The Rich Are Still Getting Richer

[Lanval]

war between generations is only slightly more strange than between genders.

Might want to tell that to the older generations ~ they're are the near exclusive purveyors of the ideology that a given generation are in some way deficient; by the way, the older generation is currently the Baby Boomers. Surprised, don't be; here's a book I've assigned for my classes to read, so that they can understand the utter contempt that the Baby Boomers as a generation hold for the youth of today:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dumbest-Gener ... 1585426393

of course, this complete and utter garbage was pawned off on my generation too (printed in 87):

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American- ... 401&sr=1-1

aaaannnndddd the generation before that (yep, the Greatest Generation lambasting the intellect of the Baby Boomers (printed in 55))

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Johnny-Cant-R ... 0060913401

Note that as you move forward in time, the accusations become much harsher, and broader. BB kids couldn't read. My generation were failed students. Today's kids are simply stupid. Maybe "wars between generations" are stupid, but it's nearly always the old who do so in ways that have profound effects. It's rare that the youth can do anything more than yell, "Yeah, Yeah!" over their shoulder as they avoid the psychotic belittling of their parents' generation.

Michael L

[ruckman101]

Ahh you don't know nuthin' old man.



neal

[Amskeptic]

Ahh you don't know nuthin' old man.
neal

We have been limiting our children and our young with labels since forever. "Hey you little brat, you are a Gen (fill in the blank) so you suck."

We all arrive at adulthood with our larger social context defining the boundaries within which we must make our way. Yes, "Baby Boomers" often had parents who had rich private pathologies that were hidden by the social norms of the day. Generation X or Y or whatever had helicopter narcissistic boomer parents who in many deep ways abandoned their children to material excess and spiritual paucity, but they did a better job of raising kids free of private pathologies, and they did a better job of raising kids with a greater awareness of the larger world. Hell, who can say that if "the greatest generation" did *not* have a war to pull them together, or if they *did have* this stunning advertising machine ubiquitous television culture that catered to comfort and excess, that they wouldn't be just as (whatever Lanval thinks) . . . ?
I say more nuance and less blame, LANVAL.
Colin

[HiRoller]

To me, this post lists a series of pronouncements which are to be taken on face value, without any proof or reference to statistics, or some other source that might reasonably be seen to support the claims, as a response to a detailed explanation that I've given, with additional links to support my argument.

I think some on this thread may primarily have some hesitations about your sweeping generalizations, which are erroneous, and targeted age group, which is ludicrous. I'll repeat for a third time ... history and its accompanying facts are a continuum, not segmented into tidy components.

It's well known in academia that statistics are the easiest of all to spin, misinterpret and misconstrue which is why they are a favorite media fodder.

And those who post rants saturated with numerous statistical and favorite pundet links know full well most do not have either the time or inclination to spend two weeks of their lives trying to read it all. This seems to be a rather neurotic defensive approach toward constructing a position with a seemingly overwhelming amount of supporting dubious data to validate their position.

It's very analogous to what the mainstream media is doing today, ranging from innuendo all the way up to ... it's not what is reported but what is omitted ... to sway public opinion.

It's the reason why I don't include links in a debate ... in this case I don't need to ... I lived through all of it and as a historian with other skills I use critical scientific methodology rather than media hype and unilateral pundits as the primary means toward deriving any truisms.

Generally speaking, and with all due respect, his position on this particular thread has no credibility with me since I know better. Benefits of knowledge, age and experience. My only sadness is, again, with claims of indoctrinating children into the FFA.

[Amskeptic]

To me, this post lists a series of pronouncements which are to be taken on face value, without any proof or reference to statistics, or some other source that might reasonably be seen to support the claims, as a response to a detailed explanation that I've given, with additional links to support my argument.

this is in fact my problem with Colin's response ~ rather than show me contradictory readings, people, experts or otherwise who resist the interpretation that I offer here (and that is supported by many, many others in popular AND academic realms),

he argues that my conceptualization of the Baby Boomers as a collective identity is false. Fine; show me otherwise; link to something, somewhere that undermines this argument, and we'll talk like adults.

This is not an academic symposeum. It is a group, a fine group of intelligent people who really don't need to prove anything, but rather just share impressions gathered along interesting lives. That is what we do here.
Did you know, Lanval, that I don't have to prove myself beyond the small easily observable "proofs" like that your engine is actually running when I offered that it might. That is where I live. I have other small proofs in my life, that came from less from readings and others and experts and more from results. Certain human souls who came out of silent places, their journeys not subjected to labelled generalizations. No psychological mumbo blabbo, just results. That is where I live too. You remember that I fled academia for the sunshine. You apparently want some proofs, some experts weighing in that Baby Boomers are not all a bunch of assholes. No, I am not wasting that time with that one. I do not personally know one real babybooming arrogant selfish butthead here on this forum. Statistically, that helps me blow off your academic proofs. I do know of some real arrogant selfish buttheads sprinkled throughout the entire range of living humans, some close to me, sure.
And they all dilute your exclusive scoop on the poopy boomers.

You know, my BB cohort is presiding over a precipitous drop in crime and certain unhealthy causes of death. Give us a goddamn gold star, NOW dammit.
Colin
(HiRoller is that your doublecab?)

[Lanval]

HiRoller:

Your argument amounts to:

I am a Baby Boomer
I lived it
I know better than you
You are wrong


You've proved my point better than I could.

[Lanval]

To me, this post lists a series of pronouncements which are to be taken on face value, without any proof or reference to statistics, or some other source that might reasonably be seen to support the claims, as a response to a detailed explanation that I've given, with additional links to support my argument.

this is in fact my problem with Colin's response ~ rather than show me contradictory readings, people, experts or otherwise who resist the interpretation that I offer here (and that is supported by many, many others in popular AND academic realms),

he argues that my conceptualization of the Baby Boomers as a collective identity is false. Fine; show me otherwise; link to something, somewhere that undermines this argument, and we'll talk like adults.

This is not an academic symposeum. It is a group, a fine group of intelligent people who really don't need to prove anything, but rather just share impressions gathered along interesting lives. That is what we do here.
Did you know, Lanval, that I don't have to prove myself beyond the small easily observable "proofs" like that your engine is actually running when I offered that it might. That is where I live. I have other small proofs in my life, that came from less from readings and others and experts and more from results. Certain human souls who came out of silent places, their journeys not subjected to labelled generalizations. No psychological mumbo blabbo, just results. That is where I live too. You remember that I fled academia for the sunshine. You apparently want some proofs, some experts weighing in that Baby Boomers are not all a bunch of assholes. No, I am not wasting that time with that one. I do not personally know one real babybooming arrogant selfish butthead here on this forum. Statistically, that helps me blow off your academic proofs. I do know of some real arrogant selfish buttheads sprinkled throughout the entire range of living humans, some close to me, sure.
And they all dilute your exclusive scoop on the poopy boomers.

You know, my BB cohort is presiding over a precipitous drop in crime and certain unhealthy causes of death. Give us a goddamn gold star, NOW dammit.
Colin
(HiRoller is that your doublecab?)

Intelligent people don't dismiss the scientific method in the name of their own limited experience. But that's beside the point; look at Hiroller ~

Guy shows up, says "I'm a historian" like that's some kind of Jedi mind trick, and we should treat his statements as pronouncements from on high? You don't often see historians walking around making broad, anachronistic claims, and simultaneously dismissing the value of external citations (the single most important part of historical research) and then follows it up by attacking "sweeping generalizations" even as he uses the term "mainstream media" (apparently un-ironically)... seriously? I'm not allowed to make generalizations, but others are?

And to complete the unholy trifecta of anti-intellectual carnage, asserts (in an argument that the Baby Boomers are predisposed to be self-righteous, arrogant and dismissive of others) that he's right because he was there (self-righteous; and as if the perspectives of those who came after are invalid ~ an extraordinary claim for a historian to make!) and I'm wrong (dismissive), and he doesn't need any additional support for his argument (arrogant).

Colin, you say: "I do not personally know one real babybooming arrogant selfish butthead here on this forum."

Maybe you should look at this entire conversation with dispassionate eyes.

Enough. The community has spoken and I get nothing from a conversation that consists entirely of people calling me wrong, but without the necessary ethics or conviction to even explain why.

ML

[dingo]

Enough. The community has spoken and I get nothing from a conversation that consists entirely of people calling me wrong, but without the necessary ethics or conviction to even explain why.

yes, we poor earthly sods have a sparsity of ethics..and er....conviction...anything else? im trying to make a list in time for the next topic to emerge from the ivory tower

[HiRoller]

HiRoller:

Your argument amounts to:

I am a Baby Boomer
I lived it
I know better than you
You are wrong


You've proved my point better than I could.

If this is all you got out of what I said then I think it validates a few of my points =D>

[HiRoller]

look at Hiroller ~ Guy shows up, says "I'm a historian" like that's some kind of Jedi mind trick, and we should treat his statements as pronouncements from on high? You don't often see historians walking around making broad, anachronistic claims, and simultaneously dismissing the value of external citations (the single most important part of historical research) and then follows it up by attacking "sweeping generalizations" even as he uses the term "mainstream media" (apparently un-ironically)... seriously? I'm not allowed to make generalizations, but others are?

Hm-m-m ... that's about as defensive as it can get ... pulling phrases out of context, twisting meaning and intent. It's as if you're not really very confident with your own perspectives on this issue but refuse to budge ... perhaps from fear of losing face ?

And to complete the unholy trifecta of anti-intellectual carnage, asserts (in an argument that the Baby Boomers are predisposed to be self-righteous, arrogant and dismissive of others) that he's right because he was there (self-righteous; and as if the perspectives of those who came after are invalid ~ an extraordinary claim for a historian to make!) and I'm wrong (dismissive), and he doesn't need any additional support for his argument (arrogant).

... and more spins plus now trying to sway Colin to your side for moral support ?

Colin, you say: "I do not personally know one real babybooming arrogant selfish butthead here on this forum."

.... and repeatly tossing insults toward me and others on this thread as a last resort ?

look at Hiroller ~ Guy shows up

You got that right ... I've been following IAC since it's inception but a very recent poster.

Michael L. -- We've never met and I don't know you from Adam. For all I know you're the nicest guy and greatest Vw bus driver that ever was. But I felt I had something to say in response to such inaccuracy of which I've never heard before (except maybe from the Tea Party ) from anyone from any age group. You need to take a few steps back and look at the big picture, ditch the tunnelvision and dogma. Throwing comments back in people's faces doesn't make you look good.

History is a continuum. People of all ages have their people of great character and intestinal fortitude plus malice and greed. It's called being human. It cannot be reduced down to simple angry marginalization of any one age group. Everyone is born into an era with a palate of challenges. How everyone deals with such defines whether one is either part of the problem or the solution.

Instead of vitrolic backward finger pointing, perhaps you'd be better served offering some helpful solutions to the challenges du jour.

[Amskeptic]

Intelligent people don't dismiss the scientific method in the name of their own limited experience. But that's beside the point; look at Hiroller ~

And to complete the unholy trifecta of anti-intellectual carnage,

Maybe you should look at this entire conversation with dispassionate eyes.

Enough. The community has spoken and I get nothing from a conversation that consists entirely of people calling me wrong, but without the necessary ethics or conviction to even explain why.

ML

I am not calling you "wrong." I think many of the characterizations you offer are true of many people. I just will not categorize them by generation, boobie-poo.

Colin

( I have done my battles with academia, Lanval, I watched experts mangle the art of clinical psychology, I have had to spit out the ever-present dog hairs of the DSM-IV out of my understanding, I know how the "scientific method" in the Arts is used, it is not hard science, buddy, no way, it is a mixture of past precedent blabble and many subjective suppositions . . . )

[RussellK]

The sad part is in a large way I agree with Lanval. In many ways we have blown it. But then I also think we were unreasonably portrayed by media as being a generation apart from others in ways my own personal experience never saw. You just can't believe the hype. I don't think my peers ever dwelled much on it.

[Amskeptic]

The sad part is in a large way I agree with Lanval.

Heck, I do too, that's the thing. It is now, right now, that I question whether or not we human beings can rally and sally forth and tackle our pressing problems. The level of dialogue in our political sphere is not just distasteful, but tragically inadequate to the tasks at hand.

But to cast about and hammer a "generation" is a useless waste of time on the one hand, and it is entirely incapable of actually fixing anything.

Our "cohort" or whatever, got lost on the way to the American Dream, and I say it is because the American Dream was fatally flawed with its own notions of "exceptionalism".
Like the pretty children of whom I used to belong, there is a reckoning that always arrives, and if you coasted on old glories, well good luck to you in the present.
This reckoning, I would have told LanvalWhoWon'tListen, would have hit whoever happened to be there.
Colin

[RussellK]

maybe if we send him one of our little fluoride buttons

[HiRoller]

The sad part is in a large way I agree with Lanval.

Heck, I do too, that's the thing.

I think this highlights that while Mr. Lanval may feel indicted on all accounts by some on this thread, I suspect most if not all of us would agree with the observation that the rich are getting richer. The presented notions of the whats, whys and hows are what's being challenged/questioned and that's separate.

But the real challenge/question is what is the collective conciousness in the US going to do about it ? As Colin implies, do we have the necessary brain trust in positions of power and control now (or coming to the forefront from the wings) to favorably redirect our collective trajectory (and my response would be less than confident to put it politely) ? Or do we need another enlightment era of push back (my response is by all means but not anarchistic) ?

There are signs of something happening like the 'Occupy Wallstreet' thing but can it be sustained, can it enlist enough to be heard, and what sort of risk would everyone put themselves through in terms of your time, your financial status, your employment in order to attempt to have a favorable impact ? Usually these types of push backs come from the adult youth with far less to lose and much more to gain as long as their headquarters aren't in their hindquarters (as some may feel where the older people are now and where the younger people might be headed).

But then this time around some of the serious issues involve potential literal extinction for all so perhaps it would require more than just the adult youth to join in. Historically (and I just had to throw that in) and metaphorically it's always been a two steps forward, one step back thing. It seems we're currently mired in the latter.

Submitted for your consideration and critique.