I Can’t Stand the Irony!
By Steve_in_KC on January 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM in Current Affairs, Humor, Media, Media Bias, William Ayers
(Bumped up from Saturday, just because it’s so damn funny, not to mention SPOT ON! Way to go, Steve!)
*****************************************
Editorial note: The opinions expressed here are only my own, no matter how many millions of people agree with me. And when I use italics below, that’s me being sarcastic (I know, hard to believe). All quotations of others are in block quotes.
*****************************************
Saturday morning, I woke up, stumbled to the table with bleary eyes, and sat down, as usual, to read the morning paper (Kansas City Star, of course). The big headlines were local, but below the fold on Page One I see this headline:
Divisive boomers,
make way for Obama
“Millenials” say they’re
ready to move beyond
presidencies defined by
grudges, partisanship.
I rubbed my eyes and read it again, just to be sure I wasn’t still dreaming. I slugged down some caffeine and read the story, written by “David Goldstein, The Star’s Washington correspondent,” whatever the hell that means.
My guess would be that he’s an intern, senior year of college, probably making his first trip to Washington to cover The Beatification of Saint Barky. They probably gave him $50 per diem, bought his tickets and sent him off by Greyhound.
Anyway, so the gist of it is that “baby boomers” are divisive, partisan, and bellicose.
Oh yeah!? Well, ffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccckkkkkkkkkkk yyyyyyyyooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!
And just who is divisive? The way I see it, the Obama faction divided the Democratic Party in half, overwhelming it with the worst divisiveness since the Civil Rights Act caused all the Dixie-Crats to turn into Republicans.
I looked at the Star’s messy website to see if this article is there on the online version, but I couldn’t find it, so if someone else can, I’d be glad to update this story with the link if you’ll post it.
[Update: here's the link, thanks to reader "leslie," with a gentlemanly bow in the correct direction!]
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/985896.html
So here’s some of the gibber-jabber this David Goldstein wrote and somehow managed to get seven inches of front page space before the bulk was carried over to Page A4:
When President John F. Kennedy said the torch had been passed to a new generation in the 1960s, the baby boomers who were beginning to grow up then figured it was their time.
They spent most of the decade noisily trying to do just that in ways that have split the culture ever since.
Nearly half a century later, after voters under age 30 backed him in record numbers, Barack Obama will “pass the torch” to another new generation: the children of the boomers, most of them born after1980, known as “millenials.”
They, like the president-elect, have little patience for the simmering feuds and nasty partisanship of their elders.
So say goodbye to the ’60s, Mom and Dad. No one cares about Woodstock or the time you got maced at the 1969 March on Washington.
Oh, man! Hold me back! I want to turn him over my knee and give him a spanking in public.
So the kids under 30, born after 1980, think they have a better understanding of how the world really works than Mom and Dad, huh? These kids were born with a silver spoon in some part of their face, just a few years ago, as I recall.
They have no idea about WWII except that it was all done in shades of gray. They only know Dick Nixon as a funny Halloween mask. They think Bill Clinton was an old man when he took office because of his “white” hair.
The only thing they ever knew about politics before 9/11 was that BJs weren’t sex but they were somehow illegal cause the old president got busted for it.
After 9/11, they made the logical jump that nothing bad like the twin towers ever happened before Bush came along, so it must be his fault. They don’t know his father was also President George Bush, just that the name seemed familiar.
They get their news from The Daily Show, they are proud of this fact, and believe every word is true.
And this is who is now in charge? I don’t think so!
Let’s check out some more of this imbecile’s blather:
Young folks also might welcome the notion that President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both born in 1946, could be all the boomers will get. Baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. [edit out some garbage] To the millenials, Viet Nam, civil rights and other moments that defined their parents’ salad days are about as relevant as Pearl Harbor and the “Remember the Maine” battle cry.
“We’re the generation of 9/11, of Hurricane Katrina, of the Iraq War,” said Stephanie Young [Ha! Wouldn't you know!], a spokeswoman for Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan political action group that encourages young people to participate in elections. “We’ve had our things that define us… Obama is definitely new generation.”
Count Gen Xers in too. They’re the wave that followed the boomers and in which Obama, who’s technically a boomer, feels that he belongs.
OK, stop right there! Like Obama, talking out of both sides of his mouth, this mealy-mouth whippersnapper wants to have it both ways with Obama. He’s “technically” a boomer, being born in 1961, but he’s really not a boomer, he’s of their generation, not mine!
Let’s see, I was 10 years old in ’61 and the oldest of four kids. I was born near the beginning of the boomer generation, but was still a kid when he was a kid. I know I wasn’t having kids back then, so I think he’s of my generation. The age of a little brother maybe, but not of my kids.
But the boomers seem to be something dispicable to this guy and his generation, so I can see why they think Obama can’t possibly be a boomer!
But wait, let’s hear some more of this punk’s wisdom:
A lot of Gen Xers and millenials preferred Obama to boomer Hillary Clinton because he seemed more tuned to what’s happening now. Clinton, who was born in 1947, made her campaign announcement on the Web. However, Obama, who was born in 1961, was on the Web too, making greater use of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, and text-messaging campaign updates to his supporters’ cell phones.
“What he did was really speak to young people in a language that they understood,” Young said.
Oh, great. Now I have this image of the comic strip Zits, with teenage Jeremy sprawled on the sofa with his laptop, cell phone, and Ipod. So tuned in. So clueless. The leaders of tomorrow, who think Obama is part of their generation because he uses the Internet. Duh!
How are those math skills, kids? Let’s try it again. Maybe if I text it to you, excuse me, 2 U, you might be able to grasp the concept. “Brn 1961=boomr.” Or more likely “bumr” to save that vital keystroke!
I mean, like, Hillary was totally old enough to be his mother, you know! And like, the whole Web thing is what makes a great leader to us, cause like it’s our time now and the boomers are like, you know, so old school. Our generation doesn’t believe in war. I mean, like, all this fighting is so stupid. We should bring all the soldiers home, you know, so they can, like, fix the roads’n'stuff. Do something useful instead of dropping bombs on innocent people.
I’ve got to throw in one more moronic quote from this bozo:
In the past 16 years, as America has had back-to-back boomer presidencies, the culture wars grew nastier, interest group politics turned more strident, and partisanship trumped all else.
Even this year, Republicans dredged up the ’60s one more time. They tried to paint Obama as a closet revolutionary by linking him to William Ayers, a Chicago neighbor and a former member of the Weather Underground, a ’60s radical group.
Bummer, weary voters finally said. Time to move on.
Like, Dad, why don’t you hurry up and die so I can have the BMW and the insurance money?
Jeezus, where to start? This guy actually believes that during the 90s and 00s, the culture wars were nastier than the 1960s? WTF?
And interest groups turned more strident? Oh come on! You mean, like, for the first time ever!?
And partisanship trumped all else? These kids have never seen a nasty political campaign! So that Iraq War vote thing… nobody should have been partisan about that, you say? In that case, no doubt Obama would have voted for it. Chew on that.
And oh! Those evil Republicans! How dare they question the One about associating with people who endorsed the violent overthrow of the United State government?
What is their trip!? Ayers was just a neighbor! Their kids went to school together! Where have you been? And what’s so bad about being radical? I thought “radical” means cool, like “bad” means good. Who cares if these two shared ideas? How is that your business?
We need to get past those Nasty Nineties and chill out with the big O in the New Millenium!
Time to move on, Mom. Step aside, Dad. Let one of our people take over! We’ll show you how it’s done! We’ll end the wars, inflate our tires to stop using oil, tax the rich (people making more than us) to pay for everyone else’s bills, and never bicker with anyone anymore.
And if any of you asshole PUMAs don’t like it, we’ll kick your divisive asses!
So, let me ask you folks here at No Quarter and other PUMA or not-for-Obama blogs and websites: haven’t you noticed how non-divisive, non-strident, non-partisan, and non-sensical Obama’s followers have been this last year?
I know I have!






















