On the annoying youth vote, and more.

Complaining Is for Earnest People

It is a truism of American politics that an election cycle is not an election cycle without its fair share of harebrained pseudo-scandals. But the latest might prompt observers to reclassify the Silly Season as the Stupid Season. At issue: the sale of a cheeky T-shirt that reads "Voting Is for Old People."

Stocked by Urban Outfitters and the creation of John Keddie, who helms vintagevantage.com (where the shirt is also for sale), the apathy-championing T-shirt has managed to unite chin-tuggers of all stripes. The lads at punkvoter.com squealed as if a nerve had been hit during a particularly painful septum-piercing. Al Jourgensen of the group Ministry wrote in a letter to Urban Outfitters, "I am shocked and appalled at your recklessness. Your T-shirt is knowingly irresponsible." And those rock'n'roll cads at Harvard's Institute of Politics were equally outraged. "The shirt's message could not be further from the truth," wrote the Institute's director, Dan Glickman. "We would be eager to work with you to suggest alternative products that send the right message to America's young people, and better reflect the considerable social conscience and political participation of today's youth. You might consider 'Voting Rocks!'"

You might--if you're a dork. The Washington Post reported that the Institute went on to quote John F. Kennedy, saying, "The future promise of any nation can best be measured by the present prospects of its youth." To which we respond with the wise words of Evelyn Waugh, who pronounced, "What is youth except a man or woman before it is fit to be seen."

Color us cynical, but isn't it in the republic's best interest for those who are easily swayed by T-shirt slogans not to make their voices heard on Election Day? On vintagevantage.com, Keddie writes, "It appears that taking yourself too seriously is for old and young people alike. We're calling on the Camp Cool faithful to stand by our side during this difficult, uncertain time. Ha!" THE SCRAPBOOK, a Camp Cool regular, stands with Keddie, and hopes that this shameless endorsement is good enough to win us one of his overpriced T-shirts, size XL.

Who Wants to Regulate a Billionaire?

At the dramatic conclusion to our previous episode (see David Tell's "Who's Afraid of George Soros?" in our March 8 issue), the Federal Election Commission had just issued an "advisory opinion" addressing the legality of a pending $300 million anti-Bush PR and voter-mobilization drive organized by a variety of nominally "independent" Democratic outfits. Bottom line: It appeared that much of what these so-called "527 groups" intend to do with large-dollar "soft-money" contributions from the likes of Soros might not, in fact, be legally doable.

Since then, at its March 4 meeting, the FEC voted 5-1 to proceed with a formal rulemaking project designed to clarify exactly what constitutes a "political committee" under the nation's new McCain-Feingold campaign laws. This, too, has direct bearing on the plans of Soros & Co. Should the commission eventually adopt something like the draft proposal (on which it's now inviting public comment), much of the rest of what those Democratic 527 groups intend to do with soft money might not be doable, either.

Of course, it's only a draft at this point, and no final ruling will be issued at least until May, and there could always be a lawsuit after that, and . . .

Ah, forget it. Readers interested in staying fully current and informed about these and other highly consequential abstrusities of the federal campaign code may wish to consult electionlawblog.org, the fine website put together by Loyola Law School professor Rick Hasen, whose institutional affiliation--sorry--we unaccountably fouled up in last week's issue.

Caveat Emptor

Press reports indicate the Senate Intelligence Committee is close to wrapping up its review of the accuracy of the intelligence provided the administration and Congress on Iraq's weapons programs. A key finding apparently will be that the committee has uncovered no evidence that the intelligence product was slanted as a result of pressure coming from the White House or anywhere else in the administration.

So far so good. But it also appears that the committee--under pressure from committee Democrats--will be examining whether senior administration officials accurately reflected intelligence community "caveats" about Iraq's weapons programs in their public remarks. Putting aside the fact that such an inquiry is probably beyond the scope of the committee's oversight responsibilities, it assumes the rather dubious proposition that intelligence community analysis should be the final word on matters of national security.

However, if the committee is going to go down this road, it should, as Senators Jon Kyl and Rick Santorum wrote to Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts last week, apply "that same standard" to senators who had access to the very same intelligence. And, indeed, among the more telling statements they cite as perhaps needing review is one made by the committee's own vice-chairman, Democratic senator John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia, during the floor debate over the war authorization on October 10, 2002:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier if he is able to obtain fissile materials on the outside market, which is possible--difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. . . . He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly. As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. . . . I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.

Rockefeller has taken the lead in charging the administration with ignoring the "ifs, ands, and buts" in the intelligence estimates, estimates to which he was also privy. So this is a subject he obviously knows firsthand.

Nice Work If You Can Get It

Unemployment "remained stuck at 5.6 percent in February as the economy added a paltry 21,000 positions," the AP reported on March 5. Forecasts had been for 125,000 jobs to be added. "Employers are still very, very cautious about adding bodies," said a disappointed Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock. "If you are out there looking for a job, this is bad news," he told AP.

Just a quibble, but if you are out there looking for a job, wouldn't the bad news be that 125,000 jobs had been added, but that you hadn't gotten one of them?