Remember Guantanamo

I am deeply concerned about the conditions regarding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, but I am also concerned about the fact that nobody seems to really care. Perhaps, just maybe, nobody really knows exactly what's going on at Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps nobody really knows that over 600 people are being held without having been charged with a crime, without access to a lawyer, without prospect of a fair trial. Perhaps nobody really knows about the inhumane treatment and conditions that amount to torture that these people must endure.

So now that you know, don't you think this is just a little wrong? No living being deserves to be treated the way the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated. This is our own nation, the United States government, that is doing this to these people, and we're not doing anything to stop them.

Kim Caren, Tacoma WA

Voting for Executive Branch Creativity

Things aren't well regionally. Things aren't well in the United State and things aren't well in the world. Whether we're speaking about the environment, civil rights, the economy, overpopulation or war, things are deteriorating at a rapid pace.

Not everything that's wrong in the world is the fault of George Bush, his advisors and the Republican-controlled Congress, but their style of leadership (spitting in our friends' and enemies eyes--"Bring it On;" not signing the international land-mine treaty) and the direction they've chosen for the country do have local as well as international impacts.

When I think of who I'll vote for this Fall, I focus on the 1,000 people that the President appoints to his/her cabinet/Executive departments. I believe John Kerry's picks would be more creative, objective, compassionate and expert in ways that Bush's picks have been partisan, mean-spirited and fanatical. This change alone, is enough of a reason for me to back John Kerry's campaign for president with every fiber in my body.

Albert Kaufman, Portland OR

The Real Spoiler

I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing people state that Nader was (and is) a spoiler. This argument makes those Democrats who state it sound like those who repeated Bush's line with respect to 911--it's about Saddam; or with respect to Iraq--it's about WMDs. By repeating the lie enough times the flock will start bleating the same line: "Two legs bad, four legs good."

The media has been in cahoots with the Democratic Party on this the whole way, repeating ad nauseam that Nader was (is) the problem. And so this mantra has sunk in to the otherwise astute brains of erstwhile fellow compatriots.

The facts speak for themselves. More registered Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader! That alone should shriek through one's cranium like nails on a chalkboard as to the extent to which the Democratic Party has degraded itself. Add to that the number of people, particularly the poor (regardless of ethnicity), as well as African Americans and Hispanics (which, by the way, is the very sector of society that would vote Democratic), who do not vote. Their apolitical stance is due precisely to the fact that they see little that Democratic politicians or elections can offer them (read: little difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP).

The same logic for deriding Nader could be equally used against Ross Perot or Patrick Buchanan. Why haven't I ever heard one liberal bitch about why Perot or Buchanan didn't run a more aggressive campaign in order to take more votes away from Bush?! Man, what spoilers they were!!!

What further surprises me, is how, whenever you start talking about Nader, Democrats' faces will start turning red. You can see the bile and fury rising up in their necks, and then all hell breaks loose. When you talk about President-Select Bush, they actually seem more at ease. They hate the guy, but they're less furious, even somehow apologetic. What really pisses me off is that these Democrats are least furious about their own party. The fact the Democratic Party hardly reflects the political and social convictions of its members doesn't seem to bother them. Democratic Party supporter after supporter will openly tell you how bad Clinton was, and how bad Kerry is. During the campaign many expressed support for Kucinich. On some occasions they will even go as far to state that Nader's positions are good ones. If you get them to take an on-line poll that will determine whom they should vote for, either Nader or a socialist will pop up. But voting for anyone but Kerry is out of the question, nonetheless. And, by the way, how the hell could you think otherwise?!

Kerry, however, is part of the problem, not the solution. If all the Democrats would stop boohooing for a minute and put their vote where their convictions are, maybe then we would finally have a government we could more or less have respect for and be proud to say we are Americans. Unfortunately, too many liberals are now caught up in the electoral game.

I have a couple of gripes about elections. In the first place, people are suddenly no longer apolitical. Damnit! Politics is not just a once-in-every-four-years activity. It should be a daily personal obligation. As long as you only remain active at election time, or just devote your political activity to getting some corporate slug into office, then you're doing very little to bring political and social change. My second issue is the fact that the energy of hs if the system causing those deaths lasts longer than it would otherwise. And spreading illusions that Democrats are better because they're genocidal but at a slower pace than Republicans may simply delay the day when the corporate-controlled duopoly is deposed.

Dan DiLeva, via email

When will Bush Come Clean?

Bob Woodward has raised a number of disturbing questions about the President's relationship with the Saudi royal family.

We have learned that Bush has a secret deal with the Saudis to influence the November elections by manipulating gas prices -- a deal that is costing Americans at the pump. What kind of president does things like that?

If President Bush can make deals with OPEC nations to lower gas prices, why isn't he doing it now, while Americans face record prices at the pump, instead of using that influence to manipulate the election? How can he be so self-centered and self-serving?

President Bush needs to answer other questions about his relationship with Saudi Arabia too, including why he revealed secret war plans to Saudi Prince Bandar before he showed Colin Powell.

It's time for President Bush to stop the stonewall and come clean about his relationship with the Saudi royal family and their plan to manipulate the elections.

Luke McQuillin, Vashon WA

Tree Laws Kill Trees

As an attorney, I am consulted by property owners who want to remove trees without fear of tree-preservation laws. I cannot advise clients to ignore laws (though tree laws often seem easy to ignore). I can tell clients what a lot of people do: they don't plant any trees that are protected by tree laws. And any tree protected in tree laws that is still small enough to be legally killed, is killed.

Tree laws can be amended, so that every tree is a potential risk that a property owner will be restricted by government in the future alteration of his property. Tree laws make treeless property the safest route.

Tree laws kill trees, as every libertarian knows. And rightfully so, because tree laws violate private property rights by "socializing" trees. All freedom is founded on private property.

The joke about the endangered species act is that if a property owner sees an endangered species on his property he should "shoot, shovel and shut up." Under tree-preservation laws it is "chop, chip and chill."

Tree laws illustrate the fatal conceit of socialism and its unintended consequences. Tree-huggers must have fallen out of a stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. If public officials were any more stupid, they'd have to be watered weekly. If their antidisestablishmentarianism continues then more "protected" trees will die.

Rex Curry Tampa, FL