Dot-Com Bubbles
The
dot com bubble burst because of the Telecommunications Act of 1999.
This piece of legislation benefited the "Baby Bell" industries and
overturned the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that encouraged the robust
dot com boom in the 1990s. The Baby Bells heavily financed Bush's
warchest in 2000 and most people do not realize how big of an issue the
reunification of the Bell Telephone companies was at the end of the 20th
Century. Within a few years, MCI WorldCom was bankrupt and AT&T was
a withered husk with only its good name to offer to the highest bidder
for a few million dollars (Baby Bell SBC bought it and then changed its
name to AT&T) - only Sprint-Eathlink survived of the three major
long distance carriers. Bush delivered his promise to the Baby Bell
companies to give them back their monopoly on telephone service, and by
then, Americans were focused on wars and the Patriot Act. The dot com
boom was an unfortunate casualty in the telecom war - they made an
alliance with the wrong side. That is the story most people don't know
about it. I worked in the telecom lobby in DC in the late 1990s and
early 2000s.
Bikers
I had to laugh when I saw your "noble" comment, along with American
"pride." What a crock of crap if ever I saw one. Your breed of
American pride is beyond prejudice. Same crap from the same type of
ignorant people that have no understanding of what true American pride
or noble acts are.
As for the other stupidity in these posts, let's review. One man does not control everything going on in this country. No one in the history of this country does so. Local government probably controls permits, not the President. If you have issue with it, take it up with DC's local government. This stupidity and pure ignorance of how government works proves just how little you people truly understand about government.
That many motorcycles logistically would have caused issues if they had been awarded a permit. Even if it was for a few hours, traffic would have been screwed up for a while. Now rather than be adults about it, they just screw over the entire city. Wow, had no idea acting like a child was a form of displaying "American pride." No wonder we're viewed as some of the most intolerant people on the earth and not the happiest place to live in.
As for the other stupidity in these posts, let's review. One man does not control everything going on in this country. No one in the history of this country does so. Local government probably controls permits, not the President. If you have issue with it, take it up with DC's local government. This stupidity and pure ignorance of how government works proves just how little you people truly understand about government.
That many motorcycles logistically would have caused issues if they had been awarded a permit. Even if it was for a few hours, traffic would have been screwed up for a while. Now rather than be adults about it, they just screw over the entire city. Wow, had no idea acting like a child was a form of displaying "American pride." No wonder we're viewed as some of the most intolerant people on the earth and not the happiest place to live in.
Oprah
While Chong wrongly popped off with things that became audible to the
public, it too should be considered and weighed for truth that Oprah's
own staff at Harpo studios cited her for being self absorbed, an
oppressive manager, had turned the "personality" on only when guest were
present or she was to go on the air. The same Boss that signed all her
employees to a non-disclosure, silence contract. Where there's smoke
there' fire...Y'know?
The War on Drugs
Donating money to D.A.R.E. is counter-productive and supportive of the
war on drugs that has increased Chicago metropolitan heroin purity from
2%-pure to 90%-pure over the past 40 years since I was a Cook County
prosecutor. Drug prohibition is the single best strategy to put more
drugs, including heroin, everywhere, uncontrolled and unregulated. I
sought to bring that anti-drug war message to an anti-heroin meeting
sponsored by the Daily Herald and held in a Geneva theatre some years
ago but was told "All speaking slots are filled." Attending the meeting
away, I learned that only drug-war supporters, and drug awareness and
drug-treatment messages were heard. Now, as a speaker for Law
Enforcement Against Prohibition, I presented last year at a Rotary club luncheon in Kenosha WI and learned that their town of 100,000
people was running one heroin overdose case a day. This year kids in
SW Cook County School District 230 (Orland and Palos Townships) are
experiencing heroin overdose, but again only drug-war supporters and
drug treaters were heard at government and school-supported meetings for
parents and students. It's time for a contrary message to be heard -- a
message calling for an end to drug prohibition and for the treatment of
drugs as a medical matter needing legalization, licensing, regulation,
labeling, taxation and control. The drug cartels and street gangs, like
Al Capone with alcohol before, favor the continuation of drug
prohibition that protects their illegal drug distribution monopoly.
Responsive authorities and good people should not side with them by also
supporting drug prohibition. Drug use may be bad but drug prohibition
is worse.
Forgiveness
For years, I've struggled on and off with fits of depression. It
generally involves some sort of unceasing inner self-criticism that
casts a shroud of gloom over everyone and everything around me, until
all that's left is a very lonely me sitting fetal in a very small room
that I seem to have made for myself. And then I remember my Christian
upbringing. Jesus set the model for someone that never allowed
themselves to be victimized. Regardless of who we are or what we've
done, there is always hope and forgiveness ahead, so long as we are
brave enough for the journey. More importantly, the ENTIRE dynamic of
Jesus' relationships was one of perpetual giving. He went out with
nothing, loved his followers intensely, and told all of them to go out
and to deliver the gift of love and
forgiveness to the world. My personal challenge to anyone reading this
(especially those who relate to the depression bit) is this: when you're
feeling down for whatever reason, stop what you're doing and go love
someone. Do something to help them physically, encourage them, listen to
them, etc. Shift your mental focus from yourself to someone outside of
you, and see if you were happier focusing on yourself or focusing on
others. Nowadays, we have facebook and acquaintances galore but we don't
have loving community.
Iran
Even
though the shah gave us personal freedoms, we had no political
freedoms. In a democracy, people can choose who rules them and how. This
was not the case with the shah. Then Khomeini came along and gave
people false promises and they believed him. As we say in Farsi: Gorbe
az hole halim oftad too dig! There was certainly corruption during the
time of the shah and wealth distribution was far from fair. Originally
though what ignited the revolution was the coup that was staged against
Mosadegh by the CIA and the British. People never forgot that and never
forgave the way the US had meddled in our affairs. The US is always
after its own interests (like any other country) and as history proves
it, it sometimes stops at nothing to get what it wants. Bad US foreign
policy, ignorance, wishful thinking, lying mullahs, and lots of other
elements came together and gave birth to the IRI. Today, the people of
Iran have lived through lie after lie, massacre after massacre, war,
brutality, propaganda, etc. Normalcy has disappeared, yet people crave
it and want to find a shortcut to it when there is none. The terrible
instability in the region, including the instability in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. doesn't help instill confidence in people. And
US and Israel keep screaming about the nuclear program when they should
have put focus on Iran's brutal disregard for the human rights of its
own citizens. Iranians cannot even trust themselves. Who can forget how
we messed up in 1979? What we need is a brilliant and decent leader, a
category that has been scarce. But can we ever trust again? I hope the
time will come.
Democracy in Iran has to come from within. Our "spring" in 1979, turned into a horrible long winter. We are in a better position than our Arab neighbours to know that an Islamic government is a recipe for disaster. Any ideological political system has no hope of delivering democracy. This is true not only about Islam but also about Communism. In a democracy all are equal and no one is more equal than the rest!
Democracy in Iran has to come from within. Our "spring" in 1979, turned into a horrible long winter. We are in a better position than our Arab neighbours to know that an Islamic government is a recipe for disaster. Any ideological political system has no hope of delivering democracy. This is true not only about Islam but also about Communism. In a democracy all are equal and no one is more equal than the rest!
Panopticons
I usually agree with you fully on just about everything you have written
about here, but this is not one of them. I see major differences
between your Baltimore scenario and this. Firstly, the nature of spying
vs. police work, the first being to ostensibly prevent crime/terrorism
and the second being to catch a criminal once we are pretty sure a crime
has happened. The needs are then very different, ongoing surveillance
vs info needed for a particular case. The second is obviously the
scope. ‘People using payphones in Baltimore for the period of the
investiagtion’ is obviously a much smaller group than ‘anyone using a
cell phone/social media site in America from here to eternity’. It’s
the ongoing and blanket nature of the surveillance that I think has many
people concerned. Next, I’m not sure why you appear to be trusting the
very same people at their word regarding the scope of PRISM who were
hiding this program in the first place. I am right with you in a
complete lack of surprise that this was going on after the Patriot act
but the reality here is a little jolting.
The Drudge Report
Regardless of the fact that the majority of these
stories seem to be committed by blacks does not justify blatant racism.
Melvin put it best when he referred to the fact that these kids are a
product of their environment. Unfortunately, many young blacks have
been fed a steady diet of self-hatred and victimization where they feel
like they do not have to take responsibility for anything. No one is
making excuses for their behavior because there is none. With that
said, regardless of how disgusting this behavior, terms such as
"savages", "bananas" and wishing for death when referring to an entire
race is and always will be racism. I know several African Americans
whose children are very well behaved and would never be caught dead
behaving that way. In fact, my child
attended a majority white private school where the white kids constantly
came to school drunk or high. Should I make a hasty generalization of
all white kids being drunks and drug addicts? Finally, this type of
reporting fits a media stereo type. The media will not report
otherwise. But alas, unfortunately, these stories are too easy and
numerous to find particularly with everyone having a recording device on
their phone. There is no excuse for this behavior and no justification
for this blatant racist post. Posts like this is why the Democrats can
claim that all opposition to their agenda is purely racist and not
based on policy. It is racist posts like this that is making it hard to
defeat the liberals. Everyday I try to convince African Americans that
Republicans are not racist. However, posts like this make it hard.
Because just like you, they see one bad apple and assume that it is true
of everyone. I guess in a way, you and all of the people that cheered
you on are guilty of the same small-minded savagery that you accuse
these kids of. Have a nice day.
The Paleo Diet
You should forget grains, anyway. Try out the Paleo Diet. I’ve been on it for 3 years and feel amazing compared to how I felt on carbs/sugars, and I also dropped off my extra weight in the first 6 months of being on it without restricting calories. There are no gimmicks you have to buy (no books, programs, special snacks, etc). Just focus on healthy meats, vegetables, fruits and sparingly nuts/seeds. Whole dairy is optional, some like it and some find they feel better without it. It took me a little over a month to get used to it before my intense carb cravings went away completely, but after that it has been fine. My body easily shifts in and out of ‘ketosis’ between raw fruit snacks. Of course GMO issues are not just limited to grains, but it is a good start for your health to break free of the glucose addiction. Just have to make sure you drink plenty of water and have fruit-instead-of-meat days now and then so you’re being kind to your kidneys.
Geek Culture
Hollywood cowardly geek content creators wash their hands like Poncio Pilato every time a tragedy occurs like this.
The Aurora Theater Shooting - Dark Knight Rises' Nolan and Bale went to hospitals and tried desperately to distance themselves from a cosplaying geek culture members shooting up people dressed like a comic book character. Film company panicked and prayed their movies earnings would not be affected.
Sandy Hook - violent video game/geek culture fed coward decides to live out his violent fantasies and with no remorse, just like when you play Grand Theft and other violent video games - takes down children. Django director Tarantino, aka, the GOD of cowardly Geek Culture who are the main types of people behind our violent mainstream culture, goes on the DEFENSIVE. Saying there is no connection as he washes his hand and slivers out the back door, tail curled up. And people actually defend him.
Now this geek who's perverted children's cartoons, allowed to do so with no responsibility of the consequences, is "horrified" that parts of his violent and crass cartoons are edited by HIS OWN TARGET AUDIENCE, geek culture that laughs at and enjoys violence.
The hypocrisy.
Root-cause is our culture, its violent. But we suffer fools gladly which is part of our mainstream culture.
The Aurora Theater Shooting - Dark Knight Rises' Nolan and Bale went to hospitals and tried desperately to distance themselves from a cosplaying geek culture members shooting up people dressed like a comic book character. Film company panicked and prayed their movies earnings would not be affected.
Sandy Hook - violent video game/geek culture fed coward decides to live out his violent fantasies and with no remorse, just like when you play Grand Theft and other violent video games - takes down children. Django director Tarantino, aka, the GOD of cowardly Geek Culture who are the main types of people behind our violent mainstream culture, goes on the DEFENSIVE. Saying there is no connection as he washes his hand and slivers out the back door, tail curled up. And people actually defend him.
Now this geek who's perverted children's cartoons, allowed to do so with no responsibility of the consequences, is "horrified" that parts of his violent and crass cartoons are edited by HIS OWN TARGET AUDIENCE, geek culture that laughs at and enjoys violence.
The hypocrisy.
Root-cause is our culture, its violent. But we suffer fools gladly which is part of our mainstream culture.
Theocracies
It is not a "belief system", it is a retrograde, astoundingly primitive
(meaning, literally, not evolving or progressing), social system which
has been imposed on the general population with the specific intent to
suppress the full and equal participation of women in all aspects of
human activity.
Any attempt to call such a system "culture" or tradition" is at once a willful and mendacious distortion of the truth and a blatant, insufferable insult to all of the world's women.
By the same token, in what cannon was it ever established that 'culture" and 'tradition" are inherently positive values? Certainly human history is proof positive to the contrary.
Protect us, Oh Lady, from Culture and Tradition.
Amen.
Any attempt to call such a system "culture" or tradition" is at once a willful and mendacious distortion of the truth and a blatant, insufferable insult to all of the world's women.
By the same token, in what cannon was it ever established that 'culture" and 'tradition" are inherently positive values? Certainly human history is proof positive to the contrary.
Protect us, Oh Lady, from Culture and Tradition.
Amen.
Alt Weeklies
Actually, a lot of alt-weeklies are doing okay in terms of
advertising revenue and circulation... there are a couple of reasons
why...
A) their ad revenue always sucked... most are free and not delivered, which means the rates they could charge for ads was always much, much, much lower than newspapers with paid circulation and delivery... so they developed their business much further down the chain... ie, big major dailies had a long way to fall -- huge newsrooms to cut back and a lot of content to cut, leading to a decline in the paper's quality... alt-weeklies don't have fall to far -- they've developed their business with small staffs and limits on their content from the very start... nobody picks up their local alt-weekly and shakes their head and says "man, this just ain't what it used to be"... because it's always been shitty.
B) the more local a paper's content is, the better off the circulation has been doing... you can get national news from any number of sources, and even most of your state/regional news from any news organization that has an AP subscription... you can't get your sulky treatises on why Band of Horses are such sellouts anywhere but your local alt-weekly.
C) people who do pick up alt-weeklies pick them up for different reasons than people might pick up a newspaper or a magazine, or even some of the bigger "alt-media" papers, like the onion's print edition... nobody (almost nobody) is like: "Oh shit, I've got to have my copy of the Akron alt-weekly right now!" If people were, then some smart enterprising person would put it online (or content similar) and put the alt-weekly out of business. Instead, most people who pick up the Akron alt-weekly, are walking down the street and think, "oh that's an interesting cover and i've enjoyed reading this paper" and pick it up... or see it in a restaurant, or on the way out of the grocery store, etc. I've replaced my NYT and WaPo reading with online versions, because why the fuck should I wait for a paper to show up, and pay for that shit when I can just go online. There just isnt' a huge demand for the alt-weekly product online.
D) part of the appeal of the alt-weekly is what you see in the print edition and isn't replaceable with an online edition. When I pick up the DC alt-weekly, it's usually because it has good cover art -- that's what's driving my interest, and that's not affected by the availability of the content online, or an alternative.
The Village Voice is a big enough, serious enough publication it may be facing problems that real newspapers have, but most alt-weeklies have a shitty business plan to begin with, but because of the nature of their content, many of the ones who have managed to be financially stable to this point are holding steady.
A) their ad revenue always sucked... most are free and not delivered, which means the rates they could charge for ads was always much, much, much lower than newspapers with paid circulation and delivery... so they developed their business much further down the chain... ie, big major dailies had a long way to fall -- huge newsrooms to cut back and a lot of content to cut, leading to a decline in the paper's quality... alt-weeklies don't have fall to far -- they've developed their business with small staffs and limits on their content from the very start... nobody picks up their local alt-weekly and shakes their head and says "man, this just ain't what it used to be"... because it's always been shitty.
B) the more local a paper's content is, the better off the circulation has been doing... you can get national news from any number of sources, and even most of your state/regional news from any news organization that has an AP subscription... you can't get your sulky treatises on why Band of Horses are such sellouts anywhere but your local alt-weekly.
C) people who do pick up alt-weeklies pick them up for different reasons than people might pick up a newspaper or a magazine, or even some of the bigger "alt-media" papers, like the onion's print edition... nobody (almost nobody) is like: "Oh shit, I've got to have my copy of the Akron alt-weekly right now!" If people were, then some smart enterprising person would put it online (or content similar) and put the alt-weekly out of business. Instead, most people who pick up the Akron alt-weekly, are walking down the street and think, "oh that's an interesting cover and i've enjoyed reading this paper" and pick it up... or see it in a restaurant, or on the way out of the grocery store, etc. I've replaced my NYT and WaPo reading with online versions, because why the fuck should I wait for a paper to show up, and pay for that shit when I can just go online. There just isnt' a huge demand for the alt-weekly product online.
D) part of the appeal of the alt-weekly is what you see in the print edition and isn't replaceable with an online edition. When I pick up the DC alt-weekly, it's usually because it has good cover art -- that's what's driving my interest, and that's not affected by the availability of the content online, or an alternative.
The Village Voice is a big enough, serious enough publication it may be facing problems that real newspapers have, but most alt-weeklies have a shitty business plan to begin with, but because of the nature of their content, many of the ones who have managed to be financially stable to this point are holding steady.
Internet Privacy
First. None of us know what kind of a teacher she is; she may be awesome
with reaching out to her kids on their level as well as teaching them
what they need to know, or she may be freakin' terrible at the subject
matter, baked out of her gourd during class, and incapable of being
patient with her students. But we don't know. So let's try not to make
any speculative judgments beyond what we do know.
Second. What we do know is still very limited. This article and the images within give us only a small insight into this woman's personality, her lifestyle, and her habits. More than that, this doesn't even seem to be a full report and even has conflicting statements with what has actually been said to occur. What I can discern from the limited information at hand is she's a young, beautiful woman who isn't ashamed of her body, (in fact she seems to quite enjoy showing it off), and who partakes in smoking marijuana in her free time, which, quite frankly, is a rather subjective pastime as far as I'm concerned with regards to the ethical question of whether or not it's "right" or "appropriate". If you exchanged the joint for a cigarette or perhaps a beer, would your perception of this woman and her responsibility towards being a role model change? I mean, cigarettes and alcohol are both legal, and kids don't remain kids forever--eventually they'll have access, and quite possibly partake in these "vices". Would it be wrong, then, for her to post pictures of herself smoking or drinking as she is won't to do in her own free time? And consider this: should we hold this woman accountable for an ethical standard many of us don't follow, (including, quite possibly, many of her student's parents), merely because she is responsible for our children *some* of the time? That doesn't exactly seem fair. And here's another thing to consider: if she were a male teacher and posted half-naked photos, would it still be as controversial? Hm? Or is it maybe because we've objectified and sexualized female beauty more than male beauty that it's "unacceptable" behavior? Quite frankly, the posting of nude pictures online should not be grounds for job termination. Everyone has a body. Everyone gets naked sometimes. Human anatomy is not something to be ashamed nor afraid of.
Furthermore, am I the only one here made uneasy by the fact that employers today seem to have so much leverage with which to pass judgement on their employees due to the public nature of the internet? Consider: if the internet is a public place, would it not be unlike your employer seeing you at a professional football game or a bar? If you're intoxicated in such places, though not necessarily making a complete ass of yourself, but you are clearly intoxicated and perhaps having trouble being coherent or being completely level--would it be fair for your employer to put you on unpaid leave, suspend you, or even fire you merely because you were intoxicated on your own time in public? Does that seem right to you? I mean, we already have laws and the police to govern our actions--do we *really* need our livelihood to come under fire just because some people like to let off steam with a bunch of other people outside their home with the use of "drugs" (in this case, alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana)?
I will agree that we live in a profoundly narcissistic age as well as a time in which over-sharing is starting to become an issue in regards to boundaries--but consider that this is in response to society's shift from being a repressive, closed doors type of environment where no one said what they actually meant, (and in fact if they did, they were considered eccentric or shameful or just plain strange and "unseemly"), to one where speaking one's mind and being open and honest with how one feels is not only encouraged but cherished. Do we need more discretion in our words and actions with regards to how we interact with one another? It's debatable. You take the good with the bad and everyone gets dirty sometimes when they don't want to, but that's life. It's a growing process.
Do I think this woman deserves to be suspended? No. Observed, maybe. Put on academic probation, perhaps. But not suspended or fired or what have you. Do I think she is not a good role model? No, because I don't know her well enough to make that assessment. All I know is that she seems to be acting as almost any other attractive 23 year-old female of this generation might as she adheres to the modern morality of this day and age instead of some of the more traditional values that some people still hold and that were more commonplace in America in bygone days. Is she a bad person or a bad teacher? Who can say except for the people she teaches. The rest of us are merely bystanders with opinions, and who can say for sure which of us are truly right? Not me. And probably not you, either.
Second. What we do know is still very limited. This article and the images within give us only a small insight into this woman's personality, her lifestyle, and her habits. More than that, this doesn't even seem to be a full report and even has conflicting statements with what has actually been said to occur. What I can discern from the limited information at hand is she's a young, beautiful woman who isn't ashamed of her body, (in fact she seems to quite enjoy showing it off), and who partakes in smoking marijuana in her free time, which, quite frankly, is a rather subjective pastime as far as I'm concerned with regards to the ethical question of whether or not it's "right" or "appropriate". If you exchanged the joint for a cigarette or perhaps a beer, would your perception of this woman and her responsibility towards being a role model change? I mean, cigarettes and alcohol are both legal, and kids don't remain kids forever--eventually they'll have access, and quite possibly partake in these "vices". Would it be wrong, then, for her to post pictures of herself smoking or drinking as she is won't to do in her own free time? And consider this: should we hold this woman accountable for an ethical standard many of us don't follow, (including, quite possibly, many of her student's parents), merely because she is responsible for our children *some* of the time? That doesn't exactly seem fair. And here's another thing to consider: if she were a male teacher and posted half-naked photos, would it still be as controversial? Hm? Or is it maybe because we've objectified and sexualized female beauty more than male beauty that it's "unacceptable" behavior? Quite frankly, the posting of nude pictures online should not be grounds for job termination. Everyone has a body. Everyone gets naked sometimes. Human anatomy is not something to be ashamed nor afraid of.
Furthermore, am I the only one here made uneasy by the fact that employers today seem to have so much leverage with which to pass judgement on their employees due to the public nature of the internet? Consider: if the internet is a public place, would it not be unlike your employer seeing you at a professional football game or a bar? If you're intoxicated in such places, though not necessarily making a complete ass of yourself, but you are clearly intoxicated and perhaps having trouble being coherent or being completely level--would it be fair for your employer to put you on unpaid leave, suspend you, or even fire you merely because you were intoxicated on your own time in public? Does that seem right to you? I mean, we already have laws and the police to govern our actions--do we *really* need our livelihood to come under fire just because some people like to let off steam with a bunch of other people outside their home with the use of "drugs" (in this case, alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana)?
I will agree that we live in a profoundly narcissistic age as well as a time in which over-sharing is starting to become an issue in regards to boundaries--but consider that this is in response to society's shift from being a repressive, closed doors type of environment where no one said what they actually meant, (and in fact if they did, they were considered eccentric or shameful or just plain strange and "unseemly"), to one where speaking one's mind and being open and honest with how one feels is not only encouraged but cherished. Do we need more discretion in our words and actions with regards to how we interact with one another? It's debatable. You take the good with the bad and everyone gets dirty sometimes when they don't want to, but that's life. It's a growing process.
Do I think this woman deserves to be suspended? No. Observed, maybe. Put on academic probation, perhaps. But not suspended or fired or what have you. Do I think she is not a good role model? No, because I don't know her well enough to make that assessment. All I know is that she seems to be acting as almost any other attractive 23 year-old female of this generation might as she adheres to the modern morality of this day and age instead of some of the more traditional values that some people still hold and that were more commonplace in America in bygone days. Is she a bad person or a bad teacher? Who can say except for the people she teaches. The rest of us are merely bystanders with opinions, and who can say for sure which of us are truly right? Not me. And probably not you, either.
Beyonce
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Putting
this no-talent fraud (who table-danced for Gaddhafi's sons in 2010 for a
million bucks) on stage at this event denied thousands of talented
vocalists a once-in-a-lifetime chance to display their talent to the
world for real, in real time. Beyonce makes millions pretending to sing
and you defend her fraudulent display worrying the poor diva might get
the sniffles if she actually tried to sing one song, the very thing she
is so generously compensated for. Anyone from the 99.9 percent of
professional vocalists who actually sing and get paid almost nothing
would have been a better choice. Let Beyonce go give Robert Mugabe a lap
dance and spare us her canned fakery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
While the disposable poor just struggle and die.
The view from the gutter is different, you see.
We’ve been down so long, it looks like up to me.
Inequality, injustice and lack of fair play?
Too bad for them, too bad you say.
Trickle-down largesse? It urinates on us.
They get what they deserve?.. the underclass.
Don’t soak the rich. Soak the poor!
As I weep beside the golden door.
They reap what they sow, the least of these.
Hungry children , ...ignore their pleas.
As politician puppets deny poverty,
God, is this what we mean by “society”?