Sad as the specifics are, the behavior of the Bush league with respect to science is not surprising.

Only point in which I took issue with you was in the tagline, which imagined the Republicans going out with SP "in a blaze of glory." More nearly a last splatter of excrement, I would say.

First of all (and once again, I was born DURING World War II, not afterwards, so do not consider myself a baby-boomer), the generation you decry actually STOPPED a vicious and unjust war. They kept protesting until the mainstream U.S. (the 35- to 50-year-olds of their day) caught on and protested too and eventually forced a criminal president to end it (for political reasons, true, and lying about it, yes, but it ended). They caused LBJ to refuse to seek re-election because of his prosecution of the war (a good result which backfired with the accession of The Unprincipled One).

Second, as others on this thread have observed, many of those from that generation did NOT sell out for money. Many stayed true, and you do them an injustice by lumping them in with the weak-willed. It is also possible that many you consider to have sold out gave up their long hair and protests for suits and jobs not because their beliefs had changed, but because they felt a necessity to provide for their children.

Finally, since I have the impression you wish to be a good writer, some observations on the art:

Writing, as I see it, is a great deal more than the ability to splash a bunch of words on paper.

Writing is a life-long discipline, a path, a fidelity. One of the first steps in that discipline is to cease attempting to speak for a generation, and to learn to speak for yourself. The first path is lazy, sloppy, and initially easy, since it is certain to attract the approbation of those who agree. (It becomes considerably more difficult when the generation you thought you spoke for proves to be a melange of disparate spirits, and abandons their standard-bearer.) The second path requires self-examination, honesty, long effort, and the willingness to be ignored (though not the certainty that you will be--it is fine to hope for recognition, so long as you avoid bitterness if applause is not forthcoming).

I can believe you meant irony and humor in your piece. However, I must read your words, not your intentions. The discipline I describe is the arduous attempt to make those two identical, so that in the end you bear the responsibility both for your heart and your performance.

Writing is not a matter of being perfect, of never making a mistake. It is a matter of respecting the discipline enough to learn. As Rilke wrote (loosely translated) in "On An Archaic Torso of Apollo," "there is nothing here which does not see you." One's mistakes are perfectly visible, and visible for all posterity, an awareness which ought to be humbling.

Becoming a good writer is not a matter of securing the approval of the many, any more than becoming a good person is a matter of securing votes. You can fool some people, but you can't fool the art. You either measure up or you don't. Nothing is more satisfying than the feeling you get when you do. Nothing can help you, no public esteem, no amount of money, no prizes, nothing, if you don't.

And although these are serious matters, it is wise not to take oneself too seriously.

Anyone who wishes may disagree with these principles. In my opinion doing so would be like disagreeing with gravity, but anyone who wishes is free to think me wrong there too.

Second Generation Pilot: A bucketful of snide is not a warm apology, no matter whether the bucket is labeled apology or how warm it makes the person feel who offers it. No one with any self-respect accepts a pseudo-apology which basically says, You were all the same and you were all shitty but we enlightened ones forgive you.

Some humans, Jason G, from all generations, do not make the really dumbass mistake of assuming that any generation is uniquely good or bad or otherwise uniform (that very view has been, incidentally, fostered chiefly by commercial interests). It does not hold in most other nations, and if it were true I would assume that all people your age felt as you do, but I am fairly certain they do not. I do not criticize all Gen-Xers, for one thing because I think that is a spurious category of humans. I criticize this article.

Both of you: No doubt you and I voted for the same people and probably for highly similar reasons. I would rather you quit flattering yourself as uniquely concerned and committed because of the age you grew up in, but I realize my odds of persuading you to do so are very small.

On the other hand, I do not need to persuade you. Make your assumptions and run with them, and good luck.

You know the phrase in your essay that's really going to haunt you as you age? That is, if you turn into someone with enough conscience to be haunted by your own earlier foolishness.

" . . . self-important prattle . . ."