers reportedly started out with a Silent persona. They say that Boomers still appeared conformist (as the Silents were [sic]) but then emerged as rebellious whereas Millennials, being the Heroic opposite of Prophets, appear rebellious now but will emerge as Nazis who love pleasing their parents. Even if the Boomers HAD come after a conformist generation, that would be no reason why our generation should change in the opposite direction. People who have realized the TRUTH that authority is wrong and the people making the rules are corrupt are not going to suddenly act like scouts in a few years and start thinking whoever is in authority is great "because the Xer personality is just a temporary skindeep mask". We deeply believe in our rebelling, and it's just illogical and absurd to suggest that people who have come to realize that authority is not right and that the right thing transcends what people in closed-minded society believe at any one time are suddenly going to change into loving authority and the system an thinking restrictions of society are good. How the hell are our brains supposed to magically change over? Are we supposed to have a massive wave of amnesia attacks?

"Unless you're removing his fans from society, you can't say that society thought he was evil. Elvis was recieved differently by many different people. Most probably didn't care. Some loved him. Some hated him. If all of society thought he was evil, he wouldn't have sold any of his records." Well...you know how I'm using the word "society". In a way his fans didn't belong to society. Society being people saying he was unacceptable and frowning upon him because of his differences and such.

"Listening to Alice Cooper now, or in the 1970s?" I meant in the 1970s. "I can't say that Alice Cooper is particuraly (sp?) rebellious. My parents like them, and my grandparents don't know who he is." My parents simply think that Alice Cooper was immature. Eminem? It's definitely rebellious if your parents don't want to listening to someone who swears.

"I don't see many 60-somethings with goatees. I don't know what a 60-something beatnik would look like, let alone his or her views 20-some odd years ago." Dude, you've never seen a beatnik? Goatees seem to be the marker of the grey haired Silent man. Intelligent, modern, has become hip now...a lot of them have those little glasses too that look like the kind Jesse Jackson wears. The Silents are cooler than the Boomers now. I've seen hundreds of Silents like that. Sometimes the women wear all black. A very good description of Silents comes from the 4T line "They are entering elderhood with unprecedented affluence, a `hip' style, and a reputation for indecision".

"Also, to trust a government carries with it many meanings. Trust it do what? I trust the government to manipulate interest rates. I trust them enough so that I know the buildings in DC will still be standing tomorrow. I trust that they will not accomplish much tomorrow. I also trust that most of them will do tomorrow whatever it is they did yesterday." That's true. I agree with Justin that you're funny. Like when the time I talked about getting stopped by some pigs while I was driving and you said "I usually slow down and brake around farm animals". Hee hee hee. But it's pretty clear what S&H mean when they talk about Heroes trusting the government.

"Don't know Jasta." Jasta is this soft drink kind of like Snapple or Frutopia. They had this commercial for it where this Xer kid with an earring was talking with his grandfather who was in his seventies. His grandfather told him that he wanted to share a very important lesson he learned in his life. He said: "When I was wrong my friends would drive around and pick up women...they asked me to come along...and I never did it. And you know what?"

Kid: "You wish you had?"

Grandfather: "Every day of my life".

It then goes on to the product screen with the soft drink logo and runs the line: "Jasta. Better do the good stuff now". I don't want to find myself ending up like that old man in that commercial, and I'm afraid about what might happen if 4T comes true and what's going to become of me...I feel insecure, like that Third Eye Blind song "How's It Going To Be?". -Craig







Post#15 at 07-04-2001 04:09 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:09 AM #15
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Craig '84
Date posted: Sat Jun 30 23:42:49 2001
Subject: Typo
Message:
A correction. In my last note I said:

He said: "When I was wrong my friends would drive around and pick up women...they asked me to come along...and I never did it. And you know what?"

It should be "When I was YOUNG..."
-Craig







Post#16 at 07-04-2001 04:09 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:09 AM #16
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Anthony '58 (Anthony '58 )

Date posted: Sun Jul 1 0:52:57 2001
Subject: Here We Go Again!
Message:
Well at least now I know why my ears were burning all day!

First, Justin: What I was trying to say is, that if you're going to bring up "morality" then you have to be consistent - don't call someone else (or someone else's war) "immoral" if you're engaging in immoral behavior yourself. I would have respected the Boomer protesters a lot more if they had the same attitude that Ricky Watters has: "For who - for what?" If they had argued that some small country 10,000 miles away was of no strategic importance to the United States (after all, Vietnam has no oil, now does it?) then I could have seen their point - but this "immoral" business just came across as hypocrisy (BTW, I think Dan Quayle is a total hypocrite too - I would vote for Gus Hall [if he was still alive] before I would ever vote for him). As far as Iran goes, our State Department did misread the Islamic fundamentalists big time - and I'll be the first to admit it. We should have seen them as a bulwark against atheistic Communism and jumped on their bandwagon when they started to rise to power. Things would have turned out a lot different if we had!

Now to Eric: I guess you must think that what Hitler did to Austria in 1938 (the "Anschluss") was a "civil war" too. And yes, I know all about how Vietnam threw off the French - Dien Bien Phu and all that.

Finally, Craig: Don't take this the wrong way, but somehow I don't think your views are held by the majority of what I label the "Echo Boomers" born 1981 to 1990. From all the media accounts (which admittedly may have been sensationalized) of what led up to Columbine, San Diego and all the rest of these school-shooting incidents, it appears that any dude in high school today who's too short, too skinny and/or has no interest in sports is in a whole lot of trouble - whether he's actually "gay" or not (except maybe in San Francisco and a few other "enlightened" locales).







Post#17 at 07-04-2001 04:09 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:09 AM #17
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Stephen Karlson (Stephen Karlson )

Date posted: Sun Jul 1 8:45:13 2001
Subject: Old Goats and Aging Hippies
Message:
Makes setting those generational boundaries a bit more complicated, doesn't it. Chris's description precisely fits the aging hippie model (that mix of late Silents and early Boomers that is the real Destructive Generation).

The early "Silents" (anybody who has spent much time with the academic version of that cohort will recognize that bunch as anything but silent) tend to go with the beards or goatees.
SHK
Chris Loyd -- Most Silents I have seen have a thing for sideburns or even ponytails.







Post#18 at 07-04-2001 04:10 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:10 AM #18
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by:Robert Reed '82 (Robert Reed '82 )

Company/Organization:Open Space Movement
Date posted: Sun Jul 1 13:22:38 2001
Subject: Security
Message:
This just shows that I was saying, that the GI's didn't do much that was "great" at all.
Actually, they did a lot that was great. If you want to really know what they did, read "The Greatest Generation" and "Freedom From Fear". Almost everything institution that you depend on today is the result of the GI Generation. And in fact, if it wasn't for them, we would look more like Somalia today.

And the reason you can just "hate" authorityis because the GIs build up the necessary amount of security in society that would allow you to dislike authority. When S&H write their books, they vastly understate the importance of security in the saeculum, and how ebbs and flows in the feeling of security is in exact tune with the saeculum. The reason why you hate authority is because you feel very secure socially. Let me go through the entire saeculum to explain why security is paramount in explaining it.

During a 1T, society is building security, tolerates little social argument, has a bland culture, and is conformist. Coming from the 4T, this is perfectly understandable, and I will get into that later. There is an interesting generational dynamic here. The Prophet life cycle is marked by rising chaos, while the Hero lifecycle is marked by rising order. The Artist life cycle is divided into halves. The first half, which is childhood to young adulthood, is marked by extreme order, while the last half if marked by extreme disorder. For Nomads, the first half is extreme chaos, while the second half is extreme order. In a 1T, while the Hero generation is still marked by rising order, the order feels secure enough to raise their children in a very permissive environment. As a result, they are told to expect much out of life, to be individuals, and to ask fundamental questions. So the Prophets start out with rising chaos right into their childhood. But the older generations are marked by rising order. The child generation is an incredible marker of the next turning, as the trends in their raising are transferred right into their young adulthood. As Boomers get into young adulthood in 2T, this rising chaos begins to penetrate society. But heroes are naturally in tune with rising order. And as they take control of institutions at the very end of the 1T, it shows. Heroes try to spread their order in an era that feels very secure. Prophets, not wanting to lose their disorder, rebel against the Aging Heroes, starting an Awakening. An Awakening can only happen when society feels secure enough at the fundamental levels. The Awakening happens because of an overabundance of security that crushes the individual. With this security, people really start wanting more rights, and do not believe in discipline because the order seems very, very secure. This sense of security reaches its zenith at the climax, which is the point in which the Heroes make their largest mark in a grand project, and when Prophets overwhelm it just afterwards. In the last Awakening, Heroes peaked in from 1969 to 1972 with their Apollo Lunar missions, and the Prophets peaked with Watergate. Meanwhile, the Nomad generations are raised in a period without security, and in complete chaos. Adults are so secure that they neglect the Nomads, and force them to grow up on their own. When Boomers are on the brink of midlife, a 4T of sorts happens in the child world, as they learn how insecure the child world is. So they suddenly try to build an atmosphere of security around their new kids, and these are the child Heroes. This happens into the 3T. Nomads are still feeling little security at this phase of life, but Nomad and Prophet parents are building security around their new Hero children. But just as ever, Prophet generations are still marked by rising disorder in their lifeccles. As we get to the end of the 3T, the elder Artists try to keep the last remnants of security, and try to wage one final battle against aging Prophets. But they are utterly unsuccessful. Prophets sense that the security is fading fast, but are too anti-civic and powerless to do anything about it. Nomads sense a brewing storm, and begin to build security for themselves and their family. Heroes sense that the Prophets do not know how to run society. The new Artists are born with Nomad parents imposing a very powerful sense of security. In the 3T, there will be many warnings of what could happen, but there are deferred. The 4T starts because the Prophet is anti-civic, and because they are unyielding. Because of their civic risk taking, something happens, and the Prophet is too powerless to do anything about it. This panic drops all feeling of security, and society feels that they are in grave danger. Heroes, who are not used to this insecurity, begin prodding the Prophets they depend on to wield authority to rebuild this. The Regeneracy occurs when the Prophet decides to guide the Heroes into building a future for themselves. The climax is when the Prophet gives a powerful burst of passion, and the Heroes respond with a overpowering collective force that implants a new regime in place, and is also the time when the feeling of security is coming back. This pretty much explains the saeculum.

Now, what does this have to do with anything? The reason why you hate authority, and think it is evil is because you feel very secure. It is because the current order feels secure enough. But if you felt threatened at the very fundamental level of your individual and collective being, then you will support authority to help build up this security. When there is no security, there is not freedom. People will not care for freedom if they are feeling insecure. Only when people feel secure will people care for their personal freedoms. In the Glorious Revolution, security eroded to oblivion with King Philip's War, Bacon's Rebellion (which was a reflection of the insecureity), and Stuart's totalitarian ambitions. People supported public (colonial) authority to overcome the Stuart King. In the next Crisis, society felt threatened at the fundamental levels, with the British reaction to the Boston Tea Party. This causes the colonies to coalesce behind Samuel Adams, and support his authority to to break away from Great Britain. The same was true for the Civil War. In 1929, the Stock Market Crash, and ensuing depression eroded any sense of security, causing the public to support the authority of FDR to bring it back. But does not always end happily, as the French Revolution and Germany's Great Power Crisis show. The French Revolution only replaced te beheaded king with Napoleon, and the economic crash caused people to support the authority of Hitler. Today, it might seem foolish to support a dictator, but that's what happens when 4Ts go badly. Remember that a catalyst quickly erodes the sense of security in a society, and people feel that their very way of life is gravely threatened. And again, people will not care for freedom if are not secure. If people feel that their way of life is in peril, then they will try to secure, or build a new way of life before they care for their freedoms. The 1930s and 1940s were a very dangerous time for America. Most people do not realize just how close America came to a fascist or communist revolution. So we are pretty lucky that FDR became president. Amid an agricultural depression, a desparate Louisiane elected Huey "Kingfish" Long as govenor, and he practically became the dictator of that state in the late 1920s, suggesting that Louisiana entered 4T earlier than 1929. In the 1930s, he took his politics on a national scale, proclaiming "Every man a king, but no man wears a crown". Kingfish was a radical populist. He was a very radical socialist who started the "Share the Wealth" crusade, which was a redistribution program to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. He promised every American a car and a house. But in return, the citizens would give him total control over the nation and their rights. Excerpts of his autobiography can be found here. Huey Long stood squarely against big businesses, and confronted them, but an assassin's bullet put an end to all of this in 1935. If Huey Long won over Roosevelt, then America would be a much more socialist/fascist nation. It would look more similar to the Soviet Union than America in the 1950s. Here is another biography on him. Also, many Americans supported communism and fascism as solutions to their problems. So one would think that we woould've learned, but have we? It's possible that we have a generational forgetting of past events. And psychology and sociology shows that when society feels that its way of life is in grave peril, then they will support authoritative methods to bring back the security that they have previously taken for granted. If the biosphere suddenly collapses, would people support authoritative methods to save it? You bet. Hell, I would! Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is very important here, as you have to secure lower order needs, such as security before you go on to higher order needs, such as freedom. If your very way of life was threatened, would you support sacrificing your current lifestyle? You would. You have never experienced this type of insecurity. During a 4T, people support authority because they want to secure a future for themselves. This requires patience, and an ethic of "work now, play later". Before you can worry about whether or not yoi will not be allowed to smoke marijuana, you have to build a functioning civic order. This lower order need has to be satisfied first. This is why Prohibition was benched. It diverted resources that could be used to build a functioning civic order. And you say that you would NOT support the US Government in a 4T, and would work to quickly overthrow it. But let me give you some advice: look before you leap. The US guarantees you the freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. It guarantees you a fair court trial, etc. If we throw out the US Government, what will replace it? When German citizens turned away from Weimer Germany in 1933, Hitler took their place. Hitler was charismatic, and gave promises of a very secure future with lots of "lebensraum" (living space) for all citizens. The citizens, in proving Maslow correct, gave their rights for security. What makes you think that Americans won't do the same thing in 2008? Weimer Germany was a nation that would make today's US feel secure. Most of the population did not hate other races. It was a very liberal nation. But at the whell of history, the population threw out a government they felt was hopelessly corrupted, and Hitler quickly went in its place. The rest is history. World War II started at the end of the decade, and near the end, most of the nation was in ruin. The surrender of Germany was such a large event to Germans that the point was called "Staunte Null", or "Zero Hour". At that time, time seemed to start from the very beginning after an apocalyptic 4T. The add insult to injury, the nation was divided into 4 zones controlled by America, UK, France, and Russia. Until 1989, Germany was divided between a communist and capitalist nation by the Berlin Wall. America, however, was much more lucky. Roosevelt's New Deal did nothing to alleviate the depression. But as Susan once stated, he made American feel good about being depressed. In other words, he kept up hope for the American system, which prevented a fascist or communist revolution. In 1940, Americans realized that the New Deal was not going to work, so it is possible that FDR staged Pearl Harbor to prevent Americans from starting a revolution to overthrow the American system of government. So, will we make the correct choices in the coming 4T? Only time will tell. But before you throw out the US Government, make sure that viable alternatives are available. If none are, then a demagogue WILL step up to the plate, and command society towards detruction, just as France did in 1789 and Germany did in 1933. When you want to overthrow the government, as yourself and others if you are doing harm or good for your nation. Will the new regime support your rights better than the current regime? What promises for the future will they give you? Will they follow up on their promises? Does the regime respect you individual rights, and would they give you your rights back after rebuilding the nation? If you overthrow the US Government, then you had better put a good regime in place. You had better make sure that you are not replacing the US Government with a dictator. So it is best to heed the lessons of history to make sure this doesn't happen. If you overthrow the US Government, the KKK might just use this opportunity to take over the nation. Or a much better regime could be put in place. So that's why you need to look before you leap. 4T eras are very dangerous, and very volatile periods in history. That's why 4T eras are anti-risk, because a wrong move could put a Hitler in power. A wrong move could mean that we find ourselves under the rule of David Duke. But Americans fared well in the last Crisis. Poland fared the worst, having beed invaded by both Germany and the USSR, the main place for the Holocaust, and being under Stalin's communist regime afterwards. Germany likewise fared badly, with immense destruction of their homes, businesses, and life. 3 million Germans were killed, more than half of whom were civilians. Ther social order was completely and utterly destroyed. The very way of their life was obliterated completely. In the ensuing 1T, they had to literally rebuild their society from nothingness. The Eastern half of Germany was under the occupation of the Soviet Union, and stayed a very impoverished region up to this day, while Western Germany fared better. America made the right choices in the past 4T. Afterwards, we were the most powerful nation in the world. We had half of the world's money, 2/3rds of the world's machines, a military able to take over the world, and produced 2.5 times as much petroleum as the rest of the world combined. Americans were now rich, they could enjoy life now that they had their rights back. After the 4T, Americans felt very secure, and had built an unprecedented wealth machine that was able to build suburbs, now houses with toilets, rockets into space, etc. Because Americans made the right choices, they were able to enjoy life after the 4T. Americans had a car, a nice house, a nice income, and most importantly, apple pie.







Post#19 at 07-04-2001 04:10 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:10 AM #19
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by:Robert Reed '82 (Robert Reed '82 )

Company/Organization:Open Space Movement
Date posted: Sun Jul 1 14:02:15 2001
Subject: Security...cont.
Message:
So the foundations for our health today were build by GIs. The unprecedented scientific and research establishment was built by GIs. It is because of the GI generation today that we today get to enjoy our constitutional rights. America could've easily went the other way, but because of them, we still have our Bill of Rights, and other constitutional amendments. Germany, to this day, does not have the freedom of speech. It is because of this generation that you are allowed to bitch and moan about how bad the GIs were, and how bad authority is. It is because of this generation that we have a space program, and that we went to the moon. It is because of the GIs that we are able to divert resources to help the environment. For anyone to say that the GIs were bad, means that they take everything we have today for granted. The television that you watch today, the birth control pill, and other things are available because of this generation. The reason why we are in recession, but still well off is because the GIs build an unprecedented wealth machine. The GIs and Lost today understand more than any other generation the important of love of country. They've seen societies with no rights, and they've fought in their wars. Because they protected American freedoms, they realized how special America really was. And if we continue to take our current freedoms for granted, we could lose them. Instead of condemning America for everything that is wrong with it, we should champion and celebrate America for everything that's good about it, because it could quickly vanish in the next 4T.







Post#20 at 07-04-2001 04:10 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:10 AM #20
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by:Chris Loyd '82 (Chris Loyd '82 )

Date posted: Sun Jul 1 14:54:47 2001
Subject: Q
Message:
I see. So suburbs got started by white flight and people thinking the fifties was modern (and the twenties weren't by that standard?)
No. Suburbs got started in the 1870s and 1880s. White people were the main residents, yes. Well, the fifties were very modern by their standards. Look at the technology. TV. Telephones very common (many people didn't have phones in the 1920s). Phones that had dials, no more winding the knob to get an operator. Long-playing records versus 78 RPM singles. High-powered radio. Cars with automatic transmissions. Computers. Nuclear reactors. Submarines. Air conditioning. How many of these existed in the 1920s? TV existed in mechanical form in the 1920s. Telephones were candlesticks, not consoles. Wanted that Model T with an automatic transmission? A computer in 1920 was a PERSON who computed numbers. Nuclear reactors existed as equations on blackboards. Submarines weren't at all sophisticated in the 1920s. AC didn exist, but the vast majority of the population didn't have it. Hence, why most people lived in the North, where it was easier to heat. Hence, why ceilings were taller in pre-1950s buildings than today (for easy cooling), etc. The 1920s suburbs, by 1920s standards, were modern. By the 1950s, not quite so much. New home buyers in the 1950s wanted New New New! In effect, it was all they could get, due to the severe housing shortage at the time.

As for people thinking rural was cool? And trying to get as close to rural and far away from urban as you can get? It sounds from what you guys describe like moving to the suburbs represented the quintessential fifties experience and fifties G.I. values.

It was, for many, but for the rest of the population, I would think that most were satisfied with where they were living (farm, town, city). The suburbs in the 1960s and 1970s were mostly bought by Silents, and in the 1980s and 1990s, Boomers. I expect Xers to follow suit, until the price of gas goes up too high. Are suburbs quintessential experiences/values for Silents, Boomers, and some Xers? For many, but federal intervention with local urban planning and economies play a huge role.

It was where it was happening, or rather where square was happening. Is the conformist, conservative origin of suburbs why kids in the suburbs feel there's nothing to do and become alienated and hate their hometown?

Many observers think so. The vast rates of boredom and trouble-making relative to opportunity (lots of trouble for relatively safe surroundings) of US kids in the past 50 years compared to European kids is something to note. The USA destroyed its small towns (where kids would have some stuff to do) and prevented great cities from occuring (where kids would have lots of stuff to do). Instead we get cars and suburbia everywhere, where there is nothing to do. Do I hate San Antonio? No. I don't hate 1,200,000 people. I dislike that housing choices are far and few between. I dislike the poor transit. I dislike that we have to vote on mass transit issues, but road-building and highway-building is approved whether San Antonioans want it or not. I dislike the amount of payoff's that probably occur to ensure cookie-cutter development continues. San Antonio has an opportunity, as do most places. Get remote Government and Business men out of local issues, and maybe this town could be really someplace nice.

So you're saying that the G.I. generation DID know about CO2 and endangered species but didn't care that much? This just shows that I was saying, that the GI's didn't do much that was "great" at all.

Some, though not all. I really doubt my great-grandparents knew anything about it. Anyway, the only chart I have seen that shows global temps pre-1950s, indicates temps rising in the 1920s, declining in the 1930s and 1940s, rising in the 1950s and 1960s, declining in the 1970s, and rising from the 1980 through today. So, by 1945, if anyone was paying attention, would note that temps were declining, so there was nothing to worry about. In 1946, GIs were more concerned with the USSR, and by 1949, especially so. Cold War took precedence over environmental issues. Anyway, so what is it with you? A generation isn't great unless you think it solves the problems you think were important? Or is that because they didn't solve problems that affect us today? Or maybe it is all or nothing? Solve ALL the problems or for all practical purposes NOTHING was solved? Gee, you're tough to please.

You and I are both in the "we".

You just angered my Libertarian side. Excuse me, but you and I are not "we". You and I barely know each other. We don't share very many similar values. I would be bored by activites you find exciting, and vice versa. There is no "we" between you and I.

As for that...you're just leaving things out. What about taking trips to Naples or the beach or Tahoe over the week end?

Naples? NAPLES!? As in Italy!? How many people of *any* generation go there? The beach? San Antonio is land-locked. The nearest beaches are Corpus Christi, where the water is purple and the air is like burning oil, and the beachest near 1-mph traffic Houston. Most kids I know don't go to the beach. Lake Tahoe is a bit far for a weekend trip from San Antonio.

What about doing some drugs and going to parties?

I suppose some do that, and the ones who do that are quite visible (dig that low and dropping GPA).

What about hanging
out and the malls and visiting the shopping centers?

The malls are in decline here. I think maybe two or three are still pretty good, but they are in the 1960s part of town (except for one new one along the I-35 disaster zone). Shopping centers here are strip malls. No one hangs out in 95+ degree weather surrounded by concrete. There are some skater, who aren't that good, but that's about it.

Or buying things?

Well, yeah, we (I do mean "we") do buy stuff. Often for practical needs, since we're not loaded with money. One thing that we have reduced buying is CDs. No need for explanation.

Spending time with their boyfriend or girlfriend? Trying to catch the latest movie, or at least the good ones? Etc.

Movie-watching is of course very popular, but everyone watches movies. Now, for some reason, I think that anywhere from half to four-fifths of the kids I know do not have something resembling a steady relationship, at any given moment.

It sounds like you have a pretty weird group of friends.

You don't say.

Frankly I don't see how people would worry about whether cars had mufflers if they have threatening cops, unfair school policies and hoping those terrible laws change to worry about.

Well, San Antonio has a police shortage. It took one hour for one cop to arrive to investigate a car crash I was involved in. Cops don't travel in pairs anymore. Most kids I know are not in high school anymore, and most don't care about various school policies.

Not to mention having STD's, China invading Tibet, etc.

Well, if you practice abstinence (voluntary or not) or safe sex, then STD's are not a very big concern. Really, if you get an STD, whose fault is that? China concerns me and my friends as well. China doesn't like Russia and India (a new nuke power), and India doesn't like Islam. China is OK with Islam, especially since China will be needing oil to gets 1,000,000,000 into cars. Russia doesn't like Islam. China would rather go after Siberia for its resources, and Tibet for ego. Anyone see a pan-Asian war here? That concerns me, since fedgov has three allies that they don't want to piss off, and yet what happens when allies go to war?

It's wrong to start a system where the rules go that people agree that someone is right or wrong about something and someone should be obeyed just because of who they are, rather than what they're saying.

It depends on whether or not you think that person is legitimate. As you are part of this system regardless if you like it, it is up to you to decide who is legitimate.

All in the person and not in the action itself? How can that be a good system for determining morals for anything?

You haven't taken a (good) Government class before?

All authority is wrong, but not all that is wrong is authority.

Are you your own authority? If so, are you wrong? Using Freudian terminology, is the super-ego wrong?

It's like this...of amnesia attacks?

Did you read just T4T? If so, try reading Generations. The whole thing. They do a much more in-depth analysis of how-and-why the gens come out.

Dude, you've never seen a beatnik?

Dude, no I haven't. Oh yeah, goatees in San Antonio is a <40 Hispanic thing.

I agree with Justin that you're funny.

Which post was that? I can't find it.

I don't want to find myself ending up like that old man in that commercial, and I'm afraid about what might happen if 4T comes true and what's going to become of me...I feel insecure, like that Third Eye Blind song "How's It Going To Be?"

Um, do you base your line of thoughts on commercials? And really, being depressed because you didn't go around picking up girls. That's not sad. That's pathetic.







Post#21 at 07-04-2001 04:10 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:10 AM #21
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Justin
Date posted: Sun Jul 1 16:46:45 2001
Subject: The Nomad speaks
Message:
Would it be nomadic to just comment on these posts with a simple "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"?
Justin







Post#22 at 07-04-2001 04:10 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:10 AM #22
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Eric Meece
Date posted: Mon Jul 2 14:03:42 2001
Subject: lots of stuff
Message:
I can't read it all either....

"I guess you must think that what Hitler did to Austria in 1938 (the "Anschluss") was a "civil war" too."

Austria and Germany were independent nations going back centuries. South Vietnam was set up as a temporary zone in 1954 for 2 years until elections could be held. The USA decided that those elections could not be held, because we thought the wrong person would win.

The GI Generation did great things and horrible things. They helped to save us from fascism and helped restructure the post-war world. Many innovators helped to create the high-tech world, such as the guys who invented transitors and micro-processors and computer mice, etc. They spearheaded the expansion of our cities and institutions.

However, you must remember that a lot is attributed to the GIs that was created by the prophet Missionaries. It was they who created a lot of the institutions and companies that run the world today and give us the things we have. Ford, Hearst, Hughes, and many more. FDR, Marshall and MacArthur were Missionaries who really made the difference in creating the post-war world. The GIs were only the footsoldiers in this; the Missionaries were the leaders and visionaries.

The GIs also gave us Vietnam, urban renewal, sprawl and pollution and a lot of social ills, as well as spearheading efforts on civil rights. But the latter, as well as environmentalism, belongs primarily to the Silents and not the GIs. And the Boomers were the footsoldiers in these reform efforts. It is up to Boomers now to do what the Missionaries did, and reshape the post-cold war world; with the help of Millennials and Xers. It will take a Crisis to do it, but we can do it.

Remember, it will also take vision. That means the right-wing anti-60s reaction that dominates Boomers today will have to go. Whichever generation(s) we blame for the corporate monoculture that is choking the life out of our country today, must make amends and get back on the right green track of cultural renewal.
Eric Meece







Post#23 at 07-04-2001 04:11 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:11 AM #23
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Eric Meece
Date posted: Mon Jul 2 14:14:57 2001
Subject: The nomad speaks
Message:
But Justin, it would be more in keeping with your generational stereotype to say "OH whatever" instead.

:smile:







Post#24 at 07-04-2001 04:11 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:11 AM #24
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Justin
Date posted: Mon Jul 2 20:23:13 2001
Subject: Honestly
Message:
When I skim through Craig and Chris' posts, I hear Beavis and Butthead chattering in the back of my head.."words hehe...um words words..oh whatever"







Post#25 at 07-04-2001 04:11 AM by imported_Webmaster2 [at Antioch, CA joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,279]
---
07-04-2001, 04:11 AM #25
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Antioch, CA
Posts
1,279

Posted by: Anthony '58 (Anthony '58 )

Date posted: Wed Jul 4 1:18:56 2001
Subject: Missionaries, GIs and Boomers
Message:
First off Eric, the parallels between Austria and South Vietnam are almost surreal: In both cases, a substantial percentage of the population actually favored becoming a part of the country that invaded them, and "fifth columns" endeavoring to accomplish just that were active for years prior to the actual invasion. And getting a bit off the subject, what is your view of the holocaust that the Reds in Vietnam are presently perpetrating against the Montagnards? It is estimated that if nothing is done, the Montagnards will be completely wiped out by 2005.

Second, are you sure you really admire William Randolph Hearst and Douglas MacArthur? It was Hearst's empire that the Symbionese Liberation Army targeted (for its alleged "fascism") when they kidnapped Patty Hearst (yes, this Buster was actually paying attention!). As for MacArthur, he advocated a policy of "rollback" against Communism rather than the "containment" strategy favored by the Lost and which, under the GIs, ultimately resulted in the collapse of Communism. MacArthur not only wanted to "liberate" North Korea, but he also wanted to invade Red China and put the Kuomintang back in power. With this in mind, do you still think he was one of the "best" the Missionaries had to offer?

As far as the "environment" goes - I guess it was just a coincidence that the date chosen for Earth Day just happens to be Lenin's birthday as well. Right from Day One, the "ecology" movement was a Communist plot designed to retard industrial production in the West so that the Communist bloc could gain ground. The truth of this is proven, beyond any statistical shadow of a doubt, by the fact that no "ecology" movements ever arose in either the Soviet Union or Red China. I wonder why not? And who wants to take "credit" for a movement whose "blessings" include two completely avoidable energy shortages in the 1970s and today's "rolling blackout" situation in California?

Right-wing anti-'60s reaction dominates Boomers today? Huh? What about the entire Boomer media elite - Brian Williams, Katie Couric and all the rest of them; do you really think that comment fits them? And Strauss & Howe themselves quote a conservative Boomer commentator as saying how much he misses the "Revolution" and how he wants it back. And as for your parting shot at the "corporate monoculture" - would you rather have a government-spawned Big Brother instead?
-----------------------------------------