"OK, Boomer!" Really? Why This Laughable Meme Is Going Nowhere Beyond The Instagram-Twitter Bubble

Here we go again. Time to pound on the Baby Boomers, this time by an apparent "alliance" of twerps consisting of Millennials, Gen Z losers ("Zeds") , and other younger generation malcontents who feel compelled to blame Baby Boomers for their lot in life or state of the world. According to the relevant Denver Post op-ed (Perspective, Nov. 10. p.1D) by one Molly Roberts.

Okay, we know that in the era of Trump and his retinue of enabling, sycophantic Repukes the fetish of grievance and victimhood has attained new heights. One beheld it on 'Fox & Friends Weekend' yesterday a.m. as a trio of caterwauling muppets cried their eyes out at Adam Schiff appearing before California Dems in Long Beach on Saturday and vowing to "send the charlatan back to his golden throne".  "How he could he say that?" They whined in unison. "Isn't he supposed to be above partisanship as head of the House Intel committee?"  

Give me a break. What are you losers, crybabies or journalists?

Given the Reeps will always wear the victim and grievance badge, but one expects the younger generations to rise above that and in particular, cease conflating all Boomers and blaming an entire generation for their ills.

Anyway, Roberts informs us that "OK, Boomer" has now become the all purpose comeback or retort anytime a perceived Boomer offers a criticism, e.g. "your grandpa tells you kids these days have lost all sense of civility for yelling at Ellen Degeneres for going to a football game with George W. Bush"

As Roberts puts it (ibid.):

"It's glib. It's short, and its's not at all sweet but 'OK, Boomer' also reveals something about each of today's generations.  So does the response they wrought."

Fair enough, but again let's be clear that despite the media's laziness it is not okay to conflate entire generations, particularly one like the Boomers that's been singled out for opprobrium far more than any other.

How did the meme originate?    Well, we learn: "the mainstreaming of the meme was making its way onto $36 Redbubble style sweatshirts sold by entrepreneurial 17 -year olds."

The meme evidently then caught fire because a conservative talk radio host (Bob Lonsberry) took to the internet to publicly pout and - instead of ignoring the (then) minor memetic insult - whined that "boomer  was the n-word of ageism".   Well hey, I never said conservos were not whiners and wimps, did I?  After all they're the ones driving the GOP grievance, victimhood mission against impeachment.

In any case, the response of the right wing radio jock  Lonsberry circulated, went viral, and "OK, Boomer" was born. Again, spawned on the back end reaction to a 3rd rate conservative talk show host.

Roberts goes on to inform us:

"Millennials have allied with Gen Z and managed to vitiate the meme in the process by basically, overdoing it.  'OK, Boomer' was fun and funny, so we said it about a million times on Twitter in the space of one day, and now it has become unfunny and lame.  That's appropriate too for a generation that supposedly kills every good thing."

But, of course, as one Denver Post letter writer (Susan Cummings),  responding to the piece in yesterday's paper noted (Perspective, p. 3D)::

"Boomers created the internet, the personal computer,  synthetic skin, the artificial heart and the cell phone so beloved by the young- all of which are taken for granted. Being a Boomer is an honor. We protested for peace, the environment, the end of the Berlin Wall, LGBTQ rights, animal rights, etc. At this point, all a Boomer can say is, 'OK, Kid".

Another letter writer (Douglas Croot) sounded off (ibid.):

"Being universally dismissive and surly is probably not the surest path to the success and fulfillment you seek,"

So it's a bit off to say - or even suppose- that  the Boomers "killed every good thing" especially given "recycling and composting programs around the nation were started at the demand of Baby Boomers, same for fuel efficient cars" (Letter from Mandell S. Winter Jr.).

Then the kicker from the 'OK, Boomer' author:

"It makes sense that millennials are taking up arms with our Gen  Z comrades-  because we're the ones who've been maligned the most for the sin of our birth years."

In fact it's not the "sin of your birth years"  but your indolence and insufferable lack of pluck especially (for millennials) in getting your asses out to vote and away from the tiny screens!  What we're all about then is the evident lack of independence, autonomy, and resilience i.e. that most of us had to develop very quickly given there was next to zero hand -holding from parents.   As one commenter put it, in response to my March 16, 2017 post excoriating Bruce Cannon Gibney and his anti-Boomer book:

"Most of us were raised by people with massive and undiagnosed PTSD from WW2. Mr Gibney has no concept of how much those people scraped up their lives and bravely had children and encouraged them to be better, and no, most of us, did not have a golden ticket."

The generational differences in autonomy and resilience are most evident in the younger generations' dealing with the  environments of college and political representation (namely lackadaisical voting patterns for the Millennial brigade). 

Hara Estroff Marano, the author of A Nation of Wimps: The High Cost of Invasive Parenting,  put the issue in a nutshell in the case of the first:

"But in a real sense, students don't really leave their parents behind. Their parents go to college right along with them — in their front pockets. That is, the parents are a speed dial away by cellphone. And the evidence is clear that students call parents and parents call students at an alarmingly frequent rate. This, of course, significantly reduces independence.

A student gets a C on her first paper? Instead of absorbing the negative information and figuring out how to resolve the problem or how to do better, the call gets made to home, where Mom or Dad solves the problem, often by calling the school administration. This kind of behavior is, sadly, commonplace today and is a mark of the lack of coping skills among students because all the lumps and bumps have been taken out of life for them until now."

Protect the precious little dears so they undergo a minimum of pain or travail. Keep them in an artificial cocoon to sustain their dependence as long as possible. Don't allow them to have to negotiate their way in an unfamiliar college environment.  God forbid!

This take has also been confirmed by Linda Bips, a college psychologist:

"Many of today’s students lack resilience and at the first sign of difficulty are unable to summon strategies to cope. The hardship can be a failing grade on a test, a cut from the team, or a romantic  breakup. At the first sign of trouble many become unable to function and persevere. Often they even anticipate difficulties and their anxiety alone paralyzes them."

She then goes on to point out just how many incoming college students are on "meds" and writes:

"The number of students who arrive at college already medicated for unwanted emotions has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. We, as a society, don’t want to “feel” anything unpleasant and we certainly don’t want our children to “suffer.”

As Prof. Bips also observes:

 "The resulting problem is that by not experiencing negative emotions, one does not learn the necessary skills to tolerate and negotiate adversity.

The preceding observations are relevant if we (older Boomers especially)  are expected to take the young rebels' snark and memetic impudence seriously.  Particularly after Ms. Roberts writes:

"OK, Boomer' flips the script and is now telling old people that they're the one who don't  get it, and this 'despite countless chances to learn'"

But if she (and the OK, Boomer contingent) expect us to take that ""flipped script"   seriously - and not howl with laughter-  how about proving it. Showing us you have some moxie by being independent and not texting mommy and daddy every minute while at university, or expecting them to run interference with your college instructors. 

In the 60s, in our college days then, we took our lumps like the adults we one day wanted to be - whether from our profs or fellow students (including for 'Hell Week' orientation). The lumps taken helped us build character, personal authenticity (not just being part of a crowd) as well as reinforced critical thinking skills, i.e. when we engaged in sometimes animated 'bull sessions' in the dorms..

So the issue is not decrying Gen Zs or Millennials as "profligate"  or being "basement dwellers" but rather the consistent failure to evince pluck and autonomy,   to project their own authentic power and exercise it - whether in university or the political arena. You may be a "basement dweller" but (if a Millennial) you can still vote, and in so doing affect the arc of your life and that of your generation.

What one would like to see- certainly in my Boomer demographic - is more of the "OK, Boomer" lot not merely churning out snarky memes but emulating the courageous Parkland students, like David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez. and Delaney Tarr.  They not only mounted a credible and effective move for more gun control in Florida after the Feb. 14, 2018 Parkland massacre, but actively went out to sign up young prospective voters.  What are the rest of you doing? Will you even vote next year?

I ask this because it turns out that seniors, e.g. Boomers,  are the most reliable voters with nearly 70 percent counted on to cast ballots as in the 2020 election. Compare that to the 18-24 year demographic  who've only exceeded a 40 percent turnout twice since 1996. Pew Research reports consistently that only 10 percent of likely voters are under 30.  Do you really want to change things so your agenda is dealt with and not ignored? Then you need to triple or quadruple that performance.

 Yet this is the age demographic most adversely affected by a plurality of federal resources being spent on seniors. So what exactly do these under 30s  (e.g. Millennials)  expect when the political class feels it can write them off each year as non-serious threats?

The voting percentages are even worse in the off year elections, which are often as important as general elections. The reason is that House seats are often up for grabs and it is in the House that budgets are made and where economic winners and losers determined. In the 2010 election, for example, barely 16% of 18-24 years olds voted compared to 28 % in 2008. 

My point is that if you really want to impress me and other Boomers, don't invoke a dumb meme and then wear it out. Get your butts out to vote - in every election- and change your lot in life by pushing the political class to recognize you instead of ignoring you.  Even more impressive, put down your cell phones and the incessant, vacuous search for 'likes'  and cut out the social media -instagram blabber.  Instead,  emulate the Parkland students' style of activism and maybe even voter enrollment instead. 

Thus, we want to see action - again, voting is a start- as opposed to reading this malarkey from Roberts:

"'OK, Boomer' indicts not an individual but an entire generation, or entire generation's attitude- and it does so with two words dripping with dismissal. "

Adding:

 "OK, Boomer sends the message that grown-ups have screwed up  totally, and are veering so speedily into irrelevance that convincing them of anything is a waste of keyboard characters."

But you don't get to be "dismissive" unless and until you make your own marks on the world, and not merely as petulant victims of older generations' perceived attitudes.  As Post letter writer Mandell Winter Jr. went on to point out (ibid.)

"The dismissive 'OK, Boomer' is the same as saying the classic, disrespectful  'whatever' - when you don't have a constructive response.  

Not happy with the world you got? Neither were we. So start fixing it and stop blaming."

Want to convince me you've "flipped the script"?  Then put down the cell phones and project your power in the real world.  Tired of all the "long endless Middle east wars"? Then take to the streets and protest like we did against the Vietnam war, playing a huge role in its more rapid ending. Do more than we did in our era and I will grant that you've truly "flipped the script".

 In other words, start acting more like the Parkland students in the wake of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas school massacre, and not like the grievance -filled twerps who spawned the 'OK, Boomer' meme misfire.

See also:

• Another Clueless Dimwit - Bruce Cannon Gibney - ...

Note To Older Boomers: Stop Trying To Escape Old Age With Euphemisms!

When a smarmy little twit using the handle "Petulant Guy"  (pretty accurate!) rendered a blog comment (March 10, last year, in a post to do with the imbecile Bruce Cannon Gibney), he used the following, in addressing me:

"Get a grip old man...."

I took the words more as a badge of honor than as an insult, given that not everyone makes it to 71 years of age (at that time). But the underlying tone did show the lack of respect for older citizens in our youth-obsessed culture. As if to emphasize that, a piece in yesterday's WSJ ('Forget Senior- Boomers Search for Better Term', p. A9)  displayed all the pathetic ways too many Boomers are seeking to escape ownership for their age by using euphemisms.  It reminded me of one of the examples Bill Maher presented from a  "bias free" language guide issued by the University of New Hampshire, highlighted in an Aug. 7 2015 Real Time show.  Maher noted the guide's updated reference to  "people of advanced age", instead of senior citizens.  To which I responded in my Aug 10, 2017  post,   "Sorry, but I will opt for senior citizens over that 'advanced age'  crap."

Anyway, some of the euphemisms trotted out in the article and the complaints by some:

"Perennial"-  first used by Gina Pell in a 2016 newsletter to "describe people of all ages" but now retirement age Boomers have adopted it. ("But not every older person likes it."   Well, no shit, it sounds like a freaking plant!)

"Vintage"  - Non judgmental but makes too many "think of an old clothes shop"

"Lucky"  is a succinct term "to describe people over 60",  offered by a woman who's lost many to cancer and heart attacks.   I don't know about 60, but for sure 66, as I've lost two brothers  (since 2013) who never made it to that age. (One of 3 barely made it to 67.)

"Older adults" is also favored  because it's claimed to be "neutral and accurate".   Well, maybe - but only in a relative sense. If a 70 -year old is sitting in a waiting room with a 90-year old, then both claiming to be  "older adults" seems like a stretch.   The term, while "neutral", seems more like obfuscation to me.   We learn also how the words-euphemisms evolved  - from "aged".

"A once acceptahle word or phrase accumulates negative connotations and is replaced by another"

Hmmmm....reminds many of us how that happened to "liberal" which then got replaced by the term "progressive" - mainly because Dems and others ceased to robustly defend the L-word from the rabid right wingers, and just punked out. The same appears to have happened to "aged" which then mutated to "senior citizens", and then to "older adults".  (Oh, some terms, e.g. "geezer" were never acceptable!)

Why all the word games to simply describe an older human?

"Everyone is growing older,  but most people don't want to be called old or be perceived as old, which makes finding an acceptable term difficult."

Well, not if one also has enough sense to accept reality.  Perhaps the best person I've read who provides perspective on aging and its aspects is Sister Joan Chittister, in her book, 'The Gift Of Years'.   Starting out with the (obvious)  proposition that aging is a "gift" -  given the alternative is being in a box six feet under or reduced to ashes in an urn.  Hence, because one has managed to reach the proverbial "golden years" in one (more or less) piece, as opposed to so many who haven't  (like all the young kids left for dead in hot cars this summer, as well as my three younger brothers) there is cause to rejoice or at least not diss it.

Overly optimistic babble? Not when Sister Joan writes (p. 24):

"Researchers have known for many years now that only five percent of those over sixty-five are in special care institutions and eighty percent of the rest of the older population is managing the rigors of daily living."

So why the rank ageism and disrespect of elder citizens as useless relics?  Sr. Joan again:

"The real question: What difference does it make how wise we are, how well we are, how alert we are, how involved we are after sixty-five?  After all once you reach retirement age in this culture, everything is canceled. We're 'old' now and we  know it. And the rest of the world knows it, too.

We're 'old'. Translate - 'useless',  'unwanted', 'out of place'. Translate 'incompetent.'.   We are the over-the -hill gang our birthday cards say. And we laugh, as well as we can, but if the truth were known the laugh comes out as a stab in the psyche."

And then  robustly rejecting this deformed take  (ibid.):

"Those representations are not true, and we know that. too, because we're it, we're the real thing. And we do not bumble, or dodder or mutter. We think very well, thank you, and we work hard and we know precisely what is going on in the world around us."

Adding:

"Negative stereotypes exaggerate isolated characteristics and ignore positive characteristics entirely."

All of which well explains why elder Boomers especially are desperate to change the perception by adopting quirky euphemisms. But as Sr. Joan goes on to emphasize in her subsequent chapters, the way to alter societal stereotypes is by way of action, not trying to play word games by use of neologisms or "neutral"- sounding terms for aging.

As she writes in her penultimate chapter, there is a cogent reason for emphasis on action, and well, living (p. 202):

"One of the better gifts of growing older is that time becomes more meaningful. Time now becomes a companion along the way. We are aware of it, always hovering over us like a chilling mist, or a warming Sun, waking us to the power of the immediate...Moments are not lived casually once we approach old age. Now they are savored. Every layer of them is milked, wrung out and relished."

Would that more of the Boomer generation read Sister Joan's book, there is no doubt they'd be less likely to  waste their precious time chasing foolish euphemisms -   to escape aging reality.

Another Clueless Dimwit - Bruce Cannon Gibney - Thinks He Knows About Boomers

It's not an astounding revelation to point out that the Baby Boomers  are among the most vilified generations ever, usually by goofballs who lack any serious knowledge of the group and tend to shoot from the hip.  Most of the polemics issuing from these nattering nabobs of negativity - based on precious little real evidence or logic - insist we Boomers are about to usher in the fall of civilization as we know it. From Arch-Boomer nemesis Robert Samuelson -  who blames “entitlements” for an approaching fiscal train wreck-  to a spate of  has beens and copycats including P.J. O'Rourke, Joe Klein and  David Willets (in his book, ‘How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future and Why They Should Give It Back’) . To an imp they all carp about the "pathological narcissism or selfishness" of the Boomers as the root cause of all our national ills. It's incredible that up to now none of these losers have blamed the Black Death on us too. Occurred before our temporal era? No problem, they'd blame it on our former incarnations!

The latest  addition to this motley crew of hard up writers and petulant,  whiney little bitches is Bruce Cannon Gibney, via his book, “A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America,” which came out earlier this month. One wonders if this moron even has a clue what a sociopath is, to make such a broad and sweeping claim about an entire generation.

Perhaps the best insight on the sociopath as clinically defined (which is what I presume Gibney was trying to base his claim on) is the book by Dr. Martha Stout, 'The Sociopath Next Door'. She notes the attributes include seven distinguishing characteristics, such as deceitfulness, impulsivity, superficial charm and a lack of remorse. She  estimates as many as 4% of the population are conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or affectionate feelings for humans or animals. Add in those who exhibit some rudimentary controls of conscience and the total of sociopaths comes to 10 percent.

The Baby Boom contingent itself is now 74.9 million strong which means it makes up just over 24 percent of the U.S. population.  This means Gibney has splattered his "sociopath' brush too wide by over 50 percent. But no surprise there for a turkey who's probably only done minimal research and grabbed most of his material via anecdotes related to him by familial inbreds. (His own).

In his book - similar to most Boomer bashers-  Gibney claims that much of the generation born between 1946 and 1964 is "selfish, lacking in empathy and financially irresponsible." Like the semi-literates before him he uncritically adopts the tag of “Me Generation” -  a term coined by equally uninformed PR and media assholes at the time. Thus the baby boomers have long been described as self-interested, but as always - the level of conflation is mind boggling.

I refer here to the classical logical error committed by most Boomer bashers: the “fallacy of composition” i.e. when one claims that what is true of a part is true of a whole.  In this case, the “Boomers” he is referring to make up about 5 percent of the total generation. These are the entitled, 'silver spoon in the mouth'  twerps like Gee Dumbya Bush – who got his Harvard education via a legacy entitlement.  And Donald J. Trump, raised as a closet psychopath and liar by a father and mother leery of his pathological tendencies and who knew they had to instill in him a sense of grandiose entitlement.

So, in effect, what those like Gibney, Willets, Klein et al have done is attribute to an entire generation the attributes of perhaps 5 percent of the total. Again, the fallacy of composition magnified to stupendous proportions - to the extent none of these trash books are really worth the paper printed on. And hence, would only have appeal to ardent Boomer haters seeking to reinforce their confirmation bias.

More evidence that Gibney is a congenital idiot and has no clue what he's yapping about, when he writes:

“70 million Americans did appear to be sociopaths a few months ago [during the election],”

Again, what's he talking about? Can't he even get basic facts straight? If he's referring to votes, or voters, it makes no sense given 65,844,954 voters went for Hillary and  62,979,879 for Donald Trump. So where is this "70 million"?  How does this number enter to support his daft claims? If he's trying to tie it into the Boomers it's a lost cause, a fool's errand.

Gibney in his generalized twaddle claims a hallmark of the boomer is an inability to plan for the future, financially and otherwise. He writes:

 “They really just don’t save, and all these personal behaviors translate into international policy. Climate is another indicator of improvidence and lack of empathy — they don’t care really care about the environment, just about themselves.”

Really? Seriously? Then how come I, along with many of my friends and relatives (also Boomers) were able to save and do it conscientiously?  As for climate, last I checked, many of my posts the past year have been about climate change and the need for people to take cognizance of leaving a habitable world for future generations. My friends and relatives are also of the same mind, and most of us belong to groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and Waterkeepers' Alliance.  If we didn't care why are we walking to the grocery instead of using cars, recycling assiduously, and eschewing beef (as too water intensive)?    Why are many of us also invested to the extent of Will planning? Again, Gibney uses over-generalization like a narcotic. Hell, mayhap he was on a narcotic when he wrote this termite bait book.

His worst travesty is accusing us of "generational plunder". Accusing us wholesale  of  “the mass, democratically-sanctioned transfer of wealth away from the young and toward the Boomers,” and "making a mess of Social Security and Medicare",

This actually takes a page from one equally uninformed NY Times letter writer,  Daniel Bronheim, who reached full throated pitch and bile as he wrote three years ago:

 “The rising cost of Social Security and Medicare has for a generation crowded out adequate government investment in infrastructure, education and research. It has meant a huge and unjustified transfer of wealth from the young to the elderly, especially when it’s being funded by borrowing from the future”.

Bronheim, like Gibney,  gets his perceptual panties in a twist over elderly greed, but in fact, if he had more brains or common sense he’d recognize it’s the expanded military industrial complex which now consumes 58 percent of current expenditures. THAT is what’s responsible for leaving his younger generation with debt, poor job outlook, and transferred wealth. Does this nitwit not know, for example, that the Bushies pilfered Social Security monies to pay for their illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Yes, the Bushies were largely Boomers, but they were amongst the 5 % of sociopaths, not the much larger proportion of decent, hard working teachers, doctors, scientists, former Peace Corps volunteers I knew.

Gibney at numerous points goes into full blown hysteria blaming the boomers for nearly everything perceived as bad: abortion, divorce, overeating, high inflation, taking deferments during Vietnam, failing to launch a mass movement calling for the rebuilding of Vietnam after the war, crime, poor educational standards, corporate tax rates, adjunct professors.

All of which goes to show how uncritical, undisciplined thinking can lead one down the garden path to verbal chaos and total lack of credibility.   The inveighing against abortion is especially choice. So I can only presume he'd have preferred we go back to letting women use coat hangers to do their own abortions. Else what?  His bellyaching about "taking deferments during Vietnam" also strikes a note of discord given Vietnam was an illegal war anyway. It was hatched by LBJ under false pretenses using the Tonkin Gulf Resolution after it was claimed that two U.S. gunboats (the Maddox and Turner Joy) were fired on without provocation in international waters.

Perhaps the best clue this fool hasn't a clue and his book belongs in the nearest dumpster is when he makes reference to: “Pat Robertson fulminating about homosexuals, feminists, and praying for the deflection of hurricanes while his website minions opined on the afterlife of pets.”   Blissfully unaware that Robertson was born in 1930, 16 years  before the oldest boomer.  Is this a one off error? Fuck no. Gibney also has words for “feckless non-entities like Marco Rubio.” But Rubio, born in 1971, is nearly a decade younger than the youngest boomers.  If this goober doesn't even know the definition of a Baby Boomer, i.e. the year span defined for one to be a Boomer, how can he write about them?  It would be analogous to me writing about solar sprites and calling them sunspots!

If this mentally deficient asshole doesn't even know who qualifies as a Boomer and who doesn't,  why take anything he writes seriously?

Gibney complains that “many young boomers leapt at the neo-Malthusian nonsense peddled in the 1960s and 1970s by a slightly older generation of writers.”  Thereby trying to indict Paul Ehrlich (b. 1932), who wrote “The Population Bomb”.  Again, he misfires on Ehrlich being a Boomer, given he was born 14 years before 1946, the date of the oldest boomers' birth. Apart from that there is no "neo-Malthusian nonsense" as the world IS overpopulated in terms of limited resources. So, he's also a know nothing on this topic as well, see  e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/earth-day-alert-biggest-problem-remains.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/human-overpopulation-contributig-to.html

This derelict, delirious twit even criticizes Al Gore as "anti-environment"  and "a pork-barreling scenery wrecker.”  Huh?  Since when?

Beyond all that codswallop Gibney pronounces that:  “the story of the past forty years has been the substitution of sentiment for science” and that “the Boomers were the first modern generation to harbor really negative feelings about reality and science.”

Really? Seriously? That's not what I've beheld in the various scientific organizations I've been a member of including the American Astronomical Society and the American Geophysical Union. These include cooperative research projects as well as papers presented at conferences.  What I saw was more substitution of "sentiment" for science in the Gen X'ers and Millennials - including too many of them carrying on with the bunkum that the Sun and "natural cycles" are responsible for global warming not CO2.

So I've no idea what Gibney is blabbering about.

Gibney is also glib in dismissing Boomers at making any positive contributions, period, from major advances in medicine and science, to arts and culture, to  civil rights and the rights of women, disabled people and gay people.  Did he even hear of the Civil Rights Act? Does he know (or care) how many Boomers literally put their bodies on the line- subjected to truncheon beatings and dogs?  This was when they joined the Freedom Marchers to Alabama, and Mississippi in 1964-66?  This was to help in signing up African-Americans for voter registration. Many I knew who left for MS while at Loyola returned so badly injured they were unable to continue their educations.  One, "Marty" from NYC, had to return home to recuperate after having his skull fractured by a racist pig's bat.

Other Boomer voting rights assistants were shot at and lost their lives, like those who accompanied and helped Viola Liuzzo in one of her voter drives. Does this piece of shit even know about that?  Does he know or grasp how the Boomers marching against the Vietnam War brought it to an earlier close? Or how Boomer journalists who trained cameras on the slaughter  and indiscriminate butchery (My Lai massacre)  assisted as well?  He also has some damned nerve carping about "rebuilding" in Vietnam after LBJ and Generals had much of the place "blowtorched" using napalm.

Is he aware of the Boomer engineers and scientists who helped put men on the Moon (later Apollo missions)? Who also designed the Viking craft for the Mars encounter in 1976 and contributed numerous experiments, research for Shuttle missions? Is he remotely aware of the Boomer scientists who helped make great advances in antibiotics, as well as more improved tests for cancer using enhanced technologies?  What about the advances made in fields from nutrition to gerontology which many of my Peace Corps colleagues also participated in?  How about the sheer number of us who returned home from volunteer assignments overseas to volunteer again in our own communities?

Yes, some of my generation were narcissists - but more were idealists - who believed in such moral ideals as equal rights for all, equal pay for both genders, and using science to advance humanity. The Boomer generation did have its share of sociopaths, but again, no  more than in later generations, such as Gen X and Millennials. (See, for example, the flick 'American Psycho' about a Gen X Wall Street broker sociopath and psychopath)

As I noted above, the chief problem of Gibney - apart from not recognizing who was a Boomer and who wasn't - is his tendency to wildly conflate. In the latter case he regularly conflates the Woodstock counterculture types ("hippies"), with the moderate liberal types (who served in Peace Corps or VISTA instead,  like me)  and their ideological right wing opposites.   So no surprise that by mixing the descriptions of all these groups in one pot he comes out with bare balderdash. Or,  as my Caribbean friends would say, Calalloo soup.

A perfect example of Gibney's "calalloo" - inspired Boomer bollocks is when he writes:

“As a group, the Boomers managed to be simultaneously for the war and against serving in it. Their responses to Vietnam were confused,”

But "they" weren’t confused, because "they" is not one homogeneous population.  Unless one is a congenital  ignoramus he cannot describe the Boomers by writing about us indiscriminately as an entire group. The reason is that the Boomers actually comprised three differing populations (at least)  as I indicated. By conflating them, Gibney ends up with gibberish and balderdash while committing the fallacy of composition.. What should he have done? Simple! Write:  "One faction of Boomers was pro-War and another was anti- War and marched against it, while another faction opposed the War but didn't actively inveigh against it choosing instead alternative service".  More complicated? Yes, but more honest, a trait Gibney seems to lack as much as Trump.

The takeaway of all this is that if you're going to write about the Baby Boomers be sure you don't over generalize, but instead grasp that separate factions comprised this generation. It also helps, when singling out the supposed travesties of individuals, you know whether indeed they are truly Boomers - or part of a different generation.

The conclusion for me is that Gibney's effort has only one practical use - as toilet paper if you're ever marooned on some island.

Millennials Need to Stop Whining About the Boomers!

Let's face it, the Baby Boomers have been a target of easy opportunity for all manner of nattering nabobs of negativity, who insist we Boomers are about to usher in the fall of civilization as we know it. From Arch-Boomer nemesis, Robert Samuelson who blames “entitlements” for an approaching fiscal train wreck, to a spate of authors – including P.J. O'Rourke, Joe Klein and  David Willets (in his book, ‘How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future and Why They Should Give It Back’)

Now enter a whiny Millennial, Alexander S. Balkin, who in a recent Salon piece (‘Boomers Ruined America’) cried for over 1,000 words on how terrible, amoral and  greedy the Baby Boomers are with choice shots such as:

The perfect example of this was the 2008 collapse of the toxic housing debt market. In government, baby boomers ballooned the defense budget beyond the point of reason. They then raided government programs to pay for their mistakes. Regarding the environment, baby boomers left the United States reliant on coal (cough, cough) while eroding the advanced nuclear energy infrastructure built by their parents. We can thank baby boomer leadership for a nation that has no sound policy on foreign affairs, the environment, energy, social welfare, human rights, terrorism, technology development, education, debt, etc. The point being, baby boomer leadership has provided America with a government that is the most partisan and self-serving the union has ever seen, and remains entirely reactive to the world around it.

All of which is over-generalized mush – can you say “fallacy of composition” i.e. when one claims that what is true of a part is true of a whole?  In this case, the “Boomers” he is referring to make up about 5 percent of the total generation. These are the entitled, 'silver spoon in the mouth'  twerps like Gee Dumbya Bush – who got his Harvard education via a legacy entitlement, and who – once elected- set the nation on a course of perpetual fear (following 9/11) , perpetual war (with defense budgets to match)  and massive oil  & coal dependency (well, BOTH Bush and Cheney were oilmen, after all, duh!)

But this twerp Balkin makes no distinction between that enclave of miscreants and the vast mass of Boomers – like me – who gave blood, sweat and tears either fighting in Vietnam for a war those like Bush instigated (in that case, LBJ – fawning fool for the Texas oilmen and military industrial complex) or serving in Peace Corps (as I did for 4 years) or some other volunteer mode. Yet this guy blames us and essentially dumps us all into the same mix as the Bushite- Neocon- Maul Street shyster  subset of Boomers!  This lack of rational discrimination alone calls into question his credibility in writing the piece.

As for the 2008 financial meltdown, don’t even get me started. But if this guy Balkin had a clue he could have researched and excavated the actual background – which can be boiled down to those of the elite Bushie-mold ilk creating credit default swaps and mixing them up with valid bonds and labeling the whole AAA. Those who want more information (and that especially includes Mr. Balkin)  can go here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/lights-go-out-on-dismal-science-long.html

Also, the historical causes of multi-nation financial meltdown are a lot less obvious than picking on one highly visible demographic.  If you want the supreme distillation it can basically be summed up in two parts: 1) trashing the Bretton Woods Global Finance Agreement (1973), and 2) Launching numerous wars of choice which have not only cost blood but enormous treasure.

In the case of Bretton Woods, while it wasn’t perfect it did provide a more equitable global basis for competition and trade than what’s in place now – based on such travesties as G.A.T.T., NAFTA and World Trade Organization fiats (which sent millions of American jobs overseas). Worse, with the collapse of Bretton Woods, global currencies went from a fixed exchange rate system to a floating system. Only years after did many of the creators of the latter realize what an error they had made, and how much they facilitated currency speculation –especially in the carry trade. Since the Asian crisis in 1997, currency raiders have splattered the reserves of a number of nations as governments have watched helplessly. Only most recently, this piracy has reached new heights via the used of “naked credit default swaps” for speculators to bet on national collapse (as in Greece) with NO money on the table of their own.

If one now factors in how things have changed since 1973, one begins to see why the “younger generation” has been placed in economic peril – and it isn’t from the Boomers! For one thing, floating exchange rates and currency raids have allowed the dollar’s strength to deteriorate. This is called “currency debasement” and it’s been used over and over in recent decades for not very salutary purposes. For example, the Bush government used it to make the cost of domestic goods cheaper (via a cheaper dollar) to try to reduce the U.S. trade deficit.

Then again, the global market tyranny that has replaced Bretton Woods, has enabled millions and millions of high paying, relatively secure jobs (especially in manufacturing, but more recently in computer software specialties) to be shipped offshore to places like Bangalore and Beijing. Minus those higher benefits, higher paying jobs, Americans have barely been able to make ends meet – and this partly explains their stupendous reliance on credit card – to make up for their lost income. Young people, caught in this vortex, will obviously not see the same economic security as their parents who held steady good paying jobs with top benefits, to the extent that one could even afford to stay home. The now (nearly extinct) single income family!

Now, to this, add in all the wars  (Bushie instigated- without higher taxes to pay for them) which have bled down the national treasury (as I noted by an estimated $6 trillion – not even counting whacked out “defense” spending such as the $2.1 trillion under Reagan) and you have the basis for an economic Armageddon. Because make no mistake, SOMEONE had to pay or will have to pay, for those wars. Who is holding most of the bonds right now? Chinese and Japanese bankers – to the tune of nearly $2 trillion. Who will get the bill in the future? Our kids and grand kids, because their cowardly government didn’t have the brains or insight not to try to act like the world’s cop – and especially (in the Bush years) launching a full scale war against robed lunatics when a localized police or intel action could have been effective.

They preferred to bankrupt us, as Osama bin Laden always wanted – playing into his hands. Nor did they have the inner fortitude, given they got their war vote (by reconciliation no less) , to at least mandate the taxes to pay for it.  They preferred instead to use future taxes (and higher interest rates) to pay for it, but on the backs of future generations.

Yet now the smarmy asses in congress that voted for these war travesties and their humongous costs, want to say we haven’t the money for decent health care reform.

No, the Boomers are not the ghouls they’re made out to be by the likes of David Willet  or Alexander S. Balkin.  One of whom (Willet)  blames us for having too few children to increase our wealth relative to theirs and the other blames us for everything from the credit crisis to exploding defense budgets and overt dependence on fossil fuels.  Neither displays any grasp of reality and therein lies the problem. Because minus test in reality and hard evidence you don't know what you're talking about. 

People need to wake up, stop their blame game, and examine who the real culprits are in this forlorn multinational debt and war miasma. One thing for sure: Boomers do not need to “give back” anything to the next generation. What we do have to offer is our insight, and best advice. It’s up to the young ‘uns to take it or leave it, but if they leave it – don’t blame us for their predicament and lack of political smarts.

If I had one piece of advice for the likes of Balkin and his compatriots, it would be to put down the Ipods, smart phones and Twitter access and head to the library to do some serious reading: on history, politics and economics especially. To see first hand how you got to where you are without having to rely on simplistic scapegoats....like a whole generation. Knowledge is the key to your liberation, not picking on a large group that in many ways has been victimized as much or worse than you and for a longer time.

And btw, despite Balkin's claims we were somehow all privileged and got it all handed to us, I will have him know that most of us weren't favored sons like George W. Bush. We either had to get scholarships to attend university or student loans. And after graduating we educated ourselves on the basics of the political system and economics - our parents didn't have the time to dote because they were too busy working.

Before Mr. Balkin or others of his generation go after the Boomers again, they may wish to pick up a copy of my book, The Elements of the Corporatocracy – to see how Millennials really ended up where they are:

 http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/philip-a-stahl/the-elements-of-the-corporatocracy/paperback/product-18649133.html

 See also:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/will-millennials-save-us-all.html

Joe Klein Loses It: Blames Baby Boomers for "Current Political Mess" in 'TIME' Tirade

Neolib hack Joe Klein, in his latest TIME column ("Apocalypse Now", Oct. 21, p. 18) goes even further off the deep edge of pseudo-journalistic lunacy than he did back in the spring. Recall at that time, Klein put those of  us who challenged Obama on the Chained CPI issue (for Social Security) in the same "extremist" league as the NRA - which had recently mounted a counter-legislative initiative to shoot down a weak gun control law.  Klein had responded to a letter by Howard Dean’s brother who had sent out a letter headed ‘Disgusted’ with the subtitle: ‘President Obama’s Budget Has Left me Disgusted’. I had asked at the time if Klein was nuts or just plain stupid.


Now he's one-upped that display of stupidity with his latest broadside against the Boomers. He actually puts them in the same class as the Tea Party, if one can believe it, using the dubious basis that both were into "street theater, bombast and showtime" and yeah - we were "every bit of solipsistic" as the Tea Baggers. Jeebus! So Klein actually gets paid good money to write this bollocks?  In fact, we were a damned sight more educated than the Tea Bag crowd, and far more idealistic. We didn't carry "Don't Tread on Me" signs and wear funny hats but we did actually mount enough large demonstrations to be one major agent that brought an end to the illegal Vietnam war.

As for "solipsistic", uh, no, Joe! We went out into the world to express and manifest our idealism, such as volunteering as Peace Corps volunteers to actually help vulnerable, developing nations set up agricultural projects, effective health assistance and educational consolidation. We didn't march into streets bearing real loaded guns because we didn't approve of a health care law, or try to shut the fuckin' government down!

Klein, to his minimal credit does admit:

"I am not saying the baby boom generation caused the government shutdown, but we've presided over an era during which public trust in government has been demolished. We've allowed the influence of concentrated money to corrupt our democracy."

But Klein has the wrong bad guys. In fact, I can show it was the government itself - at the time just after the Kennedy assassination (the pivotal event from which most polls disclose trust seriously  plummeted) that incepted the most profound public cynicism and distrust in the government. This government was mainly dominated by the "greatest generation" and it was they - the likes of LBJ, Earl Warren, Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, David Belin et al who by their dastardly cover up of the crime of the century - led to our current political morass and descent. The concentrated money? JFK had plans and proposals to limit that influence, but the gangster state didn't want it and murdered him. The cover up in the wake ensured no one would be any the wiser, but most of the American people were and saw beyond the façade

But specific  examples are needed to show this. And there's no better place to start than the lies,  deceits, and shenanigans of the Warren Commission itself. Perhaps no other judicial confection or whitewash has done more to irreparably damage public trust in government than this politically-appointed entity whose job was to cover up the real actors in the assassination of one of the most beloved presidents - who also threatened the establishment.

Let's examine in detail Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford's own specific role in upending history by concealing the truth. This is visible in the draft shown below wherein he altered key words, sentences to mislead on the bullet to Kennedy's back:


The initial draft of the report had  stated:


"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford altered it to read:

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."


A comparison of the above, deliberate change (referencing a wound in the back of the neck)  to the photograph below from the autopsy,  shows clearly Ford sought to lie, since the bullet hole had clearly been marked in the back. Ford intentionally wanted the document to conform with the single bullet myth! Ford is one part of the thousands of reasons the public came to mistrust government in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. Because if we couldn't trust government to perform this task, the faithful and judicious investigation of the slaughter of a sitting president, then it wasn't worth diddly spit or squat. And if it lied in its investigation-  to cover up the truth, then it couldn't be trusted!

Actual photo from Kennedy autopsy (but with rear of skull cosmetically replaced by mortician's plaster)  shows Ford is an inveterate liar.


Worse for Ford,  assassination eye-witnesses, including at least one Secret Service Agent in Dealey Plaza and several FBI agents (present at the Bethesda autopsy), placed the president's back wound exactly where the mute testimony of the president's jacket and shirt (and the above photo)  showed: six inches below the collar line.

The original autopsy sheet, including the placement and description of the back wound, was signed and verified by Admiral George Gregory Burkley, personal physician to the president who directed the autopsy at Bethesda. He verified the back wound placement on November 24th. That death certificate revealed the back wound to be, in the Admiral's own words, at the president's "third thoracic vertebra.”  The neck has seven CERVICAL vertebrae, and this observed and verified wound was described as three THORACIC vertebrae lower than the neck itself.

Let’s bear in mind that it was Gerry Ford  (who was no baby boomer!)  who originally suggested that the panel change its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back to place it higher up in his body. He knew, as did the others (including Arlen Specter, the author of the single bullet malarkey) that such changes were needed to make it fly and "disprove" conspiracy. Oh me, oh my, perish the thought of any conspiracy! We couldn't have the American people believe we were just another Banana Republic!

The final report then read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." Ford insisted this was “a small change, …intended to clarify meaning, not alter history”. But alter history is exactly what it did! For by altering the original autopsy report, Ford and his cohorts succeeded in conferring a measure of validity on Specter’s single bullet theory. This is despite the fact that analysis of the resulting trajectory doesn’t even conform to basic laws of Newtonian dynamics! Alas the only mention ever made of this perfidy was in the back pages of The New York Times nearly 33 years after the event.(See below)

But the change - though described as "ever so slight" in terms of wording, altered the whole basis for the Warren Conclusion! The Ford editing documents, on which the Times snippet was based, were made public by the Assassination Records Review Board. This agency had been set up by Congress (under the JFK Records Act) to compile all available evidence in the Nov. 22, 1963, murder. The documents had been part of the personal files of the late J. Lee Rankin, the Warren Commission's general counsel. If not for The JFK Records Act, we’d have never known about Gerald R. Ford’s tampering with the autopsy report in order to force it to show what he wanted, as opposed to the truth needed.


It’s sad to think that yet another of our sitting Presidents had a hand in deforming history, but the evidence is there and it’s not pretty! A year later, Ford produced his  own whitewash book Portrait of the Assassin, which was one of the most noisome put–up jobs ever, attempting to single out Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole perpetrator. But what would you expect of a lying scumball and one of those I blame for destroying public trust.

Which, by the way, he compounded when he pardoned Richard Milhous Nixon in 1974 - allowing the scumball who defiled the Constitution to walk free without impeachment - and doing it under the obvious nonsense of "preserving our national unity" when instead, it emboldened others to pursue even more arcane conspiracies and treachery  - such as the Iran -Contra conspiracy of Reagan.

Trust? Baby Boomers responsible for destroying public trust? Take your head out of your ass, Klein, and look at the numerous examples of how our own esteemed public "servants" spat upon their duty to truth, the Constitution and law and then tell me about destroying public trust.

The actual original description of the back wound placement was described thusly:

"in the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measure to be 14 cm from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process."

Which conforms to the location shown in the autopsy image. (
This wound placement - as described in the autopsy report reference (above) and shown in the photograph, is also clearly deduced by reference to the detailed anatomical diagrams in Gray's Anatomy.) 

 

All of the above, mean that the position reported by the Warren Commission (and engineered by Gerald Ford's alterations)  was intended  to mislead the public  as to the placement of this crucial wound, so as not to undermine the entire underpinning of the single bullet theory. It was this poppycock and malarkey on which Oswald's guilt was predicated along with the other deceptions, including fake FPCC (Fair Play for Cuba Committee) handbills as reported by John Newman (Oswald and the CIA)

Worse, it discloses that the autopsists themselves may have been complicit, i.e. lied, to make the single bullet theory work. This claim is reinforced by the fact that on their original Autopsy Body Chart, they did correctly identify the location - not in the base of the neck (as their WC  testimony averred) but six inches lower (as depicted in the diagram  above). Thus, either they falsified the facts in their testimony, or the Warren Commission itself did, to make them compatible with their single bullet nonsense. Added cogency comes from knowing that one of the Warren-appointed autopsists, Dr. J.J. Humes, burned his original autopsy notes[1].  Humes was also the only one who claimed to have detected a bullet wound in the rear of JFK’s head

As for John Connally, he is clearly hit at two different times, around Z236, where he is seen dropping his right shoulder and puffing out his cheeks[2], and still with Stetson in right hand (so no wrist bullet could have entered by then) . Later, at about Z328, when the hat is no longer held (since the wrist has been hit). Connally's wife, Nellie, the lone limo survivor - also bears this out in a diary retrieved from that fateful day, in which she pointedly notes two shots - separately to her husband and JFK (prior to the fatal head shot)[3]

This totally refutes the Warren Commission's egregious 'magic bullet'  theory. While Mrs. Connally still accepts their 'lone gunman' conclusion, this diverges logically from her own observations of 2 separate bullets - since if one disposes of the 2-for-1 shot compression, a de facto 'minimal' conspiracy scenario materializes - as there are now too many shots in the allowed time frame. This was the reason the Warrenites needed the artifice of the  'single / magic bullet' theory to begin with.

 

In effect, if one rejects the Warren Commission's 'magic bullet' theory they also (logically) must reject its 'lone gunman' conclusion, whether they realize that or not.

Reinforcing this is the fact that, had Gov. Connally been hit at frame 230 (as single bullet adherents posit) he would have had to continue holding his heavy white Stetson for about another second and a half,  AFTER being shot in the right wrist. Anatomically, this is nonsense. Close examination of the key frames discloses he firmly retains his grip on his Stetson between right thumb and forefinger.

It is the ulnar nerve which permits this apposition. But any bullet fired  into the wrist (i.e. at Z-230) would have severed that nerve, making any  grasp of his Stetson totally impossible. Hence, lone nut adherents are asking that we subscribe to a physically impossible situation.

As for the usual lone nut rejoinder that he 'suffered a delayed reaction'. this is also nonsense. Stretching the laws of physical, anatomical nature just as violently as the single bullet lunacy tortures the Newtonian laws of physics into deformed caricatures. These caricatures become subservient to political agendas rather than natural laws.

The honest inquirer is left to ask: Why are these biological/neurological and mechanical laws being so desperately convoluted and deformed? To serve a politically expedient solution and a contrived whitewash that seeks to dismiss the real evidence and replace it with a plausible sounding substitute which is totally fictitious .

If Joe Klein really wants to know the exact point at which public trust in government dissipated let him re-examine the follies and fraud of the Warren Commission and its Report which deliberately lied to the American people regarding the slaughter of a sitting president - and which offal and decay has carried forward to our present because it's never been honestly addressed.  Until this festering wound on the body politic is finally examined rigorously and honestly, with the motives of the assassination courageously exposed, the corruption in our system will only get worse. You don't survive a gangrenous wound by ignoring it, or "looking beyond it" (as Larry Sabato suggested in his recent CBS Early show interview) but by confronting it, dealing with it and hopefully healing it!

 

---

 

 

---

[1] High Treason, p. 73.

[2] Groden, op. cit., p. 27.

[3] TODAY show interview, aired November 19, 1998.