Geo-political Graffiti
I was talking to my father-in-law Ed about the state of politics in Massachusetts. I say this because Massachusetts is a liberal state, and California is a liberal state but the liberalism of both states could not be more different. In Massachusetts, people are really concerned, and I mean really concerned, about their own personal rights. In California, people have realized that personal rights don't really mean anything unless you have the money with which to utilize those rights, and therefore, in California, the real concern is in the money department. You can have all the free speech you want, but unless you have the money to rent bill board space no one will listen to you. What seems to be ironic in this whole thing is that Massachusetts, with all of its complaining, is relatively cheaper than California. Mind you, I lived in Chico, which is cheap by California standards and Massachusetts is still cheaper than that.
So, the average Massachusettsian spends a few minutes out of their day complaining that the government is hiking some fee, and, "how can they just do that, don't we have rights." Whereas the average California, complains about the same thing, but they say, "how dare they ask for more of our money." Which is more effective? Well, the Californians will end up paying the money so the hike is complained about, but eventually accepted. You get the feeling that Massachusetts has enough people who would parade in the streets if given the chance, that though there's a hike in the fee here as well, it's less severe. Just something to think about.
But anyways, I was talking to my F.I.L. Ed about this and I was telling him how in Massachusetts they really don't like Bush. Now, you are entitled to whatever your opinion is on this subject. You may even fall into the category of 'it's not that I like Bush; it's just that I hate democrats,' or so on. I will not bother you. If your support Bush in unconditional and will remain no matter what he says or does then I'm sure that you have enough personal problems and you don't need me needling you as well.
Suffice to say that I don't like Bush. But I don't like Bush in a regular, "okay..I'm not going to vote for the guy," sort of way. People around here react to the upcoming election as if it were an exorcism. It is not uncommon to see cars with 5 or more anti-Bush bumper stickers. Not Hippy cars. Normal, "this is my car" type cars--covered in bumper stickers.
My favorite is "Let's not vote for him again in 04." I think it is a tribute to democracy that the one leader who rose to power without winning the election is the only one who's policies resemble the Shaw of Iran. See what happens when democracy fails: Quasi-theocratic Military dictatorship complete with secret police. But, I digress...that's beside the point.
The point is that I'm not voting for him, and by doing that, I do believe I will have voiced my opinion on the matter. On the other hand, there are those who feel that their voice will not be heard unless they paint it on the side of buildings and especially on Stop signs. Nearly every Stop sign in the Pioneer Valley has the word "Bush" appended to it. So that, while driving around, all you see are Stop Bush signs.
So, I told Ed about this, and he said something that really interested me. He said, "isn't it funny how political graffiti is always supporting the democratic party." Well, I've given it some thought, and I'd like to explain why this is. First of all, the democrats are the party for public projects--projects such as cleaning up graffiti. Now, keep in mind, without graffiti, there is no reason to fund a committee to clean up the graffiti. You cannot ask tax payers to clean up the streets when the streets are already clean. It's like asking the state to fund a clinic for anorexia in Ethiopia.
I don't imagine that the authors of the graffiti itself think of this. More than likely, being democrats, they simply assume that some tax-funded organization will come along and clean up their mess in the same way that they assume a welfare system will come along to fix their lives. I'm sure that will offend somebody, but I guarantee that if you have worked a shit job at any point in your life, you will have little or no sympathy for people who do nothing and still receive a check which is, more often than not, more than you make.
Of course, the authors of the graffiti might simply assume that they have to make anonymous character assassinations of the president because public character assassinations generally result in your being put on a list in the department of homeland security's home office--say if they were to write a blog about their political feelings or something like that.
But the real reason, I think that Republicans do not write political graffiti on the wall is because that venue of communication is closed to them. The right wingers botched that up for their future conservatives in Berlin around 1935. Now they have to go to more subtle tactics--like paying people to blatantly and slanderously lie about the republican's competition.
I for one believe the TV ads made by Kerry's ex-fellow soldiers. I believe that they, out of nowhere, decided to get a butt load of money together, by themselves and with no affiliation to the Republican party, in order to tell the whole world about how Kerry smoozed his way into getting his three purple hearts. Moreover, I believe that Kerry, way back in the early seventies, knew that in thirty years he would be married to the ketchup queen, and would thereby be able to fund a presidential race in 2004, and as a result of this knowledge, knew that he would only get an edge over the competition by getting three purple hearts in a war that the president was too coked up during to remember, and all this three decades before the actual presidential race. Hell, that's why I'm voting for Kerry. What foresight!
Look, I'll be honest with you people. I'm no democrat. Nor am I a republican. I'm just voting for the guy who'll do the best by me. It's as simple as that. I suggest you all do the same. If you have money invested in a company over seas and you're afraid that your factory will be burned down in protest to Bush's foreign policy, vote Kerry. If you have children who you do not want to see go off to war, vote Kerry. If you are a teacher or a student at any level, vote Kerry. If you are doing well now, though, by all means vote Bush. What I can't stand are people who vote Bush because he's a republican and they're republicans. He's a Christian and they're Christians. He doesn't like terrorists, and they don't like terrorists. That's just not good enough anymore as a criteria. Sorry. First of all, no one likes terrorists. Second, Bush is as much a Christian as Jerry Falwell. Hell, in one speech I saw him mis-quoting the Bible to attribute the power of Jesus to the power of the U.S.. Something wrong there. Lastly, is George Bush a republican? Hell, there are only two parties with any clout in the U.S., he just picked the rightist wing.
The real truth is that Bush is the candidate of the wealthy. Therefore, if you are wealthy, you most certainly should vote Bush, and I hold no grudge against you for it. You will most certainly get a better tax break with Bush than you would with Kerry. Just remember though that tax break isn't the same as you got with Reagan or Bush, Sr.. This time around that coupon comes at the expense of America's name world-wide. Oh yeah, and it has blood on it.
So, the average Massachusettsian spends a few minutes out of their day complaining that the government is hiking some fee, and, "how can they just do that, don't we have rights." Whereas the average California, complains about the same thing, but they say, "how dare they ask for more of our money." Which is more effective? Well, the Californians will end up paying the money so the hike is complained about, but eventually accepted. You get the feeling that Massachusetts has enough people who would parade in the streets if given the chance, that though there's a hike in the fee here as well, it's less severe. Just something to think about.
But anyways, I was talking to my F.I.L. Ed about this and I was telling him how in Massachusetts they really don't like Bush. Now, you are entitled to whatever your opinion is on this subject. You may even fall into the category of 'it's not that I like Bush; it's just that I hate democrats,' or so on. I will not bother you. If your support Bush in unconditional and will remain no matter what he says or does then I'm sure that you have enough personal problems and you don't need me needling you as well.
Suffice to say that I don't like Bush. But I don't like Bush in a regular, "okay..I'm not going to vote for the guy," sort of way. People around here react to the upcoming election as if it were an exorcism. It is not uncommon to see cars with 5 or more anti-Bush bumper stickers. Not Hippy cars. Normal, "this is my car" type cars--covered in bumper stickers.
My favorite is "Let's not vote for him again in 04." I think it is a tribute to democracy that the one leader who rose to power without winning the election is the only one who's policies resemble the Shaw of Iran. See what happens when democracy fails: Quasi-theocratic Military dictatorship complete with secret police. But, I digress...that's beside the point.
The point is that I'm not voting for him, and by doing that, I do believe I will have voiced my opinion on the matter. On the other hand, there are those who feel that their voice will not be heard unless they paint it on the side of buildings and especially on Stop signs. Nearly every Stop sign in the Pioneer Valley has the word "Bush" appended to it. So that, while driving around, all you see are Stop Bush signs.
So, I told Ed about this, and he said something that really interested me. He said, "isn't it funny how political graffiti is always supporting the democratic party." Well, I've given it some thought, and I'd like to explain why this is. First of all, the democrats are the party for public projects--projects such as cleaning up graffiti. Now, keep in mind, without graffiti, there is no reason to fund a committee to clean up the graffiti. You cannot ask tax payers to clean up the streets when the streets are already clean. It's like asking the state to fund a clinic for anorexia in Ethiopia.
I don't imagine that the authors of the graffiti itself think of this. More than likely, being democrats, they simply assume that some tax-funded organization will come along and clean up their mess in the same way that they assume a welfare system will come along to fix their lives. I'm sure that will offend somebody, but I guarantee that if you have worked a shit job at any point in your life, you will have little or no sympathy for people who do nothing and still receive a check which is, more often than not, more than you make.
Of course, the authors of the graffiti might simply assume that they have to make anonymous character assassinations of the president because public character assassinations generally result in your being put on a list in the department of homeland security's home office--say if they were to write a blog about their political feelings or something like that.
But the real reason, I think that Republicans do not write political graffiti on the wall is because that venue of communication is closed to them. The right wingers botched that up for their future conservatives in Berlin around 1935. Now they have to go to more subtle tactics--like paying people to blatantly and slanderously lie about the republican's competition.
I for one believe the TV ads made by Kerry's ex-fellow soldiers. I believe that they, out of nowhere, decided to get a butt load of money together, by themselves and with no affiliation to the Republican party, in order to tell the whole world about how Kerry smoozed his way into getting his three purple hearts. Moreover, I believe that Kerry, way back in the early seventies, knew that in thirty years he would be married to the ketchup queen, and would thereby be able to fund a presidential race in 2004, and as a result of this knowledge, knew that he would only get an edge over the competition by getting three purple hearts in a war that the president was too coked up during to remember, and all this three decades before the actual presidential race. Hell, that's why I'm voting for Kerry. What foresight!
Look, I'll be honest with you people. I'm no democrat. Nor am I a republican. I'm just voting for the guy who'll do the best by me. It's as simple as that. I suggest you all do the same. If you have money invested in a company over seas and you're afraid that your factory will be burned down in protest to Bush's foreign policy, vote Kerry. If you have children who you do not want to see go off to war, vote Kerry. If you are a teacher or a student at any level, vote Kerry. If you are doing well now, though, by all means vote Bush. What I can't stand are people who vote Bush because he's a republican and they're republicans. He's a Christian and they're Christians. He doesn't like terrorists, and they don't like terrorists. That's just not good enough anymore as a criteria. Sorry. First of all, no one likes terrorists. Second, Bush is as much a Christian as Jerry Falwell. Hell, in one speech I saw him mis-quoting the Bible to attribute the power of Jesus to the power of the U.S.. Something wrong there. Lastly, is George Bush a republican? Hell, there are only two parties with any clout in the U.S., he just picked the rightist wing.
The real truth is that Bush is the candidate of the wealthy. Therefore, if you are wealthy, you most certainly should vote Bush, and I hold no grudge against you for it. You will most certainly get a better tax break with Bush than you would with Kerry. Just remember though that tax break isn't the same as you got with Reagan or Bush, Sr.. This time around that coupon comes at the expense of America's name world-wide. Oh yeah, and it has blood on it.
posted by Monstro D. Whale at
1:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home