I Want You To Vote!

So we're fighting for democracy in Iraq are we? We have sacrificed over 3,200 of our brave soldiers' lives so that Iraqis can finally have the chance to vote for their political future and have an actual stake in how their country is run. It sounds like a great idea. Why don't we use it here?
In the presidential election years between 1960 to 2004, the average voter turnout in the U.S. for those eligible to vote was about 55.1%. That may seem like an optimistic figure being a slight majority but consider the fact that we are the founders of democracy and its most vocal advocate. And in the non-presidential election years in between when Americans are voting for their representatives and senators, the average voter turnout for those eligible to vote between the years 1962 to 2002 was about 40.2%. Now, I understand that we're not voting for that good looking, sharp talking maverick who will become the leader of the free world but these elections are just as important if not more than the presidential one. And this couldn't be emphasized more than the examples we're facing right now in Congress.
With the president facing increasing opposition by the American people as well as Congress in terms of the Iraq war, we are now witnessing the power Congress has on government policy. Part of Congress's powers are to confirm presidential nominations, ratify treaties, make up bills for government funding and budgets as well as oversee impeachment proceedings (hmm...I'd like to see that one play out). Congress is vital in its role within the checks and balance system that keeps this government democratic and not authoritarian. So the point here is that Americans should take more notice to every election and not just the popular ones with the multi-million dollar campaigns. Because when backed by the voters who empower them, our politicians can become more powerful than the president. And isn't that the way it should be; a government where representatives of the people are more powerful than any one elected official?
If we are really fighting for democracy in Iraq (and not oil) then shouldn't we lead by example? Voting is the most basic and fundamental part of a democracy and without it the people have no power. If our politicians saw that their actions were truly being judged by the American people and their jobs heavily depended on their representation of us then they would certainly pay more attention to us. In a democracy the people have the power but only if we use it. And if you don't use it, you'll lose it. And then who cares what you have to say because the Constitution that backed you up before will have been "amended" by the very people you didn't vote for to protect your rights. So vote; if not for yourself, do it for those who gave their lives for you to have that right if you so choose to use it. Any time soon would be nice.
P.R.

The Dice Have Landed: No Winners...Leave The Table

Never before has the situation in Iraq become so in need of real help. I'm not talking about more troops. I'm talking about more "help". The Marine Corps is asking the government for emergency funding to supply them with new armored military vehicles that General James Conway says "can reduce casualties by 80 percent." I am not going to even ask why they didn't have this armor already because throughout this entire war the military has been undermined by the government with appropriate supplies. In addition, while the military fights diplomacy is ignored. Those soldiers will be on the ground until Judgement Day unless diplomacy is given an honest try.
On Tuesday, two truck bombs killed at least 63 people and this morning revenge killings led by off-duty Shiite police officers killed nearly 50 people; some as young as 15. And this administration wants to convince me that we are having military success? I don't think so. Only when the issues behind the triggers are addressed and solved will the bloodshed cease. We need to focus less on military strength and more on solving these political and religious differences and if even that fails, perhaps it will be time to leave Iraq to its own devices. Some may see it as cutting and running but let's be real about this: this administration has dragged us into a situation WE cannot solve. Unfortunately, only the hands of Iraqis hold the fate of their country. I wish we never invaded in the first place so that profiteers in the White House could get even more wealthy but here we are. For better or worse, natural selection is the only course that can resolve Iraq's power struggle.
This is not a matter of winning or losing, staying the course or cutting and running; everyone has already lost. This is a matter of salvaging what is left of a country plagued by sectarian violence and supporting them diplomatically in their time of need. They have enough guns over there as it is, they don't need ours to solve their problems.

America: Those The No Child Left Behind Act Left Behind

In the global conflict sparked by the war on terror and continued through what is now the civil war in Iraq, some victims may become lost amidst the death toll: us. And by "us" I refer to all of those who lead normal innocent lives yet forced to live with the consequences we allow to pass before our very eyes. While America and Iran flex their muscles at each other in a show of a complete lack of diplomacy and international relations, the youth of today continue to be mentally victimized by the authoritarian propaganda and fear of this administration as well as physically victimized by the wars it has created. After all, it is the young who go off to fight wars, isn't it?

And also, this generation is being led down the toilet by Bush and his loyal legions through his No Child Left Behind Act. I am not sure if it was purposely designed to fail the American populace in dumbing us down to the IQ of some of its leaders but it is quickly on its way to doing just that.(The reason I'm not worried about offending anyone with these puns is because the people they're directed toward wouldn't get them anyway.)

In the NCLB funds have not been accumulated to the amount required and its budget seems to be another sparkling promise made by the Bush Administration that they aren't planning on keeping. I suppose the issue of directing government funds came down to either education or the war in Iraq and Bush figured he got to be president so what's wrong with the education system? Not to mention all of the corruption taking places in schools across the country where test results and the number of minority students are manipulated so that by the legislation of the NCLB those schools get more $.

And a neat piece of trivia that not many people know about is Section 9528 in the NCLB which states basically that public secondary schools are required to provide military recruiters access to students. In addition, if the recruiters want any contact information on students the school is required to give it to them. And if that wasn't shady enough, the schools are not required to tell the students or their parents that this information was given to the U.S. military.

So give the government your tired, your poor, your huddled masses of children so that they can be taught the mere necessities a good soldier should know and then shipped off to the wars that profit the government. This cycle of producing a complacent, docile and obedient America is what is crippling us. While the rest of the world passes us by in education, we have become dependent--yes, dependent--on foreign imports and technical as well as medical advancements. And unless we break this cycle we or even our children will be the ones not smart enough to make it in this competitive world but just smart enough to fire a gun. Because you know we can't all afford the same education.

So protests the No Child Left Behind Act and force our legislators whom we elected to either abolish it or make radical changes to it. This document after all can be torn apart--only if they'd take a break from tearing up the Constitution. Bam! And that's how I see it.

--P.R.

The War Factory

Once again I find the Bush Administration calling part of the democrats' plan to bring our troops home an "artificial timetable". The only reason the timetable is artificial is because the Bush Administration refuses to follow it despite the sentiment of the American people. And all the meanwhile, five U.S. troops were killed on Sunday from bombs. So much for victory. If the president wants to accuse the democrats of staging a political theater perhaps he should recall the time when he was flown onto the flight deck of an aircraft carrier with a huge banner reading "mission accomplished" spread out for all of the news cameras. If by mission accomplished he means more money and lives lost in an unfavorable war then George passed with flying colors.
In an article from the associated press, the departing U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad said, "American and Iraqi officials are seeking to persuade so-called 'reconcilable insurgents' to join forces against al-Qaida as the terror network steps up attacks on both Islamic sects in Iraq..."
I'm confused. In the beginning of the war on terror al-Qaida was our enemy. Then, for some unknown reason, insurgents in Iraq became our enemy. And now, we are calling the insurgents "reconcilable" and seeking them as allies against the first enemy? So now are we going to train and arm these insurgents to battle al-Qaida? Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't that how al-Qaida was started? I could have sworn we trained and armed a small group of people led by Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. And now some people feel that we should do the same with the insurgents in Iraq. We certainly are doomed to repeat the past. I never realized until now what a profitable business war really is? And when it comes to creating a demand to the supply that is our military, no one makes enemies quite like the bureaucratic pigs in Washington.

Priorities In A Tangle?

I found this clipping from an article by the associated press published Thursday, September 30, 2004 and I think it speaks for itself: What the hell? Add this one to the long list of crap this war has produced.

--P.R.

I'll take Waziristan for 3,234, Alex

On Saturday, 47 people were killed when a suicide bomber got through Baghdad security checkpoints and exploded. The current U.S. military death toll is at 3,234. And all the meanwhile, al-Qaeda continues to operate and thrive in a little-known country called Afghanistan. You might be asking yourself, "why does that name ring a bell?" and the answer is because that was the first country we invaded in the war on terror. That was the country with proven ties to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden but now we find ourselves entrenched in a country with absolutely nothing to do with terrorism except that it wasn't there before we invaded. The Taliban are still around and spreading their tactics of fear in a region that we should all be familiar with--Waziristan. Yes, Waziristan is an actual place. Sandwiched in the mountains of northwest Pakistan and bordering Afghanistan, Waziristan is where we should be focusing diplomacy and military forces. The Taliban continues to exist because we have diverted our troops and funding to Iraq and so this world is no safer now than before because where the terrorists of al-Qaeda go we do not follow. President Bush claims that all those who oppose the war in Iraq are undermining the troops. Well, how about the president undermining national security when he purposely used Afghanistan as a mere stepping stone to get to Iraq--a country with no ties to terrorism. War on terror? Meanwhile, Afghanistan continues to produce the vast majority of the world's supply of opium. War on drugs? How about a war on stupid decisions, George? Unfortunately in that one, our president would be the first prisoner.

What A Mess

When the democrats proposed about $100 billion for our troops in Iraq in a bill, the president said it was undermining the troops because it was on the condition that those same troops would have to be back home with their friends and families by Christmas of next year. Also, the president said in a speech recently that "we need to put partisan politics aside to come together to enact important legislation for the American people." And also he said, "Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business."
These accusations of partisanship are complete bullshit. It seems like the president doesn't enjoy the American democratic political system when his party isn't controlling the entire country. God forbid there be checks and balances within our government where the people checking on the other branches aren't party loyal. Why should the democrats "join" the cause for war? What makes this political system great is that there are differences of opinion and no one party controls everything. It looks like George doesn't like his first taste of democracy when it isn't spoon-fed to him by the Republican Dynasty. But then again, it is good that he has become well-acquainted with democracy seeing as that is what we are fighting for in Iraq isn't it? Or was it oil? Oh well, I can't remember. And as for that last part of his quote; since when was the Bush Administration concerned with "the people's business"? Enough said about that.
Now I feel that it is important to note the capture of 15 Britons from the HMS Cornwall in disputed Iranian waters. Because the waters these members of the British Royal Navy were captured in by Iranian boarder patrols is still disputed as to whether it is Iraqi territory or Iranian, I can't say that their capture was justified or not. Though, even an Iraqi military commander has said that the location of the 15 Britons was in Iranian waters when taken prisoner. Since then, Iran has made their usual threats against all those who would threaten them. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that if the U.S. and/or our allies "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."
Okay, okay...enough of the big bad tough guy crap. I can only hope that the leaders of Iran and Western nations will not act too rash and keep the safety of those 15 Britons in mind at all times. Conflict is something that can easily be avoided if both parties behave to the standards expected of those elected to positions of their political stature. In closing, conflict is something that has plagued that region of the world for far too long and if peace is ever going to take root in the sands of the middle east, it must begin now.