A Return to our Roots - AofG as Electioneer Part I; or Why its time for the Baby Boomer Generation to get the hell on

Those of you who have known the AofG for years have known that while we love to take the secular humanist approach to dig on the dummies, the ladies, and the real, true dummies, and we always love to rail against the World our hearts have always stayed true to political ranting and raving, and ranting and raving.  Tonight, I'm bringing us back to our roots in what hopefully will be a weekly segment on the '08 election.

I know you all have been staying up watching the primary, caucus, and fraternity rush results from small, backwards states across this good land as they have come down like we have here at the AofG.  National, and presumably well paid pundits will make up shit on the spot and inform you that Iowans thought the Huckabee would be a great Pastor in Chief, and that Hillary's waterworks a day before the NH primary brought out that state's rapidly aging soccer mom vote en masse to support her campaign.

The one thing you won't here any pundit say is the simple fact that the Baby Boomer Generation is fucking bankrupt - politically and intellectually bankrupt since at least Watergate, but probably back as far as when they booed Dylan off the stage for "going electric" and "selling out".  This election is about nothing more than whether or not America can stand another minute of leadership by the "Selfishest Generation."  And that is what the AofG is gonna talk about right after the jump...

The Boomer Generation.  You hear the platitudes everywhere from Dennis Hopper waxing poetic for a financial planning firm to the History Channel talking about the way America changed for good in 1946.  But the thing is, it's true - for better or worse, our economy, our lifestyle, and our future has been tied to them for 60 years now. 

However, for all the talk, The Boomer Generation has done nothing for this country but consume since they were conceived.  The computer revolution, you say?  Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were born in '55, 10 years after the true Boomers, and were teenagers in the 70's, not the 60's.  80's prosperity?  Driven by yuppie bankers and lawyers.  The internet boom?  Come on - the Boomers were already middle aged by then and still don't get what it's all about.  Hell the hippie movement was intellectually derivative of, and lead by the Beats, most of them 10 years older than the Boomers - even Dylan was born before WWII.  Nope, the Boomers just provided the bad clothes and the easy chicks to make it saleable.

And maybe that's the point.  Maybe a generation so concerned with "fighting the establishment" in a quest to do basically whatever the fuck it wanted to is ill-equipped to lead.  Maybe it's great leaders tuned in and dropped out too early.  Maybe these guys didn't have a chance, since they had the world handed to them by their parent's generation - you know, the ones who grew up during the Depression and then saved the fucking world, and their kids decided to spend those riches on whatever the first national marketeers could sell them.

But don't take my word for it.  Look around at the empirical evidence and you decide why there are no viable Boomer leaders to take America into the next generation.  First, lets start with Boomer figures who have already had the chance to lead the nation from positions of national prominence.

The Evidence - The Leaders:

Slick Willie - The quintessential boomer politician when he was running in 1992 with all the promise of a Young, hardscrabble Kennedy.  Carried to victory by soccer moms and a divided electorate encouraged by a pissed off billionaire, anything seemed possible during his inauguration speech in '93.  However, in office, he failed in ever truly uniting the country and only found his "true voice" after the Republicans screwed the pooch when they shut down the government in 1995 (more on this later).  Perhaps his true legacy was inventing the ability to govern a divided politic by simply assuming the mantle of majority when he in fact was never able to create one.  Then, there's Lewinski thing - hounded by a "vast right wing conspiracy" or not - this is what we know about Bill, when the world was coming down on him, and he set the tone for the past decade by lying under oath, then trying to weasel out of it by redefining the word "is".  Contrast that with Alexander Hamilton, a man who self immolated by publishing the entirety of his love letters with his mistress, when the intrigue surrounding her threatened his office.  Bill chose to bite his lip and lie.  For that, he is always dead to me.    BANKRUPT

(Ed. Note: This is interesting, though.  Clinton may be our best ex-president in history, which could be a fascinating corollary to the death of the Boomer political era.)

Newt Gingrich - Leader of the "Republican Revolution", delivered a legislative majority to the Republican Party.  His corralling the party behind the "Contract with America" was indeed revolutionary, and their success in implementing some of its ideas is certainly impressive.  This was Republicanism running on smaller, more responsive government and tougher crime and welfare legislation - avoiding all talk of the issues we hear from the party on a daily basis today.  Then, he decided to shut down the government, mainly because he was upset about the fact that the Clintons stuck him next to the can on Air Force One.  He was ultimate undone by ethics violations, and lost the center of the party forever to the evangelicals and the social conservatives.  So much for those presidential hopes.  Also, this thrice married cracker is indirectly responsible for the Lewinski witch-hunt.  BANKRUPT.

Dick Cheney - Not sure I can spend too much time on Dick, as my head may explode at any second now, but suffice it to say this - he owns a man sized safe in his office, he's made up his own "Top Secret" stamp and shot his friend in the face for getting in between him and a bird.  He, along with his Wyoming crony, started a quagmire of a war out of choice, yet this man who would put US soldiers in harm's way so wantonly had slinked away from his own service when the time was called.  Not just BANKRUPT, but EVIL.

Georgie Chimpo - Do we even have to enumerate why this guy is a bankrupt asshole?  It should be taken as a given.  Greydon Carter did have an interesting point in this month's Vanity Fair which drives the point home, though.  In the early 90's Major League Baseball had a vote as to whether or not they would institute the Wild Card Playoff system.  Only one owner out of 28 voted against the Wild Card system - you guessed it - Georgie Chimpo.  The playoffs, as you know, are only the best rule change of the Selig-era, maybe the best since expansion in 1962.  Georgie Boy voted against this. 

GWB has never been right about anything, and in the wake of Gingrich blowing up, he is the best the Republicans could do to entice the Boomer Generation.  CLEARLY, UTTERLY, and COMPLETELY BANKRUPT.

More Evidence - the Candidates

The election of 2008 is the most wide-open in my lifetime should have brought out anybody with a glimmer of hope to lead his or her country into a new century.  With the country divided and literally screaming out for cometant leadership, this, this is the time for the Boomer Generation's Roosevelt to finally emerge. Instead, what do we get from the Boomer Generation?

• A political opportunist 1-term carpetbagging senator who's main qualification for office seems to be that she was the spouse of a world leader, and picked up on this shit through osmosis.  BANKRUPT.
• A towering business figure who successfully ran the most liberal state in the union by tacitly supporting socially liberal measures, but holding down taxes and spending - only to run his national campaign as a social conservative (hint - nobody's buying it)  BANKRUPT.
• A misanthropic former prosecutor who seems to think that if he doesn't mention mass-murder on a minute-by-minute basis, people won't see how badly they need him.  BANKRUPT.
• A slick double-talking tort lawyer who plays up his "man of the people" image at every turn, but spends his time when he's not running for office on the board of one of the world's largest hedge funds.  BANKRUPT.

Thanks, Boomer Generation.  If this is the best you can do - it's time to get the hell on up out of here and start collecting social security in your tricked out RV's.  Thanks for nothing - again.

Which leaves America with only three non-Boomer choices for President, as of now - McCain, Paul and Obama.  It's no wonder these are the candidacies attracting the most young and vibrant voters.

Comments

[puddy]

tremendous, coz

[Craig]

Maybe these guys didn't have a chance, since they had the world handed to them by their parent's generation - you know, the ones who grew up during the Depression and then saved the fucking world, and their kids decided to spend those riches on whatever the first national marketeers could sell them.

Is Cozmo the AofG name for Tom Brokaw?

Just kiddin' with ya. Very interesting stuff Cozmo.

[Jack Klompus]

"Is Cozmo the AofG name for Tom Brokaw?"

That's funny. I immediately thought of that book as well when I read this.

"Which leaves America with only three non-Boomer choices for President, as of now - McCain, Paul and Obama."

In other words, you like Obama.

[Art Vandelay]

Nice to have you back, Cozmo. Hell of a read.

[Cozmo]

Is Cozmo the AofG name for Tom Brokaw?

Alright, alright. You caught me. I'm writing a sequel to the "Greatest Generation" called "The Oldest Voters", since the WWII generation are living longer than any previously.

But seriously - I was sick of listenting about the "slackers" in Generation X in the '80s and '90s, and in retrospect seeing the differences in achievements by the two generations, it's downright laughable to think that was even a national discussion.

Seriously - it's time for these guys to just move aside and continue to consume our national resources via Medicare spending. I've already penciled in that liability, so the faster they get to that, the less time they have to fuck anything else up.

In other words, you like Obama.

Not necessarily, Klompus. I remain firmly "undecided" in the general election.

Certainly, I view Obama as the only acceptable candidate from the Democratic primary, but was also a time in my life when I volunteered for McCain(before he was given the McCreedy treatment by Karl Rove in South Carolina, but still) and I remain in love with his pragmatism and anti-charisma. My major concern about McCain was his dancing for the Bush/Cheney crew in '04, but I suppose it was a faustian bargain for him - "dance now, monkey, or dissappear forever". I could be convinced of this.

The point is, one of the things is that Obama have in common is that they are not of the Boomer generation. Another is that they trancend the bipolar, wedge issue politicing that has defines the their competitors. I'm saying that is no coincidence.

[Assman]

Cosmo - making the comeback!

I know you all have been staying up watching the primary, caucus, and fraternity rush results from small, backwards states across this good land as they have come down like we have here at the AofG.

So, I'm not the only asshole TiVoing 4 different news channels every night and reading every political article I can get my internet browser pointed toward these days? It's gotten so bad that I have to quickly flip the channel to HBO like I was watching Skinemax if my wife walks in the room while I'm watching the Chris Matthews show.

Anyway, to me, the shittiest thing about the baby boomer generation is how they keep framing every election around self-concerning issues that aren't really as relevant to the candidate's job as they make them seem, then arguing to the death that one guy is better than another because of how well they can bullshit a crowd about the best ways to manage an economy that they won't actually be managing.

[Assman]

The point is, one of the things is that Obama have in common is that they are not of the Boomer generation. Another is that they trancend the bipolar, wedge issue politicing that has defines the their competitors. I'm saying that is no coincidence.

Wedge issues. That was a much better way of saying what I meant. Wedge issues matter a lot to the boomers, and for no reason.

[Jack Klompus]

"I view Obama as the only acceptable candidate from the Democratic primary"

I agree.

"Another is that they trancend the bipolar, wedge issue politicing that has defines the their competitors."

I partially disagree. That is just part of campaign rhetoric. Senators always have to work with their counterparts across the party aisle. It's part of the job. Co-sponsoring a bill with a cross-party colleague is not necessarily an indicator of a bipartisan workhorse. Likewise, a senator that votes consistently with his/her party line is not necessarily a partisan robot. I think the perception of these two (being bipartisan) stems from the their respective reputations within the Senate as being cordial to all during legislation negotiations. Which certainly isn't a bad thing. I just don't know how imprtant that will be when in the position of Commander-in-chief.

[Craig]

I think the perception of these two (being bipartisan) stems from the their respective reputations within the Senate as being cordial to all during legislation negotiations. Which certainly isn't a bad thing. I just don't know how imprtant that will be when in the position of Commander-in-chief.

When you stop to consider the point of the president, as intended (i.e. abuses of power, not withstanding), I think that not being a douche is probably one of the most important factors in determining whether someone will be a good president. Someone who received poor marks in "works and plays well with others" is probably going to suck at it. The president isn't supposed to make laws, he is supposed to be a check on those making laws, so positions on specific issues are not nearly as important as they are often made to be. He (or she) will be having to work closely with congress and with foreign governments to keep things running smoothly. Leadership and ability to compromise are much more important for doing that than whether a candidate has beliefs that are 100% in line with mine. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[TMan]

"A towering business figure who successfully ran the most liberal state in the union by tacitly supporting socially liberal measures, but holding down taxes and spending - only to run his national campaign as a social conservative (hint - nobody's buying it)".

Sorry Cozmo, but you missed the mark here. The "towering business figure" ran a fiscal shell game to get the state budget to look more appealing for his all-too-obvious presidential asperations. He cut state spending by slashing state aid to municipalities, who, in order to keep schools open and police officers paid, had to raise property taxes. Essentially, he pulled a venture capitalist move with a state government: get the debt off my balance sheet so I look good, no matter what it does down the line. Perfectly acceptable in business, deplorably irresponsible in government.

[Assman]

Which certainly isn't a bad thing. I just don't know how imprtant that will be when in the position of Commander-in-chief.

I'm with Craig on this one. I feel like this issue is the biggest knock against Hillary. Her aggressive attitude toward all things and people Republican (because of how they treated Bill?) reminds me of how Bush railed against Saddam at all costs because "he tried to kill his daddy."

Seems like the partisan fighting (despite the fact that not all issues are partisan-based) is a huge production killer in government. Electing someone that can (whether its bullshit or not) frame things in a non-partisan manner could open up the discussions a bit.

[Assman]

Essentially, he pulled a venture capitalist move with a state government: get the debt off my balance sheet so I look good, no matter what it does down the line.

Or, as my wife puts it, "I can't vote for a guy who's made that much money in his career. It means at some point during his life, he faced the decision - I can choose to make a little more cash here or I can choose to not screw the little guy - and he chose to screw the little guy."

[Jack Klompus]

"I think that not being a douche is probably one of the most important factors in determining whether someone will be a good president. Someone who received poor marks in "works and plays well with others" is probably going to suck at it."

Not necessarily. I don't feel "ability to compromise" (see "Carter, Jimmy") is as important as judiciousness. In addition, charisma (see "Willie, Slick") and ability to communicate (see, "Reagan, Ronald" or "Bush, Not") are very important as well.

[Jack Klompus]

"He cut state spending by slashing state aid to municipalities, who, in order to keep schools open and police officers paid, had to raise property taxes."

Of course, because why should anyone expect municipalities to manage their budgets responsibly? It's much easier to blame up the ladder.

[Kristal K]

I have so missed these rants! We've missed you Cozmo -- we need more of these, soon!

[Craig]

In addition, charisma (see "Willie, Slick") and ability to communicate (see, "Reagan, Ronald" or "Bush, Not") are very important as well.

Klompus, I agree with you here. I tried to address those later in my comment, when I mentioned leadership, but it probably could have been clearer.

[TMan]

"Of course, because why should anyone expect municipalities to manage their budgets responsibly? It's much easier to blame up the ladder."

Wha, what?? You're missing the point. That asshat claimed that he had balanced the budget and lowered taxes. What he actually did was shift the burden from (state) income taxes to (municipal) real estate taxes. Your average taxpayer wasn't paying less in taxes, they were just paying them in a different form. Yet this jackoff is claiming a fiscal success. State aid that had been in place for years (like for education or roads and bridges) was cut off. Not for any particularly good reason other than to create the illusiion of a balanced budget, all for the purposes of his thinly-veiled presidential asperations. As a MA taxpayer, my income taxes didn't even go down, but my property taxes went up by 35%. Great. Thanks, Mitt. Now die.

[Crazy Joe Davola]

Did anyone see Hillary on Meet the Press? Her explanation around her war vote was a joke.

[steffanwolf]

Great rant Coz.

I was hoping you would work Viagra somewhere in there but an excellent rant nontheless.

[Jack Klompus]

"You're missing the point."

I'm not missing the point. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that the state shouldn't make budgetary cuts to municipalities because it places more burden on the municipality to manage more of its own finances. I've worked with several different counties and cities on scorecard projects. Without exception, they all have major issues with waste and fraud -- and above all else, laziness. The reason they raise property taxes first is because it's the least complicated and most stable way of generating revenue. And as evidenced by you, property taxes are the least popular among citizens. There I can't say I blame you. However, blaming the governor doesn't make sense. One thing that has been proven time and time again is that simply throwing money at problems (in this case the municipal governments) will not solve them -- at best, it will mask them temporarily.

[Assman]

I'm just disagreeing with the idea that the state shouldn't make budgetary cuts to municipalities because it places more burden on the municipality to manage more of its own finances.

I think "the point" that he's referring to is that even Mitt wouldn't admit this was the reason. It's less about blaming the governor as much as it is about the governor's intentions. Mitt was trying to be prez at the potential expense of his own constituents.

Kinda like how Rudy "cleaned up NY" in a way that makes him look like a hero to everyone that wasn't a New Yorker.

[Jack Klompus]

"Mitt was trying to be prez at the potential expense of his own constituents."

I don't agree 100%, but I certainly think there's validity to that. Regardless, I think you have a pay now or pay later situation for the constituents. Whether it was Mitt's intent or not, giving towns and cities more fiscal responsiblity of their own is a good thing in the long run.

[TMan]

Who is "throwing money at problems"? What I'm sayng is that it is disingenous for Rommney to claim that he lowered taxes and balanced the budget. There was a projected budget deficit of $3B which never fully materialized (it was closer to $1.2B) because the state was not counting several sources of revenue, like capital gains taxes. And while income taxes did not increase, property taxes did. And he raised all sorts of other indirect taxes, such as administrative fees for courts, state agencies and registries.

I'm simply saying that Romney is playing fast and loose with the truth when he claims he balanced the budget without raising taxes. By slashing state aid he shifted the tax burden to municipalities. And the net effect of his actions were that MA taxpayers paid more in fees and taxes yet received equal or lesser services for those increases. Does that equal fiscal responsibility or success to you??

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I think that not being a douche is probably one of the most important factors in determining whether someone will be a good president. Someone who received poor marks in "works and plays well with others" is probably going to suck at it.

Up here in the Great White Savage North, our Prime Minister -- even way back before he became our Fearless Leader -- had a reputation for not only being a policy-wonk (that in and of itself isn't a bad thing, necessarily), but when he gave birth to some wretched neoconservative policy document, he refused to let anyone alter one comma of it.

(said in a whiny 4-year-old's scream)
"nnnnnnnNo!!! It's DONE! And it's ALL MINE!"

This hasn't turned out too well for us in the past year and a half, especially in terms of... um... foreign relations, environmental policy, military quagmires; the list continueth ad nauseam. Our systems of government aren't entirely comparable, but they're close enough to illustrate, by example, how being a noncooperative douche before you become the leader of a country can come back to bite said country in the ass.

Incidentally, Mr. Cramer, were you channelling the late, great Hunter S. Thompson in your treatise? I'm reading Songs of the Doomed at the moment, and it's a Great, Fine Thing in a sea of junk-writing out there.

[Jack Klompus]

"Who is "throwing money at problems"? What I'm sayng is that it is disingenous for Rommney to claim that he lowered taxes and balanced the budget. There was a projected budget deficit of $3B which never fully materialized (it was closer to $1.2B) because the state was not counting several sources of revenue, like capital gains taxes. And while income taxes did not increase, property taxes did. And he raised all sorts of other indirect taxes, such as administrative fees for courts, state agencies and registries."

Agree with all of that. Mitt's a bullshit artist (aka politician). And going back and re-reading your original comments, I see what your focus was now. So apologies. My bad on that.

"By slashing state aid he shifted the tax burden to municipalities."

As it should be. I agree that Mitt was boasting about something completely different and inaccurate, but this is where I was coming from: In the short term, yes, citizens were paying more out of pocket. As I said before, more state aid (aka throwing money) is not necessarily a good thing. Why? Because cities and towns by and large (and Massachusetts is no exception here) do an amazingly poor job managing funds. Almost as bad as the feds. And the more dependent they become on state aid, the less motivated they are to manage their funds responsibly. If you don't pay more in "fees" and property taxes now, you're certainly going to pay an equal or stiffer increase in other forms later -- and the more influence that state has in funding, the more you'll pay (especially in Mass). So hate him for being a bullshitter, fine. But his budget cuts were still a positive thing in the bigger picture, regardless of his political agenda.

[daveNYC]

You forgot to mention Rudy wearing a Red Sox cap.

[Eli]

"Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were born in '55, 10 years after the true Boomers, and were teenagers in the 70's, not the 60's."

So January 1955 is the cut-off date and you had to have turned 13 no earlier than 1970- or you're intellectually bankrupt. I'll tell you one thing, if I ever saw Bill Gates on the street I'd kick him right in the fucking nuts. I'm stuck using his ass- shitty crap virus-magnet software products every fucking day at work because the bitch got away with stealing another guy's operating system and managed to corner the market and break every goddamn anti-trust law you can think of.

Anyway, clearly, being born between 1945 and 1955 shouldn't be criteria for not voting for someone. What the hell kind of "generation" would come up with something like that?

"Nope, the Boomers just provided the bad clothes and the easy chicks to make it saleable."

They also managed to contaminate 90% of the world's drinking water, blow the tops off of hundreds of really cool mountains, and shave two full weeks off my goddamn snowboard season! In their favor though, seventies porn rules.

[Cozmo]

Klompus - As usual, we are in vehement agreement on the core issues. You just seem to want to yell at me.

TMan - I'd be curious to know what the net-net change is statewide in everyday people's taxation, you experience notwithstanding. If he indeed raised taxes on the residents of the state as a whole by shifting the payor of certain liabilities, then yes it's just a shell game. But that would go to prove my point even more.

Steffanwolf - I'm still kicking myself about missing the Viagra line. Faaaawwwk.

Pennypacker - Not conciously channelling the Good Doctor, but I do often mispell and mis -punctuate in a way that could have me mistaken for an actual literate person doing it intentionally. I'll take the what seems like a compliment.

[Jack Klompus]

"Klompus - As usual, we are in vehement agreement on the core issues. You just seem to want to yell at me."

Yeah. I can't pinpoint it. As with Vandelay, I have nothing but respect for you. Still, there are elements in your writing that cry out, "I should be bitchslapped."

[ZaZ]

This was money. It's views like this that should be bombarding Idiot America every night rather than the rot they are currently baiting.

[TMan]

Cozmo, I can't speak for the statewide net-net effect, but with the folks I've spoken to, who all own property, some in suburbs, some in Boston, all have had the same experience: income taxes have remained the same and real estate taxes have gone up.

Professionally, I deal with the Registry of Deeds and the local courts. All of those fees have gone up and are, of course, passed along to the consumers. So, everytime someone bought, refinanced or sold a home, their transaction costs were higher. Same with court and registration filing fees: starting an eviction, establishing a corporation, maintaining a corporation, filing a small claim, initiatng a lawsuit, etc. fees increased and passed along.

Also, some family friends are in state school. Their tuition has gone up dramatically. Not to private school levels, but much higher than other state schools and a steep increase (10-15%) over prior years. Klompus is going to argue fiscal responsility at the municipal level. The problem is, with the exception of real estate taxes, all of those fees I mentioned are state fees. The net effect, from my perspective, is that under Romney, MA has become a more expensive state in which to own real property and to conduct business. All of which countermands Romney's arguements about fiscal leadership.

[Jack Klompus]

Pre-emptive strike regarding the length of this comment: Fuck you, Craig.

" Klompus is going to argue fiscal responsility at the municipal level. The problem is, with the exception of real estate taxes, all of those fees I mentioned are state fees. The net effect, from my perspective, is that under Romney, MA has become a more expensive state in which to own real property and to conduct business. All of which countermands Romney's arguements about fiscal leadership."

Property taxes are the largest sources of revenue for towns and cities. It's pretty much an accepted fact of life that they will increase every year. Mass. is certainly no exception (look at the numbers since the 90's). In addition, the size of the increase has many factors (like development) and varies from town to town. It's also pretty much universally accepted that its not a great idea to put all your eggs in one basket; that is, cities and town need to explore other ways to increase revenue on top of managing wasteful spending. So yeah, fiscal responsibility at the municipal level. Also, from a national average, Mass. property taxes aren't all that outrageous when you factor in average property value. As far as fees go, they're not necessarily the same as taxes. And they have to be raised every so often to justify the services by which they are associated. And that is one place where I think Romney's argument falters. It's highly unlikely that all those fees are in proportion to their respective cost of services. I'm sure the actual ratios have been put out there already by his opponents (or will be soon enough). As for cost of doing business, Massachusetts is indeed among the highest every year. However, more than 60% of that is attributed to labor costs. In other words, property values + average skill/education level of the labor force. Taxes and fees, on the other hand, account for about 10% of the total cost of business index. And economically speaking, cost of business is not necessarily a bad thing. Take South Dakota, for example. Finally, fiscal leadership. Romney inherited a budget deficit (a number which of course he greatly inflated), so he cut spending (an average less than the standard 3% population/inflation benchmark) and didn't raise income taxes (in fact, he proposed to cut them 3 times but never made it past the legislature). And of course he raised those dastardly fees (like gun permits, marriage licenses, duplicate driver's licenses, learner's permits. etc.) that you mentioned before. However, once the state built a surplus, he began reallocating state aid to the municipal level. I'm not saying he rebuilt Rome, but simultaneously reducing spending and increasing revenue without raising income taxes is better than average fiscal leadership. By the way, of all the Republicans, I support McCain.

[Craig]

So, what's the end result of all this? Will there eventually be a huge press release announcing that AofG endorses (candidate) for President that will then be picked up and republished on every news outlet (ok fine, probably just on Myspace)?

And Klompus, I wasn't going to say a thing. I have no problems with people leaving long comments. I was just planning to sit here and silently judge you for your hypocrisy.

[Crazy Joe Davola]

Klompus, I just sit here and silently judge you for your compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams

[tennbengal]

Coz, thanks for the great read. Full agreement here.