Excerpts from Electric Degeneration, Degenerate Press' semi-weekly e-zine, free and ad-free. A full episode contains sections for music reviews, upcoming events, blasphemy, classifieds, and anything else we feel like saying. If you'd like to subscribe just contact us.
You can surf the entire archive.
2/11/2004
DEGENERATES ABROAD
We just got back from Miami and boy am I tired of winter! We had a nice weekend
of good food, family and friends, though we could’ve used another day or two (or
three or…) for more thrift shopping, sight seeing, good food, at least one jaunt
to the beach, etc. I didn’t take a lot of pictures or see many noteworthy sites,
just enjoyed warm air and clear skies and daydreamed of hitting the lotto and
moving south for the winter, if not the spring and summer and…
RANDOM RAMBLINGS
We got this from newbie degenerate JV:
I n Leny One N's reoccurring dream this father was a very young boy he was
teaching to swim. This dream happened after his mother told him that he
would be a better man than his father; controlling himself within and
without; never becoming a womanizer as he and so from the age of five he
would dream a dream of him saying to a father he knew could not swim: "OK
now, I'm going to let go! Try it on your own!"
The father sank and Leny brought up mud with one hand while placing his
other hand onto his mother's lap .
"What are you doing ?" Her voice came through the cracks on his wall.
"Nothing Mama! Nothing!" He imagined she stroked his hand. He snapped his
penis off to become shapes of puzzle pieces. When she closed the door and
went back to her bedroom where his father lay like a tall mound and began to
hear the mattress roaring as if flying, savage like grunts and his mother's
moan commingling with all the frightening sands.
Leny felt as if she had plucked out his eyes. END 2-4-04
BLASPHEMY
First up, this one from degenerate LS:
RVI makes a point that all politicians count on. While politicians always claim
they are hoping for a large voter turn out they are in fact counting on people
not voting. Bill Clinton was elected by a comfortable margin but only 17% of
ELIGIBLE voters voted for him. By convincing people their votes don't count
politicians have only to convince a tiny minority of the population to vote for
them to get elected. I have a proposal to solve this problem. I didn't get an
early enough start this time but next time ...
Imagine if everyone went to the polls and voted for himself. I'd love to see
Peter Jennings reading those results. "With 90% of votes counted we have 1 vote
for Sue Rask, one vote for Joe Brown, etc. The system would be in shambles. How
could they announce that with 1/100th of a percent of the vote any candidate
would be elected. So many more people don't vote than do, if they suddenly all
voted it would send a massive wake up call to the system. Then third, fourth,
etc. parties that have agendas you could get behind ran they might actually win.
What if everyone who never voted sent a third party, etc. candidate at least
$10, or more if possible so they could financially compete with the status quo?
They would not be in the pocket of special interests and big business. Voting
actually could change the system. Creating massive voter apathy and convincing
people they have no power ,when actually they have all the power, is what keeps
the current system going. These assholes cannot get into office without money
and votes. If we refuse to cosign their crap they can't seize power. If we sit
quietly back and do nothing we just handed them control of our lives.
And this from a subscriber with no name:
Some is owed to the Government, some is owed to environment and upbringing.
Allow me to present
Ode To Apathy:
I care about Traffic. I care about Weather.
I care about Taxes, the lower the better,
but, I could give a rat's ass about whether ...
gay marriage is legal,
and that 17 year old Hooter's-y gal.
And I vote.
And my wife and kids vote like I tell 'em to.
Last but definitely not least, this long one from degenerate MM:
WOt? He responded AFTER he unsubscribed? Well, sheesh...I must agree that
CP can't have his Kate and Edith, too. But whether or not he responds,
much of what he said requires a rebuttal. If you choose to edit or not to
print it, I understand. Politics makes people act crazy.
[CP} "unemployment is at an all-time high" -- That's odd. The Dept. of
Labor shows that the unemployment rate is 5.7 percent. Go to their site
and check it against historical unemployment rates. Like the 6.7 percent
during the 90s. And we have more workers than ever right now.
* I'm able to admit I'm wrong about unemployment being at an "all time
low"...it isn't setting records, but it is close to doing so. So I was off
by a percentage point or so. That was my error. However, the point still
stands. Unemployment is at a low, if not an all-time low, and jobs that
are being created are either going to workers overseas, or they are part
time rather than full-time, or they pay far less than jobs people had
before.
[CP] Oh, and to trump one of your campaign lunacies, keeping
unemployment down is precisely the reason why benefits should not be
extended. Seems that too many people need financial motivation to work.
And businesses need to hire more people without more burden of
over-coddling unemployment insurance. Capitalistic, I know, but deal with
the evil.
* I don't have anything against capitalism.
* Of course people need financial motivation to work. Duh. Most of us are
not privileged to do what we love for a living. We have to work to eat and
pay rent. Of course, you're implying that the luxury one can live on when
earning $280 or less a week in unemployment benefits would be enough
incentive not to look for work, despite the fact that no one can really
live on $280 or less a week. At least not live well, pay all their bills,
pay rent, pay a car note, eat, socialize, and keep all utilities turned
on.
* Unemployment benefits are not used as extensively when there are actual
jobs for people. Unemployment benefits also don't come into play when
people quit. People who are fired or laid off use them. Point being,
people aren't quitting and living in luxury on the approximately $280.00
(and that is the MAXIMUM, which most people do not get) benefits per week
that are available. They'd much prefer a real job. Also, there are people
looking for work whose unemployment benefits are long gone, and they are
not finding it any easier to secure a decent job.
* More on this, touching on the 2002-2003 unemployment extention plan:
[quote]
"Wait and See" Approach of Administration Fails Unemployed Workers and
their Families
(Washington, D.C.) -- Responding to new data showing that the job market
continues to worsen, Congressman Sander Levin (D-MI-Royal Oak) called on
the Bush Administration to abandon its "wait and see" approach to
providing extended unemployment benefits for those hit the hardest by the
recession.
Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 341,000 people lost
their jobs in April, driving the unemployment rate up to 6 percent, or 8.8
million people out of work. Another 100,000 workers had their hours cut,
increasing the number of people who are working part-time because
full-time work is not available to 4.8 million.
"It.s time for President Bush to go beyond expressions of compassion for
people out of work through no fault of their own and take action," said
Levin. "The number of workers who have run out of unemployment benefits
has hit an all-time high, but the Bush Administration still refuses to say
when, or if, they might consider helping families that are struggling to
get by until work is available."
An estimated 1.1 million workers have exhausted all their unemployment
benefits without finding work, and the number could rise as high as 1.4
million by the end of May. 365,000 workers ran out of benefits in March,
the last month for which exhaustion data is available. Exhaustions are so
high in large part because the current Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation (TEUC) program only provides 13 weeks of extended benefits in
most states, in contrast to the temporary program enacted by Congress in
the 1990s recession, which provided 20-26 weeks in all states and up to 33
weeks in 19 states. TEUC is also set to expire on May 31, 2003. If
Congress does not act, workers who exhaust their regular benefits after
that date will not even be able to get a 13 week extension.
[end quote]
* And how about this?
[quote]
PRESIDENT BUSH'S DUBIOUS ECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.
DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- In the first two years of George W. Bush's presidency,
more than two million Americans lost their jobs. He's well on his way to
becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over an
actual decline in employment in the U.S.
The unemployment rate now stands at 6 percent, the highest its been since
the early 1990s. There are now more than 10.2 million unemployed workers
in the U.S., and another 4.8 million who are working part-time because
they can't get full-time employment.
The stock market has seen its biggest and longest sustained losses since
the 1929 crash. The Dow Jones Industrial average lost about 20 percent of
its value and the NASDAQ lost more than 40 percent of its value.
The federal deficit now stands at $6.4 trillion and is increasing at an
average rate of $1.1 billion each day. Almost every state is in a budget
crisis. Private bankruptcies are at an all-time high.
In short, the U.S. economy isn't in great shape right now.
President Bush entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history.
Unemployment was at its lowest levels since the 1960s. The federal budget
was balanced and generating surpluses. And in two short years, he has
managed to send every major economic indicator straight down.
This is why you won't likely hear President Bush talk about his economic
achievements during the 2004 campaign. He hasn't any.
Instead, we Americans can expect a steady diet of fear and misinformation
regarding the "war on terror" - a war without end against an ever-growing
list of foes. The Bush administration seems to think we'll forget about
our economic woes as long as they can keep us afraid.
Have you noticed that over the past few months, most of President Bush's
public appearances have been at either military bases or weapons
factories? His breathtakingly brazen photo-op on the flight deck of the
USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1 was merely the culmination of months of
trying to burnish his image as Commander-in-Chief.
But where I live, folks would like to see a little more attention paid to
the economy. Our local food bank has had its shelves stripped bare this
winter as many people could not afford to both heat their homes and eat.
Hundreds of manufacturing jobs have disappeared from my county in the last
couple of years, and although Vermont is one of only a handful of states
not yet facing a budget deficit, it may join the ranks of the
cash-strapped soon.
Recently, there were some interesting numbers thrown out - in, of all
places, the New York Post - regarding the economy and how it might effect
the 2004 election.
The Post quoted Donald Straszheim, the head of independent research firm
Straszheim Global Advisors. Straszheim found that over the past 40 years,
no incumbent president or his political party has been returned to office
if job growth was under 3 percent in the third and fourth years of his
term. At the same time, job growth of more than 5 percent in the second
half of a president's term resulted in victory in all but one election -
the 1968 race won by Richard Nixon, where the dominant issue was the
Vietnam War.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the economy would have to
generate 140,000 new jobs a month from now until November 2004 for
President Bush to avoid being linked with Herbert Hoover. That seems
unlikely. The Gross Domestic Product rose at only 1.6 percent in the first
quarter of this year, and the nation would need at least double that
percentage of economic growth to see any new jobs in the coming months.
While energy prices are starting to decline and mortgage interest rates
are at a 40-year low, there's still the big problem of all the money that
people lost in the stock market in what has been the longest bear market
since - here's that name again - Herbert Hoover's administration.
The tax cuts that President Bush has proposed aren't going to make a great
deal of difference to the average American. As with the 2001 tax package,
almost all of the benefits will go to the wealthy.
Even worse than the handouts to the rich are the budget cuts that will pay
for them and the "war on terror." Remember that the $74.6 billion that was
appropriated for Gulf War II and the $200 billion that the reconstruction
of Iraq is expected to cost comes on top of the $400 billion a year that
is already being spent on the military.
So what is getting shortchanged? Education, health care, environmental
protection and homeland security for starters. Even veterans benefits are
getting cut.
There's a lot of competition for the most cynical moment of Gulf War II,
but near the top of the list should be the Republican members of the House
of Representatives pushing through a resolution to "support the troops,"
and then two hours later voting to cut nearly $15 billion from programs
for veterans.
This act exemplifies exactly where President Bush and the Republican Party
stand when it comes to looking out for the welfare of the people. They
will fall all over themselves to proclaim their patriotism and wave the
flag, but will do nothing to help those in need.
Right now, there are threats to our national security even bigger than
those phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Like seeing more than
10 million Americans without work. Like working people who have to get
their groceries at food banks because their jobs don't enough money to
support a family. Like seeing more than 41 million Americans without
health insurance.
Does President Bush have an answer for these problems? It's safe to say
that in the coming months we shouldn't expect to hear him talk about
anything other than more tax cuts for the rich and more wars against
countries that can easily be bullied.
[end quote]
[CP] "Bush SUPPORTS....[Other candidates] OPPOSE..."
You've fallen prey to two flaws in any decent logical argument.
First, opposing views are not inherently wrong, even if they are a
minority opinion.
* No, they aren't. But when you are considering the issues, it gives you a
rough guideline of where these people stand on issues you care about.
Also, I listed some things that Bush favors that the Democrats listed
oppose. "Opposing views are not inherently wrong, even if they are a
minority opinion", yadda yadda... Ahem.
[CP] Second, 4-7 guys running for office does not constitute a majority
against an incumbent.
* No one said that it did. Though polls lately show that both Kerry and
Edwards could potentially beat Bush this fall.
[CP] There is no democratic method to determining what is right and what
is wrong, thank goodness. And that's why this country is not based upon
that fatal flaw. We elect people to act in our interest, and they'll never
please everyone all the time (apologies to Lincoln for the lazy
paraphrasing.)
* Indeed we do elect people to act in our interest (otherwise we have
Taxation Without Repreentation), and Bush has not acted in my interest, or
in the interest of the majority of people I know. If YOU personally are
better off, then you are the ONLY person I have come into contact with who
claims this. And I do not live in a vaccuum or as a hermit. I socialize
with a wide range of people. I also work for a high-end
by-invitation-only-access jeweller, for goodness' sake. The people we see
coming into the store are generally very wealthy. They are admittedly not
suffering like some, but they are still affected.
[CP]"the highjacking of the election in Florida"
Give me a break. How many recounts would you like?
* How about ONE state-wide recount that was not impeded by partisan
interests? Such as Republican aides sent down from D.C. to stage riots and
protests? If they truly thought their boy had legally won, why impede the
recount process? The Supreme Court issued, for the first and last time, a
judgment that would not carry forward to shape future events or laws, it
applied only to the one situation, and the vote was 4-3. Judges that chose
to stop the recounts, in particular Anthony Scalia, had sons and wives and
other relatives who had been or who would soon be rewarded with high-level
government jobs. Look it up. Dissenting judges commented that we may never
know who the winner really is (this was before the WSJ and NYT, among
others, admitted that Gore should have won), but the clear loser is the
electoral system, the American people, and the faith in the political
system.
[CP] Independent recounts, newspaper recounts, liberal media recounts...
* "Liberal media" my ass. The media are only as liberal as the
conservative businesses and businessmen who own them. Rupert Murdoch and
GE own NBC. CBS is owned by Viacom & Westinghouse. Westinghouse & GE get
big bucks from defense contracts, among other places. Disney owns ABC.
Time/Warner owns The WB. Fox, of course, owns Fox. And we all know how
LIBERAL FOX is. Give me a break.
[CP] All showed Bush winning Florida. Sorry.
* No, they didn't. Sorry. They went back and forth and back and forth
until the owner of CBS, in one example, marched himself down to the
newsroom and put his hand on the newsmen's shoulders and said "Enough of
this...you WILL now call Florida for Bush". At which point...surprise!
Bush "wins"!
[CP] And to promote that Bush squashed voting by minorities in
Florida is idiocy.
* No, it isn't. Do your homework. There were illegal voter purges aimed at
a segment of the population traditionally predominately both
African-American and pro-Democrat. The company charged with these voter
roll databases told Katherine Harris et al that there would be too many
false positive: in other words, innocent people targeted as felons. Tens
of thousands of voters who had a legal right to vote were turned away at
the polls, without a warning beforehand to warn them so that they could
try to reinstate themselves.
[CP] Dig for some real facts on that instead of emotional and hyperbolic
junk science. Oh, but someone wrote a book about it and therefore the
argument has merit. Someone also wrote The Turner Diaries.
* I was referring to a well-researched and thorough documentary film, and
several dozen websites, and columns in the Wall Street Journal And New
York Times. YOU dig for the real facts. I'm not the one getting emotional
about this,
* Though you don't ask, my opinion is that Gore's mistake was that he
didn't request an all-state recount. He settled on four counties.
Furthermore, you are WRONG. Bush did NOT "win" Florida. The New York
Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc. played down the fact that Gore won,
and they acknowledged this months after the point was moot, but they STILL
printed it as fact.
* But don't take it from me.
* Since I mentioned "Unprecedented" before, I'll elaborate on it again. If
you want other corroborating evidence, though, it's out there. Do YOUR
homework.
[quote] Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election is the riveting
story about the battle for the Presidency in Florida and the undermining
of democracy in America.
From the moment the polls opened, it was painfully clear that something
was wrong. While the media seized on the controversy surrounding the
poorly designed "Butterfly Ballot", much larger civil rights abuses were
overlooked.
Focusing on events leading up to election day and the attempt to count
legally cast votes in the days that followed, Unprecedented examines a
suspicious pattern of irregularities, injustices and voter purges--all in
a state governed by the winning candidate's brother.
One of the first indications that something was wrong came early on
election day. Thousands of African-Americans who had voted in previous
elections discovered that their names were missing from the voter rolls.
Investigators later uncovered irrefutable evidence that exposed an
elaborate strategy where thousands of Democratic voters were purged from
the rolls. These voters were disproportionately African-American.
The evidence shows that Governor Jeb Bush, Secretary of State, Katherine
Harris, and other Republican state officials ordered the manipulation of a
list of former felons to include thousands of legitimate voters who had no
criminal history. In Florida, ex-felony offenders lose their right to vote
for life. But the manipulation of this list denied thousands of legitimate
voters their franchise. In an election that was determined by 537 votes,
these purged voters would have reversed the outcome.
The drama of the 2000 Presidential Election had other chapters too. The
day after the election, a startling picture emerged. George W. Bush was
ahead by a razor-thin margin. But a disquieting number of ballots,
175,000, went unread by the ballot-counting machines. The standard
procedure in such situations is to conduct a manual recount. However, no
complete recount was ever conducted. Instead, there was a 36-day battle in
the courts, the streets and the mass media surrounding these unread
ballots. The Bush campaign was determined to stop any recount, while the
Gore campaign petitioned for manual recounts in only four heavily
Democratic counties.
In one of these counties, Miami-Dade, Republican staffers from around the
country staged an unruly protest. That protest intimidated election
officials and they abandoned the recount. Meanwhile, a remarkable
courtroom drama played out. Attorneys for Al Gore appealed to the Florida
Supreme Court, which eventually ordered a manual recount of the state.s
undervotes; votes in which the machines interpreted the voters intent as
having cast a vote for no presidential candidate. In turn, the Bush team
went directly to the federal courts to halt this effort. Their aim was to
have this case heard before the United States Supreme Court.
In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Court, halting
the recount and casting doubt on the outcome of the 2000 Presidential
Election.
A year later, a consortium of U.S. media organizations published the
results of an exhaustive study of all of Florida.s unread ballots. The
consortium concluded that had all these ballots been counted and the
discernable votes been tallied, Al Gore would be the 43rd President of the
United States.
Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election is a cautionary tale,
warning us that we must insists our elections be conducted in a manner
above reproach, that all legitimate voters may exercise their franchise,
and all legal votes must be counted. Anything less undermines our faith in
democracy.
[end]
[CP] "Don't confuse things that people want with rights. You do not have a
right to benefits that your boyfriend/girlfriend receives through work or
the government. No heterosexual relationship enjoys this privilege."
* Inherent problem here. Heterosexual boy/girlfriends CAN marry or form a
civil union legally. Homosexual boy/girlfriends can't. No one is asking
that uncommitted partners receive any benefits, as you imply. Rather, they
are asking for partnerships to be legally acknowledged. People in legally
recognized unions or partnerships want the same rights as heterosexual
married couples. What is so hard to comprehend about that?
[CP] And I'd hate to see the rules on that one: when do you qualify? After
one month? After six months? How much fraud would run rampant by people
claiming relationship status in order to receive health benefits?
* Again, you seem to be willfully ignoring the main issue: these benefits
wouldn't go towards people who were "just dating". They would go to those
who had partnered or united legally. Hence the desire for legal
recognition of civil unions.
[CP] You do not have the right to serve in the military. The military can
set rules as it sees fit, based upon the overall efficiency and
camaraderie of the organization. This is serious business and is not a
playground for oversensitivity.
* No, and many would prefer not to serve. There would be no need for a
draft or for signing up at the age of 18 (if you are male, that is) if
everyone was filled with an overwhelming desire to serve in the military.
However, if you are required to sign up, and if you choose to serve (for
many, the best way to gain job skills and a decent living wage), then your
sexual orientation should not be an issue. It's no one's business. And the
military should not be exempt from respecting others' rights not to be
discriminated against. What if the military, while "setting rules as it
sees fit" decided that left-handed people were not fit to serve? It makes
just as much sense, on a certain level. After all, all those tools and
weapons are geared towards the right-handed majority. You do have a right,
if you choose to serve, or if you are forced to serve, not to be
discriminated against based on your sexual preference. Period.
[CP] Not one instance of civil rights violation has been reported in
association with the Patriot Act. Over 2,000 claims were made. 17 of
those were deemed worthy enough of consideration. None were judged
violations. Sorry.
* No, I'M sorry. Any time someone has their rights ignored, that is worthy
of consideration. And none were violations of The Patriot Act, but many
were violations of civil liberties.
[quote]
The first effects of the Act were soon felt when the government secretly
arrested and jailed more than 1,200 people in connection with its
investigation of the events of September 11. .Despite demands from members
of Congress, numerous civil liberties and human rights organizations, and
the media, the Government refused to make public the number of people
arrested, their names, their lawyers, the reasons for their arrest, and
other information related to their whereabouts and circumstances..
After first failing, by means of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to
obtain information about those arrested and held, multiple organizations
joined to file suit in federal district court in Washington, DC (Center
for National Security Studies, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice). The
government still refused to provide the requested information, citing
several exemptions under FOIA. A final order in the case was not entered
until August 2, 2002, which required the government to divulge the names
of almost all those arrested. By that time most of those arrested had been
either released or deported.
Many of those arrested and jailed were Arabs and Muslims, who were cab
drivers, construction workers, and other laborers, with no more than
ordinary visa violations. Many of them were caught up in routine traffic
stops and other incidental contacts with law enforcement officials. Some
were incarcerated for up to seven months without being charged or
permitted to see their families. Despite the lower court.s ruling, the
government still refused to divulge the names of those arrested and is
appealing the decision.
In a related secrecy issue, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others sought to
have the Supreme Court review a secret appeals court decision that broadly
expanded the government.s power to spy on U.S. citizens. The special,
secret court was created in 1978 with the passage of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. Its purpose was to review and approve
government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. All hearings
and decisions of the court are conducted in secret. Now, under the PATRIOT
Act.s new definition of foreign intelligence investigations, its role is
being expanded to include domestic investigations that the government
claims are related to foreign intelligence. The Supreme Court, in its
first decision on an issue related to the PATRIOT Act, refused the request
to review the secret decision of this special court.
(For more: http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2003/0806patriot.htm)
[end]
[CP] (Re: The Economy) Why can't people do math? Let's see...raise taxes,
but increase investments and spending by individuals. Ever heard of
mutually exclusive? What's wrong with tax relief? Even for people with
more money. They aren't evil.
* I never said that they were "evil". That's a patronizing rebuttal that
makes it look like I equate success with amorality or character flaws.
Which I emphatically do not. Some of my relatives certainly quality as
"rich" according to these guidelines,
[CP] They're not even necessarily rich. $100K in a household is not crazy
rich. Especially when almost 40% goes to the government right off the top.
* And I can say, from personal experience, that people earning $25-50K
also pay about 40% to the government. So what? And $25K or less a year in
this country, especially if you have dependents, can certainly qualify as
"crazy poor".
[CP] If people need more pie, the answer is not stealing from someone
else's plate. It's to bake a bigger pie. Growing the economy comes from
investing, from building businesses, from creating things that people buy.
None of this is encouraged by taxation. None.
* Haven't we learned by now that "trickle down economics" does NOT work?
[CP] Growth in the GDP is the answer. It benefits all. And, whoa, look at
the chart for that one.... And, whoa, look at America^s standard of living
now versus our history.... And, whoa, look at our standard of living vs.
the rest of the world....
* Whoa, look at the patronizing attitude! (Woah! Can you do kung fu? Is
there really a spoon?)
* Look, we certainly do have a higher standard of living than your average
citizen in India, China, Africa...but when you compare us to other
developed, industrialized nations (such as Sweden, perhaps), we come up
short in many areas. But the AVERAGE standard of living isn't the
issue...it's the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest that continues
to expand year by year.
* This also verges dangerously into a "needs v. wants" argument, and as
someone who owns but doesn't often bother with watching a TV, other than
news-related programming (and that is usually done at a friend's house), I
don't indulge in "wants" all that often. I don't shop for entertainment.
My shoes wear out before I buy new ones. I could care less about labels. I
buy most of my goods second-hand or used or pre-owned. My lifestyle is as
far from extravagant as you could imagine. I'm very clear on the
difference between needs (food, shelter, warmth, hot water) and wants
(pretty much everything that doesn't feed or clothe or shelter you). The
problem is, more and more people are unable to take care of their basic
NEEDS. The poor are getting poorer, and the homeless don't vote.
[CP] The worst thing is listening to people attack at the highest point of
what is right and wrong in this world --the place where they're least
likely to contribute anything new, well thought, or useful-- while
ignoring simple issues that would make the world a better place and which
they CAN contribute.
* How the hell do you know what I do or don't do to effect change in this
world? What causes I support and do not? I'm tired of people complaining
about others who express points of view that do not go along with their
world view. What have you done lately to increase the sum total of joy in
the world?
[CP] I'm tired of seeing people with PEACE bumper stickers blowing through
residential streets at 15 mph over the speed limit. I'm tired of people
cussing in public with children around. Of hurried folks parking in
handicapped spaces, fire lanes and sidewalks. Of litter (I thought it was
gone, like smallpox, but it's making a HUGE comeback). And on and on.
* And this has WHAT to do with the political discussion at hand? Nothing.
For what it is worth, though, you can't nail me on any of those bad
behaviors. Sorry. I find them deplorable too, and I don't have to support
Bush to do it.
I notice that you have not posted anything that would contradict any of
what I (and Bush) claim that Bush stands for. So do you support all of his
policies or not? Do you think it's good to rape the environment? How about
some of the issues we hoped he would address in the State of the Union
address (other than steroids, fer crissakes)...do you really think he's
doing a swell job vis-a-vis these issues?
Health Care: 44 million Americans, 15 percent of the population, including
8.5 million children, have NO health insurance / coverage whatsoever.
Jobs / Economic Recovery: 2 Million fewer jobs than when Bush took office.
Tax cuts were supposed to create 300,000 new jobs a month never reached
1/3 of that goal. In December 2003, only 1,000 new jobs were created. New
jobs pay less than those lost. Last year, household debt increased at
highest rate in 15 years.
Funding Education: No Child Left Behind law $7 BILLION short. Public
schools laying off teachers, closing schools, shorteneing academic year.
State & Federal Spending: States face largest budget crises in decades.
Federal deficit has hit a new high. $166 BILLION spent on Iraq as U.S.
non-defense domestic spending plummeted. IMF warns that U.S. debt and
trade imbalance threaten global economic stability.
War on Tara (I mean, TERROR): No WMD found. No link between Iraq &
al-Qaeda found. Osama bin Laden still at large (though perhaps will be
producted in October, right before election time, if you believe the
conspiracy theorists). Iraq reconstruction marred by terrorism, corporate
profitteering (Haliburton especially) and failure to restore BASIC
services.
So what HAS Bush done RIGHT, for the greater good, for the improvement of
the country as a whole? Please DO enlighten us all
Warm regards,
Degenerate MM
 |
Take
me to Degenerate Press' home page! All content on this site is owned by Degenerate Press and cannot be used without our permission. We have lawyers for friends with nothing better to do than cause trouble (no kidding), so play nice. Copyright © 2005, All Rights Reserved |