Life After Future Shock

phaserAt Christmas a few years ago we gave my son a Star Trek phaser and communicator. They were impressive replica toys complete with all the features and details from the original series. He was initially very excited about it, but an interesting thing happened.

Once all the wrapping was cleaned up and the Christmas high descended into the Christmas hangover he disappeared with his new phone. It was nothing special, a flip-phone that came free with our family plan, but it was his constant companion. Near as I can tell the phaser was never touched again after Christmas dinner.

One of the finest technical accomplishments of the imaginary 23rd century pales in comparison to a 21st century give-away. With a few exceptions, the gadgets imagined by the writers of Star Trek are embarrassingly inadequate in comparison to cheap ordinary consumer toys we take for granted. In just four decades we’ve outrun the farthest limits of a prior generation’s technological imagination.

Let’s face it. Captain Kirk’s communicator is a useless piece of crap. You can’t tweet on it. It doesn’t take pictures. You can’t stream music on it or use it to find the nearest Starbucks. It won’t even send a text message.

While the original Star Trek was still on the air, Alvin Toeffler was writing Future Shock. He speculated that a dawning era of permanently accelerating technological advancement would strain human society and personal sanity in ways we could hardly imagine.

Toeffler’s vision has proven remarkably accurate, but he failed to anticipate one important aspect of this transition. The ‘Future Shock’ phenomenon he described would, in a sense, end. It was an experience unique to those who still remembered the old world.

While older Americans rattle apart under the rising pressure of global competition, relentless anachronism and disintegrating social norms, a younger generation shrugs. They are fine.

You can’t miss what you never knew. Americans under 30 have no memory of permanence, stability, privacy, or boredom. They have grown into adulthood as technological natives. The only “shock” they experience comes from power outages.

A recent AT&T commercial spotlights this phenomenon. A couple of twelve year-olds watch younger kids enjoying AT&T cable TV. They muse about the difficulties of their youth, when your set top box could only record two shows at a time and only replay them in certain rooms. The kids they are observing (just three or four years younger) could not possibly relate to the hardships of their childhoods.

We may be experiencing a generation gap larger and more meaningful than the one that rocked our culture in the ‘60’s. For the first time in decades, young people are maturing in a world that bears virtually no resemblance to their parent’s experience. The gap is starkly visible in politics and religion.

The generation at the peak of their power and influence remains deeply marked by religious and political norms that are increasingly irrelevant to Americans under 30. Older voters on the left and right all look more conservative than their younger counterparts.

Where older voters value tradition, younger voters crave authenticity. Politics for older voters is still dictated by race, conservative sexual and religious norms, and a suspicion of government, values that are largely meaningless to younger voters. Today’s young are the most irreligious, post-racial, socially liberal generation we have ever raised.

Anyone who is expecting these kids to mellow and drift right as they age is kidding themselves. This gap is not a universal phenomenon. Contrary to popular myth, younger voters are not always more liberal than their elders. Reagan won massive majorities among the young and voters under thirty remained a solid Republican block until the mid-90’s. Many of those Reagan-era youth, your writer included, have grown disenchanted with the GOP as the paranoid panic of the Future Shock generation has driven the party into reactionary delirium.

Adapting to a world that renders science fiction quaint is a serious challenge for conservatives. Unfortunately, these are times that demand an intelligent, adaptive conservatism more than ever. Credible conservatism could prove to be a vital break, preserving critical institutions and values that might otherwise be cast aside in the headlong chase for efficiency and money.

Conservatives need not immolate themselves in a futile attempt to halt change. Instead they could be working to preserve some of the most critical (and portable) values of an older era, allowing us to carry forward traditional emphasis on family, patriotism, and duty in an era with little room for non-commercial values.

Authoritarian campaigns to dictate personal choices will not accomplish these goals. Today’s conservative agenda merely reinforces to younger voters that conservatives have nothing to offer the world beyond their bottomless drive to crush other people’s fun and block solutions to problems. Remaining relevant will require ingenuity and humility. Those are not traditional conservative strengths.

My kid still has those Star Trek toys. He never played with them, but he stored them. Meanwhile that dumb phone is long gone and forgotten; replaced by the new, new thing. The key to conservatism in the age of Future Shock is preventing essential institutions from being destroyed in the race toward novelty. We don’t have to dictate that everybody goes to church or gets married. We just have to make sure that some space remains for our traditions to survive. With a little care, the real value will weather the storm.

About

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He is a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago.

Posted in Political Theory
119 comments on “Life After Future Shock
  1. texan5142 says:

    Sternn wrote
    “I have been on the recieving end of the IRS coming to collect. They threatened to take my home. That was over a measly $2,000. I ended up paying it off, to the tune of over $7,000. FYI, you don’t get to decide how the IRS applies your payments.”

    Should of payed your taxes that is all on you freeloader.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Yes, Texan, it hurt when the dot com bubble burst and my web design usiness went under. Than goodness for those government bailouts.

      Oh, wait, there weren’t any. Well thank goodness for the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

      Oh, right, didn’t have that either. No, I got a two week temp job and became their network administrator and paid off my debts. Through that experience I know John Galt is full of it when he claims the IRS has no means to collect and no power.

    • texan5142 says:

      You made your bed……you did that…… now sleep in it. I owe $8000.00 this year, that is on me, or should I try to lay blame on something else.

    • goplifer says:

      Um. I seem to remember a bunch of posts about personal responsibility. Have we finally found the limits of all that talk?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Ouch!

        Personal responsibility for all those damn lazy freeloaders. Not when *I* freeload.

        Signed, the hypocritical “conservatives”.

        Wait till you have a catastrophic medical issue Cappy. I’d like to see you “personal responsibility” your way out of that one too.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Of course there is personal responsibility. I owed the money, I owed the interest, I owed the fines and I paid them all, voluntarialy. I worked with the IRS and established a payment plan. My total taxes for that year was around $10k, I came up $2k short. I never tried to get out of it, never hired lawyers or others to try to negotiate it down. I failed to save enough and I took my lumps. That is personal responsibility in practice, making my choices, reaped the rewards for a while, and eventually suffered a few consequences, then dealt with them and moved on.

        But don’t try to pass this, “the IRS has no power to collect” garbage off on me. I know better through experience. They can be ruthless, and I was a small potato.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You’re purposely conflating the point Chris. I expect that from the likes of Texan, but I thought you weren’t that petty. Am I wrong?

      • John Galt says:

        Sternn, the IRS has lots of tools to collect from those who have not paid the taxes they owe. As you periodically comment, Capone was sent away for tax evasion. But the IRS has been specifically barred by law from using either tax liens or civil charges from collecting the penalty the ACA stipulates for not having insurance. I’m not sure what is left for them to do besides sending angry letters.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, the IRS collects taxes from paychecks. The individual does not get to decide what those deductions will cover. Hey, look, you paid your fine for not having insurance, but you are short on income and payroll taxes. Here comes the IRS to collect on those unpaid income and payroll taxes. Now you get hammered with fines and interest, and maybe even legal fees if you decide not to pay. You could lose property and even face prison. That is your idea of helping people. They probably don’t want or need that kind of “help”.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I would add that it would also apply to the small business owners and self employed. Fill out your form, send in the payment, the IRS applies that to the fines and again, your fine is covered, you are short on income and payroll taxes. Here comes the IRS.

  2. Owl of Bellaire says:

    Wow, Texas Republicans are sad sacks.

    Give them a high-minded article about “future shock”, “the farthest limits of a prior generation’s technological imagination”, “religious and political norms that are increasingly irrelevant to Americans under 30″, “times that demand an intelligent, adaptive conservatism more than ever”, and how “[r]emaining relevant will require ingenuity and humility”.

    And then what do they do? Complain about Obamacare. Again. Just like they have in every blog post, no matter its topic, for nigh on many months now. Oh, yeah, and a bit about homosexuality and how some people just don’t understand religion (as if people should actually need that, in a secular republic like our own).

    Dudes, it’s over. Obamacare, for all its byzantine complexity, at least attempts to use our existing commercial infrastructure to accomplish the goals we’ve decided, as a society, are important to us. Republicans could reject those goals — and paint themselves even further into the harsh, Scrooge-like corner they increasingly inhabit in the public view. Or they could decide to abandon the awkward mechanisms designed to *fund* those goals — and further cement their growing reputation as big talkers but incompetent actors on the topic of fiscal responsibility. Or they could abandon the rickety public-private partnership that constitutes Obamacare and rely on something more solid and straightforward, like a single-payer system — yeah, like that’s going to happen.

    It’s over. *You’re* over. Unless you listen to the few voices in the wilderness you have left, like Chris Ladd, who want to keep the Republican Party around as a viable force in national politics and a valuable countermeasure to the inevitable excesses of the Democrats.

    Or, if not, I guess there’s always the resurgent Whigs.

    • flypusher says:

      “It’s over. *You’re* over. Unless you listen to the few voices in the wilderness you have left, like Chris Ladd, who want to keep the Republican Party around as a viable force in national politics and a valuable countermeasure to the inevitable excesses of the Democrats.”

      Methinks late 2016 is the absute soonest it could happen.

    • CaptSternn says:

      How is that permenant democratic majority working for you and Pelosi these days?

      People like Lifer and other establishment types have turned the GOP into the DNC Lite. People trying to make the two parties so much alike that the only issue is how fast they move us to the left and socialism.

      As for Obamacare, that train wreck is only getting worse. No, we as a society did not decide we wanted it. It is the reason republicans won big in 2010 and could be the reason the right wins big this year as millions more people lose insurance policies.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Obamacare is why the GOP did well in 2010 and will do well in 2014?

        Hmmm…what data point could we look at in between those two points?

        Oh, that is right, an election in 2012 where the Democrats picked up something like 12 seats in the House, two senate seats, and kind of a big win in the Presidency.

        Fortunately for the dastardly libs, no one on the Republican side ever mentioned Obamacare during the 2012 elections.

        So, when the GOP wins, it is about Obamacare. When the GOP loses, it is about….I don’t know, brainwashed lemmings following the lame stream media…or something like that.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You dance very well Homer. Get used to it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The GOP establishment got Romney nominated. Ever hear of Romneycare? That was a major problem, plus less informed voters vote in presidential elections. There are several reasons we only managed to basically hold the status quo. But we managed to do that much, and people weren’t losing their insurance. Another reason Obama is trying to delay Obamacare and why democrats are running from it.

        No, HT, we aren’t single issue voters and we don’t base our decisions on emotions alone the way many on the left do. We will see how things go in November.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Sadly Buzz…I’m a horrible dancer. Really, really horrible.

        I don’t know why you folks just have such a visceral reaction against math and data.

        Lose the presidential election, lose seats in the House, and lose seats in the Senate = we tied?

        I don’t think anyone here (or anywhere) suggests the GOP won’t do well in 2014. We are almost all in agreement with you on that point. There are a hundred years of data and current polling data to support that.

        If you can’t do well in 2014, then you would have to seriously question your existence as a political party.

        The point of this posting was the GOP’s difficulty with young folks.

        The resulting discussions have been Obamacare, religion, abortion, and gays. On every one of those issues, younger folks are more likely than old people to lean with the Democrats than with the GOP.

        You can wrap yourself with a warm blanket of “people who vote in Presidential elections are more stupid than people who vote in mid-term elections”, but that isn’t going to win you more elections.

        Fortunately, you and Buzz are consistent, and I have no doubt that you would have argued that voters were more informed when Bush and Reagan lost big in mid-term elections.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I said we held the status quoe, HT, not that we tied or even won. Republicans hold the house, democrats hold the senate and oval office. Status quo. Quite an accomplishment for a movement declared dead in April of 2009 and many times after that.

        Again, we shall see how things go as the democrats get all up in everybody’s business. I think they will do more to drive people away, and many will turn to cnservatives because we want to keep government out of peoples business. Leave us alone and allow us to live our own lives without politicians micromanaging all aspects of our lives.

        Even when you bring up same sex marriage, many on the right don’t want it recognized by the state, but we also don’t call for throwing people in prison over it or stripping them of their citizenship.

      • John Galt says:

        Interesting poll, ROR. I hadn’t seen numbers that high for Obamacare in a while. What I found most interesting was this:
        “Investors are betting the law will withstand political challenges. An “Obamacare” portfolio of stocks that benefit from the law developed by the online broker Motif Investing is up 40.9 percent over a year ago as of March 12, almost doubling the performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, which returned 22.9 percent.

        A “Repeal Obamacare” portfolio underperformed the benchmark stock index, rising 16.1 percent during the period.”

        As they say, money talks and bullshit walks. Serious money is assuming the ACA is here to stay.

    • CaptSternn says:

      By the way, Owl, it was Lifer that really brought Obamacare into the discussion with, “Authoritarian campaigns to dictate personal choices will not accomplish these goals.” Maybe you missed that part? Then again, you said, “Texas Republicans.” Does Lifer still count as a “Texas Republican”?

  3. DanMan says:

    As of Wednesday March 12, 2014 here are the official exemptions from Obamacare. #14 was added that day without announcement.

    Hardship exemptions
    If you have any of the circumstances below that affect your ability to purchase health insurance coverage, you may qualify for a “hardship” exemption:
    1. You were homeless.
    2. You were evicted in the past 6 months or were facing eviction or foreclosure.
    3. You received a shut-off notice from a utility company.
    4. You recently experienced domestic violence.
    5. You recently experienced the death of a close family member.
    6. You experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property.
    7. You filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months.
    8. You had medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last 24 months.
    9. You experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member.
    10. You expect to claim a child as a tax dependent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child. In this case, you do not have the pay the penalty for the child.
    11. As a result of an eligibility appeals decision, you’re eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time period when you weren’t enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace.
    12. You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
    13. Your individual insurance plan was cancelled and you believe other Marketplace plans are unaffordable.
    14. You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance.

    I have a hang nail. I am exempt.

  4. geoff1968 says:

    I’m an American. I listen to Jazz. It’s the right and proper music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEC8nqT6Rrk. If you don’t listen to Jazz music you are not an American.

    • Crogged says:

      A friend of mine in Austin is putting these guys up for a couple of days.

      http://www.lechatlunatique.com

      They describe it as ‘filthy mangy jazz’

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Gypsy jazz, that would those lunatic cats sound like to me. Stéphan Grappelli and Django Reinhardt….. if they were playing nearby, I’d go listen.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      I love jazz. I seem to be stuck in be-bop. Thelonius Monk is a god.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I like the fact that you linked to Miles Davis. I read the comment about Jazz this morning, but didn’t know if I wanted to reply, so I waited. My lady loves Jazz, though I never really listened to it. Over the past couple of years we have been taking weekend road trips, and she selects the music (only rule is no contemporary C&W, or really any C&W at all). There have been many times where we are cruising the back roads of Texas listening to Miles Davis.

      My lady has expanded my music knowledge greatly, and for the better. But I have developed a taste for orchestra and especially the violen because of the sound and lighting work I did for my church for so many years. I do believe that is an aquired taste, unless talking about Charlie Daniels (about the only C&W song I can deal with, Devil went down to Georgia).

      Enya’s Celtic Fiddle is a great one. Ok, maybe that was TMI.

  5. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    Since the liberals control the media and therefore the Republican message, the GOP positions most publicly discussed are:

    (a) Obamacare is bad
    (b) Gay folks should not get married
    (3) Abortion should be illegal

    So, the GOP election strategy to woo young voters is to argue against healthcare insurance (I know that is not your position but we libs control the media), against two lesbian moms getting married, and against a woman controlling her body.

    This will happily get you through mid-term, out-of-power elections when the voters tend to be older and more agitated than in Presidential year elections.

    It just won’t play nearly as well in 2016.

    That gives you a couple of years to get more GOP teenagers to major in journalism so that you can end the lib control of the media. This would be a grand idea if you could only find some GOP teenagers.

    If the GOP does not win 2016, you will have a solid generation of younger voters who vote three times in a row for a Democrat president. That is going to be a hard thing habit to change.

    If the GOP does not win 2016, you will have a generation of new Hispanic voters (fastest growing group in the US) who vote three times in a row for a Democrat President. That is going to be a hard thing habit to change.

    Not that anyone would wish ill will on the country, but unless something catastrophic happens to the economy or national security, 2016 looks very difficult for the GOP.

    If the economic growth continues to putter along (albeit anemically), the stock market doesn’t crash, and unemployment continues drop (although too slowly), arguing against Obamacare just is not going to get young folks to vote for a political party with social views out of line with most young Americas.

    • DanMan says:

      so why is Obama putting it on hold?

      and also, look like you’ve conceded 2014. Why?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        I think most folks generally understand that mid-term elections almost always favor the party not in the presidency.

        Even Nate Silver was pointing at 2014 for the GOP a year ago before he went dark to build his new site. Given a mid-term election and the specific elections in this cycle (50% more Democrat seats up for election than GOP seats), this is not shocking news to anyone. Contrary to the beliefs of some in the GOP, math is bi-partisan.

        Heck, if the GOP doesn’t gain back the Senate in 2014, it would almost be a death knell (or hopefully a wake up call).

      • DanMan says:

        ‘almost always’ bwahahaha!

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Dan, for certainly not the first time, I’m confused by your comment.

        I am not sure about what you are giggling.

        However, just because the more you know, the happier person you will become, over the past 20+ midterm elections, the party of the President has lost an average of 30 seats in the House, and 4 seats in the Senate. In only two of those 21 elections has the President’s party gained seats in both houses.

        The more you know….picture a little rainbow flying across the screen.

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, almost always. In the last half-century, the president’s party has lost seats in all but three midterms. Bush, Jr., Clinton, and FDR each accomplished that feat once, and Clinton’s was basically the status quo (gained 5 house seats and no senate seats). He was helped in that by a booming economy and Republican nonsense (the impeachment), so anything is possible here, but it is very likely as HT says that the GOP will make gains in Congress this year. If that happens, it is virtually assured that they will – like almost all victorious politicians – claim they have a (non-existent) mandate for something.

    • John Galt says:

      I wouldn’t be so confident, HT. In 1952, nobody under the age of 45 had ever elected a GOP president and in 1992, nobody under 34 had done so. Political winds change quickly. November is a long way away.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Homer, you are just trying to give yourself comfort. The only difference in your statistics is size of change. Usually the shift is slight, but in Obama’s case, it was huge and will be again. Look at Florida and all the money outside interests for the dem’s put in and the dem pundit’s saying that seat will reflect a referendum on Obamacare. Well, they lost the seat. It seems you can’t come to grips with the fact the Obama is incompetent. And if the GOP does get the senate, the investigations will begin in earnest.

      Now I know you will say the GOP shouldn’t do that, but each party does when given the bait and Obama has given much bait.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Hey buzz…I’m the first to tell you, size does matter.

        However, I’m forced to wonder if your incorrect conclusions are intentional or simply a lack of knowledge and fear that google is controlled by the devil.

        Buzz says, “Usually the shift is slight, but in Obama’s case, it was huge and will be again.”

        The average loss is 30 seats in the house and 4 in the senate.

        Obama lost 63 and 6. Certainly, more than the average.

        You know who else lost six Senate seats in midterm elections?

        Bush II – six seats: in the mid-term election right before Obama
        Clinton lost 8 senate seats and 54 house (even more devastating the Obama, then Clinton was blissfully re-elected)
        Reagan – eight seats

        I certainly can see how you view having Obama losing seats as unprecedented in size when three of last four Presidents (two GOP and one Democrat) prior to Obama lost the same number or more Senate seats.

        Makes perfect sense.

        Heck, going back to when you were in your 20s and 30s, Ike lost 48 and 12 and Truman lost 54 and 12.

      • flypusher says:

        “Obama lost 63 and 6. Certainly, more than the average.”

        But, but, you forgot to multiply by the real birth certificate!!!!! That’s what makes it huge!

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, you must read what I wrote. Of course you don’t figure in the political dynamics of each time NOR how many senate seats were up for each election cycle, etc..

        You edgy attempts of putting down what you think is my age reveals how desperate you feel. You ship is going down and hard. Just too much happening and the empty suit just can’t handle it. I am not surprised but I imagine you are.

      • flypusher says:

        “. Of course you don’t figure in the political dynamics..”

        Got you there HSAH, as you totally missed all those defeat from the jaws of victory Senate races in the last few cycles!

        Senator Akin, anyone?

  6. DanMan says:

    y’all see what Boehner’s up to? He’s letting his members present legislation to change Obamacare into what Obama has actually done to his own law. The first effort netted 27 dems and now Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are losing it. And get this, Pelosi is yammering that repubs should work with dems to ‘fix’ the law instead on nixing it, when all they are doing is agreeing with the president on his changes and trying to make his efforts legal.

    Next is a law to restore the medicare funding that Obama quietly restored. Harry Reid is on a tear and is standing against the legislation the house is sending him that, mirrors Obama’s efforts along with saying he will not bring up the bill that allows a 3-judge panel to fast track to the supreme court all of the illegal changes Obama has made and Obama himself has threatened to veto the law that require him to follow the constitution.

    Keep ‘em Boehner, going to be a fun 7 months.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      The spineless Orange is up to the usual same old crap. Of course YOU would wet your pants over the same old useless and meaningless obstructionism Danny.

      51st consecutive (failed) attempt to gut Obamacare. Yawn.

      At least you’re consistent in your failure and obstinacy.

      And not making any friends of the docs you were purportedly trying to “help” (yeah, right).

      “But the House Republican approach brought an unusual public rebuke on Thursday from the American Medical Association, one of the most powerful lobby groups, representing 225,000 physicians who hope for a permanent “doc fix” this year. The group wrote to Congress to express ‘profound disappointment’.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/03/14/us/politics/14reuters-usa-healthcare-medicare.html?hp&_r=0

  7. goplifer says:

    By the way, the novel of the post-Future Shock generation has already been written.

    Super Sad True Love Story, by Gary Shteyngart. Amazing work, mostly overlooked.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/books/27book.html?_r=0

  8. desperado says:

    (Crack open door, peek in)

    Oh, shit.

    (Close door)

    Still enjoy your writing, Chris.

  9. CaptSternn says:

    The younger generation will turn more conservative as they age. One of the driving factos of that will be due to democrats are steadily sinking more and more into “authoritarian campaigns to dictate personal choices.” That is if they can put down their gadgets, toys and shiny things long enough to look up from their social media and vote. They will get jobs and gain experience and they will want more and more to keep what they earn and stop the government from meddling in their lives, micromanaging them.

    I wouldn’t put too much weight on the Reagan comparison either. He was running against Carter, and Carter had some serious baggage with the Iran issue and hostages.

    On the technology side of things, it is interesting living in the future. I saw a question and answer a while back that made me laugh and sad at the same time …

    Question: What would you tell a person that suddenly found arrived at today from 50 years ago?
    Answer: I have, in my pocket, a device that can communicate with others and access all the knowledge of the modern world. It is used to look at pictures of cats and argue with strangers.

    • DanMan says:

      awesome Stern…after doing the math for three weeks and seeing the reality of the deductions on their first paycheck usually does it for most of them

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        You know Dan, that certainly must be true. Once young people become employed and look at their pay checks and taxes, they will undoubtedly vote Republican.

        I mean sure, voters 25-29 years old voted overwhelmingly (+20%) for Obama. But hey, they are still young, and it is certainly possible that in your world, those folks have not yet received a pay check and thus have not learned to dislike Democrats.

        Sure, voters age 30-44 also significantly voted for Obama, but hey, maybe none of these folks have ever earned a paycheck either.

        You know the group who overwhelmingly went against Obama? Yep, those folks over the age of 65. Those folks are tired of the income taxes coming out of their retirement checks.

        I would suggest that you will find many fiscally conservative young folks, but as long as the dastardly Democrats can say, “You know, the GOP is going to try to outlaw abortion and stop gay folks from getting married”, they are going to have difficulty voting for the GOP.

        Stern is banking on young people revolting against coerced health insurance, curly lightbulb, and low flow toilet purchases, and thus voting GOP.

        I’m banking on young folks saying, “meh” and wondering why folks are upset that their friends’ two gay dads want to get legally married.

      • DanMan says:

        m’kay Homer…we know what’s important in your fully evolved world. Buttsechs and killing babies in the womb. Everything will be great once that is the national pastime. Wonder why it took Obama 52 years to come around? Reckon he was lying all those years about that too?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        And as long as you folks are worried about butt sex (which at least 40% of heteros do – and you are completely ignoring our lesbian friends who have much more vagina sex) and killing babies in the womb, you will struggle attracting younger voters. Nothing will draw new voters to the GOP like flippant disregard and mocking of things that they favor.

        During baseball season in Houston last year, more folks had butt sex than attended an Astros game, so I’m going to go with butt sex already being more of a national past time than baseball.

        Butt yes (see what I did there?), if you have to ask, gays having the ability to get married is about 1000 times more important to me than the harsh glare of curly lightbulbs. The ability of women to more fully control when and if they have babies is a 1000 times more important than worrying about a low flow toilet.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I think it is you Homer that is fixated on ‘butt’ sex. You seem to like bringing it up. Are you out?

        We don’t even have to go into the homosexual marriage thing it has been explained as has abortion. It is impossible to explain to some who has no faith in God to talk about these things.

        Now go on the your faux ‘Buzz, I have no idea what you mean, I’m so confused, etc.” Schtick.

      • Crogged says:

        What “love the sinner” really means………

        http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/03/13/the-way-we-live-now/

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Buzz…if you cannot figure out a way to communicate with folks who are not religious, this might be another problem for the GOP since the last few generations of young folks tend to be much less religious than our generations.

        In general, it probably isn’t a good idea to let your thoughts on god drive our legal system.

        Butt hey, just go head with it being a “god thing” that other folks just won’t understand.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Again Homer you twist it. It is not I or any other conservative on this comment thread that bring up religion. Chris Ladd and the entire echo chamber brings it up. It is your boogey man.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Buzz…no twisting here. Young folks are overwhelmingly in favor of gay folks getting married.

        Dan jumps to butt sex and you jump to not being able to explain it to non-religious folks.

        Neither of those positions is going to win the hearts and minds of young folks.

        If, because of your religion, you don’t want to get gay married or engage in sodomy (which is at least half of the fun things that heterosexual folks do), that is your own business. Using your religion to argue against things that do not involve you, that just is not going to sit well with young voters.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, to play along with your fixation of sodomy, how do you get 50% heterosexuals participate in that act??? I call BS.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Buzz…happy to help (and there was just some data on this very issue).

        First, we have to define sodomy a bit, and some of our more religious brethren and sisteren tend to lump oral sex in there as well. I don’t even want to contemplate the existence of folks who are against oral sex, so let’s try to break that out from the focus on Dan’s butt sex.

        Sure, the CDC and Dept of Health and Human Services is a political hack organization designed to spread mis-information about sex, but we’ll start with them.

        “In the 25-to-44 age group, about 90 percent having oral sex. Slightly more than one-third (36 percent) of women and 44 percent of men report having had anal sex.”
        National Health Statistics Reports n Number 36 n March 3, 2011

        Indiana University’s (a known liberal hotbed) National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior will highlight that something like 30% of folks will report having anal sex within the past year, generally starting with 20% of 18 and 19 year old women.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        ‘Having had’ Homer. That is what you try to sway people with ‘having had’ as in past tense. AS in ‘let’s try it’ and of course I am sure almost all the women said ‘okay, no way, no more’. My goodness how you interpret that.

        So 99% of the population smokes because we’ll count those that tried it and didn’t like it but we’ll count them.

        Get some rest.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Geez buzz…I’m moderately sure folks were not in the act of having sex (oral, anal, vaginal, or manual) while actually responding to the survey, so I think the survey folks are going to have to go with a past tense version of the questions.

        I’m sorry they didn’t get to an absolute frequency count for you, but the Indiana survey consistently shows 20% to 25% of folks have had anal sex within the past year from ages 18 to 40, so someone is doing it.

        I’m not sure how math works in your world, but it is kind of impossible for that to be all new people each year. You rather quickly run out of 100% of people if folks are only doing it one time.

        The percentages are the 70s and 80s for having oral sex in the last year, and those results are found across years as well.

        Again…why do not you folks so dislike data and math. Numbers are your friends.

        I’m kinda baffled that I’m stumbling into someone who doesn’t think oral and anal sex are occurring with a fair amount of frequency.

    • John Galt says:

      They may become more fiscally conservative, they are not likely to become substantially more socially conservative. You don’t put the lid back on that box once opened.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Sure, John. You will buy government required brocolli in government aproved amounts and have it shoved down your throat, or you may face prison if you refuse. I don’t think you can put that lid back on the box once opened. Think people will really like that idea?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Wheeeeeeeeeeee, the slippery slope is fun.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Interestingly, no one is proposing gov’t required broccoli.

        People are proposing anti-abortion laws and constitutional amendments against gay marriage.

        When President Biden mandates cauliflower purchases, young folks will turn against Democrats. Until then, they will just turn away from the GOP.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Chris Matthews predicts the dem’s will lose the senate.

        The DOJ took the FBI off the case looking into corruption of Reid and another senator.

        The hits just keep coming, but let’s talk about ‘butt’ sex Homer.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I think you missed the boat, HT. That slippery slope is behind us. We done went and slid. The federal government now, according to the supreme court, has the power to force us to buy anything the politi9cians want us to buy. If we refuse, we can face unlimited fines and prison.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain, yes, the legislature passed legislation and the court ruled the legislation was constitutional! Horrors! A republic, I mean a dictatorship was set up several hundred years ago!

        With the elections coming up- Republicans may narrowly win the Senate, probably keep the House and then run up against another truth you will highlight with conspiratorial language as i. It’s hard to overturn a veto.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Sure stern…but as of yet, no one is making us buy broccoli. When that happens, folks will complain.

        I think Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that bad laws are not necessarily unconstitutional, and the remedy to those bad laws is electing better politicians.

      • John Galt says:

        I think Sternn started sliding down the slippery slope about 4000 years ago. The government can compel people to literally sacrifice their lives (military service). It can compel people to part with substantial chunks of their income (taxes). It can prohibit people from using their property in certain ways (zoning, environmental laws). It can compel people to save for retirement (SS). It can prohibit people from consuming certain substances (drug laws). While I would disagree with some of them (drug laws), these are done because there is a public interest. Access to health care, which despite his paranoid ravings to the contrary is the primary purpose of the ACA, is in the public interest. Compelling vegetable consumption is not. There are better arguments against the concept of universal insurance (and far better ones against the ACA) than this hysteria.

      • DanMan says:

        Right JG, and remember all those wonderful selling points!

        – It won’t cost a dime
        – It will pay for itself
        – It will REDUCE the deficit
        – It will NOT cost people to lose their insurance
        – If you like your insurance/doctor, you can KEEP your plan/doctor
        – It will NOT cause people to lose their jobs
        – It will not create any new taxes (Tax ‘fine’, medical device tax…)
        – It will apply to Congress

        And when faced with fixing it, as Obama has adroitly done to lessen the impacts, dem leadership is screaming about the lack of cooperation by the other side in following his lead. Can any member of the rucas posse defend this development for us radical righties?

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, it is already here. People are being forced to buy something of face fines and possibly prison.

        John, yes, the federal government has overstepped its constitutional boundries. But the U.S. Constitution isn;t 400 years old, as SJL claimed, much less 4,000 years old as you just claimed.

      • Crogged says:

        Obamacare is here and is not ever going to go away. Ever. You might throw all the libertarian philosophy at it, call it a “Ponzi” scheme etc, but it delivers a real thing (medical care) via another real thing (private insurance) to people who didn’t have it. The individual pieces of thought which make up the bogeyman (coverages of preexisting conditions, children until mid twenties) will NEVER be overturned now.

        It’s done, every proposed Republican plan includes all these but the ‘mandate’, and guess what the insurance bosses will tell the Republicans about that.

        It’s a coercion, it’s ‘illegal’ and its the Social Security Act of the 1930s. Pissing off Republicans is a feature, not a bug.

        It’s over, talk about how much better we had it before discovering fire.

      • DanMan says:

        But it’s not here even yet. Obama has pretty much shuddered the law for two more years by eliminating the mandate. How does it get paid for? Recall, only 6 companies are participating. Kathleen Sebelius says they don’t know how many have paid because that is managed by those 6 companies. The other several dozen companies that will now compete with the 6 aren’t part of the mix you know?

        And why is he allowing those sub-standard policies that he criticized so forcefully as being cheap scams to be sold again?

        And finally, if what he is doing is lessening the impacts of his law to help Americans who can’t afford the price increase keep their coverage, why won’t he allow those changes he declares help everyone become law?

        Stamp your feet all you want Crogged. Obama has gutted his law while you are arguing for what he lied about to be permanent.

      • John Galt says:

        I did not claim the constitution was 4,000 years old. I used the term “government”, the concept of which, as I recall, predates the U.S. Constitution. Governments have many things in common (and a lot different), including those things I mentioned.

        Your comments about being sent to jail for not having insurance are, as has been pointed out many times before, absurd, as even the IRS admits it has utterly no mechanism to enforce the mandate. Any ability to do so was specifically excluded in the ACA. Attempting to make your points without such preposterous hyperbole would strengthen your argument, if indeed you could do it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, the PPACA is not about health care. It is about forcing people to buy something, turning private companies into government agencies. As usual, the left cheers the destruction of the private sector, the destruction of liberty and growth of government power over the people, socialism.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, are you really suggesting that the IRS has no means to collect taxes, and nobody that has refused to pay has lost property or gone to prison? How many examples would it take to show you otherwise?

      • John Galt says:

        That is precisely what I am suggesting. But don’t take my word for it. Take this press release from Sen. Coburn’s office, which states:
        “Section 5000A(g)(2) of the IRC limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the section. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a NFTL [notice of federal tax lien] or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty.”

        I believe that Sen. Coburn is one of the more conservative members of Congress. You remember how you righties keep claiming that the GOP had no input on the ACA and the rest of us keep reminding you about all the accepted amendments from the GOP? Remember? Well, this was one of them. Congratulations!

        http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fd932516-3dc2-486f-a4de-81687c7c6915

      • DanMan says:

        JG its always fun to point out the obvious to you. You referenced the IRC. That ain’t the ACA. That’s the tax code. Try again.

      • Crogged says:

        Dan, there are over 120 different insurance companies offering insurance through the exchanges. What is your conspiratorial number 6 (is this the companies comprising the IT work of the exchange itself or some weird reference to the book of Revelation?) Boeing makes a lot of money off it’s government contract-you worried about that corruption? Seem kind of shady to you? Yes, the President made a political decision regarding insurance coverages issued prior-when will that stop? I don’t know. It hurts his case. But…….

        Here’s the problem. If these same ‘fiscal conservatives’ had kept up their principled opposition to Medicare Plan D then you might have a punchers chance on this one. But that didn’t happen, so now it looks more and more as this drags out that the Republicans just want to ‘win’. So all the useless votes about ‘repeal’, as the mechanics of the law get implemented and real people obtain real insurance. You might win around the edges and make those lucky duckies with preexisting conditions pay higher deductibles just in case they get too comfortable in their ‘something for nothing’ yacht, but the jig is up, the game is over. Obamacare is here and done.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Reality says otherwise, John. Even al Capone found out what happens when the IRS is crossed, as have others.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown

        I have been on the recieving end of the IRS coming to collect. They threatened to take my home. That was over a measly $2,000. I ended up paying it off, to the tune of over $7,000. FYI, you don’t get to decide how the IRS applies your payments.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, conservatives were against Medicare Part D. We are working on getting tose RINOs out through primaries.

        You say Obamacare is here to stay, yet Obama and democrats are running from it as fast as they can. Obama is even attempting to write and pass legislation without congress. It won;t fly. The law stands as it is unless changed by congress. Obama doesn’t get to change it with speeches. It is a disaster and only getting worse. Why do you wish such harm on your fellow citizens?

      • DanMan says:

        yep, you got me. There are an average of 7 companies/state offering Obamacare policies. The low is 2 in Alabama, several with 3 and then several up to 12. Texas has 11.

        So over a 120 insurance are in line to be bailed out by Obamacare risk corridors? Way more than I thought.

      • DanMan says:

        and btw, is Anthem in Texas is a different company that Anthem in Colorado? There may be some confusion in that regard as well. GM in Texas is the same as GM in Colorado, not sure if it works different for insurance companies what with not being allowed to buy across state lines and all.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain, so there’s a political move afoot to ‘repeal’ Medicare Plan D? Has a bill been introduced in the House to do so? I didn’t know. Why stop there?

        Dan,
        Selling insurance across state lines–. I mean, the company has a website so why not get your insurance company from someone not subject to any regulation in your state, as a side bonus I bet they don’t have assets in your state too. Maybe they have the 200 dollar coupons for cheap surgery …..among all those other benefits from contracting from someone you have no way of determining who they are.

      • John Galt says:

        Dan, did you read the link I posted? No, I didn’t think so. The entire document is about enforcement of the penalty for not having insurance under the PPACA. All the IRS’s tools to enforce it beyond hoping the taxpayer is honest have been specifically removed.’

        Sternn, buddy, I don’t know what to tell you. There’s no enforcement mechanism. They can come after you with civil or criminal charges or put liens on property if you don’t pay up. There is specific legislation barring them from doing that, or do you think Sen. Coburn is wrong?

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Cappy, “conservative” or not, you are part of an ever shrinking demographic.

      Not only are ignorant, uneducated hateful “conservatives” old and White, they are predominantly from the South.

      Un(der)educated old White people not from the Confederacy agree with just about everyone else in the country.

      Surprise, surprise.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/opinion/edsall-how-democrats-can-compete-for-the-white-working-class.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

      • DanMan says:

        er-ahh bubba baby, why do they have to compete for those that already agree with him?

      • DanMan says:

        with them, not him

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Um,not understanding what you read Danny? At least now you acknowledge/admit it.

        Let me make it clear to you more s-l-oooooooooo-w-l-y.

        Even uneducated old White people around the rest of the country agree with the “lib” majority.

        Your cranky, stupid, obstinate, old, White people hating on Obama and the “libs” no matter what demographic are now just relegated to the Confederate South that want to go back to the good ole days of slavery. Coincidence?

        Now what you gonna do about that except buy more guns and canned goods to overstuff your doomsday bunker Danny Downer?

      • DanMan says:

        your vitriol is always amusing bubba, again, if as the author of the article you link declares

        “Democratic prospects may well be better than national polling data suggests.”

        Because whites everywhere but the south agree with democrats, why is the article and your take that democrats can compete for white male votes when the premise is they already agree with democrats?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You’re not good at basic 2nd grade math, are you Danny Dunce?

        National survey, regional nuances. Gerrymandering or not, buh bye wingnuts. Other than your Deep South ever shrinking racist enclaves.

        Alles is klar?

        You just obstinately don’t want to admit you were wrong and unable to read for comprehension, don’t you Danny Denial?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Ding, ding, ding, ding! Bubba was the first liberal to use race today. Your first prize will be a congratulatory letter from Chris Ladd on your ability to work race into a comment section about technology. It is called the Putz award.

      • DanMan says:

        why are libs always so angry?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Buzzy, you are the expert regarding being a putz. I’ll give you that.

        You wingnuts stop trying to suppress the rights of minorities and we will stop calling you racists.

        Alles is klar buzzy?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Danny, why are wingnuts always so willfully stupid?

  10. DanMan says:

    ‘Authoritarian campaigns to dictate personal choices will not accomplish these goals.’

    say what? I seem recall when he was standing between the foam columns that Obama said he was the one we were waiting for? Thanks for rebutting the obvious, what with his mandated and oft minimalized top down health insurance scam.

  11. kabuzz61 says:

    I do remember the Orson Wells adaptation of the book. It still rings true today but definitely not like you interpret it.

    You get your two boogey men in: Conservatives and religion. See, this is what happens when hate guides someone. It is such a strong emotion in you that you can’t not stop. Your obsessed.

    You can and should do much better. You are starting to sound like a harping old spinster.

  12. Texan5142 says:

    Beam me up Scotty……….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Noahpinion

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

The Weekly Sift

making sense of the news one week at a time

GOPLifer

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

FiveThirtyEight » Features | FiveThirtyEight

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Anthony Bourdain

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Hip Hop Republican

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

The Big Picture

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 72 other followers

%d bloggers like this: