ACORN: Register voters, follow the law, become a target

Crooks and Liars:

Just as surely as night follows day, violence is being directed at ACORN offices and officials in the wake of the flood of right-wing demagoguery about its vote-gathering efforts:

An ACORN community organizer received a death threat and the liberal activist group's Boston and Seattle offices were vandalized Thursday, reflecting mounting tensions over its role in registering 1.3 million mostly poor and minority Americans to vote next month.

Attorneys for the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now were notifying the FBI and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division of the incidents, said Brian Kettenring, a Florida-based spokesman for the group.

Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain, have verbally attacked the group repeatedly in recent days, alleging a widespread vote-fraud scheme, although they've provided little proof. It was disclosed Thursday that the FBI is examining whether thousands of fraudulent voter-registration applications submitted by some ACORN workers were part of a systematic effort or isolated incidents.

Kettenring said that a senior ACORN staffer in Cleveland, after appearing on television this week, got an e-mail that said she "is going to have her life ended."

A female staffer in Providence, R.I., got a threatening call from someone who said words to the effect of "We know you get off work at 9," then uttered racial epithets, he said.

John McCain has played a leading role in whipping up this frenzy of hatred. In Wednesday's debate, he charged:

We need to know the full extent of Sen. Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

This is consistent with the hateful language being spewed from the right by the likes of Lou Dobbs, who has taken to routinely characterizing ACORN as a "radical left-wing activist group" as well as "a Democratic Party adjunct".

In fact, the hysteria's being generated across a broad spectrum of the Right, from Outer Malkinite Wingnuttia to Inside Beltway Villagers, from McCain and Palin to the frothiest freepers.

And we can see what's coming, too: We're being set up for a running yammer from the right after Obama wins questioning his legitimacy because of a supposedly "tainted" vote. Conspiracy theories and talking points from the right will circulate, driving up the temperature and feeding the right-wing populist frenzy.

And they're not even waiting until Election Day to begin.

How to do things with words: repeat lies, encourage hatred and mistrust, wait.

The End of Anomie

I just posted over at Open Left:

Then End of Anomie

Between roughly 1968 and 2004, United States (and its politics) has been dominated by a form of social relations that is defined, paradoxically, by a lack of social relations: Anomie. It is that feeling that comes about when one feels that the anchors of one's life have been cut, when traditional values such as family, friends, community, church and work seems to be evaporating. In anomie, family, neighborhood, community and church become, as often as not, institutions in transition that subsequently raise as many questions as they answer.

This has been as true for our urban areas as for our rural ones. The exodus to the suburbs brought on increased feelings of separation from our friends and neighbors and family. Our suburbs, while offering some benefits like front yards to play in and spacious living quarters for our smaller families, conversely brought us increased busing and commutes, and fewer family dinners. Our countryside was nearly fully transformed into a large factory that produced for the our cities. Our rural areas became not autonomous regions of self-sustenance but places where people worked for low wages to produce materials for the city based the economics of the city. Diversity of crops and of labor was sacrificed to the predictable (but meager) world of monocrop production where local supermarkets imported carrots, salads, beets, and sweet corn so that the surrounding acreage can produce soybeans or cattle feed. Like their urban counterparts, the rural folk no longer felt in control of their own destiny. They were strangers in the small towns... [click here to keep reading]

Confessions of a(n) (In)Secure User

Ok. I'll admit it, I don't use anti-virus protection. Also, with the exception of a Microsoft Outlook infection that overtook our campus 7-8 years ago and that reached the address book on my pc, I've NEVER had a virus.

Is that smug? Probably, and now that I'm writing this post, I'm expecting a massive attack and crash. But you need to understand that I'm very careful and I've just been doing a couple of simple things and I've never had a problem. Besides, the folks at Wired agree with me:

The gospel is familiar: An antivirus program paired with anti-spyware/malware measures will shield your PC from just about anything. In fact, the marketing of those products is so good that security apps are about the only software people still expect to pay for. But the best stuff doesn't cost a dime. Programs like AVG and Ad-Aware are free, and they won't hit you up for upgrades like the big security suites.
Those guardians are fine for Grandma's Gateway, but the truly savvy eschew them altogether. Even the most well-meaning program bogs down your box. And it's not hard to dodge infection; just abide by the basic tenets of Internet common sense: Don't click on mysterious email attachments, don't bother with the free pr0n, Ch3@p Vi@gr@, and Nigerian millions, and never open .exe files. Email is still one of the biggest infection vectors, so be cautious and use a good webmail service like Gmail, which automatically scans your messages. Don't leave your computer online when you're not on it. Beware of anything that immediately asks for personal information. Don't reuse passwords.

Stiglitz

A vision of the future

If you don't read openleft.com, you should. I can't say it with enough emphasis: Chris, Matt, Dave, et al--they get it.

Here's Chris Bowers:

So, what happens if this rout holds up, and Democrats score a trifecta that includes a 100 seat House majority and 60 seats in the Senate? In the extended entry, I take a look at the macro political ramifications of such a massive Democratic rout.
In my crystal ball I see:

* Republican Party moves to the right: Yes, that's correct--I am pretty sure the Republican Party will become even more conservative if they are entirely blown out in this election. The reason is simple: all remaining mechanisms for pushing left will have been either removed or discredited, while all mechanisms that push them to the right will remain intact. The Club for Growth will still play successfully in Republican primaries. Conservative media will become even more important to the conservatie rank and file, as a loss of this magnitude is heavily blamed on the dreaded "MSM." The party will still be owned by the same large and corporate donors who control it now. However, Republican "moderates" will have been pushed to the very edge of extinction, and borne the brunt of congressional losses / retirements. Moderating figures like John McCain will have been discredited. Self-identified moderates and liberals will have abandoned the Republican Party in droves, many now both identifying and registered as Democrats. The only thing left in the Republican Party will be the true winguts, and they will lurch the party even further to the right.

* Aimless, confused center-right punditry. With neoliberalism destroyed by nationalization, socially conservatives whites clearly losing their power as the center of the swing voting universe, and with the Republican Party pushed out of Congressional control for a long time, the center-right pundits that dominate cable nets, Sunday talk shows, and many large newspapers will be downright confused and aimless. The changes in David Brooks over the last two weeks are a good example of this. Mind you, they won't embrace progressivism, as their formative experiences in the 70's and 80's will still be too powerful to them. Also, most of them will hold onto their jobs and prominence, even if we score a couple more Olberman's and Maddow's. But their world will have been shattered, and they just won't know where to go for a while.

* The Democratic Party will lack a clear center of power and become more factional: Obama edged out the Clinton power center, but he didn't destroy it. They will now operate side by side. Same with the reviving progressive advocacy infrastructure, which Obama relented on a few weeks ago. The House will be a mess, with Hoyer, Blue Dogs, Speaker Pelosi, Emanuel / New Dems, and the emerging Progressives all holding a share of power. The Senate will continue to be the Senate, with most major legislation passing with 75 votes, not 60. Grassroots progressive infrastructure will be at it's peak, but also might lose steam under Democratic trifecta rule. While the party could never possibly be as factional as it was during the New Deal coalition, it will be more factional than it is now.

* Demographics cement Democratic congressional majority for at least six, and possibly sixteen, years: Since voting habits set in after a person reaches 30, a new generation that grew up and began voting under Bush will be used to voting for Democrats after this election. The country will continue to become less white and less Christian at rapid rates, providing Democrats with a natural edge in elections. While the country has given Republicans and conservatives roughly a 51%-48% base advantage in elections from 1986 forward, that 3% base edge will now flip toward Democrats. It isn't a guarantee, but it is a nice head start. With majorities approaching 100 and 20 seats in the House and Senate respectively, it will be enough to hold onto Congressional power for at least six years, and possibly sixteen.

* The country will still be in a world of hurt. This is perhaps the most important marco trend of all, and could cancel out all of the other trends listed here. The country will still face disasters on multiple fronts (militarily, economically, diplomatically, environmentally, etc), and it won't be easy to fix. The degree to which the Democratic trifecta is able to make the lives of Americans better will be the largest factor in determining future Democratic electoral prospects. The specific policies and factions that succeed, or fail, in making American lives better will go a long way toward deciding the upcoming factional fight in the Democratic Party, as well as the destination of the aging center-right punditry.

If we pull off the rout, that is how I see the future. What do you see following a huge Democratic landslide?

Terrorist

In case you forgot what was going on:

Virtual Obama

Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com points out Obama's virtual advertisement in Burnout Paradise:

"Look closely. That's not a picture of an Obama billboard ad in front of a few cool cars. That's a screen capture from the Xbox 360 racing game Burnout Paradise. Advertisers can buy space on the billboards in the game. And the game publisher has confirmed to GigaOm.com that that's an official Obama ad, placed by the campaign."

Cool.  There are really no virtual worlds.

Jeez, the stupid!

Ok, for reasons I won't explain, I was over at Roger Kimball's website. He should learn from Tucker Carlson: bowties do not make you smart!

He says:

I think Ms. Rabinowitz is right. Whatever else it is, this election is a referendum on two very different visions of America. Obama’s vision is of country crippled by sin; McCain and Palin’s vision is of a country fired by high ideals and expansive opportunity.

“You’re beautiful, I love you, now change.” That is Team Obama’s message. “You’re beautiful, I love you as you are”: that is the message of McCain and Sarah Palin. It’s the difference between the utopian–who finds himself disgusted with every real-world polity, and who finds himself willing, indeed, eager, to sacrifice real people for the sake of the ideal ones he wishes to create–and the simple patriot who says Yes to the family, community, and country in which he finds himself.

Most Americans, I believe, love their country for what it is–not what it could become if suitably socialized, taxed, neutered, and otherwise recast. If McCain-Palin can effectively articulate that message, they will win."

Well, Roger. I hate to tell you, but one can love one's country and disagree with it and want to change it. Also, please consider the fact that the Republicans who have dominated presidential elections since 1968 and who've controlled congress and/or the White House from 1996 to 2006 might be somewhat responsible for the various political and economic crises our country faces, crises which just might (justifiably) be ruining the Republican brand name. Given that John McCain has bent over backwards to conform to the religious right to get this nomination and "fit the brand," and that he has always bent over for Wall Street, are we supposed to forget what he stands for and where he came from? If Americans are making some connections that are entirely logical maybe you could do the same.

McCain may win, but don't hold your breath.

Could I also just say that your commenters--the ones who agree with you--make you look really bad. Now, I know that Republicans never use guilt-by-association methods (cough, Ayers, cough) and that you would never stoop so low, but can I just quote a few (my emphasis):

...

he will absolutely win. the polls are always wrong, and exactly how many folks outside of the cities and college towns will vote obama?

mccain signs are 20-1 over obama signs in real America where i live

...

LOOK AT THE CROWDS PALIN IS DRAWING-LIKE USUAL,THE HATE AMERICA MEDIA(THESE POLLSTERS ARE PART OF IT,THEY NEED TO DO WHAT THE MEDIA WANTS TO GET ATTENTION) IS TRYING TO SHOW THE COMMIE PIG OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS. IM NOT MUCH OF A MCCAIN FAN,BUT AT LEAST IM PRAYING PALIN CAN SHOW HIM THE LIGHT.

...

I know Senator McCain will win. I just want the patriots out there to realize what will happen when he is elected. It’s going to be mayhem. Just like Kenya.

...

I do know that this is not the America in which I grew up, the America I learned about in school and the America my husband served with his heart and soul for 26 years. I want my country back. The socialists have taken over.

For those who contend the Republicans should have stopped the friends of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the Clinton administration - you need to go back and really learn what happened. Just because there is a majority of one party doesn’t always mean the majority wins. It also doesn’t mean that all Republicans are true conservatives.

The bottom line is that subprime loans are at the bottom of the economic crisis. Subprime loans were created by the Democrats as a socialistic effort to give to “the have nots” by taking from the “haves”. It “worked” for awhile and that’s what brought us to this point. However, we certainly can’t ignore AIG’s insurance of these pieces of crap bundled into bigger pieces of crap as to being a contributing factor.

Get it? You see, real Americans pray and never get subsidies, Republicans are never responsible for anything bad and even if they are then they are not "real" Republicans. Even if McCain wins, the socialist race war is here and we'll be just like those African countries because, well, America is no longer the good ol' country it used to be.

Oy.

Depressing

"Clark Hoyt on election coverage in the New York Times: Through Friday, of 270 news articles published in The Times about the election since the national tickets were formed in late August, only 29, or a little over 10 percent, were primarily about policy substance"

More about Krugman

What does the Krugman prize mean?

Probably not much, but along with the current crisis, the anointment of Krugman, the popularity of Obama, the growth of progressive groups, and the unpopularity of Republican and DLC "Let the market handle it" facile truisms could be a symbolic tipping point. I think we're seeing, finally, a moment of relative honesty about our "system."

Will historians look back at this and see it as a historic shift? Nothing is written in stone, but events are converging...

I'm keeping my eyes open and my fingers crossed. This could be the end of the free market myth birthed and promoted by von Hayek, Friedman et al.

Paul Krugman Wins "Nobel"

It warms my heart that one of the Bush administrations most unrelenting critics has won the "Nobel" Prize in Economoics. He has brought the only other intelligent voice to the Times' besides Bob Herbert.   Alternative history--to counter page 1's Miller's and Bumiller's--was being written as history happened.

Refreshing.

Of course, it's easy to kick the Republicans when they are down, but thanks anyway to the Swedish banking community.

You'll note that I didn't say the Nobel Foundation.  You see, the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is an invention of the extremely conservative Swedish banking community.  For years it was (and probably mostly still is) a mouthpiece of neoliberal policy à la Milton Friedman.  Ironically, Sweden suffered a horrible banking crash in the early 90's.  Ironic because Paul Krugman has been a great opponent of Greenspan's bubble and his allies in the White House, that is, Krugman opposed the Sweden-styled bubble that is now popping all over the U.S. and the world.

Having possibly learned their lesson, do the Swedes know something we don't?

Anomia

Anomia: a disentegration of social bonds.


From Wired:

People turn to terrorism for social solidarity. He theorizes that people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.
The evidence supports this. Individual terrorists often have no prior involvement with a group's political agenda, and often join multiple terrorist groups with incompatible platforms. Individuals who join terrorist groups are frequently not oppressed in any way, and often can't describe the political goals of their organizations. People who join terrorist groups most often have friends or relatives who are members of the group, and the great majority of terrorist are socially isolated: unmarried young men or widowed women who weren't working prior to joining. These things are true for members of terrorist groups as diverse as the IRA and al-Qaida.
For example, several of the 9/11 hijackers planned to fight in Chechnya, but they didn't have the right paperwork so they attacked America instead. The mujahedeen had no idea whom they would attack after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, so they sat around until they came up with a new enemy: America. Pakistani terrorists regularly defect to another terrorist group with a totally different political platform. Many new al-Qaida members say, unconvincingly, that they decided to become a jihadist after reading an extreme, anti-American blog, or after converting to Islam, sometimes just a few weeks before. These people know little about politics or Islam, and they frankly don't even seem to care much about learning more. The blogs they turn to don't have a lot of substance in these areas, even though more informative blogs do exist.
All of this explains the seven habits. It's not that they're ineffective; it's that they have a different goal. They might not be effective politically, but they are effective socially: They all help preserve the group's existence and cohesion.
This kind of analysis isn't just theoretical; it has practical implications for counterterrorism. Not only can we now better understand who is likely to become a terrorist, we can engage in strategies specifically designed to weaken the social bonds within terrorist organizations. Driving a wedge between group members -- commuting prison sentences in exchange for actionable intelligence, planting more double agents within terrorist groups -- will go a long way to weakening the social bonds within those groups.
We also need to pay more attention to the socially marginalized than to the politically downtrodden, like unassimilated communities in Western countries. We need to support vibrant, benign communities and organizations as alternative ways for potential terrorists to get the social cohesion they need. And finally, we need to minimize collateral damage in our counterterrorism operations, as well as clamping down on bigotry and hate crimes, which just creates more dislocation and social isolation, and the inevitable calls for revenge.

The Good Fight and the Pedagogical Moment

Donna Brazile, who appears on our talk shows all too often repeating Washington Conventional Wisdom--you know, the WCW that we should invade Iraq, the sage opion that the smart people of Wall Street know what they're doing and should be trusted, the wisdom that trickle down economics works, you know that conventional wisdom--well, the real Donna broke through today, and she got to the heart of the matter.  She said that she sensed something deeply troubling in the Republican ranks, something truly wicked, something beyond the pale, something truly, deeply, madly racist.

Indeed, we have:

Sit down, boy.

Then there are the enlightened souls screaming, at the planned mention of Barack Hussein Obama (emphasis on Hussein), "terrorist," "kill him," and "traitor."

Update, and thanks to youtube, you can see these Republican supporters talking about Obama's "bloodline," his "muslim background," and say that he's a "one-man terror cell": (h/t digby)



Nevermind that Sarah Palin's husband was/is a member of a separatist/secessionist group.  (Though we should remember that abortion clinic bombers and militia members and the various Timothy McVeigh's of the world are never anti-American, they're anti-government.  I repeat: these killers are never anti-American, they're anti-government.)

So we have people like Sarah, people like John conducting, orchestrating events attended entirely or almost entirely by white people and, let's be honest, encouraging their crowds to jeer at the mention of the name Hussein.  This is not about policy or politics.  It's not even about personality, though some in the punditry might use such terminology to gloss over the situation.  This is about hate, this is about wanting to kill, imprison or humiliate someone because they have a different name, a different color skin.  Go ahead, say it--growl it, scream it: "Hussein."  This name, apparently, is supposed to make you mad.

While it is perhaps true that John and Sarah may not hear the remarks from the podium, they have by now heard of them.  They know this is happening.  We thus have what might be called "a teachable moment."  One of these prospective "leaders" of the United States could and should plan on interrupting their speech when they or one of their entourages hears the epithet.  They should interrupt their speech and show themselves to be above this and to signal to these crowds that its wrong, just plain wrong, plain un-Christian to act in such ways.

This won't happen.  As Digby says:

"This is the kind of thing that really makes me fear for Obama. They are already screaming "terrorist" at Palin's rallies and shouting "kill him." The whole "Obama is a muslim" thing is bizarre, but with his name and childhood spent partly in a Muslim country --- and the fact that he's black, which makes everyone flash on Louis Farrakhan --- makes the right wing lizard brain twitch uncontrollably. They will use this, I have no doubt. There is an entire wingnut industry devoted to stirring up tensions in the middle east and another on devoted to character assassination of Democrats. Obama brings them together in serendipitous loathing and paranoia. It's going to be ugly."

Ugly.

Or, as Josh Marshall quips:

"Shorter McCain Campaign: He's definitely black; probably Muslim; and maybe a terrorist."

So, Donna, thanks for the reminder.   Now do this on teevee!

My Fellow Prisoners

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We're prisoners of debt, militarism, crony capitalism and greed.

Of course, McCain is probably just suffering from dementia and/or fatigue, so this will slip conveniently beneath the radar. Just imagine if Barack Hussein Obama had said that! What if Petain had said it?

Venerate and Despise

A friend sent me this today, it's from the Guardian.

By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said.
  
 And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.
  
It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.

De Tocqueville could not have said it better.

Trust Your Local Psychologist

My friends blog/My friend's Blog

"It’s McCain’s social skills that seems to belie his ability to effectively debate. He could almost pull it off, but as Chris Matthews was saying after the debate, Obama has this sincere smile that feels real and a natural ability to connect. McCain comes across as really creepy and insincere when he laughs/smiles. As a psychologist, I have to say that these social mistakes McCain keeps making get people at a real gut level. They don’t know what it is about McCain that’s rubbing them the wrong way, but people who are savvy socially know something just ain’t right - whether they can say what that thing is or not."

It's not hard to figure me out

If you see a dead bird, it means something innocent has died.  Something innocent died today.




Image: elratondecamp.com

Quote of the day

"It is another privilege of gentlemen that when they commit a crime, they are not punished as rigorously as the common people."

Loyseau: Traité des ordres et simples dignitez, 1610

Educating Millenials

Here's an interesting read from virtualwayfarer.com:

An educated populace is the cornerstone of a successful, affluent culture and a necessity if the United States wants to remain competitive. ...  Education, more than any other factor, is responsible for America’s success. It is for that reason that the current shift in enrollment and completion rates among males in higher education may be seen as a crisis. ...

While there are a lot of theories as to the cause, no one has been able to accurately explain why young male Millennials are abandoning the education system and especially, higher ed. The lion’s share of the discourse on the subject has focused on the increased presence of females in higher education, the shifting nature of male’s roles in society, and other similar concepts. While these may be factors, I believe they overlook the true cause and scope of the issue.

The Cause
The infusion of brilliant young female minds into higher education is a wonderful thing and there is without question some validity to the observations made that womens’ aptitudes are better suited to the standard classroom format. That said, I don’t believe the introduction of women to higher education is what’s causing men to drop out.  Rather, we are seeing a surge in the individual student’s ability to learn and comprehend in a more complex reality. The issue stems from the way members of the Millennial generation are developing and their use of complex, multi-tasking skill sets that have been honed in the daily practice of video gaming, internet access, chatting, and involvement in online social networks.  Simply put, tech savvy Millennials are not being engaged or challenged by the one-dimensional delivery systems in a majority of today’s classrooms. They are not interested in sitting passively and having information spoon fed to them. Much of this information is not interdisciplinary or connected to the real world. They can do better on their own in this new, comprehensive ‘digital classroom’. If we don’t reevaluate the way we educate Millennials, I expect female enrollment numbers to peak and begin to decline as they become more engaged in technology which follows the trend we are currently seeing among males.

Click here to keep reading...

Beloit's Mindset List

Every year for the past 11 years, Beloit college has released a list that, in words of its authors, "provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college."

Here's the beginning of this years list:

1. Harry Potter could be a classmate, playing on their Quidditch team.
2. Since they were in diapers, karaoke machines have been annoying people at parties.
3. They have always been looking for Carmen Sandiego.
4. GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available.
5. Coke and Pepsi have always used recycled plastic bottles.
6. Shampoo and conditioner have always been available in the same bottle.
7. Gas stations have never fixed flats, but most serve cappuccino.
8. Their parents may have dropped them in shock when they heard George Bush announce “tax revenue increases.”
9. Electronic filing of tax returns has always been an option.
10. (Click here to see the rest of the list)

Of course I get the usual chuckle when I see this. It is funny to be reminded that events that are so clear in my memory that they could have happened yesterday were never part of the cultural landscape of our incoming students. It is fun to be reminded about life circa 1990 when I was already an adult.

Something has always bothered me about the list, though. For starters, the list is more about us teachers than the students since the cultural markers it references are mostly for adults (i.e., Martha Stewart). Secondly, the list is mostly about pop culture, which is fine and sometimes extremely important, but it limits the scope of what the authors mean when they say "Mindset List." Does knowing who Rosanne Barr is determine one's mindset? Somewhat perhaps, but to me it would be much more interesting to say that these children probably didn't benefit from welfare because Bill Clinton "ended Welfare as we know it." It would be more interesting and revealing to say that these children have only known Defense budgets that increased and education budgets that mostly decreased. It would be more telling to note that today's youth are more likely to have grown up poor than their parents. You get my drift, right?

Finally, look at the list. It is really from a White middle-class perspective. That does not come close to representing the ever more diverse U.S.

Yes, I know, my "list" would a bit heavy, but there could be some good things to it too: Today's students have always known an openly gay character on TV. Today's students are not scared by terms like "cold war" (just GWOT!).

My point is that if we're going to talk about mindsets, let's talk about the institutions and structures that have as deep or deeper connection to the existences of everyone rather than sticking to the cultural references like TV and shampoo. Let's also try to make our list a little more culturally informed with references to people other than, say, Martha Stewart.

Maybe I should make my own list. Hmmm.

Nah. I'll just be a curmudgeon.