Personal Note from Fred:
This is a tech newsletter, so I won't spend a lot of time on this. I'm also adding this item as an extra one, so it takes away nothing from the normal content. If you're not interested in anything political, please just close this window now. No one is making you read this.
But: Tomorrow is voting day for most US adults. If you're eligible, I urge you to take the time to vote. If you're unsure of whom to support, the information here may help. First, I'll share some external links that may be interesting; then I'll give you my own personal thoughts on the election. Again, if this sort of discussion offends you or doesn't interest you, just click this window closed.
External Links
Here's an editorial from the Crawford, Texas "Iconoclast," George Bush's hometown newspaper; written by his neighbors, the people who know him best: http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
The ultra-conservative Financial Times offered a very concise rundown of both candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and then called the shot in an unexpected way. The Financial Times has placed the original article behind a login screen at http://tinyurl.com/67wod , but you can read a concise summation of the piece (for free) here: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections/0,,2-10-1665_1610495,00.html
A LangaList reader sent me his reasons for voting the way he plans to, and I thought his letter was worth sharing: It contains many totally verifiable facts, although the tone of the note was harsh. So I searched and found a somewhat more restrained, and perhaps more fact-checked version of the information in his note: http://tinyurl.com/5y52f .
Fred's Personal Thoughts On the Election
Why am I presenting this?
Well, after 9-11, I originally supported the war because the President said that Iraq was involved; and that it had weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them with "less than 45 minutes" notice. Rumsfeld said Saddam "has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are." Powell showed pictures of the supposed weapons. And Cheney repeatedly linked Al-Qaeda with Saddam; and said we'd be greeted as liberators and showered with "candy and flowers" by the Iraqi people.
All those assertions have proved false. Every one. The President's own hand-picked 9-11 commission failed to find any evidence whatsoever to back his own justifications for war. Our troops are getting bullets and shrapnel instead of candy and flowers.
The real mastermind of 9-11, Bin Laden, is a Saudi, not an Iraqi. Nine of the 11 hijackers were Saudi; none was Iraqi. The money for the 9-11 attacks came from Saudi sources, not Iraqis. The middle eastern countries that actually have weapons of mass destruction are Iran, Pakistan and Israel; not Iraq.
Yet, we invaded Iraq.
Yes, I know that Bush is now using the "Saddam was a bad man" defense for the war, but that was NOT the reason he originally gave us for going to war. A US President is supposed to call for war in cases of "clear and present danger" to the US national interests and security. Saddam was a truly evil man, but he posed zero "clear and present danger" to the US. A government or leader being evil is NOT the constitutional test for the US going to war, and Bush's falling back to that lame argument shows how empty his original arguments were. Besides, the world is full of horrible leaders who abuse their populace; it makes no sense to pick just one--- Saddam--- and go after him. It's a phony excuse.
And meanwhile, the real mastermind behind 9-11---Bin Laden, a true "clear and present danger" to the US--- is still free, still active; and Al-Qaeda is still strong and growing.
But Bush still says it's all OK, and that he did nothing wrong, and that he'd do it all over. When asked in the debates what mistakes he's made in the last four years, Bush could only think of a couple of minor appointments that didn't work out the way he hoped. In his mind, he's made no other mistakes. Not the war against the wrong enemy, not the loss of lives, not the deficit, not the loss of jobs, not the hatred for the US that's running rampant in the world, not the roll-back of environmental protections, not the unilateral breaking of international treaties, not the Orwellian use of nice-sounding titles (Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Initiative...) that mask the true purpose of his legislation, not the blurring of the separation of church and state, and so much more. He's OK with it all, and would do it all over again.
Not with my vote, he won't. Too many have died for the wrong reason in the wrong place. Too many mistakes have been made, and left uncorrected. Being stubborn in the face of overwhelming contrary facts doesn't make a leader steadfast--- it just proves him callous, or worse.
We all make mistakes, and recognizing our mistakes gives us a chance to correct them. But when a leader makes mistakes and then can't or won't recognize them, then no corrections can be made--- and the errors go on and on. Refusing to admit errors doesn't make Bush resolute; it makes him dangerous: By not admitting his errors, Bush can't correct them. That means that what you see--- misconceived war, lives lost, deficits out to the horizon, fear and insecurity as part of our daily lives, growing hatred of America everywhere, erosion of civil liberties at home, and all the rest--- is what we'll get. Four more years indeed.
If you're supporting Bush, I simply ask that you take a moment to consider that actions should speak louder than words. Bush's egregious errors ought to matter more than flag-draped TV ads and stirring sound bites written by clever speech writers and campaign managers. Anyone can mouth patriotic-sounding phrases; but a person's actions show what they're really about.
If you don't like the above, please remember that freedom to disagree is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of American democracy. Bush ran in 2000 as "a unifier, not a divider;" and yet the nation is now more deeply divided than any time since Nixon and the Viet Nam war. Bush's vision of "unity" turns out to be the repression of dissent; and the mandatory substitution of good-sounding lies to mask ugly truths.
I'm supporting John Kerry for President, not because he's perfect (he's far from it), but he's much better than Bush. I urge you to vote Democrat in the coming election.
But no matter which side of the political divide you're on, please vote.
(PS: If you're still undecided, watch this item based on a dead serious analysis that appeared in the Atlantic magazine. Note that this is not a joke; there is noting funny about this at all: http://tinyurl.com/6btpb (takes a short while to load) Mirror site available here.)