Sunday, September 19, 2004
look! even the mailbox is protesting against bush...
| lily* || 6 || 9:28 p.m. |
And well it should! Bush is on a faith based crusade against everything useful, decent and practical. He's against everything but tax cuts for his corporate sugar daddies. Cats hate bush too.
my favourite image of bush: with his pants on fire.
(please refer to http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/07/21/bush_effigy040721.html)
or just read: http://quietday.blogspot.com/2004/07/pants-on-fire-bush.html#comments
The Pants on Fire tour was fun, but it's going to take a whole lot more than fun and mockery to bring down Bush. He is the current leader of an aggressive, vengeful cult.
(For some reason, the comment box balked at letting me post this time. I had to grab the commenting script from page source code)
my apologies for the comment box. i will attempt to fix that this upcoming weekend.
and i do agree that there is much more needed to rid ourselves of bush. however, we live in a society of indifference and where materialistic values are drilled endlessly into everyone's minds.
nowadays, most people are walking drones--barely anyone is "unique". people are the image of what our corporations want us to be. we dress the way the mannequins dress. we talk the way "rachel" or "joey" talks (from friends).
it's a wonder that people question why voter turnouts are so low. no one cares.
on the other hand, there is hope. the actions that bush et al has been both critcized and praised immensensely over the world. perhaps, this will strike awareness. perhaps, action will be taken. more protests has occurred since decades.
another problem is the online voting procedures. as convenient as it may be, this merely provides an excuse for bush to rig the election to put it quite kindly.
once again, i remain pessismistic. maybe i'm a pessimistic person.
for another "cynical" view on the upcoming nov.2 election in the us, please refer to: Why George Bush is going to win the election
The good news is the box appears to be fixed.
I read the Canadian Cynic's criticism of the Kerry campaign. I've come to my own cynical conclusion. Kerry, quite simply, is more interested in as a narrow a victory as possible with as little turn out as can assure him a victory. A revitalized and interested citizenry is anathema to our corporate Democrats and Republicans. Blurring the distinctions while insisting they exist has been the strategy of both parties for ages.
It's a cynical attempt to ensure their careers are safe both while in office and when they move on. They use the same logic as jury selectiuon consultants and casino operators. The idea is to reduce the pool of voters to a fairly predictable and safe number. They don't want people who can see through lies voting and they don't want upset powerful big money interests.
That Bush is infinitely worse than Kerry is a given. But Kerry will continue the security state programs and prosecute the resource wars vigorously. I'm astonished that people who realize this are still willing to back him, especially when they were alternatives and continue to be alternatives.
It's the security of participating in system, I think, that drives them. The best and most idealistic will vote for Nader. The marching morons will turn out for Bush and the moderates, liberals and some squishy people will vote for Kerry. Dennis Kucinich, who I think is even better than Nader, famously said "I'm electable if you vote for me". The loud Democrats laughed at his short stature and vegan diet. The October Plan will ensure everyone is terrified right before the vote and almost certainly throw it to Bush.