christianh4
   
I'm a journalist hailing from Minnesota. I'm the Editor-in-Chief of AudioSuede.com http://www.audiosuede.com
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • christianh4

      39) Though Democrats talk about New York and California as their best strongholds in presidential elections, Minnesota actually has voted Democrat the most of any state in the union, including every presidential election since 1976. It says a lot when you’re the only state that voted for Walter Mondale. 40) Minneapolis! Home of:
      The Replacements
      Doomtree
      Brother Ali
      Rhymesayers Entertainment (Atmosphere, Eyedea and Abilities, etc.)
      The Hold Steady
      Trampled By Turtles
      Polica
      Har-Mar Superstar
      and many more. 41) Minneapolis!! Named the Most Gay-Friendly City in America by The Advocate in 2011. 42) Minneapolis!!! Home of one of America’s coolest mayors, R.T. Rybak. He crowdsurfs, hosts radio shows, posts movie reviews on Facebook, and is generally a great all-around guy. 43) Minnesota elected America’s first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison. 44) Like Charlie Brown? From Minnesota (Charles Schultz was born in St. Paul) 45) Two 2012 National Book Award Winners (William Alexander, who won the award for Young People’s Literature, and Louise Erdrich, who won the big prize) are from Minnesota. They’re a part of a long tradition of great Minnesota literature. 46) Mad Men’s Harry Crane (Rich Sommer) was raised, went to school, and started his acting career in Minnesota. He joins such cinema stars as Winona Ryder, Terry Gilliam, Josh Hartnett, Steve Zahn, Richard Dean Anderson, the guys from Mystery Science Theater 3000/Rifftrax, Rachel Leigh Cook, John (f***ing) Hawkes, Peter Krause, Garett Hedlund, Chris “Andy Dwyer” Pratt, Seann William Scott, Nick Swardson, Vince Vaughn, and Cedric Yarbrough as one of the great thespians born and/or raised in Minnesota. 47) Minnesota is the setting for many amazing films and TV shows, including Juno, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Mallrats, Grumpy Old Men, Young Adult, Purple Rain, Little Big League, Contagion, Little House on the Prairie, and Coach. Just to add to your list a bit.

    • christianh4

      I think the issue is less about race and more about economic divides, and the fact is, poverty rates would only worsen under a Republican president who would lower taxes on high-income earners, putting a greater burden on the working poor to pay for social programs, then let the depleting tax revenues act as an excuse to cut unemployment benefits, welfare, social security, Medicare, food stamps, and other programs that benefit the poor in those communities that are hurting the most. In terms of pure economics, Obama has done more to help those stricken with poverty than any president since Johnson.

    • christianh4

      That has happened literally twice in the history of American presidential elections. That doesn’t even qualify as a trend. Mind you, I’m not saying it’s wrong; it may well turn out that minority voters only turn out for minority candidates (though I think it’s more likely that these last two elections had a higher turnout thanks to a much more divergent split between the candidates on socio-economic issues which would have disproportionately affected minority voters who thus voted in larger numbers than previously seen to defend their interests). But saying it as a fact based on the evidence is a bit premature.

    • christianh4

      As a lifelong Democrat, I think the likelihood of a Democratic successor to Barack Obama other than Hilary Clinton is very poor, for several reasons: 1) The best non-Hilary candidates are all too young and inexperienced
      -While President Obama came into office with little national political experience, he was shown to be a bright and forward-thinking candidate who surrounded himself with experienced staff to buffer him from the mistakes many young presidents have made historically. Most of the truly exciting Democrats coming up, like Corey Booker, are either too young, too local (mayor of Newark is hardly a national job), or both. The only Democrats with strong enough credentials, a widely known national presence, and the money power to get even close are Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Biden, all previously-run candidates who failed to reach the White House in the past. 2) The Republicans have some very talented competitors in their camp if they can just pick one that isn’t terrible.
      -A look at the list of Republicans who could run for president in 2016 shows three immediately daunting names: Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Chris Christie. Petraeus would have been a strong candidate before the sex scandal and could be again when time heals his wounds. The only thing working against a candidate like Rice would be the Republican Party’s vocal fringe elements who clamor for younger, far more partisan candidates like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, or Rand Paul, or big-money names like Rudy Giuliani, Jeb Bush, or Newt Gingrich. 3) Successful Democrats make the public feel like they’re comfortable and don’t need things like social entitlements and New Deal economics.
      -When a Democrat does their job well, historically, the public gets lulled into a sense of financial security that can only be protected by electing fiscal conservatives, who then crash the economy until another Democrat is elected to clean things up, and so the cycle repeats. With rising job numbers and strong economic turnaround, President Obama may be the latest to do his job well enough that people forget why they elected him in the first place, and go with someone from the other party, who will then lead us into another recession that only a Democrat, like, say, Corey Booker, can fix in 2020 or 2024.

    • christianh4

      I will agree with you on the point that this generation is different than generations past, but really that’s true of every generation. But it’s not a question of what makes them different, it’s a question of whether that difference is somehow reflected in an increase in teen suicide or depression or drama, and I just don’t see it. For every kid who’s dealing with drama in their circles of friends because of the amplification of social media, there are even more kids who have stronger connections to their friends and acquaintances and realize that they have more people to live for than themselves.  I can’t say definitively that it’s not causing other issues for kids to deal with, but I wouldn’t demonize social networking for what this girl and other kids like her have dealt with. It all comes back to human behavior and the way teens act in general, in the real world and on the internet. Emotionally, I think it’s all roughly the same.

    • christianh4

      I obviously think prevention of depression is one of the most important goals we can have for our children, and would absolutely seek every avenue for that end. But the fact is that there are people who are looking for someone to notice them, especially when they’re going through an episode like this girl was, and at that point ridiculing or mocking them is the exact opposite of the right thing to do.  For every person who says they’re going to kill themselves for attention or just so someone will tell them they’re okay and deserve to live, some of them are going to actually go through with it. I’m saying, what’s so noble about mocking a girl talking about suicide when you could just as easily use the time spent being an awful excuse for a human to encourage her to get help, to talk to someone, or to at the very least distract her so she’ll take the time to re-consider her actions.  What big tough people there are in internet comment threads, standing so tall above someone crying for help. So cool. So smart. Meanwhile there are people who are struggling to justify their existence who just want someone to notice that they’re there, and while you’re judging them, you’re just making the problem worse.

    • christianh4

      Are you arguing that Twitter made this girl suicidal? Because that literally makes no sense at all. It still comes down to the people with whom they’re interacting. If the people in their social networks are treating them in such a way that it makes them suicidal, absolutely that’s not okay, but then it’s not the social networks’ fault. The amount of drama in the lives of teenagers is no greater than its ever been, there’s just more public record of it. If anything, you could argue that social media enables people who are contemplating suicide to have an outlet through which they can make a public cry of help, which, while it may be a vessel for their suicidal behavior, allows their fear and need to be seen by the people who would be most immediately invested in and able to help. This girl basically wrote “help me” on a public space for her friends to see instead of wallowing alone in her room without that communication, where she could have done the same thing and no one would have known until it was too late. I’m not saying it’s a solution either, but the notion that it’s a cause is a bit hyperbolic.

    • Response to :
      christianh4

      I literally don’t know anyone, including any of the Republicans I know and work with, who thought Romney won the debate. The most hardcore right-wing types said it was a tie and Romney was on defense a lot. And that’s the guaranteed Romney vote bloc. I get you have to spin for your side, but let’s not stand on bullshit and call it fact.

    • christianh4

      In the last few years they devolved into trolls, baiting real news outlets with their smash-and-grab headlines and awful editorial coverage. I had a subscription to Newsweek for a full year, and I very rarely was satisfied with the extent of their journalistic investigation, and was almost always disappointed with their headline-grabbing antics. Probably for the best they’re sticking to the internet, where the trolls can troll them back.