Showing posts with label '08. Show all posts
Showing posts with label '08. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Rush Limbaugh: The Man Who Gave America Health Care Reform!


Kevin Drum and Paul Krugman both have noted the impact that the Club for Growth played in getting Arlen Specter to switch parties and provide the 60th caucus vote.

But just as much praise is also due to Rush Limbaugh.

Recall Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," an effort to get Republicans in Pennsylvania to re-register as Democrats for the state's closed 2008 Presidential primary in order to vote for Hillary Clinton, whom, Rush theorized, would be dead in the water during the general election. Well, lots of Pennsylvanians did register as Dems during the primary, but they never re-registered back to the GOP, thus creating a more conservative GOP electorate and bad news for Specter.

Say what you will about Nelson and Lieberman, but if Arlen Specter doesn't become a Democrat health care reform never survives a filibuster.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

The Stupidest Analogy You'll Read All Day

Take it away, Dan Riehl:
The New York GOP, or whomever, picked its candidate, the GOP establishment backed them, as they were all but compelled to do under the circumstances. The problem is, the entire process was FUBER aka Effed Up By Establishment Republicans living insidethe machine and not the people that make up the electorate.

This reminds me of the frustration we felt as we rolled through the primaries in 2008. We watched open primaries with cross-over voting yield results that we didn't much like in too many cases.

(emphasis added)
This assumes that floods of Democratic voters "invaded" the Republican primary, even though the GOP primaries were over well before the Democrats had finished their own hotly contested primary. Riehl is basically saying that tons of Democratic voters threw their chances at making their own voices heard away just for the opportunity to screw with Republicans like they were participating in some kind of impromptu "Operation Chaos."

It's never conservatives fault, after all...

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Kevin Fischer Math! (or, The Incredible Increasing Price Tag!)

Elementary arithmatic is clearly not Fischer's strong suit.

Remember this Golden Oldie:
Good for the Attorney General who informed mega liberals Miller and Pocan the cost of his lawsuit was $155.
That's right it, only cost tax-payers $155 to guarantee we have clean elections in Wisconsin!

Except the actual cost is now $720. And that's if you're using Kevin Fischer Math, which, as we noted earlier, is tens of thousands of dollars off the mark.

Whatever voodoo accounting measures DOJ is using to make this case look negligently inexpensive will eventually come to light and the "cost" will eventually rise incrementally through a series of Friday afternoon press releases or just balloon all at once (in a Friday afternoon press release) ... until then, the actual cost of the lawsuit to tax-payers is $43,000+ $50,000. This figure includes the legal cost to the GAB, which is also a tax-payer funded government entity that Van Hollen sued. That costs money too, and there's no way of getting around that without flat out misrepresenting the facts.

MORE: The price tag for the GAB is now over $50,000:

Monday, March 24, 2008

Say No to Douchebaggery on the Wisconsin Supreme Court


I think it's high time I chime in on the subject of the state supreme court race. I don't think I've even mentioned it once on this blog -- and I have to confess that I've done all that I can to ignore it because I figured it was going to be just as much of a clusterfuck as it turned out to be.

Now, I consider myself to be a responsible voter -- someone who weighs a good deal of research, looks at positions, the issues, resumes, etc. -- but for this particular race I did none of that. I didn't need to. I took one look at Mike Gableman's picture and knew right away that I was not going to vote for him and there was nothing he could say or do about it to change my mind. Why? Because Mike Gableman is a douchebag.

Look at him. That robe may say "Your Honor," but that smirk says "I'm a douche." And what's with the book? Did a portrait photographer just happen to catch Gableman unawares while he was studiously examining some precedent of some kind? Of course not. It's a prop. Douchebags love props. Take this douchebag, for example:

See? This asshead isn't even wearing any clothes! He's all about his frickin' props: he's got his bling, a wristband (for some reason), his community college class ring ... and, most importantly, his woman -- who really isn't anything more in this picture than an elaborate prop. Jesus, even this guy's hand is essentially functioning as a prop what with the horizontal V gesture that means something I'm not familiar with (or could just be a lazy man's "shocker").

So you see what I mean: Douchebags love props. There are so many examples of this being true I will leave up to you to find the photographic evidence. The only thing this dude's missing is an alcoholic beverage of some kind in the other hand, because douchebags have only two purposes in life: drinking beer and banging bitches. Basically, douchebags use their props to project the tools of their chosen lifestyle: "Dude, check me out -- grinding against this chick and drinking this Red Bull and Vodka! I. Am. Awesome!" Gableman's doing the same thing by holding a book he's probably never even read: "Dude, check me out -- I'm reading the law, and shit. I. Am. Awesome!"

I know a thing or two about douchebags. I even went to college with a few douchebags ... who were all right, I guess. We were just from two different places -- you know what I mean? But since entering the "real world" I've been thwarted by douchebags at every stage of my life. Take this guy, for instance:

The fact that this guys "♥ Freshman Girls" basically guaranteed that I spent my freshman year bitter, lonely and with a lot of free Friday nights. Then the dick has go ahead and rub it in my face by wearing a douchebag-approved iron-on t-shirt. And dudes like this putz --

-- would be doing the same thing if that were an issue these days. What's going on here? Some kind of affirmative action program that is enabling douchebags to copulate with younger women? Where's the justice in that?

But it's the expression on Gableman's doughy face that reveals his inner 'bag. Every time I see it I want to create a thought bubble above that reads: "I would totally nail my clerk ... if I had one." That smirk just sends my 'bag-dar off the charts like a Geiger counter at Chernobyl. I've seen that look a million times on guys who'd be at the bar back-slapping their old friends from high school and endlessly recounting the deeds of their glory days and mischievous youth ...

It's the look of a guy who has probably thrown more than his share of beads at Marti Gras in the French Quarter. It's a look that I'd expect to see on Drew, the O-face guy from Office Space, once he gets promoted to middle management. It's the look this kid's probably gonna have in a few years:
Would we elect this lil' douche to the highest court in the state? I sincerely doubt it.

There. I think it was finally time that someone just came out and said the obvious. I mean, it's plain as day ... and this is a historic election: Wisconsin's first race for a supreme court seat that features a douchebag. And since douchebaggery has been in the news on the national scene lately I thought it might help if I broke the ice a bit.

Now some people may accuse me of anti-douchebag bigotry or they might suggest that the Butler team has run a dirty campaign full of TV ads that prey on the historical tensions between douches and us normal folks. That's all bullshit. Everyone knows douchebags aren't "tough on crime," which is just a code phrase that means "douchebags" (because it's like a crime against humanity when those people get hot chicks).

Seriously, imagine what the supreme court will look like if we elect a douchebag to the bench? Will lawyers have to take questions from some guy dressed like this:

God, I hope not.

[Most pictures were ripped off from Hot Chicks With Douchebags.com. I think you'll be able to figure out which ones on your own.]

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Disclosure

Was this letter to the editor printed in the Sunday NW authored by the wife of a sitting school board member?

If so, wouldn't it behoove the NW to mention that detail?

Evolution & the School Board

I didn't know that the teaching of evolution was going to be an issue during this coming school board election, but apparently this person did:

If you favor continuing the teaching of Darwinian evolution in our public schools as fact by presenting only supportive evidence to the exclusion of all contrary evidence, vote for Tom McDermott and John Lemberger in the school board election. I know from first hand experience that McDermott as a school board member opposed the teaching of contrary scientific evidence. So did Lemberger. When I spoke to the school board about this issue in May 2006 Lemberger was one of the university professors who spoke against change. So if you deplore the continued indoctrination of our public school children in a terribly flawed theory about the origin and purpose of life, do not vote for McDermott and Lemberger.

Sandra Gade Oshkosh

So we have someone saying that two candidates running for school board are cool with the teaching of evolution ... does anyone else know the other two candidates positions or are we to assume that they don't support the teaching of evolution?

Just asking ...

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Saturday Link Orgy

* Good Friday done right.

* Ef is nae Scottish is crap!

* Chippewa Falls-based Lauer Custom Weaponry is a classy business ...

* Faith-based initiatives and Trinity United Church of Christ.

* Two atheists walk into a movie theater at the Mall of America ... [via David Shraub]

* ... while a third discusses Obama's speech.

* So what's keeping Hillary in the race then?

* The Penn Effect.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Friday Link Orgy

* John McCain gets closer to opting for public financing of his presidential campaign while Wall Street puts its money on the Democrats, and even GOP 527s seem to be having a hard time of late, but somehow the RNC is doing better than the DNC.

* The merely mildly amusing web site Stuff White People Like has been getting a lot of flack lately, but it's also getting an outrageous advance for a book deal. We can only hope the infinitely superior Hot Chicks with Douchebags got a better deal.

* Hey, now you too can shill for your blog on the pages of the Washington Post! Chris Cillizza at The Fix is looking to round up the best political blogs in each of the 50 states and I see the folks over at RealDebateWisconsin and the BadgerBloggerAlliance have already dispatched their minions. Sorry, folks that's not what he's looking for. My guess is that WisPolitics.com and/or the Wheeler Report will win.

* Explore a lost city on your lunch break today.

* A brief look at how the war in Iraq is dissuading the next generation of military leadership in the Army and Marines from re-upping.

* Bad news for Obama? I would imagine it would be even worse news for the State Dept.

* Silly drunk people ...

* There is still an ungoldly amount of spying going on in Russia ... even in the private sector.

* Ricky Gervais might be in the middle of making one of the funniest movies of all time ... no pressure.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Dirty Trick of the Day (Tomorrow's Dirty Tricks Today Edition)

The GOP vs. Obama. I thought this was rather interesting:

Some Republican operatives say trying to push the idea that Obama is secretly Muslim (or otherwise playing up his foreign-sounding name) isn't just blatantly unfair, it's also ineffective. The party's polling and focus groups show that many voters see those attacks as out of bounds, and they wind up sympathizing with Obama because of them.

Apparently the strategy would mostly concentrate on labeling Obama "inexperienced" and "too liberal," at least in so far as the official McCain campaign is concerned. God only knows what will come from independent groups.

Here They Come

That didn't take long ...

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

"Black Guy Asks Nation for Change"

From the Onion:

Reports indicate that the black man has been riding from city to city across the country, asking for change wherever he goes. Citizens in Austin, TX said they spotted the same guy standing on the street Friday, shouting far-fetched ideas about global warming. Cleveland residents also reported seeing him in a local park, wildly gesticulating and quoting from the Bible. And last week, patrons at the Starlight Diner in Cheyenne, WY claimed that the black man accosted them while they were eating, repeatedly requesting change.

[...]

Those who encountered the black man Tuesday said he engaged in erratic behavior, including pointing at random people in the crowd and desperately saying he needs their help, going up to complete strangers and hugging them, and angrily claiming that he is not looking for just a little bit of change, but rather a great deal of change, and that he wants it "right now."
The timing is impeccable.

My, What a Big Tent You Have ...

With friends like these ...

Given the graciousness of the above GOP shills it's little wonder that Carol Roessler's departure from the Senate is occurring in a manner that leaves the party behind the eight ball. I'm sure she's no stranger to that kind of criticism from her "colleagues" and I like to think that she just got fed up and said "Fine, you run for office. I'll take my Rolodex to the first lobbying shop that offers me a corner office."

Is that how it went down? Probably not, but she did her party no favors in making the announcement this late. Quick: name a solid GOP candidate from Winnebago or Fond du Lac counties that can replace her? I'm sure there are a few out there, but the competition has had a considerable head start now and the Republicans will have to play a little catch up -- especially when it comes to raising money.

I imagine what will happen in the coming weeks will look an awful lot like what is happening in the 53rd Assembly district. Right now there are three people running for the GOP nomination (I'm actually kind of curious to see if any of these folks decide to forgo the Assembly seat and take a shot at the bigger enchilada). I think there will be a similar handful that tests the waters unless the Republicans can quickly settle on a recruited candidate and essentially shut out their primaries to everyone else save the clueless and the crazy.

Personally, I'd like to see someone run who makes Tom Reynolds look like a filthy hippie. That would probably be the most entertaining thing ever.

Anyway, congratulations to all the RINO hunters out there -- you managed to push one off the wildlife reserve. Now you're screwed. Keep up the great work!

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Oh Shit! Roessler's Not Running!

Christ, it's going to be a madhouse around here this fall.

The Speech

One of the great failings of Mitt Romney's December speech on religion was that it was not a discussion-generating event after the speech was given. People heard what he had to say, noted that he didn't screw up, then asked themselves "So what else happened today?" Maybe if Romney had won Iowa reporters would have gone back and said, "You know what really turned this campaign around for old Mitt? That Faith in America speech he gave a month ago."

But he didn't win Iowa.

Obama's speech is definitely generating buzz. For one thing, you can find transcriptions of the speech just about everywhere (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) The campaign seems to have wisely supplied an embargoed copy of the remarks to as many reporters as humanly possible, so they were clearly confident they had winner on their hands. They're clearly going to be doing a lot of hand-holding with the media:

His biggest gamble is to treat the subject with the depth and seriousness and complexity that it deserves. He is banking on enough reporters, pundits and voters hearing him out on this very difficult subject.

Not to mention discussing many of the aspects of the speech in great detail to their audiences. Right now that plan seems to be working (whereas Romney's speech failed). Here's just a sampling of what people are saying:

Ed Kilgore:

How will this entire speech go over? It's hard to say. It won't satisfy those who expected Obama to "reject" Wright as he rejected Farrakhan. It will offer fresh ammunition to Republicans who claim the "real" Obama is revealed by his associations in Chicago. It will anger some people on both sides of the racial divide by its flat statement of moral equivalence between black and white resentments. But it may resonate with Americans (especially Catholics) who have loyally attended churches for years while rejecting or ignoring key elements of church teachings.


Marc Ambinder:

How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone -- not just himself and the media -- to talk openly.


Pete Able:

Of all the words he spoke, those three — “not this time” — seemed the defining words of the moment; not just of the speech, but of his entire campaign.

Better than most, those words capture, I think, why so many people from so many corners of the country — from different races, income levels, genders, and ideologies — have rallied to his candidacy: because they believe their vote for him is a vote against the past and for a different approach, a different future. Will we be divided along artificial lines of race and income and party? Not this time. Will we succumb to smear campaigns? Not this time. Will we stumble through the world blind to the fears and hopes of others? Not this time.

Craig Crawford:

Barack Obama gave two speeches in one today that might have been best done separately. He tried to connect the national reaction against his pastor’s wacky ideas to the need for a national conversation about race.

[...]

Attempting to elevate the Wright flap to a broad sociological discussion might get Obama out of a rough political spot by changing the subject. But if he is saying that a healing conversation about race requires better understanding of his crazy preacher, many voters would rather talk about something else.

The Columbia Journalism Review:

Obama spoke with unusual directness about the economic legacy of racism, about today’s full texture of ethnic identity and resentment, about the need for genuine discussion on race, and about where to go from here.

Let’s meet him where’s he’s led us. There’s no reason Clinton and McCain can’t join in, but again, this needn’t—and in some ways shouldn’t—be a campaign-focused conversation. It’s a long overdue national conversation.

Charles Murray (whom, as Marc Ambinder points out, is the author of The Bell Curve):

Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.


Rush Limbaugh (by way of Ambinder):

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that Barack Obama was now "the candidate of race."

He said Obama "is not an agent of racial healing, he is a product of it."

He accuses of Obama of wanting to be the nation's racial-healer-in-chief, rather than its commander-in-chief.

From the Hotline:

Obama's call today was not just for the candidates to tone down the use of race in the presidential contest. What he said was bigger than that. It was more authentic than that. He challenged people, of all colors and backgrounds, to transcend their deepest distrust of each other in the interest of progress. To redefine the conversation about race in America.

To blacks, he said, embrace your past, do not fall victim to it. To whites, he said, it is time to acknowledge that "what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people."

Such an undeniably tall order, no? And yet, on gut alone, it felt reasonable, righteous.

K-Lo:

The more I think about this speech, the more I think Obama said: Damn straight, Rev. Wright is angry. That's how I wound up at his church. That's why I stay there. I'm mad too, I just control it better. Now let's get electing me president so we can all feel good.

Andrew Sullivan:

Alas, I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.

[...]

I love this country. I don't remember loving it or hoping more from it than today.

David Brody:

We won't know for awhile how voters view Barack Obama's speech today on race relations but The Brody File saw it as a HUGE positive for Obama and a successful turning point for the future of his campaign. ... He will always have his doubters. Some will say he should have left right then and there but Obama argues that you have to look at the whole picture. He's making the case that Wright's ministry needs to be seen in totality. Voters will decide if that is a sustainable argument."

The Weekly Standard:

[I]t turns out that Barack Obama is really no different than any other conventional liberal candidate for the presidency. He blames America, racism, and the past for the problems of today...

[...]

The controversial speech that would have saved Obama's campaign is here, and it was delivered on the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education by a man who really has transcended race. On that day, Bill Cosby said, "Brown Versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person’s problem." He said "We cannot blame white people." And he spoke about a culture of accountability as the only path to success for Black America.

I just want to pause for a second to let the reader absorb this last one: The Weekly Standard is suggesting we exchange an Obama speech for a Bill Cosby speech ...

Did you get that? Moving on ...

Kevin Drum:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Barack Obama for finally taking the stage and shutting up CNN's talking heads. That alone makes his speech worthwhile.

There's plenty more here, here and here.

What did I think? With the exception of the remarkable idiocy of Michael Goldfarb over at the Weekly standard and Rush Limbaugh, there is truth to much of the above, but that at the end of the day the greatness -- and it's definitely one of the best speeches I've ever heard -- of the speech is going to be measured in it's immensity. This speech has the ability to keep people talking for months, maybe even years, parsing and dissecting its words and its meaning and how it relates and reflects the racial experience in America and to Obama's own personal experience.

Obviously the most controversial aspect of the speech was Obama's refusal to throw Wright under the bus and I have a difficult time trying to re-imagine a speech in which he does so. The right will certainly bend over backwards to stick this on Obama, but in the long run I have a feeling that this will be interpreted by many as the moment when the student became his spiritual teacher's master.

If Obama's campaign is to be about unity and inclusion, he can't being running around tossing the people closest to him out to the wolves and not expect others to notice. In a strange way I can't help but feeling that Wright's incendiary remarks are in someway personifying the American "original sin" of race relations in this little drama. By condemning Wright's words Obama is acknowledging that there are unresolved matters between all races in this country and by not condemning Wright-the-man Obama is saying that he's not going to simply sweep these problems under the carpet and ignore them as we have a history of doing (as this guy seems to suggest we do).

There are many layers to this imbroglio, some of which I don't think we'll discover for some time now, but judging by Sen. Obama's response to this mess he has a keen idea just how complicated this matter is and a good notion on how to proceed with. David Corn made a sharp observation that this isn't a Sister Souljah moment and seems to me that he's largely correct to say that. Obama's got a narrow line to walk on this issue, but if this speech says anything to anyone, it's that he's going to be capable -- and daring enough -- to do it.

Clearly, this is not going to be the final word on the subject.

Did You Know?

Barack Obama does his own stunts.

Monday, March 17, 2008

I Expected Better

Evidently, Jesse Seymour, the Analogical Wonder from Antigo, took exception with my critique of his recent missive. Here's what he has to say in his defense:

First off, I never accused Barrack Hussein Obama of any crime against humanity - I simply stated that change for the sake of change has always led to disaster.


Let's look at the first clause of that sentence -- "I never accused Barrack Hussein Obama of any crime against humanity". Again, here's what he had written in the original post:

Barrack Hussein Obama has said over and over again that he wants transparency in government, but still has not revealed the recipients of pork projects that he appropriate funds for in 2005 and 2006. Obama keeps saying that he wants change but he will not say what the change is.

In 1942 [Editor note: I misquoted the year here. The year I had intended to quote was 1933] Germany had a major change in government. We all know how that story ended.


So, no, Seymour didn't "accuse" Obama of crimes against humanity -- at least not directly. But that wasn't our beef with the post. What I took exception to was the fact that Seymour was implying that Obama in some way, shape or form resembled Hitler and all that he represents in the historical imagination (which includes, but certainly isn't limited to, said "crimes against humanity"). Such a sloppy display of rhetorical slight of hand has essentially the same effect as a flat-out accusation.

Seymour should understand that. I contend that he is, in fact, well aware of this and was trying to be cute in front of his fellow conservative readers. Well, he got called out and here we are ...

As for the sentence's second clause "I simply stated that change for the sake of change has always led to disaster," let me just loudly respond: Bullshit. I simply can not read this in the original post and know of no possible way of doing so. Here is essentially the logical formation that I arrived at while reading Seymour's grafs discussing Obama:

(1.) Obama is a candidate calling for change.
(2.) However, Obama has not said what that change should be.
(3.) A scenario in which Obama is elected President would resemble the origins of the Third Reich.


Seymour's most recent argument -- that "change for the sake of change has always led to disaster" -- seems here to hinge on point (2.) above: that Obama has not disclosed what this "change" is that he is calling for. I don't know where Seymour is getting this from. Like all the other candidates who have spent the last 14 months running for President, Sen. Obama has released fairly detailed policy positions (most of which are in sharp contrast to the current administrations' -- why, here's a short primer on just his foreign policy views).

What Seymour appears to have done is confuse Obama's neglect for having released his earmark requests for his campaign's general theme of Change. They are not the same things. While the earmark issue may be an inconvenient fact that countervails Obama's call for broader change in Washington, the two are by no means interchangeable because one is simply a part to the other's greater whole.

As for Seymour's argument that "change for the sake of change has always led to disaster" (emphasis mine) -- again, I don't see that anywhere in the original argument. I see an author who makes one historical point of reference, which just happens to be the most extreme (and commonly abused) example cited in online discussion. If "change for the sake of change" always leads to disaster, you're going to have to provide us with a few more examples (like, many more examples) if you expect anyone to buy such a sweeping philosophical statement ...

And next time, do try and make them relevant examples, or at least ones that clearly support you're thesis because it could be argued that the Nazis did not come to power because Germany wanted "change for the sake of change," but because life in the Weimar Republic sucked so badly that Germans were willing to listen to anyone, especially a charismatic charlatan with a proclivity for scape-goating various minority groups, who offered a solution to their problems. Or, in other words, they weren't "changing for the sake of change," but changing because they believed they had no other choice for their own survival. Like I said, could be argued, but that just demonstrates that the example cited by Seymour isn't as black and white as he would have his readers believe.

The rest of the post, which actually makes up the bulk of the piece, isn't worth touching. It's just a shallow and obvious attempt to change the subject. Here's a shorter version: "I didn't call Obama a war criminal, but, boy, is he arrogant!" There. That's basically the whole post condensed into a dozen words. I'm not even going to bother with that part of it because this is exactly how poor Jesse Seymour got in this mess in the first place -- he got distracted, then got lazy, then said something stupid.

See, Seymour started out trying to craft some kind of Conservative Manifesto for the 21st Century, a real think piece full of big ideas on how much liberals blow. Something more along the line of this piece of shit. For a few grafs he succeeded, keeping things on a relatively abstract level, but when he got to the "Liberals will lie to win votes" section he lost focus and decided to bring in a contemporaneous example and somewhere in that transition a few neural synapses must have misfired (or something) and the result was the mess we've discussing here.

Fin.

And on a final note: you're goddamn right I have the maturity of a 5th-grader, but at least I don't write like one.

Gen Y and the Voters of the Future

Shoebox over at No Runny Eggs offers a valid, albeit one-sided, critique of "Generation Y" voters and the potential impact of an Obama loss, especially by way of some nefarious tactics by Team Clinton, on their the future political participation.

It's certainly possible that a "stolen" victory by Clinton could turn young voters off, and Shoebox isn't the only person to suggest that this could happen, but to predict that this phenomenon will occur due to the fact that Gen Y is collectively "needy," has "entitlement" issues, or is merely out to "do what feels good" largely misses the most distinct characteristic of most people under the age of 30: they are voraciously social.

Technology has had a large hand in contributing to this, but its not the only reason. Kids these days are more likely to have studied or more likely to study abroad -- their worldview is larger than their parents'. They're more likely to do things like internships or participate in some form of extracurricular activity (this has come both in the form of sheer availability of such programs and active encouragement from every quarter). And they are increasing required to lend a hand in their communities by completing a number of volunteer hours before they graduate high school (for example). You can't be political without being social, and kids these days have that down pat.

The "doing what feels good" criticism has been something young people have been praised for in a different context. Many recent college graduates are taking the few years after undergraduate school to do things like Teach for America, non-profit work, or other less than lucrative employment, not because it pays, but because "it feels good" to help out. Nothing makes people more political involved than volunteering in the community, seeing first hand what changes need to be made and actually having a hand implementing those changes. Gen Y may be the first generation of Americans to experience this on such a mass scale and may be better prepared to handle any kind of disappointment the current political environment can dish out to them.

For every doomsday scenario involving a so-called "Lost Generation" of voters there's another calling Gen Y a "Joshua Generation" (and it's no coincidence Obama used that phrase when he spoke in Selma earlier this year). It's the prerogative -- and maybe even the sworn duty -- of one generation to fear the worst from those that succeed it, yet somehow the human race continuous to move on. Kids these days are alright -- they're just young and susceptible to shortcomings of youth, like inexperience. That doesn't mean their idealism is any more fragile than any other generation before them.

An Ingenious Way to Collect Your Personal Information

Fill out a March Madness bracket, then see if you beat John McCain.

Honestly, give the web master who came up with that one a gold star or something.

[via H&R]

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Sunday Morning Link Orgy

* The London Telegraph tells you how to get to the World's 50 Best Works of Art (some back-breaking travel required).

* DNI Mike McConnell opens up to a group of Johns Hopkins students on the nature of the Intelligence business.

* The Virginia Quarterly Review passes on 27 Reasons Why Short Stories are Rejected (Reason #1: Your story sucks).

* The Clinton campaign and the conference call: a love affair in three acts.

* Has science found a way to end to end the practice of war?

* Did you know Kareem Abdul-Jabbar blogs for the L.A. Times?

* Superdelegates: they could feasibly end the whole nominating process for the Dems right now if they wanted to (but they don't).

Knuckle-Dragging Northwoods Blogger Compares Obama to Hitler to Demonstrate His is a Well-reasoned Opinion

Prior to the quote below Jesse Seymour's post on his views of liberalism was just a masturbatory rehash of various conservative talking points that have been en vogue among extreme right-wingers over the years, but then he comes out with this doosy:

I believe that liberals will say anything to get a vote. Barrack Hussein Obama has said over and over again that he wants transparency in government, but still has not revealed the recipients of pork projects that he appropriate funds for in 2005 and 2006. Obama keeps saying that he wants change but he will not say what the change is.

In 1942 [Editor note: I misquoted the year here. The year I had intended to quote was 1933] Germany had a major change in government. We all know how that story ended.

Yeah, because earmark disclosure and genocide are intimately related ...

If Seymour's going to trot out an utterly ridiculous argument such as the one above then he should stick to blogging at the open mic night at his local coffee house. There's no place for this asinine bullshit. Come back when you have a serious contribution to make to the discussion. This is embarrassingly lazy at best and patently offensive all the way around.

If this is indicative of Seymour's opinion on other topics then may I recommend that readers find less mind-numbing ways to spend their time, like drinking heavily or slamming one's head continuously into a brick wall. I know small children with more advanced capacities for logic than this monstrosity.