How the Baby Boomers screwed the rest of us

I can't help but feel a little resentment towards the Baby Boomer generation.

I'm certain it's not because of the massive national debt they've carelessly heaped into their children's lap, the complete lack of foresight in providing affordable post-secondary education for their own kids, or the devastated, messed-up post-divorce families they've riddled society with.

No, ultimately it comes down to one thing – fluoride in my water.

Of course I'm just being cynical. I mean, what could be wrong with Generation X, Y and Z paying for the sins of the father?

For those unaware, the generation born in the Post-War era (1946-1964) were both numerous and well, let's face it, entitled. They grew up in a era of unmatched peace, prosperity and opportunity and as such, were imbued with a hopeful expectation that all these good things were in fact their God-given birthright.

They grew up in the soft underbelly of the American and Canadian suburbs, passed through the chills of the Cold War, and experienced the moon landing, push-up bras and colour television. In the 1950's they became the Beatniks, only to transform into Hippies in the 1960's. Free love, cheap drugs and good times ensured a thorough education in what not to do, and then came the 70's.

Mom and Dad toned it down a little, got married (just cause) and popped out babies like a Palestinian refuge camp. Dad's money was never worth so much, and his house and car had never been so damn big.

Then, one day, it all started to go sideways. And it wasn't because of the 1980's fashion disasters or the campy synthesized pop beats. Divorces started to rip apart families. Jobs got scarce.

But then there was hope: United States and Canada signed a free trade agreement, the Cold War ended, and World order was restored when George Herbert Walker Bush bombed the living daylights out of the Iraqi Army in 1991.

Today, the indispensable generation of Baby Boomers “control over 80% of personal financial assets (wealth) and more than 50% of discretionary spending power. They are responsible for more than half of all consumer spending, buy 77% of all prescription drugs, 61% of OTC medication and 80% of all leisure travel.” And in case we needed to know this, they also own 80% of all top of the line cars.

But then, why shouldn't they? They worked hard for their cake, provided the majority of services and goods to the majority of consumers, and should be compensated as such.

Problem is, it wasn't enough. The peace dividend had left too much time for a husband to envy the shiny new Ford sitting in his neighbours driveway, and too much time for the wife to salivate over her neighbours new dishwasher (hey don't get me wrong-- dishwashers are the bomb.)

So they whipped out their all-new plastic credit cards, and in turn expected the government to do the same.

Sometime around my birth (1978), the Boomers let loose. Crazy loose. We're talking billions upon billions of “who gives a hoot, spend-it-or-burn-it-I-don't-care” kind of debt. To get some perspective, during the 1970s, debt held by the public declined from 28% GDP to 26% GDP. During the 1980s, it rose to 41% of GDP.

While not an economist, I can tell that the chart located below is probably not a very good omen of the harvest to come.

But then again, the Boomers probably won't be around long enough to experience the lovely debt defaulting and accompanying social service collapse yet to come. Seeing that their average age is over 56, they'll probably be dead – or worse, senile – when this economic storm hits full force.

But what of this debt?

According to Wikipedia:

The gross public debt... tripled in size from $260 billion in 1950 to around $909 billion in 1980.

Not so bad you say. Hold on, it gets better.

Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The net public debt quintupled in nominal terms.

Then the whopper.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008. Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion to $14.2 trillion by February 2011.

From $5.7 Trillion to $14.2 Trillion in under ten years. Coincidentally, both Obama and Bush are Boomers (just saying).

In some ways I'm glad I grew up in a nice house. I'm glad I lived in a country with Universal health care (Canada). And I'm glad I only had to pay $30,000 of my own (non-existent) money to go to college. Why should my parents have to bear such an unnecessary cost, especially knowing that when I graduate there won't be a decent paying job on the other side?

That's not to say that some parents don't cough up the coin to enable their children to make a better future for themselves. And my folks did do their best. But I see a dangerous precedent being set across North America. Skyrocketing university tuition, for-profit corporatization of post-secondary education, unpayable student loans-- it all smacks of (to put it Hollywood) -- greed.

And while I'd like to think the Captains of Industry who organized this feeding frenzy aren't Boomers with college age kids themselves, my bet is they probably are.

So good for them. When my oldest goes to University in 2022, his tuition is expected to cost $91,300 – or halfway towards the cost of a new house.

According to a Wall Street Journal article:

There is an estimated $730 billion in outstanding federal and private student-loan debt, says Mark Kantrowitz of FinAid.org, a Web site that tracks financial-aid issues—and only 40% of that debt is actively being repaid. The rest is in default...

My guess is that by the time the Boomer generation gets settled into their comfy retirement homes or white-washed Florida condos, the whole thing will go to mush. The consequences of a top-heavy economic distribution model --with its reduced tax base combined with the needs of caring for this high-maintenance generation -- will surely create a crisis of tsunami-sized proportions.

And it is likely that the generations that have born (and will bear) the brunt of this Boomer phase-out will have to extend an uncommon measure of grace -- and accept an uncommon measure of austerity in return-- if life is to be pleasant for all. 

Don't worry, be happy (oh, and it's the end of the World)

Given the recent spate of natural disasters, bloody conflicts and prophetic warnings blasting across the headlines, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was the end of the world.

There's this year's record number of tornadoes in the American Mid-West, the recent 2011 Japan earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear power plant meltdown; the Icelandic volcanic eruptions, the floods in Missouri, Louisiana, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick – on and on it goes. And that's just Mother Nature's offering to the mix.

Add to this the recent global economic crisis, the "Arab Spring" revolution in the Middle East, the ongoing Islamic fundamentalist “terrorist” threat -- or the wrapping up of the Oprah show -- and life on this modern planet can seem a bit overwhelming. It doesn't help the situation either that soap box prophets like Harold Camping are cashing in on the public's paranoia by crying wolf (apparently the end of the Earth is now Oct. 21st).

But it's not like the world hasn't seen this before. Every generation thinks they have it worse then the generation before them, and that a dramatic and horrific Apocalyptic ending is just around the bend. That is not to say that it won't happen (the Apocalypse), but we need to get some perspective on things.

I'm sure those who lived through the early part of the 1900's through 1940's felt just as uncertain about the times they were living in. After all they saw everything from the Great Depression, the devastation of The Great War and the resulting 1918 Influenza pandemic (that killed far more people then the war), the rise of Fascism and Communism in Europe (with it's accompanying wars and holocausts) -- through to the ushering in of the nuclear age following the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.

And I can't imagine there wasn't a family worldwide unaffected by the horrors of that era. In just five years (1941-45), Russia alone lost 13% of its population of 110 million, Europe 78% of its 7.8 million Jews, and Poland just over 16% of its 34 million citizens.

Such huge numbers are nearly impossible to comprehend. In comparison to the plagues of the Dark Ages (when between 30%-60% of Europe's 450 million people were wiped out by the Black Death) or the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake (which killed an estimated 850,000 in one day) -- the travails of our modern times pale in comparison. Perhaps our present day paranoia has more to do with our proximity to such recent disasters brought about by the Information Age.

As with ages past, distance and time played a crucial role in softening the impact of disaster. There were no on-the-scene reporters braving the forest fires or the hurricane winds, nor images and sounds of tornadoes or wars or famines to shock the senses.

Likewise other factors -- like Nationalism, isolationist policies, inherit political or ethnic biases promoted by nation states -- often created an atmosphere of callousness and disregard for the suffering's of those outside their sphere of influence.

Our immediate environment shapes the way we perceive our circumstances. When the weather is nice and sunny, it is hard to imagine another region getting slammed by a snow storm. However thanks to modern media -- with its 24-hour news channels and anywhere accessibility of the Internet – we can't help but absorb news like a sponge. Incidentally we intake, regurgitate and dwell upon the mostly negative material we observe.

Back in my college days I concocted an experiment. For two years I swore off modern media. I didn't watch any TV, listen to commercial radio or browse the Internet (although I didn't give up going to the cinema). Besides the initial boredom, the quiet, and the copious amounts of free time I found myself with-- something in my way of thinking began to change. It was a near instantaneous clearing of the senses, as if a weight had been lifted off me. Perhaps the media disconnect left me more naive regarding what we call “news”, but I still garnished an idea of what was going on from the occasional newspaper or magazine headline.

And I didn't feel in anyway diminished by this experience. If anything, I felt more relaxed, at peace, and more hopeful. What I realized mattered most was what was going on immediately around me -- at that very moment. I'm sure other things (probably bad) were happening elsewhere which probably shouldn't be overlooked, but there were enough needs within my immediate environment to vie for my attention.

The problem with modern media is that it oversaturates. Though I currently partake in my share of news gathering and disseminating, I can't help but think how unnatural it is to absorb so much information. Since the dawn of human civilization, the only concern was the physical here and now. But media has created a new paradigm, one which opens up many worlds and displays them continuously -- whether or not these new worlds have anything even remotely to do with us.

To say that we should ignore what goes on elsewhere would do a disservice to those who empathize with the suffering of others. But I think we also need to be aware that empathy means nothing without action, and in most cases we watch what we watch just to be "informed." And I've got nothing against that. 

But what I think is essential is an understanding that yes, the world has and will always have its share of trouble – so just relax, calm down and do what you can with what you've got.

If not, perhaps it's time to tune out.

Polygamy (but only if it's okay with the wife)

Now that's a legacy!

Polygamy. The very word is enough to make most women cringe, and most men smile. Not only is it a polarizing subject to most of us of Judeo-Christian heritage, but it's also a thorny issue in those cultures that advocate (or at least don't condemn) the institution of plural marriage.

More specifically referred to as polygyny, this union of one man and his many wives is as old as history. In fact, the Patriarchs of the world's great Faiths -- Judaisms and Islam -- both practiced plural marriage. Even Christianity didn't condemn it, although the Church fathers did prohibit those Christian men with more than one wife from serving in the Church. So why does polygamy get such a bad rap?

Not only is polygamy abhorrent (at least overtly) to most Westerners, it is also contradictory to the way our society in large thinks about love. We're brought up to believe (thank you Hollywood) that everyone -- including the ugly ones -- has a soul mate just waiting around the corner for that happily ever after (monogamous) relationship.

But this “to the exclusion of all others” business is just plain horse cocka. And we all know it. With US divorce rates in the neighbourhood of 50%, society is already in a de-facto state of polygamy anyway. Alimony and child support inevitably tie the offending spouse (usually the husband) to the family regardless, so why not just expedite the whole process and save the divorce?

Probably because Western women wouldn't stand for it. And justifiably so. But this viewpoint hasn't swayed societies that still practice this chauvinistic lifestyle.

Polygamy is nearly always a cultural construct. Traditional patriarchal societies were more likely to practice it, primarily for the purposes of enlarging and ensuring one's estate through procreation. Families would be large as a result, which meant more helpers in the fields and workers in the home. And if a man disliked his wife, he simply married another. Divorce was (and still is in some Muslim and more traditional cultures) to the benefit of the husband, and as such the affected women simply accepted the situation as their lot in life.

At the risk of sounding like a Utah salesperson for this unusual relationship brand, I must add one caveat. Most societies that allow polygamy also require the man to be able to support his wives. This requirement is not only reiterated in most religious scripture that condones the practice, but it is also codified into law in most places. So you need money too, lots of it. More often than not, no money means no (extra) wives.

And while most countries have laws prohibiting the practice of polygamy, there are exceptions. Huge swaths of Africa and the Middle East (as well as some Muslim majority countries, such as Indonesia) recognize these marriages under civil law. Interestingly, India allows it for their Muslim population, but not for the Hindu majority.

Saudi Arabia probably has the most intricate polygamy “organization.” Men may marry up to four wives, with or without the other wives consent. However, the wives do have the option of divorcing the dude if they feel the arrangement is not for them.

Africa, however, is home to some of the greatest polygamists -- men who do the word proud, like Ancentus Akuku of Kenya. Nicknamed “Ancentus Danger” because of his good looks, this Don Juan of the Serengeti married 100 women in his 94 years, fathering some 160 children. Then there's Mohammed Bello Abubakar of Nigeria, who had 86 wives and 170 children (although due to Sharia law he was forced to drop the other 82 wives). Even the South African President, Jacob Zuma, has three wives and 20 kids and is a shameless, self-promoting wife-loving polygamist.

However in North America polygamy is a big no-no. Known here by its more heinous name – bigamy – it is considered a legal offense to marry someone while still married. For some reason, Westerners just hate the concept of polygamy. I'm not sure why our founding Fathers had such an aversion to the idea, but most of us today view those who choose to participate in this marital union as immoral spectacles of a bi gone era.

In Canada, places like Bountiful, British Columbia are home to a growing polygamist community. Having come under attack for their alternative attitude (although the official government line infers abuse) they don't seem like your typical criminal enterprise. Sure, they look like they've been watching a little too much Little House on the Prairie, but they all seem a very innocent and peaceful people. The wives enter into the marriage covenant willingly, and the whole thing seems completely unoffensive.

Utah too seems to like its polygamy, thanks to the early teachings of the Mormon Church. Even though the Church of the Latter Day Saint's have renounced their belief in “plural marriage” the polygamist legacy is still felt. (It's even the premise of HBO's Big Love -- a show I have never seen and frankly don't care to.)

Perhaps the regions where polygamy thrives most are those which are closer to their tribal roots or cultural pasts. Most are located in developing or Third World countries, often in countries with minimal Western influence. Yet this is not always the case. Saudi Arabia -- with a per capita income north of $20,000 and an affinity for Western luxury and goods -- seems to easily meld it's modern lifestyle with more traditional tribal and Islamic beliefs.

Polygamy influences (and is influenced) by living standards. In certain environs, especially those with non-automated agricultural based economies, the benefits of polygamy are clear. Clearly a man in this situation bears an advantage over the one with a smaller family. The kings of old, notably the Hebrew kings David and Solomon, could afford the means to keep tens or even hundreds of wives.

But it seems that as mankind has evolved and progressed, emphasis was placed on material possessions and personal betterment (as well as developments like universal suffrage) -- causing polygamy to become a tad bit extraneous, if not financially prohibitive. In the era of cultivation, children were an asset. In the age of information, children are a liability (others, not mine).

But the varying factors that encourage plural marriage never really found root in the West. Though farms needed workers and men needed women, both the Catholic and Protestant Church looked on polygamy with disgust. And it would seem that the religious and social heritage of the settling pioneers didn't stray too far from this ideal.

In all likelihood the legalization of polygamy in the West would be certain disaster. The qualities that allowed this institution to survive to this day really do not factor into modern life: The need of additional wives to ensure that one be able to produce enough offspring to survive the plagues, wars and famines of the day; the economic benefits to a man's estate of having many children to tend to the goats and the fields; the elevated tribal status of having more children, more wives, and in turn, a larger estate. Almost always the benefits of polygamy relate to procreation.

In the end, it's probably a good thing that our self-indulgent Western society has taken the position on polygamy it has. Could you imagine a country full of Charlie Sheen's marrying multiple hotties, only to jump ship when the going got rough?

The only reason women ever stood for plural marriage was because there was a reasonable expectation that the husband would respect each and every wife, or in the very least provide for her and her children's needs. I don't think there has ever been a version of polygamy (at least not a successful one) where a husband married for sex, only to leave his wife neglected emotionally and financially.

While it's not for me, I don't see the harm in allowing polygamy. As long as the agreement is mutual and beneficial to all those involved, I don't perceive it as a threat to National Security.

The Man who stood against the Tsunami (and won)

Picture yourself five thousand years ago in a world that has never seen rain. Surrounding you are luscious green fields watered by underground springs, small homes dotting the rolling hills -- and some old white-bearded guy banging together a boat.

But this isn't your ordinary take-it-out-for-the-afternoon fishing dingy. Notwithstanding its massive 450 foot length and 75 foot width, this monolithic multi-story piece of pitch and Cyprus wood was to house two of every living creature on Earth. Problem was, the ship wasn't built even remotely close to any existing bodies of water. It just sat in Noah's backyard, an object of ridicule amongst his dumbfounded neighbours.

And after the poor old guy had laboured away for what must have been the better part of a century, the animals were loaded aboard, the doors were shut, and the flood waters came and wiped out everything but him, his family and the animals. At least that's how the book of Genesis tells it.

Fast forward to March 11, 2011. An underground megathrust earthquake with the force of 600 million Hiroshima nuclear bombs rocks the coast of Japan. Besides knocking the planet 10 inches off its axis, the energy displaces enough ocean water to create a wall of water 128 feet high.

The wave, initially the speed of an airliner, slows at it approaches the hapless fishing hamlets dotting the Eastern Japanese coastline. In the blink of an eye, the torrent smashes the land with unimaginable force. Houses and bridges are ripped off their foundations; buses, boats, cars, trains and nearly anything else buoyant enough to float is unwillingly swept into the deadly morass of mud and debris.

Further inland -- and in the direct path of the onrushing tsunami -- is the fishing port of Fudai. At the mouth of the city, nestled between two mountains, is a massive 673 foot long concrete tsunami barrier. Built 38 years earlier after much controversy (and at the insistence of the late town mayor Kotaku Wamura) the barrier's 66 foot height and $40 million cost was considered too extravagant and unnecessary by many of the townsfolk.

However Wamura knew better. Having spent his life in Fudai, he had seen first hand the effects of Mother Nature's fury. The 1933 Earthquake and tsunami had so ravaged the area that for decades after bodies were still being dug out of the mud as the town rebuilt and expanded. Despite the doubting of others (as well as Wamura's own misgivings) he managed to convince the resident's that the barrier was in their best interests.

But as the onrushing water approached the barrier, something went terribly wrong. Despite the successful closing of the four main gate panels, a small door refused to budge. Springing into action, a local fireman raced to the jammed door and shut it moments before the torrent collided with the barrier.

Despite the water lapping over the edge of the berm, the barrier stood solid. Amazingly, all but the town's port was spared from destruction, thanks entirely to Wamura's foresight and persistence.

Something needs to be said for those visionaries -- be they thinkers in alternative energy, environmental protection or what have you -- that clearly foresee the potential disasters ahead and act on behalf of others to save them. They brave the stigma of doubters, overcome collective ignorance among society and struggle to maintain their reputation or even livelihoods in order to raise the warning.

Often times these persons are not even alive to see the fruit of their struggles, but this should not deter them from acting. Recent efforts by the current American administration to address the severity of the US debt might be seen as such an act, though possibly this may be an example of sounding the klaxon alarm too little, too late.

But in other areas, such as the alternative energy front, there is still plenty of time to enact change and steer the boat of global warming and fossil-fuel dependence away from the swirling whirlpool. Most of us can concur that something needs to be done here, but most of us expect someone else to do it.

What is necessary is a collective awareness that we all have a share in this global biosphere, and should ( in the very least) approve of and encourage those who have the capability to protect and preserve -- like Noah and Wamura -- to do just that.