I am disappointed in the way the Times responded to Ralph Nader's announcement to join the race for the presidency as an independent. It is clear to the reader that the Times feels that two political parties are all that is needed in this country. Growing up in the Reagan/Bush era, I breathed a sigh of relief when Bill Clinton was elected. Together with Al Gore, the self-proclaimed environmentalist, my generation truly felt we would turn things around. This was not the case. The few positive elements from that administration have already been stomped into the ground by the latest president. The new Bush regime, and both houses and political parties in Congress, have shown their loyalties. Corporate and military-industrial complexes flood cash into a system, gaining undue and unchallenged influence.
Our Founding Fathers and several past presidents have warned over and over to stop such abuse in its tracks. Our failure to do so has resulted in pre-emptive war based on lies, environmental degradation, attacks on our own constitutional protections, human rights abuses, the loss of jobs nationwide, and the return of massive deficits financed on the backs of the middle and lower classes, just to name a few.
Enter Ralph Nader. He will be the breath of fresh air in a stagnant pool. He will fight for justice in a system which begs to ignore injustice. He speaks in honest terms in the face of the dishonest. In the two-party monopoly which seeks to silence, he is the independent voice which will not be silenced. At the very least, Ralph Nader will force the Democrats back to their roots. He will awaken the mainstream to the issues of reform, just like every progressive campaign before him has.
The Green Party and Ralph Nader's independent campaign are two good examples of progressive, grass roots democracy at its best. When a corrupt system needs to be challenged, progressives like Nader rise to the occasion. I don't know how I will vote come November, but I'm happy I'll have more than one choice. I hope the Times embraces the dialogue that every candidate and every political party has to offer. More voices and more choices in the "race" need to be, and should be, heard.
-- Michael R. Henkel, Dunedin
Big picture matters in politics
It is disheartening to see so many letters lambasting third-party candidates as a "wasted" vote. And so frequently the criticism is preceded with an acknowledgement of their good sense:
"Well, yes, we agree that big money controls both major parties and thus our government. But we can't worry about that right now. . . ."
We hear the same spiel every four years. It's like having cancer but saying we can't worry about treating that right now because we have to get over this bout of the flu first.
-- Andy Durey, Gulfport
A principle too costly
I supported the Greens before they got directly involved in partisan politics. I supported Ralph Nader when he semi-successfully took on the National Manufacturers Association gang for producing millions of seriously flawed and life-threatening products. I was dismayed when Nader and the Greens married, and then spawned George Bush as president.
Nader supporters mindlessly stand on principle, even at great personal cost to self, family and society.
-- Norman A. Peterson, Clearwater
Kucinich campaign has legitimacy
Re: Never mind Vietnam - let's deal with Iraq, Feb. 15.
In response to Philip Gailey's question, "Would someone please... tell me how we're going to get out of Iraq and restore fiscal sanity in Washington?" the answer can be found in Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's detailed plan to bring our troops home and turn the situation in Iraq over to the United Nations and stop the Halliburton war-profiteering at U.S. taxpayer expense.
So much has been said about "electability" this election year. Maybe that's what Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards were thinking when they voted "yes" for George W. Bush's war in Iraq. We don't need leaders who just get elected; we need leaders who can lead. Rep. Kucinich led the effort in Congress to try to stop the war and voted against the Patriot Act.
Dennis Kucinich believes that we can have single-payer universal health-care coverage like Canada's and that we must repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization to stop our jobs from going to overseas sweatshops. As president, he would protect Social Security and ask Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan to resign. As a candidate, he would attract the votes of Democrats, independents, Greens and Libertarians. He is that "electable" guy! As mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, he stood up to First Electric, he recently stood up to Ted Koppel and he will stand up to George W. Bush.
-- Ron Kuhler, Lutz
Reality has been outsourced
Re: U.S. jobs go, but also come around, Feb. 27.
Thomas Friedman's "reference to reality" obviously doesn't understand what "seems to be happening" to the 1.6-million Americans who filed personal bankruptcy last year, or to our 43-million uninsured working poor. Columnists who spin the decline of our middle class need to have their jobs "outsourced."
I would be proud to be a champion of the common people of our great country. I will "huff and puff" until labor is eliminated from free trade agreements. These "complex issues" are quite clear to me. Our corporate heads export our jobs to satisfy their greed. These "Americans" do not care what effect their actions have on our working classes.
-- Larry Niebuhr, St. Petersburg
Heading for a sorry legacy
All those who lead this country have a choice as to how they will be remembered by history. In the past, presidents have chosen social justice, the search for peace and other lofty goals as their hoped-for legacy. It is too bad that George W. Bush has made the decision to have the dismantling of Social Security, the division of the country and the promotion of bigotry as the things that will be remembered most about his presidency.
Recently, Bush did something no other president in U.S. history has ever done: He offered support for a constitutional amendment to require discrimination in America. With this endorsement, President Bush struck a cruel blow against equality and liberty in our country, not only for the gay and lesbian community, but for all Americans. Then the next day his minions at the Federal Reserve called for the end to Social Security as we know it today.
Is this a legacy to be proud of?
-- Frank E. Drexler, St. Petersburg
Marriage not in jeopardy
Re: Gay marriage ban.
I fail to understand how the institution of marriage is "threatened" by people seeking to participate in it. Gay couples already pay taxes, own homes and raise well-adjusted children who will grow up to do the same. Banning the legal recognition of their commitment doesn't serve to "protect" marriage any more than segregation "protected" the institutions of the military, public education or voting. I'll tell you what's threatened and urgently needs defending in the wake of Bush, Ashcroft and company: our Bill of Rights!
-- McKell Moorhead, St. Petersburg
An attack on society
Re: On the issue landscape, gay marriage looms small, by Lucy Morgan, Feb. 28.
Ms. Morgan is obviously content to have a small group of judges in Massachusetts go behind closed doors and make a decision to undermine the foundations of 5,000 years of civilization. Shame on her for minimizing a monumental attack on our society by a small body of advocates.
-- David C. Ghen, Redington Beach
Anathema to American principles
I am writing in response to the debate over homosexual marriages. In doing my own research and analyzing recent events, I find the crux of the problem to be not in the issue itself but rather in the insular thinking of the people involved and in society's fear of change. The evolution of life and the customs that animate it are and always have been "victims" of evolution. Evolution is inevitable. People will change, rules will change, customs will change and society will adapt. It has always been that way. Why then is there such animosity toward the evolution of marriage? Society created marriage. So tell me then, why should the evolution of marriage remain stagnant when the society that instituted it has evolved past the horizons of its own creation?
Plain and simple, society has evolved. Homosexuality exists. Homosexuals abide by the same laws, and they pay the same taxes. Why is it then that while homosexuals are not exempt from such requirements, they are denied the pleasures and benefits that other members of society are gifted with? Just because a person's gender affiliation differs from that of the norm, that does not mean that those individuals should be discriminated against.
Furthermore, for those protesting on religious grounds, does not your God say that we should not be judgmental toward our neighbor, and that we should love our neighbor with unconditional love? Homosexuals are our neighbors. Even as such, the Constitution is to keep its laws separate from the church.
Homosexuals seek marriage for the same reasons as heterosexuals. They seek the security and benefits that are lawfully given to other married couples. Overall, homosexuals seek equal rights. Marriage provides fulfillment and happiness in life. The Constitution ensures the pursuit of happiness to all citizens. It's time for America to evolve once more. How can a country that fought so hard for its freedom from oppression oppress its own people? How can a country that fought so hard for equal rights for women and African-Americans blatantly deny equal rights to its neighbors? How can a country founded on the ideals of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" renege on its very own principle?
-- Kathryn Fasciglione, Clearwater
We could go back to the Dark Ages
Re: Bush: Ban gay marriages, Feb. 25.
A constitutional amendment banning gay marriages? Why stop there? Let's ban homosexuality, period. And then we can ban dancing, birth control, any and all non-Christian religions and scientific learning. We would then rely solely on prayer and exorcisms to heal the sick and injured, and the Earth would go back to its proper place at the center of the universe.
We could gather up any material that pertains to anything that's been banned and burn it, and for good measure throw in homosexuals, witches, scientists, atheists and other extremely dangerous people who have the audacity to think for themselves. Then we could all experience for ourselves what the Dark Ages were all about.
-- Chris Behrens, Pinellas Park
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at:http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
