Born: June 9, 1972
« "A minimalist theory … | Home | The Evolution of the … »
August 15, 2005 at 2:35 pm
How will you remember this decade?
Will the first decade of the 2000s be known as the 1960s of the new millenium?
This question popped into my head this morning as I was driving to work, listening to the song, Road To Joy by Bright Eyes. It’s songs like this one, protests by passionate people like Cindy Sheehan, and art by painters like Steve Mumford and Fernando Botero that make me think the answer to this question might be “yes.”
Even so, this will be known as a decade much more subtle than the 1960s. Similar to the 60s, a war has been progressing for far too long. But, quite on the contrary, the world’s youth, too involved in text-messaging and playing their PSPs, can’t be bothered to organize any sort of movement like the hippies of the past did. Their parents, immersed in the throngs of pseudo-politics, commercialism, and the pollution of 90s apathy never were bothered by anything. And their grandparents have all but forgotten about the idealism of their youth. (Of course, sometimes, they’ll remember the days when they sacrificed their middle-class lives and white-bread reputations to speak out against something they didn’t agree with when they watch movies by people like Oliver Stone.)
No, this won’t be an era that future generations will try to emulate twenty years from now (like what happened with the 60s). Sure, The OC and Punk’d might generate some clothing comebacks years from now, but no one will wish they’d lived between the years 2000 and 2010.
Why are the Green Day‘s and the Sheehans so few and far between these days? Why do we look down at the crowd of people on the corner holding up signs that say, “Honk For Peace”? Is our involvement something worth believing in really that difficult to embrace?
I’m no different, you know. I drive past protesters and wonder if they’re really doing any good. I listen to my old punk rock collection and reminisce about the days when things mattered to me. I shop at CostCo and change the channel on the television when scenes of war appear on the screen.
And this is what the current generation is going to be looking back on twenty years from now.
Anyway, if you want to do something, but don’t know what, here’s one idea:
These vigils will take place on August 17, 2005, at 7:30pm. Click the link and find out if there will be a vigil site near you.
If anything, join Cindy and others in prayer for our country and our troops. Pray for those who belong to other countries and find themselves in the midst of a bloody battle. Pray for those who do not have a voice or a country that supports them.
Digg This Story | 
Save This Page
No Trackbacks
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (17)
I would suggest that there might be more similarities to the 70s. We have a republican President who although might be very qualified has trouble relating to the masses (although in a very different way than Nixon), there seems to be a renewed interest among youth in Christianity (another Jesus movement?), energy prices are climbing, there is a war that will be ending soon (hopefully with better results than Vietnam), inflation is starting to be a concern, the reduced fear of dying from AIDS is allowing people to be more free sexually, etc.
» Comment by Todd M (URL), on August 15, 2005 at 10:21 pm
As a younger member of said generation, I’d have to say we’re more interested in our PSPs, DVDs, and LCDs than protesting anything is because the general view is “They (politicians) are going to keep doing stuff I don’t want anyways, so me standing outside and chanting like a crazy person is doing no good. Besides, I like air conditioning.”
There are two things I’d like to ask the crazy Sheehan lady:
1.) When your son joined the military, did you not take a moment to think, “hmmm, he might die”? I was unaware joining the military also included a clause that said “We won’t get you killed, and if we do, your Mom can go crazy and protest against the rest of the family’s wishes, ruining your sacrifice, and making an idiot out of herself.”
2. How does it feel to have the national media because you’re not with your husband in California mourning your son and working out your differences?
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html)
/end bitter rant/
Don’t get me wrong. I voted for Bush, in my opinion, the lesser of the two evils. I don’t like we are in a war. I don’t like that we could have instead spent the billions of dollars on pushing the automakers to energy efficient vehicles like the guy who has a Prius that gets 80mpg thanks to extra batteries. But that’s politics, that’s our nation, that’s how stupid our system is most of the time.
But hey, God is working in all of it, in some very, very, strange way. So I’m going to let Him take care of it.
Another cool energy company ;) : http://stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview..
/paraphrase the President of Stirling Energy/ “A 100 mile by 100 mile farm would eliminate the US’s dependence on foreign oil” — freakin’ amazing stuff! Now there is something I’d support!
There are two things I’d like to ask the crazy Sheehan lady:
1.) When your son joined the military, did you not take a moment to think, “hmmm, he might die”? I was unaware joining the military also included a clause that said “We won’t get you killed, and if we do, your Mom can go crazy and protest against the rest of the family’s wishes, ruining your sacrifice, and making an idiot out of herself.”
2. How does it feel to have the national media because you’re not with your husband in California mourning your son and working out your differences?
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html)
/end bitter rant/
Don’t get me wrong. I voted for Bush, in my opinion, the lesser of the two evils. I don’t like we are in a war. I don’t like that we could have instead spent the billions of dollars on pushing the automakers to energy efficient vehicles like the guy who has a Prius that gets 80mpg thanks to extra batteries. But that’s politics, that’s our nation, that’s how stupid our system is most of the time.
But hey, God is working in all of it, in some very, very, strange way. So I’m going to let Him take care of it.
Another cool energy company ;) : http://stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview..
/paraphrase the President of Stirling Energy/ “A 100 mile by 100 mile farm would eliminate the US’s dependence on foreign oil” — freakin’ amazing stuff! Now there is something I’d support!
» Comment by Kevin () (URL), on August 15, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Dennis… Yeah, you’re definitely an old man. I’ve been dreaming of people with blue skin and green hair ever since the original Macross Series (Robotech) came out. 
Todd… I agree with every point except for one… For the bulk of the 1970s, the U.S. was coming down from a war. Here in the 2000s, we are in the midst of one. Maybe by 2009 (e.g., 1969), people will be more willing to act up again… But, I could just be dreaming. In actuality, I hope the war is long over by then anyway.
Kevin… Thanks for your thoughts… A little disheartening, though (from a idealistic standpoint, anyway). Sure, the Sheehans are having marital problems and you can blame Cindy, partially, for not being with her husband… Still, people fail to mention that hundreds of marriages fall apart when a child dies — even when the parents try to stick around and work things out. Now, I’m not defending divorce as the proper path, of course, but I don’t think Cindy’s absence has anything to do with it — I could ask, “Why isn’t her husband in Texas with her,supporting a valiant cause”?
Now, about knowing that your child might die when theyjoin the military… Yeah, that’s true. But, war changes everything. Watch a few episodes of American Dreams (I even shutter to think I’m using a television show as an example here, but it works). You’ll quickly learn how many people, whowere gung-ho nationalists in the 60s, quickly changed their minds once the Viet Nam War got underway.
Lastly (because this is becoming another tirade, which I apologize for)... When we say, “God will work it out,” what exactly does that mean? Couldn’t that possibly mean that God will use the youth of the world to change minds and policies? In my opinion, when we make a statement like that, we’d better be actively listening for God’s word and commandments in our lives, or nothing will ever be worked out.
Todd… I agree with every point except for one… For the bulk of the 1970s, the U.S. was coming down from a war. Here in the 2000s, we are in the midst of one. Maybe by 2009 (e.g., 1969), people will be more willing to act up again… But, I could just be dreaming. In actuality, I hope the war is long over by then anyway.
Kevin… Thanks for your thoughts… A little disheartening, though (from a idealistic standpoint, anyway). Sure, the Sheehans are having marital problems and you can blame Cindy, partially, for not being with her husband… Still, people fail to mention that hundreds of marriages fall apart when a child dies — even when the parents try to stick around and work things out. Now, I’m not defending divorce as the proper path, of course, but I don’t think Cindy’s absence has anything to do with it — I could ask, “Why isn’t her husband in Texas with her,supporting a valiant cause”?
Now, about knowing that your child might die when theyjoin the military… Yeah, that’s true. But, war changes everything. Watch a few episodes of American Dreams (I even shutter to think I’m using a television show as an example here, but it works). You’ll quickly learn how many people, whowere gung-ho nationalists in the 60s, quickly changed their minds once the Viet Nam War got underway.
Lastly (because this is becoming another tirade, which I apologize for)... When we say, “God will work it out,” what exactly does that mean? Couldn’t that possibly mean that God will use the youth of the world to change minds and policies? In my opinion, when we make a statement like that, we’d better be actively listening for God’s word and commandments in our lives, or nothing will ever be worked out.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 16, 2005 at 08:26 am
I personally have the noth respect for the great-grandparent generation. What people call “the greatest generation”. This generation truly stood up for what is right, if you get my drift.
» Comment by DH () , on August 17, 2005 at 08:29 am
Actually, Doug… You’re referring to our grandparents, I think… I’m talking about the grandparents of the youth of today (14-23 years old) — our parents.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 17, 2005 at 08:35 am
I WAS referring to the great-grandparents of the 14-23 year olds. Hense, the term the great-grandparent generation. I have more respect for them than any other. I have a problem with looking at any generation as “single issue”. I think if you analyze the 60’s it had more problems than it had benefits. I’ll take the 40’s over the 60’s anyday.
» Comment by dh () , on August 17, 2005 at 08:51 am
Oh, sorry… I misread you.
Well, I’d tend to disagree slightly about the benefits of the 40s over the 60s, but that’s ok. I know where you’re coming from.
Well, I’d tend to disagree slightly about the benefits of the 40s over the 60s, but that’s ok. I know where you’re coming from.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 17, 2005 at 09:22 am
To move to you a little. I will say the 50’s were bad as well as the 60’s. I think as Americans we see problems and we react to them but we react in such a way that the reaction becomes an overreaction and the overreaction becomes just as bad as the thing we are reacting from. (50’s an overreaction and the 60’s were an overreaction to the overeaction of the 50’s). So I dislike BOTH the 50’s and the 60’s. Hense my appreciation to the 40’s.
» Comment by dh () , on August 17, 2005 at 09:27 am
But, as Americans, we tend to limit our view to America… This being said, I will point out that Hitler came to power in the 40s. While this may have been a prosperous thing to happen to the U.S., it was not a very nice thing to happen to the world as a whole (especially the Jews).
In any case, I’m not saying that the 60s (or any decade for that matter) was better than any other decade… What I’m wondering is whether or not the youth of this decade will react similarly to the youth of the 60s. That’s all.
In any case, I’m not saying that the 60s (or any decade for that matter) was better than any other decade… What I’m wondering is whether or not the youth of this decade will react similarly to the youth of the 60s. That’s all.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 17, 2005 at 09:36 am
Actually Hitler came to power in the 30’s. It was the lack of resolve by the French and the Allies before 1938 (France being at the time the strongest military power), for the allies not to standup after Hitler violated the Austrian, Czech, Polish treaties between Hitler and the Allies and for Neville Chamberlain believing that a peace treaty with Hitler could be maintained. (”...Peace in our time”). Thank God for Neville losing to Churchill or Hitler would have won the Battle of Britain with no chance of an Allied victory.
You also forget that America in the 1930’s was not a military power (only 5th in the world), even in pre 1941 America it wasn’t. We also forget that the US supported the Allies not the Axis after 1938 (Lend Lease) solely when it became evident of Hitlers military intentions so to say that America didn’t do all it could is a little bit of a generalization but I agree with you America could have responded sooner.
So as you see I don’t “limit my view to America”.
My post was to point out that if there is a reaction like there was in the 60’s it will probably become an overaction like typical reactions have become in the past.
You also forget that America in the 1930’s was not a military power (only 5th in the world), even in pre 1941 America it wasn’t. We also forget that the US supported the Allies not the Axis after 1938 (Lend Lease) solely when it became evident of Hitlers military intentions so to say that America didn’t do all it could is a little bit of a generalization but I agree with you America could have responded sooner.
So as you see I don’t “limit my view to America”.
My post was to point out that if there is a reaction like there was in the 60’s it will probably become an overaction like typical reactions have become in the past.
» Comment by dh () , on August 17, 2005 at 10:13 am
I don’t mean to throw this thread completely off track, but I’d like to get Kevin back in here to defend the following paragraph from his post:
Don’t get me wrong. I voted for Bush, in my opinion, the lesser of the two evils. I don’t like we are in a war. I don’t like that we could have instead spent the billions of dollars on pushing the automakers to energy efficient vehicles like the guy who has a Prius that gets 80mpg thanks to extra batteries. But that’s politics, that’s our nation, that’s how stupid our system is most of the time.
When he says “that’s how stupid our system is most of the time,” does he not realize that he is the system he’s criticizing?
He voted for the man who took us to war in the first place. Eighteen hundred American lives and counting because Bush is settling a personal score, not a patriotic one. (Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden sits safely tucked away in his cave, watching the whole thing on CNN and Al-Jazeera as his dialysis machine whirrs contentedly in the background…)
He voted for the man who threw away billions of dollars of budget surplus that would have helped rebuild New York after 9/11, that would have helped fund the war in Afghanistan (the only war we should have fought).
He voted for an administration comprised of former oil executives who are the reason we’re paying more at the pump, who are failing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil because they’ve always been in bed with the Saudis, and who rejected the Kyoto accord because they’re in ExxonMobil’s back pocket. This isn’t environmental policy to them — it’s their retirement plan.
He voted for the man who, for all his posturing as a Christian, has an ideology every bit as hateful as that of the enemy we’re fighting in the war on terror —excuse me, the global struggle against violent extremism… No, wait, I take that back. I’m being told now that it actually is a war on terror.
Now, would someone please illustrate to me how Bush is “the lesser of two evils”?
Then, in the very next breath, Kevin drops this load:
But hey, God is working in all of it, in some very, very, strange way. So I’m going to let Him take care of it.
Do me a favor, Kevin: Don’t. Ever. Vote. Again. Your right to make lousy choices then classify the consequences as God’s will has just been revoked.
Sorry this turned so ugly, but we have met the enemy and he is us. I’ll be over at my place if anyone wants to move this fight off Tim’s lawn.
Don’t get me wrong. I voted for Bush, in my opinion, the lesser of the two evils. I don’t like we are in a war. I don’t like that we could have instead spent the billions of dollars on pushing the automakers to energy efficient vehicles like the guy who has a Prius that gets 80mpg thanks to extra batteries. But that’s politics, that’s our nation, that’s how stupid our system is most of the time.
When he says “that’s how stupid our system is most of the time,” does he not realize that he is the system he’s criticizing?
He voted for the man who took us to war in the first place. Eighteen hundred American lives and counting because Bush is settling a personal score, not a patriotic one. (Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden sits safely tucked away in his cave, watching the whole thing on CNN and Al-Jazeera as his dialysis machine whirrs contentedly in the background…)
He voted for the man who threw away billions of dollars of budget surplus that would have helped rebuild New York after 9/11, that would have helped fund the war in Afghanistan (the only war we should have fought).
He voted for an administration comprised of former oil executives who are the reason we’re paying more at the pump, who are failing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil because they’ve always been in bed with the Saudis, and who rejected the Kyoto accord because they’re in ExxonMobil’s back pocket. This isn’t environmental policy to them — it’s their retirement plan.
He voted for the man who, for all his posturing as a Christian, has an ideology every bit as hateful as that of the enemy we’re fighting in the war on terror —excuse me, the global struggle against violent extremism… No, wait, I take that back. I’m being told now that it actually is a war on terror.
Now, would someone please illustrate to me how Bush is “the lesser of two evils”?
Then, in the very next breath, Kevin drops this load:
But hey, God is working in all of it, in some very, very, strange way. So I’m going to let Him take care of it.
Do me a favor, Kevin: Don’t. Ever. Vote. Again. Your right to make lousy choices then classify the consequences as God’s will has just been revoked.
Sorry this turned so ugly, but we have met the enemy and he is us. I’ll be over at my place if anyone wants to move this fight off Tim’s lawn.
» Comment by Shepcat () (URL), on August 17, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Man, Shepcat you seem awfully hostile. This is probably the overreaction that I’m talking about from the 60’s earlier. I don’t think Kevin was that much although the divorce things was a little overboard on Kevin’s part. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I think any reasonable person would say Saddam or Osama is worse than Bush. (that’s assuming for the sake of argument that Bush is bad, okay perobably at some level like any politician; this is what Kevin was trying to say) I think or hope. :)
» Comment by dh () , on August 17, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Briefly, because I’m burning up my goodwill here:
1. Yes, dh, I may fairly be called hostile. Sorry if any of that got on you. I can be reasonable and agree to disagree with people who don’t share my views,
but Kevin made some dangerously naive statements above that, I fear, reflect the thinking of a lot of uninformed Americans, as well as a lot of Christians who have been scammed into believing that a vote for George W. Bush is a vote for God.
2. I think Kevin’s characterization of Bush as the lesser of two evils was actually comparing him to John Kerry, not Saddam and Osama. The sticking point in that characterization is that our “war president,” who comfortably avoided service in Vietnam, has risen to power in part by smearing heroic veterans who actually went — men like John McCain, Max Cleland, and Sen. Kerry — then cutting veterans’ benefits even as he sends tomorrow’s veterans off to war.
1. Yes, dh, I may fairly be called hostile. Sorry if any of that got on you. I can be reasonable and agree to disagree with people who don’t share my views,
but Kevin made some dangerously naive statements above that, I fear, reflect the thinking of a lot of uninformed Americans, as well as a lot of Christians who have been scammed into believing that a vote for George W. Bush is a vote for God.
2. I think Kevin’s characterization of Bush as the lesser of two evils was actually comparing him to John Kerry, not Saddam and Osama. The sticking point in that characterization is that our “war president,” who comfortably avoided service in Vietnam, has risen to power in part by smearing heroic veterans who actually went — men like John McCain, Max Cleland, and Sen. Kerry — then cutting veterans’ benefits even as he sends tomorrow’s veterans off to war.
» Comment by Shepcat () (URL), on August 17, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Actually, Bush served in the Vietnam era under the Texas Air National Guard. I think you need to respect those who have served under the National Guard. Many right now are in Iraq.
» Comment by DH () , on August 18, 2005 at 08:24 am
Bush’s military career is pretty widely known:
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
But, this is completely off subject… I appreciate all of the comments, but I’d suggest taking this conversation to e-mail if you wish to discuss anything more beyond the scope of the original Blog post.
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
But, this is completely off subject… I appreciate all of the comments, but I’d suggest taking this conversation to e-mail if you wish to discuss anything more beyond the scope of the original Blog post.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 18, 2005 at 08:42 am
Fact remains that during the Vietnam Era he was in the National Guard and it was not until (assuming their isn’t any predispositions by this site) 1974 that he left which is clearly very close in time frame to the fall of Saigon and probably very close to the final phase of pullout from Vietnam. You are right this is way beyond the scope of this post but the link deserved a response. just my 2 cents.
» Comment by dh () , on August 18, 2005 at 10:14 am
C’mon, we’ve seen some dude skate over wall of china, we made a movie about the Dukes of Hazzard and bald guys like me have a chance of being sexy. Ain’t all bad.
Actually i wonder about that too. Our country is slowly abandoning the God that’s blessed it in so many ways. Our schools, our policies, our laws. Our homes. I wonder if we will recognize our own species in another generation with all these gross tats and body piercings. See, i sound like a grandpa already.