woodstock-movie…I didn’t even remember this was the 40th anniversary of Woodstock until I  started reading all the conservatards bleating and griping about it.

It’s amazing, really:  for people who claim to despise “baby boomers”, they spend an awful lot of time obsessing about us.   Lately, boomer-blaming is all the rage with Generation Whine and their right-wing allies in the Take Responsibility Club… Oh boo hoo hoo, the world is going to hell in a handbasket and selfish, narcissistic, drug-addled baby boomers are leading the way with their relentless pursuit of delirious Dionysian pleasure and bare-assed rutting in the muck.  WAAAAAHHHHHH!

One of the old farts huddled on the NatPo park bench shakes his cane at all the damn kids as he peckishly recalls being unimpressed with Woodstock, harrumphing:

I vaguely remember watching Woodstock unfold on the television news. Everyone was astounded by the peacefulness of the crowd and the number of great musicians who showed up. But I do not remember feeling regret or envy. Besides, it rained a lot and I had no interest in sitting in the rain, and I have always hated the feeling of dried mud on my skin.  […]

My aversion to Woodstock is probably not normal, but it is visceral. There was something about all those self-satisfied faces, glowing as if they had reached the pinnacle of human achievement by rolling around in the mud with thousands of like-minded individualists. When I think of Woodstock, I see a straight line from 1969 to today’s self-obsessed ageing boomers who continue to seek inner bliss and “growth” and will drive their BMWs anywhere, and spare no expense, to find it.

Can you imagine if he had showed up at Woodstock, with his brief case and his brown shoes and his pocket protector?  BRINGDOWN.  He could have been responsible for more bad trips than the brown acid.  Quick, someone call Wavy Gravy!  Another downer-induced freakout!!

And check out this nitwit, who arfs:

Screw Woodstock. Really, I mean it. If you’re my age — I was 9 when the three-day concert took place — you noted the 40th anniversary of the key event of our culture’s endless 1960s nostalgia by thinking, “Gee, have I really been listening to these goofs celebrate themselves for only 40 years? Because it feels like 400.”

Are you really only 49?  Because you sound like 409.

Even at the CBC, angry boomer-blamers are passing rhetorical gallstones:

The boomers are always happy to open their scrapbooks and share those misty, water-coloured memories. Let’s face it: no generation has enjoyed the same kind of cultural hegemony. Year after year, they’re compelled to celebrate Woodstock — without much media resistance — as an earth-shaking episode on the level of the Second World War.

I could go on, but boomer-bashing fucktards are just too boring, mediocre and uninteresting to dwell on for very long.  Which probably explains why they spend so much time and energy obsessing about “boomers”, and not the other way around.  Here’s a clue, fucksticks: instead of  blaming “boomers” for everything you think is Wrong, try doing something interesting, like these guys.  (BWAHAHA!)

Enough bullshit.  Now, a little Generational Cultural Hegemony music:

31 Responses to “Hahaha…”

  1. 1 sassy Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 10:48 am

    WOW – who would of thought that the 40th anniversary of a harmless, fun filled event involving hundreds of thousands of young people, good will and, music would upset anynone. Be grateful you are not in that headspace JJ. I know I am and hope I never will be.

  2. 2 Dr. Prole Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 11:18 am

    LOL what a bunch of losers, still upset about an era-defining concert that happened 40 years ago. It’s pretty much just as hilarious as their top “conservative” rock songs! Douchebags! Bwahahahahahah!


  3. 3 Raphael Alexander Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 11:44 am

    The amusing part about Woodstock is that it’s hardly the pure summer rain it’s been made out to be. It was a large music festival that enabled many famous musicians to enhance their musical legacy and their future marketability. It’s been branded, corporatized, and sold nostalgically by the socialists-cum-capitalists who matured since the sixties. It’s got that same touch of irony as capitalists making scads of cash by marketing a socialist guerrilla with nice Latin American hair on t-shirts and baseball caps.

  4. 4 deBeauxOs Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Thanks for the visit, “Raphael Alexander”. So considerate of you to provide yet another example of boomer-blaming bile at boil.

    Careful with those antacids, though. They could mask more serious symptoms of disease.

  5. 5 mouthyorange Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Ten Years After — I’m Going Home — Ooooooh, baby!

  6. 6 JJ Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    sassy – Oh gawd, boomer blaming is the new “terrorist-supporting” for these people, so it comes as no surprise that they’d take this opportunity to whine and gripe again. The guy from the NatPo is a boomer too, even older than I am, but of course it’s just a *certain kind* of boomer that these people like to shit on. Hahahahaha! Yes, I’m glad I spent my wayward youth having something called “fun” 😛

  7. 7 JJ Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Dr.Prole – I’m surprised there’s no Ted Nugent in that list 😯

  8. 8 Cornelius T.Zen Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    Good morrow, all!
    Conservatards aren’t boomers? Then what are they? Is progeria catching? Aren’t those serious family value types the ones that have more teenage pregnancies, divorce and obesity in their community? In other words, they’re fat, knocked up and not talking to each other.

  9. 9 JJ Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    RA – Actually, that’s not far off the mark. The only reason Woodstock became a free concert was because people were climbing and breaking down the fences, and there were too many to control. It wasn’t out of some kind of hippie altruism… if they could have collected the money from everyone, they would have.

    What Woodstock did was create a whole new market for that “music festival” kind of venue, they started springing up everywhere after that, not to mention the Woodstock brand itself, the logo of which I see on T-shirts worn by young kids all time (I think Sears sells them). Which is good, because the festival itself was a financial disaster and it probably took the organizers years to climb out of the hole it put them in.

    Don’t forget, RA — we’re not all socialists. Even Janis Joplin used to refer to herself as “a rich hippie”.

  10. 10 JJ Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    deBeauxOs – Actually, I think RA is probably holding back 😉 His abbreviated analysis of the money aspect of things isn’t far off — Woodstock wasn’t started as a free concert and it’s a good thing for the organizers that it became so iconic, otherwise they would have been in the hole for life. I knew concert organizers back then who worked at what would eventually become Ticketron, they liked the music but they liked the money just as much 😉 and the sex and drugs, of course 😯

  11. 11 JJ Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    orange – It’s about my favourite song from that whole concert… the first time I ever got DRUNK my friends & I called CHUM-FM about 500 times to request it 😛

  12. 12 JJ Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    CTZen – It’s funny you mention obesity. After clicking links to here and there, I found this site that had old pictures from Woodstock, and going through them the first thing I noticed was — no fat people. ZERO, zip, nada. And it’s not just the drugs. I wonder what happened?

  13. 13 mouthyorange Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    “…the first time I ever got DRUNK my friends & I called CHUM-FM about 500 times to request it”

    😆 😆 😆

    All right now, look. It’s my favourite song from that concert, too. ‘Though Freedom comes pretty close. And I love mocha lattes (as do you?) And a bunch of us who hang around at your place have or had that sun and moon mirror you showed in a pic once. And a bunch of us have dogs, or woodstoves, or both. And we’re pro-choice, and I daresay love bare-assed rutting in the muck. And hey, my friends and I used to call CHUM-FM over and over again and bug them to play stuff, too. And Dr. Prole and Frank Frink and I are even the same person, albeit in different versions.

    Cultural hegemony, eh? I guess we are all the same. 😉 (—Wait a minute. Doesn’t she keep a gun over her door? But I’m anti-gun. … Oh, well! Be yourself and do what you want to do, as long as you don’t hurt anybody else.)

    Let’s celebrate. Play it again!

  14. 14 Raphael Alexander Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    I’m a big fan of Bob Dylan, and while he didn’t sing at Woodstock 1, I think he understood the fine line between the music and the political movement that emanated from it. Ultimately I think many musical artists understand that although the hippies and lefties support their message, it’s their money that supports their art. Of course there are guys that will never bend to that concept, Pete Seeger being a prime example. Many of the musical artists in the post-Woodstock era realized that commercialization of the industry was required to sustain their art. You might also call it the post-Woodie Guthrie era that guys like Dylan led the folk-rock movement in.

  15. 15 hemmingforddogblog Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Oh Lord, won’t you buy me
    A Mercedes Benz
    My friends all drive Porsches
    I must make amends…

    Let’s see, the hippies got their dogs and wood stoves. Ralphie and his gang got religion.

    WE WIN!!!!!

  16. 16 fern hill Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    I remember hearing/reading that if everybody who claimed to have been there actually was there, attendance would have been like eight gazillion.

    My brush with it was that I knew a bunch of kids who got in a car with the intent of going but got turned back at the US border.

    SQ: good one. 😀 We hippies did win.

  17. 17 mouthyorange Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    (Re SQ – ) We’ve got something, that’s for sure. Otherwise, the sad, tortured souls who still aren’t able to let themselves be free from the inside out wouldn’t still be trying to shut us down and shut us off and stop what we started forty years ago. (C’mon you guys. You can do it. Let your hair down.)

    Freedom, freedom. Freedom, freedom. Freedom, freedom. Freedom, freedom.

    Clap your hands!

    By the way, I was only twelve. Way too young to go, and no one around to take me. My parents would have freaked, anyway. I had to wait a few years. Started going to Mariposa, when it was on Algonquin Island. Went all the way downtown and back all three days in bare feet with my friends on the subway.

  18. 18 hemmingforddogblog Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose
    Nothing, I mean nothing honey if it ain’t free, no no…8)

  19. 19 psa Monday, August 17, 2009 at 2:22 am

    Raphael, you’re babbling again. Go have a nice lie down, the folk that aren’t deluded prats are talking.

  20. 20 RuralSandi Monday, August 17, 2009 at 4:49 am

    Oh those terrible baby boomers and feminists, etc. – damn them. They only brought choices for women (birth control pill), being able to have a career, etc.\

    They only brought the civil rights movement.

    They only brought more freedom.

    They only brought an awakening about choices about war.

    They only brought equal rights, the charter of rights and freedom.

    Damn them.

  21. 21 RealityBites Monday, August 17, 2009 at 6:10 am

    The boomers were the first generation to benefit from the pill, but they had nothing to do with its development. Most of the people involved in that were grandparents of the boomers, born around 1900 (who were probably sick of babysitting by that point)

  22. 22 HD4020 Monday, August 17, 2009 at 8:18 am

    Interesting blog. Arguably, the biggest legacy of Woodstock is its huge impact on the real children of the sixties: Generation Jones (born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X). This USA TODAY op-ed speaks to the relevance today of the sixties counterculture impact on GenJones: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm

    Google Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten a ton of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) now specifically use this term. In fact, the Associated Press’ annual Trend Report forcast the Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009.

    Here’s a page with a good overview of recent media interest in GenJones:

  23. 23 JJ Monday, August 17, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    HD4020 – Thanks for the links! Having been in advertising for many years, I am still fascinated by stuff like that.

    I have to admit I’ve never heard of “Generation Jones” until now (but I’ve been out of the business for quite awhile). It’s quite true though — I’ve always thought that within the baby boom generation there was actually a smaller “main” baby boom, born between 1948 and 1956. Anyone born later than ’56 wasn’t really “there” for what we now know as “the 60s” (which is really just 1966-70), so there’s definitely 2 separate demographics happening within the 20-year baby boom span.

    Thanks again!

  24. 24 Ol'CynicalMe Monday, August 17, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    If there was ever a more smug, self-important bunch of losers and legends in their own minds than the so-called “baby boomers” or “Woodstock generation” or “hippies” (or whatever they label themselves as this week) it is hard to imagine who they could be. The ones who participated in Woodstock and considered themselves part of some sort of movement were actually a very small segment of their age group, and no self-respecting young person would have anything to do with them. To the majority of us they were just a bunch of losers and we wanted nothing to do with them.

    Apparently the pinnacle of their movement was a free concert where they got stoned and rolled around in the mud engaging in casual sex like pigs in heat. That, my friends, is what they consider the greatest achievment of the twentieth century, which tells you pretty much what you need to know about their mindset.

    They had nothing to do with the civil rights movement, and for the life of me I cannot see what their “peace movement” accomplished. My god, they couldn’t even stop the war in Vietnam. The whole thing is just a farce perpetrated by the media and about as important as yesterday’s throwaway newspaper.

    But the movement has never really gone away. We no longer call them hippies though, now we call them potheads or homeless people.

  25. 25 JJ Monday, August 17, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    And yet, 40 years later, you’re still blathering about them… 😯 😉

  26. 26 Ol'CynicalMe Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 8:56 am

    Not me. I just find the media attention sickening. They are a sorry footnote in history best forgotten. I have no idea why the media ever brings this up when there are thousands of more important events they could reminisce about. I supect it is because there are so many potheads now associated with the media trying to relive the good old days of their youth. Which maybe explains why we have such atrocious, inaccurate and shallow news reporting these days.

  27. 27 JJ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 9:07 am

    OCM – Good point — Fox News in particular is just crawling with notorious drug addicts, alcoholics and sex tourists.

  28. 28 Ol'CynicalMe Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 9:44 am

    And so is ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CBC, BBC. the NY Times, the L.A. Times, Time, Newsweek and every other major news outlet in the US and Canada. And oh, let us not forget Hollywood; they set the cultural standards. That is why we are seeing the big push to legalize drugs–they want a cheaper supply. You see, once upon a time someone might get fired for being a drug addict, alooholic or sex tourist. But now that the inmates have taken over the asylum that rarely happens. I understand cocaine is the drug of choice in the media.

  29. 29 JJ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 11:04 am

    That is why we are seeing the big push to legalize drugs–they want a cheaper supply.

    Oh my. Where do I even start.

    The “push” to legalize drugs is because we are wasting billions on the idiotic “war on drugs”, which does nothing but drive the engines of the penal industry.

    I agree with you that the quality of news reporting has suffered since news became more about entertainment and less about information, there’s no doubt about that. But I don’t think it has anything to do with drugs 😉 Drugs haven’t been cool for quite some time.

  30. 30 deBeauxOs Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 11:36 am

    OilyCynical – the allusion to drug addicts, alcoholics and sex tourists at Fox News is based on personalities there being caught their pants down or “blathering under the influence”. Some like Rush Limbaugh have had their escapades make the news.

  31. 31 Ol'CynicalMe Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    Seems to be there have been similar incidents on some of the other networks, and I know there have been incidents of plagiarism at the NY Times and Boston Globe. That is beside the point anyway; I am in no way defending Fox News or any other media; I paint all mass media with the same brush. They are generally not very good, often irresponsible, play fast and loose with the truth and all are biased one way or another. Just some of them favor different special interests over others, same as our political parties. Otherwise they are all pretty much the same.

Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change


  • 632,370
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]


%d bloggers like this: