Against Radiohead, or, Contrary To Popular Belief Music Existed Before 1990

I have made no secret of the hatred I reserve for the writing of James Poulos (a.k.a Postmodern Conservative, a.k.a. "annoying guy from American Scene"). His work is pompous, overwrought, rancid with unnecessary polysyllabic voodoo, and tries desperately to sound intellectual; he's like a smart Paul J. Cella, or a 21st-century Chris Lacaria. Reading his work is like beating yourself in the face with a thesaurus. (Probably Poulos angers me so much because I'm projecting my own fear of academicism and my cripplingly low self-esteem onto him -- but that's not important right now.)

Less often do I take issue with Poulos' actual arguments. Usually they're so far out in conservative neverland that I can see his preconceptions coming and take his (generally sound) logic for what it is. But this week, he's produced a great big article about a subject very close to my heart -- the generational politics of rock music -- that is so completely misinformed and profoundly wrong that's it's driven me to new levels of wild, head-through-monitor frustration. Here's a sample:

For the generations that came of age as Radiohead got huge, patterns of life seem to have emerged that mutually reinforce and confirm a downward revision of expectations. The band’s catalog tracks the increasing acceptance of a newly fundamental degree of contingency, incompleteness, and transience. It extends across careers and love lives, shaping attitudes reaching from domestic politics to cosmic fate. Many now seem happy just to find or help create the passages of experience that permit momentary and communal escapes. Immanent and transcendent, such fugitive moments of therapeutic authenticity ameliorate the painful costs of being comprehensively compromised.

OMFG SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS. Even if you shear away the clearly compensatory Hegelian verbosity, this is nothing more than self-important superfan wanking mixed with pop-sociology bullshit and -- typically of the "classical liberal" set -- a complete and voluntary divorce from historical context. It's just crying out for a response.

So I'll provide some of my trademark fair-minded rebuttals, some music criticism, and an explanation of why Radiohead actually sucks, after the jump.

Read more »

"Wassup! Conservatism is inherent in the hizzouse!"

You really must see this. Here, from Michelle Malkin's outfit, is an instructional video for conservatives on how to win back the "youth vote" (that is, us). It entails:

1. All the insane bullshit they believe about Social Security, George Soros, and "individual responsibility," plus
2. The rockin' soundtrack and compelling presentational style with which Ashton Kutcher hosts Punk'd.

The result is just as hilarious as you expect:

I especially like how he thinks health care is a "remote topic" that doesn't "presently affect our lives," but what really gets our hackles raised is the government telling us what music we can buy. (For that matter: he thinks we buy music.) Ladies and gentlemen, the conservative leaders of tomorrow: in touch with YOUR needs!

(h/t TBogg)

An iPod for your vote?

From the land of i-banks and Olsen twins, the NYU newspaper, Washington Square News, has a story about a poll they did about what students would want in return for giving up their right to vote in the next presidential election. 20% said they'd drop their right to vote for an iPod Touch. 66% for a free ride to NYU (aka $188,532). In exchange for never voting again, HALF of students said that it would cost only one million dollars. So lets say that the average age of respondents was 20. Assuming they'll live till 80, that's 60 years of voting. Even if they only vote every 4 years, thats 15 presidential elections, or only 66k dollars per election.

Interestingly, 90% of students who would give up their vote for money also called voting "very important" or at least "somewhat important." Personally, I'd like the crosstabs on this, but maybe I'm just a nerd.  Then again, I just want you to vote, f*cker!

Turnout Among 18-24 Year Olds Could Break Records, IOP Survey Released

The IOP has just released the results of its Fall 2006 Young Voter Survey.

For the first, time we polled college students AND non-college 18-24 year olds.

LINK: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/

HIGHLIGHTS

• Midterm election turnout among 18-24 year old could reach record levels in 2006.

• A strong majority of likely young voters favor Democratic control of Congress.

• A near-majority of young people favor total troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next year.

• 18-24 year olds trust the military and the United Nations more than Congress and the federal government.

• President George W. Bush gets “C-” grade on seven key issues.

• President Bush’s handling of Iraq, clearly the issue that is driving this election and the President’s second-term agenda, is viewed by more than two-in-five (43%) young Americans (and 67% of young African Americans) as a
  failure or “F."

Obviously, this is big. Youth voter turnout for midterm elections is usually very low. High turnout next week would represent both an individual record-breaking event as well as reveal a trend of increased youth involvement in politics.

Also, as the poll clearly shows that young people are strongly siding with the Dems, high youth turnout could confound the pollsters who always weight their polls based on expected demographic participation.

Check out the rest of the poll results. It's a treasure-trove of interesting data. For one, I can't get over how much young Americans HATE the media.