WARNING: Crank factor at %110. So rarely do I write something I KNOW will engender hate mail. Have at it!
Chris Bowers over at MyDD has an open plea to older activists -- stop the Vietnam comparisons. His discussion is based on several pragmatic message-oriented ideas.
But this actually touches on something that's been annoying me. The Baby Boomers are killing this country.
Mmmmm. Give me a moment. Let me savor the coming flame war from that statement.
Ahhhh. Back to it then.
As I've posted before, I could not BELIEVE that during the last election, when we had an actual war going on right now, we were watching the Baby Boomers politicians -- AND VOTERS -- settle their Vietnam shit. No, fuck you, Pfc. Jenkins on your second tour through Fallujah, Daddy's gonna vote based on who pissed him off back in '73. I still see, in the occasional angry e-mail or comment on my site, the world "hippie" or "commie" thrown around. When I see interviews of average American folk, thsoe ideas resonate even more.
Jesus. H. Christ. Even the COMMIES don't use communism anymore. The Soviet Union's a goddam museum, Fidel rules over an empire the size of my backyard, North Korea went from "communist" to "crazy-ocracy" decades ago, and China -- China is our biggest foreign asset holder. Are they a threat? Shit yeah. Are they the exact sam ethreat in the exact same way they were twenty/thirty years ago? Hell no. The only people resembling "hippies" left are other Baby Boomers unwilling to let go of their glory days.
You understand, this isn't a liberal or conservative thing. This is just weird. By definition of the "boom" a single generation -- and hence the ossified political beliefs of that generation, for good or ill -- have enormous demographic weight. And thanks to advances in medical technology, unlike other aging voting blocs they won't ... goddam ... die. And they'll keep on voting.
So we'll keep having to put up with policy discussion framed in the terms of their youth, often in terms of enemies and issues that don't even exist anymore. We have, by the numbers, the shittiest health care system in the world, but we can't change it because that'd be "socialism." We can't have honest discussions about the best way to prosecute the war, because any disagreement of that brings back echoes of "those filthy protesters" (wrongly, of course, but it ain't helping) and appeasement. (Yeah, the Brits really appeased the shit out of the IRA. Glad they never stopped to try different approaches to the problem). Statistics show that for a younger generation, gay rights is essentially a non-issue, but older freaked-out-by-t3h-gAy voters turn out in droves to retard our evolution as a culture. We're fighting a stateless world-wide shadow organization of loosely affiliated terror networks by using the same nation-state containtment warfare model of the past. We've gone backward on our approaches to energy policy since the first massive crotch-kick of the oil embargoes. The "War" on drugs which consistently targets the identifying drug of the Boomer counterculture -- marijuana -- when redstate counties in America are screaming for help with meth. Anyone want to count the number of ex-Nixon guys currently in charge of the government? I'll wait here.
This is as they say half in jest and all in earnest ... actually, think about it. What was the last geniunely new idea we heard in politics? I'd say the role of Evengelical Christianity in establishing a Dominionist government is the most singular new player on the market, but that's a.) been coming for twenty years and was funded by angry culture warriors of the 70's and 80's and b.) is really just a very, very old idea dressed up in Power Point presentation.
At the very least, with the change in life expectancies, we will see the cycle of idea renewal in public discourse slow down radically. The Boomer's demographic weight only creates a more readily visible example of that. We're not even seeing the usual gap (and probably healthy conflict), ideals of the kids vs. their parents. It's now kids vs. grandparents. In a world rapidly filled with other more aggressive nations and an almost exponential increase in the pace of technological innovation -- it's not a happy combination of factors.
The following is not addressed, of course, to the people who actually went out and risked their lives back in the day ... but instead, to the other 99%. Quick note:
Conservative boomers: you did not stop communism. The fundamental untenability of communism as an economic model in the real world and human nature's corruption, combined with the evolution of information technologies -- and Pope John Paul 2 -- stopped communism.
Liberal boomers: you did not bring about civil rights. Black people who had the stones to get firehosed and killed did. Black people. It's their damn win. Lyndon Johnson's willingness to enforce the federal government's will at the point of a gun didn't hurt. Jesus, if every white person over fifty I know who said they marched with the civil rights protestors really did, they wouldn't have had time for Woodstock.
People. You got stoned and laid and got to riot in the 60's. You got stoned and laid and learned to dance in the 70's. You got coked up and laid in the 80's. You made money during the long economic boom of the 90's. As is traditional, in your 50's and 60's you're running the joint. That's a good run. A good, loooooong run. Why so goddam hard done by? It's not all about you anymore. Please. PLEASE.
74 comments:
Bravo, Rogers, bravo.
And I like the way the Boomers in the media keep trying to expand that demo. I'd heard one time that *I* was in it. FTS! I have *nothing* in common with this group of spoiled bastards. Be glad to see them go. They're The Greediest Generation. Wankers.
I love you. Can I have your baby? It doesn't matter that I'm a guy, right?
Boomeritis is how one author described it. A particularly narcissistic generation for sure.
I wish I could remember where I read this psychological study but my brain won't cooperate as usual and I'm not going to do justice to the studies conclusions, I apologize to the authors, but it went something like this:
While Vietnam protesters cloaked their opposition to the war on moral grounds most were actually motivated by individual concerns that they would be drafted... Kinda speaks to the self-inflation that plagues the generation. Look at the wonder of us.
But Laos is still communist!
Great post. Keep it up.
I wish you youngsters would stop treating an entire generation as if they were one individual. There's a whole cacophony of different voices up here. We don't all think the same way. Now grow up and stop being so mad. Or at least vote and get the current rascals out of office, for crying out loud. If only you'd voted in the last go-round, maybe the mess would be only half as bad. And, besides, write some decent stuff and get it produced!!!
You write:
What was the last geniunely new idea we heard in politics? I'd say the role of Evengelical Christianity in establishing a Dominionist government is the most singular new player on the market, but that's a.) been coming for twenty years and was funded by angry culture warriors of the 70's and 80's and b.) is really just a very, very old idea dressed up in Power Point presentation.
From exactly what butt are you pulling this egregious nonsense? How can you just blame "boomers", as if these millions of individuals--some conservative, some some socialists, some third-way Democrats, some anarchists--mirabile dictu! just like your own generation--could be thus pigeonholed in any meaningful way?
If you could get yourself interested in the truth, rather than in slinging mud and blaming others for the difficulties you now undoubtedly face (difficulties which, btw, we were ourselves handed by those who came before) you would see quite clearly that no generation can be categorized quite so neatly. Let us not forget that George W. Bush is a Boomer, and so is Michael Moore.
Join with like-minded individuals who honor the truth. Make the change with us, and stop fucking whining, you spoiled pansy-assed little brat.
p.s. Genuinely, not geniunely. Evangelical, not Evengelical. God damn it!!! And furthermore there are a lot of new ideas in politics, provided you can open your pinched little mind. Try reading Barack Obama's commencement speech to Knox College, for a start (fifth link down):
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/
Damn hippies and their patchouli oil...
I actually wrote out a response to anonymous, but reading over it... he wouldn't listen, it's not worth it, and he's an idiot.
Hey, I've got an idea, anonymous - spend some time bitching about how unfair I'm being to you!
Firstly, he is a she. Secondly, she is very far from being an idiot. Thirdly, she will in fact listen to you.
If you have the balls to post a reply, that is.
What an evil comment by "Anonymous".
He picked apart your grammar and spelling mistakes! Fucking arsehole! (Note we antipodeans put an R in "Arsehole")
And I thought everyone knew that there is no such thing as a "new idea".
I'm just waiting for Gen-X's times to shine. Man we were SO alternative.
Oops. "She" not "He".
Hooray, the anger begins!
Econoclast:
I did vote. Of course, much as I just stereotyped Boomers, feel free to stereotype younger voters as people who don't vote.
All youngsters aren't the same, just as all Boomers aren't. At least my stereotyping was intentional.
Oh, and the comment about my writing -- tech. You have no idea what I've written professionally. Ad hominem, not strong kung fu.
Anonymous:
Names, please, usually the rule on hate mail.
Barack's one of ours, last time I checked. And "hey, we all need to get along" isn't exactly cutting edge policy. You criticized my argument, but didn't offer an answer, a single concrete counterexample. Weak kung fu, but you may be new here, so we'll let it slide.
Yes, you're right, Boomers are made up of many, many different factions -- but who's in power? Who are the public faces? Why are we still having the same arguments, the same rhetoric being tossed around?
Sure you were handed problems -- and I ain't bitching about having to handle the ones we've been handed. What I'm concerned about (and used to humor/rhetoric to highlight) is that the nature of public discourse is being changed by changing life expectancies which will creat, one might say, an ideological ... drag. This will be the same for my generation against the next, of course, but not to the same degree because the numbers don't grind out the same.
Yes, yes, and talk about shifting blame ... the radical right didn't come from nowhere. The weak goddam media didn't come from nowhere. The failure to evolve energy policy didn't come from nowhere. Entire industries based on fear and pretty white girls disappearing didn;t come from nowhere. A nation susceptible enough to fear and manipulation to fall for the linkage of 9/11 to Iraq didn't come from nowhere. But none of that is the product of the generation who grew up and took power during that period of time. No, you just found yourselves there. Whoopsie.
Last time I posted about politics, said we had to try different way to connect with our fellow citizens and examine our presentation much more rigorously -- I was much more savagely lambasted by lefties who were pissed off than righties. Oh, Kerry supporters REAMED me. Didn't I understand how the MSM slanted the stories?" Didn't I understand that the right was too well-funded? Didn't I understand there was no fighting the creeping cultural conservatism of America? Here I was being the practical bastard, saying we had to stop whining about unfair advantages and FUCKING WIN, and I was condescendingly lectured that I just didn't understand. We couldn't hellllllp it. We have to play to the center, or we'll looooose. Criticism is betrayal.
Oh, can I "make change" with you? PLEASE? How about I urge others to make change their own way, seize the goddam power, use whatever they can, however they can, to reject a world they don't believe in. I DON'T WANT TO JOIN YOUR CLUB. As shocking as that is. We need new clubs. And if I piss off 100 folk for every one who is inspired to wake up and start breaking shit, then I'll take the heat.
Sincerely, we're on the same side -- for change. I'm just pointing out that maybe we need to change the vocabulary, change the way we look at the issues that confront us, and maybe we need to be a little more aggressive in tossing off the constructs of the past in order to make some progress.
One of the constructs being, might I say, that overwhelming sense of superiority where, when someone disagrees with you, they need to open their pinched little mind to "the truth" -- your truth. The real truth, of course.
"Spoiled", "pansy-ass","brat" and then correcting my typing? Nicely done. That fought the whole spoiled, petulant image I applied to Boomers. Way to lock it down.
I am, of course, in this post generalizing and exaggerating wildly. But the underlying point, that maybe the Boomers take themselves a bit too seriously, and need to have the piss taken out of them, isn't exactly being proven wrong ...
My problem with anonymous' comment is that the quote she pulled from KFM's diatribe has nothing to do with the criticism that she proceeds to put forth and she then further undercuts her point by devolving into name-calling and correction of grammar.
How petty and sad. But if she is indeed a baby-boomer, how telling that she uses the term "pansy-assed". It's very Great Santini!
*bounce* "Gonna cry now baby boomer?" *bounce* "GONNA CRY?"
And seriously, it doesn't take much "balls" to post a reply on a messageboard. But, way to escalate the machismo factor!
I find She Anonymous' boiling ire somewhat attractive and she made me think.
I was a bit harsh on them. The Boomers should be honored for their achievements as well. Two of my favorites being the original Trapper Keeper and the Dungeons & Dragons Saturday morning cartoon.
Gordon Gekko rocks too.
good point. That thing that braids your hair vby pulling it through a loom-pattern, what's that called?
Speaking as someone born in 1979 I give this post a big thumbs up. Few things in this world are more annoying than listening to some guy pushing 50 (or past it) telling me hom important all the stuff he did back in the 60s was. As if getting high in some guy's basement listening listening to The Who stopped anyone from dying in 'Nam. Like dropping acid did anything to help black people get treated like human beings.
The people who were shouting peace back in the 60s were the ones who were making their kids pop pills and nodding at "Greed is good" back in the 80s.
Hippie to yuppie. What a sad, pathetic change. And people like that think they have a right lecture me? What crap.
Skyrocket
(corrected for spelling. Which, apparently, counts)
Oh, I forgot -- econcolast "Grow up and stop being so mad?" Brother, I am NONSTOP mad. It's what gets me out of bed. It's what motivates me to donate to progressive candidates, raise money for worthy causes, pay out of my own damn pocket to support charities and food banks, and study my ass off in not just politics, but sciences and even emerging linguistic and meme theory so when I fight back in print, on screen or in person against conservative talking points I know my shit, my blade is sharp and I can communicate my message in a way which will effective, convincing and memorable.
Remember when you were mad? Like that, but with more e-mail.
That kind of sloppy, lethargic storytelling is par for the course in "American Outlaws," which can't even get through a shootout without employing not only the requisite trick-shooting Western conventions (which one expects -- even anticipates), but a slew of truly tiresome action flick proclivities to boot. You'd think an old-timey character as charismatic as Jesse James would have more astute moves than head-butting bad guys and firing his six-shooters while rolling across a floor. If that's not the sign of a lame gunfight, I don't know what is.
Rogers, dude, if only *sigh* you were listened too. Let's just face it people... THIS SHIT... ain't working.
We've got the radical righties being lead by the likes of Shrub and Pat Robertson, with Rush and his ilk on the side doing a "Go Big Daddy. GO!" chant whenever Rove commits his nerfarious (and traitoruos) machinations in the background.
Meanwhile, the left is wring their hands while getting their asses handed to them by fear mongers and liars.
As for voting... I voted. Using an electronic machine. Now, I can get a receipt for a 25 cent Hershey kiss that I decide to buy (strictly on impulse) at the convience store down he street but for some fucking reason I can't get a receipt VERIFYING that my vote was cast correctly. Wanna know what's really amazing?
BOTH THESE MACHINES ARE MADE BY THE SAME FUCKING COMPANY!
DIEBOLD.
Diebold’s current CEO Walden “Wally” O’Dell was on record stating that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President” PRIOR to the elections. OHIO, people. THE state that made the difference in this election. And, to add insult to injury, NO ONE can prove that the votes were tallied correctly. There's no real record of the votes. I say let the fucking chads hang. I much prefer THAT scenario (of counting votes by hand) then the current "Gee, you'll have to take our word that even though you voted for our opponent, we'll record your vote corrrectly. Now, be a good lemming and go home now."
Has our weak ass media, run by the Baby Boomers deleved into this? No. Vanity Fair did an indepth expose. It was FRIGHTENING to read. Besides them, nothing by anyone else.
And, another thing, what the FUCK happened to the coverage of Rove's treachery? WHY THE FUCK IS HE STILL GRINNING AT THE CAMERA RIGHT NEXT TO THE IDIOT IN THE OVAL OFFICE?
Rogers: I apologize for getting so sore, and also I am sorry that I used unladylike words e.g. "pansy-assed".
I am was born eleven months before Barack Obama (1961.) This makes me a Late-Boomer, or some idiotic thing. But I wouldn't say he's "one of ours"--I hope he is everyone's.
I not only voted for Kerry, I also rode on a pee-smelling bus all the way to Nevada for Kerry, and I still wish to hell that he had won. He is a decent guy.
My name is Maria.
econoclast points out quite rightly that younger voters turn out in way less numbers than older ones. This makes it very painful for us pterodactyls, when we hear y'all hating on us in such profusion. And which, in the dangerous circumstances in which said younger voters now find themselves, is a real conundrum. How come us wrinklies get on the bus and go door-to-door in Nevada with the express purpose of saving your sorry behinds from getting drafted, you guys don't get on the bus w/us, and yet you post these hate-filled posts. Even Eminem could not sway enough under-25s to vote. If they had voted in the proportion of over-25s, Bush would have lost. To forestall a lot of weak-headed commentary, trust me, I am just as upset at those in my own age group who did not vote--there were just less of them. n.b. If it's not close, they can't cheat. So it can't be close, next time, because those m.f.'s are going to cheat.
In 2004, 47% of 18-24 year old citizens voted, 66% of citizens 25 and older voted.
Source: http://www.civicyouth.org/quick/youth_voting.htm
I should have a thicker skin, but to read these posts on your site about boomer 'narcissism' and 'boomeritis' just really sticks in my craw. It is true that many of the Vietnam protestors were terrified of being drafted -- according to what one reads, at least. I was nine years old in 1970, and can barely remember a thing about it. However, there was also Mario Savio, a ton of guys who got tear-gassed in Berkeley in 1969, et al. This isn't so different from your own contemporaries--some arrant poseurs, and some brilliant and passionate people with actual convictions, not just the self-congratulatory pseudo-cynicism that apparently passes for brains these days. I'd like to see the discernment shown our generation that I imagine you would like to see extended to your own. Or are we to suppose you are a lot of brainless materialist Paris Hiltons and MTV potheads? I don't believe that to be true.
The blind impetus to lay the blame at someone else's door--to make that the focus of a discussion--that is really counterproductive.
You don't want to join my club, you say. Well, then crash and fucking burn with all the other sheep. I, on the other hand, am ready to listen to and work with anyone who is against this administration and against this war. That is my "alternative", my practical suggestion, and it couldn't be more explicit. If those who oppose Bush and oppose this war persist in dissipating our strength on bickering over the things that divide us, rather than finding and using the means to defeat our common enemy, we will be their slaves for the forseeable future.
Common Cause, MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, E Pluribus Media ... you get the picture.
Gahh! I got so mad writing my last post I haev a premature posting.. and I'm not even a guy!
Anwyas, Rogers, you are not the only one pissed. Like you, I do what I can. If only there were more who did that instead of buying the fear mongering, out right lies and the idiotic ramblings of people like Robertson.
Who, btw, at first, when called on his Chavez comments, denied making them. Then, when confronted with proof, merely said "Well, I was in the heat of the moment. Sorry." Funny, for Fundamentalist "Christian" he sure does regard the ninth commandment lightly. (Thou shall not bear false witness.)
yes, econocolast, because I directed that movie. No, I didn't. You don't know anything about Hollywood, how it works, or what a writer's actual relation to what shows up in movies with their name on it. I won't try to argue on whatever, er, you are an expert on, don't wander out here where you don't know your page one from your production polish.
Keep slagging the flicks, keep avoiding the actual debate. Nicely done, Cheap Shot.
Econoclast:
I did vote. Of course, much as I just stereotyped Boomers, feel free to stereotype younger voters as people who don't vote.
All youngsters aren't the same, just as all Boomers aren't. At least my stereotyping was intentional.
Point taken, of course. I didn't mean you personally. I meant the statistic: the participation rate among younger voters was roughly half, I think I remember, the rate among us oldies. And I'm sure at least half of us voted against W. All of which sort of gets my goat when I hear the whining of the younger crowd.
As for being mad, well, as I wrote in a similar thread on Craig's List recently (where there was also an unbelievable burst of hostility from the Gen X/Y/Zs), I'm glad you're mad, because that's what we need to get some change. But don't you think all this blanket anti-boomer ranting is the wrong kind of mad?
PS I apologise for posting the Outlaws review. It's true, I've never seen any of your stuff. I'm sure that, unlike most of the dreck we see on TV and in the theaters, it's full of healthy moral indignation.
Maria, just to exonerate Rogers, it was I who used the words narcissism and Boomeritis. I don't think he did. So you can smack me down about it.
Really, it seems to me were on the same "team" here. Although I do think there's a healthy does of blinding Boomer narcissism, as a generation I also think they're proven to be wonderfully creative, intelligent, and intense. But if they choose to stand pat, as Rodgers points out, then we're gonna creep ever closer to that slippery slope and we're getting damn close as it is.
What...
the fuck...
happened?
I read this post a few hours ago when there are only three comments, go out for a little band rehearsal, then come back to find that a yellow-belt from the local Y tried to storm the Shaolin temple.
Brutal.
True on all points and well said, moses. Consequently I desire no kind of smackdown. Instead my shoulder ready to hoist us from the edge alongside your own, and those of many millions of others, with any luck.
Why, there you go, Maria. And you're only five years older than I. Seeing as you were too young to form coherent political ideas during Vietnam, I personally wouldn't count you in the same social strata as people old enough to be there. But if you're cool with the Boomer thing, groovy.
See, now this is a conversation. Your kung fu grows strong.
And I dig the Obama. But let's not start idealizing one term Senators just yet. "Idealizing" is our achilles heel. I'd take a bullet for him (and the General), but we need to stay clear-eyed and ruthless.
Yes, youth voter turnout has declined -- according to the FEC it has been declining steadily since 1972. The stat you quote is unfortunately meaningless outside of a larger statistical context.
In the 2004 election, there was significantly more youth turnout (again according to the FEC, it's a frikkin .pdf or I'd link) -- however set against the increased turnout in absolute numbers (some 14 million more voters bringing the national average to 59.5%) the percentage of the total vote which was the "youth vote" stayed flat for that year. So, in proper statistical context and compared to every other youth voter since they actually started counting: the kids did okay.
I'm incredibly impressed with your efforts on the Kerry campaign. Even though I don't have much going upstairs other than self-congratulatory cynicism. ahem (But a decent try at reconciliation nonetheless.)
I think this is an interesting breach in the progressive movement, and it's a serious communication issue. There are those who (properly) honor the long tradition of the past progressive movement, their tactics, their style. And there are those of us who are no less passionate about advancing the agenda in America and attempting to roll back the creeping fascism (a word, as all words I use, I do not choose lightly) but who are much more cold-eyed, practical, tactical in our approach, particularly to language and symbolism. Reading that as cynicism is unfortunate. But certain old school techniques are, now ... not effective. As Chris over at MYDD pointed out, the massive peace marches of 2003 did nothing to sway the pre-war sentiment of Americans. Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, is a telling blow, like a fist struck at a weak point. If some of us believe in a little more fire and a little more ruthlessness, a little more Galloway than DLC, then forgive us our impetuousness. But when a campaign with a fine man like Kerry at the head fails to beat the worst President in modern history, then honest, clear-eyed criticism and evaluation must be made -- exactly as we progressives argue the same must be applied to the current war. Anything else is hypocrisy.
And as far as I'm concerned, that means tossing overboard some very quaint ideological and tactical baggage. And calling, sometimes, a bunch of self-obsessed bastiches self-obsessed bastiches. You're taking my comments to include the people who are actually motivated enough to go out and campaign. By that very choice, that minority (and, let us not fool ourselves it is a tiny minority) excludes itself from the comparison.
Don't think I'm going too damn gooey on the social aspect, however. All those cultural issues I mentioned in my previous response still hold. Nobody's getting off easy. And the "taking themselves so serioulsy as to be somewhat humorless" reputation -- I think I'll stand by that one.
Now, as far as joining your club -- why do you assume if I don't join "your" club, I'll "crash and burn with the other sheep"? What, other clubs aren't going to do it? Why assume if sonmeone's not joining your club, that means slothful inactivity? All gentle poking aside, the organizations you mention are hardly the types of organizations I'm referring to when I lampoon a stuck-in-the-past mentality. They are agressively new concepts for organizing and campaigning -- and yet who in the Liberal tent casts MoveOn as an "extremist" group? Boomer moderates, we both know it. Dean should have been the damn candidate, folks, but -- and again, as much as I personally like Kerry -- it was the old school organization of the Dem party which buried him in the Idaho caucuses (had friends on the ground for that one. The stories ... yargh. That's how democracy works?)
We do indeed all need to work together -- to fight for the agenda. My point is, through sheer weight of demographics and timing, we have an awful lot of old baggage hanging about, and a group which is (as we will someday be) reluctant to dump it.
You say you'd just like the same discernment extended to our own generation. Well first, off, personally I don't give a shit if any pleasant discernment is given -- we're fighting a war here folks, let's drop the kumbayah and get some scar tissue going. But, in consideration of your valid question:
"Or are we to suppose you are a lot of brainless materialist Paris Hiltons and MTV potheads?"
I hope not. But you know what? In thirty -- and I say again, thirty-five years in an exponentially more complex future our election is being fought over who did what in the Iraq War, we're still fighting over gay/women/individual rights, science is still in the precarious position it stands in modern society -- then we will deserve every bit of heaping fucking raging scorn whatever young Kung Fu Monkey of the future can firehose into our smug goddam faces. We will deserve it, and I will welcome it. Because we will be failures.
You know what, maybe we are a bunch of cynics. But all the idealism in the world didn't keep W and the fundies from taking over now, did it?
Well, anonymous, it's a lot easier to tell your gender when you're not, you know, anonymous. Most trolls are male, so I assumed.
And claiming you're not an idiot doesn't mean a whole lot when the rest of your writing here suggests otherwise.
I'm young, I vote, and I wasn't hating on boomers - just your dumb ass posts.
"You don't want to join my club, you say. Well, then crash and fucking burn with all the other sheep."
Your way or the highway, eh?
See, this is what's nice about these boards. We all eventually reason it out, and become pals. I'm still exchanging nice emails with the Christian folk who showed up here for the gay marriage thing.
oh, and writergurl -- seriously. Nice on the Diebold. I want those fuckers up on racketeering charges.
But, as several historians have pointed out, pretty much every modern American election's been hinky as shit. This is why you need both Maria and I. Maria to go out and smack heads and remind everyone to push new voter rights laws and that there's a principle at stake here ... and people like me to figure out how to do the flank assault and hurt them even as they cheat.
Econoclast: Review forgiven -- after all, the movie did suck pretty badly. (poor Gabe Macht, he should have been a star, he's the only good thing in it...) My name, to my eternal shame, is also on CATWOMAN. Because of a single scene I wrote in the entire 2 hours. And now, like the albatross, it hangs on my neck forever ...
As far as the rant -- is this sort of "blanket mad" bad? Nah. It's a rhetorical tool -- and if I may, one of the weaknesses of the liberal presentation style is the unwillingness to make simple brutal (and I stand by it, essentially true) statements in a memorable and entertaining way in order to fix our ideas in the minds of our audiences. One of Obama's gifts, by the way, and Paul Hackett's. And Schweitzer. And most Western Dems who actually win anything.
I stand, however, by the bulk of the post. There is a weight here, a drag of a once-liberal-now-conservative demographic so frightened of the big bad world they let themselves be led down the garden path. That must be considered, tactically and honestly, in any future plans to reverse the public condition. To be blunt, if the ratio of Boomer's still going "We changed the world" to the ones squinting thoughtfully and muttering "you know, we just may have fucked that up" is even 1000-1, I'd be stunned into a coma.
But, now that we're all friends, let's hide behind that bush and wait for a conservative boomer. They haven't shown yet ...
I tried to vote in 2004. Really I did. I registered with the nice folks with the clipboards who were all over campus.
But I never got my absentie ballot and was rather pissed about that. Then again, I registered as a Democrate in a red state. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised.
Skyrocket
Has anyone here read _The Fourth Turning_ by Strauss and Howe? According to Amazon.com "The Fourth Turning continues the project of mapping out the place of generations in history." And that's very much what we're talking about, here. Just curious as to whether anyone else here has read it.
In the book, published in 1997, the authors predicted that America would be involved in a massive international conflict starting in the first few years of the 21st century.
They're doomsayers, but they make an interesting case that (and I'm way oversimplifying, here) massive conflicts begin when the people who actually fought in the last massive conflict (WWII, here) are no longer in charge. It's their children - raised to be dogmatic - who are in charge when the Next Big War happens.
Rogers, you rock -
I'm in nyc and I was part of the demonstrations and in a way it's exciting because, unlike the eighties, I feel I'm part of an evolving social change, like the civil rights movement of the 60's - there were a few white people participating in it, but I don't dispute your point. Most of the boomers were home, getting stoned or talking about it in a college cafe (Bush was boozing on his father's plantation).
But we have our own boomers right here and now, folks too busy making money, getting high or yelling at the kids and too tired to argue who's right or who's wrong - the most common thing I've heard "I just want to be safe, so I voted for Bush, he's the only one that can take on the terrorist" which is CRAP and never fails to piss me off - we got hit on his watch - we got into a war on bad intellegence on HIS watch (or he lied to us, which is what I believe) - Iraq is or will be worse than Vietnam, that's what I think -
You called it right, Dean shoulda been the candidate, I argued and argued with folks about that at the time - but our system is obviously flawed (did you see that link I sent ya about the 2004 election?) and needs to be fixed.
Dean would have given Bush a really hard time. It would have been a cage match.
And dude, I was always wondering about that Catwoman thing, glad you came clean -
although you and I can disagree about communism actually wokring in the real world, with you on Gorby. It stays in the general theme of -- it was someone else's win, dammit. Give them the credit.
What Generation would actually have the balls, while still alive, still waiting for history to tell it's sordid tale, would call itself the Greatest Generation. Well, when you're the largest voting bloc the world has ever seen... Sigh.
The only reason I hate this argument is you can't argue against numbers in a democracy. More numbers means they are right.
Even though I'm a Conservative, I have to agree with the general idea behind your post. Personally, I feel that many Boomers desperately cling to their Liberal ideals because to do otherwise would mean they are getting old. In their youth they rallied against "the man." The last thing they want to admit is that they have become "the man." So, they don't realize how silly they look now when they climb on the bus and head out to the protest rally, as Jane Fonda is preparing to do again. Come on, Grandma, the bus left you behind a long time ago. Deal with it gracefully. I'm old enough to have a teenager and smart enough to realize I'm not hip anymore and never will be again (not that I ever was to begin with).
So many things to comment on:
We have, by the numbers, the shittiest health care system in the world, but we can't change it because that'd be "socialism."
Exactly. If we instituted socialized medicine, where would the Canadians go for their healthcare?
OHIO, people. THE state that made the difference in this election. And, to add insult to injury, NO ONE can prove that the votes were tallied correctly.
Amazingly, though, those same Diebold machines worked perfectly in every state where Kerry won by a close margin (there were many). Come on, Kerry lost. Have the cajones to admit it. Get over it and move on. Try again in next time. That's how the system works.
But when a campaign with a fine man like Kerry at the head fails to beat the worst President in modern history...
Gotta go a long way to beat Carter. No matter how you feel about Bush, Carter easily takes the prize. If Kerry were such a fine man, he could have won. Even many Dems admit he was a lousy candidate.
Wow. Is this the newest version of "don't trust anyone over 30" or what? It's amazing how blaming the last generation just doesn't go out of style. I find it kind of adorable. BTW, for those who seem a bit confused about it, the term "Greatest Generation" doesn't refer to boomers. It refers to the parents of the boomers. Ironically, it's a term that boomers started using for their parents after the boomers got, well, a little older than 30.
Myself, I was born in 1962, and I've been pissed off since 1980. From the way things are looking these days, my advice is to get used to it.
.Personally, I feel that many Boomers desperately cling to their Liberal ideals because to do otherwise would mean they are getting old. In their youth they rallied against "the man." The last thing they want to admit is that they have become "the man." So, they don't realize how silly they look now when they climb on the bus and head out to the protest rally, as Jane Fonda is preparing to do again.
Wow. Way to miss the point. It's not that boomers are out-of-touch liberals, buddy. It's you too, still railing and whining about boomer liberals--we're sick of watching that you process the same old cultural resentments. Really, who the fuck cares what Jane Fonda is preparing to do anymore?
Are you seriously suggesting that Carter is a worse President than George Bush, Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover? Worse than that racist Wilson? Worse than Grant, who was drunk the entire time he was in office? What kind of crack are you smoking?
Did you recall that Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize?
When you make a statement like that, how can we even take you seriously?
I’m a boomer and now I realize, you know, we just may have fucked that up. So, we’re turning it all over to you post-boomers so we can have more time to get stoned, make a bunch of money and help the rich get richer and keep the poor down. You can find me in the lily-white suburbs, hiding from the brown people (oh, that was stupid). Good luck with that.
Hang on Jane, baby, I'm coming!
“Soviet-style communism is a perfectly tenable long-term economic model"....really...and the proof for that would be???....Please do not mix up Marxism and Soviet- style communism in the same sentence. That’s like saying GW is following what the founding fathers had in mind. Jefferson, Washington and Franklin all came out of the "enlightenment" movement (a movement that GW seems to not have studied). Marxism has never been applies as it was written ever, so it is still a theory like “String Theory” so who knows till we get there. But I think we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that “Soviet-style communism” is done. No need for another go round, ever.
Amazingly, though, those same Diebold machines worked perfectly in every state where Kerry won by a close margin (there were many). Come on, Kerry lost. Have the cajones to admit it. Get over it and move on. Try again in next time. That's how the system works.
It doesn't have as much to do with the Diebold machines (although I'm sure they played some part) as the fact that the Ohio GOP is a cesspool of corruption, and they were running the show. If you haven't heard of "Coingate" yet, do a search.
Ohio was the swing state in the 2004 election, and there's every reason now to believe that it was forcibly swung to the right. When you allegedly steal money from workers' compensation plans and give it to political campaigns, it's easier for me to believe that you might gimmick up some fancy black-box voting machines...
The discussion's probably over by now, but I just thought I'd mention, re the conversation about AMERICAN OUTLAWS/CATWOMAN and the common discrepancy that exists between credit and actual creative contribution, that Josh Friedman has a great post about how much he didn't write CHAIN REACTION. http://hucksblog.blogspot.com/ - top of the page.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, Josh (who John linked to recently) is funny as fuck.
In re: Diebold.
Seriously? Do you think that our current political Machivelli (other wise known as Rove) would not think to throw the dog a bone or two before snatching the whole fucking cow? Regardless of "Ohio" and whatever political hijinks may or may not have gone on there;
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WHEN THEY SYSTEMICALLY REFUSED TO GIVE US VERIFIABLE PROOF OF HOW WE VOTED.
Especially when I've got a crumpled up receipt in my pocket right this fucking minute for a 59 cent purchase! The GODDAMNED cash register was made by DIE FUCKING BOLD!
Try educating yourself before you go spouting off at the mouth, will ya? Read the article in Vanity Fair. It's at your local library. When you next post here about the voting machines, try not to forget what one of the greatest Republican Presidents, Abramham Lincoln, said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Writergurl, I'm falling on love, methinks - and I may need your help over at Lee Goldberg's site on the goldcake discussion -
I definitely need your help over at A writer's life - someone brought in a pro right wing pundit and he's kicking my butt -
I thought I was ready for the Big Dance, but evidently . .
Josh, sorry...I spent the evening at a funraiseer for our local AIDS organization. Then, out flirting with a couple hot blondes... I'll head over to Lee Godlberg's site and check it out...
Are you seriously suggesting that Carter is a worse President than George Bush, Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover? Worse than that racist Wilson? Worse than Grant, who was drunk the entire time he was in office? What kind of crack are you smoking?
Did you recall that Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Rogers said "modern Presidents," not the whole history of the office. Nixon was a decent President, even though he was paranoid as hell. Watergate was a campaign scandal. As for Carter, he didn't win the Nobel while he was in office.
Really, who the fuck cares what Jane Fonda is preparing to do anymore?
That was my point.
Jaysus. 54 comments. Don't have time for this!
I am the *first* anon in this queue -- and if I could find a way to post with my *real name* (which is the only thing I use all over the net), *without* being asked to set up a goddammed *blog*, I would (how do I do that, John?!).
Some nit said:
>>> I wish you youngsters would stop treating an entire generation as if they were one individual.
I'm about to be FORTY BLOODY EIGHT. Youngster, my ass. And that generation might as well be one individual -- they all whine and grasp the same damned way. Not just The Greediest Generation, but The Cliche Generation too. And The Ruinous Generation too.
"What did you do during the war, Daddy?"
"I held up a cardboard sign, screamed like an asshole, eviscerated the existing culture, showed what an ungrateful bastard I was, had VD twenty-seven times, and you probably have brothers and sisters somewhere out there. Oh yeah, and the pot was some great shit too."
... I should have added:
And this was the generation that went on to don gold chains and polyester in the 70s.
That says it all right there.
Wankers.
"No, fuck you, Pfc. Jenkins on your second tour through Fallujah, Daddy's gonna vote based on who pissed him off back in '73."
What you're missing, is that for the most part, the PFC Jenkins' of the world didn't care about Daddy's feuds from 1973 as long as their dad's went out and voted for Bush. I'm part of a military family and have several friends currently serving in Iraq. Every single one of them voted for Bush, urged everyone they knew to vote for Bushm, and would do it again if we had another election today. Don't worry about Jenkins... he's doing fine. Kicking ass in fact, and as long as we keep supporting him, his effort, and the mission, he will continue to do so and we will win.
Laaz, all of the people you know may have voted for Bush, etc, ad nasuem, however, contrary to what you imply not all of the soliders stationed in Iraq, not all of any of the services, stationed anywhere, unanimously support their Commander in Chief.
Wanting it to be true is one thing, implying that it is, is another thing, having it be factual is something else altogether.
Btw, you're "speaking" with a former solder who has friends and family (some still in service) who do not endorse Shrub.
Also, it's disingenuous to infer that not supporting Shrub equals not supporting the troops. I support the troops who are acting on the behest of their leaders. It's the leaders and the conservative "Christian" coalition whom Shrub owes his allegaince to, that I most emphatically do not support. Two completely seperate things.
I am the *first* anon in this queue -- and if I could find a way to post with my *real name* (which is the only thing I use all over the net), *without* being asked to set up a goddammed *blog*, I would (how do I do that, John?!).
Um, I post with my name and I don't have a blog. Took me all of 30 seconds to figure out how to do it, too.
See the part where it says "Choose an identity" under the comment box? If you select "Other" you can enter a name (which can of course be whatever you want) and an optional web link.
Fine example, I think, of having a point and then obliterating it through a combination of not thinking it through and confusing heat with light.
One: do you really believe that history begins on your birthday? That Vietnam, or both the World Wars, for that matter, have nothing to do with you? A lot of your habitual thinking was determined by 300 Spartans at Thermopylae or William's late-day tactics at Hastings, let alone a divisive conflict one generation removed from you which was the end result of the post-war US desire to dominate the Pacific.
Two: which is it? Was there a rough political/cultural split in the 60s, or was everyone in his basement rolling numbers? It's gratifying to see the former idea actually make an appearance, but then you retreat behind cardboard cut-outs of Woodstock Nation when it's convenient.
Three: Civil Rights was not a Boomer issue; it's the product of returning GIs refusing to be treated as second class citizens anymore, and struggling to win those rights through the courts and public protests and the acts of a President who threw away his party's electoral advantage to do what was right. Michael Schwerner was born in 1939. Andrew Goodman and James Chaney in 1943. The first two were Jewish. Saying "black people did it" is an unsupportable generalization. It's the same tack conservatives use today to ignore the Right's long history of opposition to equal rights.
Four: for the record, Jerry Falwell ain't a Boomer either.
The notion of an entire collective-nouned generation going from folk-singing peace marchers to patchouli-oiled bong enthusiasts to gold-chained disco lizards to self-aggrandizing stock barons is a cartoon. It got sold to you, classroom film style, by people who didn't like race mixing, didn't like women leaving the kitchen, and cringed at the thought somebody was out there having sex with the lights on. It's easy, now that those things are available to you at no charge, to ask what all the fussin' is about. It's also ill-informed.
Also, it's disingenuous to infer that not supporting Shrub equals not supporting the troops.
Yeah, but that's about all they've got going for them anymore, since every other rationale for this war has gone out the window...
"For the most part" = "All" ???
"Not voting for Bush" = "not supproting the troops" ???
Certainly never said either of those things.
Really, I don't wish to argue with you, your post DID infer that all "PFC Jenkins" voted for Bush. I was responding to that inference.
"his effort, and the mission, he will continue to do so and we will win."
The mission.. dictated by Shrub, et al. Not supported by more and more people every day. Including lots of (not just some) solider, sailors, Marines and Air Force personnel and thier families. Got it?
Very nice post doghouse.
And Iaaz does point up something important: all his peeps voted for Bush. It's all about going with the tribe.
Word, doghouse.
>>>Um, I post with my name and I don't have a blog. Took me all of 30 seconds to figure out how to do it, too.
>>>See the part where it says "Choose an identity" under the comment box? If you select "Other" you can enter a name (which can of course be whatever you want) and an optional web link.
Bloody hell. I didn't see that. Will go look now. Much thanks if it works out.
Ah, the username (my real name!) I want is unavailable.
When I find that swine...
OK, I've just finished reading Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, about the "New Hollywood" of the late 60s and early 70s, and I can see, after all, that you're right: the bb's were a self-indulgent lot and they did screw it up for everyone. Of all the directors whose stories are in there, not a single one of them, really, comes out looking good. Robert Altman, Hal Ashby, Peter Bogdanovich, Francis Coppola, Brian de Palma, William Friedkin, Dennis Hopper, George Lucas, Roman Polanski, Bob Rafelson, Paul Schrader, Martin Scorcese, Steven Spielberg. I suppose, though, that it's the same in every generation, not just the boomers. The visible ones -- those that rise to prominence -- are usually just not very nice people.
(formerly 'anonymous' Maria here-)
rogers, I apologize for suggesting that my 'club' should be the one that anyone joins. I did not mean to suggest that I personally have got a bead on an answer. I belong only to the very large 'club' that opposes the Iraq war--that's all I meant to suggest, that those who suppose the war should stop bickering with one another, and start working together to stop it.
I don't know, either, that I agree that the old methods of dissent are outmoded. Certainly the Internets have provided some very powerful and effective new means of dissent. Nowadays, that is my primary activism--I do tech support for MoveOn, and I get a lot done that way without having to drive anyplace, which is great. But there was nothing quite like participating in the February 2003 march, for me. Knowing you were out in the street with ten million other people was really exhilarating. A new Democratic leader (such as Clark--I agree with you about him, was really stunned at his fantastic remarks re: Cindy Sheehan last week) could harness this huge worldwide force and really help push us out of this mess. That leader hasn't yet emerged, though. Very good op-ed on this theme by the v. eloquent Gary Hart, in NYT.
I find it hard to believe that any liberal would call MoveOn an extremist organization. At least, not anybody who has actually been to read the website. Would love to be referred to any article/site saying this.
Nice posts, all.
p.s. Extra-splendid post, doghouse.
You lot need to get out more, seriously, i got bored after 3 lines of tht shit, stop wasting internet space and put some actual monkeys doing some actual kung fu up. Nuff said lovin the site think ur all great
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARY A.K.A BOB & WEEBLE
Me Like Pieeeeeeeee
How to Play Roulette Online
The Various Roulette Bets and Rules
Roulette and the House Edge
Betting methods of Roulette
Roulette Rules and Information
Online Roulette Some people like the bright lights of Las Vegas. They book their room in the Flamingo, fly down, see some shows, eat at the Vegas buffets, and bet a little money on the roulette wheel. However, this is an expensive, once a year type proposition. What happens if you are bored one night, and want to play some roulette, right there and right then? Booking a red eye flight to Vegas isn't an option. This is exactly the reason why playing at online casinos has sky-rocketed in popularity over the last few years. It's fun, it's quick, and it mimicks the real life experience of playing at a real casino. Why play roulette online instead of at a real casino? As I already mentioned, the cost of playing at Vegas is much higher. You have your room fee, your plane ticket, the cost of eating out while there, etc. It is very expensive. However, playing online is free. You can play at 3 am in the morning, while dressed in your bathrobe, eating a bowl full of popcorn. No one will rush you; you can take 20 minutes to place your next bets. You can have a notebook full of roulette strategies in front of you and no one will hassle you. The allure of the online casino is the convenience and ease of use.
Roulette Systems
Roulette Strategy
Online Roulette
Online Roulette Tips
Online Roulette System Rules
Roulette Strategy Betting
Easy Roulette Strategy
Free Roulette Systems
Progressive Roulette Systems
Martingale Progression
Popular Casino Roulette
Roulette Martingale
Roulette Systems
Single and Double Zero Wheel Roulette
Roulette History
What you are saying is a big mistake.
In my opinion everybody should browse on this.
supreme clothing
nike off white
jordan shoes
golden goose sneakers
bape clothing
Golden Goose
off white jordan 1
goyard bag
palm angels t shirt
bape outlet
Post a Comment