Abortions for all! [silence]... Abortions for none! [silence]
... Very well... abortions for some, high-speed government-sponsored broadband access for everyone!
I get the sense that CREEP is a little scared these days of losing come November (yes... I know that CREEP refers specifically to a Nixonian cabal who worked on the 1972 election, ... the point is they were a Nixonian cabal much like another I could name). Just consider all the poorly-thought-out sweeping J. Bruckheimer blockbuster policy proposals they have floated recently: We're goin' to Mars!; Free drugs for old people!; Tax cuts for [some/none/all]!... and now government-subsidized broadband internet access for all. As if the underlying causes of poverty, poor schools, crime, urban decay, disease, hunger and bigotry will all be solved by lighting-quick access to online pornography.
Hell, sounds about right to me!
on
| § 5
§ 5 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Sure, if there's a social
Sure, if there's a social problem then technology and $$ can fix it.
Personally, I find the example of "computers in every classroom" to fix publc education extraordinarily asinine. You and I both saw products of that generation when we were TAs- more stupid and surly than any generation preceeding them.
People forget that alot of innovations, technological, medical, architectural, came from times before computers.
Feh.
Asinine is the word. And do
Asinine is the word. And do note that there has been no mention of cost in all this. I happen to think that widely available broadband access is a great idea, but I also think it's none of the government's damn business to get it done.
Yet another stupid plan from an administration I respect less and less.
Do you really think John Kerry could afford for one second to let up on Bush's war on terror? I'm not so sure.
From my point of view, a
From my point of view, a Kerry win would get us even more of the ridiculous crap you rightly disdain, plus a let up on the war on terror. I don't like the goofy shit Bush is pulling out of his keister, but Kerry is a lose-lose proposition.
B, I'm not so sure. With a
B, I'm not so sure. With a Republican Congress-- a muscular, angry Republican congress anxious to smack the crap out of a Chief Executive, we might end up with less of a lose-lose than you think. What liberal wet dreams could Kerry possibly get passed in such a climate? For that matter, what makes you think Kerry is actually a hard-liberal?
Historically, a split Dem/Rep government has done the best work, and we're in a time where your guys have the momentum. Much as I dislike (loathe?) John Kerry, I suspect the give and take might be productive.
Well, his voting record for
Well, his voting record for starters. He was the highest ranked liberal in the senate, over even his butt-buddy Ted Kennedy.
It's not so much that a split government does the best work, just that it does very little "work." Often, that is a very good thing. In the present situation, I don't want the typical partisan bickering of a conflicting Congress and White House to hinder the war on terror. (And we all know the Republicans can be very, very partisan when they are on the outs.) And hindering what is likely to be a underwhelming performance from Kerry can't be a good thing.