I know I’m swimming against the conservative blogger tide here, but Michelle Malkin is an idiot. Well, that may be a little strong, since I agree with some of her anti-liberal political views, but I’m appalled at her current book that basically excuses FDR’s Executive Order 9066 that put all West Coast Japanese-Americans into internment camps. Since she is Filipina, I will assume that nobody in her family was stripped of all their possessions and herded into barracks in remote desert areas, despite being American citizens.
I have not read her book, nor will I. However, I have read excerpts and analyses which seem unanimous in delineating her fundamental thesis, which is that it is OK to imprison thousands of ethnic Japanese since it was known that there were a few dozen Japanese spies on the West coast during WWII. Perhaps she wants the readers to draw parallels to modern times and is making a case for imprisoning citizens of Middle Eastern descent during the current War on Terror, but the parallels are tenuous at best. There is a big difference between detaining people for questioning, and uprooting entire families, depriving them of their property and freedom, and putting them behind barbed wire for years with no due process.
My father was born October, 1941 and my mother was born in April, 1942, just prior to the actual relocation specified by EO9066. Their toddler years were spent at Tule Lake and Topaz, with armed guards and barracks. My maternal grandfather was in the 442nd battalion, the most decorated unit in WWII, and fought for the United States despite the government order that imprisoned his family. He was a farmer in Northern California when the war began, and lost his farm and land to the forced relocation. He was a citizen, born in California in 1908. He wasn’t a spy. He wasn’t a subversive. In fact, part of the problem was that the Japanese-American leadership at the time passively accepted the EO, reluctant to fight for their rights or make waves during a politically volatile time.
Michelle Malkin didn’t know my family. Her book is based upon published government reports of espionage on the West Coast, somehow rationalizing imprisonment of an entire ethnicity based upon the acts of a few. This would be comparable to imprisoning 2/3 of the black population because of the high crime rate in inner cities. Of course, she frames her pro-internment beliefs within the context of the War on Terror, trying to pander to the anti-Muslim paranoia, but using a disgraceful period of American history to further her own political agenda is pathetic. Maybe if a Filipino sets off a bomb and all Filipinos are rounded up into camps, Malkin will see the errors of her ways.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
Malice in the Palace
OK, we’ve all seen the video lowlights of the Malice at the Palace by now: Ron Artest fouling Ben Wallace, Ben Wallace double stiff-arming Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson daring the entire Pistons bench to throw down, and both teams just acting tough but not really engaging in any real physical activity. Most “fights” in professional team sports generally end up like this, with both teams shoving and posing and generally hiding behind their biggest players. Ron Artest actually laid down on the scorer’s table, feigning exhaustion and/or boredom. All had pretty much settled down…
Until some schmuck threw a cup of beer from the third row onto Artest’s chest. Artest, already the poster boy for anger management, leaped to his feet, hurdled two rows of seats, and began pummeling… the wrong guy. Turns out the right guy was right behind Artest and began punching him from behind. Another schmuck splashed the three of them with a full beer. Right about then, Stephen Jackson came flying in and started firing right hands at the beer splasher (roughly like pistol whipping someone that squirted your friend with a Super Soaker). After a few minutes of some wild WWF action in the stands, security and Indiana coaches managed to drag Artest and Jackson from the stands back onto the court. Of course, while security was up in the stands trying to extricate the Klitschko brothers, other drunken Piston fans made their way to the court. One particularly stupid one ran right up to a seething Artest and screamed something stupid at the 6’7”, 250lb pro athlete. Artest responded by unleashing a huge right hand and dropped the fan in his tracks.
Security got Artest and Jackson back into the dressing room through a shower of beer, soda, popcorn, and peanuts. Meanwhile, still on the court, Jermaine O’Neal decided to take a run at some probably drunk fan that had (inadvisedly) come down near the Pacers bench. The video I saw looked like the guy had either fallen or was knocked down by someone, and was just trying to get back to his feet. The 7’0” O’Neal ran up and connected with a wild swing, dropping the guy again. O’Neal then threatened to run up into the stands as the torrent of concessions rained down. Frank Francisco was there and fired a chair into the melee just to keep his arm in shape.
Yesterday, the suspensions came down. Artest – the last 70+ games of the season. Jackson – 30 games. O’Neal – 25 games. Wallace – 6 games. I have some issues with the lengths of these. Wallace’s is fine, it’s comparable to other on-the-court, hit-someone-in-the-face kind of suspensions. I think O’Neal’s suspension is too long, given that it happened on the floor, and his more penal (hehe, you said ‘penal’) punishments will be criminal/civil. Jackson’s suspension should be closer to Artest’s in length, or Artest’s should be closer to Jackson’s. If you watch the PRE-fight, Jackson is clearly attempting to provoke the Pistons, pulling at this jersey, and generally looking like a punk looking for a fight. Also, Jackson entered the stands to FIGHT, not as a peacemaker. He wasn’t trying to save Artest or drag him away, he went into the stands to kick some ass.
Regardless of the actual punishments though, the players’ union response has been predictable and completely fucking wrong. Ron Artest is a known psychopath, and has been suspended multiple times. Why defend someone who is un-defendable? In an ESPN interview, Billy Hunter actually blamed the violence in the stands on the war in Iraq adding to the heightened tension at the game, ignoring Artest’s history of unbalanced behavior and Jackson’s blatant provocation. The union will appeal all Indiana suspensions. Great, I hope David Stern sits through the sessions calmly, and says “You’re right, I’m wrong. I’m reducing Jermaine O’Neal’s suspension to 15 games, but now Stephen Jackson will be suspended the whole year too.”
The fans need to be punished too. In this high-tech era, we have cameras focused on the stands. I’m sure we know exactly who threw the beer, who punched the players, who ran down to the court, and who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every single offender should have their season tickets revoked (no refund or an onerous service charge), their rights to future tickets cancelled, and a day in court for either assault or trespassing charges. Oh, and the punishments need to be highly publicized, as least as highly publicized as the players’ punishments have been. This way, the precedent will be set for fans who get too full of liquid courage and feel like chucking stuff at the players.
Every single security guard on that side of the court needs to be fired, the referees should be suspended, and the beer sales need to be cut off at halftime for the remainder of the season (at least in Detroit). In order, this will punish the incompetent security guards who failed to keep the crowd under control, the referees who failed to keep the players under control, and the Pistons who failed to provide a safe, non-drunk-infested venue. The clips I saw showed the officials huddling at center court while the players were clustered by the scorer’s table, within easy earshot and throwing distance from the stands. Shouldn’t it have been the other way around?
Oh, and memo to all you former players who are defending the Pacers for their felonious assaults: Going into the stands to punch someone is NEVER a good idea. One, if you’re on the road, it’s about 15,000 to 12. Two, you’re supposed to be a professional athlete, heckling is part of the game, especially if your name is Ron Artest. Three, getting hit by a cup doesn’t necessitate a violent response.
One point I haven’t heard mentioned by anyone… Everyone says that Artest showed self-control when backing away from an on-court confrontation with Ben Wallace. Fine, but when provoked by a much smaller fan, Artest ran into the stands to beat the shit out of him. So, when actually punched by someone BIGGER, Artest backed down, but when hit by a plastic cup by a little guy, he’s suddenly homicidal. In fact, the guy Artest actually hit was the smallest guy out there, was wearing glasses and still had a drink in his hand! Artest ran past the guy who actually threw the beer (who was bigger than Milquetoast and therefore a less attractive target for the cowardly Artest) to beat up on some nearsighted wuss. Artest is not only a psycho, but a gutless one.
Until some schmuck threw a cup of beer from the third row onto Artest’s chest. Artest, already the poster boy for anger management, leaped to his feet, hurdled two rows of seats, and began pummeling… the wrong guy. Turns out the right guy was right behind Artest and began punching him from behind. Another schmuck splashed the three of them with a full beer. Right about then, Stephen Jackson came flying in and started firing right hands at the beer splasher (roughly like pistol whipping someone that squirted your friend with a Super Soaker). After a few minutes of some wild WWF action in the stands, security and Indiana coaches managed to drag Artest and Jackson from the stands back onto the court. Of course, while security was up in the stands trying to extricate the Klitschko brothers, other drunken Piston fans made their way to the court. One particularly stupid one ran right up to a seething Artest and screamed something stupid at the 6’7”, 250lb pro athlete. Artest responded by unleashing a huge right hand and dropped the fan in his tracks.
Security got Artest and Jackson back into the dressing room through a shower of beer, soda, popcorn, and peanuts. Meanwhile, still on the court, Jermaine O’Neal decided to take a run at some probably drunk fan that had (inadvisedly) come down near the Pacers bench. The video I saw looked like the guy had either fallen or was knocked down by someone, and was just trying to get back to his feet. The 7’0” O’Neal ran up and connected with a wild swing, dropping the guy again. O’Neal then threatened to run up into the stands as the torrent of concessions rained down. Frank Francisco was there and fired a chair into the melee just to keep his arm in shape.
Yesterday, the suspensions came down. Artest – the last 70+ games of the season. Jackson – 30 games. O’Neal – 25 games. Wallace – 6 games. I have some issues with the lengths of these. Wallace’s is fine, it’s comparable to other on-the-court, hit-someone-in-the-face kind of suspensions. I think O’Neal’s suspension is too long, given that it happened on the floor, and his more penal (hehe, you said ‘penal’) punishments will be criminal/civil. Jackson’s suspension should be closer to Artest’s in length, or Artest’s should be closer to Jackson’s. If you watch the PRE-fight, Jackson is clearly attempting to provoke the Pistons, pulling at this jersey, and generally looking like a punk looking for a fight. Also, Jackson entered the stands to FIGHT, not as a peacemaker. He wasn’t trying to save Artest or drag him away, he went into the stands to kick some ass.
Regardless of the actual punishments though, the players’ union response has been predictable and completely fucking wrong. Ron Artest is a known psychopath, and has been suspended multiple times. Why defend someone who is un-defendable? In an ESPN interview, Billy Hunter actually blamed the violence in the stands on the war in Iraq adding to the heightened tension at the game, ignoring Artest’s history of unbalanced behavior and Jackson’s blatant provocation. The union will appeal all Indiana suspensions. Great, I hope David Stern sits through the sessions calmly, and says “You’re right, I’m wrong. I’m reducing Jermaine O’Neal’s suspension to 15 games, but now Stephen Jackson will be suspended the whole year too.”
The fans need to be punished too. In this high-tech era, we have cameras focused on the stands. I’m sure we know exactly who threw the beer, who punched the players, who ran down to the court, and who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every single offender should have their season tickets revoked (no refund or an onerous service charge), their rights to future tickets cancelled, and a day in court for either assault or trespassing charges. Oh, and the punishments need to be highly publicized, as least as highly publicized as the players’ punishments have been. This way, the precedent will be set for fans who get too full of liquid courage and feel like chucking stuff at the players.
Every single security guard on that side of the court needs to be fired, the referees should be suspended, and the beer sales need to be cut off at halftime for the remainder of the season (at least in Detroit). In order, this will punish the incompetent security guards who failed to keep the crowd under control, the referees who failed to keep the players under control, and the Pistons who failed to provide a safe, non-drunk-infested venue. The clips I saw showed the officials huddling at center court while the players were clustered by the scorer’s table, within easy earshot and throwing distance from the stands. Shouldn’t it have been the other way around?
Oh, and memo to all you former players who are defending the Pacers for their felonious assaults: Going into the stands to punch someone is NEVER a good idea. One, if you’re on the road, it’s about 15,000 to 12. Two, you’re supposed to be a professional athlete, heckling is part of the game, especially if your name is Ron Artest. Three, getting hit by a cup doesn’t necessitate a violent response.
One point I haven’t heard mentioned by anyone… Everyone says that Artest showed self-control when backing away from an on-court confrontation with Ben Wallace. Fine, but when provoked by a much smaller fan, Artest ran into the stands to beat the shit out of him. So, when actually punched by someone BIGGER, Artest backed down, but when hit by a plastic cup by a little guy, he’s suddenly homicidal. In fact, the guy Artest actually hit was the smallest guy out there, was wearing glasses and still had a drink in his hand! Artest ran past the guy who actually threw the beer (who was bigger than Milquetoast and therefore a less attractive target for the cowardly Artest) to beat up on some nearsighted wuss. Artest is not only a psycho, but a gutless one.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Top three stories?
Three big stories are in the news right now: A Marine shooting an wounded insurgent/terrorist, the opening of the Clinton library, and the Terrell Owens MNF debacle. This may sound McLaughlin-like, but…
Issue One, the Marine issue. If it helps, pretend you’re playing Halo 2 or Doom. OK, you’re walking through an area with known hostiles, most have been routed or killed, and you’re making sure the area is swept, except that you know that another Marine was killed yesterday by a terrorist who pretended to be dead long enough to detonate a grenade at point blank range. You see some bodies huddled in the corner, seemingly dead or unconscious, you notice that one of the guys appears to be conscious, and possibly faking JUST LIKE THE GUY DID YESTERDAY. Do you:
a. Call for the medics to come and help the poor injured soul.
b. Walk up to the guy to verify whether he is alive or dead, and whether he still represents an explosive threat or is booby trapped.
c. Blow the guy away and ask questions later.
If you said a or b, congratulations, you’re DEAD already. If they bring this poor kid up on charges, the liberals should be forced to sweep all areas of hostiles themselves, and see how quick they get on the trigger when it’s THEIR lives.
Issue Two, the Clinton library. I may be missing something, but who said that every President gets a library?! Well, regardless, I’m sure it’s a lovely shrine to Bubba, but is this really a front page story? Hell, I think even Gerald Ford has a freakin’ library and nobody elected him to any national office. And enough with the cigar and intern jokes, we know he was a horndog and a liar and a cheat. But, truth be said, the economy was strong during his administration and most of us didn’t even notice or care that it was a Democrat in the White House while we cashed out dot-com checks and stock options.
Issue Three, the TO debacle. Here’s a note to all you left-wingers – it isn’t about a black man and a white woman. It’s about stupid sexually provocative shit being on my television at 6pm. Frankly, I didn’t even think about the whole black-white thing until someone mentioned it on the radio. Here’s a note to all you right-wingers – it isn’t about censorship and banning nudity either. It was a stupid move made by stupid network programmers starring a stupid football player and a washed-up skank. That’s it. It isn’t part of moral decay, it isn’t part of a racial backlash. It’s just plain stupid. Sometimes it’s just about the stupidity, stupid.
Issue One, the Marine issue. If it helps, pretend you’re playing Halo 2 or Doom. OK, you’re walking through an area with known hostiles, most have been routed or killed, and you’re making sure the area is swept, except that you know that another Marine was killed yesterday by a terrorist who pretended to be dead long enough to detonate a grenade at point blank range. You see some bodies huddled in the corner, seemingly dead or unconscious, you notice that one of the guys appears to be conscious, and possibly faking JUST LIKE THE GUY DID YESTERDAY. Do you:
a. Call for the medics to come and help the poor injured soul.
b. Walk up to the guy to verify whether he is alive or dead, and whether he still represents an explosive threat or is booby trapped.
c. Blow the guy away and ask questions later.
If you said a or b, congratulations, you’re DEAD already. If they bring this poor kid up on charges, the liberals should be forced to sweep all areas of hostiles themselves, and see how quick they get on the trigger when it’s THEIR lives.
Issue Two, the Clinton library. I may be missing something, but who said that every President gets a library?! Well, regardless, I’m sure it’s a lovely shrine to Bubba, but is this really a front page story? Hell, I think even Gerald Ford has a freakin’ library and nobody elected him to any national office. And enough with the cigar and intern jokes, we know he was a horndog and a liar and a cheat. But, truth be said, the economy was strong during his administration and most of us didn’t even notice or care that it was a Democrat in the White House while we cashed out dot-com checks and stock options.
Issue Three, the TO debacle. Here’s a note to all you left-wingers – it isn’t about a black man and a white woman. It’s about stupid sexually provocative shit being on my television at 6pm. Frankly, I didn’t even think about the whole black-white thing until someone mentioned it on the radio. Here’s a note to all you right-wingers – it isn’t about censorship and banning nudity either. It was a stupid move made by stupid network programmers starring a stupid football player and a washed-up skank. That’s it. It isn’t part of moral decay, it isn’t part of a racial backlash. It’s just plain stupid. Sometimes it’s just about the stupidity, stupid.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Whither Bin Laden...?
Which is best for the USA?
1. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by US Special forces
2. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by Afghan troops
3. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in some world court
4. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in US District court
5. A scared Osama Bin Laden, running for his life, living in caves and spider holes
The answer is (5). Congratulations for your insight! Let’s analyze the responses.
(1) – Clearly not a good solution. Martyrdom is huge for Islamic fundamentalists, and the void left by Bin Laden would possibly encourage violent auditions to be the next big terrorist figurehead. Plus, if the US killed him, guess who would be hosting these auditions?
(2) – Hmmm, closer. This way, it would show that OBL didn’t have the full support of all Muslims, and also establish the newly elected Afghan leaders as men of action. Of course, this could also spark theocratic wars against the new government by some of the fundamentalists and could potentially undo all of the gains made by the democratization process. Not bad though…
(3) – Please. This would only provide a forum for this camera-hungry lunatic to vent his anti-American and anti-Israel venom, and rile up the other terrorist cells that might currently be dormant. Also, do we really want a court where France might have a vote? Any bets as to which way they’re gonna vote?
(4) – Ooooh, Johnnie Cochran would love to have this one. The videotape of OBL admitting guilt in 9/11 would somehow be found to be inadmissible. There is no physical evidence linking him to the hijackers other than the confession. He was thousands of miles away when the attack took place. OBL couldn’t get a fair trial because of the media coverage. Blah blah blah. But all questionable legal tactics aside, what state would even want to host this trial?
(5) – OK, think about this. Before that video blurb right before the election, when was the last time we had heard from our little robed buddy? Have there been any terrorist strikes against Americans…. anywhere? Have there been any terrorist activities directly tied to Al Qaeda? Even the most rabid anti-Bush folks have to admit, OBL has become a non-factor in recent months, perhaps due to the constant pressure of the American and Afghan forces chasing him all through the hills. It seems like many of the old Al Qaeda forces are either dead, captured, running scared, or just waiting to see when/where OBL will pop up next.
Except for one guy, Al Zarqawi. He seems to be the one who is trying to fill the void left behind by the fleeing OBL as the new top terrorist jihadist du jour. He seems to be satisfied and proud to kill unarmed civilians as his form of expression, and is either unwilling or incapable to expand his horizons into large-scale violence outside the Muslim world. By all accounts, he is much more shortsighted than OBL and seems to be content with the frequent small strikes rather than the years-in-the-making-mega-strikes, and consequently, will be much harder to pin down.
Regardless, OBL has seemingly been taken out of the equation, and capturing him is not nearly as important as keeping him powerless. What does this mean? It means Iraq and Zarqawi need to be the focus of our forces now, not Afghanistan and the increasing irrelevant OBL.
1. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by US Special forces
2. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by Afghan troops
3. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in some world court
4. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in US District court
5. A scared Osama Bin Laden, running for his life, living in caves and spider holes
The answer is (5). Congratulations for your insight! Let’s analyze the responses.
(1) – Clearly not a good solution. Martyrdom is huge for Islamic fundamentalists, and the void left by Bin Laden would possibly encourage violent auditions to be the next big terrorist figurehead. Plus, if the US killed him, guess who would be hosting these auditions?
(2) – Hmmm, closer. This way, it would show that OBL didn’t have the full support of all Muslims, and also establish the newly elected Afghan leaders as men of action. Of course, this could also spark theocratic wars against the new government by some of the fundamentalists and could potentially undo all of the gains made by the democratization process. Not bad though…
(3) – Please. This would only provide a forum for this camera-hungry lunatic to vent his anti-American and anti-Israel venom, and rile up the other terrorist cells that might currently be dormant. Also, do we really want a court where France might have a vote? Any bets as to which way they’re gonna vote?
(4) – Ooooh, Johnnie Cochran would love to have this one. The videotape of OBL admitting guilt in 9/11 would somehow be found to be inadmissible. There is no physical evidence linking him to the hijackers other than the confession. He was thousands of miles away when the attack took place. OBL couldn’t get a fair trial because of the media coverage. Blah blah blah. But all questionable legal tactics aside, what state would even want to host this trial?
(5) – OK, think about this. Before that video blurb right before the election, when was the last time we had heard from our little robed buddy? Have there been any terrorist strikes against Americans…. anywhere? Have there been any terrorist activities directly tied to Al Qaeda? Even the most rabid anti-Bush folks have to admit, OBL has become a non-factor in recent months, perhaps due to the constant pressure of the American and Afghan forces chasing him all through the hills. It seems like many of the old Al Qaeda forces are either dead, captured, running scared, or just waiting to see when/where OBL will pop up next.
Except for one guy, Al Zarqawi. He seems to be the one who is trying to fill the void left behind by the fleeing OBL as the new top terrorist jihadist du jour. He seems to be satisfied and proud to kill unarmed civilians as his form of expression, and is either unwilling or incapable to expand his horizons into large-scale violence outside the Muslim world. By all accounts, he is much more shortsighted than OBL and seems to be content with the frequent small strikes rather than the years-in-the-making-mega-strikes, and consequently, will be much harder to pin down.
Regardless, OBL has seemingly been taken out of the equation, and capturing him is not nearly as important as keeping him powerless. What does this mean? It means Iraq and Zarqawi need to be the focus of our forces now, not Afghanistan and the increasing irrelevant OBL.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Some Views from the Commish's Desk (recap)
On post-election GOP bashing - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/11/im-really-not-sure-gloom-and-doom.html
On election-day reportage - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/11/almost-midnight-out-here-in-california.html
On the liberal strategy - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/10/one-for-thumb-now-ive-won-sng-at-five.html
On, well, just a rant really... - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/08/some-quick-political-thoughts-fighting.html
On election-day reportage - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/11/almost-midnight-out-here-in-california.html
On the liberal strategy - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/10/one-for-thumb-now-ive-won-sng-at-five.html
On, well, just a rant really... - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/08/some-quick-political-thoughts-fighting.html
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
CARE
OK, show of hands… who here thinks that we should be negotiating with the Iraqi insurgents? Anyone…?
Here’s a news flash for you terrorist-embracing “negotiators”, “You’re welcome to try.”
They killed the head of CARE. Shot her. While she was blindfolded.
Sean Penn, you try. Michael Moore, get in line. Jeanine Garofalo, your ticket is waiting.
CARE. Not the Marines. Not the Army. CARE.
She’s probably never even held a gun, much less used one. CARE.
If you think talking to these animals helps, just remember…. CARE.
Here’s a news flash for you terrorist-embracing “negotiators”, “You’re welcome to try.”
They killed the head of CARE. Shot her. While she was blindfolded.
Sean Penn, you try. Michael Moore, get in line. Jeanine Garofalo, your ticket is waiting.
CARE. Not the Marines. Not the Army. CARE.
She’s probably never even held a gun, much less used one. CARE.
If you think talking to these animals helps, just remember…. CARE.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
An exercise in generalizations...
Many people have asked how I can be pro-choice, pro-gun control, and ambivalent about gays and gay marriage AND still be a Republican.
Simple, I’m concerned about MY family, MY finances, and MY security. It’s truly selfish, and the Republicans protect my completely self-centered view of the world. None of the social issues above are as pressing or as important day-to-day as keeping my family safe, paying taxes, and protecting the country.
Some others around the Internet have tried to prove demographic relationships between education, income, race, sexual orientation, and voting patterns. I think the truth lies in population density, because vote-able issues for individuals will vary based upon where they live, because that identifies their lifestyle choice just as much as education, income, etc. Densely populated urban areas tend to lean Democratic. These can be broken into low-income, multi-family housing (slums) and high-income, vertical housing (luxury condos and apartments). Less sprawling suburban and rural areas tend to tilt Republican. These are your single-family suburban Americana, Leave-it-to-Beaver neighborhoods and the farm/country areas. Vastly different priorities can be seen in WHERE people choose to live. Granted, there are gray areas in between these lifestyles, but the lifestyles tend to be pretty stark.
WARNING: GROSS GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD! PREJUDICE ALERT!
1. Low-income, multi-family (slums) – They tend to vote Democratic because they are at least partially dependent on government entitlements. It is in their best interest to have a liberal congressman, governor, and president to keep the gravy train running. I have no problem with them voting Democrat. It makes sense for them.
2. High-income, live in the city – A couple of possible crossovers with suburbia here. One big difference separates them though… NO KIDS. When was the last time you heard someone say “A big city is a great place to raise kids”? Never. Unless pissing winos, crack-addicted panhandlers, and pot-smoking bicycle couriers is your idea of a great place to raise kids.
So these might be recent college grads that got a job in the city because “that’s where the action is” or “that’s where the jobs are”. Idealistic and irresponsible, they vote Democratic because they’re young and rebellious and want to vote against the big business machine, ignoring the fact that the big business machine built their apartment/condo and owns their employer.
Single, rich city folk also fall here. These are the people you see in movies who have a ritzy apartment, usually with a doorman, but live empty solitary lives. No telling which way they will vote. If they’re completely self-centered, they’ll vote Republican because they hate taxes and want to hoard money. If they’re ex-flower children made good, then they’re vigorously liberal, feel guilty about the millions they made in the dot-coms, and vote Democrat through some sense of noblesse oblige.
3. Suburbia – OK, enough about “security moms” and “soccer moms”, dads vote too. Multiple schools of thought here, enough for a separate discussion, but several key groups:
· Union workers – Democrats. Period. And they should be. I’ve got a whole ‘nother essay about how Unions protect the incompetent and shaft the exceptional worker.
· Yuppies – Republicans. Yes, I know it’s an eighties term, but it fits. Dual income, kids in soccer, Little League, dance class. Own a minivan, want to upgrade houses but are settled into a comfortable mortgage that allows them to take vacations. (Yes, this is me). I want lower taxes, less spending on government entitlements like Welfare, farm subsidies, etc., better homeland security, and three strikes. Domestic security and taxes are the primary motivators here.
· Yuppies, but sensitive – These are Yuppies who have all of the above, but want everyone to have what they have. They might feel guilty that they work for a company that rapes the land and environment, and builds ghastly buildings that block the view, but they still accept their paycheck. They think that we shouldn’t build bombs but more doggie parks. They send money to Sally Struthers and do things like 5K walks for charity. Depending on the candidate, they can vote either way.
· Old, grumpy farts – These people bought their houses when the neighborhood was first built in the 1950’s. They don’t like paying taxes and they want to keep getting the COLA in their government checks. They’ll vote against the parcel tax for rebuilding the schools. After all, why should they pay more if their kids have already moved out? Taxes and Medicare/Social Security are the primary motivators here. Depending on their depth of religious conviction, they can vote either way.
· Softheads – I know a LOT of people in my little neck of suburbia that are complete softheads. They watch the news on TV or read the paper and parrot the views of whichever channel they watch or paper they read. CNN, Fox, CBS, NY Times, you can almost see someone else’s lips move when these people try to talk politics. They are so busy (or so ignorant), they don’t bother processing the information, so they merely regurgitate it as their own. Depending on which channel they watch, they can vote either way.
4. Farm/country living – Typically Republican. Moral values, family values, blah blah blah. They live outside of the city and suburbia because there is just too much damn crime there. They wanna raise their kids to learn the value of a hard day’s work, blah blah blah. This might be your God, gays, and guns arm of the GOP, but not necessarily. This is certainly the Democratic leadership’s opinion of the Republicans, which is a big reason why they’ve lost the last two elections.
I’ll bet you know people in every single one of these groups. Granted, the war on terrorism (and its bastard cousin, the war in Iraq) has added a new group to this analysis that has allies in all groups, the anti-war-at-any-costs brigade. This is the group that the Democrats counted on in the last election. The problem with that approach is that this group is a SUBSET of the other groups, and often, personal needs and values took mindshare and priority from an overseas war. Unless people were DIRECTLY touched by the Iraq war, it was unlikely to resonate in the voting booth as much as their personal convictions and self-interest.
Simple, I’m concerned about MY family, MY finances, and MY security. It’s truly selfish, and the Republicans protect my completely self-centered view of the world. None of the social issues above are as pressing or as important day-to-day as keeping my family safe, paying taxes, and protecting the country.
Some others around the Internet have tried to prove demographic relationships between education, income, race, sexual orientation, and voting patterns. I think the truth lies in population density, because vote-able issues for individuals will vary based upon where they live, because that identifies their lifestyle choice just as much as education, income, etc. Densely populated urban areas tend to lean Democratic. These can be broken into low-income, multi-family housing (slums) and high-income, vertical housing (luxury condos and apartments). Less sprawling suburban and rural areas tend to tilt Republican. These are your single-family suburban Americana, Leave-it-to-Beaver neighborhoods and the farm/country areas. Vastly different priorities can be seen in WHERE people choose to live. Granted, there are gray areas in between these lifestyles, but the lifestyles tend to be pretty stark.
WARNING: GROSS GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD! PREJUDICE ALERT!
1. Low-income, multi-family (slums) – They tend to vote Democratic because they are at least partially dependent on government entitlements. It is in their best interest to have a liberal congressman, governor, and president to keep the gravy train running. I have no problem with them voting Democrat. It makes sense for them.
2. High-income, live in the city – A couple of possible crossovers with suburbia here. One big difference separates them though… NO KIDS. When was the last time you heard someone say “A big city is a great place to raise kids”? Never. Unless pissing winos, crack-addicted panhandlers, and pot-smoking bicycle couriers is your idea of a great place to raise kids.
So these might be recent college grads that got a job in the city because “that’s where the action is” or “that’s where the jobs are”. Idealistic and irresponsible, they vote Democratic because they’re young and rebellious and want to vote against the big business machine, ignoring the fact that the big business machine built their apartment/condo and owns their employer.
Single, rich city folk also fall here. These are the people you see in movies who have a ritzy apartment, usually with a doorman, but live empty solitary lives. No telling which way they will vote. If they’re completely self-centered, they’ll vote Republican because they hate taxes and want to hoard money. If they’re ex-flower children made good, then they’re vigorously liberal, feel guilty about the millions they made in the dot-coms, and vote Democrat through some sense of noblesse oblige.
3. Suburbia – OK, enough about “security moms” and “soccer moms”, dads vote too. Multiple schools of thought here, enough for a separate discussion, but several key groups:
· Union workers – Democrats. Period. And they should be. I’ve got a whole ‘nother essay about how Unions protect the incompetent and shaft the exceptional worker.
· Yuppies – Republicans. Yes, I know it’s an eighties term, but it fits. Dual income, kids in soccer, Little League, dance class. Own a minivan, want to upgrade houses but are settled into a comfortable mortgage that allows them to take vacations. (Yes, this is me). I want lower taxes, less spending on government entitlements like Welfare, farm subsidies, etc., better homeland security, and three strikes. Domestic security and taxes are the primary motivators here.
· Yuppies, but sensitive – These are Yuppies who have all of the above, but want everyone to have what they have. They might feel guilty that they work for a company that rapes the land and environment, and builds ghastly buildings that block the view, but they still accept their paycheck. They think that we shouldn’t build bombs but more doggie parks. They send money to Sally Struthers and do things like 5K walks for charity. Depending on the candidate, they can vote either way.
· Old, grumpy farts – These people bought their houses when the neighborhood was first built in the 1950’s. They don’t like paying taxes and they want to keep getting the COLA in their government checks. They’ll vote against the parcel tax for rebuilding the schools. After all, why should they pay more if their kids have already moved out? Taxes and Medicare/Social Security are the primary motivators here. Depending on their depth of religious conviction, they can vote either way.
· Softheads – I know a LOT of people in my little neck of suburbia that are complete softheads. They watch the news on TV or read the paper and parrot the views of whichever channel they watch or paper they read. CNN, Fox, CBS, NY Times, you can almost see someone else’s lips move when these people try to talk politics. They are so busy (or so ignorant), they don’t bother processing the information, so they merely regurgitate it as their own. Depending on which channel they watch, they can vote either way.
4. Farm/country living – Typically Republican. Moral values, family values, blah blah blah. They live outside of the city and suburbia because there is just too much damn crime there. They wanna raise their kids to learn the value of a hard day’s work, blah blah blah. This might be your God, gays, and guns arm of the GOP, but not necessarily. This is certainly the Democratic leadership’s opinion of the Republicans, which is a big reason why they’ve lost the last two elections.
I’ll bet you know people in every single one of these groups. Granted, the war on terrorism (and its bastard cousin, the war in Iraq) has added a new group to this analysis that has allies in all groups, the anti-war-at-any-costs brigade. This is the group that the Democrats counted on in the last election. The problem with that approach is that this group is a SUBSET of the other groups, and often, personal needs and values took mindshare and priority from an overseas war. Unless people were DIRECTLY touched by the Iraq war, it was unlikely to resonate in the voting booth as much as their personal convictions and self-interest.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Introduction
If you’re coming here from The Commish’s Desk, this will be the political arm of that blog, amputated and placed here for convenience and distinction. And so I don’t bore the poker bloggerati with my political rants.
My name is Todd. I am 41 years old. Married almost 15 years, two kids, minivan, pickup, mortgage. I live in the frighteningly liberal Bay Area in the only city in Alameda County to have more registered Republicans than Democrats: Pleasanton. I’m a training specialist for a large bio-tech firm. I’ve worked in high tech for most of my career, marketing and/or training for the last 17 years.
Why is any of this germane? Why should you care? Because I’m a Republican. In California. Who doesn’t believe in God. Who is Pro-choice. And who is sick of the liberal gasbags in the media presenting the GOP as “God, gays, and guns” when those are the exact three issues where I diverge from the party lines. I think I am part of a growing section of the population that are social moderates, international isolationists, and fiscal conservatives. I think that this section is the plurality of voters in this country, and is ignored by the mainstream left-wing media since the media trumpets the left-wing, demonizes the right-wing, and ignores those of us in the middle.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by just this once. If you don’t come back, I won’t take it personally.
My name is Todd. I am 41 years old. Married almost 15 years, two kids, minivan, pickup, mortgage. I live in the frighteningly liberal Bay Area in the only city in Alameda County to have more registered Republicans than Democrats: Pleasanton. I’m a training specialist for a large bio-tech firm. I’ve worked in high tech for most of my career, marketing and/or training for the last 17 years.
Why is any of this germane? Why should you care? Because I’m a Republican. In California. Who doesn’t believe in God. Who is Pro-choice. And who is sick of the liberal gasbags in the media presenting the GOP as “God, gays, and guns” when those are the exact three issues where I diverge from the party lines. I think I am part of a growing section of the population that are social moderates, international isolationists, and fiscal conservatives. I think that this section is the plurality of voters in this country, and is ignored by the mainstream left-wing media since the media trumpets the left-wing, demonizes the right-wing, and ignores those of us in the middle.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by just this once. If you don’t come back, I won’t take it personally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)