First of all (and once again, I was born DURING World War II, not afterwards, so do not consider myself a baby-boomer), the generation you decry actually STOPPED a vicious and unjust war. They kept protesting until the mainstream U.S. (the 35- to 50-year-olds of their day) caught on and protested too and eventually forced a criminal president to end it (for political reasons, true, and lying about it, yes, but it ended). They caused LBJ to refuse to seek re-election because of his prosecution of the war (a good result which backfired with the accession of The Unprincipled One).

Second, as others on this thread have observed, many of those from that generation did NOT sell out for money. Many stayed true, and you do them an injustice by lumping them in with the weak-willed. It is also possible that many you consider to have sold out gave up their long hair and protests for suits and jobs not because their beliefs had changed, but because they felt a necessity to provide for their children.

Finally, since I have the impression you wish to be a good writer, some observations on the art:

Writing, as I see it, is a great deal more than the ability to splash a bunch of words on paper.

Writing is a life-long discipline, a path, a fidelity. One of the first steps in that discipline is to cease attempting to speak for a generation, and to learn to speak for yourself. The first path is lazy, sloppy, and initially easy, since it is certain to attract the approbation of those who agree. (It becomes considerably more difficult when the generation you thought you spoke for proves to be a melange of disparate spirits, and abandons their standard-bearer.) The second path requires self-examination, honesty, long effort, and the willingness to be ignored (though not the certainty that you will be--it is fine to hope for recognition, so long as you avoid bitterness if applause is not forthcoming).

I can believe you meant irony and humor in your piece. However, I must read your words, not your intentions. The discipline I describe is the arduous attempt to make those two identical, so that in the end you bear the responsibility both for your heart and your performance.

Writing is not a matter of being perfect, of never making a mistake. It is a matter of respecting the discipline enough to learn. As Rilke wrote (loosely translated) in "On An Archaic Torso of Apollo," "there is nothing here which does not see you." One's mistakes are perfectly visible, and visible for all posterity, an awareness which ought to be humbling.

Becoming a good writer is not a matter of securing the approval of the many, any more than becoming a good person is a matter of securing votes. You can fool some people, but you can't fool the art. You either measure up or you don't. Nothing is more satisfying than the feeling you get when you do. Nothing can help you, no public esteem, no amount of money, no prizes, nothing, if you don't.

And although these are serious matters, it is wise not to take oneself too seriously.

Anyone who wishes may disagree with these principles. In my opinion doing so would be like disagreeing with gravity, but anyone who wishes is free to think me wrong there too.

Sad as the specifics are, the behavior of the Bush league with respect to science is not surprising.

Only point in which I took issue with you was in the tagline, which imagined the Republicans going out with SP "in a blaze of glory." More nearly a last splatter of excrement, I would say.

Dear Rodian: According to Samuel Clemens in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, the crucial mistake was the (at the time relatively recent) legal decision to acknowledge corporations as persons, with rights equivalent to persons. I agree.

The problem has been with us for a long time, in other words, over a hundred and twenty years.

Why are corporations legally considered people? They aren't people. They are creatures which use people. It would seem sensible to look at the way they use them and decide if it has been good for people.

Of course even liberals have dark fantasies. I often imagine performing heroic feats of martial arts (which I do not practice) to protect my innocent companions from variously, gangsters with knives, crazed dogs, et cetera.

I feel one should be perfectly open about such fantasies, but one should recognize them as fantasies. They are going to happen, and I am not going base my behavior on the assumption they will.

I for one am sick of the oft-repeated claim, by militaristic types, that the heroic Jack Bauers do the things I don't want to think about so I don't have to. I know quite a few otherwise sensible people who subscribe to the fantasy of the brave few who face the darkness to keep the rest of us safe.

I know these people like to see themselves that way, but they never consulted me. They just arrogated the decision to themselves.

The problem with this outlook is it is fantasy. It is based on false premise. That's the problem with the show, not that it is fantasy, but that too many people act as if the supposed moral dilemmas faced by Jack Bauer were universal, and were actually the determining realities of our time.

They aren't. As far as I am concerned, watch the show if you want to. I haven't watched it since midway through the first season, when I saw where it was heading, and I have not missed it in the least, so maybe it is not all that compelling.

They are NOT going to happen (these fantasy scenarios) is what I clearly meant. Just forgot to put the negative in.