Sydney Morning Herald: Next Week the Boomers Go Bust

[Writer]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/next-week-the-boomers-go-bust/2008/10/29/1224956133877.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Either way next week, the US presidential election is the kiss of death to the short, unhappy rise to power of the baby-boomer generation. If Republican John McCain defies the polls and wins, it will be a repudiation of 16 years of Boomer rule. At 72, McCain's is the generation the Boomers disrespected.

[evlbstrd]

1. As if all boomers supported this shit.

I'm so tired of that smear.

[drmeow]

2. Huh - isn't Obama a boomer?

"... short, unhappy rise to power of the baby-boomer generation"

[Taverner]

8. Cusp

But like my mom, who is not a boomer but culturally identifies with them, he's Gen X

[drmeow]

11. 1946 to 1964

according to Wikipedia and most reports I've seen. This is the problem with the "Baby Boomer" label - the baby boom crossed multiple generations. The term needs to be dropped from the vernacular as it is essentially meaningless. Call the 1946 - 1955 kids the Post World War II Generation (I don't know what the 1956 - 1964 generation would then be called - the Pre-Reagan Generation? The lost Generation? The "quite frankly I could do without these stupid f**king labels" generation?.) Barack Obama was born during the post WWII baby boom making him a Cohort #2 Baby Boomer.

[Taverner]

13. There is a clear cultural identification

And it may be different than the media's, but it is fairly clear to me

And like I said, it doesn't have to do with age. My mother was born in the mid-thirties. Even though she was not a "boomer" she identified with this culture more than most did from her generation. My father, born a mere year before, did not identify with this movement.

[drmeow]

20. Which, as far as I'm concerned,

makes an even stronger case for the media calling an Obama win and McCain loss a repudiation of 16 years of Boomer rule patently absurd - which was my point. It is a repudiation of 8 years of right wing neocon rule, not Boomer rule.

[tsuki]

16. We always referred to them as the mini-boomers, post Korea.

They have an entirely different experience than the post WWII generation did.

I was born in 1947. Money was tight, wages were low, many were attending school on the GI Bill, school was the primary goal of parents for their children and we worked part-time, and then Viet-Nam and the draft.

My brother was born in 1955. Parents were more affluent, car in high school, paid college and no draft or Viet-Nam.

To lump everyone together from that time period is simplistic.

[SharonAnn]

17. Me too. We had almost no furniture when I was 8 but were country club members

when my younger sister was 8.

Big differences in my family with birth dates from 1946 to 1958.

[TexasObserver]

24. Yes. Huge difference between those born 1946-1954, and 1955-1964.

The earlier group experienced the full blown Vietnam, drug culture, civil rights battles, while the younger group pretty much chilled out on the relaxed world that was created by those battles having been fought.

One born in 1949, graduating high school in 1967, lived a much different world than his younger brother, born in 1957, graduating high school in 1975. One was Good Morning Vietnam. The other was Welcome Back Kotter.

[SharonAnn]

18. Me too. We had almost no furniture when I was 8 but were country club members

when my younger sister was 8.

Big differences in my family with birth dates from 1946 to 1958.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Not really true. I'm kind of an early boomer (born in '48), but others are almost two decades

younger than me. There could still be another 'boomer' president or two.

[MindPilot]

4. Sometimes you just gotta say...

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK?!

Does someone have that "not this shit again!" picture?

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. ...

[YvonneCa]

6. It's a non-issue article. All the author is saying...

...is that a page is being turned. Like we didn't know that...boomers included. It's about the future. As a boomer for Obama (and there are a LOT of us) that means let's care about the future of our children and our grandchildren.


It's moving to the 21st century...and beyond the 20th century. That's GOOD...even most boomers think so. It's about perfecting our union as a country. Also good.

When this election is done, I hope the data will show what is true...a huge percentage of 'boomers' voted OBAMA.

:patriot:

[Raksha]

22. Another boomer here (born 1946),

and I couldn't agree with you more!

Re All the author is saying...is that a page is being turned. Like we didn't know that...boomers included. It's about the future. As a boomer for Obama (and there are a LOT of us) that means let's care about the future of our children and our grandchildren.


It's moving to the 21st century...and beyond the 20th century. That's GOOD...even most boomers think so. It's about perfecting our union as a country. Also good.

When this election is done, I hope the data will show what is true...a huge percentage of 'boomers' voted OBAMA.

[YvonneCa]

26. Thanks, Raksha. It's very nice of you...

...to say so. :)

GObama!!! :7

[Taverner]

7. As an Xer I think this is spot on

Boomers, don't think of your individual nature but instead think of the part-media created part-real zeitgeist that was hoisted upon you.

[TexasObserver]

15. Your attempt to define boomers is downright silly.

Anyone who thinks categorizing people by generations that span close to 20 years each is valid is not a thinker.

You want to find a distinction that makes you feel better about yourself, and this is one contrivance that allows you to do so. Grow up, and accept that "generations" contain every kind of person, and one generation is not substantially different from the one that came before it or will follow it.

Your lack of world knowledge is what traps you. You've got a lot to learn, but cannot learn it if you try to blame other generations for the world you find lacking.

[Taverner]

23. Did you bother to read this line

Boomers, don't think of your individual nature but instead think of the part-media created part-real zeitgeist that was hoisted upon you.

[TexasObserver]

25. I rejected it, I didn't fail to read it.

My individual nature is irrelevant to the discussion. YOUR nature, however, is relevant to your comments. You buy into such notions as generations which have identifiable characteristics, like some silly astrologic classification.

[Howler]

9. Yo Dude!

I'm a boomer born in "59" I'm not going bust anytime soon. Sheesh.At 49 I am just coming into my own WTF.

[Samantha]

12. I feel the same way

I am in the middle of my life, and I am just starting to truly live. Did all the things I was supposed to do, finished them, and now it is time to enjoy my life. I bet you feel the same way!

Sam

[kiranon]

10. And your point is?

[TexasObserver]

14. Where do you find this drivel? And why do you post it?

Anyone who thinks there's such a thing as generational responsibility is truly, truly ignorant.

It's stupid when people grouse about younger generations, and it's stupid when they grouse about older generations. Only non thinkers even use such arguments. Societies evolve, and each generation is composed of vastly different individuals who share little in common except their years of birth.

[cliffordu]

19. I'm a boomer and I've been a refugee in my own country for 30 years.

[Tutonic]

21. Uh John McCain's generation was before the flood. hehe