Sean Penn vs. South Park

It's not exactly news that Sean Penn, one of the mocked-upon targets in the season's most-anticipated flick, the all-puppet, all-action Team America: World Police, has written a drop-dead memo to Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the auteurs behind South Park and TA. Via Drudge, here's a snippet of Spicoli's wrath:

You guys are talented young guys but alas, primarily young guys. It's all well to joke about me or whomever you choose. Not so well, to encourage irresponsibility that will ultimately lead to the disembowelment, mutilation, exploitation, and death of innocent people throughout the world. The vote matters to them. No one's ignorance, including a couple of hip cross-dressers, is an excuse.

All best, and a sincere fuck you,

Sean Penn

Whole thing here.

Salon is running a snippet of a forthcoming interview with Parker and Stone:

According to Stone, "when you read it, the letter comes from such a high place of arrogance, you know, [deep, serious voice] 'You guys are young guys! If you don't have children, you can't say anything about anything!' And the whole voting thing. All we ever said was that we thought that uninformed people should not vote -- on either side of the political spectrum. It doesn't matter who you're gonna vote for. If you really don't know who you're gonna vote for, or are uninformed, or haven't really thought about it? Just stay home. Don't let people fucking shame you into going to the polls."

Added Parker: "If you have absolutely no idea, fuck it."

"If you really don't know or you're just going to vote for George Bush because he's already in office, or you're gonna vote for John Kerry because he's on the cover of Rolling Stone, don't do that," Stone said. "That's lame. Just stay home. That's all we ever said."

Salon bit here (note: requires sitting through Shawshank Redemption DVD ad).

Reason will be posting its review of Team America tomorrow.

In the meantime, check out Reason Managing Editor Jesse Walker's appreciation of the show here and Barry Fagin's bit here.

Comments

[Hans]

If Sean Penn hates it, it has to be good!

I love Stone and Parker: "If you have absolutely no idea, fuck it."

Exactly. "Rock the Vote" my ass.

[Jim Walsh]

Sean Penn is like the guy in high school that everybody picks on just because he is so easy to tick off. Hey Penn, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. Oh, and have you seen the hunky guy your ex is getting it on with, heh heh heh...

Oh, and another vote (so to speak) for chucking that Rock-The-Vote crap...

[dhex]

i like the whole "VOTE OR DIE!" thing.

really makes you appreciate the level of thought entertainers put into politics.

(then again, there's the DEA, which makes you appreciate the lack of thought politicians put into politics)

but seriously, penn's a fucking dick.

[Warren]

Finally! Someone calls BULLSHIT on get-out-the-vote. Something this country's been needing for ages.

[Warren]

Finally! Someone calls BULLSHIT on get-out-the-vote. Something this country's been needing for ages.

[Jason Bourne]

Warren,

I don't think dissing Rock the Vote, etc., is a particularly novel idea.

[matt]

Personally I see voter apathy as a good thing, so the "rock the vote" and "vote or die" crap I hope turns even more people off from voting just because of the sheer lameness of both campaigns.

[michael]

"vote or die"... that slogan reminds me of our mission in the Middle East.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

"If you really don't know or you're just going to vote for George Bush because he's already in office, or you're gonna vote for John Kerry because he's on the cover of Rolling Stone, don't do that," Stone said. "That's lame. Just stay home. That's all we ever said."

This position depends on the educated viewer fallacy, which is just as unexamined as anything coming out of Rock the Vote. Given an incalculable number of variables and only two "realistic" voting options, following the campaigns and issues closely brings you no closer to voting intelligently than does voting for the incumbent, picking the Rolling Stone cover boy, flipping a coin, consulting your dream journal, or fantasizing about which one would win a wet he-shirt contest. A person with no knowledge of politics has exactly as much chance of casting a valid vote as Brian Lamb.

[Abiola Lapite]

"Given an incalculable number of variables and only two "realistic" voting options, following the campaigns and issues closely brings you no closer to voting intelligently than does voting for the incumbent, picking the Rolling Stone cover boy, flipping a coin, consulting your dream journal, or fantasizing about which one would win a wet he-shirt contest."

Really? This looks to me to be an empirical claim, not some sort of refutation of a logical absurdity, and you don't put forward a shred of evidence to substantiate it. My best guess would be that you're trying to articulate some sort of analogue of the efficient markets hypothesis for voting theory, but the idea just doesn't carry over, given the radically different workings of markets and "one man one vote" preference aggregation systems.

[Dan]

Tim,

Let's say you want a strong military, a hard line against Communism, and low taxes -- those are the issues that matter to you. It's 1984. The intelligent choice for you is to vote for Ronald Reagan.

If you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance of voting for him.

Your claim seems to be that if you educate yourself about the candidates' positions, and study their speeches, and examine their campaign promises... you'll still only have a 50% chance of choosing to vote for Reagan. That is, of course, not the case; you will, in fact, have a close to 100% chance of choosing to vote for Reagan.

What definition of "voting intelligently" are you using? It obviously doesn't mean "voting for the person who holds the correct positions on the issues you consider important", at least the way you're using it.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I think I'll send out for some pizza.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Ronald Reagan's running for President? Hot dog, and I was thinking of sitting this one out!

[Jason Bourne]

Dan,

The problem is that Reagan in his second term didn't take a "hard line" on the Soviets; indeed, much to the dismay of many of his followers, he took a "soft line" and actually negotiated with them. I still remember George Will's scathing column about Reagan, where he called him a something along the lines of a "rube."

No matter how much information you had, you simply couldn't predict this outcome.

[Jason Bourne]

No matter how much information you had, you simply couldn't neccessarily predict this outcome.

[mike]

Tim is a moron.
If fewer morons voted, elections wouldn't be swayed by trite sound-bite infomercials and we'd end up with better candidates.
Therefore, please, Tim, do not vote and persuade likewise everyone convinced by your "logic".

Other than that, and "Jason Bourne" (how inventive!), YEAH!

[spur]

in the full Salon bit Sean "If you want entertainment get yourself two hookers and an eight ball" Penn asks Matt and Trey to go over to Iraq with him and make all the fun they wanted.

Now that would be a dark comedy I'd love to see! Part 'Roger and Me' as Matt and Trey tail Penn around Iraq heckling him while dodging IED's and small arms fire - part 'Man Bites Dog' as the cast and crew slowly get knoocked off by militants, friendly fire and thieves -- It would make a wonderful film except we might lose Matt and Trey and Penn in the process...

[J]

Maybe the most disturbing aspect of all this is the revelation (at least to me) that Sean Penn is raising children. He's done some amazing acting, but I think daddy might be a bit kooky.

[Jason Bourne]

mike,

Let's note that you haven't actually countered Tim's argument, you simply threw a few insults his way.

[Kevin Carson]

Tim,

No, actually he's running for vice president:

Bush-Zombie Reagan 2004

[Reagan Looks Up From Below]

Thanks Kevin!

I loved the picture of bloody-mouth zombie Reagan doin the wave!

In the spirit of "Mother Theresa Sent to Hell In Wacky Afterlife Mixup" I really feel that The Onion should have done "Satan Receives Reagan's Soul"

Yeah, they really fanned a softball on that one.

[Adam]

cross dressers? they've always been dressed like dudes when I see 'em.. am i missing something?

[fyodor]

Tim,

What do you mean by a "valid vote" or by "voting intelligently"? Or "viewer fallacy" for that matter? I googled the last and came up empty. Are you making that up? Dan's point seems perfectly valid to me, regardless of the datedness of his example.

Of course, all means of choosing how to vote are equally "valid" in the sense that validity is a process, so that watching the debates to see which candidate is taller is a valid means to determining which candidate is taller. Then a vote for Kerry would be valid. Is that your point?

The South Park boys are basically make a value judgment, that it's better not to vote if you base your vote on criteria for which they lack regard. I suppose they feel it would make for a better world if you followed their advice. Certainly, they don't have empirical evidence to back that up, but how could they? It seems reasonable on the surface, though I tend to shy away from making conclusions that can't be proven or disproven myself. And I recognize that the myriad of factors that would likely make such research impossible also makes the subject matter itself extremely convoluted. So I'm satisfied with shrugging and saying, maybe, maybe not. But calling what they said a fallacy and claiming there is no way to more closely approach "voting intelligently" seems every bit as unsupported, only you're talking like what you're saying is fact.

[Dan]

Ronald Reagan's running for President? Hot dog, and I was thinking of sitting this one out!

I noted in my example that I was referring to the choice voters faced in 1984. How is it possible that a professional political writer was confused by something as simple as that?

The problem is that Reagan in his second term didn't take a "hard line" on the Soviets; indeed, much to the dismay of many of his followers, he took a "soft line" and actually negotiated with them.

If "continuing the military buildup, funding anti-Soviet guerillas, and constantly diplomatically haranguing the Soviets... but actually negotiating with them on some things" counts as "taking a soft line", then I'm not sure what the heck you'd call the liberal position of the time. This was the era when things like unilateral nuclear disarmament, an end to funding of anti-Soviet dissidents and militias, and a dramatic scaling-down of the military were all extremely popular within the Democratic Party.

Basically, if Reagan qualifies as "soft on Communism", then Mondale can only be described as "actively serving the interests of the USSR". The intelligent choice for any person who placed a high priority on opposition to the USSR was Reagan, simply because, however "soft" he might have been, Mondale was dramatically "softer".

Let's note that you haven't actually countered Tim's argument, you simply threw a few insults his way.

What is this "Tim's argument" to which you refer? Because all he's done in this thread is offer an unsupported and unexplained assertion and then duck a question about it.

[Deemo]

I think everyone is losing sight of the main point, which is that Sean Penn is an exceptional jackass.

[Mr. Hand]

That was my skull! I'm so wasted!

[Eric II]

"Given an incalculable number of variables and only two "realistic" voting options, following the campaigns and issues closely brings you no closer to voting intelligently than does voting for the incumbent, picking the Rolling Stone cover boy, flipping a coin, consulting your dream journal, or fantasizing about which one would win a wet he-shirt contest."

The same argument, more or less, has often been made regarding the stock market over the years. But while almost no one can claim to have a perfect record, the fact remains that some people have done a pretty good job over the years of picking the right companies. So it goes with politics. Being knowledgable about the issues is no guarantee of having better than 50:50 success in your voting decisions from the perspective of your own interests, but it at least gives you a chance.

Of course, this is all coming from someone who's staying out of "the market" altogether this year, at least unless I'm provided a way to sell candidates short.

[Young Demopublican]

The thing about Bush is, you don't really have to know a lot about him to know you don't want him.

You see him stammer and stutter and smirk and misunderconstrue the language as he vomits up one or another of his talking points, and you realize there is nothing behind that man's eyes whatsoever.

A pathetic coked-out borderline retard.

With Kerry, you actually have to get to know what he's for to realize you don't want him, but Bush makes it a lot easier, so in that regard he should be hailed for simplifying the voting somewhat.

[opus]

The point is when Sean Penn was these guys age he did worse crap and now just because he manged to get someone pregnant he feels he has all the answers. What is the word for that?

[Joe L.]

A number of observations:
Mr Cavanaugh: A few words, "interest aggregation at the national level", "Transitively ordered hierarchies" and "analysis of the probabilities of success" all yield intelligent voting with important caveats.
I believe Mr. Penn has entered into a conspiracy with the makers of "Team America" to increase ticket sales by writing this lame lettre. Surely no one is stupid enough to believe that this sort of thing will NOT encourage them? I can only conclude that he is getting .5% of the gate for writing it.
Finally, if he isn't get a taste of the gate, I pray that Messrs. Parker, Stone and Miller and Ms. Madonna/Esther show up at his house and give him the beat down he so richly deserves.

[Andrew Lynch]

Why are we talking about Ronald Reagan? I thought this post was about puppets and Sean Penn's normative moralism (kinda novel for a vapid Lefty, eh?).

[Wise Old Fart]

I'm guessing that Tim's point is that no matter how well you inform yourself about the candidate you vote for, he may still disappoint you if elected. Yeah, so? What do you want, perfect choices and absolute certainty in this world? Grow up.

[Ken Shultz]

Joe L.,

I might believe that Sean Penn is smart enough to join in such a devious conspiracy if only he hadn't gone on that fact finding mission. What a dupe!

Andrew Lynch,

Dan seems to be fascinated with the Reagan Administration. He tries to regurgitate little snippets of information he's heard or something, but he usually only gets them half right. Don't discourage him; it's hilarious.

[J. Goard]

One has to consider that in a large count, there will be, surrounding the objective tie, a lot of non-tie results that will ultimately be decided by judges and other power players who are, in effect, able to use the margin of error to their advantage. On either end of this region, there will be a considerable fuzzy zone where your one vote ever-so-slightly affects the dynamics of the contested election. And in this case, because the relevant consequences of your vote are subtle effects on the cognitions of these significant players in the recount process, your vote might actually harm your choice. I admit, it's pretty implausible intuitively to deny that, on average, one's vote will be an infinitesimal help rather than an infinitesimal harm to one's choice, but jeez -- I derive far more expected benefit from the time saved punching 88 instead of 90 on the microwave.

The goal here is not nihilism, but a clear understanding that large-scale democracy is inescapably a circus of misincentives. Freer societies *actually* thrive because of their stable systems of local morality, enforced at many levels of social organization. There isn't one type, or even a finite number, of such systems. Some measure of democracy seems essential to such systems, probably because of its safety-valve function: transparently lethal representatives will be removed right away.

[J. Goard]

One has to consider that in a large count, there will be, surrounding the objective tie, a lot of non-tie results that will ultimately be decided by judges and other power players who are, in effect, able to use the margin of error to their advantage. On either end of this region, there will be a considerable fuzzy zone where your one vote ever-so-slightly affects the dynamics of the contested election. And in this case, because the relevant consequences of your vote are subtle effects on the cognitions of these significant players in the recount process, your vote might actually harm your choice. I admit, it's pretty implausible intuitively to deny that, on average, one's vote will be an infinitesimal help rather than an infinitesimal harm to one's choice, but jeez -- I derive far more expected benefit from the time saved punching 88 instead of 90 on the microwave.

The goal here is not nihilism, but a clear understanding that large-scale democracy is inescapably a circus of misincentives. Freer societies *actually* thrive because of their stable systems of local morality, enforced at many levels of social organization. There isn't one type, or even a finite number, of such systems. Some measure of democracy seems essential to such systems, probably because of its safety-valve function: transparently lethal representatives will be removed right away.

[Jason Bourne]

Dan,

If "continuing the military buildup, funding anti-Soviet guerillas, and constantly diplomatically haranguing the Soviets... but actually negotiating with them on some things"...

Who are you quoting? Yourself? If so, that's just stupid.

Basic civics lessons: the Congress funds things, not the President (be it with regard to the military build-up or the funding of some guerilla groups - which is why the Sandinistas were de-funded). The Soviets also harangued us constantly. No, President Reagan was pretty adept at ignoring the hardliners and negotiating with the Soviets, much to our collective benefit. Indeed, if had actually sided with the hardliners in his cabinet, he would have ignored their overtures.

What is this "Tim's argument" to which you refer?

That's fairly clear. All you've done is defend a troll.

[J. Goard]

Sorry about that double-posting. BTW, yes, Sean Penn is a dick, and Trey and Matt rock.

[Dan]

No, President Reagan was pretty adept at ignoring the hardliners and negotiating with the Soviets, much to our collective benefit

As I explained, regardless of how "soft" you personally may feel Reagan was, he was still tougher on the Soviets than Mondale. Which means that he was the intelligent choice for any 1984 voter who valued firm opposition to the Soviet Union. This is why the historical record is not filled with late-80s examples of anti-Soviet hardliners wishing Mondale had won the election. So your mildly amusing attempt to spin Reagan as something other than an anti-Soviet hardliner is cute, but it's not really relevant to the point I made.

It was possible for people who valued low taxes, strong opposition to the USSR, and a stronger military to make an intelligent decision about which candidate to support, just as it was possible for people who favored a non-confrontational approach with higher taxes, increased social spending, and a reduced military to make the intelligent decision that Mondale would best serve their interests.

"What is this "Tim's argument" to which you refer?"

That's fairly clear.

Feel free to quote from it. It's not anywhere in this thread, and I'm not really in the mood to google.

[Pro Libertate]

To stray slightly off topic (or maybe not), I've been reading a lot lately about the economic theory against voting. It's not anything new, but plenty of people seem to be mentioning it, probably because the choices seem so bad to many of us (what else is new?). However, I think there's a fallacy buried in this theory, one that actually damages those of us with libertarian leanings. Who, demographically, is most likely to refrain from voting? Your single vote may make no difference and may not be worth missing that trip to the Dairy Queen for, but if people who share your political leanings are doing the same thing. . . . Hmmmm.

Obviously, my observation doesn't change the fact that any single vote is usually of minuscule importance. Still, it's little surprise that we keep moving away from limited government and other libertarian ideals, given that we libertarian types are probably the most likely to abstain come election time. I don't have data to support that belief, but it makes intuitive sense. People who think that civil society and the real world are what matter and not the Beltway are probably less interested in the government anyway, and their frustration level and resultant apathy is likely to be much higher, too.

I was rather struck by this issue when I read the latest edition of Reason, which polled a number of public figure types on how they had voted in the past and how they would vote. A bunch seemed to follow the "what the hell would I vote for" mentality.

In any event, my vote certainly does count, because I live in Florida. Suckers!

[Warren]

Pro,
Jesus H Christ! How fucking retarded can a man get. If the 2k election taught you nothing else, you should have still clued into the fact that your vote can never count for anything. If ever there is a chance that it could, they pick the winner by some other method.

[Bill]

Tim's comment is too vague to criticize effectively, so I won't even try (much). I agree with Parker and Stone. Why? Well, would you go to a doctor or some random guy on the street for medical advice? Would you take your car to an experienced mechanic or an accountant? If you are concerned about the federal government's economic policies, shouldn't you vote for the candidate that is the more economically literate? If you're uninformed about economics and the candidates' positions concerning economics, how do you choose? I've spent time studying economics and the candidates' positions on economics and I find both Bush and Kerry lacking. Bush's rhetoric is better than Kerry's, but his governance is lacking. Kerry's rhetoric is worse than Bush's, but he may simply be trying to appeal to his economically illiterate voter base. Both candidates are either bad on economics or just plain inscrutable. So, I will vote for neither Bush nor Kerry, and I'll give my single--nearly infinitesimal--vote to the Libertarian party in hope that it gains more political influence in the long run.

Maybe this is what Tim's getting to: We don't really know what one or both of the candidates will do if elected president. (This is true even for Bush. We know his current record as president, but because he can't run for a third term, he may govern differently in his second than he did in his first.) Since we don't really know how they'll govern, we have as much chance as the next guy to cast a "valid vote" or "vote intelligently". (I'm still not sure what exactly he means by these phrases. Any philosophical discussion is practically useless without the use of well-defined terms.)

[Pro Libertate]

That's Mr. Libertate to you, Warren 🙂

Frankly, I think most of the hoopla over Florida is amazingly overblown. The 2000 election was an extremely close one that actually mattered. So some flaws inherent in the system showed up, because a handful of votes were signficant. Big deal. The fact is, the governments in most states have made decisions just like those made in Florida--get it mostly right for a reasonable cost, because perfection is too expensive and is unobtainable, anyway.

I voted Libertarian, so I can safely say that I didn't give two bits about whether Gore or Bush won. That said, the only party that had the means to affect that election was the one making all of the noise. I'm actually quite appalled at the willingess of Democrats to buy the idea that the election was fixed or stolen. Since they controlled the process in virtually every affected county, how exactly was it the Republicans' fault? Vague references to the governor and the secretary of state notwithstanding, there's simply no reasonable evidence of tampering. I think we've got some problems--double registration (voters registered in FL and in other states) and the felon lists come to mind, but that hardly justifies attempting to undermine people's faith in the electoral process. I would think the truth would be more important than partisan spin on matters like this, but I've always been one to underestimate such things.

On the bright side, our robot overlords should be running the country within a decade or so. Since this comment will be cached somewhere when they rise to power, let me be the first to hail their enlightened leadership.

[Pro Libertate]

I've applied Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to politics. You can either adopt the position of a "political object", or you can see through its spin of the facts, but you can't do both. Yuck, yuck.

[Bill]

I'll take the robot overlords over the Democrats and Republicans any day!

[Stevo]

Adam: "cross dressers? they've always been dressed like dudes when I see 'em.. am i missing something?"

I read somewhere (possibly in one of the linked articles) that they* once attended the Oscars dressed as Gwyneth Paltrow and Jennifer Lopez.

*Parker and Stone, not Bush and Gore.

[Stevo]

Getting back to Penn vs. Team America (and what a great name for a court case that would be) I just have this to say: I for one am sick unto death of hearing actors and entertainers pontificate about geopolitics as if they had some special insights to offer. SHUT UP, get naked, sing, make me laugh, or whatever it is you do, just SHUT UP. You know NOTHING! And Sting, you're not a rain forest biologist, either.

So I am very pleased to see Penn, Jeanine Garofaolo, etc. get smacked upside the head by this movie.

[Stevo]

OK, I have one more thing to say.

Sean Penn may be an idiot, but I have to give him props for one thing: When he was married to Madonna, allegedly during a tiff he once tied her to a chair for nine hours so he could do Bad Things to her. As it happens, this has long been something I've dreamed of doing to Madonna myself.

Except, I hasten to add, I wouldn't slap her around like Penn allegedly did. No ... I have much more ... innnnnteresting ... things in mind for Ms. Madonna.

Aah. Things involving flavored lotions ... a medium-sized sable paint-brush ... a rubber spatula ... chopsticks ... and remote-controlled vibrating panties.

Bwah. Bwah ha. Bwa ha ha ha ha. BWA HA HA HA HA -- LIGHTNING/THUNDER: K-K-KK-KRAKKK-KRAK-KaPOWW!-- HA HA HA HAAAAA...!

(Have I shared too much?)

[eponymous]

i'm persuaded by fyodor and wise old fart that our beloved 'web editor' just outed himself as a miseducated, self-annointed (absorbed?) 'critical thinker', confusing logic jargon with soothsaying and once again betraying the leftward decline of this outlet

[too many steves]

Opus: the answer to your question is "Douche", or "DoucheBag" when writing or in other formal settings.

And, yes, Sean Penn has nicely offered himself as the latest real life example.

[Ken Shultz]

"i'm persuaded by fyodor and wise old fart that our beloved 'web editor' just outed himself as a miseducated, self-annointed (absorbed?) 'critical thinker', confusing logic jargon with soothsaying and once again betraying the leftward decline of this outlet"

Just because someone has, for instance, read everything there is to read on a given topic, doesn't mean that the person in question has mastered the topic. Understanding the topic makes assumptions about a reader's intelligence, reading comprehension, etc. Hence, suggesting that the uninformed idiot may not do any better or any worse than the highly informed idiot doesn't seem particularly controversial to me.

When you used the term "leftward decline", surely you didn't mean that Hit & Run is adopting the domestic policy of the left. Are you simply pointing out that you were in favor of the War in Iraq and you haven't yet changed your mind?

[Hank Reardon]

This is insane, I'm reading voting advice from a Nader voter who claims to respect free markets. Tim should do what most of the other Reason writers are planning to do, STAY HOME!

[Pro Libertate]

Great to have you aboard, Bill. However, I should warn you that I doubt the robot overlords will be in any way libertarian.

Re-reading my posts from the extreme "this morning", I note that I really shouldn't post after midnight--a lawyer making physics/political jokes? Egad. Of course, I think I was in a better mental place than Stevo, who indeed has shared entirely too much 😉

[Dan H.]

Let's be clear: The only reason the "Rock the Vote" people are working this campaign is because they believe that ignorant young people will vote for their guy.

It's the same for any 'get out the vote' campaign, whether it's "Motor Voter", or an attempt to reach Hispanics, or whatever. Loook at the democraphics and likely voting habits of the group being reached for, and you can predict the ideology of those working the campaign. It's really that simple. No one thinks that uneducated young people who don't care will improve the quality of the vote. They just think they'll pull the lever for their guy.

If Rhesus Monkeys tended to vote Democrat because they like the look of the letter 'K', Democrats would be lobbying to have the Rhesus vote accepted.

On the other hand, military people tend to be above-average educated, involved in the issues, and have a personal stake in the outcome. They've also shown a willingness to place the needs of the state above their own. In other words, they make fine voters. But you can bet the Democrats will do everything they can to exclude military votes this year wherever they can get away with it, just as they tried to do in 2000, for one reason - the military votes for Bush by about a 20% margin. Or if you believe the Army Times survey, by a 4-1 margin.

[ajay]

On the other hand, military people tend to be above-average educated, involved in the issues, and have a personal stake in the outcome. They've also shown a willingness to place the needs of the state above their own. In other words, they make fine voters.

That's some damn fine libertarian sentiments right there. I'd heard of the Reagan Democrats, but never the Heinlein Libertarians.
Does the "fine voters" thing apply to other dedicated government employees with above-average educations as well? Like, say, teachers? Which way are the teachers' unions going this time?
And does this mean that the votes of the best-educated are somehow "finest"? Like people with advanced degrees? University faculty?

You listen to this point. The "quality" of the vote of an unemployed black high-school dropout (or "Rhesus monkey" as you may prefer to call them) is exactly the same as the "quality" of the vote of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is "one vote." And if you're worried that the uneducated, the poor and the unemployed may not like your policies, then I suggest you change your policies, not try to discourage them from voting at all.

[Stevo]

Let's be clear: The only reason the "Rock the Vote" people are working this campaign is because they believe that ignorant young people will vote for their guy.

It's the same for any 'get out the vote' campaign, whether it's "Motor Voter", or an attempt to reach Hispanics, or whatever.

I dunno about all voter drives, but the "Rock the Vote" and the "Motor Voter" apathetic/lazy/slacker recruitment efforts are what I'd call a "sheep roundup."

Or maybe I'm just posting-while-tired again.

Of course, I think I was in a better mental place than Stevo, who indeed has shared entirely too much 😉

Gah! I have brought much shame and dishonor upon my mother's basement -- er, ancestral evil lair!

[Stevo]

(Don't really live in my mother's basement.)

(Just in case any hot chicks are lurking around this libertarian Web site looking for dudes to mack on. Hot chicks do that, you know.)