Originally Posted by AnneZob

Of course there will be some who are not driven by fear of the right.

There are valid concerns about gun control and public safety. However there were also valid concerns about Muslim terrorism. There is real danger involved in both cases.

The question though is when it crosses over from real concerns and when fear and prejudice against an entire cultural/religious group and attempt to exert power and control becomes the driving force.

The best propaganda is one which has a strong element of truth.

Which is not to say I *like* the right. I am non-christian, non-white and female. And I don't like guns or hunting. And I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty. However as I said in my opinion I see many parallels between the left's attitudes now and what was common in the right after 9/11. Then again in my opinion I don't particularly like traditional Muslim culture either. However it doesn't mean they deserved what happened to them post 9/11.

I'm willing to bet though if the left goes down this route, being driven by raw emotion and fear and desire for power, they will likely simply end up making the situation even worse by further radicalizing the right.

I will find the left repeating the right's mistakes amusing to watch. Well it's either laugh or cry.

I am just a bit cautious about the rhetoric that says "the right is responsible for this shooting" or that "Sarah Palin caused the shooting" etc. I am certainly "up in arms" about the power of the right wing in this country. But that was just as true for me before this incident as afterward, and that's true for most people like me.

President Obama spoke well in saying we should not use this incident to turn on each other. We are a divided nation though, to a great extent, and I'm on one side of the divide more than the other. We do always need thoughtful discussion of what could prevent these incidents (like better gun control, mental health actions, etc), and in general about the state of our nation, which I think is pretty bad right now-- to a great extent because of how people are voting (Republican, and the ideologies behind this), but not exclusively due to that. Discussion does no good if it is nice and civil but doesn't address the roots of problems or offer solutions. What the left needs to do is keep advocating for its positions and hope someday the people listen and act wisely. Inciting violence in one way or another is not the way, and I don't think the Left thinks that it is the way. By and large the Left in this country is for peace, not violence. Am I wrong? Besides what Galen says, that the Left is in favor of enforcing social programs, etc.

Originally Posted by Galen

This article shows that you are a very perceptive person Anne.

(who wrote) "One thing that seems to be common amongst the Boomers on both side is over-reaction and administrative and strategic incompetence."

I have had to deal with the antics Boomers since they were flower children and this sentence captures their fatal flaw.

What I find so ironic is that it they are sending their children and grand-children to fight in two of the same type of wars they were protesting. For the irony impaired, trust me you have no idea who you are, it would appear that Boomers are anti-war only when they have to fight it.

Just the observations of a cynical Xer who is almost a half-century old and really tired of cleaning up the mess.

Oh gee whiz Galen, your cynical Xer side is showing again (and again and again). I have to admit, though, Anne's sentence might be true. At least I can't refute it at the moment. But Boomers had to clean up GI messes, and we complained a lot about it. Every generation has to deal with what the previous ones did; that's normal. Get used to it.

Also, no generation is all of a piece. So your irony logic is based on huge generalizations that break down when you look at the facts. George W Bush started these wars. True, he's a Boomer, but he was always pro-war and against the protests. Boomers were not all anti war then and are not all pro war now. That is absurd. There are huge numbers in all these camps of Boomers.

Obama is an Xer/Boomer cusp. His Boomer Veep wanted to restrict the Afghan War and bring most troops home. Other voices prevailed; they may well have been Silents. Although Hilary is something of a hawk. As far as the strategic incompetence goes, the worst example was Rumsfeld who is Silent. I think their strategic abilities may be even less than Boomers'. And the GIs in Vietnam showed no strategic competence either. So there's a lot of that going around.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Look Eric, I recognize that you're on your mountain top preaching your evangel, and you have some strong beliefs here. But quite frankly this is one issue that the Left lost in the Culture Wars. And quite frankly IMO it was the obsession over this issue which cost the Left possible traction to get Environmental issues delt with in the Culture Wars, as The American President depicts this quite well: a Boomer president who becomes so obsessed with his own personal evangel that he misses the bigger and more important picture. He sacrifices the bigger issue over a smaller issue. If the environment collapses due to how we've plundered it, having a gun or a knife is going to be a handy tool for survival in such a post-apocalyptic world for getting food and keeping raiders from taking yours.

Pretty good analysis, I suspect that Obama felt that he had more of a mandate then he really did.

You also seem to understand that everyone is responsible for their own safety. There are many times when there will be no cops and then you have to deal with the situation yourself.

Originally Posted by Galen

This article shows that you are a very perceptive person Anne.



I have had to deal with the antics Boomers since they were flower children and this sentence captures their fatal flaw.

What I find so ironic is that it they are sending their children and grand-children to fight in two of the same type of war they were protesting. For the irony impaired, trust me you have no idea who you are, it would appear that Boomers are anti-war only when they have to fight it.

Just the observations of a cynical Xer who is almost a half-century old and really tired of cleaning up the mess.

To simplify the message of the Greek play Lysistrata:

Old men make war when they can't get it up anymore, leaving young men to die in those wars.

The famous Greek comedian Aristophanes is who wrote Lysistrata. Lysistrata isn't an anti-war play and those who read it as such overlook the culture it comes from (one that venerated war) and the message it sends out as clear as day (message: the old men are so incompetent that even WOMEN *gasp!* can beat them--and the play goes about lampooning women quite frequently also keep in mind that Ancient Greek women would've envied the cultural freedoms of Victorian & 1950s women). If anything it's an anti-war-run-badly play.

Boomers are now the old men raging wars because they have a fear of impotency. Viagra is a physical solution but there are more ways to be impotent than just that way--there's always the dreaded cultural/social/philosophical impotency which more than anything Boomers dread. The last decade has been one long stream of Boomers of all stripes trying to proove in one way or another that they are still culturally "hip", socially "relevant", and philosophically "in the right"; along with their need for Viagra it completes the Boomer fear of impotency. It must be a stage that a generation in the latter stages of Mid-Life go through for the GIs had their Vietnam, and other such exhaultations (from both left and right) from which we've had to deal with the repercussions.

Also, Eric, Biden is a 1942 cohort member who would be considered a Silent by S&H and would in my books be considered a War Baby cusper.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

In stating this view, I suspect I would make people on both sides of the debate unhappy, but folks really ought to spend a bit of time reading the history and reading the Constitution.

The Jeffersonian in me looks at the Second Amendment as the final failsafe. What most people have a problem understanding is the American Revolution was a reaction to what they saw as a string of violations of the rights of Englishmen that went on for decades. They would have preferred not to but they felt that it was worth risking their lives to keep their traditional rights.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Oh gee whiz Galen, your cynical Xer side is showing again (and again and again). I have to admit, though, Anne's sentence might be true. At least I can't refute it at the moment. But Boomers had to clean up GI messes, and we complained a lot about it. Every generation has to deal with what the previous ones did; that's normal. Get used to it.

I have dealt with the Lost, GI, Silent, Generation X and the Millenials and they have one redeeming quality that the Boomers completely lack. When they made mistakes they could admit to the mistake, try to fix it and then not repeat it. It is this one thing that allows me to forgive much.

The Boomers can't seem to do this. They will do the same thing over an over again in the hope that it will work this time, if only they believe hard enough. This is the reason the US has such a gigantic debt that will sink us. Indeed, they are making the same mistakes that LBJ did and have managed to create a surveillance system that Nixon couldn't dreamed up in his wildest wet dream. Both of the major political parties have participated in this.

Telling me to "get used to it" shows that you lack this very quality that I respected in these people. I am used to it and I am not looking forward to watching Millies face the consequences of Boomer insanity for the simple mistake of being born after the Boomers.

Originally Posted by Galen

This article shows that you are a very perceptive person Anne.



I have had to deal with the antics Boomers since they were flower children and this sentence captures their fatal flaw.

What I find so ironic is that it they are sending their children and grand-children to fight in two of the same type of war they were protesting. For the irony impaired, trust me you have no idea who you are, it would appear that Boomers are anti-war only when they have to fight it.

Just the observations of a cynical Xer who is almost a half-century old and really tired of cleaning up the mess.

I am a late Silent who agrees with you. We should only wage war when necessary for out national interests. The current so called 'wars' were not necessary and a terrible mistake.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

I would like to point out that if it was just a law enforcement and defense issue why would the Founding Fathers have even bothered to put it in as an Amendment which is about freedom? They didn't put in the amendments the water standards or food safety standards governments should implement either.

Things put in the Amendments were clearly things that they were concerned about in terms of infringements of individual freedoms, especially from government. Hence the key genesis of the 2nd amendment was most likely to do with individual freedoms, especially from government. And how can the right to bear arms possibly be linked to individual freedoms? Given the Founding Fathers also said things like that tyranny needed to be fought every now and then with blood and that the lead up to the War was replete with incidents where the English tried to disarm the colonists and the fact that the Founding fathers actually revolted and their clear attempts to try to limit government power afterwards, by Occam's razor the most likely logical reason for the second amendment is the civil liberties argument.

Another thing you say is that Gen X are inclined against gun control because they distrust institutions. However the Founding Fathers were *also* Nomads and they *did* distrust government institutions. This makes it even more likely that the 2nd amendment was put in place for civil liberties reasons. Part of the reason why the American government took the form it did was precisely because of their Nomadic fear of government and obsession with limiting its power. A revolutionary government led by Prophets would have likely have been very different with less suspicion of Government. A prophet Washington may have very well tried to make himself king rather than decline the Presidency for the third time (as did the other Nomad President Truman). Actually I suspect that if FDR hadn't died when he did he would have tried to become President for Life or something.

One could argue whether the Founding father's fears are applicable anymore to the modern world. However I think this is one of the problems with the left. They believe we have "progressed" away from tyranny. That the potential for government tyranny no longer exists, at least in America. This is patently not true. And the left knows this because they have been the most vocal opponents to the Patriot Act and love to compare Bush with Hitler for example.

This then raises the question of why they are contradicting themselves.

Actually probably even more important than what the Founding Fathers intended is that for large swathes of the gun owning community, they *believe* that it is an issue of civil liberties. That will dictate their actions in the coming months and set the tone of the debate.

This is an argument based upon logic and your own personal views, not on either the ext of the amendment or on history. The text reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." NOT, "Self-defense being the foundation of liberty, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia was a traditional institution in the colonies as it was in England and performed the tasks I mentioned. It was regarded as an alternative to a standing army, which the text of the Constitution effectively forbade by stating that no appropriation for an army could be for a period longer than two years. That provision is still in effect, but, as noted earlier, we now rely on professional police forces and armies to perform the tasks they looked to the militia to perform.

Now this is hardly the first amendment to be broadened in meaning in response to two centuries of historical development, that I grant. And yes, pro-gun people have turned this into a civil liberties issue. I personally think their rhetoric and ideas are a danger to civilization because they are an incitement to anarchy--to depending on our own weapons and our own selves rather than elected governments to protect us. But in that respect their ideas mesh not only with a Nomadic temperament but also with the anti-government spirit of our age, so I shouldn't be surprised. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has now endorsed the pro-gun interpretation of the amendment, but that doesn't reflect "original intent" any better than broader interpretations of the commerce clause to cover health care do. (I support those interpretations, by the way.)

It seems when I make these comments everyone thinks I'm trying to convert people. I'm not. I know on this issue it's hopeless. But that doesn't make it right or good.

Lastly, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were not Nomads. 32 out of the 51 signatories were Heroes--Republicans. The percentage of Heroes in the first Congress that passed the Bill of Rights was probably even higher.

Originally Posted by Galen

I have dealt with the Lost, GI, Silent, Generation X and the Millenials and they have one redeeming quality that the Boomers completely lack. When they made mistakes they could admit to the mistake, try to fix it and then not repeat it. It is this one thing that allows me to forgive much.

The Boomers can't seem to do this. They will do the same thing over an over again in the hope that it will work this time, if only they believe hard enough. This is the reason the US has such a gigantic debt that will sink us. Indeed, they are making the same mistakes that LBJ did and have managed to create a surveillance system that Nixon couldn't dreamed up in his wildest wet dream. Both of the major political parties have participated in this.

Telling me to "get used to it" shows that you lack this very quality that I respected in these people. I am used to it and I am not looking forward to watching Millies face the consequences of Boomer insanity for the simple mistake of being born after the Boomers.

Galen,

No one has been more critical of my fellow Boomers than I, but I think this is going too far. The permanent deficit was created by a GI, Ronald Reagan, and briefly eliminated by a Boomer, Bill Clinton. The current war in Afghanistan (which I also oppose) has been expanded and prolonged by an Xer, Barack Obama. And the current wars at least are on a far smaller scale than Vietnam. Neither LBJ, Nixon or Henry Kissinger ever admitted making a mistake. And sadly, it doesn't look to me as if Xers are going to have much to offer to get us out of the mess we are in, largely because of their distrust of institutions.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This is an argument based upon logic and your own personal views, not on either the ext of the amendment or on history. The text reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." NOT, "Self-defense being the foundation of liberty, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You should at least quote it correctly.

You too might want to read The Commonplace Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a justification clause, to a great degree an advertisement explaining one reason why an amendment ought to be passed. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the operational clause.

This construct was fairly common during the Founding Father's time. It is not appropriate for the courts to ignore the operational clause if the justification clause is no longer fashionable. In interpreting a right of the people worded that way, one should interpret under the assumption that the authors believed the justification phrase true, and that the operational phrase should not be read in a way that contradicts the justification phrase.

You might wish to familiarize yourself with other examples of justification-operation wording.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Now this is hardly the first amendment to be broadened in meaning in response to two centuries of historical development, that I grant. And yes, pro-gun people have turned this into a civil liberties issue. I personally think their rhetoric and ideas are a danger to civilization because they are an incitement to anarchy--to depending on our own weapons and our own selves rather than elected governments to protect us. But in that respect their ideas mesh not only with a Nomadic temperament but also with the anti-government spirit of our age, so I shouldn't be surprised. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has now endorsed the pro-gun interpretation of the amendment, but that doesn't reflect "original intent" any better than broader interpretations of the commerce clause to cover health care do. (I support those interpretations, by the way.)

I would as soon hold a constitutional convention. The Constitution was extraordinarily well done for its time, but we've had centuries of political supreme courts seeing things not working and thinking themselves empowered to be a shortcut to the amendment processes. I believe the individual right interpretation by the Roberts court a correct return to original intent and plain text reading, but not necessarily the best possible bit of social engineering for the modern era. I too believe the commerce clause is read all together too strong for the original intent, and that Congress is being allowed by the Court to act far beyond the listed enumerated powers. Still, I would rather see a convention with thought and the consent of the people write something appropriate to modern times than the court write something that has to at least pretend to be consistent with text and content.

Still, we are far far too divided for a constitutional convention. Nothing would get ratified. The time for conventions would be the 4T 1T cusp, when the lessons learned are fresh in everyone's mind, and we will be as united as we might possibly get.

We're clearly no where near ready.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It seems when I make these comments everyone thinks I'm trying to convert people. I'm not. I know on this issue it's hopeless. But that doesn't make it right or good.

I too think honest re-evaluation of basic values unlikely for most people, but think you ought to be enough of an academic and historian to know better.

However, Eric on the subject of guns and hunting is as obsessed as Adina was on the subject of Prohibition.

I'm a city gal; I don't hunt or fish. However, I respect those who do. I agree with the notion of universal gun safety training, and have no objection at all to rural people having rifles and shotguns, if properly handled and stored. I am of several minds on the subject of weapons in the city, but that's mostly due to lack of knowledge.

Now - Eric - I would like to point out that if guns are totally banned and the violently inclined turn to crossbows, or knives, we'll be in for the sort of downward spiral we already have at airport security, until my kitchen knives will be restricted to those with a chef's license, which would require fingerprinting, registration, and a rigorous background check. Public schools and the airport are already 90% of the way down that road.

And for others on the libertarian side, I would like to point out the extent to which we are an urban culture, living in crowded conditions, in which regulations are necessary simply to provide lubrication in the social machinery. Nobody likes them, but they like the equivalent (in any field you can imagine) of the neighbors who keep the pig in the parlor even less. Established social custom and public opinion can substitute for regulations, though the former tends to break down in the wrong neighborhoods (which, of course, have their own customs). Ask, say, Charles Dickens. Or the authors of Gangs of New York. There's a reason Japan developed its elaborate forms of politeness; they're a tight little island. SO is Manhattan.

Pat, who lives somewhere in between these conditions, in a sprawling southwestern city.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

I'm still wondering what the left's version of the Iraq quagmire going to be.

Health care.

Matt Bai of the NY Times asks, After Tucson, Is the Anger Gone?

Matt Bai raises an interesting point. Once upon a time, the nation used to share catalyst events. When something happened, the country would observe the same thing. These days, people seek out media outlets that specialize in instant spin, who tell it like people want to hear. While a major catalyst might once have united the country in a particular way, these days interest groups are all trying to use events to their own advantage.

It may just be that modern society is impervious to brilliant flashes of clarity. A century ago, news traveled slowly enough for Americans to absorb and evaluate it; today’s events are almost instantaneously digested and debated, in a way that makes even the most cataclysmic event feel temporal. The stunning massacre at point-blank range at a Sun Belt strip plaza is at least partially eclipsed, within a few days, by Sarah Palin’s “blood libel” comment and the outrage of Jewish groups. And onward we go.

Unlike Americans in the television age, who shared the common ritual of watching an Ed Sullivan or a Walter Cronkite at the same hour every night, modern Americans increasingly customize their information, picking up radically different perspectives from whichever sources they trust — Fox News or MSNBC, Newsmax or Huffington Post. There is very little shared experience in the nation now; there are only competing versions of the experience, consumed in such a way as to confirm whatever preconceptions you already have, rather than to make you reflect on them.

“You wonder what it would take for a comment like the one Joe Welch made (at the Army McCarthy trials) to really sink in in the current environment,” Professor Gaddis says. “Everything that anyone says is immediately spun. And I mean spun in a political sense, but also in the sense of a washing machine, so that the meaning really gets bled out.”

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Galen,

No one has been more critical of my fellow Boomers than I, but I think this is going too far. The permanent deficit was created by a GI, Ronald Reagan, and briefly eliminated by a Boomer, Bill Clinton. The current war in Afghanistan (which I also oppose) has been expanded and prolonged by an Xer, Barack Obama. And the current wars at least are on a far smaller scale than Vietnam. Neither LBJ, Nixon or Henry Kissinger ever admitted making a mistake. And sadly, it doesn't look to me as if Xers are going to have much to offer to get us out of the mess we are in, largely because of their distrust of institutions.

Great post, but didn't LBJ admit that he made a mistake in Vietnam after leaving office? I could be wrong.

This is an aside, but I see LBJ as one of the great tragic figures of the 20th century. Oversized, obnoxious, played the game, probably corrupt -- but did great things with Civil Rights and his bringing the South back into the mainstream of the US is his great legacy. His interest and passion was in the domestic arena, and with Vietnam, he was just following conventional wisdon and going along with what the Best and Brightest recommended. And it felled him.

I got a lot of this viewpoint from the book by Robert Dallek, IIRC, called "Lone Star Rising".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I just got a pocket knife myself. It has many other uses besides killing people.

Interestingly enough, I just recently learned, so do guns.

A friend-of-the family owns a cannery-type thing out on the Columbia not far from Kelso. Eight or so months ago, something happened in the water among the pilings that caused two of his buildings to half-collapse (at night; no one was hurt, though a classic Jag that had been parked inside for protection from the rain did end up going to sleep with the fishies). The remaining-standing elements of the very tall structure needed to be brought down so clean-up could be done without a risk of heavy stuff squishing people working. Since the place he sits is right off pretty steep banks, the only kind of crane he could have gotten into place to do the takedown would have been one of those floating things that cost a ton, aren't themselves terribly safe along riverbanks, and aren't any of around here.

So the solution? A pair of shotguns and several boxes of shells. It was easy enough that way, from a safe distance (oriented, of course, so that the shot that fell back to earth would do so into the unoccupied river) to smash the hung-up beams and other load-bearing members that were keeping the rubble from relocating safely to the ground.

Dynamite would have been more fun, but a hell of a lot less safe.

So there you go. Tools can be used properly for more than just one thing. Who would have thought?

Originally Posted by Odin

If I had unlimited amounts of money I would love to have a sword collection.

It's a guy thing.

Please see Fark.com for the "guy running around with sword" screwups.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's not what I hear from experts in the field. Wolves don't have any such ingrained habits.

Bullshit. Wolves are predators. Top-of-the-food-chain-predators.

The only reason people don't sit firmly below them is our tools -- that is, our guns. And that's not even 100% sufficient. There are plenty of not-terribly-wild places in the world where wolves still, today prey on people. Not just livestock.

No one needs to go to a place to understand an issue about it.

There's that California provincialism rearing its head again.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bullshit. Wolves are predators. Top-of-the-food-chain-predators.

The only reason people don't sit firmly below them is our tools -- that is, our guns. And that's not even 100% sufficient. There are plenty of not-terribly-wild places in the world where wolves still, today prey on people. Not just livestock.
There's that California provincialism rearing its head again.

Eric is acting like a Boomer stereotype. Quite annoying.

That's how I got my senior cat, Dufus Claudius, as a half-grown boy. His family lived in the mountains, and Dufus was determined to have his freedom. They didn't want him to turn into coyote food, so they offered him online to anybody in the city who was interested. I had just lost my old senior cat Marmalade to kidney failure, and the rest is history.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why is everyone talking about wolves. Unless you live in Alaska or next to a national park, you will never encounter one while going about your daily business.
If you want to talk about natural predators, take a look at mountain lions or coyotes. Those suckers are attacking people and pets all the time, and rapidly encroaching on urban areas.
I'm not saying this as either a pro or anti hunting argument, just a basic reality check.
Let the verbal assaults continue ...

Did you know that coyotes are wolves? They're small pesky wolves (brush wolves) , but they're wolves.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Did you know that coyotes are wolves? They're small pesky wolves (brush wolves) , but they're wolves.

Different species, though. Smaller, more solitary, and very rarely go after big game like deer.

They are also spreading like crazy, becoming pests. Unlike wolves they don't mind being around human settlement.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Great post, but didn't LBJ admit that he made a mistake in Vietnam after leaving office? I could be wrong.

This is an aside, but I see LBJ as one of the great tragic figures of the 20th century. Oversized, obnoxious, played the game, probably corrupt -- but did great things with Civil Rights and his bringing the South back into the mainstream of the US is his great legacy. His interest and passion was in the domestic arena, and with Vietnam, he was just following conventional wisdon and going along with what the Best and Brightest recommended. And it felled him.

I got a lot of this viewpoint from the book by Robert Dallek, IIRC, called "Lone Star Rising".

I agree with the second paragraph but I am totally unaware of any apology by LBJ for that or anything else.

Originally Posted by Poodle

Please see Fark.com for the "guy running around with sword" screwups.

Don't run around the pool...or with a sword---duh! You could have an accident and require stitches.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why is everyone talking about wolves. Unless you live in Alaska or next to a national park, you will never encounter one while going about your daily business.
If you want to talk about natural predators, take a look at mountain lions or coyotes. Those suckers are attacking people and pets all the time, and rapidly encroaching on urban areas.
I'm not saying this as either a pro or anti hunting argument, just a basic reality check.
Let the verbal assaults continue ...

I was once in the back of a police car that was diverted en route...to a call about a u-haul with 30 or so dead coyotes in it. All legit. You can apparently shoot as many coyotes as you want anywhere it's legal to discharge a weapon (we have laws regarding such things). So why the police? The one dead rodent. A muskrat or some such, shot out of season, was mixed amongst the carcasses. I'm not sure how they could tell. Perhaps they were stacked neatly. Alas, I was unable to look inside...Boy, was I glad when the 'cid wore off and that night ended.

Drugs are bad. Coyotes are common. Reality is fun.

For entertainment purposes only. Not intended for procto...er, ideological usage. Seek help from a physician if ingested.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Wow, talk about over-generalization! I think Sarah Palin is Gen X, is she not?

1960-1965 Generation Jones

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Barack Obama all fall in that Cohort. IMO there is a distinct difference in that they are less idealistic than The Boom and more preachy than Gen X.

Originally Posted by Galen

I have had to deal with the antics Boomers since they were flower children and this sentence captures their fatal flaw.

What I find so ironic is that it they are sending their children and grand-children to fight in two of the same type of war they were protesting. For the irony impaired, trust me you have no idea who you are, it would appear that Boomers are anti-war only when they have to fight it.

There is a distinct difference between Flower Children(1967 Monterrey Pop Festival) and Hippies(1969 Woodstock). Somewhere in this timeperiod, passive sit-ins became active protests.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Biden is a 1942 cohort member who would be considered a Silent by S&H and would in my books be considered a War Baby cusper.

~Chas'88

Very true. That's probably why this Xer likes him a little, deep deep(very deep) inside. Core Boom and Jones are still somewhat of a mystery to me....as are Gen Y and Millys in general.

PoC67

PS: Did the Silents connect with the Lost? I sure hope so b/c I need some Homies!...Can you DIG IT?!