Letter sent to the Democratic National Committee (by email, blog and regular mail) in response to a fundraising drive.

November 29, 2005

Greetings,

Today I received a copy of the Bill Clinton fundraising drive letter asking for my support. I will gladly support the democratic party, WHEN the democrats start "to boldly stand up for what we believe in".

I do not see democrats boldly standing up to the GOP to press for accountability in the wars in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Where are these billions of dollars going, and why haven't we restored the water and electricity that our military leaders destroyed at the start of the occupation, almost 3 years ago?

Why haven't you stood up to the avalanche of injustices surrounding hurricane Katrina, starting with the evacuation (lack of) effort and continuing with the harassment of the surviving citizens of New Orleans?

Why haven't you stood up to speak out against the corporatization of the US health care system, education system, prison system, security systems, news and media agencies and even the voting system of this country? And don't even get me started on the military industrial complex!

Where were the democrats in investigating voting irregularities in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states during the 2004 election where exit polls showed Kerry with a clear margin of victory, but Diebold voting machines provided different results, in favor of Republicans?

Why aren't Democrats taking a stand against the clear inequality of the justicial system, which makes being poor and Black illegal in this country? Further, why are more Black men going to jail than to college? And, in the very least, call for a moratorium on all death penalty executions, until we are 100% certain we are not murdering innocent people, and that the ultimate punishment is being handed out equitably. I know once this process begins, America will be starting down the road to permanently ending this most heinous of punishments.

Why aren't the Dems taking a stand on immigration? A country of immigrants should not be jailing and deporting people who are pursuing the same things we call the American Dream.

Why aren't the Dems boldly standing up to the Republicans, allowing them to use gays, immigrants, Muslims and crime (which has been declining since the late 70s) as means to scapegoat and distract voters away from the real issues: skyrocketing health care costs (to the benefit of the health care and pharmaceutical industries), skyrocketing fuel prices (to the benefit of the oil industry), skyrocketing corporate profits (to the benefit of the CEOs and wealthy shareholders), and a skyrocketing gap between the rich and poor. I can see why the labor unions have decided not to automatically support the democratic candidates, since the democrats are no longer automatically supporting their interests (same goes for Blacks and the South).

I am waiting for the democrats to push for ratification of the Kyoto Treaty, to live up to pledges for international develoment aid; fully fund the UN and the UN initiative to fight HIV, Malaria and TB; get some backbone and say what you feel, not what you think will get you elected. And do so Boldly! Convince the American population, the poor, the middle class, the Democratic Base that prohibiting gay marriage will not save them money on health care and energy costs, that public education is a fundamental right and all Americans must have the best possible education this country, with all its riches, can afford, the best in the world!

I have had enough of the finger pointing, we need ACTION, we need the same courage the Texas legislators showed when they fled the state to prevent a vote on redistricting. We need to see the backbone that Congressman Murtha showed when he called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We need to stop teaching our children that problems can only be solved through violence, rather than through negotiations and compromise, which is what the rush to war in Iraq did. We need to recognize that the US presence in Iraq, from day one, has served only to increase terrorism in the world and make us less safe. We need leaders who will fight for those who do not have the financial resources, skills, or ability to stand up for themselves.

When you, The Democratic Party, have done this, I will send you a check.

Thank you

Oil, Iraq, hegemony and energy policy

Blood For Oil is an oversimplification of the war in Iraq. Certainly that is what it is about... but why? Why is the US willing to expend 2000+ American lives, 100,000+ Iraqi lives. Clearly, given the loss of Iraqi citizen life, not to mention the use of chemical white phosporous on the civilians of Fallujah, would indicate that freeing Iraq from the tyranny was not the primary objective. If that were the case, we have already lost, since we have merely replaced an Iraqi dictator with an American occupation (read: colonization).

Was it because Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and used them on his own people? This, too, is an unlikely reason, since it was becoming clear, even before the invasion that there were no WMD in Iraq, since the UN had full access to all potential sites for inspection, and had found no signs of them. Further, the US forces themselves used chemical WMD (white phosphorus in Fallujah) against the citizens of Iraq.

For clues as to why we went to war in Iraq, we need to look at what was happening well before the war. Even before 9/11, leaders of several major oil corporations met secretly with Vice President Cheney to draw up the US energy policy. Among the documents produced in the early meetings, again before 9/11, was a map indicating how the oil fields of Iraq would be divided among these corporate interests. Hmmm... why would they be doing that if they weren't already planning to control those fields somehow?

The fact is, Iraq holds the second largest supply of oil in the world, and control of Iraq and the Middle East is vital for future global hegemony. And we had to get there before the Chinese did. So, along came 9/11 (very conveniently) and the attempt was made to link Iraq to those attacks as additional justification for war. Well there were no such links, no WMDs, just a defenseless dictator and a lot of people already suffering from US backed economic sanctions.

Looking at some more facts, one must question the wisdom of this choice of futures. Control of Middle East oil, while ignoring research into alternative renewable technologies, might have had the intent to make China dependent on the US for their oil needs, but may more likely result in China putting more of their resources into developing alternative energy technology, staking their future on what will become the primary energy source, rather than on oil, which is now at its production per capita peak, and will from here on out only become more and more expensive as it becomes more and more scarce. (By the way, the reserves under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would, at best estimates, provide only 6 months of oil to the US).

So, in trying to win the energy race in the short term, the US may be fostering our own ultimate demise. With so many of our products already coming from China, and with China already being a technologically advanced country, it won't be long before we become dependent on them for our "green energy" needs, once the oil wells run dry.

Intelligent Design...

This week the city of Dover, Pennsylvania removed from office eight board members who sought to add "intelligent design" to the science curriculum of their schools. Bravo to the citizens!

Intelligent design is the belief that the universe, and ultimately life on planet earth, could not have come to be as it has without some kind of intelligent thought behind it, an intelligent being to have direct it into existence, this intelligent being would, of course, be God. Whether or not one believes in God, creationism, or intelligent design is actually irrelevant in the argument on whether what this school board was seeking to do was appropriate. I emphasized the word "belief" because that is all that intelligent design is, a belief; it is not science. Science is a very rigorous process of developing theories based on the methodical testing of hypotheses, utilizing the Scientific Method.

There is no such process involved in the development of intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design basically say that there are some things that cannot be explained by science, and those things are proof of intelligent design. Some call it "God of the gaps". However, no part of intelligent design is testable, as it produces no hypotheses.

At best, if intelligent design has a place in the classroom, it would be in a philosopy class, one dealing with ontological arguments, or proofs of the existence of God. In this case, by all means, it should be allowed. But it is not science, and hence, cannot and should not be allowed to take up valuable time in the science classroom.