At last, I finally see. Baby Boomers are everything wrong with society.

Started by Zeal Ex Nihilo13 pages

At last, I finally see. Baby Boomers are everything wrong with society.

For some time, I have been asking myself, "Where did the Republican party go wrong?" When did my party of small government and fiscal responsibility become the big government party of corporate greed and national debt? It was when the Baby Boomers took over.

Yes, the Boomers. The promiscuous "free love and do drugs" Boomers who epitomized hedonism in their early years. Woodstock, fornication, and Haight-Ahsbury defined them--all of them gluttons of the flesh, consuming everything pleasurable with no thought to moral consequence. And if that lifestyle had continued, the Boomers would have done us all a favor and died young, saving our country from the crushing weight of Medicare and Social Security.

But no, the Boomers grew up. They, like every college liberal, stepped out of their marijuana-induced haze of freedom and "**** the consequences" mindset, and they started working for a living. They put away their burning bras and LSD, and they became gainfully employed. And as they worked, they made money. As they made money, they embraced consumerism. And still at this time, America was mighty, and they gobbled up everything that capitalism offered to them. They delighted in their own decadence. But that wasn't enough for them. Nothing has ever been enough for the "Me" generation, nothing except for more, more, more.

Because then the 1980s hit, and Ronald Reagan became president. The Boomers at this time "got religion," so to speak. They condemned sin and lectured about abstinence, all the while their loose thighs tingled with the remembrance of sexual encounters past. Even in the Nixon years, they turned against the drugs they so happily imbibed in their youth, but Reagan was the height of Boomer self-indulgence. Reagan was the shining beacon of moral decay in America, when greed became good, when "**** y'all, I got mine" became the slogan of the Republican party.

And what did Reagan do as part of the Boomer legacy? He cut their taxes. He lied to us, told us that the rich would give us jobs if we gave them more money. He explained in that cheerful, disarming, charismatic way that he had about him--he explained that rugged individualism was the key to success in America. And the Boomers, the generation that did not know want, the generation that had grown up in an idyllic America, ate that shit right up. And how did they repay America for lowering their taxes? They shipped jobs overseas to see their stocks go up a point. They laid off thousands of workers to see a 2% profit increase. They took a giant, steaming dump all over America in the name of greed.

And what happened? Christianity became swallowed up by the Republican party and perverted so that it appealed to the Boomer generation. Instead of railing against greed and demanding that we provide for the poor, Christianity became twisted. It turned from a religion of peace and charity to a religion defined as pro-life and anti-sex. As long as a politician talked about "traditional values," the Boomer's warped, hypocritical Christian morals signed on. Military action in the Middle East? The destruction of working class America? The sanctioning of avarice? Well, as long as they were pro-life, it didn't matter. At least not to the Boomers.

And this is where things in America took a turn for the worse. The Republican party, once a party of relatively moderate, sane persons, took a turn to the right to appeal to the Boomer audience. Embracing greed and self-righteous piety, they welcomed the Boomers into their ranks. Now the party has borne the fruits of its labor: an aging populace known for their piggish, reactionary elements who shriek at the top of their lungs that the notion of anything remotely progressive is sinful or socialism.

And now what is left of the Republican party? Nothing resembling humanity. We have the liars and politicians assuring us that we need to give tax breaks to the rich so they'll give us jobs, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile. We have the religious authoritarians telling us that drugs are a sin and we need to keep them illegal, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile. We have the neoconservatives telling us that we need to send more of our soldiers to their deaths in the Middle East, and the Boomers nod their heads and smile.

And why shouldn't the Boomers agree? They're the wealthy business owners now, so they want tax breaks. They're done with drugs, so they don't mind if a new age of prohibition if upon us. They aren't in the military, so they don't care if our men and women die. In fact, as long as something doesn't affect the most selfish, self-indulgent generation in American history, they don't give a ****. Why else would they rail against "socialism" and "big government" while leeching off of Medicare and Social Security? Because they're worthless and a cancer on society.

And this is why the Republican party is bad. As long as the Boomers cast their blighted shadow on America, the party of small government and fiscal responsibility will remain the party of corporate greed and regressive social mores. The only hope for the party is for young, educated people to push aside the bloated carcass of the Boomer heritance and retake the Republican standard from the wretched grasp of the worst generation.

Re: At last, I finally see. Baby Boomers are everything wrong with society.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
At last, I finally see. Baby Boomers are everything wrong with society.

took you long enough

😉

actually, I agree in principle with this

Doesn't that make it their parent's fault? Shouldn't their parents have beat them more, or taught them the difference between right and wrong?

I think I heard Ben or Jerry, of Ben&Jerry's fame, or the guys who organized Woodstock say pretty much the same thing about their own generation.

I wouldn't take it personally, though. They didn't just screw up the Republican Party; they screwed up a lot of the American society. Some of it they screwed up after they got religion and stopped smoking pot. You make it sounds as though they started screwing everything up because they became responsible, greedy adults. But, there was nothing wrong with a lot of the ideas they had before they put down the peace pipe; gay rights, womens rights, gender equality, etc. It just seems as though they got really cranky after they had to get jobs. They couldn't handle smoking the odd joint AND growing up.

Edit: Oh, and now that you've identified the problem, how do you intend to take your party back from the corporatists the Boomers sold it to?

Hunter S talks about it, even in the Fear and Loathing movie while he is free-basing, the flower generation that gave up on peace and love for the 9-5 and SUVs.

The whole thing was doomed from the beginning. The "hippies" set up incredibly unrealistic ideas about how society could be reformed. Look at things like women's rights and the civil rights movement:

Women were already in universities, already had jobs. Sure, it wasn't equal, but they were already immancipated in most of the relevant ways because of their access to the market. Their economic power made people listen to them. Same with civil rights, if minorities weren't already in a position to leverage something against society (the strikes in Birmingham for instance), there would have been no need to give them equality.

I'm not trying to say things were great for either group, but hippies and the whole "peace and love" movement gets a lot more credit for things that they simply happened to be around at the same time as. Because of this, they got jaded when things like Altamont happened, and they realized that "freedom and love" weren't really nuanced ideas of social organization.

blah, press me and I'll rant about the BS rave scene and all that...

Originally posted by inimalist
blah, press me and I'll rant about the BS rave scene and all that...

press, press.

I spent a lot of time around that scene. Most of my stories begin with being hit on by some 20 year old sucking a pacifier and dangling glow sticks in front of me, and by the end of the night I was stepping over them to wash my hands after a piss because they were passed out on the bathroom floor.

Originally posted by skekUng
press, press.

I spent a lot of time around that scene. Most of my stories begin with being hit on by some 20 year old sucking a pacifier and dangling glow sticks in front of me, and by the end of the night I was stepping over them to wash my hands after a piss because they were passed out on the bathroom floor.

lol, ya, that almost certainly was me you were stepping over at one point. On the flip side, my finger dexterity is stupid-amazing. I also probably got carpal tunnel syndrome 🙂

I'll try to keep it in relation to the thread though...

So like, raves were full of drugged up people who professed nothing but peace and love for eachother. Lots of people really thought it was a movement, like something that was going to change the world. The term PLUR was thrown around, as if the people who got high and felt the togetherness that MDMA brings were really peaceful, loving, united and respectful, but in the end, it was a scene that was just as clique-y as all the others.

There is no real substance to these counter-culture movements, and when the drugs ware off, we are all still these lonely people looking for social acceptance. There was no real social or political organization behind the movement, which a lot of people thought there would be.

So, take the festival Om for instance. It was a big rave party that had a very communal atmosphere. People would contribute by cooking or cleaning up, it was all volunteer, etc. However, about 7-8 years ago, as I was planning to attend for the first time, they sent out batch emails to most of the people in the Toronto scene.

Essentially, the message was, if you aren't a communist, you aren't welcome. The ideals of PLUR weren't even able to make a successful 3 day event, let alone organize society. Needless to say, I've never attended Om, and wouldn't go if they begged me. Friends of mine who have gone, talk about how it is NOT an accepting place where people can be individuals. It is vegan, period. If you were to bring a butane grill and cook some burgers, some ******* is going to give you shit. People do everything they can to "out-hippie" the next guy, so one guy has solar panels, the next will brag about how he shits in a bag to make organic methane or whatever.

Scenes like this kill diversity. Ok, so maybe Om is more of a hippie/rave thing, but even at events like WEMF (world electronic music festival) or even small raves, the whole social atmosphere revolved around who could be more "rave". God, I used to essentially have costumes I would wear: visor, white gloves, baggy BAGGY pants.

imho, this is the exact same as the boomers. After the drugs wear off, you realize that the world is not only the same way as it was before, but that you really don't have any ability to change it. You get entirely jaded with the whole concept that, initially, you thought was going to be a driving force for change. ****, like, ive had people tell me why MDMA shouldn't be legal, as they are taking pills.

These things are the epitomy of self-indulgance, which is great, I'm all for that, but to many people, they get too caught up in the feeling. They don't understand that just "loving one-another" really is a stupidly niave way to try and view political change.

shit, I feel like I'm all over the place with this, so I will stop before it is any more convoluted...

Everything good in my community is leftover from the hippie movement. I see the positive impacts of it every day.

Including the dope?

na, weed is WAY better now.

its the acid that sucks these days

Yes, it is excellent. Lots of casual users, very few abusers.

How does acid suck these days? LSD is LSD (unless it was something else and falsely advertised).

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, it is excellent. Lots of casual users, very few abusers.

How does acid suck these days? LSD is LSD (unless it was something else and falsely advertised).

I guess I wasn't around in the 60s, so I'm only going through what I've learned through classes and talking with people

but back in the day, a "hit" had something like 4-10x the dose of LSD on it, and the purity of the LSD itself was higher.

I guess you are right though, nothing has changed about the quality of "LSD", just the hits you find are of a much lower potency.

In the 60s, a "hit" would be 250-400ug. What are you getting now for average amount?

I can imagine the purity was better, with it coming from professional or professionally managed illicit producers. But really all that changes, is that you might have to take more. It shouldn't affect the quality of the experience at all.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In the 60s, a "hit" would be 250-400ug. What are you getting now for average amount?

I can imagine the purity was better, with it coming from professional or professionally managed illicit producers. But really all that changes, is that you might have to take more. It shouldn't affect the quality of the experience at all.

god, I have no idea off the top of my head...

People have told me its the difference between one drop of liquid on a square today and 4 in the past, but none of these people were alive in the 60s...

I could go digging through Erowid or my text books, but I don't know the numbers.

but no, you are totally right, its not like pot, where the actual DNA of the plant has changed a huge amount in 50 years (along with the methods of growing it).

I wonder how hard organic chemistry is...

Originally posted by inimalist
but no, you are totally right, its not like pot, where the actual DNA of the plant has changed a huge amount in 50 years (along with the methods of growing it).

Selective breeding?

Originally posted by inimalist
I wonder how hard organic chemistry is...

Ever seen the Kreb cycle?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg

My bio teacher says memorizing that is first late undergrad work.

Originally posted by inimalist
god, I have no idea off the top of my head...

People have told me its the difference between one drop of liquid on a square today and 4 in the past, but none of these people were alive in the 60s...

I could go digging through Erowid or my text books, but I don't know the numbers.

but no, you are totally right, its not like pot, where the actual DNA of the plant has changed a huge amount in 50 years (along with the methods of growing it).

I wonder how hard organic chemistry is...


I was told that a 2nd year biochem student could reasonably make LSD... however, I was also told by others that it would require grad student level knowledge. net summary: I have no idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever seen the Kreb cycle?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg

My bio teacher says memorizing that is first late undergrad work.


I learned an abbreviated version of that in the equivalent of first year lab bio; I would imagine that the full version would be pretty basic to a biochem major.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I learned an abbreviated version of that in the equivalent of first year lab bio; I would imagine that the full version would be pretty basic to a biochem major.

We just had to learn "and then you get two ATP". You're probably right about is being basic work but it's wonderfully intimidating to look at.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess you are right though, nothing has changed about the quality of "LSD", just the hits you find are of a much lower potency.

I guess that was people seeing their friend's fried on the drug and calling for quality controls. Can't sell to dead customers.

Free market economy?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Everything good in my community is leftover from the hippie movement.

I assume you aren't talking about the 49th ward, so to which 'community' are you referring? What in that community is left from those days?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Selective breeding?

and then some

though, the ultimate dream would be genetic work, which I think some people in the netherlands are trying to do

there have been some recent peer-review papers about how to grow high quality weed, or how to use spectroscipy to determine THC content, so it might just be a matter of time before science comes up with new superweed.

or, there is always my bioterrorism idea: splice THC into highly invasive dandilions, then demand marijuana be made legal or the seeds will be relaeased

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever seen the Kreb cycle?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg

no...

pfft, I've seen more complex though 😛

(nobody in their right mind tries to memorize neuro-connective models though)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My bio teacher says memorizing that is first late undergrad work.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I was told that a 2nd year biochem student could reasonably make LSD... however, I was also told by others that it would require grad student level knowledge. net summary: I have no idea.

I tried to grow phalaris grass once to synthesize DMT, it didn't work (it turns out my thumbs aren't even close to green, and I literally cannot grow a grass), but the most difficult part of the process was finding good solvents and especially finding good equipment.

I can't imagine there are any extremely hard steps in making LSD (its sensitivity to light and temperature aside) that would require a PHD or anything. The hardest part would probably be setting up a decent lab to do the work in. The equipment and chemicals needed would likely be very expensive, if even available on the open market.