"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:4978c26b@news.povray.org...
>
> When you and I were in school, guys who liked thick butts were considered 
> "ghetto." Americans seem to have changed our minds about that one and 
> fallen in love with big bootys. And on the subject of attraction, I very 
> much doubt that Catherine Bach or Linder Carter would make it as a sex 
> symbol today. Clark Gable wouldn't have a chance.
>
> My point is that the media are very powerful, and have, I believe, changed 
> something as fundamental as our sexual impulses by keeping us saturated 
> with what they want us to accept or believe.
>
> I don't like W either, but I have to wonder if some of my dislike isn't 
> the result of exposure to eight years of "advertising" against him. I do 
> catch myself checking out some rather swollen backsides on occasion. :)

It's a valid point, and I honestly can't say to what extent I have been 
influenced.  I do recall that early in Bush's Presidency, on a few 
occasions, I remember thinking that he was (to use a poker analogy) setting 
the trap.  In other words, sure, he looks like he's weak, he looks like he 
doesn't exactly know what he's doing, but watch out guys!  He's just setting 
things up for the big showdown!  After thinking that 3 or 4 times, and then 
realizing that there was not going to be a "surprise!" moment, I lost some 
faith in him and his abilities.

Iraq and the failure to find any true WMD's (they did find some old useless 
chemical weapons) didn't help, even though pretty much the entire world 
thought Saddam had WMD's.  Saddam deserved what he got.  But are we better 
off?  Not at the moment.  Will we be in the futre?  I don't think we will 
have any idea for decades.  At the moment, it certainly appears to be a 
failure and a waste of human life.  I hope that view changes some day, but 
that's probably unlikely in the next 20 years.  Having discussed the issue 
with some Vietnam veterans, they generally seem to think we've made the same 
mistake twice.  The real difference is that those fighting in Iraq are not 
doing it with the hope of having a better future, but that's a whole-nuther 
issue...

The "tough on terror" seemed to become an excuse for practically anything 
Congress/Bush wanted to do, which really made me sick.  Killing the bad guys 
is fine, but each time Americans lose more rights/freedom, it's almost 
impossible to get those things back.  I, for one, would rather have a plane 
blow up each year than to have everyone subjected to the type of airport 
security that we now have.  But I also feel that way about pseudoephedrine 
and meth labs.  You have to practically file a police report to get access 
to the Claritin-D now, and the government actually keeps that info, unlike a 
normal prescription, where they are generally prohibited by law from 
accessing such information.  That should scare the crap out of people.  But 
it doesn't.

>
> And the message from our government is an easy sell:
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Dear American voter:
> You've spent not only everything you've ever made in your life, but 
> everything you're going to make for the next 18 months. Now, impending 
> retirement, aging parents, college age kids, or some other evil is making 
> it uncomfortable to make your credit payments. Have no fear, voter. We'll 
> take money from people who make more than you AND people who haven't been 
> born yet and we'll lesson the burden of living above your means.
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Hopefully we get more (less) than that, but that's exactly what we voted 
> for.  Barak articulated this message well, so the desperate consumers at 
> all income levels are very excited right now. They'll remain excited until 
> they retire, support the parents, or put the kids through college and find 
> that additional spending has made doing so no less hard than it would have 
> been without the emergency loan.
>
> Panic Borrow Panic Borrow Panic Borrow. We NEED a new computer. We NEED a 
> bigger car. We NEED double-pane insulated glass on the windows. Always a 
> new crisis; Always a new high from borrowing your way out of it. That 
> explains the mania. That explains why we believe other countries MUST love 
> our most recent savior - He gives GREAT loan. /Sorry 
> peoplewhohavenotbeenbornyet./

Obama is a Socialist.  He may even be a Marxist.  Is that bad?  Well, 
Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was pretty bad, but I don't 
personally blame Karl Marx.  Certainly there are a lot of friendly Socialist 
countries.  I hope we don't become one, and I hope that the moderate 
Democrats will take a stand against anything too far left.  But, under Bush, 
we've already begun racing down the road of Socialism, starting with 
prescription drug coverage, and ending with what historians may view as the 
moment when the US finally embraced Socialism: The Great Bank Bailout of 
2008.  Now we're bailing out the auto industry, too.  When will it stop?  It 
won't.  Every time any failing enterprise is in trouble, and it's large 
enough, this same thing will happen.  Perhaps the real failure was allowing 
them to become so large that states like Michigan will simply not survive if 
GM folds.  (Actually, I don't believe that.  With a hole that big, something 
would fill it in, but yeah, it would really suck for awhile).  Republicans 
and Democrats both love the auto-industry.  The Union vote is HUGE for the 
Democrats.  The money coming from the auto-industry (execs, esp) is HUGE for 
the Republicans.

> Of course, the non-US will love Obama, but that's because they're as 
> receptive to US media as they are to our fast food enterprises.

After the election, I remember CNN showing a young woman visbily crying (for 
joy, presumably) in the streets of Paris.  That made a big impression on me, 
and it really made me wonder just how far things have gotten out of hand. 
Bush was not Hitler for crying out loud (no pun intended).  The gap between 
Bush and Clinton, and even Obama, isn't nearly as wide as has been 
portrayed.  If Bush was Hitler, then Clinton would be Stalin.  If Obama is 
Jesus Christ, then Bush must have been John the Baptist.  Instead, Obama is 
Jesus, and Bush is Satan.  Again, I could care less who hates Bush and who 
doesn't, but I would hope that everyone would stay somewhat grounded in 
reality.  The difference between Democrats and Republicans is a lot smaller 
than the gap between Democrats and, say, Britain's Conservative Party (and 
that doesn't even mention French politics).  But each has a couple 
diametrically opposed issues that they like to talk/fight about.  Hey, at 
least they're not blowing each other up over it.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I hope Obama has a good Presidency.  I think our 
country needs that.  But I don't think we need to travel farther down the 
road to Socialism for that to happen.  He can be kept in check and balanced 
by other reasonable people in Congress, if we still have any of those, and 
there are a lot of things that "middle-of-the-road" issues that members in 
both Houses can support.  If he sticks to that, he can't fail.  That's 
largely what Clinton did.

Wow, that's a lot off my chest!  :-)  I need to think about something else 
now...

Post a reply to this message