Millennial Point of View

The focus from the Saddleback forum focuses on the exact moment when the candidates became aware of the specific questions that were to be asked.  Was there are a cone of silence? Did Rick Warren lie? Did McCain lie? What these people are really saying is that McCain must have cheated because there is no other possible reason for Obama’s poor performance!

Unsurprisingly most of this endless speculations seems to have come primarily from the democrat side, since the left cannot possible fathom that Obama just did bad on his own! It has been really effective in blinding people from the fact that first of all, without a teleprompter, Obama is just a man and not the great orator. Second, he obviously hasn’t though a lot of important through, such as his quip when asked about his opinion of the point when human life begins.  His answer that that is above his pay grade is not only trite, its frightening when you think of this same principle potentially applied in other areas of policy.

 McCain, on the other hand presented well thought out answers that stood out in start contrast to his opponents, answers that to some were toogood ie many liberals who continue to complain incessantly about the breakdown of the cone of silence as the only thing that could have led McCain to succeed.

While driving in my car on the way to work last week, the local morning show previewed and discussed the controversial Ludacris song “politics” and allowed callers to weigh in.  The obviously left-leaning morning hosts mostly agreed that the viciousness of the diatribe would perhaps do little to help the presidential candidate.

The opinions from the callers ranged from mildly appalled to openly supportive of Ludacris and his vitriol.  Sample response?  “The lyrics don’t offend me because they’re true!” said one caller about the songs referring to Clinton as a ***** and Bush as mentally handicapped. This remark was followed by slightly nervous laughter from the co-hosts.  Notably absent was the presence of any real show of being offended, or any critical analysis of what a phenom such as this song really do to help or hurt a campaign.

One opinion, according to  AP Atlanta is that “Before, a lot of the songs about Barack were supporting his campaign,” said Bakari Kitwana, who co-edited the upcoming “Let’s Get Free: Strategies for Organizing the Hip-Hop Voting Bloc “This song is different in that it almost claims the victory. That’s scary for some people who don’t want to see that happen.”“For young voters, the controversy could pull them deeper into the mire of mainstream electoral politics, causing them to look more critically at the process,” Kitwana said.

That could be great news for people like my younger brother and a million other teenagers, who get their candidate information from peers and Utube videos and less from debates and real discourse.

According to a study from the Centers for American Progress, most young people believe in the value of universal health care, increases in taxes for such purposes as education, health, and that the government should provide increased services. In fact, 57 percent of the people surveyed were supportive of universal health care.

This is apparently the highest approval towards increasing taxes and socialized medicine in years. The study did not examine specifically the possible reasons for the strong feelings of those surveyed but speculated it may be due to poor current economic conditions coupled with general low approval towards Bush.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/progressive_generation.html

Another thought is that perhaps they got some of their information on health care and the glories of socialized medicine from Michael Moore’s latest movie, Sicko.

Okay. Finally someone, “a leading scientist” actually got some media attention for asserting that the earth is going to get cooler this year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557209&in_page_id=1770

Although this person had better watch himself or he might end up in the same spot as the University of Colarado scientist Bill Gray who is losing his funding. Some say it is because he doesn’t blindly buy the fact that we humans are killing the earth with our CO2 emissions. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html
From my perspective, when you get to the average consumer level, the nuances of the argument are definitely lost. A woman came up to me at the dog park yesterday on a hot spring afternoon and said, “Did you hear about Al Gore’s greenhouse gases and how we’re all goin’ to burn up? That’s why its so hot out here.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/oprahobama.html

Oprah was once looked at nearly as favorably as Mother Teresa. Apparently, those days are no more! According to Costas Panagopoulos, an assistant professor of political science at New York’s Fordham University, her “favorable ratings’ are now down to 55% and her unfavorable rating is nearly 33%. No longer the powerhouse of influence that she was only a year ago, Politico.com cited an aol poll claiming that Ellen Degeneneres is now a more popular talk show host than Oprah.

Its well known that Oprah has been throwing her considerable weight behind presidential candidate Obama and that her endorsement has been concurrent with her decline in popularity. One can argue that her decline could possible be due to a number of factors but it is significant that, She hasn’t even helped Obama gain any ground. According to Politico.com

“a national survey of Democrats conducted in December 2007 by ABC News and The Washington Post, 82 percent of respondents claimed Oprah’s endorsement would make no difference in their vote, while 8 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for Obama and 10 percent indicated it would make them less likely to do so.”

On the upside, Americans at least claim in a survey that generally, celebrity endorsements do not make a difference in helping them choose a candidate. Or perhaps Obama should just choose a different celebrity to lobby on his behalf. Ellen?

Green fashion has apparently come a long way. No longer are “sustainable” clothes a euphemism for your older sisters hand-me-downs, young women are shelling out the big bucks for luxury “green” items.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=80029

Sarah Mahoney, from Marketing Daily, describes several types of twenty something female eco conscious shoppers, one notably called the the “Spending Green profile,” who buys green because because “that sense of exclusivity and entitlement are important to her. She embraced green when it was still very much a luxury category, and she intends to keep it that way. For her, buying green connotes luxury, not any kind of sacrifice.”

So, apparently, some people buy green to be trendy while the more “purist” are intent on doing their part for the earth. What is so bad about the conventional way of making clothing anyways? Why buy green at all? After all, it is likely to be expensive and it severely limits your options.
First of all, the argument goes, the T shirt wasn’t made by a poor little kid in a sweatshop. (Which it also shoudn’t be by a reputable Non green clothier.) Furthermore, according to treehugger.com you’re also paying for virgin fiber, possible organic agriculture, and recycled materials. (from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/ecotip_choosing.php).

But as an example of cost, one recent pair of jean on treehugger.com was $178. Alternately, couldn’t a consumer just opt to rewear from their current jean supply or buy from a thrift store? Or what if they just buy a $30 pair of Levis and vow to collect enough recyclables to make up the difference?

I just received this video from a friend of mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA

The most frightening part of the video is the sway and power that this woman holds over millions of Americans. Her partnership with Obama only serves to strengthen their “brand.” It’s already the trendy thing, apparently, to invent your own sort of religion today  so who knows? Maybe someday even having a “demonination” or being a Buddhist or Muslim will be critisized as being narrow minded! (I Highly doubt though in the case of some celebrated religions.)

Watching this video, it already gives examples of how Christians are slammed for saying or believing that Jesus is the ”only way.”  I think the future in this country is that everyone makes up their own religion plan that feels the best for them so long as it is inclusive of all individuals and it fosters self- esteem and a green planet. 

This story http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/yoani-sanchez-generation-y-cuba-blog-shut-down-by-cuban-government/ from Cuba is downright scary.

Here we have the freedom to rant and rave against the status quo, to the point where the city council in Vermont makes plans to arrest the president and San Francisco citizens plot to oust military recruiters from their station.

 In contrast, not only are Cuban citizens unable to blog, they can’t even purchase a darn toaster. You’d think with the untold freedom we have here more people would recognize the US as a great country instead of condemning it.

‘Cool’ shouldn’t be candidate criterion

Apr. 3, 2008 12:00 AM How time flies, and the changes it brings are sometimes untenable. I know that voting laws were changed years ago and that teenagers (18) can actually vote! Guess it never occurred to me that any 18-year-olds would ever be interested in such a thing. Turning 21 seemed to be a great age to “become an adult.”

High-school senior Ethan Lazuk is truly a gifted writer, (”Millennial generation forming up behind a charismatic visionary,” Viewpoints, Sunday).

But some of his rhetoric about the election, as well as his preferred candidate Barack Obama, is downright scary.

He thinks the cause is “cool” and “exciting.” It appears the attitude is for change just because it is cool and exciting, something millennials seem to live for.

Change, just because it can be done is no advantage.

Some of us who came before baby boomers, and certainly way before millennials, are concerned that the tremendous population groups of those two generations may have undue influence on election outcomes, if only due to sheer numbers.

Times change but not always for the better. We’ll just have to wait and see. -Helen Taylor,Congress

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0403thurlets032.html _____________________________________________________________________

Well it was nice to read that someone important was replying appropriately to this high school student’s questionable logic. What is scary to me is that his thinking is representative of that of thousands of others. Obama has marketed himself successfully as a hip and trendy brand on the terms “hope” and “change” without delineated what how or into what we hope to changes things.

Millennial generation forming up behind a charismatic visionary

Ethan R. Lazuk
Obama supporter
Mar. 30, 2008 12:00 AM If there is one lesson that can be learned from the current presidential race, it is that politics is for kids. The millennial generation is establishing itself as a formidable constituency, challenging the over-60 vote for decision-making supremacy. Heretofore, voter participation has been reliant upon an informed citizenry. Normally, it is those people who read the newspaper in the morning, listen to news radio in the afternoon, watch cable news during the night and ultimately pull the lever in November.Earnest voters, by learning about the current political issues and global affairs, establish for themselves a vicarious sense of involvement. Those Tibetan protests are taking place in their world. Those carbon emissions are dirtying their air. Those housing foreclosures are burdening their neighbors and affecting their society.
So why are these kids, who couldn’t discern between Nancy Pelosi and Nancy Drew, emerging this primary season in droves?The answer is that someone has discovered a substitute cause for getting out the vote, a factor that is every bit as galvanizing as information but more universally appealing.That cause is excitement.

And that someone is Sen. Barack Obama.

Virtually unknown outside Illinois and Washington political circles just one year ago, Obama has established himself as not only the Democratic frontrunner for the presidency of the United States, but also as the leader of a movement that is reverberating throughout America, awakening a plethora of previously silent voters from their political dormancy.

Obama’s message of hope and civility resonates with voters because it gives a fresh look at a musty scene of grid-locked, partisan politics. But it does something more. It makes politics cool. Which is why we millennials care. We live for cool. (Cool is apparently more than issues, as you will see)

Ask a first-time millennial voter why she supports Obama, and you will not likely receive an argument about his early opposition to the invasion of Iraq, his advocacy for government transparency, his economic bias toward the proletariat and bourgeoisie, or his desire to replenish America’s moral standing internationally. (He/She will scratch head in confusion if one of said issues is raised.)

Chances are she will invoke his recent “A More Perfect Union” speech, in which the senator spoke elegantly about the racial discrepancies that persist in contemporary society. She may describe an Obama rally where thousands of people who are diverse in all measurable aspects unite around their common admiration for hope. Or she may simply say, “He’s just cool.”
((because celebrities and rappers are the penultimate of coolness. So is this author by the way for having such… cooool views)) 

Now, this sudden infatuation of young people with politics may perturb the seasoned news junkies who feel that this country’s future should not be determined by green naivete but by black-and-blue experience. (There is nothing I am say in response to the fact that indeed I do not feel like the countrys future should “be determined by green naivete.” The position doesn’t even need to be defended. )

But shouldn’t the future decide the future? (Just….. no. In all seriousness, shouldn’t Informed citizens decide how their interests will best be served in the future by a potential leader? Not just whimsically let the future flow, baby.)

It may be Obama’s charisma that is bringing optimistic millennials to the polls and not a sense of concern or civic virtue. (I’d say that’s a fair assessment.)

However, the hope and energy that Obama’s candidacy has generated in young voters will serve as a catalyst for what will become one of the most civically virtuous generations in American history. (This raises the biggest question of the whole campaign, hope and energy to do What exactly?)

In my high school, where classrooms are often a cacophony of video-game and sports chatter, students are discussing immigration and the Iraq war with fervent passion and legitimate interest.

There is an undeniable trend manifesting in the millennial generation that accompanies our growing political involvement, a slow movement away from cheap irrelevance and toward vital substance, a harbinger of change.

Because of Obama, hope is not just a prominent theme this election. It is the promise of America’s next great generation.

from http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0330vip-lazuk0330.html#

Ethan R. Lazuk is a senior at Hamilton High School in Chandler. He will cast his first vote in a general election this November.

How exactly is hope a promise? What is Obama promising us and “giving” us with his “message” of hope?