Engaging Students Through In-Class Technology (ESTICT) is a UK network of education practitioners and learning technologists interested in promoting good practice with classroom technologies that can enhance face-to-face teaching.

We are holding our first event on  Thursday 26th November 2009 at University of Leicester.

The aim of the day is to share best practice in the use of in-class technology, with a particular focus on the pedagogic uses of electronic voting systems (also known as ‘clickers’ audience response systems ARS, personal response systems PRS). This event is aimed at those both those with experience of EVS who wish to share their best practice and those with an interest in the technology that would like to know more.

Programme
Thursday 26 November 2009

09.30 – 10.00 Registration and coffee
10.00 – 10.15 Welcome and introduction
10.15 – 10.30 Networking event
10.30 – 11.15 Keynote : Dr. Steve Draper, Senior University Teacher, Dept of Psychology, University of Glasgow. Steve is an acknowledged expert in the field of EVS and has published widely on it’s use in Higher Education.
Title: Ways to improve learning with EVS: some deep procedures for teachers, and what
software features matter for these. Abstract.
11.15 – 11.30 coffee
11.30 – 12.00 Mark Goodwin, Teaching Fellow, GENIE CETL . ‘Teaching bioethics using electronic voting technologies’
12.00 – 12.30 Mark Russell, National Teaching Fellow and Principal Lecturer, School of Aerospace, Automotive and Design Engineering, University of Hertfordshire. ‘Tracking student progress with EVS’
12.30 – 13.30 Carvery lunch
13.30 – 14.30 Workshop : exploration of the pedagogical models which can be used EVS
14.30 – 15.00 coffee
15.00 – 15.30 Reports from workshop groups
15.30 – 16.00 The future and aims of the ESTICT community

Join the ning community for ESTICT

The tag for the event is #estict (friendfeed room which pulls feeds from blogs, twitter and delicious on #estict tag)

Hello everyone, I have some news…

Lumuhuku has been nominated for Best Personal IndiBlog Category for the year 2008.

And I am delighted to be nominated alongwith bloggers, whom I look upto. So am I good enough to win? Not at all. Just check the blogs in the category Lumuhuku has been nominated, and you will know why. They are all so terribley awesome!!

But if you can vote for me, then I will be really very thankful to you.

Here is a step by step guide to vote for Lumuhuku –

1. Click here to go to IndiBlog voting page.
2. Go to the category “Best Personal IndiBlog” (Sr. No. 16) [its way down the end of the page].
3. Find & click on the radio button in front of “Lumuhuku”.
4. Click Submit.
5. You will be asked to fill up your e-mail ID.
6. Once you submit your email ID, you will receive a confirmation mail with a link. Click on the link and that’s it. You have voted in my favour. Thanks.

And if anyone is so sweet enough to further my cause, by posting on their own blogs, then the person shall receive a really big thanks from me.

And if you want to know more about the blog’s author, you can read it in About Me section. You may also find it interesting to read about the Things that Dev wants to do before he dies.

But that section has been written a while back and I would like to add here that Dev is a Lamborghini fan, a-guy-who-always-wanted-to-play-guitar-but-could-never-do-it-actually, bookeater(!) and stock market stalker by passion. You can read a few more of his posts to know him better (if you have time to waste ) like –

Poems – I am still waiting for you, Discrete Moonlight

Travel – Desert Biking Trip, Journey To Nowhere, Aravallis Trekking, South India & 48 Hours train journey

Fun – Curse of the alarm clock, Lewis Hamilton’s Letter to Obama, Paris Hilton on Fa(K)ebook, A letter to Fernando Alonso,  Shri Shri Rock On Akhtar Ji Maharaaj’s Holy Teachings, Dream Lunch with Warren Buffet

Emotions – Love, Sacrifice is disgusting, My shadow is the only one that walks besides me.

Theories – Orbit Theory of Life

Help my cause & ….

PS – Voting has started 25^th November and will end on 10^th December 2009. The results will be announced on 15th December 2009.

VOTE HERE

Click Vote button.

Then vote. Click next after u finish voting.

You can see the result here

There is no limit. So plz keep voting!!!

Super Junior is listed as
- 2009 Artist (1st)
- 2009 Star (3rd)
- 2009 Mania (2nd)

Sorry Sorry is listed as
- 2009 Song (1st)

“Tente pensar em um elefante. Agora tente pensar em outro. Adimita: os dois eram o mesmo elefante, não eram?”

Resolvi não colocar imagens neste artigo. É melhor que você vá até o site e veja por si mesmo. Neave é um site criado pelo designer londrino Paul Neave  que dispõe de treze inusitadas, interessantes e diversificadas maneiras de se passar o tempo ocioso, se divertir ou fazer o que mais você descobrir ser possível. É provável que você se surpreenda, não só com a criatividade de Paul Neave, como também com a sua própria. A seguir um resumo do que se pode encontrar no site:

1. Flash Earth coloca à sua disposição imagens de satélite da Terra adquiridas através de múltiplas fontes, incluindo a NASA e a Microsoft.
2. Planetarium vai lhe mostrar um belo céu estrelado pelo qual você poderá rodopiar à vontade, identificar constelações e, quando tiver curiosidade, passar o mouse por cima de uma estrela para saber seu nome, sua constelação, sua magnitude e sua distância de nós.
3. Games disponibiliza remakes de jogos clássicos como Space Invaders, Tetris N-Box, Asteroids, Snake, Simon, Jogo-da-velha, Hexxagon e Frogger.
4. Imagination fará com que linhas de luz e fumaça saiam da ponta do seu mouse em um fundo preto, formando texturas e desenhos interessantes.
5. Fractal te levará em uma viagem de zoom eterno que segue os princípios de um complicado conceito matemático (sobre o qual você pode tentar saber mais aqui e aqui)
6. Television é uma televisão sem contexto. Entre color bars e chiados você assistirá a trechos randômicos de uma coisa qualquer.
7. Strobe te fará ver tudo de uma forma diferente da que você costuma ver. O Mushroom não recomenda que você dirija nem opere máqunas perigosas logo após a experiência.
8. Anaglyph dará utilidade àquele óculos 3D que você roubou de algum filme ou ganhou junto com aquela revista de dinossauros quando tinha dez anos. Com ele você poderá desenhar e escrever em três dimensões, girar e aproximar/afastar sua imagem. Se você não tem um óculos 3D, faça um: vale a pena.
9. Bounce deixa bolinhas coloridas de diferentes tamanhos na sua tela. Coloque uma música ou fale algo (requer microfone) e as bolinhas vão pular de acordo com o som.
10. Light segue o mesmo princípio de Bounce, exceto que, nele, o show é de luzes.
11. Dandelion consiste num dente-de-leão virtual que você pode soprar (requer microfone) e sacudir eternamente, pois ele sempre se renova.
12. Webcam é um conjunto de gravações interessantes feitas pelos internautas através de suas webcams com alguns efeitos que o site disponibiliza. Além de assistir, você pode se divertir com os efeitos fazendo, você mesmo, gravações (requer webcam).
13. Voting questiona e estuda o ato de votar. Nele, você se deparará com perguntas estranhas (e potencialmente engraçadas) como:

Armpit hair?

• Long and dangly
• Short and matted
• Fashioned into a small hat

que exploram fatores como a influência que a construção da pergunta exerce sobre sua resposta.

Enfim, vale muito a pena conferir o Neave, a não ser que você esteja estudando para algum vestibular ou tenha algum projeto importante para entregar no trabalho por esses dias, pois o site tomará uma parcela razoável do seu tempo. Confie no Mushroom.

]]> http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/memory-lane/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:40:39 +0000 dissentingdemocrat http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/memory-lane/

The Dissenting Democrat was reflecting back on his voting history to recall that his votes have never been a reliable indicator of electoral victory. He’s voted for the “winner” in only three of the eleven presidential elections in which he has participated: Carter in 1976, Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008. In every other election he’s been committed to “losers”.

Nevertheless, in each victory he was disappointed. By the third year of Carter’s term, the Dissenting Democrat was in Ted Kennedy’s camp urging a challenge. By the second year of Clinton’s first term, the Dissenting Democrat was already committed to Ralph Nader. And now yet in Obama’s first year, the Dissenting Democrat doubts if the nice-talking young man from the streets of Chicago will get his vote again.

In the none of the winners’ cases was the Dissenter ever an enthusiastic voter. In 1976 and in 1992, he served as an A.B.C. delegate first as “Anybody But Carter” and then as “Anybody But Clinton”. In 2008, he remained doubtful of Obama’s progressive creds despite the overwhelming media hype almost until election day itself, then he voted his hope and not his reason.

For History’s sake, but mostly for the fun of it, here are the Dissenting Democrat’s favored candidates from 1968-2008:

(* indicates the election vote, others were supported during the campaigns prior to election day)

1968:
Eugene J McCarthy
Hubert H Humphrey *

1972:
Eugene J McCarthy
Edmund Muskie
Hubert H Humphrey
George McGovern *

1976:
Walter F Mondale
Fred Harris
Mo Udall
Jerry Brown
ABC
Jimmy Carter *

1980:
Jerry Brown
Edward M Kennedy
John Anderson (INDEPENDENT)
Barry Commoner * (CITIZENS PARTY)

1984:
Walter F Mondale *

1988:
Paul Simon
Jesse Jackson
Michael Dukakis *

1992:
Jerry Brown
Larry Agran
ABC
Bill Clinton *

1996:
Ralph Nader * (GREEN PARTY)

2000:
Bill Bradley
Ralph Nader
Al Gore *

2004:
Dennis Kucinich
John Edwards
John Kerry *

2008:
John Edwards
Barack Obama *

The Dissenting Democrat is persuaded by the contention of Eugene Victor Debs who said: “I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don’t want and get it”.

We were having lunch today when we started to hear honking outside.  This by itself is not unusual, except for that they were honking in unison, which was unusual.

I poked my head outside and there was a parade of cars with posters on the sides, that stopped in front of the house.  Ana Maria said that today was some march against violence against women, so at first that’s what we thought it was about.  But turns out that it was not.

Turns out that the people were advocating for a guy to become the president of the Lima Association of Lawyers, and they were driving passed the courthouse across the street.

Professional Lawyer

It seems like one of the actions that the McCarthyists want is to limit the ability to vote to certain people. In effect, they want to designate certain groups of people as second class citizens. As far as the Constitution is concerned this would be legal as nobody has the constitutional right to vote. So the question really is how do you define who are these second class citizens.

What I propose is that we define this group as people who are not productive members of society. Basically, the only people who will be allowed to vote would be those that create useful commodities and those that promote “the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.

This definition would be win-win for the country. Not only would it deny the vote from people that the McCarthyists find undesirable, it also deny the vote from most of Wall Street. Excluding Wall Street from being allowed to vote is a good idea because they do not really produce anything of value. All they do is create bubbles which eventually drag down the economy and necessitate bail outs. Why would we want to let those people vote?

There will be side effects. It would deny the vote from the elderly. The elderly tend to be retired which mean they are not working and producing anything useful. For the McCarthyists this would not be a bad thing as they think people are retiring too early because only the wealthy should be allowed the luxury of enjoying their twilight years.

Unfortunately, this would deny the vote to those in the military. The whole raison d’etre of the military is to kill people and to destroy things. That is the polar opposite of producing things. I am sure that they would understand as we are trying to preserve the republic.

How about this… instead of trying to define who should be a second class citizens, the McCarthyists should come up with solutions to problems. Let us keep the status quo and allow anyone who is an American citizen to vote. Coincidentally, this is the same system used by the founding fathers.

The deficit problem

Dealing with America’s fiscal hole

From The Economist print edition

Don’t cut the deficit now—but explain how, eventually, you will.

Jon Berkeley

FOR years America’s fiscal problems had a surreal quality. No one disputed that an ageing population and health-care inflation could bust the budget, but that prospect was decades away and procrastination seemed painless. No longer. A giant hole has opened in the budget because of stimulus, bail-outs and a recession that has savaged economic growth and tax revenue. On current policies the publicly held federal debt, 41% of GDP last year, will double in the next decade. Total government debt will move well above the G20 average. In a few years the AAA rating of Treasury bonds, the world’s most important security, could be in jeopardy.

A sudden crisis is unlikely. Other rich countries with far bigger debts relative to the size of their economies, from Italy to Japan, have soldiered on without hitting a wall. Stable politics, transparent laws and economic dominance give America unequalled credibility with lenders. For all the anxiety the declining dollar drew from China this week, it has no serious rival as the world’s reserve currency. America has sensibly used this fiscal freedom to enact an aggressive stimulus programme. This should be maintained for as long as it is needed.

Barack Obama and Congress can pre-empt such corrosive uncertainty with a plan to reduce the deficit now. Far from requiring immediate spending cuts or tax increases, a credible plan would reassure markets and allow an orderly exit from fiscal stimulus. The Federal Reserve provides a model: it does not plan to tighten monetary policy in the near future, but has signaled its willingness to do so when inflation threatens.

Where the cutting should begin

America’s deficit problem is in essence a spending problem, so spending must bear the brunt of adjustment. An aging population and health-care inflation are inexorably driving up the cost of the country’s three big entitlements: Social Security (pensions), Medicare and Medicaid (health care for the elderly and the poor, respectively). Mr Obama has long promised that health reform would cover the uninsured without adding to the deficit, while reining in long-term costs. Unfortunately, the prospects for controlling costs are tenuous. Achieving large savings will require action on many fronts. Raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare would save money while encouraging Americans to work longer, thereby expanding economic potential. Medicaid could be converted to block grants, compelling states to assume more of the burden of cost control. Other spending should also be vigorously squeezed, to stop federal funds being wasted on highways of dubious value or trade-distorting farm subsidies.

Still, cold arithmetic suggests that spending cuts alone cannot deliver enough. Changes to entitlements take effect only gradually. And the scope for slashing non-defence discretionary spending is limited, since it makes up merely one-sixth of total outlays. So Americans are stuck with a budgetary conundrum: they seem to be opting for more government, at least in health care, yet they do not seem prepared to pay for it. Their leaders have indulged this fantasy. Mr Obama has foolishly sworn off higher taxes on 95% of households, and Republicans will not countenance them for anybody. This newspaper strongly prefers small government and low taxes, but if Americans are to have bigger government and a sustainable budget, tax revenues will have to rise.

Taxing politics

Raising tax revenue will hurt less if the tax system becomes more supportive of economic growth in the process. Compared with other countries, America taxes consumption too little and income too much. Redressing this imbalance could, with time, help economic growth. First, broaden the income-tax base by eliminating exemptions, and if possible cutting rates. Second, introduce a carbon tax, the least distorting way to slow the growth in emissions. If that is not possible, sell rather than give away carbon-emission permits, or raise the federal fuel tax. A last resort is a broad consumption tax, such as a value-added tax. This is economically efficient, but could too easily become a politically convenient way to vacuum up more money and expand government.

The economics of fiscal reform are straightforward; it’s the politics that are tough. Mr Obama should start the process with a budget early next year that aims to stabilize, and preferably reduce, the debt-to-GDP ratio in the coming decade. The problem is getting Congress to pass the necessary laws. The polarisation of American politics has left Democrats more set on defending entitlements and Republicans determined to hold down taxes. With mid-term elections a year away, the incentive to compromise is shriveling.

One way to finesse these toxic politics would be to establish a bipartisan commission to fix entitlements and taxes, as proposed by Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, respectively the most senior Democrat and Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. Its membership would be drawn from both parties, both chambers of Congress and the White House. Democrats and Republicans alike would have to make sacrifices. To preserve this grand bargain, Congress would be allowed only to approve or reject the commission’s proposal, not amend it.

This is no magic bullet. Although similar processes have been used to negotiate trade deals, the stakes in this case would be far higher, as would the chances of failure. Republicans in particular may balk at co-operating. The commission could deadlock, or see its proposal voted down, precipitating the sort of market disruption the scheme was meant to avoid. But that actually may be an advantage: politicians may conclude that failure is not an option. The best defence against a crisis is to act as though you are facing one.

As the battle for same-sex marriage continues to surge through the nation, philosophers and ordinary citizens alike are often forced to reexamine (and defend) their views.  To date, one of the most common reasons for opposition to gay union is the desire to preserve the “traditional” family unit.  Yet, an examination of the statistical assemblies of American households would suggest that this modernist idea of family is actually a figment of the past.

Since the mid-1970s, sociologists have acknowledged the emergence of new family structures that very much diverge from the norms of old.  Today’s youth come from a wider array of households than any preceding generation: single-parent, split-custody, adoption, surrogate-mother, and LGBT units are just a few of the varying forms of families producing new generations of Americans.  For many conservatives, these changes are most unwelcome, and liberal, art – media parties are to blame.

And yet, even outside the realm of art, the movement towards post-modernity was entirely necessary.  In 1991, PBS produced “Making Sense of the Sixties.”  The film hoped to expose the tempestuousness of the 1960s as a direct result of the repressive and unnatural confines of the nuclear families of the 1950s.  An entire generation, stifled.  The result: an entire generation, bent on establishing new norms and creating a new societal balance.

We, the spawn of this radical (hippie?) generation, are therefore faced with a new set of challenges. The circumstances under which we are raised are radically different from those of our parents:  our mothers work, our fathers stay home; we watch television during dinner instead of conversing with loved ones; we communicate via the internet instead of face to face.  Yet, while we’re more free to establish ourselves outside of our families, we’re also left without much guidance on what is “real” or “right”, definitively.  The concept of home, which was previously allocated as a place of refuge and stability, is now a common site of conflict among individuals of differing generations – each with their own credos and norms. Unfortunately, our generation is too frequently defined by apathy while our elders adhere very strictly to their beliefs.

This generational gap is perhaps the key obstacle when it comes to inciting significant social change.  When it comes to voting, for instance, elder generations appear in large numbers at polls.  Their votes (and our overall absence of them) are what have kept modernist politicians (G Dubya and Gov. Arnie, eg) in their ranks.  These politicians, with their unwavering, fundamentalist values, are quite clearly incongruous with the post-modern societal needs of the people they serve.

And yet, our generation continues to be marked by silence.  Unlike the youth of the 1960s, we fail to make our voices heard.  When our parents felt outrage in the days of ‘Nam, they rallied.   And yet, despite the technological innovations that leave the world at our fingertips, we fail to incite the changes we so ardently support.  Perhaps the post-modernist movement that liberated us has also made us somewhat complacent.  Or, maybe, all the freedom we experience on a daily basis has, in fact, hindered us by leaving us absent of direction.  Whatever the case may be, it is time for Gen Y to dramatically redefine itself.  As baby boomers grow senile and our parents grow tired, we must take control of a world that is every day a bit more ours.

In an interview with USA Today, Scott Keeter of Pew Research Center explains: “One can imagine the complexion of issues changing pretty significantly when this generation is in positions of power and authority.”  Thus, it is our ethical responsibility to reposition the social spectrum we’ll one day inherit.

As the gay marriage issue continues its plight, we must speak up now. Our happenstance, while unique, isn’t any less important than that of our parents.  Gender equality, civil rights, and Vietnam have been replaced by issues of global warming, the war on terror, and gay marriage.

In a day and age where young people are seeking to “find themselves” outside of their familial confines, perhaps we could take a few pointers from Mom and Dad.  We must begin to act on our beliefs. Cast a ballot. Show up. Scream. Yell. Boycott.  Picket. Do something.  We’ll thank ourselves later, I promise.

I have no doubt that Sarah Palin will be the 45th President of the United States. This is a pattern with the elite. The Democrats and Republicans are only there to scuffle over who serves the elite so the popularity of the duopoly between the two parties just vacillates depending on which one has done the most damage for the elite the most recently. That is usually the incumbent party which means the other Republicrats win the next election. Sometimes one party wins two or three elections in a row but that is no longer possible in this era of extremism.

The elite use Americans’ emotions like a yo-yo. They know the type of people that liberals and conservatives will support. Liberals need smart people like Obama and Clinton. They knew conservatives would love Bush II because he wore cowboy boots, demonstrated coarse bravado and spoke like an idiot. The same conservatives will love Palin because she is pretty and dumb and pretty dumb. She is completely unqualified to be president and that is why the white masses of poor people have and will continue to embrace her. They will express their racism through her and that’s why Sarah Palin will be inaugurated on January 20, 2013. Mark my words.

Accuracy of Results vs Voting Method

Graph by: dunno source via Graph Jam Builder

Original Photo: Flikr user mamamusings. Used under Creative Commons license.

Make sure we are utilizing best election methods, practices and systems.

San Mateo County is located in the heart of the leading technology geographic area-  but we use voting systems that have been reported as deficient by government study.  We should lead the country toward less expensive, more secure, open source / paper ballot voting systems.

– Brent Turner

If you are an Indian (I am one, and I am extremely proud to be an Indian), you would be cursing the politicians for at least 10 times every day. You start for your office, and as soon as you hit the road, you are shaken, literally, by the n pot holes and you believe “Is desh ka kuch nahi honewala hain”. To borrow a line from swades, if we believe that that is the fate of India, one day you will wake up to see that it has turned into reality. You don’t wear a helmet or don’t carry your license and when a cop stops you, the first thing you do is to pull out a smiling Gandhi from your pocket and offer him as a bribe to the cop. For us, it is OK to be corrupt when it comes to the innumerable such scenarios, but we want the politicians to be spotless. We are fine with voting on the basis of caste, religion and so on.

The corruption among politicians is alarmingly high, but we are not doing enough to keep that in check. We don’t want to take any responsibility on ourselves to change it, not even one bit. Every time someone who you believe is decent says he wants to get into politics, the first thing you ask is why he/she wants to get into such filth. No one wants to clean the filth but everyone believes he is entitled to a fair and corrupt free world. I don’t how that can happen. Let us all do our bit to improve the society before we lose our right to talk. Spend at least one hour in trying to find out who the best candidate is . We watch numerous debates, but long before that we have already made up our minds as to whom we are going to vote for. Let us change that. Let us change ourselves for our own good. And if you believe voting is a waste of time, don’t ever complain because you are as good as dead.

There are always too many Congress MPs, too many BJP MPs, and never enough Indian MPs. (Indian adaptation of There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen)

Abuser dad’s name "gagged"–even though he was convicted (Dorset, England, United Kingdom)

Controlling information and the ability to publicly "name" are crucial to maintaining social power and dominance. As a result, we are seeing increasingly bizarre abuses of "gag orders" as the victims of abuse are now longer willing to be shamed into silence, and abusers look for new ways to maintain the upper hand. Surely "gag orders" have a (limited) place when someone has yet to be tried. But this UNNAMED DAD has confessed and been convicted of abusing his infant son! So we can’t even pretend that this gag order is related to the need of a fair trial. It’s to maintain lack of accoutability and ignorance. And to further clamp down on the victims and keep them from speaking openly about what happened to them.
And it’s totally outrageous that this dad got the legal equivalent of a wrist slap for what he did to this baby.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/8371889.stm
Page last updated at 14:35 GMT, Saturday, 21 November 2009

Baby abuse father ‘must be named’

A Dorset woman whose ex-husband broke the ribs of their new born son has said she wants a court order to be lifted so she can name and shame him.
The baby, whose identity is protected by the order, had four ribs broken by his father when he was five weeks old.
The man, who admitted two assaults on the child, was sentenced to 170 hours of community service.
The mother is unable to name her ex-partner without breaching the order protecting her son.
She said: "I think when he gets older he will be very disappointed that his biological father was not named and shamed in a way, especially with what he got in court.
"I have to act on my son’s behalf and do what I think as a mother will be right for him when he is older."
She added: "He’s now free to be around other children. My ex-husband is not on any sort of register and I think that it’s awful."

Technorati Tags: Abuser,Dorset,England,Kingdom,dominance,result,orders,victims,infant,ignorance,news,Page,November,Baby,father,woman,husband,children,ribs

I had the pleasure of joining the Tooting Labour Party team canvassing with local MP Sadiq Khan today. We canvassed around the Hazelhurst Estate area and again, the results were pretty positive. Most people in the area I meet suggest they will vote Labour, with only a few previous Labour voters suggesting they are wavering.

This is obviously good news, and I think that in the not to distant future, probably early in the New Year, the focus of canvassing will change from purely trying to convince people to vote Labour, but to also make sure they actually get out and vote. I think that is one of the big challenges for Labour, ensuring people who may become slightly more apathetic, that they have to get out and vote.

I found this great clip of O’Riley and Stewart – 80% intoxicated viewers? Right O’Riley I am sure.

I love it how O’Riley totally downs our younger generation because he’s P.O.ed that unlike his generation we all actually go out and vote – sounds like someone is really cranky!  He’s a total idiot and a shock jock.

And O’Riley thinks that France hurt the U.S. – I love it how Stewart just shuts him dow, about everything.  O’Riley is super upset too that a presidential candidate bypassed him to interview with Stewart.  Amazing.

Just a little fun nugget for your night.