Well, I haven't been checking my mail much lately, and it sure isn't
because of the Democratic Convention. I would rather jump off a two-story
building into a open train car filled with razorblades. Anyhow, I have a
few minutes and some troubling thoughts occurred to me. I thought maybe
someone would comment on them.
All those progressives the last time who ripped up Gore, who said he was
about as bad as Bush, where are they? Harvey Wasserman, Bob Fitrakis, Jim
Hightower, Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Chomsky, etc, etc, etc.
Even the Columbus Free Press is noticeably absent from criticizing
Kerry. Case in point: The Summer issue of the 2000 Free Press contained
several articles supporting Nader or criticizing Bush and Gore. The
Autumn issue of 2000 had Nader on the cover and contained article after
article in support of Nader.
Contrast that with the July-August edition of the Free Press, 2004. The
Norman Solomon of the Autumn 2000 Free Press was anti-Gore, pro-Nader, in
an article entitled "Paying Homage to the two-party system." In the
July-August 2004 edition of the Free Press, Solomon criticizes Nader for
saying "I am going to take more votes away from Bush than Kerry." Of
course, Solomon is correct that Nader's statement is bullshit, but in 2000
Nader claimed that the support he got was about equal from disenfranchised
members of both parties, and the statement was as untrue then as now. See
Solomon's article "Presidential Campaigns and Media Charades" in the
July-August 2004 issue.
Now, good old Alexander Cockburn has not changed. He is at least, if not
more so, viciously critical of Kerry than he was Gore. In my view, for
good reason-Kerry is worse than Gore. But instead of including Cockburn's
many articles attacking Kerry, the July-August issue of the Free Press
contained an article from Cockburn called "The empire, seen from
Oceanside." A very good article, it looks at the Empire from a poor
soldier's point of view. Still, no article from Cockburn critical of
Kerry, and neither did the March-April edition.
It seems the Free Press has also bought into the Anybody but Bush
campaign. Speaking Truth to Power but speaking rather silently on the
issue of Kerry. If you want some good articles on Kerry, which Cockburn
has wrote more articles on than anything else for awhile, see the
CounterPunch website. See "Candidate Kerry"
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07282004.html or see: Hail, the
Conquering War Criminal Comes! What Kerry really did in Vietnam (to "earn"
his medals.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html
It seems killing allot of innocent civilians, and capturing others for
torture by the puppet South Vietnamese Gov. was A-OK by Kerry. As a
matter of fact, it appears Kerry "got off" on killing people, and was
looking to the future even then to use his "heroism" to gain political
office later. Even his anti-war campaigning afterwards is seen as a
charade by Cockburn, and he cites good reasons and evidence to make that
claim very convincingly.
Bob Fitrakis is not one to back down from exposing corruption and he is
always there it seems to help in activist causes. He is supporting a
fellow activist even now on charges stemming from a downtown Columbus
demonstration. I am not impugning him, but merely pointing out the
obvious: Kerry is being handled with kid gloves by the Free Press. If
not kid gloves, at least punches are being pulled.
And now of course, the Democratic Socialists of America has endorsed Kerry
by urging its members to work for his election, and at the Convention
Nader was bashed repeatedly, while excused are made for Democratic
candidates. Even many dissenting opinions are not allowed to be posted on
the official web list, and if they are, the posters are told they should
join another organization. Diversity or dissention is not allowed, like
in the Republican party they hate so much, and the Democratic party they
love. Oh yes, a few qualifiers: "We have no illusions," and: "Many Party
leaders oppose the restoration of progressive taxation and expansion of
the democratic public sector necessary to redress massive social
inequality." No kidding! Thanks for letting me in on that one. Now that
it has been pointed out to me, I can see it!
Only another party can now set forth a progressive agenda. It can't be
done by "safe states" voting, and there is really no reason to believe
Kerry will be better than Bush. Look at his Vietnam record-the real
one. Kerry said on a right wing talk show, while denouncing his opponent
in a Massachusetts race: as "a guy who takes more vacations than people on
welfare."
This is the article:
http://www.lefthook.org/Politics/Alam072104.html
Other links to
substantiate the quote are:
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/alam07222004/
http://www.s-t.com/daily/06-96/06-15-96/a10sr062.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views/022300-103.htm
In Vietnam, Kerry, as he did many times, ordered his crew to fire on
fishing boats in "free fire zones." On one occasion, according to Kerry's
diaries, his men boarded a boat afterwards to find a dead child being
clutched by his mother, the child riddled with bullets from the
machineguns of Kerry's boat "Our orders", he tells his biographer Douglas
Brinkley, "were to destroy all the hooches and sampans we could find."
"As part of Operation Sea Lords Kerry would ferry Nung tribesmen on
assassination missions. The Nung were paid by the kill, and Kerry
contrasts them favorably to the South Vietnamese PF guardsmen, derisively
terming the latter "Cream Puffs". On one occasion, Kerry tells Brinkley,
he ferried Nung to a village where they seized an old man and forced him
to act as a human mine detector, walking ahead of them along the trail.
There were no mines and the Nung encountered no enemy. But for the old man
it was a one way trip. The Nung slit his throat, disembowelled him and
left a warning note on his body."
Thank God we have the lessor of the two evils-Kerry- to support. What
would we ever do without his moral leadership?
But what about the moral leadership of progressives? Lets tell the
truth. Vote for Kerry if you feel you must, but don't make excuses for
him, and don't water down the coverage of him, after the election- or now.
True, even Chomsky and Zinn say those in "safe states" could support Kerry
as somewhat better than Bush, although I think even that is
debatable. But both Zinn and Chomsky have not watered down Kerry's
record, or held back saying it by not criticizing him often. Cockburn,
definitely not. My hero of the year: Alexander Cockburn.
