Skip to main content

Generation Next?



I heard the Spice Girls song Move Over on the radio t'other day. Though the lyrics are fairly inane, I believe the gist of it is about how Generation X is gonna take over (unclear as to what -- society? the world? a toy shop?). At any rate, the song was from 1997 and, as I was listening to it (a fellow GenXer myself), I thought, "Have we really taken over, though?"

Certainly, our pop culture landscape has been very friendly to Generation X in recent years. So many movies and TV shows from our youth have been rebooted (sometimes to great success) that it's obvious we've been catered to greatly on that front.

But what about politically? And I'm speaking of the big stakes here -- federal level positions. How many members of the House of Representatives are from Generation X? And Senators? Looking at the Supreme Court, it would appear that the two most recent appointments -- Gorsuch and Kavanaugh -- just barely qualify as Gen X (being born in 1967 and 1965, respectively). The definition of a Generation X member is, apparently, anyone born from 1965 to 1980.

The aforementioned determination of who qualifies as Generation X would seem to preclude Kamala Harris, but some places are wanting to include her. As of this writing, however, she is a candidate for the vice-presidency, but has not actually been elected to, or served in, the position. To date, we've not yet had a president or vice-president from Generation X. Donald Trump and Mike Pence, our current President and Vice-President, are Baby Boomers, as is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The current Democratic candidate for President, Joe Biden, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are from the pre-Boomer era.

Please, I don't want Generation X folks to come to prominence at the highest levels when they're in their seventies or older. I know it sounds ageist, but if we're going to have our time in the sun, here's hoping it's sooner rather than later. After all, we're not getting any younger.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yesterday's Restaurants

The local newspaper has a feature from one of Champaign-Urbana's most legendary restaurateur's, John Katsinas, on what his favorite area restaurants were that have now since closed (or will soon be closing).  It's a nice little read, and has made me stop and think about the restaurants that have come and gone that have left an indelible (and edible) impression on me throughout the years. Here we go....
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: Thir13en Ghosts

While not a scholar or even a purist, I am somewhat of a film snob. Not a big fan of remakes, specifically when the originals don't need updating. It is therefore an unusual position I find myself in, preferring a remake to an original, and by leaps and bounds. Let's take a look at today's feature...
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: The Woman In Black

Yesterday, we had a lady in white, and today we have.... The Woman In Black Just as Nosferatu was our oldest horror film to be reviewed this month, The Woman In Black is our most recent. Released earlier this year, the film stars Daniel Radcliffe in a more adult role than previously seen in his Harry Potter career. He plays a young lawyer whose wife died in childbirth, so he has been raising their son (mostly) on his own. With money tight, and his job on the line, the young attorney takes an assignment in a remote village, much to his dismay. The small, closed community Radcliffe's character finds himself in is apparently haunted by a woman dressed in all black. When she is seen, a child dies. She is seen quite a lot during the course of the film. The locals get edgy with the attorney, making him feel most unwelcome. And when he is doing his work, sorting through the papers of a deceased elderly woman, he discovers the secret of the woman in black. It doesn't
Post a Comment
Read more