First, let me point out an inconsistency in Tucker Carlson's reasoning. He chides Ted Halstead for criticizing the Republican tax-cut bill, stating, "Halstead seems to think people like us are selfish, or at a minimum silly, incapable of making good choices about how to spend our own money." In other words, Carlson thinks that citizens (or maybe just conservative citizens) are smart. But Carlson also says that "Generation X isn't shaping the political agenda because most members of Generation X don't vote. And thank God they don't. Hardly anyone ever says so, but the fact is, you shouldn't vote if you don't know what you're voting for."

From Post & Riposte: "In my opinion, and the opinions of many people I know in our generation, we don't vote (I never have) because the government is a SHAM.... My friends and associates think globally and take what is best of what remains of America and use it to our advantage.... The government does not cater to the needs of Generation X. The issues presented through the media we have access to are bullshit.... Politics is not politics. It is PR, spin doctoring, marketing, hypocrisy, the big screwover... That's why my group of people do not participate. Apathy is passive aggression in many cases. The subculture is gaining ground and getting bigger. I have faith that it will grow to the point where it is uncontrollable and unstoppable. When we really have a choice, we will participate. Democrat, Republican. What's the difference when neither of them deals with the reality of any situation the vast majority of America really deals with or cares about on a daily basis?" --Michael Simborg, "My Thoughts" (08/23) What do you think? Join the conversation.

The implication is that most Gen Xers don't know what they are voting for. In my opinion, that is utterly incorrect. Yes, a few of the 18-35 year-olds who tell me they don't vote have no idea how to assess a candidate. This is true especially for the teens. But many others research the candidates and find that no one supports the issues they really care about. On the left, these issues might be support for the Racial Justice Act or federally funded abortions; on the right, federal support for religious schools or a complete ban on abortion. The young Americans Carlson seems to see as disaffected are, in my mind, often idealistic. They haven't yet learned that politics -- and voting for politicians -- requires some deep compromises. Again, if there were a broader spectrum of parties and candidates, I believe more young Americans would vote.

Scott Stossel, thank you for pointing out the obvious -- something that many pundits have been too chicken to do. The Iowa Straw Poll is democracy for sale. No, it does not elect anyone to any office. But it narrows the field (by one, so far, though Dan Quayle can't be far behind), winnowing the choices that Americans have on primary day. Iowa, bless its little Hawkeye heart, is largely rural and overwhelmingly white. It does not come close to representing the demographics of America, or of the Republican Party, as a whole. Why on earth should one candidate-funded beauty contest in one state have so much influence over the presidency of the United States? The Iowa Straw Poll is precisely the kind of *!@%&! that young voters tell me they hate about politics.

I love Andrew Shapiro's seed question: "What is the politics of our time -- and what role do young people play in it?" I agree in large part with his, and Scott's, focus on the power of the Internet. The Internet revolution has created a bevy of Gen X millionaires. It also has the potential to revolutionize voting and civic engagement. (For my part, I am an absolute Internet junkie. I have my own Web site, and I'm in the process of launching a Net-radio venture, which could revolutionize the distribution of hip-hop and make me very, very rich.) I love the Internet. But at the same time I see it as a polarizing force in American society.

The current issue of Yahoo! Internet Life magazine contains a story I wrote about the "digital divide": the partitioning of Americans into Internet haves and have-nots. The digital divide, like every socioeconomic divide in this country, hits poor Americans (and especially blacks, Native Americans, and Latinos) the hardest. We already live in a country where the average gifted black or Latino child gets a much less comprehensive education than his or her white counterpart. When I visit urban schools, even ones with excellent principals and a motivated student body, the computer and Internet facilities are often shamefully outdated. (The same is true for many rural schools.) In the adjoining suburbs, however, students are usually riding the crest of the technology wave.

If we cannot provide the best and brightest of all races and income levels with a good education, we are crippling ourselves economically. Right now America imports thousands of skilled technology workers, while a child in Appalachia, or on the Crow Indian Reservation, or in Oakland, California, never gets the chance to become the next Bill Gates. The Internet is a government invention. Our tax dollars paid for its creation and implementation, and still help shore up the fundamental infrastructure. The government has launched a right-minded program to use a percentage of profits from the Internet gold rush to provide technology to schools. But the help that rural and urban schools need is not coming fast enough.

If there is any one issue young Americans should muster righteous indignation about, it is the pervasive educational inequality in this country, including the digital divide. Doug Coupland once observed that in the future there will be two kinds of people: the people who build the computers used at McDonald's and those who punch the computers at McDonald's. Not all Americans will be able to "build the computers," the technology of the future. But every young American deserves a chance to compete for these jobs, and for the American Dream.

How can we as a generation help end educational inequality? First, we have to mobilize to vote. That means registering and actually going to the polls. Second, we need to know what we're voting for. Access nonpartisan Web sites like vote-smart.org for a comprehensive analysis of candidate positions. Use newspapers, television, and credible Web publications to track your representatives' actions on improving technology and academic achievement in schools. Disseminate what you learn to friends and family, urging them to hold elected officials accountable as well. We may not feel like one cohesive generation, and we may not ever vote like one. But by building formal and informal networks of like-minded citizens, we can fulfill the promise of democracy and build a more equitable America.

Next page: Ted Halstead

Farai Chideya is an ABC News correspondent and a contributor to Time and Vibe magazines. She is also the author of two books, Don't Believe the Hype: Fighting Cultural Misinformation About African Americans (1995) and The Color of Our Future (1999).