Please, spare us

See, this is why I don't like Barack Obama's campaign:

"There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Obama told FOX News. "Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done. And I think that's what people hunger for."

OMFG ENOUGH with the generational politics. This is such crap. What "fights" from the 1960s is Obama talking about, and by what voodoo are they stifling politics today? "Gosh, I really hunger to reach across the aisle to my fellow Americans and get things done, but I'm just so mad about LBJ and the draft..."

And what cause exactly does Obama propose we abdicate? Women's rights? Civil rights? Environmental responsibility? Peace? Or does he just mean that Senator Clinton hasn't been forceful enough in denouncing the Port Huron Statement? Is John Edwards too soft on the Weathermen? What the hell is he talking about?

Oh sorry, my bad -- I forgot that Senator Obama never addresses actual issues, only generalities. (It's a Politics of Hope thing, I gather.) He must just be referring to radicalism as a category, the kind of politics that was deliberately aggressive toward Middle America. And certainly, nobody espouses that attitude better than... uh... Hillary Cl...

COME ON. I'm no fan of Senator Clinton, but to paint her as a 1960s radical is just insane. This is the second most conservative (after Richardson) and by FAR the most establishmentarian of all the Democratic candidates, and you want to call her a revolutionary? Get off my lawn. (The only way you could suggest Hillary's candidacy harks back to 60s divisions is by simple virtue of the fact that she has a vagina -- which is an argument I really hope the Senator's not making.)

No, I think this kind of comment is just 100% pure bullshit; a senseless sop to political elites, who have a well-documented irrational fear of hippies, and who are attracted to this generational-transformational rambling like flies to a septic tank. Obama's consultant-driven campaign tends to do this kind of thing, and it's sickening -- not only does it validate a right-wing talking point, which no Democrat should ever do (and Obama has a history of it), it's also a stupid political argument, one that has zero force outside the Beltway and the offices of the New York Times.

I mean, My God, our economy is imploding, people are losing their houses, Iraq is a meat grinder, nobody has health care, and Barack Obama -- Savior of Our Politics, Provider of Hope -- wants to talk about hippies. If the Senator really aims to implement "transformational change", I humbly suggest he start with his own talking points...

(heavy sigh)

WASHINGTON -- For the second straight day, minority House Republicans ground the House to a standstill Wednesday as they drove home their objections to a Democratic plan to deny a floor vote on lawmakers' thousands of pet projects.

Public anger over the surging number of special member projects called earmarks -- derided as pork barrel spending -- was a factor in the Republicans' loss of House control last November, GOP members concede, and now they say they've gotten religion on the need for openness in government.

Emphasis, of course, on "now".

...About 90% of the raving about pork-barrel spending is bullshit; these are mostly just projects that, however obscure, genuinely benefit people and cost little in the broad scheme of things. Sure, there are extreme examples -- see Bridge to Nowhere -- but for the most part these are things like municipal buildings, offices, public events, aid programs for needy subgroups, research funding, etc. The vast majority of them are respectable. And lawmakers know that.

But they're a hot issue with the public, because nobody likes to hear that their tax dollars are being wasted. Never mind that the vast majority of earmarks are for perfectly legitimate public use; at any moment some pissant congressional candidate, TV commentator or blogger can yell "Hey! You're paying for such-and-such boondoggle!" and next thing you know it's Fiscal Conservatism time again. Give me a break! Going from particular bits of congressional overspending to a sweeping criticism of spending as a whole is like saying "professional wrestling sucks, so let's ban all televised sports." But this is the caliber of political debate today.

Criticizing "earmarks" in general is the pinnacle of easy political bullshit -- Democrats have been guilty of this too -- and it's time we spoke honestly about it. I like government spending and I'm not afraid to say it. How about you?

"Perhaps unexpected, consumption oriented angles"

IvyGate beat me to the punch about commenting on Dig's most recent Media Farm in which they proceed to beautifully employ the phrase "High Ponceytude" to mercilessly mock the Harvard glam-rag 02138. But the material is a veritable Ogallala Aquifer of delicious, thirst-quenching hilarity, so I'm going to do my best to drain the bastard dry.

02138 is Atlantic Media's horrible hate-child of a Harvard interest magazine, apparently formulated explicitly to make Harvard look even more arrogant than it already is. Glorious self-aggrandization is never usually a winning strategy, but when you're gloriously self-aggrandizing the alumni of a college whose blood is already made mostly from the tears of St. Modesty, you're asking for disaster. Even the Crimson's columnist who "only cries over spilt triple nonfat lattes with extra foam" astutely paints 02138 as "desperate," "embarrassing," and a celebration of "those who parasite upon the Harvard name instead of those who contribute to it."

But hey, maybe there's enough people out there to make it sell? I mean, Gawker gets by on little more substance.

Apparently, and encouragingly, the answer is no. 02138 is moving to New York (a city made by God for that kind of vacant chest-pounding, might I add¹) and burning through its editorial staff faster like one-time hookers. So, rather than publish a magazine with actual, you know, "articles" and "content," the magazine's publishers have chosen to steer it down a more financially profitable direction. And by that, they of course mean: hey advertisers, our belt is off and we're ready to drop trou!

Make as many photo shoots as possible fashion shoots. Let subjects know that readers will be very interested in their fashion, jewelry, accessory choices or, preferably, dress them. Whether or not we dress them, clothes should be credited. Next list [of influential Harvardians?—Ed.] should be shot this way.

A recurrent the big buy piece that focuses on one alums search for the perfect 2nd home/plane/expensive car etc. Why and how they choose.

Go read the Dig article—it's full of more gems like these: terrifying miasmas of poor grammar and spelling bonded together by sheer force of arrogance alone. The sheer lack of any restraint and propriety is enough to be startling in itself, and it's only when you step back and realize that it's Harvard that they're talking about that you get the horrible, sickening feeling of fuck, this is how people see us? (Well, some of you might have just thought how do they choose!?!)

Quoth the Dig: "Tell us, why do people hate Harvard kids again?"

¹ Though, I must admit, the legal-topless statute is kinda cool.