Really interesting video where three film reviewers (all Xers) discuss the new Beastie Boys documentary and the group's legacy and how the Beastie Boys' music and story doesn't seem to resonate as much with younger people. Music from a specific era tends to resonate most deeply with those were there and came of age with it and those older and younger may not "get it" as much. I could see Boomers saying the same things about The Beatles or Stones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRotErV2Chs

My essay from the UU Band of Writers:
"Fly Away"

Fly Away (The Who and Our Generations)
by E. Alan Meece
UU Band of Writers
Eric A Meece, originally written for the meeting of March 1, 2020, read at the meeting of May 3, 2020
Prompt: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How
Who was the best rock music group ever? The Who, that's who. When did they become the best? In 1965, when they wrote and performed their great anthem, My Generation. Whose generation were they singing about? The baby boomers, who were born sometime during or after the big war until sometime before 1965. Why was the song so great? Because Pete wrote the catchy words and music and Roger performed it with swagger. And because no-one before had been so bold as to do a song about their whole generation. How could they claim that every girl and every guy in it was trying to cause a big sensation? This was a generalization about a generation. Were they the greatest generation? No, that was their parents who fought the war. Actually, no generation was the greatest, and since then every generation blames other generations for their own problems. But The Who's song helped make that possible by popularizing the idea that we could identify ourselves with a whole generation.
What made the song so special, and so emblematic of a generation? One reason was that it provided the occasion for The Who to tear up and destroy their own instruments at the end. They broke up so much gear nobody thought it was real. And their generation was later told that it destroyed things. When performing, it was said, they would jump around so much that if it weren't for John the bass player holding them steady and grounding them, they would all just fly away. And they were thieves, too. Pete stole words for the song from Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys (The Who drummer Keith Moon's favorite band) and from Buddy Holly who wrote a song called Not Fade Away. Later, on the Who's Next album, Pete copied the style of composer Terry Riley on a song called Baba O'Riley that could also have been called "Teen Age Wasteland." This song was itself "copied" by the teen-aged Millennial-Generation's boy band One Direction on the Best Song Ever. This was a tribute to The Who, who had indeed created the best song ever on the Who's Next album, although that song was actually called Won't Get Fooled Again (also influenced by Terry Riley; and by Beethoven too; see in the links below).
So, others copied The Who too. Maybe The Clash were inspired by The Who's on-stage antics to name themselves after them. They did a song called Should I Stay or Should I Go, as if they might decide to fly away. The Clash were a typical Generation X punk group who followed The Who's style and music to an extent. Actually, the idea of generations was also popularized earlier by a couple of charismatic American presidents with famous initials, FDR and JFK. Roosevelt said that there is a mysterious cycle in human events that gave his generation a rendevous with destiny. And Kennedy said that the torch had been passed to his new generation. Speaking of copying, an old war baby named Bernard, now (as of March 1) running for president, quoted JFK in his latest ad, who said " We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. " And this old guy is inspiring a new generation to do hard things too, as we all choose whether we should go to a new place or stay in the status quo in the 2020s. And I'm glad that I can quote words and songs that are not just from my own generation. The only question now is, where is this new place?
The Who's drummer, the late Keith Moon, used to knock over his drums and break his drum sticks while playing and sent them flying away. Rumor has it that in honor of JFK, Keith Moon and the other members of The Who are going to fly to the Moon to perform a reunion concert there. Should they go or should they stay? Surely it would be the best concert ever. They will make their rendevous in the spirit as well as in the flesh, using both astral travel and space travel. How will they manage it? Just by expanding on their ability to fly away, and by quoting George Bernard Shaw, as the Kennedys did, who said "some people see things that are and say why; others dream of things that never were and say why not?" Maybe they'll go in Buddy Holly's 1957 Chevy which he drove to the levy. And we'll all go together with them and fly away to the Moon and hear them play the best song ever, and hope that our new boss is better than our old boss, as he (Bernard) promises us The Moon.

Fly Away: The Who and Our Generations

Some of the Millennials from over on the FB group have started a YouTube Channel feauturing Zoom interviews with different sets of people, typically from the same generation. They talk about life experience, pop culture and politics, all with a generational theory bent. A lot of the folks that have been on this forum or the previous forum are there. It's pretty cool and I post it here because I know we have forum members who have been into 4T theory for a long time and might recognize some of the interviewees.

The channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHv-Uqd...U4WixcB5w/

Here is the latest video-

George Wallace's 'On Hallowed Ground' is a moving and reverent video portrait of the vast acreage near Gettysburg PA, where one of the final (and decisive) battles of the Civil War was fought 150 years ago. These sanctified, now-silent fields where so many perished offer a solemn, profound reminder of how hard a man will fight for a cause in which he truly believes.

This short video presents panoramic still images and live-action shots (some battle footage excerpted from the Esparza/Katz production of 'Gettysburg') taken on-location at the very site of the battle, and features the sweeping, heroic, orchestral musical score of composer George Wallace.

Don't miss it.

I would say the 1T is most joyful, at least in terms of worldly happiness. But a 2T might offer spiritual ecstasy to some.

When it comes to archetypes, I would vote for Artists with their whimsical sense of humour. Prophets have too much rage, Civics are too mechanical and Nomads too grumpy.

With neighbors being close and knowing one another? It seems almost dead in the 4T based on what many people say.

I figured I'd pop in, here, because of the whole thing with the 'rona; out of curiosity and a touch of nostalgia I looked this place up. I wanted to see what your response to the entire thing was. And you have not disappointed.

This place is exactly what it was the first time around.

That's the problem.

COVID and all that has produced a lot of yelling and hot air. Whose fault is it? Why isn't it being handled better by [politician of choice]? What could someone in power do? Which political party is good and which is an evil virus of Satan? These seem like important questions. I mean, if there wasn't a better use of my time I would absolutely have some fun (???) discussions about various deeply-held beliefs. But these are the wrong questions right now.

There are people who are dying because they live in places where the hospitals are already over capacity. There are people who are stuck in the impossible bind of go to work and expose themselves to virus, or stay home and run out of money to pay the rent with. There are children who are being abused, who no longer have teachers to check in on them or school to be a few hours of escape and safety.

Can we please stop arguing about who said what on television and help actual people, right now?

A while ago, I read this story about someone in a superhero 'verse who rises to prominence by being the one who helps people. Ever since then, I've aspired to it. I care about people. I do what I can. Only, it turns out that I am seriously disabled and work is basically impossible for me (I'm on disability), and as such "what I can" is very, very little. On the other hand, my sewing machine is currently occupied with dozens of masks made from discount bedsheets, my computer is running folding@home, and I have been looking up and distributing reliable information as much as I can: it turns out that sometimes an early sign of COVID is loss of sense of smell, COVID pneumonia patients that are likely to need hospitalization can be detected early using pulse oximeter testing, and lying flat on one's stomach ("proning") reduces the need for ventilators without requiring any equipment by helping drain more parts of the lungs.

So: go donate to the WHO or Red Cross, dig out the handful of N95 masks you have sitting in your emergency stockpile and send them along, check in on your neighbors, call up your local supermarket and demand that they let the cashiers wear masks, don't buy out the toilet paper you don't need, whatever. Just. Do something, for someone, right now. And then you can go back to gossiping about what Trump said on Twitter this time.

Greetings. I stumbled upon this site after not recieving much replies on the strausshowe sub-reddit forum in which I posed the same question. By process of elimination, it appears that Biden is the grey champion even though it seems his qualities would contradict the whole theory:

Biden is a Silent Gen which doesnt quite fit the bill and his youth support is quite anemic (in the primaries he was polling at what 10% among the youth vote?). Yes, the young will vote for him, not out of enthusiasm, but since they hate the GOP.

On the flip side, Trump, despite being a Boomer, seems utterly doomed in his re-election chances and is beginning to be despised like Hoover and Carter.

By default, does that make Biden the grey champion?

Now before you all exclaim whatttt!!!!??, allow me to explain. From my own observation of the 21st century, nothing really major seems to happen. There is always lots of speculation and arguments but whenever an event happens, it just...fizzles out and life goes on.

Take the coronavirus. As bad as it has been, there is a potential chance that life will just go on and things re open and everything is back to normal. Take 2008. Despite panicking and some problems, things just recovered. Same with Trump. Same with Brexit. Life...just went on.

It's not like the 20th century where every little event Les to something big down the line. The 21st seems to have these "events" that end up being a no game changer in the long run.

Hence why I am, from a rather historical and philosophical perspective, am content to label this the boring century. If I am honest, I don't think the adventurism of the past is going to make a return anytime soon and I think that despite some technological changes, I wouldnt be surprised if the world of 2100 looks something very similar to today. That is easily recognisable with the same players.

Also before anyone mentions global warming and what have you, I don't believe this is going to be a short term event but something very long term. Despite the doom say predictions, life in the 21st century isn't going to radically change.

I'll be honest, if I lived in say another century, there would be some bookmarks from the 21st century to be read but overall as a potential future historian, I'm going to be reading more about the 20th then the 21st.

SYDNEY, Australia — Thousands of miles from President Trump’s combative news briefings, a conservative leader in Australia and a progressive prime minister in New Zealand are steadily guiding their countries toward a rapid suppression of the coronavirus outbreak.
Both nations are now reporting just a handful of new infections each day, down from hundreds in March, and they are converging toward an extraordinary goal: completely eliminating the virus from their island nations.

Whether they get to zero or not, what Australia and New Zealand have already accomplished is a remarkable cause for hope. Scott Morrison of Australia, a conservative Christian, and Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s darling of the left, are both succeeding with throwback democracy — in which partisanship recedes, experts lead, and quiet coordination matters more than firing up the base.
“This is certainly distinct from the United States,” said Dr. Peter Collignon, a physician and professor of microbiology at the Australian National University who has worked for the World Health Organization. “Here it’s not a time for politics. This is a time for looking at the data and saying let’s do what makes the most sense.”
The dreamy prospect of near normalcy, with the virus defeated, crowds gathering in pubs and every child back in school, is hard to imagine for much of the United States, where testing shortages and a delayed response by Mr. Trump have led to surges of contagion and death.
And it may end up being a mirage or temporary triumph in Australia and New Zealand. Elimination means reducing infections to zero in a geographic area with continued measures to control any new outbreak, and that may require extended travel bans. Other places that seemed to be keeping the virus at bay, such as China, Hong Kong and Singapore, have seen it rebound, usually with infections imported from overseas.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand and her Australian counterpart, Scott Morrison, in Sydney in February. / Bianca De Marchi/EPA, via Shutterstock
And yet, if there are any two countries that could pull off a clear if hermetically sealed victory — offering a model of recovery that elevates competence over ego and restores some confidence in democratic government — it may be these two Pacific neighbors with their sparsely populated islands, history of pragmatism and underdogs’ craving for recognition.
Far from any global hot spot, they’ve had the advantage of time: Australia reported its first case on Jan. 25, New Zealand on Feb. 28. But compared to Mr. Trump and leaders in Europe, Mr. Morrison and Ms. Ardern responded with more alacrity and with starker warnings.
Mr. Morrison banned travelers from China on Feb. 1 (a day before the United States did) and labeled the outbreak a pandemic on Feb. 27 (two weeks ahead of the W.H.O.), while forming a national cabinet of federal and state leaders to build hospital capacity and guide the response.
In New Zealand, where the government is more centralized, Ms. Ardern introduced an alert system that led to a total lockdown less than a month after the country’s first case emerged.
“We must fight by going hard and going early,” Ms. Ardern said.
In both countries, the public initially resisted and then complied, in part because the information flowing from officials at every level was largely consistent.
Playing their own versions of explainer in chief, Mr. Morrison has veered toward conservative radio, while Ms. Ardern prefers Facebook Live. But they’ve both received praise from scientists for listening and adapting to evidence.
A coronavirus testing station in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week. / Mark Baker/Associated Press
“It’s a case of politicians just not being in the way,” said Ian Mackay, an immunologist at the University of Queensland who has been involved in response planning for the pandemic. “It’s a mix of things, but I think it comes down to taking advice based on expertise.”
The results are undeniable: Australia and New Zealand have squashed the curve. Australia, a nation of 25 million people that had been on track for 153,000 cases by Easter, has recorded a total of 6,674 infections and 78 deaths. It has a daily growth rate of less than 1 percent, with per capita testing among the highest in the world.
New Zealand’s own daily growth rate, after soaring in March, is also below 1 percent, with 1,456 confirmed cases and 17 deaths. It has just 361 active cases in a country of five million.
These figures put the two countries closer to Taiwan and South Korea, which have controlled the virus’s spread for now, than to the United States and Europe — even places seen as success stories, like Germany.
It all started with scientists. In Australia, as soon as China released the genetic code for the coronavirus in early January, pathologists in public health laboratories started sharing plans for tests. In every state and territory, they jumped ahead of politicians.
“It meant we could have a test up and running quickly that was reasonably comparable everywhere,” Dr. Collignon said.
The government then opened the budgetary floodgates to support suffering workers and add health care capacity. When infections started climbing, many of the labs and hospitals hired second and third rounds of scientists to help.
Wellington, New Zealand, during a lockdown on Tuesday. / Mark Tantrum/Getty Images
That collaboration set the tone. Many of the state and local task forces spurred on by Mr. Morrison’s early action have stayed in constant contact, drawing in academics who independently started to model the virus’s spread. Their findings, hashed out by email, text or group calls, have been funneled up to national decision makers.
The newly formed national cabinet has delivered a surprising level of consensus for a country with a loose federal system subject to high levels of discord among state premiers, whose roles and powers resemble those of American governors.
In late March, for example, Mr. Morrison announced an agreement to severely tighten restrictions, banning international travel and telling all Australians not working in essential services to stay home. Though there was some divergence, mostly over schools, state leaders expressed bipartisan support and have held the line even as case numbers plummeted.
In New Zealand, public health experts pushed for an even bolder move.
Dr. Michael Baker, a physician and professor at the University of Otago in Wellington, became a prominent voice outside the government pushing for elimination of the virus, not just its suppression.
He argued that New Zealand, an island nation with a limited number of cases, should think of the virus more like measles than influenza — something that should be made to disappear, with rare exceptions.
Police patrolling during a Sydney beach closure this month. / Matthew Abbott for The New York Times
“The modelers said we had to go into lockdown for two months to have a high probability of eliminating it entirely,” he said. “You have to wait until the numbers are very low so you have the ability to stamp out an outbreak if it occurs.”
Worrying that the virus would spread too rapidly, Dr. Baker said he was racked with anxiety in the first few weeks after the initial case appeared in New Zealand. “We were on a knife’s edge,” he said. “Would we commit?”
Ms. Ardern announced on March 23 that the country would aim for elimination. Critics questioned whether it was possible, noting that there might be too many asymptomatic cases to guarantee elimination.
Dr. Baker responded by citing Taiwan, which has contained the outbreak to a point where socially distanced normal life has returned on a densely packed set of islands with 18 million people.
“It’s a matter to get all the systems working,” Dr. Baker said. “The borders, the contact tracing, the testing, the surveillance.”
In Australia, officials are mostly discussing elimination in private, as a potential side effect of a strategy they still describe as suppression. Dr. Brendan Murphy, Australia’s chief medical officer, told a New Zealand parliamentary committee last week that elimination would be a “nirvana” scenario — an achievement that would be tough to maintain without indefinite bans on international travel or 14-day quarantines until a vaccine arrives.
A closed exercise area in Sydney. / Matthew Abbott for The New York Times
Nonetheless, if it happens, Dr. Murphy and his counterpart in New Zealand, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, would be the ones receiving accolades. Like Dr. Anthony Fauci, the face of the American government’s scientific response, they are known for extensive public health pedigrees, calm demeanors and no-nonsense adherence to facts.
Dr. Bloomfield, who, tieless and with rumpled hair, has hosted online question-and-answer sessions almost every day, has become a celebrity of straight-talking reassurance. An artist in Wellington has even started selling towels that show his face surrounded by hearts.
He and others like him at the local level are key factors in a revival of trust in government that has appeared in poll after poll lately, even as the two countries’ economies have cratered and people have been told to severely restrict their lives.
The question is what that revival might produce in the future.
Ms. Ardern and Mr. Morrison have already discussed reopening travel between the two countries, and some scientists wonder if eliminating the virus with good management might rebuild some faith not just in democracy, but also in the value of expertise.
“It does feel like we’re pulling together and pulling in the same direction at the moment,” said Dr. Mackay, the immunologist at the University of Queensland. “I hope we can maintain that.”
“Maybe we’ll see the return of science,” Dr. Mackay added. “I doubt it, but who knows.”
A Sydney suburb, usually packed with partygoers and tourists, was quiet on a recent Saturday night. / Matthew Abbott for The New York Times
Damien Cave is the bureau chief in Sydney, Australia. He previously reported from Mexico City, Havana, Beirut and Baghdad. Since joining The Times in 2004, he has also been a deputy National editor, Miami bureau chief and a Metro reporter. @damiencave