twentysomething
Robert Chao
I have been reading a lot about the "twentysomething generation."
Apparently a lot of young people developed certain attitudes during
the last 5 years, and they are sort of a class of their own.
Do you think on the average, a person 25-29 years old is generally
a lot different from someone the same age but ten years ago? Or could
the "twentysomething deal" be created by the media? Could it have to
do with, rather than attitudes, just fads like noserings, Ren and Stimpy,
and skateboards, and recent R.E.M.?
What about the yuppies? we heard a lot about them in the 1980's, but
weren't there always people like the yuppies except that they didn't
have a label?
The last thing is, a name for twentysomethings besides just that. I
have heard: Generation X, Baby Busters, and the Lost Generation (or
something like that). I suggest the name "xuppie" but I'm not sure
how you would pronounce it.
Notes: the first time I heard of this categorization was Doug Coupland's
book, Gen X (haven't read it). Oh and just look at that new Burger King
commercial!
--
Robert Chao
Oakland, California
Todd #$%!^! Hodes
>
>I have been reading a lot about the "twentysomething generation."
>Apparently a lot of young people developed certain attitudes during
>the last 5 years, and they are sort of a class of their own.
ALL generations have "a class of their own." I think that the
21-29 "twentysomething" generation just gets a bit more scrutiny
because it happens to be the newest. We were raised on Woodstock
and classic rock, yuppies and Reagan. It took time (and I feel
computers) to really define our existence. Look at the cover
of Time magazine -- "Cyberpunk." The 20somes are disillusioned
and feel powerless. The people in power in this country (now I'm
just talking about the U.S.) abuse the hell out of it. Iran-Contra,
the Savings and Loan bullshit, and twice as much we'll never hear
about. Clinton got into office for a reason, but he really can't
do much. The gay ban in the military shows us that. Machiavelli
would say that this will always happen, but I don't accept that. And
I truly believe that my generation doesn't believe it. We don't
belive in racism. Or sexism. Or homophobia. (and to a lesser
extent, on spending $3-4 trillion a year on a drug war against our
own brothers and sisters.) These societal ills have to be overcome
before real "progress" can be made in many other areas. And we
recognize that they aren't going to be overcome soon.
This much is evident: some 20somes are neo-nazi hatemongers; some
are white-hating minorities. Many politicians are anti-gay and even
anti-jew. Some from our generation will also be this way. But, our
generation understands a little better that SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE.
I am increasingly defined by my belief that I will have
no real voice until my generation has the power in this country.
>Do you think on the average, a person 25-29 years old is generally
>a lot different from someone the same age but ten years ago? Or could
>the "twentysomething deal" be created by the media? Could it have to
>do with, rather than attitudes, just fads like noserings, Ren and Stimpy,
>and skateboards, and recent R.E.M.?
^^^^^
You're kidding. You're posting to alt.cyberpunk, calling our
generation one "created by the media" with skateboards and REM?!
(Now, the noserings and RnS are right on... but.... :> )
Firstly, skateboarders are NOT (usually) 25-29. I'm only 21,
and I've always felt that the oldest skate rats are at best my
own age. As for REM, why did you post to alt.cyber? You
obviously don't feel that alt.music.alternative (where REM is
most likely to be mentioned) is who you want to ask this question
to! You yourself seem to have discounted REM from being a defining
part of our culture! (Although it was important, as the "alternative"
scene was a stepping stone to the present "fads," as you would say.).
Well, these fads may all go away and we may all become
right-thinking republicans. I'd sooner die.
So, as much as your post slants toward saying that "we're the
same as you" -- you're right and wrong. You had your generation,
and your generation has it's time with fun and power. You
had your "fads." You had your own racial & social biases. Just
give us the luxury of having _our_ generation. Because a
growing subset of us don't believe in your world.
And we're making the cover of Time magazine.
T.
--
Louder Tunes == Better Code
__|| __|| Todd Hodes
(____(____) td...@virginia.edu
SMCM...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
>have heard: Generation X, Baby Busters, and the Lost Generation (or
>something like that). I suggest the name "xuppie" but I'm not sure
>how you would pronounce it.
>
>Notes: the first time I heard of this categorization was Doug Coupland's
>book, Gen X (haven't read it). Oh and just look at that new Burger King
>commercial!
>
Be all that you can be, and be cool while you're doing it! I wonder how
long before the Army has a rap commercial?
S. Morphine
Chris Bovitz
>In article <16B73F3B6...@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU> SMCM...@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU writes:
>>In article <1993Feb12....@netcom.com>
>>rc...@netcom.com (Robert Chao) writes:
>
>
>>Fuck Burger King! Has anyone seen the new DiscoMTVmmercial for the Army?
>>Be all that you can be, and be cool while you're doing it! I wonder how
>>long before the Army has a rap commercial?
>
>had one out (I don't watch much TV, but enough to make that statement
>about the BK-guy).
>
The best line in thoe Dan Cortese (that's the guy) BK commercials is in the
one where he starts out on the side of a hill trying to climb up to a BK.
He's in a booth w/ this blonde girl explaining flame broiling, and she says
"Who *are* you?"
Most excellent.
Chris
--
Chris Bovitz | "I never lie when I have sand in my shoes."
Department of Meteorology | -- Lt. Geordi LaForge, ST:TNG - "The Enemy"
Univ of Wisc - Madison |
moon...@meteor.wisc.edu | MST 3K info club #16481
JT
>rc...@netcom.com (Robert Chao) writes:
>>Notes: the first time I heard of this categorization was Doug Coupland's
>>book, Gen X (haven't read it). Oh and just look at that new Burger King
>>commercial!
That BK-guy is a dork.
>Fuck Burger King! Has anyone seen the new DiscoMTVmmercial for the Army?
>Be all that you can be, and be cool while you're doing it! I wonder how
>long before the Army has a rap commercial?
Or a show-tune. Just kidding... but I am surprised that they haven't
had one out (I don't watch much TV, but enough to make that statement
about the BK-guy).
Personally, I think a nice industrial/thrash-vid would be cool for an
army commercial. Have A Trent Reznor hang upside down in a camo
straight jacket and wiggle about.. then he busts free and grabs a
rifle and starts lighting the Club-MTV crown up.
JT
Robert Mah
> I have been reading a lot about the "twentysomething generation."
> Apparently a lot of young people developed certain attitudes during
> the last 5 years, and they are sort of a class of their own.
>
> Do you think on the average, a person 25-29 years old is generally
> a lot different from someone the same age but ten years ago?
Well, as a member of that "generation", I do. I also think that our
attitudes were developed not over the last 5 years but over our whole
lives.
> Or could the "twentysomething deal" be created by the media? Could it
> have to do with, rather than attitudes, just fads like noserings, Ren
> and Stimpy, and skateboards, and recent R.E.M.?
The media isn't smart enough to think of anything. There's a great book
called "Generations" by William Strauss and Niel Howe. It's basically
a book of American history as seen from each generation's viewpoint. But
not as snapshots, but tracking what each generation experiences and how
that shapes their attitudes.
>What about the yuppies? we heard a lot about them in the 1980's, but
>weren't there always people like the yuppies except that they didn't
>have a label?
Remember the yuppies used to be the hippies. Now they're pontification
about how bad drugs are, safe sex, etc. Not that I'm necessarily for or
against any of that, but it seems sort of hypocrytical as they are the
ones that brought those problems to our society.
One of the ways to look at generational shifts and attitudes of soceity
at large towards each generation is to look at the media's portrayal of
children.
When we were kids there were a plethora of "evil children" movies. Notice
how that has changed in recent years to a proliferation of "cute children"
movies. Most of the antagonists today are young adults. People our age.
This shift in attitudes towards children reflect a shift in the power
structure. As the baby boomers grow older they, as a group, get more
power. Their viewpoints have been shaped by their history and they will
act differently from the people who came before them. History rolls on.
Cheers,
Rob
--
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Robert S. Mah | Voice: 212-947-6507 | "Every day an adventure, ]
[ One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge" ]
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]
Sue Clark
>In <1993Feb12....@netcom.com> rc...@netcom.com (Robert Chao) writes:
>> Or could the "twentysomething deal" be created by the media? Could it
>> have to do with, rather than attitudes, just fads like noserings, Ren
>> and Stimpy, and skateboards, and recent R.E.M.?
>The media isn't smart enough to think of anything. There's a great book
>called "Generations" by William Strauss and Niel Howe. It's basically
>a book of American history as seen from each generation's viewpoint. But
>not as snapshots, but tracking what each generation experiences and how
>that shapes their attitudes.
Yeah...the media doesn't seem to bright or original these days, IMHO.
But, mistrust of them is probably just another generational attitude
problem. ;)
Still, consider that we grew up watching Vietnam as a typcial evening's
entertainment, and never knew what it was all about.
We saw things like Nixon's resignation as just another tv show.
>>What about the yuppies? we heard a lot about them in the 1980's, but
>>weren't there always people like the yuppies except that they didn't
>>have a label?
>Remember the yuppies used to be the hippies. Now they're pontification
>about how bad drugs are, safe sex, etc. Not that I'm necessarily for or
>against any of that, but it seems sort of hypocrytical as they are the
>ones that brought those problems to our society.
>One of the ways to look at generational shifts and attitudes of soceity
>at large towards each generation is to look at the media's portrayal of
>children.
>When we were kids there were a plethora of "evil children" movies. Notice
>how that has changed in recent years to a proliferation of "cute children"
>movies. Most of the antagonists today are young adults. People our age.
>This shift in attitudes towards children reflect a shift in the power
>structure. As the baby boomers grow older they, as a group, get more
>power. Their viewpoints have been shaped by their history and they will
>act differently from the people who came before them. History rolls on.
Sue :)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Clark | "Is the chemical aftertaste the reason
| why people eat hot dogs? Or is it some kind
cl...@netcom.com | of a bonus?" - Death; THCoL #2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Christensen
: Remember the yuppies used to be the hippies. Now they're pontification
: about how bad drugs are, safe sex, etc. Not that I'm necessarily for or
: against any of that, but it seems sort of hypocrytical as they are the
: ones that brought those problems to our society.
I think that's what pisses off our generation (whatever it's name is).
All I hear from the 60's crowd was how great it was, getting laid, tuning
in, turning on, dropping out, protesting the war, etc.
So what happens? They're a bunch of goddam MBA yuppies making a shitload
of dough, voting Republican, etc., etc. And I know a lot of people who
recently graduated from good schools with good degrees and they're unemployed!
But the Baby Boomers act like it's our fault! They're the ones that
were supposed to make everything great for the rest of us.
So of course a lot us are pissed and have bad attitudes -- we're the first
generation that will probably live worse off than the previous ones, right?
--
Carl Christensen /~~\_/~\ ,,, Dept. of Computer Science
chri...@astro.ocis.temple.edu | #=#==========# | Temple University
"Curiouser and curiouser!" - LC \__/~\_/ ``` Philadelphia, PA USA
Stephen J. Okay
[lots of stuff about twentysomethings and whether we're a marketing plan of
the Corp]
>I think that's what pisses off our generation (whatever it's name is).
>All I hear from the 60's crowd was how great it was, getting laid, tuning
>in, turning on, dropping out, protesting the war, etc.
>
>So what happens? They're a bunch of goddam MBA yuppies making a shitload
>of dough, voting Republican, etc., etc. And I know a lot of people who
>recently graduated from good schools with good degrees and they're unemployed!
>But the Baby Boomers act like it's our fault! They're the ones that
>were supposed to make everything great for the rest of us.
Not to mention guess who's been handed the broom to clean up after their
generation >:(
---Steve
--
---------
so...@cyclone.mitre.org
"Your Mind....My Playground" ---me
cvad...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
>>
>>>Fuck Burger King! Has anyone seen the new DiscoMTVmmercial for the Army?
>>>Be all that you can be, and be cool while you're doing it! I wonder how
>>>long before the Army has a rap commercial?
Notice that the first run of those BK commericals featured a white dude.
And now it's a black dude. Guess BK really wanted to get their commerical
across to all races.
Can a Hispanic or Asian BK dude be far behind?
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Memory, shadow, fantasy. The past, the present, and the dreaming moment in |
| between -- are all in one country, living one immortal day. To know that |
| is wisdom. To use it is the Art. |
| -- The Book of Art, volume one |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From the depths of cyberspace ... MILAMBER conDoin/2 [eXodus/IST]
td...@cs.virginia.edu
>A lot of people will disagree, but I think our generation was
>looking for a label.
You're right, a lot of people _will_ disagree. Just how
does a generation go about "looking for a label?" I think the
complete opposite is true -- everyone (like you) wants to label
our generation, but no one could find one because we were always
pretending to be hippies.
>But I'm supposedly a certified member of this Generation X
>thing, the Thirteenth Generation, Slackers, etc, and I think we
>were always looking to be part of something definable. Like a
>high school kid anxious to have his own clique/group.
I don't know if I'm just "supposedly" a member... I didn't
know you could choose what generation you're from. ;> But seriously,
I just don't see myself "just trying to be a part of something"
like a bloody child. I'm only 21, but, hey, that's _21_... not 14.
>like previous generations had these sort of binding social
>outlets. In the fifties there were soda fountains, in the
>sixties there were sit-ins,
In the nineties we have Raves and Electronic chat networks
(like this one). Are you sure you're a part of this generation --
i.e. the twentysomethings? Have you been to a bar lately? Have
you had a smart drink? ($5 for a virgin Daquiri with chemicals that
our parents would avoid rather than pay for.) Done the "running
man" to Ministry or NIN? Gone to a real Rave, where the Ecstasy
(the drug) flows freely? Or for that matter, gone to _any_ rave
(even without the drugs) where Ren & Stimpy cartoons play continuously
on the walls next to color-cycling fractals and laser beam splitters?
Next time you do, tell me that this has all been done before. The
drugs might be from the sixties and the disco balls from the seventies,
but the sum total is all nineties.
And this is just an obvious example. What about Cyberpunks?
Did anything like them ever exist before?
>We don't have any dramatic political
>changes, born on the tails of the Vietnam war, and too old by
>the time Germany reunited, etc, to be really moved by any
>massive world change. The only thing you could say we had is
>MTV, a cable TV station, which is hardly like a sock-hop which
>brings people together.
This I _really_ can't believe. "Too old to be moved
by world change." Germany reunited in October 1st of 1989. I
don't have to look that up -- I know. It was one of the most
unbelievable changes in all of post-war history, only overshadowed by
the _fall of the USSR_! And this happened to the 20somes, NOT
during the 50s, 60s, or 70s. I think our generation has a most
unique gift. The end of the cold war was one of the most influential
"world changes," and it had a profound effect on me, and my
entire generation. These effects will only become apparent when we
control the government. (I can't wait. :> )
Oh, but yea... MTV is definitely more important.
>The "grunge"
>scene has been around in a cult sort of way at least since I
>was 14. It's suddenly taking the masses by storm because of the
>label.
I assume you are 21-29 (by including yourself in the 20somes).
So the last 7-15 years were our formative years -- of course our music
was out there! The obvious example is Metallica, born in 1983. I would
think that everyone would consider Metallica to be a part of the 20somes
generation. And I feel it is an easy-to-label birth point for the
entire genre that now has a pop-style subset called "grunge". So once
again you have it backward. It isn't taking the masses by storm because
of the label. It finally got a label because it took the masses by storm.
(speed metal: born from the ashes of hardcore punk and 70s variety
[AC/DC, Judas Priest] heavy metal. A certifiable 20some production.
Another example of where the music was there before the label.)
"Talkin' 'bout my generation..." -- The Who
Robert Mah
[ lots of stuff about whether we're real or not.. ]
>>But the Baby Boomers act like it's our fault! They're the ones that
>>were supposed to make everything great for the rest of us.
>Not to mention guess who's been handed the broom to clean up after their
>generation >:(
One of the things that Strauss & Howe discuss in "Generations" is tendency
of certain generations to be more "spiritual" than others. That is, they
tend to be more passionate about certain issues. This "passion" and the
implied reliance on emotion over rationality has led to many...well...
situations.
To paraphrase from their book...
Generation Youth - - - - - - - - -> Elderhood
---------- -----------------------------------
Puritan Puritan Awakening, Witch Burnings
Awakening Great Awakeing Revolutionary War
Transcendental Transcendental Awakeing Civil War
Missionary Missionary Zeal, Proabition, World War II
Boomer's The 60's, War on Drugs, ???
Anyone else see any parallels here? BTW, Strauss & Howe actually give,
what seems to me, valid reasons for the generational cycles they say
they have found in American history.
Bob Blackshaw
Or like us in the sixtysomething generation who had to listen to them
all those years and now get to pay for the clean-up.
>---Steve
>--
Bob
Brian W. Dunn
Well I'm 26, have an MBA (BA Chem), wear a biker jacket and Docs, have
a motorcycle, make a shitload of dough (wish I was making more), write
virii for fun (because I can), read cyberpunk fiction, and am VP of MIS
at a small company...plus I've been known to "turn on" and I've fooled
around a lot in the past (always wore condom)...I think our Generation
needs to quit whining and get on with life...I'm not sure anything
really identifies our Generation...
BTW, I vote Democratic at the national level (they agree with me on a lot
of social issues) and Libertarian everywhere else.
Quit whining.
--
If you did it and lived, then you probably did it right.
-hag...@gagme.chi.il.us-
Don M. Gibson
>Robert Mah (rm...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Remember the yuppies used to be the hippies. Now they're pontification
>: about how bad drugs are, safe sex, etc. Not that I'm necessarily for or
>: against any of that, but it seems sort of hypocrytical as they are the
>: ones that brought those problems to our society.
>
>I think that's what pisses off our generation (whatever it's name is).
>All I hear from the 60's crowd was how great it was, getting laid, tuning
>in, turning on, dropping out, protesting the war, etc.
>
>So what happens? They're a bunch of goddam MBA yuppies making a shitload
>of dough, voting Republican, etc., etc. And I know a lot of people who
>recently graduated from good schools with good degrees and they're unemployed!
>But the Baby Boomers act like it's our fault! They're the ones that
>were supposed to make everything great for the rest of us.
>
>So of course a lot us are pissed and have bad attitudes -- we're the first
>generation that will probably live worse off than the previous ones, right?
>
babyboomers do have at least one advantage. there is a relative over-supply of
small, first-time-buyer homes available with the boomers into their
"boomlet" years. but considering the overall lackluster economic situation we
have inherited, it not anything to really celebrate.
as far as MBA's & such, i don't the 90's is going to be a great time to be
a middle manager. just think how frustrating it is for the boomers who
have to compete with recent graduates! historically, folks have been their
most productive around the age of 40. lets hope that holds true and that
demographic bulge can "grow the economy" out of debt.
Sue Clark
>just had to add my 20something 2 cents here. demographically, the post-
>babyboomers do have at least one advantage. there is a relative over-supply of
>small, first-time-buyer homes available with the boomers into their
>"boomlet" years. but considering the overall lackluster economic situation we
>have inherited, it not anything to really celebrate.
Come visit CA. With 'small, first-time-buyer' homes running in the 200K
range, I don't think you'll find any great housing glut here.
Sue
Robert Mah
[bio deleted]
> around a lot in the past (always wore condom)...I think our Generation
> needs to quit whining and get on with life...I'm not sure anything
> really identifies our Generation...
Well, that attitude is actually very typical of our generation.
>BTW, I vote Democratic at the national level (they agree with me on a lot
> of social issues) and Libertarian everywhere else.
So is this political ideology of a liberal social agenda and a conservative
ecomomic philosophy.
>Quit whining.
See above. See, you're more like everyone else your age than you may think!
Ain't that grand?
P.S. The sarcasm was only meant in fun, OK?
Peter Nelson
>In <1993Feb12....@netcom.com> rc...@netcom.com (Robert Chao) writes:
>
>
>> I have been reading a lot about the "twentysomething generation."
>> Apparently a lot of young people developed certain attitudes during
>> the last 5 years, and they are sort of a class of their own.
>>
>> Do you think on the average, a person 25-29 years old is generally
>> a lot different from someone the same age but ten years ago?
>
>Well, as a member of that "generation", I do. I also think that our
>attitudes were developed not over the last 5 years but over our whole
>lives.
EVERY generation *THINKS* that they're different in some funda-
mental, defining way. Some of my contemporaries thought we were
going to usher in the Age of Aquarius and peace Love and Under-
standing, and we got Charles Manson, Jerry "stockbroker" Rubin,
and Bill and Hillary. Prior to that there was the "Beat" generation,
the "Lost" generation, etc. Usually the media picks out a few
"defining" symbols for each generation: Art Deco, F Scott Fitzgerald
Ernest Hemingway, Chicago gangsters, The Dust Bowl, bread lines,
for various years between the wars. Beatniks, Jack Kerouac,
HUAC , and tract-housing ("all made out of ticky-tacky and all look
just the same") for the 50's, etc. But the average "member" of these
generations were not novelists or poets or gangsters or Dust Bowl
migrants.
Three important things to note:
1. There are no such things as generations. People have babies
all the time. It's not like there were a bunch of babies born
when the men came home from WWII in the late 40's and then
everyone stopped having babies until the 1960's, or something.
Social and cultural change occurs constantly and gradually.
The culture in 1965 was different that in 1970, 1975, 1980,
1985, etc. You don't usually suddenly get some new generation.
2. People are diverse. Despite the image of young people in
the 60's being all flower children and hippies, this applied
to only a small percentage of people I knew. I wouldn't
say more than 10% of the guys I went to school with had, say,
long hair. But if some TV show does a "60's scene" you can
bet the males will have long hair and the women will have no
bras.
3. When value changes occur in a society they affect people of
all ages, not just those in a certain generation. Many of the
hippies of 1967 became the yuppies of 1984. People who grew
up living frugally hand-to-mouth in the 1930's Depression
lost their frugality and became wasteful spenders and promoters
of the huge federal deficits of the 1980's (look at the age of
the senators and congressmen who presided over this deficit).
The "Twentysomething" generation, "Generation X", or whatever you
want to call it is a desperate attempt by Madison Avenue to find
some unifying theme or concept they can hang an ad campaign or
marketing thrust on. If I were twenty-something today I'd be
really pissed off that a bunch of yuppies and ex-yuppies in
suits in New York and LA were trying to define *me*.
---peter
Peter Nelson
>: Remember the yuppies used to be the hippies. Now they're pontification
>: about how bad drugs are, safe sex, etc. Not that I'm necessarily for or
>: against any of that, but it seems sort of hypocrytical as they are the
>: ones that brought those problems to our society.
>
>I think that's what pisses off our generation (whatever it's name is).
>All I hear from the 60's crowd was how great it was, getting laid, tuning
>in, turning on, dropping out, protesting the war, etc.
Now think about this for a second - do you REALLY hear this from
"the 60's crowd" or do you hear it from the MEDIA? Do you believe
every stereotype you hear?
>So what happens? They're a bunch of goddam MBA yuppies making a shitload
>of dough, voting Republican, etc., etc.
Really? I sure know a lot of people in their late 30's/early 40's who
are unemployed! I think you ought to do a reality check. Start by
turning off the TV.
> And I know a lot of people who
>recently graduated from good schools with good degrees and they're unemployed!
>But the Baby Boomers act like it's our fault!
Evidence, please?
> They're the ones that were supposed to make everything great for the rest
> of us.
According to whom?
>So of course a lot us are pissed and have bad attitudes -- we're the first
>generation that will probably live worse off than the previous ones, right?
Oh, ca-ca.
I was born in 1953. I'll never live in as a good a house as my
parents, or as nice a neighborhood. My wife and I both have
good-paying, white collar jobs, but our earning power has been
steadily dropping and our industry (computers) is on the skids
so we can't take the risk of having any kids because the economic
future is too grim-looking. But the guys coming home from the
WWII could go to school on the GI Bill, get a job with a big US
corporation, buy a house in the suburbs and make long-term
commitments like starting a family. This is a kind of feeling
of security that I (and you) will never enjoy.
---peter
Scott Gregory
td...@cs.virginia.edu
> So the last 7-15 years were our formative years -- of course our music
> was out there! The obvious example is Metallica, born in 1983. I would
> think that everyone would consider Metallica to be a part of the 20somes
> generation. And I feel it is an easy-to-label birth point for the
> entire genre that now has a pop-style subset called "grunge". So once
> again you have it backward. It isn't taking the masses by storm because
> of the label. It finally got a label because it took the masses by storm.
Metallica is not a good example of a "grunge" precursor. There were
bands that today would be labelled "grunge" that existed before '83, and
certainly have more robust and diverse influences than straight-ahead
Metallica speed metal. In fact, "grunge" music has been a dominant
factor in the Los Angeles music scene for quite a while, though no one
called it grunge (the label is new).
BTW, one of the trippiest things I ever saw was the shock wave of
grungeness that occured last year. I was living in Tower Records at the
time, and all of a sudden there was a reference to some new band from
Seattle called Nirvana (stealing the show from the Chili Peppers like so
many later famous bands) and within three months, that's all you could
hear in a dance club. The Tower Records within four months had multiple
copies of every Chili Peps album (including Abbey Road which I remember
being difficult to find in L.A. at one point). Pop culture sure moves
fast.
Robert Mah
> 1. There are no such things as generations. People have babies
> all the time. It's not like there were a bunch of babies born
> when the men came home from WWII in the late 40's and then
> everyone stopped having babies until the 1960's, or something.
> Social and cultural change occurs constantly and gradually.
> The culture in 1965 was different that in 1970, 1975, 1980,
> 1985, etc. You don't usually suddenly get some new generation.
Well, "generation" can be defined along geneological or sociatal terms.
From a purly geneological standpoint, you're correct. However, from
a psycological standpoint, generations do exist. They tend to be defined
by striking events during the formative years of a group of people's
lives. For example, the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War,
the '60s philosophical/social revolution, etc.
Each of these events touched a large group of people while they were
young adults. While people's personalities tend to be formed during
childhood, their philosophical viewpoints tend to be shaped during their
young adulthood. These events were crucial in determining a _large_
group of people's view of the world. They also provide a point of cohesian
between those that experienced it. Notice how WWII vetrans still talk
about it. It was the high point of their lives. It was the defining
moment. That is what makes them a "generation" apart from others.
> 2. People are diverse. Despite the image of young people in
> the 60's being all flower children and hippies, this applied
> to only a small percentage of people I knew. I wouldn't
> say more than 10% of the guys I went to school with had, say,
> long hair. But if some TV show does a "60's scene" you can
> bet the males will have long hair and the women will have no
> bras.
That's true as well. But as anyone also knows, only a small minority
can be thought of as "leaders" or the "movers and shakers". These
are the _individuals_ that help to form the social consiousness of a
given generation. Some simply go along for the ride. Some buck the
trend (i.e. are rebels). However, all are defined by their position
vis-a-vis the "leaders". Note how you define those that did _not_
have long hair, etc. against those who did, and not vice versa.
> 3. When value changes occur in a society they affect people of
> all ages, not just those in a certain generation.
That is simply not true. Some generation's values tend to have a greater
affect than others. The Baby Boomer's (and all the "spiritual awakening"
generations before them) tend to shape societies views far more than
others.
> Many of the hippies of 1967 became the yuppies of 1984. People
> who grew up living frugally hand-to-mouth in the 1930's Depression
> lost their frugality and became wasteful spenders and promoters
> of the huge federal deficits of the 1980's (look at the age of
> the senators and congressmen who presided over this deficit).
Actually, most of the senators and congressmen come from the, so called
"Silent Generation". This generation followed the "G.I. generation" that
fought in World War II. The Silent Generation has a marked tendency to
seek approval. Thus the proliferation of strange government programs
for every little thing and the seeming need of those polititians to
please anyone and everyone.
> The "Twentysomething" generation, "Generation X", or whatever you
> want to call it is a desperate attempt by Madison Avenue to find
> some unifying theme or concept they can hang an ad campaign or
> marketing thrust on. If I were twenty-something today I'd be
> really pissed off that a bunch of yuppies and ex-yuppies in
> suits in New York and LA were trying to define *me*.
This, by the way, is a very typical attitude of our generation. We tend
to define ourselves by telling others what we are not.
Please, anyone who has the time, go out, get and read the book "Generations"
by William Strauss and Niel Howe. It covers American history from the
viewpoint of each generation. It also presents a theory for the cycles
of generations and reasons for it (childrearing techniques).
Brian W. Dunn
Ok you win...I'm pretty typical of my generation...damn.
And yeah, I'm socially liberal and economically conservative, wish there
wasa political party for me.
Joel Carlson
chri...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:
SO WHAT is Your problem? Learn to live with it! Destroy us or make us
Saints! We don't care it's not our fault that we were born TOO LATE!
---Ministry
---
carl...@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu -- This world has walls don't let your
head be one of them.
Peter Nelson
>In <C2LK2...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>> 1. There are no such things as generations. People have babies
>> all the time. It's not like there were a bunch of babies born
>> when the men came home from WWII in the late 40's and then
>> everyone stopped having babies until the 1960's, or something.
>> Social and cultural change occurs constantly and gradually.
>> The culture in 1965 was different that in 1970, 1975, 1980,
>> 1985, etc. You don't usually suddenly get some new generation.
>
>Well, "generation" can be defined along geneological or sociatal terms.
>From a purly geneological standpoint, you're correct. However, from
>a psycological standpoint, generations do exist. They tend to be defined
>by striking events during the formative years of a group of people's
>lives. For example, the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War,
>the '60s philosophical/social revolution, etc.
But there are a constant continuum of "formative events" during
people's lives. What about people who had the philosophically
formative years, say, in the late 40's, after WWII but before
Tailgunner Joe? I was active in the anti-war movement in the
60's but my brother was still in elementary school then. Now
he's 35 -- does he get a "generation"? Also the things that
affect most people are not some great, earthshaking social or
historical events, but the local day-to-day events and interactions
with the friends and families. Generational labels are largely
meaningless.
>Each of these events touched a large group of people while they were
>young adults. While people's personalities tend to be formed during
>childhood, their philosophical viewpoints tend to be shaped during their
>young adulthood. These events were crucial in determining a _large_
>group of people's view of the world. They also provide a point of cohesian
>between those that experienced it. Notice how WWII vetrans still talk
>about it.
People who share ANY frightening, life-threatening experience such
as war form close bonds and always talk about it. But the average
person does not share such an intense experience with other members
of their "generation". There is no equivalant of that for any major
post-WWII "generation".
>> 2. People are diverse. Despite the image of young people in
>> the 60's being all flower children and hippies, this applied
>> to only a small percentage of people I knew. I wouldn't
>> say more than 10% of the guys I went to school with had, say,
>> long hair. But if some TV show does a "60's scene" you can
>> bet the males will have long hair and the women will have no
>> bras.
>
>That's true as well. But as anyone also knows, only a small minority
>can be thought of as "leaders" or the "movers and shakers". These
>are the _individuals_ that help to form the social consiousness of a
>given generation.
But by this definition, you're practically saying that any member
of a "generation" is a follower. In my experience true "leaders",
"movers and shakers", are visionary individualsts who transcend the
fads of their time and stand outside any concept of "generational"
identity.
>vis-a-vis the "leaders". Note how you define those that did _not_
>have long hair, etc. against those who did, and not vice versa.
It seems commutative to me.
>> 3. When value changes occur in a society they affect people of
>> all ages, not just those in a certain generation.
>
>That is simply not true. Some generation's values tend to have a greater
>affect than others. The Baby Boomer's (and all the "spiritual awakening"
>generations before them) tend to shape societies views far more than
>others.
What I mean is that when there is a change in values, interests,
pursuits, etc, it affects most of society, not just some
"generation" of it. Take the current tendency for people to be
utter couch potatoes and spend lots of time watching TV. Even
old people who grew up in an age when there was no TV have
learned to become couch potatoes.
But I'm curious to see your evidence for "Some generation's values
tend to have a greater affect than others. The Baby Boomer's (and
all the "spiritual awakening" generations before them) tend to shape
societies views far more than others."
>> The "Twentysomething" generation, "Generation X", or whatever you
>> want to call it is a desperate attempt by Madison Avenue to find
>> some unifying theme or concept they can hang an ad campaign or
>> marketing thrust on. If I were twenty-something today I'd be
>> really pissed off that a bunch of yuppies and ex-yuppies in
>> suits in New York and LA were trying to define *me*.
>
>This, by the way, is a very typical attitude of our generation. We tend
>to define ourselves by telling others what we are not.
I think it's typical of EVERY generation! Anyone with an ounce of
self-respect would mightily resent having their identity defined
for them by the advertising or merchandising industry.
---peter
IT'S KIND OF FUN TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
>In article <C2EMC...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>In <1993Feb12....@netcom.com> rc...@netcom.com (Robert Chao) writes:
>>> I have been reading a lot about the "twentysomething generation."
>>> Apparently a lot of young people developed certain attitudes during
>>> the last 5 years, and they are sort of a class of their own.
>>> Do you think on the average, a person 25-29 years old is generally
>>> a lot different from someone the same age but ten years ago?
>>
>>Well, as a member of that "generation", I do. I also think that our
>>attitudes were developed not over the last 5 years but over our whole
>>lives.
>
> EVERY generation *THINKS* that they're different in some funda-
> mental, defining way. Some of my contemporaries thought we were
> going to usher in the Age of Aquarius and peace Love and Under-
> standing, and we got Charles Manson, Jerry "stockbroker" Rubin,
IMHO, I think you have a very good point, but is still slightly off.
I'm also a member of that generation, and I think our generation is
the most pessimistic and least naive of any generation since the days of
our great-grandparents. Since our first memories, this country has been
heading down-hill (minus a few short climbs). I'm not just talking
economically. I mean everything. And what makes it worse, is that it
seems like things are getting worse at a faster rate these last 4 or
5 years. This generation has much lower expectations, and more things
to fear.
> Three important things to note:
> 1. There are no such things as generations. People have babies
> all the time. It's not like there were a bunch of babies born
> when the men came home from WWII in the late 40's and then
> everyone stopped having babies until the 1960's, or something.
> Social and cultural change occurs constantly and gradually.
> The culture in 1965 was different that in 1970, 1975, 1980,
> 1985, etc. You don't usually suddenly get some new generation.
>
This is true, BUT the people that were born into that time period have
certain events and trends that bind them. Outside of that fact, then you
are 100% right.
> 2. People are diverse. Despite the image of young people in
> the 60's being all flower children and hippies, this applied
> to only a small percentage of people I knew.
That is obvious considering Dick got elected then.
> The "Twentysomething" generation, "Generation X", or whatever you
> want to call it is a desperate attempt by Madison Avenue to find
> some unifying theme or concept they can hang an ad campaign or
> marketing thrust on. If I were twenty-something today I'd be
> really pissed off that a bunch of yuppies and ex-yuppies in
> suits in New York and LA were trying to define *me*.
>
From what I can tell of my generation, there are plenty of people like
me who really don't care to watch TV long enough to know how we are
being defined. But then I have just as many friends who have bought into
Hollywood's version of the "American Dream" (ie Fast Cars, Easy Women, Lots
of Money[that they never get], No Reality), and would fall for any definition.
>
>---peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range. Garrett Johnson
We strafe the train with the bravery of being out of range. Gar...@Ingres.com
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range. Alameda, Calif.
-Roger Waters
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G T Clark
Interestingly,in the UK we've got a thrash (Motorhead's Ace of
Spades) / cyberpunk(Stakker) commercial for Pot Noodles (which I refuse
to translate).
G.
Peter Nelson
>In article <C2LK2...@apollo.hp.com>, nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...
>>>Well, as a member of that "generation", I do. I also think that our
>>>attitudes were developed not over the last 5 years but over our whole
>>>lives.
>>
>> EVERY generation *THINKS* that they're different in some funda-
>> mental, defining way. Some of my contemporaries thought we were
>> going to usher in the Age of Aquarius and peace Love and Under-
>> standing, and we got Charles Manson, Jerry "stockbroker" Rubin,
>
>IMHO, I think you have a very good point, but is still slightly off.
>I'm also a member of that generation, and I think our generation is
>the most pessimistic and least naive of any generation since the days of
>our great-grandparents. Since our first memories, this country has been
>heading down-hill (minus a few short climbs). I'm not just talking
>economically. I mean everything. And what makes it worse, is that it
>seems like things are getting worse at a faster rate these last 4 or
>5 years. This generation has much lower expectations, and more things
>to fear.
Well, I agree that in terms of things like jobs, kids
graduating from school today have fewer opportunities
than 20 years ago. But this is situational: if the economy
suddenly turned around I don't think that today's 25 year
old would turn out any differently than when I was 25
or my father was 25. But let's say that I'm wrong and
that there IS some defining psychology or philosophy that
results from this. What is it? From what I've been
seeing different young people react differently to today's
problems. Some go left, some go right, politically; some
retreat into a world of music and fads (and different fads
at that) and TV-culture. Some grind down and go for success
and money anyway. Et Cetera. While I gree with you that
economically and culturally things are somewhat bleak in the
US of A these days, I don't see a common response to it
that seems to define today's young people in any broad enough
way to define them as a "generation".
---peter
Peter Nelson
>Metallica is not a good example of a "grunge" precursor. There were
>bands that today would be labelled "grunge" that existed before '83, and
>certainly have more robust and diverse influences than straight-ahead
>Metallica speed metal. In fact, "grunge" music has been a dominant
>factor in the Los Angeles music scene for quite a while, though no one
>called it grunge (the label is new).
First of all, people have been dressing in the kind of clothes
that today they call "grunge" for decades and decades. It just
goes to prove the old adage that you should "never throw out any
clothes because someday they'll come back into style!"
Secondly, and more importantly I would hope that if there IS a
real "generation" of "twentysomethings" or whatever out there,
that they would be defined by something more fundamental, solid,
and lasting than fashion, styles, fads, etc. I mean, do you
guys really care about such superficiality?
> Pop culture sure moves fast.
And in circles.
---peter
Robert Mah
>Ok you win...I'm pretty typical of my generation...damn.
No! Wait! You're not supposed to actually _agree_!
>And yeah, I'm socially liberal and economically conservative, wish there
> wasa political party for me.
Me too. On a different note, it's too bad (in my view) that our one needs
a majority instead of a plurality to win elections in the U.S. If only
a plurality was needed, I think we'd see more, stronger third (and possibly)
fourth political parties. Oh well.
Robert Mah
> But there are a constant continuum of "formative events" during
> people's lives. What about people who had the philosophically
> formative years, say, in the late 40's, after WWII but before
> Tailgunner Joe?
They, as defined by Strauss & Howe are part of the "silent generation".
> I was active in the anti-war movement in the 60's but my brother was
> still in elementary school then. Now he's 35--does he get a "generation"?
Yes. He's part of the Thirteenth generation. Note that you (and the WWII
generation) both feel that you did "something important" during your years
of young adulthood.
> Also the things that affect most people are not some great, earthshaking
> social or historical events, but the local day-to-day events and
> interactions with the friends and families. Generational labels are
> largely meaningless.
Well, we have an honest difference of opinion here about what affects
a person's philosophical and psychological makeup.
> But I'm curious to see your evidence for "Some generation's values
> tend to have a greater affect than others. The Baby Boomer's (and
> all the "spiritual awakening" generations before them) tend to shape
> societies views far more than others."
OK, sure.
Example One. During the early 1600's, there was a dramatic resurgence
of radical Protestantism in Europe. It helped trigger the 30 Year War.
The movement was sparked by young adults, called Puritans in England.
When the sparks died down, many fled England and settled in the "New World".
They formed the spiritual core of New England until their death and
the witch trials near the end of the 1600s. BTW, nearly all of the accused
witches came from the first generation born in the New World. That later
generation was uniformly accused as "corrupt" and "lost".
Example Two. The latter 1600's and early 1700's were periods of remarkable
growth in the American Colonies. During the early 1700's were born
a group of people (e.g. Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, etc.) that formed the
core of a new spirtual awakening. They formed new churches, converted
the indians (or tried anyway), etc. They were the first to renounce
slavery in decades. Students were even expelled from college's because
of their antics.
Later in their life, they started preaching politics. They were the leaders
during the French & Indian Wars, led the Stamp Act tax revolts, etc. They
formed the spiritual core and guidance that led to the American Revolution.
During the early 1800's there were more college campus riots than any
time before or since. In 1823, two-thirds of the Harvard senior class
was expelled. This group also led the Abolitinist movement (e.g. John
Brown). They "experimented" with Opium. As they grew older and entered
politics, they destroyed the fragile compromise between North and South
that had existed since the Revolution and led America during the Civil War.
Skip next to the Missionary Generation, born during the late 1800's.
People like Williams Jennings Bryan, William Randolf Hearst, Henry Ford,
W.E.B. DuBois, Frank Loyde Write, Douglas MacArthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Etc. They, again, started a religious awakening during young adulthood,
had fun during the "Gay 90's" and the turn of the century. The worst
college unrest since the 1830's. As they grew older they enacted proabition,
led the woman's sufferage movement, led the nation into and out of the
Great Depression and World War II.
Well, enough already :-)
Peter Nelson
>In <C2M96...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>> I was active in the anti-war movement in the 60's but my brother was
>> still in elementary school then. Now he's 35--does he get a "generation"?
>
>Yes. He's part of the Thirteenth generation.
See, this is what i object to. This relentless labelling. The
fact is that the real world is enormously complex. Some people
can't handle that level of complexity and try to simplify things
by creating categories, even when this results in meaningless
OVER simplification.
> Note that you (and the WWII generation) both feel that you did
> "something important" during your years of young adulthood.
I think Americans who fought in WWII, or who contributed on
the home front gearing up our industry to incredible levels
after a decade of depression really DID do something impressive
and important. I'm not sure that I or my "generation" did.
>> Also the things that affect most people are not some great, earthshaking
>> social or historical events, but the local day-to-day events and
>> interactions with the friends and families. Generational labels are
>> largely meaningless.
>
>Well, we have an honest difference of opinion here about what affects
>a person's philosophical and psychological makeup.
Do really think that someone's emotional makeup and values is more
impacted by things they read in the paper or hear on the radio
or see on TV, than by the way they're raised by their family, or
how close a relationship they have have with their mother, father,
and siblings, or whether they grow up in affluence or wretched
poverty?
>> But I'm curious to see your evidence for "Some generation's values
>> tend to have a greater affect than others. The Baby Boomer's (and
>> all the "spiritual awakening" generations before them) tend to shape
>> societies views far more than others."
>
>OK, sure.
>
>Example One. During the early 1600's, there was a dramatic resurgence
>of radical Protestantism in Europe. It helped trigger the 30 Year War.
>The movement was sparked by young adults, called Puritans in England.
I think we may be using terms at variance here. The Puritans were
never more than a tiny minority in England. I don't dispute that
small groups of highly motivated people can influence values and
history, but I wouldn't call the Puritans a "generation". Also,
radical Protestantism in Northern Europe had as much to do with
nascent nationalism and resentment of rule by Spain, France, and
the Vatican, as any generational things.
>Later in their life, they started preaching politics. They were the leaders
>during the French & Indian Wars, led the Stamp Act tax revolts, etc. They
>formed the spiritual core and guidance that led to the American Revolution.
I might be willing to concede this one. I've often been amazed at how
fortunate the colonies and the subsequent United States were to have
such a collection or concentration of able, inspired, and visionary
men who led the Revolution and set for the ideas embodied in the
Constitution.
But I guess I find the subsequent stuff less convincing, that is
for the next 200 years we seem to have experienced/enjoyed constant
change, upheaval, and cultural adventure. I don't see the rate of
college campus riots to be indicative of anything. It seems to
me to be impossible to pick ANY, say, 20-year stretch of US history
when amazing things were NOT being done by whatever age group
happened to reach their age of maximum power or influence during
that time.
>During the early 1800's there were more college campus riots than any
>time before or since. In 1823, two-thirds of the Harvard senior class
>was expelled. This group also led the Abolitinist movement (e.g. John
>Brown). They "experimented" with Opium. As they grew older and entered
>politics, they destroyed the fragile compromise between North and South
>that had existed since the Revolution and led America during the Civil War.
>
>Skip next to the Missionary Generation, born during the late 1800's.
>People like Williams Jennings Bryan, William Randolf Hearst, Henry Ford,
>W.E.B. DuBois, Frank Loyde Write, Douglas MacArthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
>Etc. They, again, started a religious awakening during young adulthood,
>had fun during the "Gay 90's" and the turn of the century. The worst
>college unrest since the 1830's. As they grew older they enacted proabition,
>led the woman's sufferage movement, led the nation into and out of the
>Great Depression and World War II.
---peter
Todd D. Hodes
> Secondly, and more importantly I would hope that if there IS a
> real "generation" of "twentysomethings" or whatever out there,
> that they would be defined by something more fundamental, solid,
> and lasting than fashion, styles, fads, etc. I mean, do you
> guys really care about such superficiality?
No, but people who label us (like you) do.
If that's all you see, there's nothing more for you.
T.
--
Louder Tunes == Better Code
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Janet M. Swisher
>Me too. On a different note, it's too bad (in my view) that our one needs
>a majority instead of a plurality to win elections in the U.S. If only
>a plurality was needed, I think we'd see more, stronger third (and possibly)
>fourth political parties. Oh well.
Except presidential elections. Clinton won with a plurality of the
popular vote. He got a majority of the electoral votes, but only
because there's a tradition that winner-takes-all of a state's
electoral votes. I haven't check the Constitution lately, but I don't
think that's specified.
Of course, in most elections, if there's not a majority winner, you
gotta have a run-off.
--
Don't take life so serious ... it ain't *no how* permanent. -- Porkypine.
Rmc Walker
hosed up everything is. My question is to all generations, What the hell are
you doing to make things better other than whinning and pointing fingers?
Hey its just a question, someone said they were tired of manhole questions.
Scott of the 31 something generation.....
UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!01f
ARPA: humu!nctams1!pnet16!0...@nosc.mil
INET: 0...@pnet16.cts.com
Peter Nelson
>In article <C2nFJ...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> Secondly, and more importantly I would hope that if there IS a
>> real "generation" of "twentysomethings" or whatever out there,
>> that they would be defined by something more fundamental, solid,
>> and lasting than fashion, styles, fads, etc. I mean, do you
>> guys really care about such superficiality?
>
> No, but people who label us (like you) do.
I'm only responding to the previous posting by someone who
thinks he's a member of that "generation" which mentioned
style and music. He was doing the labelling, not me.
> If that's all you see, there's nothing more for you.
. . . whatever this mean. If you believe there IS a "twenty-
something" generation with more in common than just their age
perhaps you could try to tell us what it is, rather than just
making smug, cryptic remarks.
---peter
Bob Blackshaw
>In article <1993Feb14....@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> chri...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:
>>Robert Mah (rm...@panix.com) wrote:
>>: Remember the yuppies used to be the hippies. Now they're pontification
>>: about how bad drugs are, safe sex, etc. Not that I'm necessarily for or
>>: against any of that, but it seems sort of hypocrytical as they are the
>>: ones that brought those problems to our society.
>>
>>I think that's what pisses off our generation (whatever it's name is).
>>All I hear from the 60's crowd was how great it was, getting laid, tuning
>>in, turning on, dropping out, protesting the war, etc.
> Now think about this for a second - do you REALLY hear this from
> "the 60's crowd" or do you hear it from the MEDIA? Do you believe
> every stereotype you hear?
>
>>So what happens? They're a bunch of goddam MBA yuppies making a shitload
>>of dough, voting Republican, etc., etc.
> Really? I sure know a lot of people in their late 30's/early 40's who
> are unemployed! I think you ought to do a reality check. Start by
> turning off the TV.
What? And miss his MTV? There are a lot of people of all ages who have
lost their jobs. And many have, in the process, lost any pension
rights they had.
>> And I know a lot of people who
>>recently graduated from good schools with good degrees and they're unemployed!
>>But the Baby Boomers act like it's our fault!
> Evidence, please?
>> They're the ones that were supposed to make everything great for the rest
>> of us.
> According to whom?
>>So of course a lot us are pissed and have bad attitudes -- we're the first
>>generation that will probably live worse off than the previous ones, right?
> Oh, ca-ca.
> I was born in 1953. I'll never live in as a good a house as my
> parents, or as nice a neighborhood. My wife and I both have
> good-paying, white collar jobs, but our earning power has been
> steadily dropping and our industry (computers) is on the skids
> so we can't take the risk of having any kids because the economic
> future is too grim-looking. But the guys coming home from the
> WWII could go to school on the GI Bill, get a job with a big US
> corporation, buy a house in the suburbs and make long-term
> commitments like starting a family. This is a kind of feeling
> of security that I (and you) will never enjoy.
Hey, every morning on my commute, I pass those 'houses in the suburbs'
(except it isn't suburban any more). They average about 900 to 1000
square feet for floor space, just about the size of my first house
in the 60's. How many houses do you see being built at that size
today, even town houses? Even with just the two of us, our's runs to
something like 2800 square feet simply because we have to consider
the possibility of having to sell it and buyers won't take less.
BTW, I was 33 when I signed that first mortgage (didn't sleep a
wink all night at the thought of being $16,000 in debt), that's
about what I pay in interest now. Whether it was advertising,
the media, or what, expectations today are one hell of a lot
higher than those of your parents, or grandparents. Don't judge
by what they are living in today, it's probably their second or
third home. Look in the family album and see what the first one
looked like.
It sometimes is a matter of priorities as well. When I first got
here I bought a second hand 1981 Century. When I was still pushing
it to its final 140,000 miles, I saw lots of folks younger than me
driving new Hondas, BMWs, etc. Well, we couldn't live in that Buick,
so we bought land instead.
>---peter
I do wish you all well, and I certainly hope President Clinton can
turn things around, but he can't do it alone. Do remember too, that
he was Governor of Arkansas, not the CEO of any one of those large
corporations that have mismanaged themselves into such a hole, so
don't blame him for the economy. As he said the other night, there
is plenty of blame to go around, so nobody should be lacking for
their fair share.
Bob.
Bob Blackshaw
>In article <C2nM2...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>In <C2M96...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>> I was active in the anti-war movement in the 60's but my brother was
>>> still in elementary school then. Now he's 35--does he get a "generation"?
>>
>>Yes. He's part of the Thirteenth generation.
> See, this is what i object to. This relentless labelling. The
> fact is that the real world is enormously complex. Some people
> can't handle that level of complexity and try to simplify things
> by creating categories, even when this results in meaningless
> OVER simplification.
I'm with Peter on this one. I don't know where 'Generations' tries
to pidgeon hole me (Born in 1930), but as far as I'm concerned 'my
generation' is still evolving. Hey, I'm only middle aged and have
a bunch of years to go yet. So I hope that 'my contribution' is
far from finished.
>---peter
Bob.
Bob Blackshaw
>In article <C2nFJ...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> Secondly, and more importantly I would hope that if there IS a
>> real "generation" of "twentysomethings" or whatever out there,
>> that they would be defined by something more fundamental, solid,
>> and lasting than fashion, styles, fads, etc. I mean, do you
>> guys really care about such superficiality?
> No, but people who label us (like you) do.
He didn't - note the quotation marks.
> If that's all you see, there's nothing more for you.
Easy, Son, he asked a question, can you answer it?
>T.
Bob.
Steve Wainstead
Great string, folks. It gives me faith that this forum can
self-correct or modify all arguments to everyone's satisfaction,
even if we don't find the answer.
BTW think about how this string applies to African Americans, or
Africans for that matter. What about the twentysomethings
in Kenya, eh?
cheers
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Wainstead
co053@somethingorother
"Wouldn't you like to be a worker too?"
_________________________________________________________________
Peter Nelson
>In <C2LKr...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> I was born in 1953. I'll never live in as a good a house as my
>> parents, or as nice a neighborhood. My wife and I both have
>> good-paying, white collar jobs, but our earning power has been
>> steadily dropping and our industry (computers) is on the skids
>> so we can't take the risk of having any kids because the economic
>> future is too grim-looking. But the guys coming home from the
>> WWII could go to school on the GI Bill, get a job with a big US
>> corporation, buy a house in the suburbs and make long-term
>> commitments like starting a family. This is a kind of feeling
>> of security that I (and you) will never enjoy.
>
>Hey, every morning on my commute, I pass those 'houses in the suburbs'
>(except it isn't suburban any more). They average about 900 to 1000
>square feet for floor space, just about the size of my first house
>in the 60's. How many houses do you see being built at that size
>today, even town houses? Even with just the two of us, our's runs to
>something like 2800 square feet simply because we have to consider
>the possibility of having to sell it and buyers won't take less.
I think the reasoning for the bigger houses is a little more
complicated. Smallish houses, like the 3 bedroom ranch I own
are sold every day, even in this lousy NE economy. But builders
can make more money on bigger, fancier houses. New construction
around here is stricly at the very high end of the scale and the
limiting factor is the availability of decent builder's lots in
desireable locations. Look at it this way: if you're a developer
and have managed to secure a 1-acre builder's lot in a Boston exurb,
does it make more sense to build a $150K starter house, or a $400K
executive's house?
>BTW, I was 33 when I signed that first mortgage (didn't sleep a
>wink all night at the thought of being $16,000 in debt), that's
>about what I pay in interest now. Whether it was advertising,
>the media, or what, expectations today are one hell of a lot
>higher than those of your parents, or grandparents.
I disagree completely about expectations. When the guys came
back from the war and finished their schooling on the GI Bill
in the late-40's/early-50's the US was the dominant industrial
economy in the world. We had the most advanced technology,
modern factorys, and we had just won a two-front war with
the Germans and Japanese. If you read the magazines of the
time the prevailing mood was very OPTIMISTIC. With recent
scientific developments like atomic energy, antibiotics, jet
engines, plastics, and so forth, we would transform the world
and make a wonderful future for our children. THAT was the
big expectational difference between then and now.
There was a belief in the future that made it possible for
people to make long-term committments that they could really
believe in. Sure, they bought little Levittown tract houses
for starters, because they had no doubt that this was only the
first step. They were confident that their salaries and stan-
dard of living would grow and in a few years if they worked
hard and kept that grey flannel suit clean they could move up
to something better.
And for many of them this worked! Two weeks ago I had a family
reunion in Sarasota, Florida where my mother lives. Both my
family and all the neat little retirement homes in their neighbor-
hood are testament to the power of this dream. A whole city of
people who worked hard for 35 years or so for CocaCola or
Sun Oil, or GM, or HP, or whatever, enjoying a comfortable
retirement on a generous pension in beautiful surroundings,
their walls covered with pictures of the children they raised
and put through school. The American Dream, in real life.
But for us today the future is a lot bleaker. There is simply
no reason for the optimism of our parents. Few people today
expect to be able to work hard for a company and retire on
a nice pension. Poll after poll shows widespread doubt that
even SS will be there for us. And few today expect house
prices to keep rising, even at a rate equivalent to our
mortgages! (My house has dropped 20% in value since I
bought it in 1986).
So I think expectations today are a lot LOWER than in the 1950's.
And with good reason.
---peter
Peter Nelson
>BTW think about how this string applies to African Americans, or
>Africans for that matter. What about the twentysomethings
>in Kenya, eh?
A huge percentage of them will be dead of AIDS soon. The
WHO says in some African nations there will be a net drop
in population between now and the end of the century
due to AIDS. Already in some African villages according
to the BBC there are mostly old people and children, as
the those in their sexually-active years are dead or dying.
---peter
Bill Claussen
> do...@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>
> >just had to add my 20something 2 cents here. demographically, the post-
> >babyboomers do have at least one advantage. there is a relative over-supply of
> >small, first-time-buyer homes available with the boomers into their
> >"boomlet" years. but considering the overall lackluster economic situation we
> >have inherited, it not anything to really celebrate.
>
> Come visit CA. With 'small, first-time-buyer' homes running in the 200K
> range, I don't think you'll find any great housing glut here.
>
> Sue
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sue Clark | "Is the chemical aftertaste the reason
> | why people eat hot dogs? Or is it some kind
> cl...@netcom.com | of a bonus?" - Death; THCoL #2
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
California's a garden of Eden
It's a paradise to live in and see.
But believe it or not
You won't find it so hot
If you ain't got that Dough-Re-Mi.
Bill (ex Californian)
David Smith
) writes:
>I have seen a few articles here blastin one generation or the other for how
>hosed up everything is. My question is to all generations, What the hell are
>you doing to make things better other than whinning and pointing fingers?
>Hey its just a question, someone said they were tired of manhole questions.
>Scott of the 31 something generation.....
Uh....what else is there to do on ABUSENET than whine, point fingers, and
argue for the sheer joy of it? In this newsgroup, in this thread, it just
happens to be generation X v. generation *BOOM*. In another thread or
another newsgroup it might be an issue concerning religion, Holocaust
revisionism, Mac v. IBMs, or any grammatical or spelling errors a previous
poster may have made.
Are you proposing something different?
>
>UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!01f
>ARPA: humu!nctams1!pnet16!0...@nosc.mil
>INET: 0...@pnet16.cts.com
--
"You actually did, you just had no idea David Smith
that anybody would actually go out and bla...@wixer.cactus.org
hire a lawyer and sue you"
-- Uncle Sam
Robert Mah
>In article <C2nJ8...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>Except presidential elections. Clinton won with a plurality of the
>popular vote. He got a majority of the electoral votes, but only
>because there's a tradition that winner-takes-all of a state's
>electoral votes. I haven't check the Constitution lately, but I don't
>think that's specified.
True, each state get's to determine how their electoral votes are
distributed. I personally think this whole electoral college system
should be done away with though. Sort of silly in this day and
age. Unless of course, you don't trust the people.
Droopy
: A lot of people will disagree, but I think our generation was
: looking for a label. Growing up, we emulated the 50's, then the
: 60's, now a lot of people are doing htis 70's retro thing,
: although some of those people are younger than Generation X.
: But I'm supposedly a certified member of this Generation X
: thing, the Thirteenth Generation, Slackers, etc, and I think we
: were always looking to be part of something definable. Like a
: high school kid anxious to have his own clique/group. It seems
: like previous generations had these sort of binding social
: outlets. In the fifties there were soda fountains, in the
: sixties there were sit-ins, and even though that's all very
: stereotypical, when we look back it seems like they had
: something we don't. We don't have any dramatic political
: changes, born on the tails of the Vietnam war, and too old by
: the time Germany reunited, etc, to be really moved by any
: massive world change. The only thing you could say we had is
: MTV, a cable TV station, which is hardly like a sock-hop which
: brings people together.
But we have a much greater challenge: picking up the pieces of
this nation. Our parents' generation and previous generations
have fucked up the country so bad. They aren't doing anything
about pollution or the deficit or the enviroment or health care or whatever.
They just took all
they could get and let future generations deal with the consequences.
Well, it's our turn. We HAVE to deal with the consequences. Since
our parent's and grandparents' generations refuse to do something,
I ask them to get the hell out of the way so we can take a crack
at cleaning up their mess. We have to clean up after the "Me"
generation.
Another poster told of how some kids tried to sell tshirts and
would donate the funds to reduce the deficit/debt. He told of how
the got laughed at and raised next to nothing. I konw that their
contribution would mean little practically speaking but its
the principle of the thing. They tried to make things better
and older generations laughed at them. I think it is
OUR generation who is really frustrated not our parents'.
Our parents' generation has taken all they can and left the mess
for us and we're frustrated because we have to pick up the pieces.
Ironically, it's your parents who say, "If you make a mess, clean
it up." Maybe they should have followed their own advice.
===========================================================================
BRI FARENELL CLARKSON '95 FARE...@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
Majority rule is not mob rule.
===========================================================================
"In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the
highest tribute." ---Thurgood Marshall.
AMERIKA MARK
Vanguard Fest. The focus is experimental narrative
and will run from Feb. 24-27 at Brown Univ. in
Providence RI. Events are FREE and everyone is
encouraged to find some way to attend. In
addition to multiple readings of experimental
fiction there will be video screenings, hypertext
show and tell, electronic and other musical presentations
art exhibits and small press displays. I'll be there
to "bring out" the new Black Ice Books paperback series
that you may have heard about here in alt.-land or
other places. Many of the Black Ice writers like
John Shirley, Larry MCCaffery, Kathy Acker, Eurudice,
Rob Hardin, Ricardo Cruz (and some surprises) will
be attending and sharing their work. David Blair
will show "Wax", other worthwhile film/vid stuff
too. If you make it, stop by the Black Ice display
and say hey. If you can't make it and want more
info on the books then contact me.
Six Sigma CASE (Brian L. Matthews)
|Metallica is not a good example of a "grunge" precursor. There were
|bands that today would be labelled "grunge" that existed before '83, and
|certainly have more robust and diverse influences than straight-ahead
|Metallica speed metal. In fact, "grunge" music has been a dominant
|factor in the Los Angeles music scene for quite a while, though no one
|called it grunge (the label is new).
Maybe in Los Angeles, but "garage grunge" (lately shortened to just
"grunge") has existed for 30 years or more in Seattle.
Brian
Derek Reisinger
a year or two away.
A lot of discussion seems to be rising from this question
of the meaning of generation. A lot of people seem to be arguing that
the idea of one description for a "generation" is a misnomer; that
the people of any one age group are not linked by any generational
ties or beliefs. They cite the fact that people of one age group
react to things in entirely different ways, seeing things differently,
and believing different things.
Of this fact, I don't dispute (nor do many people). However,
it does seem to me that people of an age group do have MORE things
in common than they do with other age groups. This is not terribly
surprising since they would share the same experiences and have
grown up through the same events. This is not to say they will all
behave identically, or follow the same trends (long hair or cyberpunk),
but merely that they will have some common identity compared to the
rest of humanity. From this shared identity comes the generational
classification.
Not everyone in the 60's was a flower child, but there was
a definitive shift in culture towards this, or at least this was
the one main distinguishing feature of this generation...
Derek
Peter Nelson
>Kristen Carole Meluch (kc...@Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: A lot of people will disagree, but I think our generation was
>: looking for a label. Growing up, we emulated the 50's, then the
>But we have a much greater challenge: picking up the pieces of
>this nation. Our parents' generation and previous generations
>have fucked up the country so bad. They aren't doing anything
>about pollution or the deficit or the enviroment or health care or whatever.
>They just took all
>they could get and let future generations deal with the consequences.
>Well, it's our turn. We HAVE to deal with the consequences. Since
>our parent's and grandparents' generations refuse to do something,
>I ask them to get the hell out of the way so we can take a crack
>at cleaning up their mess. We have to clean up after the "Me"
>generation.
This sounds very laudable. Many of my contemporaries in the
60's used to say the same thing about their (my) parents'
generation. Many organizations such as Greenpeace, Amnesty
International, etc, were born from just such idealism. Much
of the social activism of those people was based on a rejection
of the values of their parents, which was perceived to be too
materialistic, too destructive of the envirnoment, and too
based on violence to solve human differences.
How are you different? What will prevent YOU from becoming the
yuppies of ten years from now? Why won't YOU end up with a
lifestyle based on the consumption of hydrocarbons, and the
exploitation of the poor, the politically powerless, or the
environment?
Look at the videos on MTV. Do THESE promote the values you
want? I've seen a lot of glorification of violence; I've
seen the promotion of the idea that women are "babes" whose
main role is decoration for studly guys; I've seen the promotion
of role models based on superficiality, conspicuous consumption,
and status. And I've seen corporate symbols and merchanising
promotion *everywhere* there.
If kids your age want to change the world, I suggest they start
by chucking the TV out the dorm window. Many of the values
that you see being associated with the older generation are
being promoted bigtime on commercial TV. But the "younger
generation" is glued to the idiot box more than any prior one.
I stopped watching TV over a year ago and it was the smartest
thing I ever did.
>Another poster told of how some kids tried to sell tshirts and
>would donate the funds to reduce the deficit/debt. He told of how
>the got laughed at and raised next to nothing. I konw that their
>contribution would mean little practically speaking but its
>the principle of the thing. They tried to make things better
>and older generations laughed at them.
Was it just the older ones who laughed at them?
>Our parents' generation has taken all they can and left the mess
>for us and we're frustrated because we have to pick up the pieces.
I don't remember dropping any acid in the 60's but this sure
sounds like a flashback to me!!!
---peter
Derek Reisinger
>In <lo8cm4...@boogie.cs.utexas.edu> swi...@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes:
>
>>In article <C2nJ8...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>>Except presidential elections. Clinton won with a plurality of the
>>popular vote. He got a majority of the electoral votes, but only
>>because there's a tradition that winner-takes-all of a state's
>>electoral votes. I haven't check the Constitution lately, but I don't
>>think that's specified.
>
>True, each state get's to determine how their electoral votes are
>distributed. I personally think this whole electoral college system
>should be done away with though. Sort of silly in this day and
>age. Unless of course, you don't trust the people.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob
>--
Well, just to clarify things, the Electoral College system
IS an original part of the Constitution. The founding fathers may have
been radical enough to envision the idea of a democracy, but never to
actually enact it. They didn't trust the common man.
In all fairness though, there have only been one or two cases
in the entire history of the nation where the electorates have voted
contrary to the states populace (in no case did it affect the election).
Derek
Steven E. Newton
>
> How are you different? What will prevent YOU from becoming the
> yuppies of ten years from now? Why won't YOU end up with a
> lifestyle based on the consumption of hydrocarbons, and the
> exploitation of the poor, the politically powerless, or the
> environment?
>
Because it seems entirely possible from our perspective that in 10 years
there won't be enough hydrocarbons to consume, and that we will BE the
exploited poor and the politically powerless, and there won't be enough
enviroment left to exploit, that's what's to prevent us from following
in the *BOOM* generation's footsteps.
If you read enough of the writings of the 60s youth leaders, you'll find
a continuing undercurrent of belief that the 60s were the beginning of
the age of "post scarcity", i.e. that science/technology/whatever had
solved enough of the problem of resource availability that no one need go
without, and they acted, and still act, as if that were true. Believe
me that none of my contemporaries believe in our wildest dreams that we
are living in an age of abundance of anything except problems left by
our elders.
s
--
+ + + + + + + |sne...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
You can make it foolproof, |Nobody else speaks for me,
but you can't make it damnfoolproof. |and I speak for no one else.
| + + + + +
Todd D. Hodes
> yuppies of ten years from now? Why won't YOU end up with a
> lifestyle based on the consumption of hydrocarbons, and the
> exploitation of the poor, the politically powerless, or the
> environment?
Oh boy. Here we go. Let me try to answer intelligently.
The _whole point_ of being idealistic is to
_hope_ for a change. Do we really think that the world's going to be
a bloody candy store in 20,30 years. Of course not! Do we think the world
will be a slightly better place in 100 years, when our influence will
have been felt by the world? Damn straight. Just 50 years ago, blacks,
homosexuals, ... had _FAR_ less rights than they do today. Case in point
where you OWN generation actually did something right. It happens.
"The consumption of hydrocarbons?" Yea, we're HUMAN. Really. But
being human doe NOT mean that we have to exploit the politically
powerless. You obviously think so, based on the phrasing you used
above. My problem with your attitude is that you aren't helping
ANYONE. You're disparaging an entire generation for even thinking
about trying. You're right, in ten years, I'll be rich as hell, and will
exploit the environment too much and will not want to give my money to
the poor. But, I recycle everything -- glass, plastics, Al, paper...
You probably didn't when you were young. When I'm rich, I'll still
recycle. You don't believe me. I don't care. I'll still recycle.
And, about giving money to the poor -- I've worked
in a homeless shelter for a few days of my life. Childhood idealism?
My father took me there. He ain't no child, just an idealist. He looked
at me kinda' funny the first time I derided him for not recycling. A week
later, he started and hasn't stopped since. Is this worthless because
someday I'll be as old as you and we'll still have poor people, the
glorification of violence, scarce natural resources, etc.? No, it is
_not_ worthless. We affect whatever changes we can... We don't
expect to recast society into a world of hippie do-gooders. Your own
generation helped in its own little way in two of the three things you
listed -- the powerless & the environment. They also went backward in
both, rejecting nuclear power, stopping the military ban.... You
did what you wanted. So will we.
> Look at the videos on MTV. Do THESE promote the values you
> want? I've seen a lot of glorification of violence; I've
> seen the promotion of the idea that women are "babes" whose
> main role is decoration for studly guys; I've seen the promotion
> of role models based on superficiality, conspicuous consumption,
> and status. And I've seen corporate symbols and merchanising
> promotion *everywhere* there.
We're not flower children. This is ALT.CYBERPUNK. Don't
confuse your generation with ours. Look where you're posting.
Everything you've listed above has nothing to do with most of the
things our generation is for .... Corporate symbols and merchandising
SHOULD be everywhere. The more money they make, the more taxes they
pay, the more we can do stupid things like fight poverty and reduce
the national debt. "Status"? what's wrong with status? Are we only
useful is we move toward an egoless society? If so, I sure as hell don't
want to be there. I _want_ status, as badly as anyone. That doesn't
preclude me from helping or changing the world. I truly believe that
my generation can make at least some things a little bit better. I'm
fighting (against you and the backward people in my own generation)
to make sure. Inertia is hard to fight. When I'm rich, I'll just
have money backing my opinions -- "Stop discrimination!!" "Support
Equal Opportunity!!" For now, they're just words over a wire. Give
me (us) time. We'll not only be heard... we'll be in control.
> If kids your age want to change the world, I suggest they start
> by chucking the TV out the dorm window. Many of the values
> that you see being associated with the older generation are
> being promoted bigtime on commercial TV. But the "younger
> generation" is glued to the idiot box more than any prior one.
> I stopped watching TV over a year ago and it was the smartest
> thing I ever did.
I personally don't watch either (except for RnS & STTNG :> ), but if you're
trying to argue that we should be characterized as the TV generation,
I think a lot of people would disagree. YOU were the TV generation.
We're the computer generation. And that has nothing to do with what I
hope my generation can move toward achieving. In 100 years, the same
statements will be made against computers, because they'll be being
used for mindless drivel 9 times out of 10. So what? There will
_always_ be mindless drivel.
>>and older generations laughed at them.
>
> Was it just the older ones who laughed at them?
There are no strict generational lines. But _some_ of
our generation didn't. Ones who believe, like me, that you _have_ to
try, regardless of the futility. I personally wouldn't waste time
on something as futile as that... but hey, whatever floats your boat.
If you're trying to help, I'll egg you on.
>>Our parents' generation has taken all they can and left the mess
>>for us and we're frustrated because we have to pick up the pieces.
>
> I don't remember dropping any acid in the 60's but this sure
> sounds like a flashback to me!!!
Sure is. Sounds like you gave up when the basket came
to you. Others in your generation haven't. Luckily new generations
come every time to restore the hope that the others inevitablely lose.
Sorry this is so long. I'll have plenty of chances to clarify anything
as soon as (if) I get replies.
T.
--
Louder Tunes == Better Code
__|| __|| Todd Hodes
(____(____) td...@virginia.edu
Peter Nelson
>In article <C2uwu...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>> How are you different? What will prevent YOU from becoming the
>> yuppies of ten years from now? Why won't YOU end up with a
>> lifestyle based on the consumption of hydrocarbons, and the
>> exploitation of the poor, the politically powerless, or the
>> environment?
>>
>
>Because it seems entirely possible from our perspective that in 10 years
>there won't be enough hydrocarbons to consume, and that we will BE the
>exploited poor and the politically powerless, and there won't be enough
>enviroment left to exploit, that's what's to prevent us from following
>in the *BOOM* generation's footsteps.
Takes longer than 10 years. You're too apocalyptic. We're at least
another 30-50 years from that. As I said in an earlier posting. look
at England. That's where America is heading - slow, steady decline.
A kind of settling quietly into the economic and cultural mud. But
they still had yuppies in the 1980's.
>If you read enough of the writings of the 60s youth leaders, you'll find
>a continuing undercurrent of belief that the 60s were the beginning of
>the age of "post scarcity", i.e. that science/technology/whatever had
>solved enough of the problem of resource availability that no one need go
>without,
Don't forget, I was there, I know what they believed! The concept of
living in a "post-scarcity" world was based on actually CHANGING the
values and lifestyles that people adopted. Giving up cars for public
transit (when I was at UMass, Amherst they tried (and failed) to
declare downtown Amherst car-free), giving up single-family homes
for attached housing with shared common areas and communal living,
zero-population-growth (adopting some third-world kid rather than
having one of your own, and only using renewable energy sources.
Take a look at the original Whole Earth Catalog for a compendium
of what that philosophy embodied.
I think you have the 60's confused with the early 50's when people
thought that atomic energy would make electricity "too cheap to
meter".
> and they acted, and still act, as if that were true.
But they never did!! That's the whole point. If they actually
ACTED on the above values then maybe they might have succeeded
but these ideas all turned out to be too idealistic and naive,
so they gave up and became yuppies. And the next bunch - the
"twentysomethings" aren't wasting any time with side-trips to
idealistic never-never lands and ecotopias, they're diving right
into consumption-as-a-kind-of-recreation and merchandising-as-a
kind-of-religion. "I want my MTV and I want it on a 27 inch screen
with stereo". "I want somebody's name-brand prominently inscribed
on every clothing item I own"
I didn't get my first credit card until I was 30, today kids think
it's a sort of rite of passage and get one at 16. I didn't buy
my first car until I was 27 -- today kids expect one when they
graduate from high-school, or sooner!
I agree that my contemporaries turned out to be a bunch of
hypocritical idealists -- that's why I disavow most of their
values. But I see no sign that the "twentysomethings" have
any better values. They're just pissed off that THEY didn't
get to do all the stupid self-destructive, economy-destructive,
and nature-destructive things first.
---peter
Robert Mah
>In article <1993Feb19.2...@news.clarkson.edu> fare...@logic.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
>>Kristen Carole Meluch (kc...@Virginia.EDU) wrote:
> This sounds very laudable. Many of my contemporaries in the
> 60's used to say the same thing about their (my) parents'
> generation. Many organizations such as Greenpeace, Amnesty
> International, etc, were born from just such idealism. Much
> of the social activism of those people was based on a rejection
> of the values of their parents, which was perceived to be too
> materialistic, too destructive of the envirnoment, and too
> based on violence to solve human differences.
We're, or at least I am, talking about ECONOMIC problems. You people
were all gung ho about social issues because you thought there was
a bright economic future ahead of you.
> How are you different? What will prevent YOU from becoming the
> yuppies of ten years from now? Why won't YOU end up with a
Easy, the deficit. Do you know how most nations solve a huge government
debt problem? They _inflate_ thier way out. I'm not talking about a
paltry 10% or 15% inflation rate. I'm talking about rates topping 100%.
This may sound outrageous, but it's the easiest course for a government
to take.
> Look at the videos on MTV. Do THESE promote the values you
> want? I've seen a lot of glorification of violence; I've
> seen the promotion of the idea that women are "babes" whose
> main role is decoration for studly guys; I've seen the promotion
> of role models based on superficiality, conspicuous consumption,
> and status. And I've seen corporate symbols and merchanising
> promotion *everywhere* there.
Why do you keep harping on about morals, etc? Money is the issue.
Money (or lack thereof) is the problem. Only after one's economic
future is relatively secure can one start seriously thinking about
moral problems. BTW, many social problems are, in some sense,
economic problems (e.g. health care, poverty, education, etc.)
> If kids your age want to change the world, I suggest they start
> by chucking the TV out the dorm window. Many of the values
> that you see being associated with the older generation are
> being promoted bigtime on commercial TV.
First, stop calling us "kids".
You know, there was once a time (late 1800's) when "popular" literature
was starting to come into vogue. Many of the elder generations
decride the downfall of literature and how the new forms of literature
were turning the minds of the youth to mush. Sound familiar.
TV may not be the most intellectually stimulating thing to hit the earth,
but you can learn more from it than say, the Theatah. TV is just another
form of media, and placing value judgements on it seems unfair. Besides,
TV grew up during YOUR childhood not ours. We are starting to see new
forms of media that will, hopefully, be more enriching than TV.
>>Another poster told of how some kids tried to sell tshirts and
>>would donate the funds to reduce the deficit/debt. He told of how
>>the got laughed at and raised next to nothing. I konw that their
>>contribution would mean little practically speaking but its
>>the principle of the thing.
It's not the principle that's gonna get us, it's the interest.
Get it <grin>
Matt Sheahan
>
> And in circles.
What's that saying? "Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they
shall be known as wheels".
--
===============================================================================
Function "experience" varies directly as variable "equipment ruined".
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board.
Matt Sheahan, Jantz Raynor, Chiaroscuro, Mancer mshe...@elektra.cc.edu
===============================================================================
Robert Mah
[ lot's of stuff about how horrible "twenty somethings" deleted ]
> But they never did!! That's the whole point. If they actually
> ACTED on the above values then maybe they might have succeeded
> but these ideas all turned out to be too idealistic and naive,
> so they gave up and became yuppies. And the next bunch - the
> "twentysomethings" aren't wasting any time with side-trips to
> idealistic never-never lands and ecotopias, they're diving right
> into consumption-as-a-kind-of-recreation and merchandising-as-a
> kind-of-religion. "I want my MTV and I want it on a 27 inch screen
[ even more deleted ]
Your idea of "utopia" and our idea of "utopia" are _very_ different.
I personally don't think I'd be too happy in yours. The whole point
of "advancement" throughout human history has been to _have_more_stuff_.
What's so wrong with that?
Yes there is more to life, but, let's face it, consumerism is part of
our life now. Hell, people have a tough time giving up blow driers
for God's sake. The trick is to balance our lifestyle and other more,
crunchy granola concerns.
K.E. Kindler
[Stuff deleted]
> Don't forget, I was there, I know what they believed!
[Stuff deleted]
> But they never did!! That's the whole point. If they actually
> ACTED on the above values then maybe they might have succeeded
> but these ideas all turned out to be too idealistic and naive,
> so they gave up and became yuppies. And the next bunch - the
> "twentysomethings" aren't wasting any time with side-trips to
> idealistic never-never lands and ecotopias, they're diving right
> into consumption-as-a-kind-of-recreation and merchandising-as-a
> kind-of-religion. "I want my MTV and I want it on a 27 inch screen
> with stereo". "I want somebody's name-brand prominently inscribed
> on every clothing item I own"
It seems that you are worried about how the "twentysomethings" and
the media are misrepresenting your generation by lumping them under one
dominant stereotype. It's interesting though to watch you then lump all
these "twentysomethings" into some sterotypical group of hedonistic
consumers. You are bothered by the fact that people who weren't "there"
are glossing over or demeaning you experiences and your history, but you
turn and do the same to the "twentysomethings" experiences. Yes, you are
"here" but you haven't had the same experiences and background a
"twentysomthing" had growing up. So while you may be able to talk about
your view on the "twentysomthing" generation some, as you may have
noticed, may not like you trying to say what they are or aren't when you
don't know them as an individual. This is the same for people reacting
to the "hippies" and their experiences.
Labels make easy reference points but when you try to enforce a
label on anyone as their identity most people would resist it since it
invalidates the entire complexity of who they are as individuals.
--
My life is for itself, and not a spectacle. - Emerson
Ken Kindler -- KEK...@ULTB.ISC.RIT.EDU
Peter Nelson
>In <C2uwu...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Feb19.2...@news.clarkson.edu> fare...@logic.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
>>>Kristen Carole Meluch (kc...@Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>> This sounds very laudable. Many of my contemporaries in the
>> 60's used to say the same thing about their (my) parents'
>> generation. Many organizations such as Greenpeace, Amnesty
>> International, etc, were born from just such idealism. Much
>> of the social activism of those people was based on a rejection
>> of the values of their parents, which was perceived to be too
>> materialistic, too destructive of the envirnoment, and too
>> based on violence to solve human differences.
>
>We're, or at least I am, talking about ECONOMIC problems. You people
>were all gung ho about social issues because you thought there was
>a bright economic future ahead of you.
We did? Documentation please?
Most of the people I knew who were in the various "movements" at the
time fell into one of two groups: people who were into communal,
"back to the earth" self-sufficiency, and people who took a leftist
"Die, Pigs" "revolutionary" confrontational approach because they
expected the imminent demise of "Amerikkka". The only people I know
who postulated a bright economic future were basing their views on
a hypothetical adoption of an entirely new set of values -- they were
saying we *could* have a bright future *if* we did certain things
but I don't recall any widespread belief that people would actually
make these choices. (and their theory was probably wrong, anyway)
>> Look at the videos on MTV. Do THESE promote the values you
>> want? I've seen a lot of glorification of violence; I've
>> seen the promotion of the idea that women are "babes" whose
>> main role is decoration for studly guys; I've seen the promotion
>> of role models based on superficiality, conspicuous consumption,
>> and status. And I've seen corporate symbols and merchanising
>> promotion *everywhere* there.
>
>Why do you keep harping on about morals, etc? Money is the issue.
Money is AN issue . . .
>Money (or lack thereof) is the problem. Only after one's economic
>future is relatively secure can one start seriously thinking about
>moral problems.
I see. Non-violence and equality are luxuries that we just can't
afford now. "I would treat women better if I just had a few hundred
more dollars in my pocket."
> BTW, many social problems are, in some sense,
>economic problems (e.g. health care, poverty, education, etc.)
In "some sense", perhaps. But the US has THE highest rate of
violent crime in the world (source: Senate Judiciary Committee
report, March 13, 1991, based on FBI stats) despite the fact
that we also have one of the highest per-capita incomes in the
world, and THE highest on a purchasing power parity basis, in
the industrialized world. Moreover, our poor are materially
better off than the poor (or even average) in many other
countries and STILL have a higher rate of school-dropouts,
teenage pregnancies, drug use, etc. In my town (Chelmsford,
MA) we spend over a $1K less than, say, Boston, per student
in our school system, but we have far better results. Indeed
overall, US per-student spending on K-12 is higher than almost
any other country in the world! So, yes, money is AN issue,
but CULTURE and VALUES are bigger issues.
>> If kids your age want to change the world, I suggest they start
>> by chucking the TV out the dorm window. Many of the values
>> that you see being associated with the older generation are
>> being promoted bigtime on commercial TV.
>
>First, stop calling us "kids".
When I was in college we called each other "kids". I'd love
it if people still thought I was a kid. Would you rather I
act lite Perot and say "you people"?
>TV may not be the most intellectually stimulating thing to hit the earth,
>but you can learn more from it than say, the Theatah. TV is just another
>form of media, and placing value judgements on it seems unfair.
It's not JUST another form. It has some unique features. For
one thing it's a form of MASS media. Millions or tens of millions
of people share the same program at the same time. Yet this
programming is produced by a small handful of corporate entities.
This provides a unique tool for cultural propaganda. Another
aspect of it being a mass media is that it has to seek a mass
market, which means it has to "talk down": keep stories short,
use simple words and concepts, etc. This is what I meant by the
"stupid bias" in an earlier posting. The majority of people
today get their news from TV without realizing how often TV news
is simply, factually WRONG.
>TV grew up during YOUR childhood not ours. We are starting to see new
>forms of media that will, hopefully, be more enriching than TV.
I hope so too, but this doesn't excuse TV.
---peter
Peter Nelson
>In <C2v9G...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>[ lot's of stuff about how horrible "twenty somethings" deleted ]
>
>Your idea of "utopia" and our idea of "utopia" are _very_ different.
>I personally don't think I'd be too happy in yours. The whole point
>of "advancement" throughout human history has been to _have_more_stuff_.
>What's so wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with it per se. What I'm objecting to is
the collateral damage from this. For instance, when the urge to
"have more stuff" results in massive, unsustainable debts levels.
In recent years thousands of people have been laid off from companies
who were doing OK until someone executed an LBO resulting in massive
corporate debt, driving the company into Chapter 11, just because
he wanted to "have more stuff". The same thing happens at the
political level -- voters insist that their Congressmen bring them
"more stuff" from Washington but don't want to pay for it because
if they have to spend more in taxes they can't buy even more stuff
for themselves with it. One reason why "twentysomethings" are
graduating from college and ending up in "MacJobs" is because so
many US engineering and manufacturing jobs have gone to places like
Japan and India because cheaper or more efficient manufacturing there
allows consumers and stockholders to "have more stuff". And our
desire to "have more stuff" also results in consuming more hydrocarbons
and generating more solid waste per-capita than almost any other nation
on earth.
>Yes there is more to life, but, let's face it, consumerism is part of
>our life now.
There's a positive attitude! "It's part of other people's lives so
I just can't *help* but make it part of mine, too."
Look, I'm not objecting to having lots of nice stuff. I'm objecting
to the "ism" part of "consumerism". I'm objecting to the way it
has become an ethos, and end-in-itself, a form of status by which
we judge people. Look, I've got a nine-year-old car and I wear boots
I bought 15 years ago. Consumerism says I'm supposed to drive a new
car, and I'm supposed to have footwear with somebody's logo on it.
---peter
Peter Nelson
>nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>[Stuff deleted]
>
>> Don't forget, I was there, I know what they believed!
>
>[Stuff deleted]
>
>> But they never did!! That's the whole point. If they actually
>> ACTED on the above values then maybe they might have succeeded
>> but these ideas all turned out to be too idealistic and naive,
>> so they gave up and became yuppies. And the next bunch - the
>> "twentysomethings" aren't wasting any time with side-trips to
>> idealistic never-never lands and ecotopias, they're diving right
>> into consumption-as-a-kind-of-recreation and merchandising-as-a
>> kind-of-religion. "I want my MTV and I want it on a 27 inch screen
>> with stereo". "I want somebody's name-brand prominently inscribed
>> on every clothing item I own"
>
> It seems that you are worried about how the "twentysomethings" and
>the media are misrepresenting your generation by lumping them under one
>dominant stereotype. It's interesting though to watch you then lump all
>these "twentysomethings" into some sterotypical group of hedonistic
>consumers. You are bothered by the fact that people who weren't "there"
>are glossing over or demeaning you experiences and your history, but you
>turn and do the same to the "twentysomethings" experiences.
Several things need to be noted:
I'm only responding to the earlier poster's claim that the "twenty-
somethings" are going to be better than my contemporaries and clean
up the mess we made. Obviously since his claim (and the Subject: of
this thread) are generalizations, we are using generalizations.
I also characterized MY contemporaries in general terms ("idealistic
and naive").
We all know that individuals are different and "your mileage may
vary" (etc) but the fact remains that popular culture exerts a
powerful influence over people's choices. If the popular culture
promotes consumerism as an ethos, sharply defined sex-role stereo-
types, and extols violent imagery then that's what you're likely
to get in general, even if a few individuals resist it. Nobody is
aware more than I am that individuals are not consigned to conform
to their contemporaries, since my lifestyle and values are quite
different from most other people my age. But if we're talking in
general terms we have to make general observations.
---peter
jason 'Think!' steiner
>
> Well, just to clarify things, the Electoral College system
> IS an original part of the Constitution. The founding fathers may
> have been radical enough to envision the idea of a democracy, but
> never to actually enact it. They didn't trust the common man.
some might say that's a good thing. the founding fathers had a good
reason for making this a republic instead of a democracy. as the
saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to
have for dinner". the founding fathers were very much into protecting
the individual's rights, even against a majority. i'd think that
cyber-punks- would appreciate this.
jason
--
"More life, more love, more freedom, more choice!" - MORTAL, Painkiller
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jste...@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Robert Mah
In <C2wp0...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <C2vC8...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>> We're, or at least I am, talking about ECONOMIC problems. You people
>> were all gung ho about social issues because you thought there was
>> a bright economic future ahead of you.
> We did? Documentation please?
Easy. Strong economic growth, rising incomes, falling unemployment, etc.
Not that all was rosy all the time, but the general trend was upward.
Given a rising economy, most people feel good about their future economic
possibilities. Think back, did your contemporaries really consider the
long term _economic_ future of America to be in doubt?
>> BTW, many social problems are, in some sense, economic
>> problems (e.g. health care, poverty, education, etc.)
> In "some sense", perhaps. But the US has THE highest rate of
> violent crime in the world (source: Senate Judiciary Committee
> [ lots of stuff about violence, education, etc. deleted ]
> any other country in the world!
While I have little empirical proof, I feel that the high level of
violence, etc. are partly the result of the increasing gap in the
distribution of wealth. People tend to measure their economic status
relative to others.
> So, yes, money is AN issue, but CULTURE and VALUES are bigger issues.
I would disagree. But that's an _opinion_ and that's the kind of
difference of opinion that _tends_ to mark the differences between
the "baby boomers" and the "twenty somethings".
I'm not saying that values are NOT an issue, just that _I_ don't feel
that they should be the overriding issues of our time.
America is a capitolist nation. There are three basic means of acheiving
status in America. Wealth, politics and education. Part of the basic
belief system of America seems to be political and educational equity.
However, wealth affects both of those. Money translates almost directly
into political and social power. I'm not saying that this situation is
good or bad, I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
Thus, the fastest, and in some sense, the easiest way for a disenfranchised
group to get the changes they want (politically) is to gain wealth.
With money comes the ability to affect the lawmaking process, to modify
the messages the media puts out, etc. I realize the difficulties in doing
this if the "system" is weighted against you, but that doesn't change
the facts.
Wealth is not and end in itself. There is a limit to the number of
toys one can purchase. The surest way to get the Met to have a display
of early Madagascarian (?) art is to donate a few million and make it
a condition. Don't like what's printed in the papers? Buy it. Don't
like what you see in the movies? Make your own. Don't like the
politicians in office, fund someone else. Etc.
Not very nice and not very egalitarian, but you seem fairly enamoured
with the capitolist system (ref: Corporate taxes etc.), and this is
just an end result. The economic system of a society is intimately
tied to the social (and political) structures and institutions. It's
very difficult to get around that.
On a different note...
> When I was in college we called each other "kids". I'd love
> it if people still thought I was a kid. Would you rather I
> act lite Perot and say "you people"?
First, I'm not in college. Second, I work for a living, just like you.
Third, I pay taxes, just like you. Fourth, Many of my peers (but not me)
are married with children.
> It's [TV] not JUST another form. It has some unique features. For
> [ stuff describing the nastiness of TV deleted ]
I didn't say that TV didn't have it's drawbacks. I'm just pointing
out that you are making a _value_ judgement about it.
TV also has its "good" side. Things like educational programming and
even entertainment programs that discuss important issues. It's not
all bad. [ I can't beleive I'm actually _defending_ TV :-> ]
>> TV grew up during YOUR childhood not ours. We are starting to see new
>> forms of media that will, hopefully, be more enriching than TV.
>
> I hope so too, but this doesn't excuse TV.
TV doesn't need an excuse (though maybe the people who control it do).
Jeffrey Kuta
>drei...@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Derek Reisinger) writes:
>>
>> Well, just to clarify things, the Electoral College system
>> IS an original part of the Constitution. The founding fathers may
>> have been radical enough to envision the idea of a democracy, but
>> never to actually enact it. They didn't trust the common man.
>
>some might say that's a good thing. the founding fathers had a good
>reason for making this a republic instead of a democracy. as the
>saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to
>have for dinner". the founding fathers were very much into protecting
>the individual's rights, even against a majority. i'd think that
>cyber-punks- would appreciate this.
>
>jason
>
history professor of mine had an interesting solution. The states could
split the 'Representative' electoral votes between the candidates
proportionally and award the 'Senatorial' electoral votes (2/state) to the
candidate who had the most votes in that particular state.
THis way the candidate who won more states (thus theoretically representing
more people) would get a sort of bonus for campaigning in those states, and
the people would feel (like me in Arizona...I voted for Bill) they had an
elector representing them in the college, rather than it being futile to
vote against the grain (AZ is ultra-convservative, 'cept the libertarians
running around...plus a few greens).
>--
> "More life, more love, more freedom, more choice!" - MORTAL, Painkiller
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jste...@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Jeff
----------------------------...@bpa.arizona.edu---
Christian Smith
drei...@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Derek Reisinger) wrote:
>
> In article <C2psw...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
> >In <lo8cm4...@boogie.cs.utexas.edu> swi...@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes:
> >
> >>In article <C2nJ8...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
> >
> >>Except presidential elections. Clinton won with a plurality of the
> >>popular vote. He got a majority of the electoral votes, but only
> >>because there's a tradition that winner-takes-all of a state's
> >>electoral votes. I haven't check the Constitution lately, but I don't
> >>think that's specified.
> >
> >True, each state get's to determine how their electoral votes are
> >distributed. I personally think this whole electoral college system
> >should be done away with though. Sort of silly in this day and
> >age. Unless of course, you don't trust the people.
>
> IS an original part of the Constitution. The founding fathers may have
> been radical enough to envision the idea of a democracy, but never to
> actually enact it. They didn't trust the common man.
> In all fairness though, there have only been one or two cases
> in the entire history of the nation where the electorates have voted
> contrary to the states populace (in no case did it affect the election).
More importantly, the electoral college serves as a protective measure
against just such a case as just happened. In any election where there are
more then two major candidates, there is a very high chance that no
person/party will win a majority of the vote. In countries that don't have
a mechanism for granting the win via plurality, parties are forced into
creating alliances in order to take power. Often, the results are
devastating. Look at Italy for a wonderful example of just how bad things
can get. With somewhere around a dozen parties, most governments in Italy
since WWII have been alliances between at least three parties. Just
imaging if Bush and Perot had managed to create an alliance and had been
able to pool their votes.
I may have nightmares tonight, sheesh, what I go thru to educate people.
Blackplague
Peter Nelson
>Whew! This has been going on for a while now.
>
>In <C2wp0...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
> >In article <C2vC8...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
> >> We're, or at least I am, talking about ECONOMIC problems. You people
> >> were all gung ho about social issues because you thought there was
> >> a bright economic future ahead of you.
>
> > We did? Documentation please?
>
>Easy. Strong economic growth, rising incomes, falling unemployment, etc.
>Not that all was rosy all the time, but the general trend was upward.
>Given a rising economy, most people feel good about their future economic
>possibilities. Think back, did your contemporaries really consider the
>long term _economic_ future of America to be in doubt?
Depends on who you mean. I don't think the "masses" gave it much
thought one way or the other. But among the "effete intellectual
snobs" in 1969 were a lot of "nattering nabobs of negativism" (Quick -
whose phrase was this? I know, I know, Spiro Agnew. But who
wrote it? Ans. at bottom of posting.)
These N N of N were a lot of leftist types who were waiting for
"Amerikkka" to implode any minute. And as I said, there was also
a large communal movement who sought to disassociate themselves
with the mainstream economy. There was a lot of talk about
"revolution" in the cultural/political sense and a certain pessimism
about what the results would be ("meet the new boss, same as the
old boss", etc. Note also that it was during the 70's that
movies like "Escape from New York" and "Logan's Run" and "Planet
of the Apes" and other apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic movies
were first being made and when the first cyberpunk books were being
written, and also when the "punk" movement in England was forming.
> >> BTW, many social problems are, in some sense, economic
> >> problems (e.g. health care, poverty, education, etc.)
>
> > In "some sense", perhaps. But the US has THE highest rate of
> > violent crime in the world (source: Senate Judiciary Committee
> > [ lots of stuff about violence, education, etc. deleted ]
> > any other country in the world!
>
>While I have little empirical proof, I feel that the high level of
>violence, etc. are partly the result of the increasing gap in the
>distribution of wealth. People tend to measure their economic status
>relative to others.
According to the above, our homicide rate is higher even than
3rd-world nations with virtually no middle class. But I agree
that the factors you describe don't help. Actually Fortune had
an article last fall on the "rich got richer, poor got poorer"
model of the 80's which basically showed how you could look at
the same numbers different, legitimate, ways and draw different
conclusions.
> > So, yes, money is AN issue, but CULTURE and VALUES are bigger issues.
>
>I would disagree. But that's an _opinion_ and that's the kind of
>difference of opinion that _tends_ to mark the differences between
>the "baby boomers" and the "twenty somethings".
But its also an opinion that can be settled with appropriate
application of facts. How do US rates of violence compare
with other societies with similar distributions of wealth?
There are places in the world with narrower gaps, and one with
bigger gaps, so there's lots of data.
>America is a capitolist nation.
That's the problem isn't it? And Bill Clinton wants to make it
even more so. . . . Oh, did you mean "capitalist"?
>Not very nice and not very egalitarian, but you seem fairly enamoured
>with the capitolist system (ref: Corporate taxes etc.), and this is
>just an end result. The economic system of a society is intimately
>tied to the social (and political) structures and institutions. It's
>very difficult to get around that.
I'm not sure what your point is. Capitalism is like Churchill's
description of democracy: "The worst system there is, except for
all the others". What system do YOU like?
> > It's [TV] not JUST another form. It has some unique features. For
> > [ stuff describing the nastiness of TV deleted ]
>
>I didn't say that TV didn't have it's drawbacks. I'm just pointing
>out that you are making a _value_ judgement about it.
Yes I am. I think on the whole its effect on US culture has been
negative. If I had kids I would certainly not allow a TV in my
home.
>TV also has its "good" side. Things like educational programming and
>even entertainment programs that discuss important issues. It's not
>all bad.
I agree there's *occasionally* good stuff on TV. But it's so rare
and takes so much effort to find and requires sitting through so
much dreck and so many advertisements that it's hardly worth it.
---peter
Ans: William Safire.
aardvark...
>In article <1993Feb23....@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jste...@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes...
>>drei...@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Derek Reisinger) writes:
>>>
>>> Well, just to clarify things, the Electoral College system
>>> IS an original part of the Constitution. The founding fathers may
>>> have been radical enough to envision the idea of a democracy, but
>>> never to actually enact it. They didn't trust the common man.
>>
>>some might say that's a good thing. the founding fathers had a good
>>reason for making this a republic instead of a democracy. as the
>>saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to
>>have for dinner". the founding fathers were very much into protecting
>>the individual's rights, even against a majority. i'd think that
>>cyber-punks- would appreciate this.
>>
>>jason
>>
>Yeah, but it still isn't very representative of the popular vote. A
>history professor of mine had an interesting solution. The states could
>split the 'Representative' electoral votes between the candidates
>proportionally and award the 'Senatorial' electoral votes (2/state) to the
>candidate who had the most votes in that particular state.
okay, fine, but i'm still a little confused as to why we need
congress, or the senatorial electoral votes (somebody to blame?)
we live in a society with enough tech to implement a direct democracy
now, not this representative bullshit with special interest groups
and congress voting itself a pay raise...
i believe a direct democracy is possible
(don't ask me about logistics, i'm not a tech)
yes, we may not like what the majority thinks and votes for,
but at least it's really the majority
just a thought
______--------------------------------aardvark
David Veal
In article <C2yx1...@acsu.buffalo.edu>
v067...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (aardvark...) writes:
>In article <23FEB199...@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>, jk...@misvms.bpa.arizonaedu (Jeffrey Kuta) writes...
>>In article <1993Feb23....@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jste...@anwsun.phya.utledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes...
>>>drei...@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Derek Reisinger) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Well, just to clarify things, the Electoral College system
>>>> IS an original part of the Constitution. The founding fathers may
>>>> have been radical enough to envision the idea of a democracy, but
>>>> never to actually enact it. They didn't trust the common man.
>>>
>>>some might say that's a good thing. the founding fathers had a good
>>>reason for making this a republic instead of a democracy. as the
>>>saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to
>>>have for dinner". the founding fathers were very much into protecting
>>>the individual's rights, even against a majority. i'd think that
>>>cyber-punks- would appreciate this.
>>>
>>>jason
>>>
>>Yeah, but it still isn't very representative of the popular vote. A
>>history professor of mine had an interesting solution. The states could
>>split the 'Representative' electoral votes between the candidates
>>proportionally and award the 'Senatorial' electoral votes (2/state) to the
>>candidate who had the most votes in that particular state.
>
>okay, fine, but i'm still a little confused as to why we need
>congress, or the senatorial electoral votes (somebody to blame?)
>
>we live in a society with enough tech to implement a direct democracy
>now, not this representative bullshit with special interest groups
>and congress voting itself a pay raise...
>i believe a direct democracy is possible
>(don't ask me about logistics, i'm not a tech)
But direct democracy isn't particularly a good idea. The
populace at large isn't necessarily well enough informed to make
decisions. Further, policies in a direct democracy would tend to
be very short-lived and based on whim. Not to mention the problem
with possibility of mass-media affecting the decisions of the democracy.
>yes, we may not like what the majority thinks and votes for,
>but at least it's really the majority
The absolute, instantaneous will of the majority isn't particularly
something to strive for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VEAL@utkmv1 will bounce)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Division of Constinuing Education
Robert Mah
> We all know that individuals are different and "your mileage may
> vary" (etc) but the fact remains that popular culture exerts a
> powerful influence over people's choices. If the popular culture
> [ personal stuff deleted ]
> different from most other people my age. But if we're talking in
> general terms we have to make general observations.
Amen. Finally, I agree 100% with something you say :-).
When I was in school, a fave prof of mine, E. Digby Baltzell, said...
"Generalizations aren't worth a damn, but neither are people who
don't make them."
Ed Kemo
Reproduced without Permission by Kemo
Taken from Unixworld, March 1993 issue, page 136
by Gary Andrew Poole
So this is what it feels like to be a Star. Inside their
hotel room, Doc Holiday and Erik Bloodaxe-only the most famous
computer hackers alive-drink beer, dub a Traci Lords video, and
talk about Computer Turf Wars.
There's a thong of desperately hip teenages knocking
on the door but Bloodaxe, a 23 year old longhair and Hoilday, who's
21 and resembles Beverly Hills 90210's Luke Perry, just take deeper,
more nervous drags on the Marlboro's. "We're not good role models,"
says Holiday. "We're just hackers." That's not not good enough for the
150 wannabes convened for, yes, a hacker's conference at a Houston
motel. Some of the attendes were dropped by their parents earlier.
All are drunk.
Suddenly, life isnt so easy for the bright kids who are clamoring
for their idols. Until about a year ago, the hackers code was simple:
Dont steal data for profit or destroy information. True, hacking was
illegal. It was also pretty harmless.
But as criminals discovered the value of hacking, and as the
federal government-spurred by corporations-waged war against hackers,
a Dark Side emerged. Youngers who once looked at bank records for
the pure joy of it may now find themselves bullied by bad influences
who want them to do it for profit. And that sometimes leads to prison.
Meet Cap'n Crunch. He's a 49 year old hacker and cult figure
hanging around with the kids who shows signs of one too many prison
stints. A grey bearded gnome, he sits on the floor in a near fetal position
read Asimov, making occasional nervous sounds, and gnawing his fingers
until they're a scabby red. "I had to show my cellmates things" he warns.
"It's a university for crime. I had to teach my 'classes' to survive"
Will the new hacking generation end up gnawingon their fingers amid
a bunch of post-pubescents?
They just might. Today they're you basic bright, harmless teens.
(The hotel manager did try to kick the group out for urinating on a wall
and setting up a local area network in one room, which blew
out the hotel's power). But they have a skill that can make them lots
of money...illegally. Unfortunately, they cant make money legally.
Take the young hacker's group called MoD, or Masters of Deception
(Holiday and Bloodaxe's archenemies), which stole and resold data from
TRW Information Services and Trans Union Corp. One MoD'er went to jail.
Other Dark Siders blackmail corporations: "Pay or I'll crash your
system." All told, the FBI estimates annual losses from computer related
crime range from $500 million to $5 billion. And it's increasing.
"Sometimes its sooo easy to break in that it's sick," says one 15 year old.
Now Corporate America has a no-brainer choice: Work with these
kids today, or let criminal types influence them.
Which brings us back to Holiday and Bloodaxe, hiding from their
precocious, directionless fans. The Stars say they are reformed hackers, and
the people best suited to combat the Dark Siders. Unfortunately, they
complain they've been blacklisted by corporations, which are by and large
turned off by their past.
More than a year ago, Bloodaxe and Holiday-who also go by the
names Chris Goggans and Scott Chasin respectively-tried to go legit
by starting a security company called Comsec. The sales ptich?
They would break into your company's computer system and show you
the security holes. "I love that look of panic on an executive's face,"
smiles Bloodaxe.
They say Comsec was oh-so-close to signing some "big-money" contracts.
But the computer security experts started warning companies that Holiday
and Bloodaxe were former members of the infamous hacking gang, the Legion
of Doom. It makes sense: as a CIO, would you want to let recently reformed
outlaws into your system, much less pay them for it?
The company folded, but its principles hope the increase in
computer-related corporate coporate espionage will help revive it.
But as criminal hacking flourishes, heroes like Bloodaxe and Holiday-
who are in a position to combat the Dark Side and exert a positive
influence on the young, restless and directionless-are rapidly going nowwhere.
Today, Holiday does some consulting, and Bloodaxe is a customer
support representative for a PC company. "I tell custmoers how to format
DOS floppy disks!" he says, frustrated, he eyes widening. "Do you know
what a kick in the face that is? My ego is crushed."
"You know what would make me the happiest guy on Earth?" he asks.
"Just a room somewhere with a couple SPARC's, two phone lines, some
food, and a license to hack." Sadly, nobody's biting. He takes a drag
on his cigarette, frowns, and opens the door, but the kids have gone
away.
N5...@cunyvm.bitnet
>
> So this is what it feels like to be a Star. Inside their
>hotel room, Doc Holiday and Erik Bloodaxe-only the most famous
>computer hackers alive-drink beer, dub a Traci Lords video, and
>talk about Computer Turf Wars.
[A star? the most famous hackers? i think this writer better check the SPY
index again. Or at least Esquire. x-rated videos and beer. to cool....]
> There's a thong of desperately hip teenages knocking
>on the door but Bloodaxe, a 23 year old longhair and Hoilday, who's
>21 and resembles Beverly Hills 90210's Luke Perry, just take deeper,
>more nervous drags on the Marlboro's. "We're not good role models,"
>says Holiday. "We're just hackers." That's not not good enough for the
[ it's very easy to impress teenagers when these were probably the only
two guys besides the reporter and John Draper (Cap'n Crunch) legally
able to buy beer and cigarettes. These obvious social chameleons are
doing anything special noteworthy. Of course they aren't good role-
models. they are hackers! who started a business that failed miserably
mostly because how can you get a contract to secure unixes and 3270's
when you dont know C or REXX or anything. Heavy ]
>150 wannabes convened for, yes, a hacker's conference at a Houston
>motel. Some of the attendes were dropped by their parents earlier.
>All are drunk.
[ this 150 includes erik bloodaxe and doc holiday. a 'hacker's confernce...
dropped by thier parent's? these guys cant even scam a ride? nuff said]
> Suddenly, life isnt so easy for the bright kids who are clamoring
>for their idols. Until about a year ago, the hackers code was simple:
>Dont steal data for profit or destroy information. True, hacking was
>illegal. It was also pretty harmless.
[ There is no such thing as a 'hacker code' or ethics. it's alot like the roden
y king case and the defense of one of the cops. his defense is that it is just
'standard police policy'. it's just a sheild. these guys know it is wrong. hack
ing isn't harmless. what about joe schome who lost his admin job. hmm]
> But as criminals discovered the value of hacking, and as the
>federal government-spurred by corporations-waged war against hackers,
>a Dark Side emerged. Youngers who once looked at bank records for
>the pure joy of it may now find themselves bullied by bad influences
>who want them to do it for profit. And that sometimes leads to prison.
> Meet Cap'n Crunch. He's a 49 year old hacker and cult figure
>hanging around with the kids who shows signs of one too many prison
>stints. A grey bearded gnome, he sits on the floor in a near fetal position
>read Asimov, making occasional nervous sounds, and gnawing his fingers
>until they're a scabby red. "I had to show my cellmates things" he warns.
>"It's a university for crime. I had to teach my 'classes' to survive"
>Will the new hacking generation end up gnawingon their fingers amid
>a bunch of post-pubescents?
[ Sad case. very angry , angry man.... however. he is still holding on.. i gu
ess he had to go back to the basics. hello Cap'n.. your 15 minutes of fame are
up.. and over. A very long time ago.]
> They just might. Today they're you basic bright, harmless teens.
>(The hotel manager did try to kick the group out for urinating on a wall
>and setting up a local area network in one room, which blew
>out the hotel's power). But they have a skill that can make them lots
>of money...illegally. Unfortunately, they cant make money legally.
[ Sure they can! Tell them to open up a lemonade stand... ]
> Take the young hacker's group called MoD, or Masters of Deception
>(Holiday and Bloodaxe's archenemies), which stole and resold data from
>TRW Information Services and Trans Union Corp. One MoD'er went to jail.
>Other Dark Siders blackmail corporations: "Pay or I'll crash your
>system." All told, the FBI estimates annual losses from computer related
>crime range from $500 million to $5 billion. And it's increasing.
[MOD only alleged did that. those charges went poof. what happened to 'allegedl
y'? Can I sue? no one alleged in MoD went to jail.. yet. Check your head. Dark
side.. what is this? Star Wars? now we are ARCH-enemies. sounds impressive]
>"Sometimes its sooo easy to break in that it's sick," says one 15 year old.
> Now Corporate America has a no-brainer choice: Work with these
>kids today, or let criminal types influence them.
[They have a choice. they choose to put them in jail. let's no here anymore bel
lyaching about japan and germany beating out america. All our geniuses are goin
g to jail. for a variety of reasons. hey! look at this article.. "Hacking is CO
OL.. [add it various dysfunctional vices such as smoking,drugs and beer and
sex (See articles abot Computer Porn) wow dudes' party on MoD party on LOD ]
> Which brings us back to Holiday and Bloodaxe, hiding from their
>precocious, directionless fans. The Stars say they are reformed hackers, and
>the people best suited to combat the Dark Siders. Unfortunately, they
>complain they've been blacklisted by corporations, which are by and large
>turned off by their past.
[Reformed? erikb is now editor of phrack. back to hacking? or just a ploy for m
edia attention and a list of hacker names to turn in again to gain credibility
for COMSEC. Maybe corporations were turned off when thier WordPerfect data entr
y operators knew more about computers and mainframes than COMSEC did..]
> More than a year ago, Bloodaxe and Holiday-who also go by the
>names Chris Goggans and Scott Chasin respectively-tried to go legit
>by starting a security company called Comsec. The sales ptich?
>They would break into your company's computer system and show you
>the security holes. "I love that look of panic on an executive's face,"
>smiles Bloodaxe.
[Would you want this Journalism major (goggans) fingering your site ? connectin
g to port 25 and trying defaults and generaly disrupting your business? or comi
ng in and setting up COPS (wow) on your system which you can do yourself? ]
> They say Comsec was oh-so-close to signing some "big-money" contracts.
>But the computer security experts started warning companies that Holiday
>and Bloodaxe were former members of the infamous hacking gang, the Legion
>of Doom. It makes sense: as a CIO, would you want to let recently reformed
>outlaws into your system, much less pay them for it?
[Yeah right , Don't beleive the hype. what contracts? Thier mother's money only
goes but so far. remember they had the scanal with calling up OTHER security c
ompanies trying to get price lists and got caught? former members of LOD? LOD w
as dead long ago. they were members of the NEW LOD. which i helped crush]
> The company folded, but its principles hope the increase in
>computer-related corporate coporate espionage will help revive it.
> But as criminal hacking flourishes, heroes like Bloodaxe and Holiday-
>who are in a position to combat the Dark Side and exert a positive
>influence on the young, restless and directionless-are rapidly going nowwhere.
[postive influence? by holding a 'hacker-con' and buying minors beer and showin
g them porno's? Either this is thier way of infiltrating the "underground" so t
hey can bust these poor kids or it's just that they are lonely. brings a NEW st
igma to the term 'legitimate business man' . A hero is just a sandwhich ]
> Today, Holiday does some consulting, and Bloodaxe is a customer
>support representative for a PC company. "I tell custmoers how to format
>DOS floppy disks!" he says, frustrated, he eyes widening. "Do you know
>what a kick in the face that is? My ego is crushed."
[Consulting? Scott Dear? Mr. Grange down the block just got a Nintendo for his
son.. will you go help him set it up? Bloodaxe ? He is doing what he is presntl
y qualified to do. Talk alot of low-level nonsense on the phone. cest la vie ]
> "You know what would make me the happiest guy on Earth?" he asks.
>"Just a room somewhere with a couple SPARC's, two phone lines, some
>food, and a license to hack." Sadly, nobody's biting. He takes a drag
>on his cigarette, frowns, and opens the door, but the kids have gone
>away.
[What REAL hacker wouldn't want that? Legal or Illegal. Yeah.. the kids have go
ne away. All that remains is two aging men holding onto this hacking dream , wh
o were sadly Mediocre at illegal hacking and running a business. hmmmm. Well th
ey can dream can't they? -- Ditz ]
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
- CORRUPT [ALLEGEDLY OF MOD] : INTERNET - N5...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU -
- FILM MAJOR / FILM! : BITNET - N50BC@CUNYVM -
- "SUMMA SEDES NON CAPIT DUOS..." : "93 ANTI-HACK / CRACK CONSORTIUM" -
- CUNY! -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Reisinger
>In article <1993Feb23....@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jste...@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes...
>>drei...@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Derek Reisinger) writes:
>>>
>>> Well, just to clarify things, the Electoral College system
>>> IS an original part of the Constitution. The founding fathers may
>>> have been radical enough to envision the idea of a democracy, but
>>> never to actually enact it. They didn't trust the common man.
>>
>>some might say that's a good thing. the founding fathers had a good
>>reason for making this a republic instead of a democracy. as the
>>saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to
>>have for dinner". the founding fathers were very much into protecting
>>the individual's rights, even against a majority. i'd think that
>>cyber-punks- would appreciate this.
>>
>>jason
>>
>> "More life, more love, more freedom, more choice!" - MORTAL, Painkiller
>>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jste...@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Well, I don't deny that the founding fathers did support
individual rights (for which I am IMMENSELY thankful), but there
is also little doubt that they set up a government, while different
in structure and means, that continued to favor the same people as in
the old style government -- the rich and powerful. The electoral college
is just one example of this, in which the rich and powerful ultimately
decide the fate of the nation (although, in fairness, I do concede
they have never exercised this ability through the electoral college).
In any event, while I'm amazed at how liberal the founding fathers
actually were (considering the time), but in no way where they
cyberpunks....
Derek
David W Hatunen
College (EC) in favor of some other "more democratic" method is a far more
serious thing than it might appear to be. Obviously, there are other
ways to select a nation's chief executive; there are differing examples
all over the world. Most of them display their own faults. Straight
British-style parliamentary systems seem to be the most successful.
(That, of course is a IMHO.)
(Should Canada break up and some of the provinces become US states,
it would be interesting to see how the parliamentary system would
function in a US state.)
The problem is that altering the EC system might radically alter
the traditional US political system, which has always been based
on a winner-take-all philosophy. This has virtually forced a two-
party system on us, since third parties have virtually no hope
of winning unless one of the existing two parties more or less
falls apart (as in 1860). Because of this, even third parties with
highly desirable programs tend to disintegrate as one of the
existing parties subsumes the better parts of its program. For
instance, Socialist Norman Thomas lived to see most of his agenda
enacted into law in some form or other. And the same thing happened
to the LaFollettes.
The states control the distibution of their EC votes. They could
institute some form of proportional representation. They may be
reluctant to do this simply because a strong third+ party vote
would seriously dilute their impact on the selection process.
For instance, were the state to vote equally for three presidential
candidates, the state's voice in presidential selection would
be virtually nullified. The party in power in the Congress or
Executive would have no incentive to do anything at all for the
state.
Some variants have actually been tried. Michigan (I believe) once
tried selecting electors by Congressional District, with the
remaining two selected at large. But they dropped it (I'm not sure
why). Twenty-some years ago I did a state by state analysis by
Congressional District of a couple of historical elections, and
found that it wouldn't have significantly altered the results.
Even the EC ballot count wouldn't have been much different. Again,
though it was winner take all in each district.
Direct election is much talked of. But it is fraught with questions.
Many years back a disbarred judge was elected mayor of Youngstown,
Ohio, when the "good" vote split itself among the two other
candidates in a three-way election. It was patent that a majority
of the voters did not want the "judge" to win, but he got a
plurality.
Attempts to ameliorate this problem are sometimes made, such as
the use of run-off elections if no candidate carries a majority.
But do we really want presidential run-off elections? And isn't this
really forcing it back into a two-way winner take all?
The USA is faced with three distinct, but not entirely distinct, aspects
to the finding of a different presidential selection method:
+ A very strong tradition of winner take all election;
+ A national political system strongly based in the various
aspects, good or bad, of the current EC;
+ And the inconvenient fact that we still have 50 states with
a lot of their original Constitutional independence intact.
IMHO.
--
--------- DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ----------
----- Daly City California: almost San Francisco -----
AJ Foxx
jk...@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Jeffrey Kuta) writes...
> Yeah, but it still isn't very representative of the popular vote.
A
> history professor of mine had an interesting solution. The states
could
> split the 'Representative' electoral votes between the candidates
> proportionally and award the 'Senatorial' electoral votes (2/state)
to the
> candidate who had the most votes in that particular state.
I believe this is the system used by one state (Maine maybe?).
The apportioning of electoral votes is entirely up to each state.
The
U.S. Constitution only defines how the electoral votes are apportioned
among
the states. Right now, most states just award them all to the biggest
winner in the state. I believe only two of the fifty US states
apportion
votes to the candidates according to voting percentages. So it's
really
the states and not the federal government that keeps the electoral
college
from reflecting the popular vote.
--AJ
Ahmed F. Hosny
In a previous article, hat...@netcom.com (David W Hatunen) says:
>Unfortunately, because of 200 years of history, dumping the Electoral
>College (EC) in favor of some other "more democratic" method is a far more
>serious thing than it might appear to be.
> [... stuff deleted ...]
>
>The problem is that altering the EC system might radically alter
>the traditional US political system, which has always been based
>on a winner-take-all philosophy.
This is exactly why the EC system should be replaced by a more realistic
one. As it stands -winner takes all- it makes a minority President (43% of
the people's vote; remember the people? Government of, by and for ?) seem
to have a majority mandate.
>This has virtually forced a two-
>party system on us, since third parties have virtually no hope
>of winning unless one of the existing two parties more or less
>falls apart (as in 1860). Because of this, even third parties with
>highly desirable programs tend to disintegrate as one of the
>existing parties subsumes the better parts of its program.
A solution of which I think: In the case of a three-part election (like
the last Presidential one), if the winning party doesn't obtain 50% plus
one of the popular vote, then have a (let's call it) play-off between the
two top vote-getters. Who knows where Perot's 19% would have gone?
>
>.......................... The party in power in the Congress or
>Executive would have no incentive to do anything at all for the
>state.
Under a different set of rules, Congress and/or the Executive might then
have the incentive to (try and) do something for the country (as opposed
to just a state.
>
>Attempts to ameliorate this problem are sometimes made, such as
>the use of run-off elections if no candidate carries a majority.
>But do we really want presidential run-off elections? And isn't this
>really forcing it back into a two-way winner take all?
Keep in mind that an important factor in such elections is not so much WHO
the voters want but rather WHO they don't want. So, a two-way run-off
would eliminate the most unwanted first since the choice would be more
clearcut.
Just my $0.02 (Canadian) worth. What's the rate of exchange these days,
anyway? :-> :-)
--
Ahmed F. Hosny Voice: (613) 828-3522
Bayshore ac...@freenet.carleton.ca
Nepean (Ottawa) ON