4 ms·
The problem's not that they're a shallow generation. Actually, I think the Baby Boomers were a very idealistic generation, and this (paradoxically) has led to t
by time_management 18y ago
The problem's not that they're a shallow generation. Actually, I think the Baby Boomers were a very idealistic generation, and this (paradoxically) has led to the corrupt leadership. The civil rights activists, hippies, and leftists (with a few exceptions) didn't swing around to become the yuppies, sellouts, and corrupt political figures. Different people did.
My father's pretty similar to me in worldview, ethics, and politics. When he was growing up, he couldn't have even imagined working at a hedge fund; the concept of working for money was considered crass, if not repulsive. (He was actually quite incensed when I first said I was interested in trying out trading.) In 2007, it was perfectly normal for a liberal, idealistic young person to go and work for an investment bank or hedge fund, because that was seen as the best way to establish oneself and go far later (e.g. Jeff Bezos worked at Shaw before founding Amazon).
I would note that the problem with the Baby Boom generation isn't that they're "selfish". My parents aren't bad people. Nor were most of my teachers; they were great. On the whole, the Boomers aren't worse than the rest of us. The difference between them and us is that the better half of them almost entirely eschewed the career paths that led to power-- finance and corporate leadership-- leaving the shameless and greedy bastards to take control.
- ojbyrne 18y agoI think this is orthodox Neoconism. The baby boomers were hippies who did drugs, attacked the Vietnam war, questioned authority, promoted "free love", and so on. Most importantly, their independence of thought is what makes them "selfish." Contrasting them with the "Greatest Generation," whose lives were basically dictated to them when WW2 started, and supported the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. Can we call them the "Pleasantville Generation?" instead.
- anamax 18y ago< The baby boomers were hippies who did drugs, attacked the Vietnam war, questioned authority, promoted "free love", How'd that work out? > Contrasting them with the "Greatest Generation," whose lives were basically dictated to them when WW2 started, and supported the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. And the Soviets later revealed that there were Communists in the US govt and that they were trying to "influence" Hollywood. > Can we call them the "Pleasantville Generation?" instead. Whenever it comes down to "squares" vs "cool", you can be pretty sure that the "cool" will screw things up more. In other news, truth is not beauty and you have to be pretty stoned to think otherwise.
- ajkirwin 18y ago> Whenever it comes down to "squares" vs "cool", you can be pretty sure that the "cool" will screw things up more. How can you be so sure? They've never really had the chance.
- ojbyrne 18y agoI think it's fairly well documented that in amongst the hippies doing drugs were some key people involved in the creation of the computer, software, networking and internet industries.
- anamax 18y agohttp://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674 http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/06848326... Also, long hair and drugs doesn't make you "cool". (If it did, meth heads would be cool.)
- time_management 18y agoNeocons are an altogether strange phenomenon. Neocons aren't conservative or liberal, so much as they're opportunistic authoritarians. In the 1960s, when they were young and believed the Left stood a decent chance of overthrowing the US government, they were communists. They weren't the same people as the hippies or civil rights activists; they were the ones mobbing and beating up returned veterans in San Francisco. In the 1980s and '90s, when their generation and the conservative movement were firmly in power, they swung from the authoritarian left to the authoritarian right, which really aren't very far apart.
- DanielBMarkham 18y agoisn't "orthodox neocon" an oxymoron? How can you have a long-standing standard for a completely new phenomenon?
- ojbyrne 18y agoThey've been around since Reagan. And most of their principles and the key people appeared during Nixon's administration.
- hugh 18y agoIn that case the term "neocon" is sufficiently broad to be meaningless. We should probably make up new labels if nobody can agree on what this one means.
- ojbyrne 18y agoI'm not sure why. Because of the "neo?" There's plenty of things using that prefix that are no longer new - neoclassical economics, for example.