NYTimes: Fogey old white man defines our generation for us. Thanks dude!

I can see some of the validity in these statements that Friedman is making however I see much of this as too much generalization. You have your extreem students but the problem is that that's exactly how they are seen, extreem. The forums of discussion for many have changed to blogs and such which for lack of a better word, end up just being verbal masturbation. People enjoy it and have fun expressing themselves but it doesn't really get much done in the end. Of course this is not true in all cases. Basically, Jackstowne seems to ave it about right. Sure our generation is not out in the streets but we are doing things in a different way. Instead of needing 1000 people to get media attention, our generation has been able to get similar attention with one person, a cmputer, and a webcam. If done correctly, a video on youtube or on current can potentially change a campaign or legislation. We can post on candidates websites and organize more effectively. Sure, you might not see it directly, but as machiavelli would put it, this generation is more like a fox than a lion.

I applaud you all. As one of the "Fogies" referred to in this discourse, I want to believe in your generation. I don't care what letter or slick name you are labeled with, what really matters is that you are informed, are sticking to your values and are taking action. This world we live in needs to heal and your generation must take action to start the process.
Whatever you decide to do; protest, run for public office, blog, expose corruption and dishonesty, educate the children. It is all good. Do something.
As Winnie The Pooh said,"You can't stay in your corner of the forest waiting for others to come to
you. You have to go to them sometimes."

Hey JewMastaFlex, when you say"how about Generation I, for informed?" and you say "Nowadays there is easier access to an abstract of "the truth" //////////////////////// I say you are right about access but I do not see proof in action and words that this "truth" is being accessed. I do not see a generation informed......yet...../////when you say: "The modality of organizing itself is changing and I think so too is our country." I Agree! And (speaking as perhaps a pre-fogie) I want you to be "The Greatest Generation" and I will cheer you all the way.

a. I am pretty sure I am not a quiet American (good movie tho, thx T-Fried).

b. I agree with the idea that I, or at least someone of my generation, should be able to decide what we are called. How do you think some generations get to be called "the greatest generation"?

Geez. Whatacrock.

c. Friedman's call to action is perhaps laudable, but he;s ignoring not only the change in the dissemination of information in our new era, but also the fact that he's utilizing that same method in order to communicate with us. The New York Times employs blogging. An article today in the Times even talks about how a blog ("Drudge Report") often has more clout than THEM.

Whereas the previous generations met in secluded, darkened meeting rooms in order to plan how to change the social order, we meet in a place so public that others can see us and join us: right here.

So, yes, you may not see people protesting on the street, but slowly, surely, the opinion of the American people is changing. Obama, Hillary, even Alpha Fogey Thompson- people are getting excited about these candidates via the web and guess what: someone's listening. (prob more than they lissen 2 u, T-Fried).

So, yes, Mr. Friedman, perhaps you could call us the "Quiet Generation" if you don't hear what we are saying, if you don't see us protesting on the streets or throwing things at people. I however would say that if you wanted to call us anything to sum us up in a letter (Q, LOL), then how about Generation I, for informed? Nowadays there is easier access to an abstract of "the truth" as there has ever been.and people are organizing, talking, having a discourse. The modality of organizing itself is changing and I think so too is our country.

Because what we are doing ehre is neither quiet nor passive.

So in summation, if we can not be called "The Greatest Generation" (damn you, fogies!) then at the very least could we be "The Pretty Good Generation"?

Or "The Pretty F**cking Good Generation"?

(rofl, tht quiet enuf fer u, T-Fried)

I mostly agree with what he writes here. But generalizations, opinions and divisions of age and groups aside, we are all part of this. I can only speak about America, where I live. Not one of us can remove ourselves from the responsibility of this "war"/occupation, the economic downturn and social injustices that overload American culture. This society is being dismantled by it’s worship of profit and ownership. Maybe this feels like life to many Americans. Maybe it feels like freedom. As long as this administration and the corporate powers that guide it can keep the majority focused on these things in this way they will be able to continue to close down the box around us. And, down to the last square inch of breathable space, it will still feel like freedom. If people are quiet and not participating I can only guess they think things are fine. They think they are free. They do as they are told. They go shopping. I wonder if money and the things it buys are taken away if these people would know what to do every day.

I can name plenty... Nixon's 'HMOs', Teddy's 'U.S. Forest Service', John's 'Magna Carta'.

The point is, we tried to rally and stop the war. What happened? We invaded Iraq and they gave us 'No Child Left Behind'... talk about insult to injury!

This administration has wielded its might through our entire adult lives. We have no reason to trust our own agency - so we fiddle on facebook and cellphones instead.

Guess you gotta give props where they're due: way to go, Karl.

afitzgerald,

Prove that it was the protests against social injustice in the '60's that led to the current state of affairs. Just because you believe they failed to challenge the status quo doesn't mean the protests themselves perpetuated it. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

As far as the effectiveness of protests: name one act of fundamental social or political change that didn't require protests en masse.

Current Question - What is this generation? (answer must contain alphanumeric characters) : )

Personally, I see nothing wrong an 'elder' commentating on the current generation. Because hearing a critics perspective encourages us to engage in dialogue, in attempt to define exactly what we are trying to do, for the good of all mankind (or anything for that matter) and how we are using our individual talents to do so, to the best of our ability.

Anyway, I think Friedman is right. We are quiet. I also think that's how people in power want it to be. And however much we want to ignore it, with gluttony, we are beasts of burden.

I tend to agree with Sloan on this one. "From Beirut to Jerusalem" was a fantastic piece of reporting which shifted into a plan to fix the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think Mr. Friedman has some good ideas, but is definitely in more recent years expounding punditry.

I would contest with Mr. Friedman, that while yes, the twenty-somethings of the nation have a particular responsibility to enliven the debate, conversation or whatever, they are not in positions of traditional 'power'.

The generation that would need to be called to whatever battle is the boomers. The same folks that still inspire today's commentators to hearken to the 'power of youth.' Where are the 40- and 50-somethings who not so long ago filled American streets in protest. Aren't they integrated into Fortune 500 companies, think tanks and governmental institutions? Are they still working to make change?

To further contest Mr. Friedman's point, the very fact that the protests of the boomer generation have led to the world we live in now is exactly why their sons and daughters are so "quiet". Why protest en masse? What will that accomplish in our current structure? Many members of Friedman's "Generation Q" flooded the streets of major American cities in the late months of 2002 in protest of what seemed to be an inevitable strike against Iraq. That accomplished exactly nothing. As I recall, the phrase used by the executive branch to refer to these demonstrations was "focus group".

So, if the game has shifted against traditional methods of loudly enlivening debate, then this "quiet generation" is working in the ways they know best to engender whatever change is within their power.

These appear to be opinion articles... so that's what they contain - the writers opinion. We all have them, and we all have the capability to share them.

That "old fogey" could just the same say that some punk kid on CurrentTV wants to name his generation when he knows nothing of such things. He would be wrong in that approach.

Many times good columns are written just to light a fire under the sleeping masses - to get us to speak up for something. Name calling here is just useless.

He's not old - he's still young. I cannot make generalizations about your generation, because where I live, the young are nothing like Mr. Friedman's description. In general, I don't agree with generalizations, especially not of generations. Every generation is varied and contrasted.... yes, I know, that was a generalization!

That would be great if our generation WOULD stand up and say they give a damn about something in a way where we could be heard. We are currently involved in a war that is as hated, if not more so, than Vietnam and yet, where are the protests, why haven't we started shouting and screaming instead of going quietly into the night? I think Friedman makes an excellent point.

Soren Kierkegaard once said, "Once you label me you negate me."

..which is a concern i have about these articles. there are a bunch of middle aged guys publicly proclaiming our identity: generation y, q, next. so succinct for so many millions! and why should it be up to them? we have every capacity to decide for ourselves, but if we don't, if we stay quiet, we could end up believing what they say, and acting by it.

i think we need have confidence in our thoughts. our parents have experience that we should learn from, but we also must realize that they're limited in perspective BY those experiences.

reduction can be useful, but it's confining as well. if we're all to be defined by a single letter, shouldn't we pick it ourselves??

I don't know, Tori. I think Friedman used to make more valid points than he does today.

Something changed between "From Beirut to Jerusalem" and "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" -- Friedman switched from a reporter with pundit-like tendencies to a pundit who sometimes reports. And now he seems constantly in search of that perfect, simple, reductive metaphor: "The World is Flat"! And now, "Generation Q"!

Metaphors and catch-phrases can be useful tools; it's just that they're ALL Friedman produces anymore. I long for the days of his more straightforward reportage.

Jweeke-Are you registered to vote? Are you asking the candidates for answers on how to change this country?
Are you satisfied with the status quo? Do you care enough to make a difference?
Mr Friedman is stating an opinion on what he has observed. Maybe your experiences are different. Tell us about them.
Let me ask you a question:
Suppose there was an island where human sacrifice was the norm. It was the accepted practice by everybody, even the victims. Suppose you were to take over that island, and you had the power to put a stop to such sacrifices.
Should you do so? Why or Why not?

Talk to me.
MarcJ