I've had a really bad two weeks and to top it off, Buzzflash Hates me.

I recently wrote a letter to Buzzflash. I noticed an article about Nader running that called him "evil." Since I thought this sort of hyperbole was reserved for folks such as Ann "All Liberals Are Traitors" Coulter, I thought I'd mention it. Also, I'm not at all convinced that simply voting against Bush for, it seems, Kerry, will change much at all. Especially since I think the vote is rigged.

Here's my original letter. If you go to Buzzflash and click on the "mailbag" link at the bottom of the page, you'll see a profound absence of my letter. Admittedly, it wasn't my best writing, it was done quite hastily, but I thought they'd put it on the site after I got a reply from Buzz. And yeah...I guess the site is run by a guy named Buzz. Who knew?

Here's my original letter:

I appreciate Buzzflash, but calling Nader part of the "republican evil empire" is not much different from Ann
Coulter calling all Liberals "traitors". A healthy dose of suspicion is good...as it would have been with the
Clark campaign, a lifelong Republican who runs as a Democrat and certainly didn't help Dean's corner on the anti-
war market. We should have suspicion about Kerry, who emerges in unexpected and dramatic fashion after Dean has
been savaged in the press he so roundly criticized. I think it's the Dems, particularly the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council-a pro-business, centrist Democratic kingmaking machine - ed.) that has beat up
Dean, not the Republicans, but it's the same principal. By the way, I am not even a Dean supporter.

Kerry has done nothing to show me he's different enough from Bush, which is what the Dems ALWAYS give us..."just
a little bit less evil." He did enough for the war and against the poor that I'll have no problem voting for
Nader in November, just becaused I'm pissed off at the Democrats. Kerry is even in Skull and Bones, for crying
out loud. 800 living Skull and Bones members, and two of them will face off in the '04 elections? Is our system
really THAT narrow?

Oh, and a little mathematical perspective hear. Nader did NOT lose the election for Gore in 2000, because, of
course, GORE WON THE ELECTION. He won the popular vote. Had the recount continued, he would have won Florida.
In fact, if thousands of voters, mostly African-American and Democrats, had not been illegally purged from the
voter roles in that state, he would have won easily. And Buzzflash KNOWS this. And I didn't even LIKE Gore, for
the same reasons I don't like Kerry.

I'm glad to see you are running some articles about the electronic voting and featuring the work of
www.blackboxvoting.org. But you can't have it both ways. If you think Nader lost the election for the Dems,
then you are assuming clean elections. If the elections weren't clean, you can't blame Nader.

In sum, if the Democrats want my vote, they will stop marginalizing the candidates that speak to the issues I
care about and have the courage to take on the status quo. To say "no" to war, "no" to corporate criminals,
"yes" to REAL healthcare reform, "yes" to taking care of the growing numbers of poor. If the Democratic
candidate will not come forward and be willing to take on the corporations and to take on the neo-con cabal
running this country, then I'm voting for Nader. If the Democrats think that my positions on these issues are
"too left", then they don't want my vote anyway.

Here was a suprisingly vitriolic response from Buzz. I was taken aback, I have to admit. Now, y'all know that I have no real faith in the next elections anyway, especially now that they have Osama "surrounded" and will wait to capture him right before the elections (I say, could you just click on this English link.) but I thought that some of these issues should be raised anyway. Here is the response (Lack of capitals in the original. Buzz is a busy guy.):

you have a choice, a vote for nader is a vote for bush

if you want to be that self-indulgent, go ahead and think of the misery a second bush adminsitration will cause the world. think of how many will die as a result.

i used to admire nader voters as idealistic, now i see some of them as self-indulgent narcissists who rather see the world destroyed and vote for nader and get bush than end up with a less than perfect democrat who will cause far fewer deaths, if any, save the environment, and save democracy

but, go ahead, indulge yourself, be spoiled and think you're being idealistic, in the real world, a vote for nader is a a vote for bush -- and you are condemning the world to bush

that's the real world, not some abstract world of personal indulgence in an idealism that leads us to dante's inferno

enable bush, make your day

buzz

I answered back, but have yet to receive another reply from Busy Buzzy. Again, I didn't put a lot into this response, but he didn't really respond to most of my original letter. Not that he had to, but if you are only going to respond to one part, you really miss the whole point of the thing.

Here is my response:

Well, first off, I didn't actually know there was someone named BUZZ who ran the site. Cool.

Secondly, you didn't respond to one of the main points of my argument, that I have very little confidence that this election will be fair in the first place, exactly like 2000 wasn't.

Third, you did not demonstrate any difference between Kerry and Bush. To be honest, if Edwards somehow pulls off an upset, i'd be interested. But if the Dems want to keep putting out Republican lite and then calling people who object to that and I quote from your kind missive, "self-indulgent narcissists" (Nice outreach, by the way.)..(I evidently didn't finish this sentence. I can be such a doofus sometimes -ed.)

Fourth, you did not respond to my assertion that it was the DEMOCRATS, particularly the DLC that went after Dean. So the most powerful wing of the Democratic Party is actively attacking and disabling the campaigns of those who challenge their pro-business agenda. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

Kerry will SAVE the environment? Good voting record for the American environment. Yes. Can he stand up to the corporations when it counts? Check out Richard Morningstar on his national security team. Overseas Private Investment Corp was his baby. Let's lend Enron some money so you can do an energy deal with Indonesia's Suharto? http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DA29Dj01.html (in case you actually care). More of the fucking same corruption.

Kill far fewer people? He voted FOR the Second Gulf Massacre. FOR. Not against. FOR. Now exactly how would his administration have killed fewer people?

He voted for the tax cuts.

He's a pro-business, pro-corporate shill but he supports abortion rights, so all liberals should vote for him, right?

His potential cabinet members are as awash in corporate corruption as much of Bush's.

You don't get it. There is a SYSTEMIC problem in American politics. Corporations and people with lots of money have rigged the system so that no one who gives them trouble makes it through to the top of the political ladder. A vote for Kerry is a vote for that system.

Ty

Well, there it is. I will add that I think there is, in fact, good reason to be suspicious of Nader, but the tone on the site was that ANYONE who would dare run as an independent was practically demonic.

I should also add, that, just in case the elections aren't rigged enough to overcome Bush's implosion, I probably will vote for Kerry, just for slim hopes that he might actually make some headway environmentally. A recent report from the Pentagon(!) forecasts rapid and dramatic climate change by 2020 beginning with possible massive flooding as early as next year!

Question is, is this just the CIA trying to do in Bush because he blamed them for the Iraq mess, or is there really something to this report? I have no idea. Here's a link another English link...where's the American press?

Finally, as to my wife's health. She has stabilized and come back from the hospital but we are still day to day. She had a bad reaction to another medication last night, and ANOTHER psychiatrist did not return the emergency page, though it turned out it was the fault of the answering service this time.

We are at an estimated 1500 dollars in insurance costs and rising at this point, and that is WITH pretty decent coverage. I only mention this, because I don't think I've seen Kerry's plan for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE just yet. He has some vague paragraphs on his site about Medicare for seniors, but no details on how he's planning to bring "affordable healthcare to all Americans." Don't hold your breath.