A happy Thursday to you, even though this post is going to be focused on some of the saddest news you'll ever receive.

However, before I talk about China, I have to talk about just how celebratory the mood was here yesterday. Obviously there is more work to be done, but just the introduction of a viable comprehensive clean energy and climate plan in the Senate is a huge deal. There are hurdles, yes, but we wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case.

Here is all of the information you'll ever need to know, from Senator John Kerry's office. There are links to a summary, full bill text and other good bits.

One of the biggest parts is the ability for states to opt-out of offshore drilling, something I watched a Fox News contributor berate this morning. Funny, it was fine when we were talking about health care...Considering the damage currently occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, it would be hard to tell a state it has to accept drilling of its shores. This only applies to work done within 75 miles.

And speaking of the Gulf; need a reason this legislation is needed? How about this video, finally released yesterday:



That is what 210,000 gallons (estimated) pumped straight into the ocean looks like.

The fallout from that spill continues today, as representatives from the companies involved head back to the Hill for more hearings. Yesterday may have been the most revealing day since the explosion, as the type of things that lead to criminal charges began to come to light. If a failed test really was ignored, well, there will be 11 wrongful death suits to start with. And that question of whether one of these companies will, "pay all legitimate claims" goes out the window. They'll pay whatever claim is put in front of them. They'll have to.

--

This chart, released by PEW last week, has been the target of some interesting criticism by people I know, not because of it's accuracy, but because it scares them.
What it shows are the feelings of 18-29 year olds toward certain words, which the pollsters obviously hope they equate to real things. The criticism has been around the words "socialism" and "capitalism". Notice that the age group in question is equally positive toward both words.

Here is the predictable reaction of one blogger:

"And by the way, for young voters who happen to be on the Left, it's all about feelings and not about reality. How much intellect does it take to scream, "Tax the rich!" whenever the budget is about to be cut?

The entire mentality of young people is intellectually lazy. They won't be calling for the government to tax the rich when they're the ones raking in the dough in a matter of years. It's a temporary belief system, and it's a feel-good belief system.

It takes no intellectual depth to be on the Left when you're in college. None. It's cause after cause, and always against rich, evil Republicans or powerful corporations. And if not that, it's a cause to stop global warming."

He actually wrote that in response to a question I asked him about whether his constant statements that, "most Americans don't want President Obama's programs," are false, given the evidence. This alone, obviously, does not answer that question.

Then I re-read that this morning and realized just how ridiculous it sounds. First, I'm assuming he is still only talking about "liberals" when he says, "the entire mentality of young people is intellectually lazy," given that he is a college senior. I also like how he makes it sounds like youth just find themselves on the left for "cause after cause," as if they maybe didn't want to be there. I wonder what he would say about me, a rather moderate, I'd like to think intellectual, Democrat who has never stood in the middle of a protest screaming "tax the rich." I also find it funny that many of the people he often criticizes are in fact the children of upper or upper-middle class parents, considering he attends the University of Washington.

But the thing that really gets me, the amazingly backwards thing about politics, is in that last paragraph. "It's cause after cause, and always against rich, evil Republicans or powerful corporations." If that is so true, why is it that Republicans spend so much time painting "liberals" as elitist, rich snobs that just want to take people's money and redistribute it? These people are also rich, so one of the arguments doesn't work, most likely the one about not understanding the tax bracket.

Oh, but we're talking about youth - forgot. As I am amazed the writer didn't point out, the people who stand in Red Square on UW's campus, screaming about the mistreatment of animals or abuses of Nike, tend to not vote. They are usually put off by the political system and the "man". It is the reason Democrats don't win every state and national election.

Consider this: the 18-29 electorate is about 50 million strong right now. In 2020, that number is expected to be around 90 million. Those are people eligible to vote - the population is higher. For comparison, less than 120 million people voted in the 2008 election. You do the math. This generation, if it ever wanted to, could dominate elections.

Yet it doesn't. In 2008, the youth vote increased by one percent - some one million people - not insignificant, but not good enough. The likelihood of that number increasing again seems slim. However, let me go back to the original points.

There are certainly members of this group who will see their views become more conservative. Money can do that to people. One NHL player was once asked what party he was going to vote for, and he responded by saying he is social liberal, but "do you know what tax bracket I'm in?" However, the vast majority of these people are not going to be in that tax bracket - you know, the top one percent of people. So that argument is falsely premised.

I'd also argue that it doesn't take much intellect to scream, "cut taxes, let me spend my own money." Americans spent their own money so well that they bought houses they couldn't afford, defaulted, and watched the economy go into free fall. You think that was the fault of regulation? I give you the criminal charges filed against financial firms and the investigation beginning in New York. Clearly it wasn't watched closely enough. I'm sure you can find a way to blame Bill Clinton for that though.

His last line was even more amazing: "I really am glad young people don't vote more." I wish he'd have just gone all the way and said, "I wish only conservatives voted because their the only ones who understand how the world works." That way he could really always say, "see, most Americans don't want," this or that. He also said that conservatives, "actually like to have rational debates and discussions."

It never ceases to amaze me when conservatives call liberals "elitist," but stupid at the same time. I suppose liberals do it too, given that they refer to conservatives as rich, greedy, well, you get the point. These people are not the conservative base. That would be poor, rural America. Why do you think conservatives win the South? The money votes Democrat - including quite a bit Wall Street in the last election, I might add.

Anyway, that was more of a free-write than I expected it to be, but the point was clear, I think. By most estimates, the 18-29 age group will dominate the electorate pretty soon. That group will have grown up with environmentalism, the media, and two Democratic presidents with significant domestic policy resumes, while the lone Republican will always been know for two wars (fair or not). Let's face, I don't remember the first Bush.

But mostly, they aren't stupid, liberal, conservative or otherwise. No generation will be as educated or as exposed to the world. Information will be available as it has ever been, as will wealth. Interestingly, many experts look at today's "weak" economy and point out that, for those with jobs, it is actually doing well and improving. Not so much for those without them. In other words, the gap continues to widen. No generation stands to be more affected by this dynamic. Nor will any age group have more of an ability to affect it.

The ability to speak rationally has nothing to do with political party - irrational thought is probably the nature of politics and religion. It is all emotional. I've never met a young conservative who actually listens to someone who disagrees with them without at some point saying something along the lines of, "you're crazy." Never. On the same token, liberals would say something like, "you hate poor people."

Really got away from that graph, huh? Well here's my final point: let's not forget this age group extends to 29. Not all of these people are green, 18-year old college students. Many have been working for years. If most people reach their lifelong political beliefs by 30, these people are pretty close. I wouldn't write them off as "intellectually lazy college students." Quite frankly, that sounds pretty intellectually lazy to me.

--

Couple other things:

- There was another brutal attack at a Chinese school yesterday, with seven people murdered when a man went into the school and stabbed them. The Chinese government has commissioned higher security at schools across the country, while continuing to produce only sparse media reports that have not led to any less copycat attempts.

- A plane crash in Libya that killed 103 people, spared one life, that of a nine year old child.

- Rep. Norm Dicks has begun his behind the scenes push for the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee. As long as the Dems hold on to the House majority, he is expected to take that seat.

- Afghan President Hamid Karzai is in town. Make of it what you will.

Another dark and dreary day here in Washington. At least Felix Hernandez is on the hill in Baltimore in a couple of hours.