Which still leaves us with the problem of violence. I agree that there is a problem with this coming from all directions, but the regulated violence is at least perceivable and pretty universally abhorred. Yes, the government oversteps all the time. No one I know is happy or even accepting of that. Do we respond by lashing out personally? Is this of any value at all?

Based on precedent, the first to strike is the first to lose. The violence in the '60s and '70s was left-wing and counterproductive. All it did was strengthen the very institutions it was directed against. Will that repeat, if the next wave comes from the right? There seems to be enough fringe players on the right to start something, and the drum-beaters are working the crowd. If I was on the right, I would be worried.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

My feeling is that the Red and Blue Boomers care about different aspects of the Bill of Rights. The Blue Boomers are into civil rights, and will promote the rights of conscience. The Red Boomers will support the 2nd Amendment. I for one care about both.

My gut feeling is that the stereotypical Xers care less about principle and rights, but don't care for the government telling them what to do. This is a subtle distinction? Then again, the real Xers I meet don't really fit the classic stereotype, anyway.

There are a couple of related points regarding rights. Tom Clancy was one of many who quotes "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. worded it in a more formal and legal manner. The government can suspend rights if there is a clear and present danger. For example, hijacking aircraft is now considered a clear and present danger. Thus, one is free from search and seizure until a judge decides probable cause is established and signs a warrant... or until one wants to board an airplane.

Thus, rights only exist if judges cannot perceive a clear and present danger. After September 11th we became quite paranoid, and tended to see a lot more clear and present dangers than before.

Again, I see more of a Red / Blue divide in perceived danger than Boomer / Xer. Bush 43 decided that another September 11th couldn't happen on his watch and decided the clear and present danger was there. The strong on defense red rank and file went along. The Democrats were more likely to stand up for the Bill of Rights.

Bob, thank you for the well-reasoned response. I particularly agree with the bolded part, but I disagree that we're less interested about principle and rights. We're (generally) a generation who values substance over style, and principles/rights are definitely important to us.

To your point about 9/11 and the Patriot Act, that's where I think our distrust of government really solidified. It began as kids, when no one stepped in to help us. But when we saw the response to 9/11 was to "leverage" it to impose greater limitations on our rights, we (pragmatists that we are) saw it as overkill. And the government hasn't done anything to restore our trust since then, so we see little reason to support them at further narrowing of our rights.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I think there are other elements to the Xer view than just mistrust of government, although that is there too. But one thing that has become very apparent to me as I've read many different posts on all kind of different subject matters over the past year on this forum, is how very influenced the Xers were by all the post-apocalyptic movies, books and other media sources we grew up on. The image of a world destroyed, with gangs of thugs roaming around and having to have a gun to protect yourself and your food is very much ingrained in our minds and have become part of our psyche. I just think somewhere deep down inside we all have this fear those images we saw will some day come to pass.

We are the children of the cold war. Many of the early Xers or Jonesers lived under the constant knowledge that both Russia and the US had enough nukes to destroy the world ten times over. We weren't afraid of terrorist coming after us, like the millies are. We were afraid of the entire world being just gone in an instant. That's some pretty heavy stuff to have hanging over your head when you are kid. It's probably the Xers who are more likely to believe in all the 2012 stuff. As I've said before, when we were kids it wasn't really so much a question of if it was going to happen, but when it was going to happen. We have transfered the end the world scenarios from nukes to catastrophes caused by global warming or other types of threats to human kind.

So when people talk about having to arm themselves because the authorities may not be around to protect them, I have to wonder if they aren't subconsciously pulling out some of images they saw in the movies of that possible future and that is playing into it...Just a thought.

And remember, in all those movies we saw. If you didn't have gun. You were dead meat.

I'm not even certain that you have to look at apocalyptic fiction to see this though. The way our country is structured these days, we are 3-4 days of no electricity away from anarchy is most of our major urban areas. If you are relying on the government to come in and save you, remember Katrina. We couldn't/didn't provide the aid they needed, and most of the country was unaffected. Picture an entire region in chaos after, hmnn, a major winter storm event in the east, or a series of earthquakes up the California coast.

And remember, we are in the beginning of a 4T. All bets may be off.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Do they have signs on houses where you live? If not, then how do the "bad guys" know?

If all the law abiding citizens are unarmed due to gun control laws, they know.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Do they have signs on houses where you live? If not, then how do the "bad guys" know?

Oh, and "bad guys" is in quotes. Do you doubt that there are bad guys? And you still didn't answer the question.

Originally Posted by ASB65

That was it, the "The Day After". I think there was another movie that came out later called the "The Day After Tomorrow". I must have gotten the titles mixed up. I think we kids did worry about it to a degree. It was there, and we talked about the possibility of it happening. But yes, we did for the most part shrug our shoulders and say, "What will be, will be." But I do think those visions were part of our growing up experience and are those images are still with us to a degree.

Yeah, it was The Day After, the one with John Lithgow, set all in Kansas. I still remember John Lithgow on the ham radio saying something like, "This is Lawrence, Kansas, is anyone out there? Anyone at all?" or something along those lines.

I find it interesting that the show that was on one of the networks a year or two ago, Jericho I think it was, about a post nuclear strike America, wasn't renewed after one season. It did have a small, but rabid, audience. I guess most people aren't really worried about it? Or at least not enough to keep it on the air.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

Oh, and "bad guys" is in quotes. Do you doubt that there are bad guys?

Sometimes the "bad guys" are obvious, and sometimes it's a matter of perspective.

Someone growing up watching John Wayne "Cowboys and Indians" movies decades ago would have assumed the "bad guys" were always the natives. Do we really think that today?

Originally Posted by Xer H

Bob, thank you for the well-reasoned response. I particularly agree with the bolded part, but I disagree that we're less interested about principle and rights. We're (generally) a generation who values substance over style, and principles/rights are definitely important to us.

To your point about 9/11 and the Patriot Act, that's where I think our distrust of government really solidified. It began as kids, when no one stepped in to help us. But when we saw the response to 9/11 was to "leverage" it to impose greater limitations on our rights, we (pragmatists that we are) saw it as overkill. And the government hasn't done anything to restore our trust since then, so we see little reason to support them at further narrowing of our rights.

I do believe both Boomers and Xers care about rights, but the style would be different. You say Xers value substance over style. I would say Boomers value principle as well as substance. The difference shouldn't be all that strong when the government is extending it's powers at the expense of the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Here's what I remember regarding "The Day After".

ABC Discussion w/Ted Koppel post movie-airing. I remember The Sagan saying: "Oh this movie is nothing; In reality it would be WAY WORSE! WTF!!!!!!!!(LOL)

"Nuclear Winter"! Brrrrrrrrr!(LOL)

Here's a link to part 2:
http://www.fuzzymemories.tv/index.ph...videoclip-1822

Boy, the vocabulary that these guys(uh, gentlemen) use is so sorely missing these days.

Let's see what Generation these guys are:
William F Buckley Jr(1925)
Hank Kissinger(1923)
Carl Sagan(1934)
Elie Wiesel(1928)
Brent Scowcroft(1925)
Bob McNamara(1916)

GIs and Artists. What a Panel!!!!!!
I love how The Buckley refuses to alter(dumb-down) his vocabulary for an understanding from a wider audience.

Why can't we have these discussions currently? News Commentary is completely embarassing compared to these guys.

That's awesome, great link!

Completely unrelated to anything but your last comment... you're right, it is sad to see how uniformed so many of the news commentators actually seem to be on the topic, but what is possibly more embarrassing is the lengths that some of them go to to try to pronounce the places they are talking about the way they perceive they are pronounced in those places... "Awf-gawn-iss-tawn" for example, or "E-Rock". It doesn't make them seem more informed or worldly, just silly.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I do believe both Boomers and Xers care about rights, but the style would be different. You say Xers value substance over style. I would say Boomers value principle as well as substance. The difference shouldn't be all that strong when the government is extending it's powers at the expense of the Bill of Rights.

But you still think this is a Left-Right divide? I'm not sure I see that. I experience people from both sides who have a problem with the Patriot Act, the Internet kill switch and gun control. I see more Boomers supporting those, and more Xers putting their foot down. Most of us don't really care who's in what party, only that they do the right thing.

And tampering with the Bill of Rights while ignoring (abetting?) Wall Street's corruption and fraud is definitely something we're going to take a stand on.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Most of us don't really care who's in what party, only that they do the right thing.

I agree, but unfortunately I think 90% of the noise is being made by the minority of folks who *do* care about party over principles and pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Xer H

You know, Amy, you have a point about end-of-the-world scenarios but I really don't give much credence to those. If it happens, it happens. You prepare for the worst, hope for the best and deal with whatever comes your way.

I think there's a far deeper generational divide here, and the more people weigh in, the more apparent it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Xers seem to feel strongest about protecting the rights granted in the Constitution, regardless of what they are.

The right to speak, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, the right to vote, the right to be free of involuntary servitude. We're willing to do whatever it takes to protect these, because we -- in our hard-knock, cynical way -- know all too well what will happen when those are taken away. And, at the moment anyway, we see a government who isn't enacting the reforms we've elected it to, yet they spend time developing plans to limit our Rights.

Now, while we say -- No. We'll accept your regulations only after you've taken care of things that matter to us more. That's what it will take to restore our trust in you. -- others twist that to fit their political ideologies and come up with ridiculous statements and personal attacks to support their position.

So, I wonder. Could it be that one generation sees the Constitution as merely a guide, but a flawed one that needs to be changed, while the other would fight to the end to protect it? Could it possibly be that simple?

I think you are dead on, man. And it really is generational. The Boomers are Prophets, they think they can change things for the better, including the Constitution. They grew up in a safe, functional world, and set about to find things to fix. Unfortunately for those of us downstream, the fixes seemed to mess things up… Well documented by Strauss and Howe, no need to rehash.

Xers are more accustomed to change being bad. We grew up in a world, starting with the school system, where it seemed that every change they made seemed to make things worse on the ground. And it continues to this day. Every time the government gets involved, it seems, they make things worse. More rules, more laws, more guidelines, until no one understands what the rules even are anymore. A lot of folks can’t even do their taxes without a CPA. Corporate America is no better, incidentally. Every time HR comes out with a new website, new pay system, new job classification, with cheery promises of how wonderful and easy it will make everything, we cringe, knowing that somehow it will just make things more difficult and costly.

So naturally, we don’t trust them (or ourselves, I don’t mean to put it all on the boomers, they just seem to accept it more easily) to mess with the Constitution.

As an aside, a friend sent me something this morning that I find somewhat relevant to resisting to change. It was in a list of Adult Truths: Can we all just agree to ignore whatever comes after Blu Ray? I don't want to have to restart my collection...again. Couldn’t agree more, I was fine stopping at DVD’s.

Originally Posted by Xer H

But you still think this is a Left-Right divide? I'm not sure I see that. I experience people from both sides who have a problem with the Patriot Act, the Internet kill switch and gun control. I see more Boomers supporting those, and more Xers putting their foot down. Most of us don't really care who's in what party, only that they do the right thing.

And tampering with the Bill of Rights while ignoring (abetting?) Wall Street's corruption and fraud is definitely something we're going to take a stand on.

I see both the left right and Boomer Xer divide as real. Some issues might divide more on one axis, some on another. I'm not in a mood to go down a long list of issues and give my impression of how the stereotypical Red Boomer differs from the stereotypical Red Xer. I am not thrilled with stereotyping. That's not where I'd like to spend a lot of my energy.

I don't know many people, left or right, Xer, Millie or Boomer, who are big fans of Wall Street bankers. While I hear a few partisans making noise about the Bill of Rights on these forums, I'm not seeing it on the streets or in the media. I believe Xers are sincere in their distaste for tampering with the Bill of Rights, but they don't have the emotion or principle to actually take to the streets or voting booths and do something about it as the Boomers did in their youth.

Of course, the Boomers aren't exactly taking to the streets and getting stuff done at this point, either.

But, again, I don't think creating stereotypes and spending a lot of time talking about them is overly constructive.

XerH may have a point, because it was a Supreme Court full of Nomads, led by Warren, Douglas, and Black, who restored the full meaning of the Bill of Rights. I think I feel strongly as strongly about the Bill of Rights as anyone, although clearly my interpretation of at least one of them differs from many people here, but Boomers ran roughshod over them in the Bush II Administration and Boomer Eric Holder hasn't done much to undo the damage. A little--but not much.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I see both the left right and Boomer Xer divide as real. Some issues might divide more on one axis, some on another. I'm not in a mood to go down a long list of issues and give my impression of how the stereotypical Red Boomer differs from the stereotypical Red Xer. I am not thrilled with stereotyping. That's not where I'd like to spend a lot of my energy.

I don't know many people, left or right, Xer, Millie or Boomer, who are big fans of Wall Street bankers. While I hear a few partisans making noise about the Bill of Rights on these forums, I'm not seeing it on the streets or in the media. I believe Xers are sincere in their distaste for tampering with the Bill of Rights, but they don't have the emotion or principle to actually take to the streets or voting booths and do something about it as the Boomers did in their youth.

Of course, the Boomers aren't exactly taking to the streets and getting stuff done at this point, either.

But, again, I don't think creating stereotypes and spending a lot of time talking about them is overly constructive.

I think calling it "stereotyping" is skewing it, as well. When we discuss generational theory, we look for similiarities that are common to the generation. Some may call it stereotyping but, in reality, its generalization. As you'll see in previous posts, I allow for this by using the words "generally," "as a group" and express it in other ways. So let's not overcharge the issue with something that isn't true. Too many people have done that already, including labeling someone as "Red" or "Blue" on the basis of where they stand on one issue, rather than as a whole.

Regarding the "partisans making noise about the Bill of Rights," I believe it may be true that you don't see it on the street or in the media. I hope you will return the favor and believe me that I do. Call it regional differences if that makes more sense (we are the 'great unwashed masses' in the middle of the country, after all), but I hear grumbling daily about some of these issues I've posted about (the Internet kill switch, gun control, etc).

As I said in my first post, people (in general) do not trust the government to go messing around with the Constitution/Bill of Rights until other, more important/relevant action is taken to solve the problems we face today. I still stand by that comment, based on what I hear on the street, at the watercooler, online and at the grocery store.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Bob, thank you for the well-reasoned response. I particularly agree with the bolded part, but I disagree that we're less interested about principle and rights. We're (generally) a generation who values substance over style, and principles/rights are definitely important to us.

To your point about 9/11 and the Patriot Act, that's where I think our distrust of government really solidified. It began as kids, when no one stepped in to help us. But when we saw the response to 9/11 was to "leverage" it to impose greater limitations on our rights, we (pragmatists that we are) saw it as overkill. And the government hasn't done anything to restore our trust since then, so we see little reason to support them at further narrowing of our rights.

Exactly. Stated far more eloquently than my attempt.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't know many people, left or right, Xer, Millie or Boomer, who are big fans of Wall Street bankers.

Agreed. And before the corporatists saw they could hijack the Tea Party movement to advance its own agenda, some of its roots included anger over the "welfare for billionaires" in the form of bankster bailouts. That in fact was a major point made in the Rick Santelli rant that is often credited with jumpstarting the movement.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Sometimes the "bad guys" are obvious, and sometimes it's a matter of perspective.

Someone growing up watching John Wayne "Cowboys and Indians" movies decades ago would have assumed the "bad guys" were always the natives. Do we really think that today?

What are we talking about, some future time when the new reality is that burglars and rapists are simply misguided miscreants deserving of our sympathy and pity, and that a homeowner protecting his family and belongings is some sort of evil overlord deserving to be robbed and maimed? Are middle class homeowners destined to be seen as the Tsars of old, existing in a three bedroom rancher as gilded bourgeoisie to the brave young gang-banger seeking only what is his fair due?

I don't know, people do like to impose present day values on people who existed in a past they can't comprehend.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

If all the law abiding citizens are unarmed due to gun control laws, they know.

"Woof, woof!" better protects a homeowner than does "Bang, bang!"

Your pooch can never be grabbed by a crook and used against you. It has keener senses than a crook trying to sneak into a house.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Woof, woof!" better protects a homeowner than does "Bang, bang!"

Your pooch can never be grabbed by a crook and used against you. It has keener senses than a crook trying to sneak into a house.

That's a great point, PB. But personal protection is only one of many reasons people own guns.

Just as it's a strawman to trot out that reason as the only rationale for the Second Amendment, the opposite can be, as well.


PS - just making a statement. Not attacking you, specifically.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by Xer H
Most of us don't really care who's in what party, only that they do the right thing.

I agree, but unfortunately I think 90% of the noise is being made by the minority of folks who *do* care about party over principles and pragmatism.

I really am not meaning to be snarky, but from where I stand, there is very little about what the current GOP stands for that I support. As someone who supports a strong national Government, I don't see eye-to-eye with small Government people.

At least, not WRG to national policy. In other realms of life, I can and do find common cause with many on the other side of the aisle with me. I'm very frequently working with conservatives to strengthen local Toastmasters clubs, for example. Its just that WRT the role of the Government, we're on opposite sides of the fence.

Wonkette, are you a Boomer?

I seem to recall you are... if so, I'd love to ask you some questions about party identification.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Wonkette, are you a Boomer?

I seem to recall you are... if so, I'd love to ask you some questions about party identification.

Yes, Disco-era boomer, born in 1956. Same vintage as Mr. Brian Rush and Publius.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes, Disco-era boomer, born in 1956. Same vintage as Mr. Brian Rush and Publius.

Great. Here are my questions. Of course, any Boomer can weigh in. The more the merrier!

1. When did you first identify with one party or another (i.e., what age or political event motivated you)?

2. Have you noticed any differences in what the parties "stand for" over time? If so, did it ever lead you to question your affiliation or loyalty?

3. What "drives" your party loyalty now? Is it a perception of differences in ideology, in actual legislation, in overall outlook for the country's future? Some mix or prioritization of these? Something else?

Looking forward to some insight. As an Xer whose earliest political memory was my mother putting me in front of a television and telling me, "Watch this. This will be important someday." (to Nixon's resignation speech), I guess I've always had an equal like/dislike of the parties themselves. I've seen the GOP transition from Nixon to Reagan to Bush/Cheney. I've seen the Democratic Party transition from Carter to Clinton to Obama. I feel no allegiance to either. So I'd really like to understand how that's developed for the Boomer generation, because it does seem to be a fairly common trait among Boomers.

Originally Posted by Galen

Actually guns have existed since the thirteenth century. You might want to read a little history.

GUns as we know them, as opposed to "muskets" and the like. It was only in the 19th century that they were made into the handy weapons we know today.