Wednesday, June 30, 2004

An Open Letter to Senator John Kerry

Senator Kerry, how is sending one more troop to Iraq going to make The United States of America Safer?

What is the death of one more human being in Iraq derived from conflict involving The United States of America, in concert or not in concert with NATO or any other coalition, going to accomplish?

Will the perpetuation of the savagery in Iraq that was begun by the administration of George W. Bush eliminate the impassioned desire of the people who inhabit the nations of The Middle East to own their land? Are not those people indigenous to the land whose resources The United States of America has for years considered itself entitled to?

I dare say that the longer the savagery continues, with or without the aid of whatever we call a coalition, the more determined and united the people of those lands will become. That determination will continue to manifest itself as what we call terrorism. It will continue to manifest itself as what the indigenous peoples of North America would like to have done to Europeans some 500 years ago.

First and foremost, Senator Kerry, bring the troops home now. Let the inhabitants of those lands decide among themselves how they will govern their lands. We will never have control over that, try as we may. It may be bloody. It may be uncivilized. Many crimes against humanity may be committed, as are committed today in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Palestine. But it will be theirs and it will be.

Secondly, as long as American global corporations are in partnership with corrupt Middle Eastern governments to control the lands of The Middle East, then use those same troops, those 130,000 troops, along with the 40,000 you want to add, to stand shoulder to shoulder to guard all borders, north, south, east and west, of The United States of America. As long as the wealthiest Americans must have a hand in controlling resources that are not ours, then we must protect the innocent American citizens against terrorist attacks. Using troops here at home and using troops to guard our embassies is the best way to protect innocent Americans against terrorist attacks.

However, Senator Kerry, we must never forget why terrorists are terrorists.

Thirdly, let the nations of NATO and the rest of the world protect themselves however they deem appropriate. The United States of America is a sovereign nation in and of itself. It owns no other nation and, therefore, has no authority over any other nation.

If any of our allies is, without cause, truly aggressively and preemptively attacked by a nation state, we should, by all means, come to its aid in all manner, including military, if necessary.

If any of our allies is attacked by a rogue organization such as al Quaida, we should offer that nation humanitarian aid, if necessary, but there should be no reason nor excuse to send American citizens to any nation state for the purpose of killing and dieing.

The money that is being wasted in the destruction of life and infrastructure in Iraq should be redirected, once the national budget is fairly distributed in such a way that it takes care of the needs of the citizens of The United States of America. A large portion of that budget should be put toward intensely, urgently and, without delay, perfecting a clean and alternate energy source so that we can give the people of The Middle East their land back. This, Senator Kerry, will go the furthest toward winning the “war on terror”.

Finally, Senator Kerry, you should admit to the American people that there is and can never be a “war on terror”. “Terror” is not an object, animate nor inanimate. You should admit that it is a nonsensical phrase that is now utilized to keep people in the grip of fear and in support of war, the most unthinkable relationship human beings can have with one another.

Senator Kerry, how is sending one more troop to Iraq going to make The United States of America Safer?

It isn’t.

Saturday, June 26, 2004

Why Nader?

Not long after al Quaida flew jets into The World Trade Center and The Pentagon, “understanding, tolerant progressives” were pontificating, “Instead of hating the Muslim world, we should be asking ‘Why do they hate us?’”

Analogously, progressives, instead of writing vitriolic missives about Ralph Nader’s candidacy, imploring him to give up the ghost, telling him that his candidacy may well mean another four years of the delusional George W. Bush and his band of imperialists, should be asking why the polls show that 7% of the voters interviewed prefer him over John Kerry.

Surely, one couldn’t make the case that those polled really want another four years of a Bush theocracy. Surely, one couldn’t, in one’s wildest dreams, think that those polled support Bush’s push toward world hegemony.

So, if John Kerry is a progressive and worthy of the votes of 7% of those who surely consider themselves progressives and would never “spoil” the chance of putting a true progressive in The White House, then why are they taking the chance of doing just that?

7% of those polled are the messengers and Kerry and his supporters are ignoring the message. And, yes, they are using their keyboards and airways to shoot the messengers.

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

It Ain't Rocket Science

A vote for Bush is a vote for Kerry.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

A vote fore Nader is a vote for Kerry.

The exception: A vote for Nader isn’t a vote for Nader.

Keep war where it is.

Make war where it ain’t.

Make poverty where it ain’t.

Keep poverty where it is.

Are you gonna believe what they tell you?

Is this now and was that then?

Does then matter now?

Does now matter then?

Or are you just gonna believe your lyin’ eyes?

It ain’t supposed to be like this.

“Oh, say can you see?”

An Open Letter to Progressives

According to the most recent polls, there is a growing number of Americans who no longer support the George W. Bush's war in Iraq. This could be very good news for Bush’s presumptive challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, Kerry’s goals for Iraq almost line up perfectly with those of Bush. The goal of each man is to stay in Iraq until Iraq is unified and secure. Each man says that failure is not an option.

Staying in Iraq will do nothing more than perpetuate the killing of more Americans and many, many more Iraqis.

Each man is wrong in saying that failure is not an option. The minute that our military set foot in Iraq under the false pretext that Iraq possessed so called weapons of mass destruction, we failed. Failure has already happened. Neither Senator Kerry nor Bush can undo that.

Failure continues to happen each time a human being dies in Iraq as a result of the combat.

Failure continues to happen each time an American civilian is mutilated in Iraq.

Failure continues to happen each time an Iraqi is wrongly imprisoned.

Failure continues to happen each time an Iraqi POW is tortured.

We have already failed. It’s not an option. It’s a reality.

Senator Kerry supported the strike. Like Bush, he is behaving as if freeing the people from the rule of Saddam Hussein was our reason for attacking Iraq.

Senator Kerry supports almost every budgetary increase that Bush asks for to fund the war in Iraq.

Senator Kerry has not articulated a time line for withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

The only difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry says he will include NATO in the bloodletting. Bush tried that and it didn’t work. Does Kerry have more money to offer NATO?

Those “progressive” organizations that so passionately support Kerry point to his domestic agenda.

Kerry supports “free” trade. He has yet to say he will withdraw from NAFTA, GATT or any other organization that diminishes the American middle class and keeps poor nations poor.

He’ll find it difficult to implement any other domestic programs if he, like Bush, continues to throw the American budget at an illegal, lost cause in Iraq.

A person who wishes to be known as a “progressive” should be doing everything and anything to urge other progressives to vote for a true progressive candidate. Right now, Nader looks like the only alternative. Is a vote for Nader a vote for Bush? Maybe.

As I see it, a vote for Kerry is just as much a vote for Bush. True progressives could never in good conscience support George W. Bush with a different face and a different voice. Senator John Kerry is not a peace candidate. He will be, like Bush, a War President.

Sunday, June 20, 2004

First Post

It's about freedom. That's what I want to talk about. We've lost it.