Re: Frustration with politics explained

Dana & Laurie Kissick (
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:06:38 -0500

> From: Dan Clemmensen <>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Frustration with politics explained
> Date: Monday, October 13, 1997 5:15 PM
> JD wrote:
> >
> > At 05:33 PM 10/12/97 -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> > >Geoff Smith wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >This is not quite what I had in mind as a starting point. I think we
> > >need
> > >to accept that the current economic/political system exists, that it
> > >works pretty well, and that it has a fairly high inertia.
> >
> > With a 5.6 trillion dollar debt, 26 trillion aggregate debt, two
> > "parties" pobtificating about inane nonsense like volunteerism and
> > values, and Chinese communists buying a California naval base, "well"
> > hardly describes the situation.
> >
> I didn't say I liked everything about the current system. I believe
> that we should be using the current unprecedented prosperity to
> raise taxes and pay off the insanely high debt (two thirds of which
> was incurred during the Reagan/Bush years) to which you refer,
> but I don't think this list is the appropriate forum. By "pretty well"
> I mean by comparison to other eras. If we can just keep the system
> alive for a couple of decades at most, we can break through to
> a successor economy base on superintelligence and nearly unlimited
> material wealth.

Hey Dan,

Please do me a favor and send an e-mail to my homeschooled children
explaining that they can't have the telescope we are saving up for because
we just have to keep the "system" alive for a couple more decades. I have
not been able to figure out just the right words to make them understand
that they are "human resources", and that it is a "moral" imperative that
they blindly follow whatever "system" that is in power, especially when
that "system" will be the one to lead them to utopia.

* quotations were for emphasis, not to imply that you actually used those

Sarcastically yours, Dana K.