Who Cares (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> From: "Blanc" <blancw@cnw.com>
> Subject: Who Cares
> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:22:56 -0800

>  When the politicians speak they always make statements which imply that they're
> speaking to, and being heard by,  the whole nation.   I just read a notice that
> less than 40% of eligible voters went to the polls.   Since the Republicans are
> still in the majority, this means that less than one quarter of the voting
> population supports Clinton as President.   And only slightly more than one
> quarter support Republicans.   This would be meaningful to me, if I was making
> policy:  what are all those other people doing?

If you're talking about the people who didn't vote, they're trying to keep
from going under. Probably working two jobs, keeping the kids in school and
out of trouble, saving for college, paying the house morgage off, etc. Who's
in office won't make a whit of difference to any of that. It's irrelevant.

If you're talking about the politicians, they're laughing their ass off on
the way to the bank to cash their tax-derived income.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 12:39 AM -0500 11/5/98, Jim Choate wrote:

>If you're talking about the people who didn't vote, they're trying to keep
>from going under. Probably working two jobs, keeping the kids in school and
>out of trouble, saving for college, paying the house morgage off, etc. Who's
>in office won't make a whit of difference to any of that. It's irrelevant.

	That's crap.

	While I won't deny that some of the people who don't vote are in
the position you claim they are, their not voting has nothing to do with
their economic position, it has to do with the facts that:

	1) This is a mid-term election. Since it isn't a presidential
election, fewer really care to research the issues (which are fewer).

	2) We are currently in decent economic times, and as Terry Pratchet
noted on Men At Arms, (paraphrasing here) Most people don't really care
about democrazy, Equal Rights, or any of that, they just want tomorrow to
be exactly like today. So, as long as things are Fair to good (or great),
there won't be a lot of people intersted in voting, unless things look like
they are going to make a radical change, which leads us to the 3 big reason:

	3) As Jimmy notes, there usually isn't much of a difference between
one canidate and the other (outside of the Natural Law types), and those
canidates who _are_ different (Libertarians, Socialists &etc. ("reform"
types don't count, they really are for making tomorrow just like yesterday
& today, only they ADMIT it for the most part)) either don't get enough
votes to challenge the status quo, or if there is an issue that will
challenge the status quo, the number of voters tends to increase (to
varying degrees).
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com