Evan W. Steeg <steeg@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
>Paul J. Gans <gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> .....
>>It seems to me that there is a very strong anti-science trend in
>>this country at this time. On the left science is attacked as
>>being under the control of white males, being subservient to
>>the government, being elitist, and of avoiding "truths" known
>>to the masses. On the right science is attacked as being anti-
>>religious, pro-evolution, etc., etc.
>>
>>My feeling is that the howler persons are going to be under
>>increasingly heavy fire. It would not surprise me to find
>>Congress attempting to spend money on creation "research" or
>>some such in the next two years.
>>
>>It's a democracy, people, and to some major extent we've brought
>>it on ourselves. As I've reminded many of my collegues, almost
>>everyone elected to Congress is a college graduate and almost
>>all of those have had to take science classes.
>>
>>Clearly, those of us in academia have not done a stellar job.
>>
>
> Good point. However, I think it may be incorrect to assume that
>all the people jumping (thumping) on the fundamentalist political
>bandwagon are true believers. One of the many Great Mysteries
>characterizing the Reagan phenomenon, for example, was how Ronald
>and Nancy, having lived wild Hollywood lives (by several independent
>accounts), having multiple divorces in their immediate family,
>being frequently not on speaking terms with some number of their
>children, rarely attending church, and almost never doing a full
>day's work, came to be the very emblems of God, Family Values, and
>the Work Ethic.
It is simple. Today's population is largely ignorant.
Many are downright stupid. About half are functionally illiterate.
Most have huge streaks of anti-intellectualism to complement their
ignorance. A moiling mass of manipulables, tugged and pulled by a two
decades long campaign of hot button issues, raw hate, wedge issues,
religous fanaticism put together by the far right with huge amounts of
mass media help. Snarling right winged bigots and bastards, the
roaylty of intellectual shallowness preaching hate! Hate! Hate!
every day on religous TV and radio programs, snarlingly ignorant
'talk shows' and ludicrous pundits and spin doctors whose evil pinched
bitter faces leer out at us from every idiotorial page in existance,
from the Wall Freak Journal to your average Duckburg Moron-Courier
local paper that unfortunately serves in lieu of a newspaper in all too
many local towns and villages in this degenerating hive of religous
fanatics and babbling morons.
This will get worse before it gets better. The Repuklicans have
torn the heart out of our government and crippled it with
years of hand over fist debts and deficits. They will now redouble
their efforts. Probably with success. Most people are utterly unaware
of the grevious wounds SS has suffered at their hands. But this will
come out in the wash eventually. The whole shit house will collapse
eventually like a termite rotted outhouse. The econonocataclysm will hit
eventually. Huge piles of elderly baby boomers begging at the entry of
every store and public building. A Government that will eventually
be swiftly collapsing because the hugely rising debt burden keeps
demanding more and more of the dwindling government income, goes to pay
the debt interest, owned by the fat cats who own the Treasury Bonds and
are not going to turn loose of the bridle nor give the bleating masses
anything without a gun to their heads.
You will see this come to pass if the Repuklicans come to power in 1996.
The only good that will come about is when the Repukers get the blame
finally placed around their stinking necks like a reeking cat carcass.
Aging desperate baby boomers living on the edge of stavation
will be committing suicide in droves and many will be taking out
Republican Congressmen with guns in their last desperate acts, you bet.
When the U.S. guvmint finally collapses and takes the rest of America
with it, the mob will turn, and it will be an ugly, ugly sight.
We should have started turning this all around in the late 80's when
Dickhead Stockman blew the whistle on the whole scam, but that did not
happen. Shit-for-brains Bush did nothing but take the incompetence into
overdrive big time.
Clinton made a half assed attempt, but the Repuklicans and their nancy-boy
buddies, the conservative Boll Weevil Dems, scuttled that.
Now the sneering triumphalism of brain damaged intellectual
midgets smothers the airwaves. They've got 'biggg plans', as Jim Jones
used to say. Come to the pavilion, and drink the koolaide, sneers Nut
Gangrene, and they are, and will. Already the damage is being done. As
if we are not in the hole enough, the tax cut bidding wars are now in
full swing again, sneering assholes firmly in control of this disasterous
plan. The fact is that if you cut ALL spending other than SS and Medicare,
debt service, and military, you STILL will not be able to balance the
budgets of the coming years.
Few notice that $150 billion of the $200 billion deficit we had this year
represents only the interest on the debts that brain-dead Ronnie Reagan and
Halcion damaged George Bush saddled us with.
I doubt that many can even understand the disgusting enormity of this
when it is pointed out to them, or see the writing on the wall
as The Republikans in Washington run to add more gasoline to the bonfire
of America's future.
We are being destroyed by the same thing that helped destroy Rome,
ignorant leaders without a clue about real economic systems, who saddle
their country with huge debts while essentially bribing the great
unwashed, bribes paid with by mounting more debt while the rapacious rich
gobble up everything in sight. Thank God we have TV, so much more
cost effective than circuses.
All I can say is, when this whole shitting mess collapses around our
ears a decade or two hence, "Eat The Rich" may well stop being a mere
colloquialism and start being put into practice.
My only wish is for plenty of Bar-B-Que sauce at that time.
We are Fucked and there isn't much we can do about it.
The assholes are leading the fools and there is no stopping the
mass destruction of this once proud country.
Fuck 'em all.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: EconoCataclysm
From: SubGStang1@aol.com
Oh well, when Phil Gramm's president, the Church will make more money, just
as Rush L. is doing well with Clinton in office. That's what we keep
telling ourselves.
Rev. Ivan "Compared to Me Clinton is a Right Wing Fundamentalist Fanatic" Stang
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: EconoCataclysm
From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou DuChez)
kodred@pnw.net (Kody Dickerson) wrote:
> Bravo! An excellent satire of all that whiney democratic drivel that's
> been flowing freely since election day!
>
> You know, I hate it too when democrats and liberals refer to Americans as
> sheep, and call us ignorant, and tell us that we *want* socialized
> medical system, that we *want* big government inhaling our paychecks and
> blowing it on their ineffectual social programs!
>
> I especially liked the reference to the liberal freaks degenerating into
> canniballism instead of trying to rethink their twisted, totalitarian
> ideals!
I'm going to go out on a limb here: you probably picked up this thread
in "alt.fan.dan-quayle", right? Let me ask you then: when have the
Republicans demonstrated *any* motive other than lining their own
pockets? Sure, the Democrats can be real nimrods, but I believe that
one of their motives is to serve the *public*, not the *rich*. Not that
they do a particularly astounding job of acting on that motive; but
given their way, the Republicans will tax the public and *not give a cent
back to anyone*.
What astounds me is how many people actually believe that Republicans are
on the common man's side. They've had great success in making people
believe that the *Democrats* are out to break the common man. Well, let
me make a couple points here:
- It was Reagan and Bush who decreased taxes on the rich and increased
them on the common man.
- It was Clinton who increased taxes on the rich.
- Take a look at your 1992 and 1993 tax return booklets, and compare the
calculations between the years. Your taxes went DOWN a little in the
1993 return. Now why do the Republicans "neglect" to tell you that?
Perhaps because *THEIR OWN* taxes went up ... This is a simple
experiment that every man can perform. I invite you to perform
this experiment before responding to this message.
Honestly, I can't see how anyone with an income of below, say, $60,000
a year can support the Republicans. Over and over, they've demonstrated
a desire to serve the rich and screw the common man. And before you
give me that "trickle-down" nonsense, let me ask you: When has big business
*ever* shown a desire to help the public? They're rich because they're
greedy conniving bastards, not because they have superior ethics.
As a final test, consider this multiple-choice question:
The purpose of a democratic government is to serve:
a) The Rich.
b) Every man, with no preference to the powerful.
If you answered "a", I suggest you turn off Rush and try reading a book
about political theory. If you answered "b", the state of things should
outrage you at least a little.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: EconoCataclysm
From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou DuChez)
krueger@cs.hope.edu (John Krueger) wrote:
>
> |>Let me ask you then: when have the
> |>Republicans demonstrated *any* motive other than lining their own
> |>pockets?
>
> I can't think of one, but at least they aren't standing in my way when I
> want to line my own pocket.
Like how, exactly? Please, fill me in on this claim. I've heard it over
and over, but how do the Democrats make it impossible for the common man
to get a foot up?
> |>Sure, the Democrats can be real nimrods, but I believe that
> |>one of their motives is to serve the *public*, not the *rich*.
>
> 1. The *public* includes the *rich*. Just a reminder.
The *public* is composed of an enormous percentage of people who control
a minescule percentage of the total wealth. In a truly democratic
system, I should matter *exactly as much* to the government as Bill Gates
does. The Democrats haven't COMPLETELY forgotten this point; the
Republicans have never believed it in the first place.
> 2. They have confused "serve" with "do everything for, to the point of
> treating them like imbecilic children". Hope this helps.
Again, I want *examples*. I hear this rhetoric over and over, but I
fail to see how it holds true.
> |>What astounds me is how many people actually believe that Republicans are
> |>on the common man's side.
>
> The Republicans are not on my side any more (or less) than the Democrats,
> they are just less likely to interfere with a free market which has been
> shown to work better when interfered with less.
Then I suggest you read up on the history of business. Big business has
a long-standing tradition of bleeding the common man dry. You should be
*thankful* that the government regulates them at all. How about the
food industry? "Oh, but businessmen are not so corrupt that they'd risk
the public health just to turn a profit." Bullshit. You ever heard of
Upton Sinclair? Read "The Jungle" and then get back to me, and explain
to me how businessmen today are any more enlightened.
The problem with big business is that it has an enormous effect on society
but no conscience to guide it. The Bruce Waynes and Dale Carnegies just
aren't out there. And when GE owns NBC, you damn well better believe that
they're going to use all their corporate power to tell you what serves
them. ("Oh, but they wouldn't intentionally *lie* to the public." Again,
bullshit. Like any businessman, they'll use every trick in the book to
increase profits.)
> |>They've had great success in making people
> |>believe that the *Democrats* are out to break the common man.
>
> No, they are out to be the parents of the common man. I already have a
> perfectly good set, thank you very much.
Again, I want *examples*.
> |>- It was Reagan and Bush who decreased taxes on the rich and increased
> |> them on the common man.
>
> This must have been A Good Thing (TM), because inflation and unemployment
> both droped like fly-covered rocks, while the standard of living went up.
> I have no problem with that.
Saddled us with an enormous debt, too. And are you quite sure that
unemployment went *down* with Reagan/Bush? As it stands, unemployment
is as low as it's been in a loooong time with Clinton ... sufficiently
low to *alarm* the Federal Reserve. And consider this point: the FR
actively attempts to *maintain* a 6.2% unemployment rate. This rate,
they figure, will keep the economy JUST SCREWED UP ENOUGH to hold down
the rate of inflation on stocks and bonds (which is not to be confused
with inflation on the price of consumer goods). THEY ACTIVELY TRY TO
KEEP SEVERAL MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF WORK. If you want to talk about
government forces that are getting in your way, look to the Federal
Reserve.
> |>- It was Clinton who increased taxes on the rich.
>
> I take it you think this is A Good Thing (TM). Now tell me why I should
> think so too.
Because every dollar they pay is one you don't have to. They have
a lot more money than you -- that's *why* we call them rich -- and
the bottom line is, they *get* their money from you to begin with.
> |>- Take a look at your 1992 and 1993 tax return booklets, and compare the
> |> calculations between the years. Your taxes went DOWN a little in the
> |> 1993 return. Now why do the Republicans "neglect" to tell you that?
> |> Perhaps because *THEIR OWN* taxes went up ... This is a simple
> |> experiment that every man can perform. I invite you to perform
> |> this experiment before responding to this message.
>
> Sorry, my first chance to enter the job market came in '93, so that is
> the first year I have a tax return for.
Well, then consider that you may have been looking at matters from an
"armchair quarterback's" view. Consider the point of view that the
rich may *not* have the public's interests at heart, and our politicians
likely serve the rich when they can. (Again, the Democrats are slightly
better than the Republicans in this regard.)
> |>Honestly, I can't see how anyone with an income of below, say, $60,000
> |>a year can support the Republicans.
>
> Personally, I can't see how anyone with an income of below, say, $60,000
> a year can support the Democrats, their effect on the economy is just too
> hard to survive otherwise.
Again, please give me some good examples. They lowered my taxes and are
reducing unemployment ... I think I can survive that just fine!
> |>Over and over, they've demonstrated
> |>a desire to serve the rich and screw the common man.
>
> No, they just get out of the way and let people fend for themselves.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what it means to be at the
bottom level of the food chain! Do you know *why* anti-trust legislation
was enacted? How about *why* such organizations as OSHA were instituted?
For that matter, as much as people complain about those "horrible" unions,
why not consider that they arose for very good reasons, and if they were
to disappear overnight, big business would revert back to its old ways in
about three seconds.
> |>And before you
> |>give me that "trickle-down" nonsense, let me ask you: When has big business
> |>*ever* shown a desire to help the public?
>
> Whether they "desire" it or not, they help the public by providing jobs.
> If all the big businesses around today were to disapear over the weekend,
> unemployment would be a lot higher on monday.
True; but they get way more from us than we get from them. That's why
*they're* rich and we're not!
You remember all those claims about how, by the year 1990, electrical
power and phone service and whatnot would be free, or next to free?
Care to guess why they're not? Because the powers-that-be have no
desire whatsoever to turn over their cash cow to the public.
> |>They're rich because they're
> |>greedy conniving bastards, not because they have superior ethics.
>
> They're rich because they went out and worked for it, does that make them
> "greedy conniving bastards", or is it the fact that they have mor than a
> lot of other people?
Again, I suggest you take a good look at the history of big business. The
question will answer itself. Power corrupts even businessmen.
> |> The purpose of a democratic government is to serve:
> |>
> |> a) The Rich.
> |> b) Every man, with no preference to the powerful.
>
> b. (If anything, there is a preference for serving the non-powerful.)
Good! You understand the crux of my point. Now bear in mind that the
rich *are* the powerful, and like any power, they don't want to empower
much of anyone else. What does that tell you about how the government
should treat the common man?
> |>If you answered "a", I suggest you turn off Rush and try reading a book
> |>about political theory. If you answered "b", the state of things should
> |>outrage you at least a little.
>
> I am outraged, they are taking my money (which I worked hard for), and then
> using it to "serve" me. I do not want to be served, I want to serve myself
> and get rid of the middle man. It cuts costs dramatically.
No one likes taxes; true enough. But the choice between the Democrats and
Republicans is: do you want the guys who will try to turn at least a little
of it into public good, or the guys who will line their own pockets and
their friends' and tell you that *you* are more prosperous for the
transaction?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: EconoCataclysm
From: zoweee@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu (Rev. Zoweee Wow)
Awhile ago, Lou DuChez (ljduchez@en.com) babbled the following koan:
~> >The assholes are leading the fools and there is no stopping the
Great line... just wanted to say that before I get into the political
bullshit.
~> You know, I hate it too when democrats and liberals refer to Americans as
~> sheep, and call us ignorant, and tell us that we *want* socialized
~> medical system, that we *want* big government inhaling our paychecks and
~> blowing it on their ineffectual social programs!
These are unrelated matters, but the truth is that Americans ARE ignorant
idiots, to a large degree. Most of the older folks cant even figure out a
friggin VCR. This isn't an attack, merely a Truth.
If you will recall, Clinton won the 1992 election, by popular vote, on
the platform that he was GOING to institute socialized medicine... this
was not something he sprung on us after-the-fact. You are frothing and,
thus, failing to make a coherent argument. You are, however, turning me
on.
~one of their motives is to serve the *public*, not the *rich*. Not that
~they do a particularly astounding job of acting on that motive; but
~given their way, the Republicans will tax the public and *not give a cent
~back to anyone*.
I dunno about this. I dont think the Republikans THEMSELVES know what
they want to do. Thety want to cut taxes while maintaining (nay,
INCREASING) America's Hegemony. these two things seem somewhat
contradictory.
Another thing that blows my mind about Republikans is that they, in the
SAME BREATH, say "The Republikan Agenda is one under which the government
doesn't tell the people what they want" and "Be a christian or die
horribly." These two phrases coming from the same mouth seem to present a
paradox of Hofstadterian proportions.
~What astounds me is how many people actually believe that Republicans are
~on the common man's side. They've had great success in making people
~believe that the *Democrats* are out to break the common man...
They appeal to the basest instincts of the lowest denominator. I.e., they
spout Christian Slogans whenever possible, while most Dems are too PC to
announce their religious beliefs. So your average gun-toting hillbilly
goes "Whiall shoot, pardener, aye aint gon' vote fer no unchristian
say-tan wersh'pin' ho-mo-sekshal, boy-bonkin Nazi jew-lover" (note the
inherit paradox in this sentence and becomes a rabid republikan instead.
This is easy for them, since they enjoy waving flags anyway (especially
in other peoples faces).
~If you answered "a", I suggest you turn off Rush and try reading a book
~about political theory...
This assumes that most americans can read.
--
________
-Reverend Father Zoweee Wow, KSC-----------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: EconoCataclysm
From: talysman@jasmine.psyber.com (John Laviolette)
ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez) writes:
[ stuff ]
> True, any discussion of "what the Constitution says to do" must take
> into account that this is a different year. Some things change; some
> things don't. But to merely say, "the Constitution says ..." is to
> pay sheeplike homage to what is indeed a mighty document, and thus do
> it a disservice. Personally, I like what the Bill of Rights offers;
> but I think it's generally understood that those rights are not absolute.
> You aren't protected from criminal prosecution for treason, for example,
> on the grounds that "I was merely exercising my First Amendment rights".
[ ... ]
> This is not Reductio Ad Absurdum. The people who claim that the Second
> Amendment is an absolute, are doing the Reducing. That it is Absurd, is
> not my fault.
No, poor phrasing, here... half the battle in reasoning is get the words
right...
Rights ARE absolute.
But the fact that you have rights does NOT absolve you from
Responsibility (we're talking American political theory, here, not the
Word of "BoB", which removes ALL responsibility -- 'cause that's what we
pay Dobbs for!)
I have the right to urge an angry mob towards armed rebellion -- but I
must face the consequences of my actions.
I can print slanderous lies about what Bob Dole does to salamanders, but
Bob Dole has the right to sue me for violating HIS rights.
It's not a matter of balancing rights -- the rights balance themselves,
if everyone is free.
The REAL problem is the sort of thinking which leads to pre-emptive
punishment. "People might print libelous statements, or treasonous
attacks, or offensive language, so let's control the press" ... "people
might shoot their political leaders or have open gun battles, so let's
outlaw all weapons" ... "people might go into a drug-induced killing
spree, so let's put potsmokers in prison"...
The flaw with that kind of reasoning is: ANY action could lead to an
illegal action, so why not outlaw EVERYTHING? Why not hire government
agents to take photographs of your sphincter as you slide a nifty schlogg
into the toilet? Why not have government-controlled selection of mates?
And regulate the inches of penetration? Why not regulate how deep a
breath you can take, or how long you can look at any one object?
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
This pitiful blob of mud is about to be consumed in the EctoAnarchic
Conflagration! Only a select few Hu-Mans will escape alive, if you can
call it living! Saucer chicks and space gigolos will administer our
every thneed!
For details, send $1 to:
The SubGenius Foundation
P. O. Box 140306
Dallas, TX 75214
--
----John Laviolette---------|-------His Most Feathered Eminence------|
talysman@psyber.com | I'm not a stud! |
Sacramento CA USA | I'm a nubbins. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original file name: ECONO.TXT
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.