Weblogic

Never has a recent generation been so identified with hair. Oh, yes, I know hair has had some very deep psycho-significant historical moments (Samson and Delilah and First Corinthians 11:14-15 – look it up), but as far as the 20th century is concerned hair and baby boomers have always made for a volatile mix.
It’s all tied up in rebellion, sexual revolution and just generally getting the older generation all worked up. In our grandmother’s time, the scandal was women cutting their hair; in the ‘60s it was young men not cutting their hair. Our generation even had a musical celebrating our conflicted relationship with the stuff growing out of our heads.

Now it’s baby boomer women who won’t cut their hair. As I was getting older, the conventional wisdom was that a woman cut her hair when she turned 30. Long hair “dragged” down your face and made you look older. By the time most boomer women were turning 40 fashion pundits were on the verge of hysteria: Don’t women know that long after a certain age is just wrong? That they are trying to recapture their lost youth in a way that just makes them look silly?
(Hmm, what about Susan Sarandon, Gloria Steinem, Catherine Deneuve, EmmyLou Harris – whose mane is gray – Bonnie Raitt and Blythe Danner? All have long hair.)
I have to think two things are at work here:

1. The idea that you should cut your hair is hype from the salon industry because shorter hair takes more upkeep
2. Not cutting your hair is still a rebellion against conventional wisdom and rebellion is still irksome.

Think I’m kidding? During a recent serious illness, my mother, who just turned 80, looked up from what very well could have been her deathbed and asked me when I was going to cut my hair. I gotta say it broke the tension – that she could be worried about the length of my hair at a time like that told me she was on the road to recovery, but really …

You see, that is one of the defining aspects of this generation. We don’t just think we're rebellious – we still are, albeit in smaller ways.
In the next week or so I’ll be reflecting on the arc of boomer rebellion, but for now:
“Gimme a head with hair, long beautiful hair
Shining, gleaming, steaming, flaxen, waxen
Give me down to there, hair!
Shoulder length, longer (hair!)
Here baby, there mama, Everywhere daddy daddy

Hair! (hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair)
Flow it, Show it;
Long as God can grow it, My Hair!”

Who doesn't worry that they may end up in a hospital, plugged into all kinds of tubes and machines, and there isn't a nurse to be seen in your moment of need? It's been quite a while since I have actually cruised the halls of a hospital...my exposure is limited to 'Grey's Anatomy' where the drama of blood and guts can be viewed while either snacking or reading email. I prefer it that way and so when I read some recent stats on the nursing shortage, I couldn't help but feel a mild panic. The wake up call: multiple studies put California at or near the bottom of national rankings when it comes to the number of nurses per capita. A 2006 study showed that California was 49th out of the 50 states in nurse/patient ratio: 622 nurses per 100,00 residents compared to the national ratio of 787 nurses per 100,000 residents. And if this doesn't raise a few brows, check out some of the other alarming information:

- the U.S. is expected to be short more than 800,000 nurses when some 80 million baby boomers retire over the next decade.

Marketing and advertising companies are salivating at the idea of separating boomers from their cash (this is not new) – but according to Boomers an article in the January 6, 2008 New York Times, they’re not quite sure how to do it.

Turns out aging boomers – because, after all we are each the stars of our own show -- consider themselves each a “group” of exactly one, defying and maddening slick ad agencies that would like to work with fewer than 78-80 million separate demographic groups. (On the other hand, think about how much work advertising agencies would have if they had to market their products differently to each individual boomer – talk about targeted advertising!)

So, being the smoke-and-mirrors masters that they are, some agencies have devised groups that give “the illusion of individuality.” (You gotta love the double speak – not for the first time have a thought how prescient Aldous Huxley really was in Brave New World.)

(A little off topic, but what the heck)

Hunting is a dangerous pastime (just ask the friends of Vice President Dick Cheney). But, let’s face it, whenever there are humans (mostly men) and guns involved there’s gonna be pain and death, certainly for the quarry like deer and goose as well as hapless hunting dogs and their human hunters.

But here’s a twist that, while undoubtedly horrible and tragic for the family involved, is darkly ironic.

According to Reuter’s, a hunter lost his life when his dog inadvertently discharged a loaded shotgun.

Law enforcement officials agreed that this was one of the stranger cases they had encountered: they came to their conclusion that the dog did it based on finding Arthur the chocolate lab’s muddy prints on the trigger of the gun. Turns out his late owner had tossed a loaded shotgun into the back of the pickup truck along with Arthur. Considering the stupidity of not unloading the shotgun, engaging the safety, or not placing a trigger lock on the weapon, should Arthur find himself under investigation for homicide, he could always plead self-defense.

Note to Readers: Do not assume from this post that I’m some sort of anti-gun nut. Not so – although I do not currently own a gun, I have in the past. I have absolutely nothing against guns, especially long guns; stupidity, on the other hand, is another story.