A four-year-old's fiscal priorities
January 30, 2007 5:11 PM   Subscribe

A four-year-old girl (YouTube 1:26) is interviewed about her views of various hypothetical budgetary allocations. It is called "A SOTU Response," but it isn't really directly related to the SOTU. Via Plastic.
posted by textilephile (44 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
and goodnight to you little girl , who looks as confused as i feel.
posted by nola at 5:18 PM on January 30, 2007


SLVOE?
posted by cortex at 5:19 PM on January 30, 2007


This video is a catastrophic success.
posted by The God Complex at 5:21 PM on January 30, 2007


SOTrU
posted by hal9k at 5:26 PM on January 30, 2007


What am I supposed to be getting out of this? I was expecting funny, at least.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:38 PM on January 30, 2007


And what if I told you that I was going to flag this post and encourage others to do the same? How would that make you feel?
posted by xod at 5:47 PM on January 30, 2007


What if I told you that using loaded questions to solicit obvious responses from a four-year-old is not a valid or useful form of political analysis?
posted by sindark at 5:55 PM on January 30, 2007


Ugh. Adults using small children to make a political point. This is disgusting.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:59 PM on January 30, 2007


What if I told you that using loaded questions to solicit obvious responses from a four-year-old is not a valid or useful form of political analysis?

Sindark, you're really harshing my mellow. I had big plans for my L'il Bears Pre-school/Thinktank.

(Geez. Some of you people are taking this way too seriously. I don't think they were aiming for a spot in Foreign Policy Journal. It's a little harmless YouTubery. I liked it, textilephile.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:29 PM on January 30, 2007


Exceedingly lame.
posted by odinsdream at 6:34 PM on January 30, 2007


lame
posted by empath at 6:44 PM on January 30, 2007


Having to look up your little abbreviations is far more annoying than figuring out for myself what this link was about.
posted by wigu at 6:47 PM on January 30, 2007


IYKWIM.
posted by cortex at 7:33 PM on January 30, 2007


GYOBF

Flagged.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:41 PM on January 30, 2007


Surely not even in the same league with The Right using aborted babies or the "gay marriage referendum" to dupe the middle class into voting for Republicans.

How else would Republicans get elected in a country where 1% control most of the wealth?
posted by wfc123 at 7:48 PM on January 30, 2007


WOW NOW I THINK DIFFERENT ABOUT THINGS
posted by Falconetti at 8:46 PM on January 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


It would have been cool if her head started spinning around and she shouted out YOUR MOTHER SUCKS COCKS IN HELL.
posted by mijuta at 9:29 PM on January 30, 2007


I kept thinking we'd get a glimpse of the masked gunmen on either side of her but they wouldn't zoom out.
posted by hojoki at 9:45 PM on January 30, 2007



Ugh. Adults using small children to make a political point. This is disgusting.


I didn't watch the video, obviously too frightened, is he raping her?
posted by j-urb at 10:08 PM on January 30, 2007


The best thing about this link is how it pisses off people who disagree. I'm tired of arguing with, (what is it down to now?), the 15-20% of Amoreica that still supports the chimp. GFY already. Impeach now, Cheney first, waterboard later.
posted by HyperBlue at 10:28 PM on January 30, 2007


j-urb, no raping, just pooty-cyooty we hates the bads men stuff. I kind of liked it, but talk about preaching to the choir. Make a video of that kid yanking the steaming entrails from a Hilton while braying about the robber baron class, and I'll surely give you a thumbs up, and some money to boot.
posted by maryh at 11:09 PM on January 30, 2007


This seems so familiar as to be a double but I am too lazy to search for it. Wherever I saw it, I hated it then too. So I flagged it as "innapropriate use of sperm."
posted by The Deej at 11:24 PM on January 30, 2007


HyperBlue writes "The best thing about this link is how it pisses off people who disagree. "

You know what? I agree, and it still pisses me off, because it's fucking stupid. Anyone who enjoys this is admitting that our political discourse has fallen to the level of four-year-olds. If you think this is remotely interesting, you're a fucking idiot.

I sooooo want to see this post deleted. This does not belong here.

I'm flagging it for, like, the third time.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:36 PM on January 30, 2007


Shit. You can't flag a post multiple times?!
posted by mr_roboto at 11:37 PM on January 30, 2007


mr_roboto - Isn't that at least part of the point? That the level of political discourse in the States has fallen to the level of four-year-olds. I mean, the video is basically pointing out that a four-year-old can see what the Bush administration is doing is wrong, and that it will have consequences that last for years, so how is it that so many Americans still don't see it?
posted by MrMustard at 11:44 PM on January 30, 2007


The best thing about this link is how it pisses off people who disagree. I'm tired of arguing with, (what is it down to now?), the 15-20% of Amoreica that still supports the chimp. GFY already. Impeach now, Cheney first, waterboard later.

I am putting together an anthology of great political thinkers. Do you mind if include this post? Email is in profile.
posted by Falconetti at 11:46 PM on January 30, 2007


Isn't that at least part of the point? That the level of political discourse in the States has fallen to the level of four-year-olds. I mean, the video is basically pointing out that a four-year-old can see what the Bush administration is doing is wrong, and that it will have consequences that last for years, so how is it that so many Americans still don't see it?

While this is true, I don't see anything in this video that indicates that what your saying was an intended "point." Far more likely is that it was just another boring, small-minded axe-grinder who exploited his kid to make an unfunny and cloyingly sickening video preaching to the converted.
posted by Falconetti at 11:51 PM on January 30, 2007


Impeaching Bush would be a waste of time and resources. Even supposing you could do it, by the time everything's wrapped up, he'd be out of office already anyhow. And if somehow it was done quickly, then what? Then we have a President Cheney.
posted by Target Practice at 12:06 AM on January 31, 2007


The best thing about this link is how it pisses off people who disagree.

You know what? I agree, and it still pisses me off, because it's fucking stupid. Anyone who enjoys this is admitting that our political discourse has fallen to the level of four-year-olds.


Nyuh-uh! If you don't like this, it means you're a Bushie-lover! Bushie-lover!

on preview, maryh, I would love to see that.
they could put it on pay-per-view.
posted by dreamsign at 12:45 AM on January 31, 2007


This is entertaining. However, it embodies a tactic (namely, promoting a cause through completely, UTTERLY shameless sentimentalism) that the right has been using for years to trick people into supporting their cause. It's just too hypocritical to be taken seriously.

Of course, if they hadn't intended it to be taken seriously, they shouldn't have flashed a giant "IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH HIM NOW!" across the screen at the end of it. Shit like this gives the opinions expressed by it (which I agree with wholeheartedly) a bad name. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some kind of viral right-wing spin thing.
posted by tehloki at 12:46 AM on January 31, 2007


You know, bad debates are much better than mediocre youtubery.
posted by Kudos at 1:29 AM on January 31, 2007


Why does Homestar Runner stay off screen for this interview? In all his other interviews with Little Girl, you get to see him.

I smell a fake.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:54 AM on January 31, 2007


This is pretty lame.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 2:14 AM on January 31, 2007


Impeaching Bush would be a waste of time and resources. Even supposing you could do it, by the time everything's wrapped up, he'd be out of office already anyhow. And if somehow it was done quickly, then what? Then we have a President Cheney.

You know, the 'Cheney As Boogeyman' defense ('You can't impeach Bush because then Dick Cheney will EAT YOUR CHILDREN') against impeachment just isn't sound. The Senate could impeach both Bush and Cheney in one fell swoop.

At the Federal level, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. (from here.)

It's not an 'either Bush or Cheney' situation. If Bush and Cheney were impeached and convicted, then we'd have President Nancy Pelosi.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:44 AM on January 31, 2007


I wouldn't be surprised if it was some kind of viral right-wing spin thing

A classic Rovian January surprise!
posted by dorisfromregopark at 8:30 AM on January 31, 2007


Anyone who enjoys this is admitting that our political discourse has fallen to the level of four-year-olds.

But it has, hasn't it?!
posted by j-urb at 10:27 AM on January 31, 2007


j-urb writes "But it has, hasn't it?!"

I would hope that community self-policing could keep it from becoming so, but that's more of a topic for MetaTalk.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:49 AM on January 31, 2007


HyperBlue writes "The best thing about this link is how it pisses off people who disagree."

Wtf? I am throwing a motherfucking party the day that they ITMFA.

I'm pissed off at adults using kids to make political points.

MrMustard writes "I mean, the video is basically pointing out that a four-year-old can see what the Bush administration is doing is wrong"

No. The video is pointing out that a four-year-old will parrot what adults say to her.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:04 PM on January 31, 2007


No. The video is pointing out whatever the fuck the authors wanted it to point out, plus the fact that they're a little shameless. The tactic is cheap but it's not completely dishonest; they're being a little manipulative but there's truth to their questions and apparent honesty in the 4-year-old's answers.
posted by tehloki at 4:43 AM on February 2, 2007


I skipped over this, thinking it might be kind of cute, but hating political stuff.

Now I come back to it, to see if it really is cute.

It's not. It's silly. Delete-the-post silly. dirtynumbangelboy has it dead-on.

Flagged.
posted by koeselitz at 12:43 PM on February 2, 2007


dirtynumbangelboy - "No. The video is pointing out that a four-year-old will parrot what adults say to her."

Fair enough. But my point was that the aim of the video was to give the impression that even a four-year-old could see what the Bush administration is doing is wrong.
posted by MrMustard at 3:02 AM on February 5, 2007


Which is part of what makes it such a lame-o facile exercise, see.
posted by cortex at 6:37 AM on February 5, 2007


Not really, no. I wasn't debating the video's lameness (or otherwise), just stating what I thought its aim was.

Anyway, I assumed no one would read that comment being as the thread hadn't been commented on for three days. What are you doing in here anyway?
posted by MrMustard at 7:31 AM on February 5, 2007


Not really, no. I wasn't debating the video's lameness (or otherwise), just stating what I thought its aim was.

Granted. I didn't mean to imply otherwise; I meant only to underscore that the clear gap between the aim of the project and the actual achieved results is the root of the lameness and, er, facileness.

That is, it's not unclear what dude was trying to do when he pointed the camera at his kid. If it were at all nuanced or enigmatic or, you know, good, that'd help the whole show out a lot.

Anyway, I assumed no one would read that comment being as the thread hadn't been commented on for three days. What are you doing in here anyway?

The beauty of My Comments, man. Time collapses in upon itself, we will watch ceaselessly the sundered horizions, etc and so on.
posted by cortex at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2007


« Older "Second Coming"...  |  It's just a resumé for a 27 ye... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments