Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Read this quoted headline

"Obama counts on text messages to turn vote of youth, blacks, and low income voters".

Don't blame me. I did not write it, I merely site the article.

Let us leave the racial implications that blacks will not vote for a white man alone.

Let us speak instead about "youth" and "low income voters". (This is really gonna piss some people off. Too bad. It is what it is.)

Does this mean that the election will be settled by our least experienced (youth) and least productive (low income) citizens? Of course, they could not do any worse than the Ivy League educated scum bags that drove Wall Street into the muck and mire... but collectively, would you seek advice from teenagers and twenty somethings on something of great import in your life? Would you drive down to the tough part of town (I come from the great "unwashed", spare me your denigrations. Street cred I have - in spades) to take council from folks just about to polish off a 40 ounce bottle of beer in between drags (why is it "drag" of tobacco and "toke" from marijuana) on a cigarette? Does my charicature offend you? Really? Take a drive with me down Dixie Highway in Deerfield Beach tonight. Or my old neighborhood in New York. I don't like it either. Unemployed Alcoholics and drug addicts, neglected children, abusive parents... I used to volunteer in the area, but had an experience that led me to take my own safety over civic mindedness... Are these the folks that are deciding how we spend our tax dollars? Sure looks like it. Is that a bad thing? I think it is worth asking, in any event.

We have an energy crisis coming in like a slow movig Tsunami. Who has been elected to deal with it? What do they owe their supporters? That is, after all, how democracies work, isn't it? We continue to elect Lawyers to Mathematician's job, and wonder why the numbers are so f*&^ked up...

Yes, I know the folks mentioned in the Bloomberg article, the young and the poor, could not do any worse than the CEO's at Lehman, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley ... but it bears thinking about.

Mentatt (at) yahoo (d0t) com

10 comments:

bureaucrat said...

You seem to be forgetting that it was the youth of the world that made the most radical changes in human political evolution. The baby boomers (don't trust anyone over 30), the Chinese government is scared to death of the young people becoming upset (Tianamen), every revolution in Europe (Les Miserables, kicking out Ceucesu, or however it is spelled, guy) ... it was all young and college-aged people. You demean them at your peril. And lately, they all seem to be very latino .... also, this time around, in the U.S., the youth are underpolled because cell phones aren't listed ...

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Who Demeaned?

I only asked leading, rhetorical questions.

It appears Obama is going to win. Did he win for the right reasons?

Why can't you debate this on the merits, rather than condesending to me. I am not racist nor sexist, or discriminatory. Why can't we have an open and frank discussion of the ISSUES without people trying to gain an advantage as if it were an argument?

Lastly. Does might make right?

bureaucrat said...

I'll give you one point ....

I'm still considering what you said a while ago ....

That 5% of the population does almost everything .... which is totally meanspirited, elitist, racist, sexist, and everything else ... and yet ...

You may have a point there.

Now I have to decide if I'm one of the 5%. :)

Anonymous said...

I held my nose and voted for McCain, who is at best, the lesser of two evils. We have a virtual vacuum of leadership today, and that's what makes the choice so dismal. We have a choice between the well connected fat boys in the Republicans or the Marxists who have taken over the Democrats. Neither choice will improve the lot of the working man, or increase freedom. There is no more sense of statesmanship or common good, just a bunch of power hungry pols pandering to their constituencies without regard to the general destruction that they cause.

To wit, the 700 Billion dollar bail out. Everyone who should have been punished in the market for their irresponsibility got a piece of the pie. The Wall Street institutions got saved. Their performing assets should have been divided among responsibly run institutions and their management sent packing. The people who took mortgages that they can't afford will get to stay in their houses (thanks to the Dems who think everybody should get something for nothing) and the US gov't that set the rules that allowed this mess got a whole lot more power.

The only hold outs in this were the Republicans from small states, who were not well connected to big money. And, they were bought with a mere $150000000000 in pork.

It is a sad day.

Regards,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...

I considered the very same thing while standing in line to vote today. It also occurred to me that perhaps the poll tax was not such a bad idea.

Anonymous said...

When this country was formed those who were eligaible to vote were vastly different then they are today. A number of different amendments to the constitution changed who could and couldn't vote forever.

Now put aside the obvious bias against women and persons of color there were other issues at hand in why only land owners could vote.

One should further observe the careful percision the founders placed on the Republic vs a Democracy. Some may not know that Senators were NOT elected by the populace until the early 1900s. The electorial college is lambasted every election cycle as of late but it too served a very important purpose.

We might stop and think these things over before we rush to judgement on how we might make future changes.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Dear Bureaucrat:

Pointing out that the top 10% of the earners produce more than 50% of the nations taxable revenue is not, in my opinion

"totally meanspirited, elitist, racist, sexist, and everything else"

It is merely the political manifestation of Paretto's Law, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule. 80% of a company's sales come from 20% of their customers, etc... Just google Paretto's law.

Look, 10% of the girls get 90% of the looks (this goes for guys to), same with athletic talent, IQ, musical ability, etc.... life ain't fair, I know (you should see me; I look like "who did it and ran".

I will pick on the Repubs next.

bureaucrat said...

Those same 10% of the population who are gifted with looks, intellect and all the good and lucky things are also the ones who find themselves the most alone, the ones unable to trust anyone, those most at risk of being used, tricked, and thrown away when their looks can't save them anymore (Prince William comes to mind). No one has an idea life. I think all you've discovered is the logarithmic/parabolic curve. :)

Dan said...

I’ve long thought that suffrage should be restricted to males, over 21, with one or more children and a positive net worth.

oilswell said...

Reminds me of that movie 'trading places'...