Tuesday, December 27, 2005


Dear Honorable Ms. Clinton:

I have received your “Critical National Issues Survey” and find it odd that nowhere is there any mention of the war in Iraq. Could it be because you stand with Bush and Cheney in support of that war, and in fact, wish to expand it?

Nor is there any mention of the fact that on the city of Fallujah alone, American bombers have thus far dropped almost five-hundred thousand tons of ordnance, or that we are bombing civilians with white phosperous, which basically melts human flesh down to the bone, leaving the clothes intact. Good. Perhaps Walmart (whose board you sat on for years) will be able to sell those clothes to the poor in New Orleans and turn a tidy profit.

Come to think of it, your survey makes no mention of New Orleans, either. Already forgotten, huh? Did you know that 80% of the loans to rebuild the houses of the homeless in New Orleans were turned down by FEMA? But hey, when you're spending $195 million a day on a pointless war, I guess there's not much left to build homes or levees or feed hungry people.

And nowhere in your survey is there any mention of the words, “torture” or “detainees.” No mention of the “Patriot Act.”

Excuse me, but what kind of “survey” is this? Is this for real? One almost gets the feeling that in your view, the items I've enumerated are not even worthy of consideration as “critical issues” in your so-called survey.

If ever there was a time for Democrats to find their spines and begin to stand for something real, surely the time is now. Yet, for the most part, you and the other corporate-financed Dems of our party are silent as bedbugs. Indictments are percolating all the way up to the White House, and nobody on our side of the aisle appears to have much to say.

Well, I will say it: this war is immoral, it is illegal, it was brought on by a pack of lies, and you and everyone up there knows it. If you had an ounce of courage, you'd be standing with Cindy Sheehan in the ditch in Crawford, instead of keeping a safe distance, leaving her and the Veterans for Peace to carry that burden by themselves. Shame on you. And on all of us.

I will not support a party or a candidate of that party that does not, from this day forward, commit to getting us out of this obscene war and bringing our troops home—within the coming year, not some time in the dim future.

I will not support anyone who does not take a firm and vocal stand against this war and those who perpetrated it.

That our Congress, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, could tolerate for this many years the lawlessness of this administration, certainly is viewed by the rest of the world as a stain on our country. I believe most historians will write it that way, and in fact, are already starting to do so.

Do you really want to be associated with the Bushes, Rumsfelds and Cheneys of this world? Or do you want to be one of the few that historians will look back on and remember in a different way?

Sign me:

Not Interested In Republican-Lite Candidates.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005


"For nearly 20 years, before the test of 1968, I had emphasized, especially in talking to students, the need for a revived sense of vocation in modern society. I had emphasized that acceptance of professional status carries special responsibilities and obligations, including the obligation to take risks; and that we should expect politicians, if the issue is important enough, to show a similar sense of profession, and to understand the obligation to take political risks when necessary."

"At all times, but especially in 1968, and again, if it is possible, especially now, the role of the Presidency must be one of uniting this nation, not of adding it up or putting it together as a kind of odd-sized jigsaw puzzle. To unify this nation means to inspire it. We need to develop a sense of character in the nation with common purposes and shared ideals, and then move on as best we can to achieve limited or great progress toward establishing a sense of justice."
For young people who grew up as I did in the 1960s, Gene McCarthy was our voice crying in the wilderness. He was able to articulate the immorality of the war in Vietnam, and he had the courage to do so. He was not flamboyant; he was fearless. There was a wonderful resonance of courage in his voice, and in his speeches we heard a paring down of issues to their essence, and a clarity that lifted our spirits.

And he was a US senator, an older guy and a member of "The Establishment". But when McCarthy declared that he would challenge President Lyndon Johnson in the Democratic Primaries in 1968, it certainly required a lot of nerve. McCarthy understood that the issue of the war was fundamental; the risk of dividing the Party was an essential choice. Our Gene McCarthy sugar-coated nothing and he was a leader for those who opposed the Vietnam War. He was both pragmatic and capable of fine moral judgement, full of poetry and integrity. He raised the whole level of debate and would not accept injustice. The sense of the reality of the war in 1960's Vietnam had just slipped away from the Johnson White House; and Gene McCarthy understood that this was what had happened. Bush's Iraq War is an example of this same kind of fracture between political goals and reality.

In recent years, McCarthy aptly described George W. Bush and his associates as "bullies", with the political instinct to "bully everything"; and as recently as 2003, McCarthy warned
"A Democratic Party that can win but forgets the disenfranchised people of the country is a hollow party that wins hollow victories. And that's what we have now."
It was especially sad to hear of the death of Eugene McCarthy over this past weekend. This is because many of my generation loved him. There is no stronger or finer friend than the one who has seen you through a storm and given you courage. Farewell brother. Thank you for everything.

copeland morris ENTWINED SONNET

Her shaded eyes, her necklace black velvet, onyx. Anguish she spoke; and he carried on, obsessed As only a young man could. An odd harm...