Readers of October 25th's San Francisco Chronicle were treated to an interesting article by Laurel Rosen, that attempted to explain why her generation's voter turnout is so low.

Her basic point is that the major parties don't care about them. Another victim group! The parties seem to care more about older types, who have families and steady jobs. She also rails that just because Gen-Xer's don't vote, it doesn't mean that they are apathetic. In fact, they are very concerned about all kinds of real social issues--not the "farce" of family values. Please, she argues, we're good liberals, just like you grown up Democrats.

Sorry, Laurel, but you missed the boat on this one. Most things in life really are simple, if only we would open our minds and our hearts. Seldom do we need conspiracy theories or detailed analysis.

Gen-Xer's don't vote because they know that it doesn't make any difference. Of course, many older folks understand that as well, but the young have a big advantage here--they aren't enslaved to tradition!

Older people vote because, well, because, they're supposed to vote, that's why! Look at all those headstones in all those military cemeteries. Isn't that what those young boys died for? Our precious freedom, etc. etc.

Maybe not, reason the young. For those who died in Vietnam, was OUR freedom here at home ever an issue? How about WWII--the big one. Can you honestly argue that those who died in Europe were fighting for our freedom? Ditto WWI. And, let's not forget the Civil War. After nearly 500,000 Americans killed each other, please tell me which side was fighting for what freedom.

But back to the main issue. Is there any substantive difference between the parties? Once you understand that politics is only about re-distributing money, you see that it's all just a big game.

Bill Clinton was vulnerable in 1996. So what did the Republicans do? Right. They put up the weakest possible candidate--one that everyone in the country knew would lose. If the Republicans don't care, why should the voters?

Then, of course, there's also the issue of being mediagenic--or not appearing "mean." This is the only way to explain how Clinton, a draft-dodger, could run against two war heros, and win. Note here that I am not justifying any of the wars his opponents were in, I am merely examining their credentials, and the way they should be evaluated, if logic and right reason had any place in a political debate. Criticizing his military record wouldn't be nice, and would offend the soccer moms, so they'd better not do it.

One must conclude that the Republicans don't want to win. They just want to play the game, and as long as we're paying for it, the game will continue.

In California we have our Proposition 10, which seeks to attach a large tax to the purchase of tobacco products. The "reasoning" is that a higher price will discourage sales, but the extra money collected will fund all kinds of neat children's programs.

But why stop there? If we make cigarettes illegal, then people will surely give up smoking, won't they? After all, nobody uses illegal drugs. We'll spend more and more on enforcement, and, we'll spend more and more on educating the young as to the dangers. Mainly, we'll just spend. As I said, it's all about money. Period.

The fact is, Laurel, that the bankruptcy of this system has been found out by your contemporaries, and they're not delusional like many of the rest of us. That's why they don't vote.