It bothers me that someone trying to present evidence on whether or not children should vote needs to throw in political commentary on how voting minors would have averted the disaster that was George W. Bush. How can someone be scientifically or philosophically credible if he/she is too immature to resist political jabs when presenting an apolitical argument? On top of this, it puts off people who might otherwise be intrigued by the author's thoughts but aren't after reading unnecessary criticisms of their own.
I stopped reading at the Bush comment, not out of offense, but out of disappointment that I was spending my time reading something that lost its dignity (isn't this a perfect example of what he alluded to never doing early in the essay?)
