{"id":108653,"date":"2020-12-26T15:00:59","date_gmt":"2020-12-26T20:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=108653"},"modified":"2020-12-27T02:32:35","modified_gmt":"2020-12-27T07:32:35","slug":"a-response-to-our-resident-boomer-hater","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=108653","title":{"rendered":"A Response to Our Resident “Boomer-Hater”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Well, our resident \u201cboomer hater\u201d has been at it again<\/i><\/a>. But I must give credit where credit is due: at least this time he didn\u2019t say he was \u201cthankful\u201d that the Wuhan Coronavirus will kill more of the \u201cboomer\u201d generation because they\u2019re more likely than not to oppose his preferred political goals. (And yes, \u201cbuddy\u201d: you indeed did say that in previous comments here at TAH<\/i><\/a>. And then you \u201cdoubled-down on \u2018teh stoopid\u2019 and said it again here<\/i><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Now, seeing that level of unjustified verbal abuse over and over and over again directed at an entire well-defined demographic group – in this case, at an entire generation – for some kind of perceived slights he never documents gets rather . . . tiresome. Best I can tell he seems to feel that the \u201cboomer\u201d generation hasn\u2019t \u201cpaid what it owes\u201d to America and future generations but he never gets specific examples.<\/p>\n

So I decided to look at another way a generation \u201cearns its keep\u201d. Specifically, I decided to look at how many \u201cboomers\u201d have died during US military conflicts vs. how many of \u201cGen-X\u201d have died in US military conflicts.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m going to limit this look to 4 conflicts: Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Why? Because they\u2019re the four \u201cbiggies\u201d that have occurred during the last 60 years.<\/p>\n

Now, presenting this for the benefit of our \u201cbeloved\u201d boomer-hating commenter isn\u2019t worth the effort of finding and then manually going through lists of names totaling somewhat over 65,000 to determine the DOB of every US military member who died in those 4 conflicts in order to assign them to a particular generation. However, info is readily available online that allows making what I consider a reasonably accurate, though somewhat rough, estimate regarding those war deaths.<\/p>\n

Sidebar<\/u>: Even finding lists containing the necessary info online appears to be a non-trivial exercise. Nonetheless, if someone can point me at a softcopy of such lists for the 4 conflicts in question (Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq) that can be downloaded and imported into Excel, I\u2019ll be glad to repeat the analysis below using exact numbers. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Specifically, for three of the conflicts (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) information is publicly available online giving the age distribution of US military deaths and the number who died each year during these conflicts. For the fourth conflict (the Gulf War), information is available online giving the total number whose death is attributable to the war and average age of those members of the US military who died. <\/p>\n

The sources for the raw data used are identified at the end of this article. They’re not perfect, but they’re good enough for at least a rough estimate.<\/p>\n

We also have generally accepted generational definitions for both the \u201cboomer\u201d and \u201cGen-X\u201d generations (\u201cboomer\u201d, 1946-1964\u201d; \u201cGen-X\u201d, 1965-1980 appear to be the most commonly accepted ranges). Given those generally accepted birth ranges it\u2019s simply a somewhat tedious weighted average problem to determine a reasonable estimate of how many from a particular generation died in each of those conflicts.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not going to provide all the calculations I used in this article; doing so would be far too lengthy and cumbersome. (If anyone\u2019s truly interested I can upload and link the spreadsheet used.) However, here\u2019s a representative example of calculations for the year 1966 illustrating the methodology:<\/p>\n

1. Turned 17 that year implies born in 1949, implying part of those born this year (and the three previous years, 1946-1948, since we’re looking at “boomers”) could have served in Vietnam. (I’m reasonably sure those 17 y\/o weren\u2019t banned from combat-zone service in 1966 and before \u2013 and the age ranges listed for US military dead for Vietnam start at 17 years old.) This lets us determine which members of a given generation – in this case, “boomers” – served in the war.<\/p>\n

2. Determine if only part of an age applies, and if so decide what percentage of the range to use. Step one allows this. Here, 70% of fraction of 17-21 y\/o category (1\/2 of those age 17 plus those aged 18, 19, and 20 \u2013 only some of those turning 17 would be born early enough to finish training in time to get to Vietnam that year) was used.<\/p>\n

3. Fraction of Vietnam dead age 17-21: 68.469%. This percentage was determined from numbers contained in one of the sources documented at the end of this article.<\/p>\n

4. Calculate the fraction of that year’s dead from the generation in question. Here, it’s 70% of the age 17-21 category: 0.7 x 0.685 = 47.95%. (The calculation gets more complex when two or more age categories are spanned by a generation, but the principle is the same.)<\/p>\n

5. US Military Deaths in Vietnam, 1966: 6,143. This data was obtained from one of the sources documented at the end of this article.<\/p>\n

6. Estimated number of dead who were \u201cboomers\u201d: 2,944 (truncated to remove fractional part). Direct calculation using results of steps 4 and 5.<\/p>\n

This general methodology was used for Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Rounding was used for Afghanistan and Iraq vice truncation to produce an integer figure; any difference is almost certainly small and would not affect the final conclusions in any significant way. Final figures for Afghanistan and Iraq were also adjusted upward slightly to match DoD’s totals for US military deaths attributable to those two conflicts (when totaled, the by-year source data produced a slightly lower total for US military wartime deaths for each conflict than official DoD sources).<\/p>\n

For the Gulf War, an online source giving the age distribution of US military personnel who died in-theater or who died of wounds\/injuries after MEDEVAC was not immediately available. However, a source was located giving the total number of US military dead attributed to that war as well as the average age (26.9) for those who died. All Gulf War US military deaths occurred during a 1-year period, so as an approximation they were assumed to have occurred in 1991 and that assumption was used to assign generational membership. The oldest \u201cGen-X\u201d member would have turned 26 in 1991, so I\u2019m assuming Gulf War military deaths to be 50% \u201cGen-X\u201d, 48% \u201cboomer\u201d (\u201cboomers\u201d were between 26 and 45 in 1991), and 2% older. (A few military deaths at age 46 or more would have had a larger impact on the overall average than an equivalent number at the low end of the range, 18, which led me to allocate slightly more to \u201cGen-X\u201d than the numbers might otherwise support. Regardless, the difference is small.)<\/p>\n

Again: these are rough estimates, not exact counts. But they should be somewhere close to reality.<\/p>\n

OK, let\u2019s cut to the chase:<\/p>\n

Vietnam<\/u>: Using the available data online, I estimate that somewhat over 39,200 of the 58,200+ US military deaths in Vietnam were members of the \u201cboomer\u201d generation. That works out to a bit under 67.4% – or well over two-thirds.<\/p>\n

Gulf War<\/u>: There were 219 US military deaths attributed to the Gulf War. Based on this and the average age (26.9) of those dead, as noted above I estimate that means roughly 109 of them (approx 50%) were \u201cGen-X\u201d, roughly 105 were \u201cboomers\u201d (approx 48%), and the rest were almost certainly from the \u201cSilent Generation\u201d (born 1928-1945).<\/p>\n

Afghanistan<\/u>: Using the basic same methodology as for Vietnam and data available online, I estimate that between 720 and 730 of the 2,445 US military deaths to date in Afghanistan were members of \u201cGen-X\u201d. That\u2019s around 29% – or less than one-third. (I didn\u2019t bother to estimate \u201cboomer\u201d deaths in Afghanistan; the number is undoubtedly nonzero, but given the age of the youngest \u201cboomer\u201d in 2001 (37), I\u2019d guess that number is probably fairly low.)<\/p>\n

Iraq<\/u>: Using the same basic methodology as for Vietnam and data available online, I estimate that somewhat between 1,810 and 1,820 of the 4,491 US military deaths to date in Iraq were members of \u201cGen-X\u201d. That\u2019s very close to 40% – or about 2\/5. (I didn\u2019t bother to estimate \u201cboomer\u201d deaths in Iraq for the same reason as Afghanistan.)<\/p>\n

Hmm. Looks to me like \u201cGen-X\u201d isn\u2019t exactly paying its fair share here when it comes to shedding blood for the nation. When one looks at the numbers, it appears virtually certain that more \u201cboomers\u201d were killed in Vietnam each year from 1966 to 1970, inclusive<\/i>, than the combined total of those from “Gen-X” who died in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq<\/u>.<\/p>\n

Yo – get with the program, \u201cGen-X\u201d! Pull your weight, and pay your share!<\/p>\n

. . .<\/b><\/p>\n

Astute readers will have already observed that while the above analysis is factually and mathematically accurate (to the limits of the data available), the final conclusions are pure bullsh!t<\/u><\/b>. That is true \u2013 and that was intentional<\/i>.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll spell out the \u201cwhy\u201d for the benefit of our \u201cbeloved\u201d boomer-hating commenter. The conclusion (\u201cGen-X\u201d hasn’t paid its fair share in terms of shedding blood for the nation) is bullsh!t because it blames Gen-X for something beyond their control \u2013 specifically, for being born at the wrong time<\/i>. In general, members of a particular generation can only fight \u2013 and pay the ultimate price during \u2013 the wars that occur during their younger years. As many have observed elsewhere, war is predominately a \u201cyoung man\u2019s game\u201d. <\/p>\n

Why would I provide an argument leading to a conclusion I know to be complete bullsh!t? I did that to illustrate this fact: an argument based on an invalid assumption or premise virtually always leads to an invalid conclusion, no matter how seemingly-persuasive or well-constructed it might be.<\/i><\/p>\n

My overall point? I\u2019ll spell that out for your benefit too, oh \u201cbeloved\u201d boomer-hater. It\u2019s equally invalid<\/u> to blame a generation for using (and benefiting from) Federal programs that are (1) mandated and\/or authorized by Federal law, (2) many of which have origins that predate the voting eligibility of said generation, or even their birth, (3) virtually all of which originated prior to even half of said generation being eligible to vote, (4) virtually all of which predate said generation being the \u201cones in charge\u201d, and (5) which said generation has paid taxes to support for decades. And that\u2019s precisely what you\u2019re doing when you blame \u201cboomers\u201d for doing so.<\/i><\/p>\n

I\u2019ll cover the preceding paragraph in more detail in an article I have in draft and anticipate having up shortly before or after New Year\u2019s Day, but here\u2019s the short version. Many if not most of the authorized and lawful Federal programs you seem to have a heartburn with \u201cboomers\u201d using – and which \u201cboomers\u201d also paid taxes to support while both they and\/or others used same – either predate the birth of the first \u201cboomer\u201d (e.g., Social Security, food assistance) or were begun before the vast majority of boomers could vote (e.g., all of LBJ\u2019s \u201cGreat Society\u201d programs, Pell Grants, student loans). To my knowledge, only one such social program (Medicare Part D, 2006) was instituted after the year 2000 – and it wasn’t until well after 2000 (the year 2008<\/u>, to be precise) that the majority in both Houses of Congress were \u201cboomers\u201d. It’s Congress<\/u> that makes Federal law \u2013 remember?<\/p>\n

And please spare me any references to infrastructure programs such as highway construction. Those benefit everyone equally. They don’t benefit any generation disproportionately.<\/p>\n

In short: with your perverse assignment of blame, you\u2019re showing contempt for an entire demographic group for something they (1) didn’t create, (2) had no say in, and (3) had little to no real ability to change. And you’re doing it for no other reason than the circumstances of their birth \u2013 specifically, because of when they were born.<\/i> <\/p>\n

That\u2019s almost a carbon copy of what the KKK did with respect to nonwhites and Jews. The only real difference I see is the reason for contempt towards the group in question: the KKK based their contempt on race\/ethnicity, while you’re basing your contempt on age. Since as I recall you also seem to see (and complain about) systemic discrimination against various demographic groups – e.g., racial\/ethnic\/gender\/sexual orientation – everywhere you look, that in turn makes you a massive hypocrite. That last point comes as no surprise to longtime TAH readers.<\/p>\n

And if you think a large majority of any group will ever<\/u> pressure Congress to scale back programs that benefit them or to increase dramatically the taxes they personally<\/i> pay, well, \u201cbuddy\u201d \u2013 IMO that means you don\u2019t know squat about the realities of human nature or US politics. (Although since you\u2019re a Leftist, your not understanding human nature kinda goes without saying.) Only a true and immediate existential threat is going produce that outcome. <\/p>\n

You\u2019ve indicated in comments elsewhere that you\u2019re a member of Gen-X. That means it\u2019s way<\/u> past time for you to grow the hell up, \u201camigo\u201d<\/i>. <\/p>\n

Quit blaming the previous generation if your life today sucks. If it does, that\u2019s almost certainly because of decisions YOU made in the past; too many others from your generation are doing well for reality to be otherwise. <\/p>\n

Instead, figure out what you need to do to make your<\/i> life better. Then go do it<\/u>.<\/p>\n

Consider the preceding short paragraph \u2013 and the advice it contains \u2013 your belated Christmas present.<\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

Data Sources<\/u>:<\/p>\n

Age Distribution of US Military War Dead in Vietnam:
\n https:\/\/www.americanwarlibrary.com\/vietnam\/vwc2.htm
\n<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

Distribution of US Military War Dead in\/Due to Vietnam by Year:
\nhttps:\/\/www.militaryfactory.com\/vietnam\/casualties.asp<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

Number and Mean Age of US Military War Dead, Gulf War:
\nhttps:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/8071721\/<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

Age Distribution of US Military War Dead, Afghanistan and Iraq:
\nhttps:\/\/crsreports.congress.gov\/product\/pdf\/RL\/RL32492\/33<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

US Military War Dead, Afghanistan, by Year:
\n“ https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan#Casualties_by_month_and_year<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

US Military War Dead, Iraq, by Year:
\n https:\/\/www.statista.com\/statistics\/263798\/american-soldiers-killed-in-iraq\/<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

—–<\/p>\n

Author’s Note<\/u>: FWIW: yeah, I’m a \u201cboomer\u201d. I had about as much control over that fact as I did about whether the sun came up today. And in any case, as the senior North Vietnamese officer told COL Harry S. Summers when Summers visited Vietnam years after the conflict and mentioned that the US had never been defeated on the battlefield there: “That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.”<\/i><\/p>\n

I wrote this because I despise seeing someone make a false argument that holds <\/i>an entire group responsible for things they didn’t do and over which they had little or no control. Our resident “boomer-hater” does exactly that when he disparages an entire generation for “not paying it’s fair share” because it’s using authorized, legal Federal programs started far before they held any significant degree of political power.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Well, our resident \u201cboomer hater\u201d has been at it again. But I must give credit where … A Response to Our Resident “Boomer-Hater”<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[170],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-who-knows"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=108653"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108653\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":108665,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108653\/revisions\/108665"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=108653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=108653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=108653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}