You may not believe it, but it's true. A reader stumbled upon my post regarding Hillarah and my self-absorbed mood of saying how I have long thought her a terrible choice for VP. The reader did not dissect the post, and I thank him/her for that. I didn't like it while I was typing it, and don't like it now, because the subject matter (at least for me) is too complex for a single post. It's full of holes and question marks but--given the constraints of a blog and my inefficiency with words--I had to punt and let it be where it was.
Anyway, the reader sent a couple links I thought I would share about "Generation Jones." It's new to me and I'm a bit skeptical about it, quite frankly. I understand the point, but I don't want to get too caught up in dissecting the electorate. There is a tendency, as with all efforts to classify human beings, to use social classifications as denominators in a algebraic equation when doing so. That was not the reader's point by any means (and I'm not suggesting that it was), but it can lead to mistakes in judgement if one isn't careful.
With the overlong disclaimer, however, I still do think this is a generational shift between baby boomers and those that are not--Generation Jones or otherwise. There is no way we can compete with the boomers on the "interesting" level. The 60s were too complex and transformative to compete with. But I don't think that's a bad thing. It makes us less self-absorbed, more open to shades of grey, more...pragmatic, really.
In that way, it puts us more in the modern human, and certainly more American, tradition. Kinda boring? Yes. Self-righteous? Thankfully no. Correct? Perhaps. But willing to talk about things without absolutes or some grand agenda fueling the discussion. Long live that which is Boring, I say (at least in politics ;-)).
So, without further ado, my reader's contributions here, and in the video below.
Anyway, the reader sent a couple links I thought I would share about "Generation Jones." It's new to me and I'm a bit skeptical about it, quite frankly. I understand the point, but I don't want to get too caught up in dissecting the electorate. There is a tendency, as with all efforts to classify human beings, to use social classifications as denominators in a algebraic equation when doing so. That was not the reader's point by any means (and I'm not suggesting that it was), but it can lead to mistakes in judgement if one isn't careful.
With the overlong disclaimer, however, I still do think this is a generational shift between baby boomers and those that are not--Generation Jones or otherwise. There is no way we can compete with the boomers on the "interesting" level. The 60s were too complex and transformative to compete with. But I don't think that's a bad thing. It makes us less self-absorbed, more open to shades of grey, more...pragmatic, really.
In that way, it puts us more in the modern human, and certainly more American, tradition. Kinda boring? Yes. Self-righteous? Thankfully no. Correct? Perhaps. But willing to talk about things without absolutes or some grand agenda fueling the discussion. Long live that which is Boring, I say (at least in politics ;-)).
So, without further ado, my reader's contributions here, and in the video below.
