Looking for SubG in Southern Cal!

From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)

spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) wrote:

> ... and, if Gingrich, _et_al_, have their way, just about the ONLY
> anti-CON media left -- at least in broadcasting. (Not that the sad
> excuse for "Public" Broadcasting we have in this country is anything
> to write "Bob" about, with their furry animal shows and Barney-based
> groupthink CON programming, of course.

And don't forget the so-called "balanced" news programs, where the
balance is between a moderate Conservative and an arch-Conservative.
Or the shows that "aren't afraid to challenge corporate America"
despite the fact that big business sponsors most of them. Or the recent
womens' show which decided they needed to "balance" the viewpoint, so
they let Pat Buchanan on there (yeah, like his point of view isn't
heard on every other show). PBS really offends me some days with their
claims to represent the points of view that no one else dares to. No,
they just spew the same old crap but with British accents.

> > -- Quayle/North '96 --
> Probably Clinton's only hope... Of course, Clinton could pull a Strom
> Thurmond/John Connoly move and change his party from Democan to
> Republicrat. Wouldn't that just fry Gingrich and Dole's testicles?

About Clinton's only chance, is to remind people that it's the rich
vs. everyone else. (Or that's how the battle lines should be drawn.)
The problem is, he's afraid to really ruffle the feathers of the rich,
so he comes across as more a Republican than a Democrat (whatever the
hell they are supposed to be these days). The problem is, he can't
out-Republican the Republicans, so they nail him every time.

Now if Clinton were to remind America that their tax dollars are going
to rich CEOs (who *probably* don't need it as much as your average
welfare mother), perhaps he could get people to think, "duh, gee, perhaps
Newt / Rush / Dole doesn't have my best interests at heart". Yes, this
wacky scheme depends on a citizenry that's capable of thought ... but
that's where anger comes in. We know that people are mad when their
money goes to undeserving souls; well, wouldn't it really chap peoples'
asses if Clinton were to say: "I've found a welfare client who made
3.25 million dollars last year. He's the CEO of Carcino Cigarettes.
Senator Helms, can you explain why you personally voted to send 3.25
million in welfare to this individual, who drives a Limo purchased from
his welfare checks?"

When considering economic theories, never forget that any given theory is
designed to benefit one group of people and usually hurt another. In
particular, watch out for economic theories that are designed to "Improve
The Economy", as opposed to, say, increase employment. When "The Economy"
is treated like an abstract entity that must be appeased lest it smite us,
the rules of primitive ritualistic religion come into play ... including
the sacrifice of of innocents to "The Economy". Of course, the rich will
not be included in the sacrifice, but will "coincidentally" benefit ...


Back to document index

Original file name: TV.TXT

This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.