From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:18:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.173307.25429@aero.org>
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
 
>
>Barbara Bush asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
>She weasled out of that question by talking about changes in XUSSR.
>
The question should really be, "are you better off now than you were
twelve years go?" Unless the Democrats are planning to dump Clinton and
nominate Reagan, that is ;-)
 
>My answer is NO.
>
>I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
>larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
 
Is that because you make less, or because the various European currencies
are stronger, or...?
 
>
>I drive around LA a lot. It takes a substantially larger percentage of my
>time than it did 4 years ago. I read the news. In spite of the Willie
 
Wait a minute- you're blaming Bush for the traffic increase? Sounds like
you're saying the traffic is worse --> more cars on the road --> more
people can afford cars, or perhaps more people are driving to work?
 
You'll have to explain that one a bit!
 
>Hornton ad there is a substantially greater amount of crime in it than
>there was 4 years ago.
 
Pity Bush can't do much about the LAPD.
 
>I like to be able to relax in nature. There is substantially less clean
>nice nature than there was 4 years ago. I don't like to worry. I spend a
 
In fact, that's wrong. Air and water quality has consistently improved over
the past 20-30 years. The trend has been continually upward, despite what
you may hear from such environmental sages as Meryl Streep.
 
>substantially greater percentage of my time worrying about ozone holes etc.
>than I did 4 years ago.
 
Which tells me you're reading the wrong sages again. The word from the
arctic climitologists is that the much-ballyhooed "ozone hole" is nothing
new or scary. The artic is the natual ozone sink, where ozone breaks down
owing to lower UV levels. It is primarily created in the tropics. There
was some variation, mainly attributed to Cl emissions from the volcano
eruption in the arctic that year.
 
>I like the women that I know to have the same opportunities, freedoms and
>choices that I have. Their choices are substantially less than they were 4
>years ago. Not incidentally, the Reagan Bush Supreme Court have reduced my
>freedoms as well and will go on doing so for many more years.
>
Interestingly, the Republican party has nominated about 50% more women for
Senate and Gubanatorial office in the last four years than have the
Democrats. This is the anti-woman party? There is a very strong "Republicans
for Choice" movement as well (I'm a contributor). It's just not as monolithic
as the democratic party.
 
>Though I lead a life style that Clayton Cramer and the Religious Right
>would probably approve of at least as far as sex and drugs are concerned,
>I am substantially more at risk of aids than I was 4 years ago.
 
Unless you're an IV drug user, or sleep with one, or have anal intercourse
with a large number of men, you're not substantially at risk at all. At least,
that's what the stats say. Even then, given the disproportionately large
amount of funding AIDS research gets for the numbers of people afflicted,
you could hardly call it underfunded. And if you read the placards at the
convention you'd note there are a significant number of Republicans who are
active in the area of helping AIDS sufferers and gay rights.
>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1553 alt.politics.elections:10563