The Rise of Millennial Socialism

Millennials are flocking to socialism. A groundbreaking poll conducted by Reason has 42% of Millennials preferring socialism to capitalism. At CNBC, Steve Odland cites data showing that Millennials favor socialism over capitalism. My generation has also created the Sanders Surge, rallying behind a self-avowed Democratic Socialist.

The Millennial tilt towards socialism runs contrary to the defining trait of our generation - that we're the narcissists of Generation Selfie.

Narcissism says "look at me I'm SO special." Socialism says "I shouldn't be allowed to rise much farther above anyone else." If Millennials are so narcissistic, why are many of them running to a political ideology that places the state above the self?

Here's how it happened: Millennials grew up being told that we were special snowflakes, and then got out into the working world and found that, nope, we're not soaring above everyone else. We are everyone else. And some people take this as a personal insult.

If you are still under the Special Snowflake Delusion, it upsets your entire view of the world when someone is doing better in the real world than you. You've been told your whole life that you are special and unique!  So, anybody who is doing better than you, obviously must not deserve it.

Capitalism allows people to get ahead, when a Special Snowflake's ego will tell aforementioned Snowflake that the success of others is undeserved and therefore unfair. Socialism starts to look like the "fairer" option. If you're really into yourself (like many Millennials) and not as financially well-off as you'd hoped (like many Millennials, #thanksObama), then socialism appeals to your ego.

There are simpler reasons, too, that socialism might look good to Millennials. The first one is the hollow promise of free college. These people hear "free" and don't think far enough to realize that "free college" will be enormously expensive. Colleges will crank up the costs, so they can get as much of that sweet government money as possible. Colleges will be incentivized to ratchet up the price AND lower their standards so that everyone can get in and stay in. The value of a college degree will tank.

Another reason for Millennial socialism is that many of us didn't learn history or economics. In a 2014 study of 2,000 young people, only 16% could define socialism accurately. Europe isn't just windmills and crepes, folks, it's rampant unemployment and exorbitantly long waits to see a doctor. But lots of Millennials don't know this. While our parents and grandparents watched the U.S.S.R. crumble, we were watching Sesame Street. 




There are plenty of Millennials who are not socialist. In fact, we're the furthest thing from it - we're entrepreneurs. There's an innovative side to this generation that is powering the future of our economy. Think about the people of Uber, AirBNB, Netflix, even Tinder and Seamless. They're kids in hoodies who are absolutely crushing it in the free market. Anybody like them, or anybody who wants to be like them, is not a socialist.

There are also zillions of Millennials who want to innovate within existing companies. Think about the ones who go to work every day and try to do something different and better than how it was done by their predecessor in that job. That's entrepreneurial, too. 

This drive to compete requires a person to push ego to the side: whenever you compete, you implicitly accept that you might lose. But even if you lose sometimes - the promise of America is that if you continually gain skills, knowledge, and experience, you'll become a better bet in the marketplace, and you'll be likely to pay off big. For a generation that is supposedly in love with itself, we ought to start investing in ourselves. Go after things you can put on a resume as hard as you go after things you can put on Instagram.

Capitalism bets on yourself - socialism bets against others. Young people will place their bets, and we ought to place them on hope and innovation, not on ego and statism.

Why, and How Much, Does the Iowa Caucus Matter?

Iowa has been voting first for almost 50 years, before the primaries really started to matter. People only started caring about the presidential primaries/caucuses when the parties moved towards a more transparent process, and this new transparency fueled media attention. The earlier we start talking about the presidential primaries, the more newspapers they sold, the more viewers tuned in, and now, the more clicks they'll get.

When people started taking an interest in primaries, Iowa started enjoying all the perks of going first (pandering by candidates, which turns into kickbacks from Washington, DC). If you're wondering why ethanol and corn are subsidized so heavily, look at Iowa. If Idaho went first, we'd subsidize potatoes. If California went first, we'd subsidize Kardashians.

Iowa realized that this was a pretty sweet deal, and they've held on to their "First Voters in the Nation" title quite fiercely. The national parties keep Iowa first out of convenience: "It's easier for parties to keep the peace rather than worry about the big fight that would ensue if someone else got the chance," says political historian Andy Aoki. There's no good reason that any one state should vote before any other, so we're sticking with Iowa for the forseeable future.

But is Iowa a good predictor of the eventual nominees? Not really. The GOP Iowa caucus winner hasn't gone on to be the party's nominee since 2000.

In 2008, Mike Huckabee won Iowa. The eventual nominee, John McCain, placed fourth, behind Mitt Romney and someone named Fred Thompson. Who the heck is Fred Thompson? Nobody remembers, except maybe a handful of Iowans.

In 2012, Rick Santorum narrowly defeated Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus...we think. We don't really know. The data from eight precincts got lost and was never recovered. Come on, Iowa GOP, you had one job.

For the Democrats, Iowa is a much stronger predictor of the party's nominee. Iowa picked Obama in 2008, John Kerry in 2004, and Al Gore in 2000 - a winning streak of choosing the eventual Democratic presidential candidate. If Bernie defeats Hillary in Iowa,

This year's Iowa results could be especially messed up, because a snowstorm is expected to hit Des Moines on the day of the Caucus. That could cause a huge shift in voter turnout. (Any of those superpacs want to invest in snowplows? I wouldn't put it past them.)

Also affecting voter turnout, is that caucuses sound super boring. It's not like a regular election where you walk in, cast a ballot, get a sticker, and walk out - there's state party matters to take care of (yawn), delegates to be chosen (necessary, but meh), and then, supporters can stand up and give speeches on behalf of their candidates (as if Iowans haven't heard enough about these candidates. These people have suffered enough!)

Iowa may or may not predict the eventual nominees, but it might predict who drops out next (O'Malley, Huckabee, Santorum). Oh, wait. I just predicted the drop-outs. So, Iowa's results might not teach us anything new. But just in case - and to witness the very first votes cast in the 2016 election - we'll be watching.

Sarah Palin to Endorse Donald Trump?

You heard it here first, folks, because it hasn't happened yet - Sarah Palin will endorse Donald Trump tonight at his campaign event in Iowa.

This has not yet been formally announced, but I am pretty darn convinced it's happening. So get your tinfoil hats on, and let's go through the reasons:

1. This bizarro flight path.

A chartered jet flies from Anchorage to Iowa, just in time for The Donald's rally, and then follows him to his next day's events in Tulsa. This tells us that there's an Alaskan, with access to a chartered jet, who will be following Donald Trump across several states. There is probably only one Alaskan who fits that description.

2. Bristol Palin's blog post.

In it, she slams Ted Cruz's campaign for having the audacity to say that...Sarah Palin should not endorse Trump, because Trump is not a real conservative. There's nothing nasty about Sarah Palin in that statement, not even close. Here's the kicker - she says she hopes that her mom, Sarah Palin, DOES endorse Donald Trump.

I doubt Bristol is personally offended by Ted Cruz. What's more likely is that the Palin Camp knows what is coming, and they're using Bristol as a surrogate to issue a preemptive strike on Ted Cruz.

3. They're both reality TV stars.

Trump and Palin know how this works. You put on an interesting show, and even people who hate it will tune in. Palin gets tons of media attention, and Trump gets a high(ish) profile endorsement.

 All of these clues add up to a Palin endorsement at Trump's rally. If she walks out on that stage - the crowd will go nuts - the media will go nuts - and everyone will be watching.

DJ Khaled Shares GOP Debate Advice with Jeb Bush*

*well, a cardboard cut-out of Jeb.

But based on his recent debate performances, a cardboard cut-out isn't too far off from the real thing.

Harsh, I know. Jeb! is polling far weaker than I expected, given that he raised a lot of money very early on in the campaign. He hasn't been able to convert those funds into enthusiasm.

You know who does generate a lot of enthusiasm? Everyone's Snapchat life coach, DJ Khaled. DJ Khaled has what he's termed the "keys to success." They're fantastic:

 

 That's why Jimmy Kimmel asked DJ Khaled to share some inspiration with Jeb. It is perfect:

So, Jeb: Eat a green apple. Water your plants. Believe in yourself.

See you tonight!

No Mention of National Debt or Mexican Border in State of the Union

You'll be seeing a lot of thinkpieces today that dissect the State of the Union. This post is not one of those. I'd rather we talk about what wasn't in the televised address.

You know what was missing? Any mention of national debt. Any conversation about securing the U.S.-Mexico border. Any statement on the 10 U.S. Navy sailors held captive, at the time, by Iran.

President Obama didn't talk directly about the Syrian refugee crisis, even though he invited a Syrian refugee to be present in the audience.

Nor did the President mention the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 - the horrific shooting in San Bernardino carried out by radical Islamists.

Of course, there is no way President Obama could possibly address all the issues facing this Union in an hour. But these are big issues that were left out. Those speechwriters could have easily carved out some of the "rah-rah" "boo you Beijing and Moscow" "climate change deniers can eat my shorts" language to make time for these crucial concerns of the American people.

President Obama's speech, as well as Governor Nikki Haley's, didn't mention any of the 2016 candidates by name - but they both included thinly veiled jabs at Donald Trump. Here's what happens when someone viewed as the "political establishment" goes after The Donald:

He thrives on being an outsider. So, nobody said his name - they didn't have to. Whether POTUS or Gov. Haley wanted to help him, or not, he will get a boost from their comments.

Back to the Iran Deal for just a sec: It's a bad deal. We know this, because the Mullahs/revolutionary guard/etc. felt like they could take our sailors without much repercussion. They are testing the literal waters by taking 2 boats and the sailors onboard. President Obama could have come down hard on Iran. But, Tehran is listening - would a condemnation from our President make them treat our sailors worse? I don't know. But if America is as strong as President Obama says, and as I'd like to believe that we are, then the President could have bashed Iran and he'd still get our sailors back.

So, we're stuck waiting another year to hear a State of the Union that addresses the debt and the border. Hopefully, we'll hear an honest report on those things a year from now - and with any luck, we'll hear it from a Republican.

The Oregon Militia Crazies Still At It, Requesting Supplies

The group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon, is not giving up the fight. What is it they're fighting for, again? They say it's a protest against the incarceration of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were sent to prison for starting a fire on federal land.* It is looking less like a protest and more like a very strange, cult-y camping trip.

These guys (and gals) are heavily armed, so it's not worth it for the government to fight these people over a tiny little hut. It's like if they took over a McDonald's playground - Ugh, FINE, just...keep it. It's yours now. Byeeeeee.

Like most camping trips, this one sucks because it lacks the comforts of home. We ought to start calling "camping" what it really is - recreational homelessness. This militia didn't bring enough food and supplies, and if you were to ask them "Why didn't you pack these basic items?" I have a feeling they'd answer something like Plankton:

 

Anyway, the militia is in need of supplies, so they put together a little "Wish List" - hoping that sympathizers would send them stuff.  They want warm clothes, like thermals and snow pants, plus blankets. I get that it's cold where you are, but did nobody pack a suitcase?

The militia is asking for candles and lighters, as well as batteries and flashlights. COME ON. That is the first rule of camping! You bring a flashlight, and extra batteries! Step up your game, you nutty Duck Dynasty wannabes, you.

These people want shampoo and body wash, so one would guess that they're pretty funky right about now. They've also asked for hay. I have no idea why they'd want hay. Sorry.

They also requested three different types of cigarettes, plus some chewing tobacco, to which I say: Ewww. Smoking/dipping is a gross activity (sorry, not sorry) and it's especially nasty since all these people are living in close quarters.

They also want throw rugs for the doorways, which is hilarious. "We hate the federal government and we are taking this building from them, but we also want to decorate! We might be armed militants, but we still appreciate a tasteful throw rug!"

 For those interested, Buzzfeed has the full list of items wanted by the militia. But please, don't send them anything, mmkay? Let them run out of everything, then pack up and go home. And then they'll go to jail, because an armed takeover of government property (or of anything, really) is just not right.




*The Hammonds said the fire was started in order to stop an invasive plant species from encroaching on their land - but prosecutors believed they started the fire to destroy evidence of illegal hunting. Who knows? Either way, years in jail for a small fire is bonkers. Not as bonkers as forming a militia to take over a government building, but, you know...mildly bonkers.

This Will Send Hillary Clinton to Prison

Hillary Clinton directed State Department staff to take pages of classified information, remove the "classified" heading, and send it to her through non-secure means.

This email thread shows Hillary waiting for talking points (abbreviated as TPs) from Jake Sullivan, a State Department employee. Jake explains the delay, saying "they've had issues sending secure fax." Hillary Clinton tells him "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Taking classified information and removing the heading does not magically make it unclassfied information. Everyone at State knows this. I know this. That is not how classified headings work.

It is illegal to send classified information over nonsecure channels. Here you have a Secretary of State directing an aide to deliberately misrepresent classified information and send it over a nonsecure channel.

Hillary will trot out some ridiculous "But I didn't know it was illegal!" nonsense. It was her job to know that it was illegal. If you're driving a car and get pulled over, "I didn't know the speed limit!" is not a viable excuse. It's your responsibility to know.

That said, it's not entirely fair for me to compare Hillary's crime to someone going 70 in a 65. Hillary's actions here look more like going 110 in a school zone, in a car with a blown out tire, with no seatbelt on. This isn't a speeding ticket-level violation...this is national security being deliberately endangered by a top government official.

Hillary's "I never knowingly sent classified information" is now on par with Bill's "I never had sexual relations with that woman" as one of the top Clinton lies of all time.

The Department of Justice needs to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Indict her. Lock her up. Book her into the federal penitentiary's Martha Stewart Cell for Corrupt Aging White Women, which I just made up.

This woman was ethically unfit to be Secretary of State, and is ethically unfit to be President. At the next debate, I hope the FBI comes out onstage and handcuffs her right then and there. Of course, no one will see this, because the Democrats scheduled their next debate during an NFL playoff game. But, I digress.


Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be seeking an indictment against Hillary Clinton right now. Hillary Clinton should be tried for her crimes, before she has a chance to commit any more of them.

Something Stinks in Cologne

 Here's something that will make you angry:

On New Year's Eve in Cologne, Germany, a group of about 1,000 men started harassing the locals - pickpocketing revelers, shooting fireworks into the crowd, and sexually assaulting multiple women. In Cologne, 90 police reports were made - with smaller numbers of incidents reported in Stuttgart and Hamburg.

The men doing the harassing were described as being "of North African or Middle Eastern appearance." Several were carrying refugee immigration paperwork. Germany was kind enough to take in these migrants/refugees, and here we've got a thousand of them being absolutely atrocious guests.

These people come from different cultures, and maybe they're not used to the way women are treated in the West.  To that, I say: Too freaking bad. You have two options here. Learn how to treat women (not that difficult for you), or leave (very inconvenient for you). Shape up, or ship out.

The local government in Cologne doesn't share my idea, though. To the contrary: The Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, instated a Code of Conduct...for the women of Cologne, Germany.

One group of people has to change their behavior here, but let me give you a hint, Mayor Reker - it's not the victims.

The Code of Conduct includes staying an arm's length away from strangers, and staying with one group while in public. It's not bad advice, per se, but it's patronizing. Here's why I oppose it: No woman - anywhere, at any time - should have to take special action just to earn the privilege of...not being attacked.

 Other parts of the Code of Conduct include asking bystanders to intervene in the event of an attack, and reporting the attack to police. Both of these things can only happen after an attack has already taken place - the very thing that Mayor Reker, however ineptly, is trying to avoid!

Germany should deport any migrant who commits a violent crime, like those that took place in the mob scene on New Year's Eve. No country should sacrifice the safety of its citizens in the name of "tolerance" and "political correctness." There is nothing "correct" about robberies and assaults, and no civilized society should tolerate that kind of behavior.

Sources:
Independent 
BBC

Obama To Announce Executive Orders on Gun Control

...and their contents are decidedly, "meh."

These orders have two main prongs.

The first is closing what many call the "gun show loophole," which allows private individuals (eg., not firearms dealers) to sell guns without conducting a background check on the buyer. While we're here, it's worth mentioning that the "gun show loophole" doesn't really exist - the law, as it stands before this executive order takes effect, allows private sales without background checks. Any gun dealer at a gun show must, by law, conduct background checks on buyers. A person who sells one gun - and is therefore a private seller - is not required to run a background check. That's not a bug in the system, it's part of the design. You may not like it - but it's not an unintentional design mistake, and therefore not a loophole.

Anyhow, I don't hate the idea of expanded background checks. The slight delay might be inconvenient for some, but if you're not a criminal, the background check doesn't stop you from buying a gun. It's like how you have to show your ID when buying Sudafed - annoying, but since I'm not buying a huge quantity to make meth, it's only a short delay before I can purchase that sweet, sweet cold relief and be on my way.

President Obama is even trying to reduce the background check delays, by directing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to hire over 230 new employees to process these expanded background checks. I don't like expanding the government. But, expanding the government in a way that will help more people exercise their constitutional rights? That, I can tolerate. Obama should cut waste elsewhere in government to pay for this. He probably won't, but a girl can dream.

The second prong of this executive action makes it easier for states to provide mental health information to the background check system. It sounds good, but 1) what if doctors get it wrong? and 2) this might discourage people from seeking treatment.

It is unlikely that anything in these executive orders would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings. The following data is from the New York Times:

• Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, used guns belonging to his mother.
• The San Bernardino shooters got their guns from a neighbor. It is unknown whether this was theft or purchase. 
• Dylann Roof, the Charleston shooter, passed an FBI background check, which failed to catch a prior drug conviction that should have rendered him ineligible to own a firearm.
• The Navy Yard shooter "passed state and local background checks."

Mental health records on Jared Loughner (Tucson) or James Holmes (Aurora) might have signaled that they should not be in possession of a firearm. I couldn't find any information on exactly what mental health data will be reported, or what kind of mental health information the ATF and FBI will take into account when conducting background checks. (If you know, please comment!)

These new executive orders probably won't stop future mass shootings. But they don't seem unconstitutional, at least so far - and if they stop even one murder, I'm willing to give these laws a fair shot.

While We Rang in 2016, Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal Got Worse

Ah, 2015: The year when Hillary Clinton launched her second failed presidential campaign. A new batch of her emails dropped on Thursday - on the afternoon of New Year's Eve. As in, a time when virtually no one is watching the news.

A prior round of Hillary emails was released on Christmas Eve. It's almost exactly like the State Department is deliberately timing the email releases so they go unnoticed - even though these messages were supposed to be public from the get-go.

The State Department also made it considerably harder to search this batch of emails. They removed the tools that allow readers to search by "To," "From," and "Subject." They cited "time constraints." I don't believe them at all. They had plenty of time on their side - they just didn't want us to be able to sift through the emails quickly. So rude.

Along with that casual NYE Clinton news dump was an admission by the Department of State, that they would fall short of the court order to release 43,000 pages of emails by the end of the year. The DOS has had an office of about 50 staffers (paid for by us, the taxpayers!) sifting through Hillary's emails. They were short by about 2,000 pages. They had to have known this beforehand - two thousand pages is a lot - but didn't let it slip until New Year's Eve.

Pesky little things like court orders are optional, when you're a Clinton.

Oh, and did I mention that the number of classified emails on Hillary's server now tops 1,200? When the story of the homebrewed server first came out, Hillary said that she never sent or received classified info. She was the Secretary of State - it was her job to know what information is classified, and what is not, and to keep classified information...well, classified. If the classification system was wrong, she had four years to fix it. So - either she was totally incompetent at her job, or she knowingly lied to the American people. Either one should disqualify her from ever becoming the president.

One might think that Hillary Clinton would be embarrassed by her petty attempts to hide her emails. But, this is Hillary "fake accent" "discredit Bill's accusers" "cattle futures" "Benghazi was caused by a video" Clinton - the woman has no shame.