[JLS]

Right, it is not like every generation is not self-absorbed. The difference with the baby boom generation is there were so many of us. There were so many of us that from the beginning to close to the end advertisers have focused on the biggest consumer group out there. That is the nature of selling.

But who in the world do you guys think elected Ronald Reagan?

Concerning the subject at hand, Viet Nam and the current election, Kerry said an unbelieveable MA thing about it recently. He said that he thought time/history showed him right on Viet Nam? What an utter and complete fool. If there is a consensus about Viet Nam it is that it was a poorly run war but a most noble cause. It showed us that the people of a democracy are not willing to sacrifice over too long a period for the freedom of other, particularly when the generation fighting dominates the society demographically. But certainly time/history has show that Kerry was on the WRONG side of that war intellectually as he is today concerning Iraq. The people of Viet Nam then no more than the people of Iraq today deserve to be enslaved. And Kerry was on the side of turning his back on the people of Viet Nam and comdemmng them to slavery and oppression then as he voted to turn his back on the people of Iraq today.

In some ways with Viet Nam this was understandable. Americans can not fight everyone's battle for freedom. The difference is today that the US was attacked and is ala WWII defending itself in a world wide battle.

[WASH]

You both are stating that your parents generation made mistakes in raising your generation even though you're from different generations.

Perhaps this is a common ground between "boomers" and "Xers"

There are theories that the decline of the family was the result of the Industial Age. While some may think there are other reasons, it is interesting that the meaning of family seemed to have fallen during the Industial Age, while it is now recovering during the Information Age.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Kerry . . . [recently] said that he thought time/history showed him right on Viet Nam? What an utter and complete fool. If there is a consensus about Viet Nam it is that it was a poorly run war but a most noble cause.

marron had a great read on Vietnam:

Mom, Apple Pie, and the Ghost of Quagmires Past

Nixon visited South Viet Nam as VP, and came back saying to Eisenhower that the U.S. should keep out, and when Kennedy took office there were some military advisers (who of course "never" did any fighting) but they probably numbered in the hundreds.

Kennedy let the CIA participate in the overthrow of the Diem government in order to try to get democratic government in a country fighting a civil war. That morally committed us to giving S. Vietnam a decent government. A month later Kennedy was assassinated, and then Johnson proceeded to try to win a war by playing defense - making the baby boomer troops into targets.

The huge terrorist strike known as the Tet Offensive resulted in the complete decimation of the Viet Cong insurgents, leaving the North Vietnamese Army to do the subsequent fighting in a war of conquest. But Tet also demoralized the Democratic Party (and especially its contingent which was known as "objective" journalism). And the Democratic Party has been opposing efforts "to provide for the common defense" ever since.

John Kerry can prattle as he will about having medals for valor in Vietnam, but Kerry was a leader of the post-Tet anti-American Democrat movement. And as such John Kerry has no grounds for questioning the courage of anyone who is younger than himself and who essentially followed Kerry's advice not to fight in Vietnam. To make the case that Vietnam was an ignoble cause, Kerry must make the case that hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese deserved to die in camps or at sea in little boats.

To make the case that the US was no better than the Soviet Union, John Kerry must argue that our nation should collapse like the USSR did, or that the USSR should be reconstituted.

To make the case against the Republican Party, Kerry must say that Nixon was responsible for not instantly giving up on Vietnam after Kennedy had committed the US to it and after Johnson had put 500,000 troops there - but he must not admit that he voted for the man (Johnson) who fouled Vietnam up so royally that, after all the blood and treasure that the US had put into Vietnam under Johnson, Nixon should have instantly pulled out.

Kerry will have all the help journalism can give him to evade that conundrum, but with Dick Cheney and talk radio and the INTERNET he will need every bit of help he can get. And, probably, then some.