As Stein himself points out, “in the US, millennials are the children of the baby boomers, who are also known as the Me generation.” Well, yes, let’s look at that a bit, shall we? In his excellent book Ill Fares the Land, Tony Judt makes a compelling argument that there’s a direct causal link between the individualism of the ‘60s and ‘70s and the hyper-individualism of the ‘80s and ‘90s – both are the product of a philosophy that placed the one above the many, the only difference being as the starry-eyed flower-waving of the hippie years ossified into the disinterested materialism of the yuppie years, any measure of idealism was replaced by flat-out, me-first cyncism. The result was that the baby boomers had it all, bless them – the pre-AIDS years of free love, the free education, the happy dilettantish flirtations with radicalism, the comfortable well-paid sinecures when the radicalism got tired, the big cars, the enduring sense of smugness, the tiresome Woodstock-centric mythology that still dominates popular cultural discourse. And now these assholes have the temerity to turn around and complain about their children? The millennials are the people who’ve inherited the hangover from the baby boomers’ party: a warming planet, a dysfunctional global financial system that rewards the rich and screws the poor, a polarized political class that’s moved so far to the right that a centrist like Barack Obama can be described with a straight face as “a socialist.” Millennials may be “narcissistic, materialistic and addicted to technology,” as Stein alleges early in his article; they’re also drowning in college debt, slaves to an internship “system” that demands ever-increasing work for no pay, and entrants into a job market that’s replaced employment rights with the “flexibility” of never being able to afford health insurance.
Way to go, Tom!(via clambistro)
Yes, yes, yes.
I did this video with my close friend Scott Coffey, the actor and director. Scott shot it on an early-generation DV camera. Almost all of the effects are in-camera. Gina Hirsch edited it. Thanks to Chelsea Lopez who is in it and Tommy Kearns and Justin Nappi, whose bedroom and bathroom we used, respectively.
———————————— …………………………… interesting.
- action Yesterday, Mother Jones released secretly-recorded audio of GOP strategist Frank Luntz criticizing right-wing talk show hosts during a talk with College Republicans at the University of Pennsylvania. “They get great ratings, and they drive the message, and it’s really problematic. And this is not on the Democratic side. It’s only on the Republican side,” Luntz said.
- reaction “I’m very disappointed that at Penn, [the] trust between students and speaker is gone,” said Luntz, an former student and professor at the school, after the release of the audio. ”Call me naive, but I thought it was possible to have an open, honest conversation about American politics and not make it a national conversation.”
- rebuttal “The Penn environment should be one in which people are encouraged and expected to speak unencumbered by self-interest,” wrote Aakash Abbi, the student who recorded the speech. ”If influential GOP figures like Frank Luntz truly believe that the party’s media kingmakers harm the national interest but refuse to say so for fear of backlash, they knowingly work against the spirit of open and honest debate.”
There’s also a question of journalistic ethics. Luntz requested that the remarks remain off the record; while a journalist who was in the room verbally agreed to this request, Abbi (who isn’t a journalist) and Mother Jones (who wasn’t present) did not. So are they still bound by it? Does a request to remain off the record amount to a decree, or must it be agreed to? Regardless of where you stand, it’s a fuzzy area. Meanwhile, Luntz has withdrawn a scholarship in his father’s name since the remarks leaked.
Was there a sign outside/inside the venue that specifically said “No Recording”? If not, Luntz is a total dick. If there was and the recorder ignored it, Luntz is still a dick—just not a total dick. I mean…withdrawing a scholarship?! Why punish future students for the actions of one guy? Like, how did he justify that decision in his mind?