July 29, 2004

Dear Mr. Blough,

More than three months have passed since my first correspondence with you. At that time I was concerned as to whether or not you were a 501 anything. Your response indicated you were not but were giving consideration to the idea, which I believe is a bad idea continuing below ...

Respectfully, I await your reply,

Darryl Forester
Dobro2837

Dear Darryl,

My reply to your inquiry is included in the body of your letter - highlighted in bold font:

Darryl:  More than three months have passed since my first correspondence with you. At that time I was concerned as to whether or not you were a 501 anything. Your response indicated you were not but were giving consideration to the idea, which I believe is a bad idea.

Les Blough - We decided not to form a non-profit corporation due to government intrusion and controls which would be imposed on our work if we were to form a non-profit. You can see our explanation under "CONTRIBUTE' - upper right corner, front page of Axis of Logic.

Darryl: This mail is prompted by your statement concerning the 2004 elections. With regard to your position, I have questions.

Would you favor a return to constitutional government, as originally implemented, or would you propose a pure democracy?

I respectfully ask you to consider the Greek experiment/adventure with pure democracy?

I support you freedom to criticize the system or anything else your heart desires. But I also am of the opinion that if one chooses to criticize, one ought to have constructive ideas to alleviate the problems associated with that which one criticizes. So I believe my next question is: What is it that you propose?

Les Blough - We may have to "agree to disagree" on this one.

First, we do not believe it is possible to predict the outcome of any radical change in government.  The form or model for a new government is something that must be "organically grown" - grown out of a "people's movement".

Second, because we believe government should be of, by and for the people, we believe it is the people who should develop the form of government under which they/we live.  On domestic issues, we think it is wrong for self-appointed leaders to choose a model for government for others.  Our personal desires are for a model that honors universal values of economic fairness, equitable distribution of wealth, equal educational opportunities for everyone, equal, adequate healthcare for everyone, equal housing opportunity for everyone and equality regarding other basic needs.

On foreign policy, we believe that our government should not violate the sovereignty of foreeign nations or interfere with their domestic affairs, as outlined in the 1648 Westphalian Treaty.  We are opposed to war and the buildup of arms beyond what is necessary to protect our own national sovereignty.

Darryl:  My perception is that you propose pure democracy, which cannot and therefore will not work. That you would force the government to listen. You must be kidding!

Les Blough - If you and I were to debate these issues formally, we would have to begin with the Socratic "Definition of Terms". As much as I would like, I simply don't have the time to engage in such a debate.  "Forcing the government to listen" can take on many different forms and methods. The first message to them would be to "Step Down".  How to get them to listen?  10 Milllion of our 280 Million People in this nation on Pennsylvania Avenue, Shutting down the city for a couple of weeks would probably be enough to get their attention.  

My questions to you: Were you at the DNC Protests in Boston last weekend?  Will you join the Million Worker March on Washington on October 17, 2004?  I know peopple who have devoted their entire lives to buildign organization for mobilizing citizens to come out to the streets in opposition to the government.  They are paid nothing for their work.  Their sacrifice shames me with the little I have done.

"Write your congressman" doesn't work.  "Write the Editor" in the corporate media doesn't work. Sitting around and whining doesn't accomplish anything.  The Corporate/Government Media is an arm of the government and controls the "Hearts and Minds" of the American people with High-Tech, slick propaganda.  That is the very reason we created and launched Axis of Logic as an alternative source of news and information.  But to compete with the multi-billion dollar News and disinformation media, we need money to build it bigger and more effecitve.  So my question to you:  Have you contributed ... Do you contribute ... to Axis of Logic or to any other alternative media?

Darryl: Here is your big test. Just what is your view of the second amendment to the United States constitution? If you do not believe it is the most important amendment of all then I submit to you the following; if there were no amendment number two, amendment one would be absolutely worthless.

Les Blough - I personally believe our rights under the second amendment must be protected.  I believe in the right of citizens to bear arms and oppose any effort to strip them of their arms. However, I do not believe people should be able to legally carry loaded guns in the streets on their way to work and to the local bar.

How can all these be accomplished? I don't know.  I'm not paid to work those problems out. Right now, my job is to stop the killing, stop the injustice and to work for world peace.  My small life at best - is only a brick in the wall.  "Brick by Brick & wall by wall".

Thanks again for taking the time to write to us with these questions, Darryl.

Peace,

   Les

Les Blough, Editor
Axis of Logic
Boston, MA (USA)
617-787-3498
www.axisoflogic.com
rmcmail@speakeasy.net

(Please scroll down for more letters to and from Axis of Logic in July, 2004)

Axis of Logic,

Ralph’s Revolt: The Case for Joining Nader’s Rebellion by Greg Bates, 2004, Common Courage Press, 175 pages

 

It is farcical that the left demonizes the current president and his administration as being particularly egregious in their criminality, and by doing so affirms the lackluster Kerry as the antidote.  Bush is more successful at being cruel says Bates, and little more; compared to Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Truman, he is “bushleague by comparison..”  There is much analyzing too of the rightward drift of the Democratic Party here, and explaining how this is likely to continue without the threat posed by a serious and necessarily third party challenge; or second for that matter.

 

Nader has easily done more for the American people than all of the other candidates and their running mates combined.  Contrary to much even progressive conventional wisdom, he has continued his public service since 2000.  When his name and the words “public servant” are uttered together it is not a cliched and perfunctory gesture.  As opposed to the frontrunners and their ubiquitous cant and subterfuge, on the stump, in an interview, Nader’s every word frames real issues in their proper context, is urgent, without a trace of superfluity, aware of the magnitude of the problems we face, with viable solutions.  By natural right his message ought to appeal to the vast preponderance of the electorate. 

 

It is unfortunate, although not to underrate its significance, that the strongest argument Bates makes to encourage support of Nader’s campaign is that of voting strategically under the rules of the Electoral College.  Bates says the upcoming election is really 58 elections, each state’s and the District of Colombia, and Maine and Nebraska wherein each district counts its votes separately.  It is crucial to consider this in building momentum for a third party.  Bates avers that in the other than about fifteen swing states, progressives will not be supporting Bush by voting for Nader.  He goes even further and examines meticulously scenarios that may likely develop in which progressives even in smaller states with few electoral votes should feel safe voting for Nader.  Noting that it is easier to sway power when it feels vulnerable Bates says in any event, progressives would do well to make a potential Kerry win as narrow as possible.   

 

Bates here clarifies that both Noam Chomsky, who wonders aloud how anyone could have taken his ABB comments otherwise, and Howard Zinn plan to vote for Nader because they are in the safe state of Massachusetts.  Beyond that, however, he cites the ever astute Chomsky: “Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion – which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.”

 

It hardly goes without saying that a Kerry win does not at all promise a progressive agenda.  Kerry’s supposed high minded ideals, says Bates, could translate into nefarious deeds.  He points out that often the party that supposedly stands for a certain principle, the Democrats for social programs for example, is better able to lead the charge for its amendment, even its destruction.  The Republicans were better able to open China under Nixon because they didn’t have to fear being called soft on Communism like the Democrats, notes Bates.  Similarly Clinton and the Democrats were able to destroy welfare, for which the Republicans would have faced outrage and wide resistance.  A Kerry presidency may well more legitimate an attack on Social Security or a stepped up war effort in Iraq, writes Bates. 

 

A large part of this book rightfully critiques the political positions of Kerry and the demise of the Democratic party, as much as it forwards the Nader run, who just happens to be the progressive alternative.  Kerry has backed every major regressive policy of the Bush administration, including among others, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, expansion of the military budget, and the tax cuts for the rich, according to Bates.   As senator, he has also advocated sanctions against Iraq which killed more than a million Iraqi children, perennially promoted Israel’s murderous seige of the Palestinians, and approved NAFTA and GATT.  He wants to build coalitions and exercise multilateralism reports Bates, not because it would allow for international decision-making through the U.N. or so that the U.S. obeys international law, but because it would strengthen and extend U.S. imperialism. 

 

Bates observes that Kerry wants to cut corporate taxes still further.  Roger C. Altman, a top Kerry aid, thinks the right tax code is the way to help the poor.  “Gone is any whiff of aid to the poor,” writes Bates, "any sense that government could reinvigorate the New Deal politics of FDR.”  Kerry’s proposal for national health care is not single payer, the most efficient and effective way to provide such care, says Bates, but more corporate tax subsidies.  Of Kerry’s economic program, Bates cites Altman as saying, “It is a credible, enforceable policy that will position Kerry to the right of Bush on fiscal policy.”    

 

There are other strategic factors to consider in supporting Nader, according to Bates.  He writes that in 2000 Nader brought a million voters to the polls who otherwise wouldn’t have voted.  A similar number could be decisive in helping the Democrats make gains in congressional elections, where not all Democrats are as regressive as Kerry, and help stymie a Bush agenda.

 

Tracy is an activist and writer living in the Chicago area.  You may reach him at tracymacL@yahoo.com

Manuel,

 

Some times we just have to use our enemy for our cause and more, we

have to acknowledge when they are on our side.

 

It is often that we make the case for being against our opponents, and

as a society, a people and a world that has largely defined ourselves

based on opposition, it makes sense to say that there are those that

are on our side and that there are those against us, and knowing where the dividing line is drawn, ought certainly to determine our

alliances.

 

Either you are for me or against me, that is the ultimate question of

alliance, without mincing words or swords, the grandiose defining

factor of any alliance, devotion or patriotism is if you are willing

to fight for the cause, liberal or democrat, Christian or Muslim the

right cause is usually always my cause.

 

This is all well and fine, throughout the centuries we have found that

loyalty pays off handsomely, knights were knighted on account of their

contributions and the Vikings were successful because they rewarded

barbarism, and all successful presidents spend the first year in

office anointing their political aficionados with the appropriate

office. We shall then reward those that are loyal and we ought refuse

those that are disloyal, we shall embark in campaigns against those

that do not believe in our cause, those that are not willing to fight

on our team or more clearly those that can not be trusted.

 

Team spirit, group effort, focus, devotion, dedication and loyalty

cannot ever be seeing as other than paramount characteristics of any

successful campaign and or adventure. To succeed in business,

politics, even religion devotion to the cause is a fundamental factor,

it is the fanatics like Jesus Christ, Winston Churchill and Martin

Luther King, that define, direct and accomplish great deeds!

 

But what if to succeed we need to take our opponents side?

 

Is it possible for us to imagine that there might be a more successful

adventure if we promote our opponents cause? Can we have such a large worldview that we might comprehend when it is truly in our interest to side with those that oppose us? Or must we be blind to the possibility that at times our enemy might in fact be on our side if only by virtue of the fact that they are human and that they have a family and thus suffer needs just like us.

 

Today we find ourselves in a most acrimonious situation; the political

divide has become so poisoned by righteous partisanship that neither

right nor left see compromise, as possible but rather complete demise

of the other seems the only acceptable proposition.

In the end, logic would have us surmised, that either the left or the

right will win a final victory but for now the two parties will

cohabitate in the same political universe.

 

All this is so because the dichotomy that divides the left and the

right has reached such absolute definition that they can now feel

completely comfortable as members of their pertaining camps, without

having to cross partially or wholly to the other side. The last

democratic election embodied the absoluteness of the right-left divide

when the outcome of the election had to be determined by a judge!

 

Even today as we are on the run up to the 2004 presidential election

we find ourselves in another photo finish type race, where we will not

know with any certainty which pundit or statistic is right until the

bitter end.

 

This rather fascinating situation is not an argument for the diversity

that is promoted by democracy but rather evidence that democracy has a natural tendency to simplify and simmer. The simplification comes in the fact that America only has a two party system, black or white if

you will, a donkey or an elephant, the fact that right wing voters opt

to stay in their camp and left wing voters opt to do the same is a

sign that there isn't a catalysts to alter their mutual reactionary

positions. The voters do not see a formidable difference either to

motivate them to shift or to challenge the prevailing view of their

own party.

 

Simmering occurs when the ambivalence reaches such a heights that

corporations, social entities, religious organizations and even

foreign countries opt to support both sides rather than side with a

particular party or candidate. Most revered organizations and

corporations don't take sides, they contribute to both parties,

equally, thus canceling out their vote so as to benefit from any

outcome.

 

Under such conditions it might be argued that political ambivalence is

justified, and I would not be one to argue differently, the people

have sufficient comprehension to know when their vote will not make a

difference and so the fact that voters feel disenfranchised by all the

political hubris which is in the end contrived merely to maintain a

perfectly symmetrical left-right political hegemony, under such

conditions voter apathy is wholly justified, and lack of participation

is even an intelligent choice as any other choice is equally defunct.

 

However I am here to claim that this year we can make a substantial

difference, but first we must acknowledge that there isn't that much

of a difference between parties, this in order to accept the

contradicting and yet favorable opportunity that is now before us.

Some people might be able to substantiate a difference between the

Regan years and the Clinton years but they both made the country feel

good. One could argue that their success could be attributed to both

their lack of interference and good fortune. Either character can

claim a good reading of the signs of the times, and a happy go lucky

character that went forth and claimed success as warranted. I am sure

history will give them more credit for all the changes that took place

on their watch, while today those changes seem rather inevitable.

China and Russia had to open up, their centralized localized economies

were fantasies, both Regan and Clinton were people who, more than

anything, didn't stand in the way of change, and as a result they did

not hinder our progress.

 

But now we stand on a completely different presidential platform,

President Bush is actually an interventionist and a spender, not a

very republican platform but he definitely sides with it, he wants to

proselytize democracy throughout the world and he wants to prevent

dangers before they ever occur to the nations potential enemies. He is

also very defined in his objectives by the assumption that winning

makes right, not might makes right, but winning. The assumption that

America won the cold war makes Bush imagine that that makes it the

policeman, teacher, and leader of the world. The natural nature of

capitalism to secure wealth also assures president Bush that

capitalism, creates jobs and economic well being, therefore it should

be adopted by the Arabs, the Indians, the Chinese, the Russians, the

Latin Americans and so on. The United States became a great country

with capitalism and democracy the rest of the world can succeed just

the same hence the current crusades.

 

Liberals have decided to fight against Bush because of his pronounced

necessity to homogenize the rest of the world based on American values and ideals. But I think back to Nietzsche who often said that one should listen to ones enemies because enemies primarily attack our

weaknesses.

 

Liberals aside many foreign peoples and nations are against the Bush

doctrine, but again I go back to Nietzsche's insightfulness on the

matter, and perhaps also to the martial art of Judo which centers on

the doctrine of using an opponents energy against them. From that I

deduce that we liberals might have a problem realizing when our enemy

has become his own worst enemy and thus our friend.

 

For foreigners such as China, France and Germany Bush is the ideal

president because he is giving them a voice, he is allowing them to

define themselves against his policies in a rather overt manner. Bush

is not a diplomat, his is more of a bully type, and so anyone can run

against him and look at least a moderate. This gives the EU and others

a super advantage to take a position against NATO, against America

institutions and values without having to go though the usual rigor of

esoteric diplomatic machinations. And because President Bush doesn't

believe in alliances but rather prefers to go at it alone he is

justifying isolationist ideals which can only benefit and fortify any

acting block of nations. Even the fact that the president has turned

Clinton's budget surplus into a huge deficit is a benefit for

foreigners as these places a check on American actions, that is,

without prior consent of those nations, like China and Japan, that are

lending America huge sums to maintain a semblance of economic

stability. And you can thank Bush for the lower value of the dollar

which gave the euro the monetary importance in badly needed.

 

In some ways even the Muslims and Arabs and all those that oppose

American ideals have the best president they could have ever desire,

president Bush by promoting either Christian or Secular values and

preempted preventive Force is acting as a unifying, though repelling,

power to those that oppose those values. President Bush is actually

forming a coalition of peoples and nations that now may have a greater

and clearer definition of their mutual interest and causes; as owed to

the greater antagonism these ideologues are plugged-in and turned on

through American actions.

 

Based on that information, and making the gross assumption that

liberals are more interested in an international cause, a cause that

serves the world community and not just America, which one would plot as a cause that levels the playing field of geopolitics, where there

really are groups of interests that intertwined and endear themselves

to bipartisan policies and actions; then Bush is the president for

these times. He alone is making obvious the need to contain and manage American world power, he is also humbling Americans, by showing his aggressiveness and amply demonstrating that American interest are paramount to all others. In a sense Bush is forcing America to mature by exposing how worldly naive it has been, and by overtly alerting the world, that obviously America is not always the enlightened power or the benevolent maximum.

 

Liberals should and ought to unite their vote for Bush, the world and

America will best be served by a Bush presidency as he exposes the

fallacies of American benevolence and amply demonstrates how blind

self interest can be. In a sense, like it or not when America won the

cold war it reached the climax of its own power, and had to flounder

around until it found its own Gorbachev, that will liberate it from

its grandiose fantasy of manifest destiny. Bush is Americas Gorbachev.

 

Bush as president will create a necessity, as Gorby once did for

Russia, for all Americans to learn to get along with the rest of the

world. Liberals unite - vote for Bush!

 

Ricardo Correa

Mr Blough, I understand and agree that we live in "Imperial America".

Since the United Fruit Company war in central america virtually all of american foreign policy has been self serving and detrimental to the world at large.

Swell. I dont think that is earth shaking news. The problem is that you much like Robert Jensen another purporter of "imperial america" seem to think that this great revelation should be enough to encourage the masses to rise and revolt.

You both seem to be idignant that Micheal Moore or John Kerry don't take up your banner. That dog wont hunt. To a promoter like Moore or a politico like Kerrry wailing against "imperial america" would insure their failure. You are turning a blind eye to the incredible incompetence, corruption, and frightning ideology which is part and parcel of generalissimo Bush's regime.

Kerry is most certainly part of the establishment, and yes, he will probably promote some of the causes of "imperial america". However he is not in bed with the Bin-Ladens, he does not think he is the chosen one of God, he is not connected to Halliburton or Enron, and is not a craven coward. Dubya Bush is all of the above. So who do you support? Nader? What a joke.

Political change is made in increments.There is a clear choice in this election. Get out of the ivory tower of idealism and help save this country. Your disdain for Kerry or Mr Jensens ridicule of Moore defeats our common goal.We desperatly need a regime change and unless you are shockingly naive you must realize that Kerry must be elected if there is any hope to derail the empire express.

If you do not promote Kerry even with his flaws, four years from now you may well not be able to express your views. Maybe I can put matters in prespective for you. Although I am peaceful by nature and am anti-war in most cases, I gage the mettle of a man by using the following scenario. If you were in a battle and were depending on the man next to you for your very life could you count on him. I would not hesitate to sit John Kerry next to me. I would cut and run screaming if that man was George Bush. People that have some degree of political sophistication understand that Kerry is flawed and in no way would he have been their first or even second choice. He's what we have.

Support him or the jack boots may kick your door down in the near future. Would you really rather have an ideologue like Dubya in power over an establishment man like Kerry? If the answer is yes then I have just wasted my time. Feel free to reply.

Anon

Axis of Logic:

I really respected your publication web site, until I read how it is projecting things upon John Kerry who you have no right to claim what he will do when in office. Do you hear me? You have no right to say what he will do and to become fortune tellers!

I am deeply angered at your publication for rallying the anti-war movement against John Kerry. Your publication, calling him a "regime" is irresponsible and, quite frankly, weird. You don't carry one adminsitration into the next with your projections in such a seamless matter of paraonoia and fear. You have NO RIGHT to be determining the future for John Kerry.

I am removing your publication links from my blog and you are now considered to be extremists who are completely and totally out of line in how you are actually pursuading people against John Kerry that would keep George Bush in power and thereby defeat your publication's whole purpose of power change in America today.

You are truly on the wrong track and I will never visit your site again. You work towards removing George Bush, and stop attacking a candidate for what you think he might do in the future! Pigs!

Sincerely,

Cheryl Merrill

Dear Cheryl,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about my article on John Kerry's presidential candidacy.  I understand your dismay at the position we've taken.  I share the same disgust as you regarding the Bush regime and obviously want him out.  However, the Democrats and John Kerry have failed us.  I would rather if you had responded to the facts presented in the article about Kerry's position on the war and civil rights, rather than simply rejecting the article out of hand.  Since you haven't done that, the only way I can respond is to say that I'm saddened by our inability to discuss these matters in a courteous and civil manner.

I am fed up with our government killing people in my name and with my tax dollars.  I've always felt that way but never to the extent I do now.  Bill Clinton (for whom I voted) is responsible for even more death and suffering in Iraq than the ignorant and brutal George Bush. Clinton's weekly missle attacks, no-fly zones and 8 years of sanctions resulted in the deaths of about 1.5 million people, including about a million Iraqi children died as a result. My protest against war dates back to the Vietnam era.  But I think my inability to vote for those who go to war began with the loss of my son, Hans, in an accident in 1990.  Through his death, I came to value life as never before.  Given the statements Kerry has made and the policies he has articulated, I cannot vote for him.  Those who choose to vote for him with the ABBB view are good people and mean well.  I simply disagree.

I think our biggest problem in this nation is our inability to resolve conflict with one another by engaging in courteous, civil debate - from which we can all benefit.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.  I respect your opinion.

Dear Editor,

Dear Axis of Logic,

You’re barking up the wrong tree.  At least 50% of Americans can think for themselves and the other 50% listen to you and anyone else with some lame opinion about anything and everything.  This Nation has been resilient against many calamities over the centuries and somehow we will prevail as a world power at least another 50 to 100 years inspite of ourselves (nothing lasts forever).

Anon

Dear Editor,

Where is the Arab outrage and daily coverage (headlines) of the Arab slaughter of non-Arab and non-Muslim Blacks in the Sudan? Why are the Arabs not at the forefront of sending troops and UN giving sanctions for this real genocide?

Dear editor,

I stumbled on your site and I found its alternative bent quite refreshing, it’s a contextual sweep away from the wooden perspectives that mainstream media dole out. It is also most instructive.

We are doing ‘something’ too in Africa.

Damola Awoyokun
Lagos, Nigeria.

Dear Axis,

It could be possible that the killers knew about the torture at Abu-Ghraib prison before the pictures were released. It would make sense that some of the victims of the torture were released prior to the beheading, and made it known to others what was going on. It should not be assumed that when the we found out about it, is when they found out about it.

Dear Les, 

I am a British freelance journalist writing a feature on the recent success of documentaries and would like to ask you a few q's on the subject if that is possible?

If you respond to this email, please do so promptly with your full name and job title/web affiliations.

Thanks for your time.

1. Why are documentaries suddenly finding success?
2. What does it say about modern audiences and what they are seeking when they go to the cinema?
3. Is this a trend or is it something that will affect future film-making?

Anything else you would like to add would be great.

Cheers,

T

Dear Timothy,

Thank you for writing with these interesting questions. My "off the top" response follows each of your questions from your email mssg. below.


1. Why are documentaries suddenly finding success?

Because people are interested in and seeking the truth.  They are weary of 30 second sound bites and canned, spun news reports that give them no substance.  They see documentaries as having more substance and delivering something closer to the truth. 

2. What does it say about modern audiences and what they are seeking when they go to the cinema?

It says they are hungry for the truth and more information.  Lengthy documentaries can be expose' to historical events and current problems.  But they also can be surrounded by the illusion of truth, but due to their sophistication can deliver convincing paradigms/myths that use "truths" but do not deliver "the whole truth". (e.g. -regarding Fahrenheit 9/11 - read http://www.irmep.org/essays/ksa.htm) - an article I will be posting on Axis of Logic, after permission for reprint is obtained. Thus, documentaries are often powerful tools to shape hearts and minds around a larger falsehood.  In either case the non-critical, modern audience has their appetite for "the truth" satisfied, at least temporarily.

3. Is this a trend or is it something that will affect future film-making?

I believe all human beings have an insatiable hunger for more information.  They have far greater sophistication than most media attributes to them.  I do not think their need and desire for more information is a "trend".  Their/our need for more information has always been there and will always be there.  Because the corporate news and entertainment industry is exploiting "documentaries" right now says nothing about the fundamental needs of the curious and creative mind.  People go through cycles of malaise when they are entertained and "dumbed down" by the 8 p.m. sit-coms and the 15 minute coverage of the news.  But their long term need for more detailed information, more comprehensive and exhaustive information will always be there.  Documentaries are only a "trend" when the media masters decide it will be a trend and it serves their long range goals - not the long term needs of the people.  Documentaries will affect future film-making only as long as the corporate media decides it will affect future film-making. 

The corporate news and entertainment media often recite the mantra that they are "only giving the people what they want".  There is a grain of truth in that statement.  For example, they can appeal to the baser instincts of humanity by feeding them sex and violence to which any human organism will respond.  They can develop those baser instincts with more intense sex and violence.  The alternative is that they could appeal to the higher instincts of humanity - instincts of compassion, fairness, self-respect, peace and creativity, lifting the individual up and promoting good will, spirituality and universal values of love and trust.  "Reality TV are good examples of the former.  I am hard-pressed to find good examples of the latter in today's news and entertainment media, including modern film-making.

Dear Les:

I meant to send this to you when it was more timely, but can't find any indication that I did. So here it is again. Also, I'd like to send you my last copy of "The Daze of Dubya Doo", a series of linked poems inspired by the events of September 9, 2001, that savage the junta's fascism. While my political satire finds enthusiastic reception whenever I read it, I hesitated to publish them while in the USSA, as a disabled person is not as able to defend himself from attack. Now that I'm back in BC, it is unlikely these will cause the same reaction here. The poem below would be a fitting addition as the last page. I no longer add to "The Daze of Dubya Doo" because his murderous treason is not at all funny; he is not only the worst ruler in US history, his antiChristian behaviours are the vilest pornography possible. Of course I'd like to publish it as well, but ten years of relocations have effectively destroyed my connections to editors, and while my present life is well-settled, I scrounge incessantly for work, so have little time to follow through on publishing. Getting work off to you and a few others is as much as I can manage. I've started sending stuff to The Christian Science Monitor, as they like my work and pay well. I look forward to getting a cheque from them, esp. as my last wife, a Christian Scientist, would be flabbergasted to see me in there! I had to leave her and her wealth, as it all got way too suffocating for me. Whew! I didn't mean to go on as much, better say "Goodbye" and "All best!"

Joseph

The Nature of the Case (with a nod to John Peale Bishop

"We can't talk about what we're looking for, or the nature of the case," said Susan Herskovits, FBI spokeswoman. (Quoted in Arizona Republic, for 24 April 2004, as FBI agents swarm over Deer Valley School Administration Offices in City "on">Deer Valley City>, Fatuously they descended, their plastered hair unctuously glistening, perfectly bronzed by chemicals, snug suits tight as their minds,knees bent in pursuit of copyright protection. Young hands and minds, slim flanks, golden quarries unknown to Ashcroft’s warriors, obediently blind. No, for then leaving them to encounter empty seats, all fled to a safe house, which may also be a home. As law dictates, so shall it be done, and Justice, silently across John Ashcroft’s bended knee. (The Evergreen State),

Made in Mexico

What did Mexico's forests look like
Were they dark-green conifers,
or leafy deciduous trees?
On Sundays, Juan Valiente would bring
his family to the forest and watch deer
watching them as they picked mushrooms
and berries, or tended the tiny streams
that brought them their water, then go home,
one behind the other, singing.

But that was before they disappeared,
cut and ground into Product 125,
96 single sheet rolls, factory boxed,
for institutional use only. 

18 December 1991 

Dear Axis of Logic,

Of all the discourse, pro and con, surrounding "Fahrenheit 9/11," none (that I have yet found) addresses the historiography of political agitation. The current conversation, I believe, needs to rise above critiques about Michael Moore and the film itself; it must move toward a broader appreciation of how in all of our great social movements public opinion has been shaped from "the bottom up," by so-called radicals who shove peripheral views off the sidelines and into the center of public debate.

Following and in the body of this message I have included for your consideration of publication on Axis of Logic an article titled "Fahrenheit 212" wherein I compare the tactics of agitation used by filmmaker Michael Moore and 19th-century abolitionist editor William Lloyd Garrison. It is, of course, a timely article, which in part recounts my experience at a sabotaged premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Clifton, NJ on June 25, 2004.

In May 2004 I completed my second year as a Doctoral Pre-Candidate in History at George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia. In May 2002, I graduated with a Master of Arts in Liberal Studies from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where my research orbited the study of bond-servitude and slavery in colonial and antebellum America, the concurrent failure of Reconstruction and the growth of scientific racism in post-bellum America, and the Progressive-era eugenics assault in early-1900s America. In April 2003 and April 2000, I presented conference papers at Virginia Tech and Harvard University, respectively, about Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 landmark United States Supreme Court case that overturned all existing anti-"miscegenation" laws. My study at GMU concentrates on Loving v. Virginia and its intersection with the codependent concepts of "race" and "miscegenation." I have recently completed a biography about William Lloyd Garrison for young adults, which is currently under consideration at Oxford UP.

Thank you for considering this submission. I look forward to your reply.

Charlie Lawing
Gainesville, VA 20155

Dear Sirs,

In the subject article the author states that "....In Russia, only two Gulag sites, in Solovki and in Perm, have small museums that shaw conditions in the camps, the techniques of torture, etc.,etc.."

The author is incorrect. In Magadan, the center of Kolyma Region, on top of the Krutaya hill overlooking the city of Magadan there stands a 15 meter high monument -"The Mask of Sorrow" - designed by well known sculptor Ernst Neizvestnyi. This is the first one of the "Triangle of Suffering" which includes the infamous forced labour camps of Vorkuta, Yekaterinburg and Magadan.

There is a number of places throughout the region where Russian Orthodox crosses were erected to commemorate the "guiltless victims" of the communist regime.

Also, in the City of Magadan, at the Reginal Museum there are extensive displays depicting working and living conditions at the local forced labour camps as well as walls and walls of framed pictures of "post mortem rehabilitation documents" of the dead victims of the regime.

There may be, and most likely are, other places in Russia that have memorials and monuments to the victims. It is, I feel, very shortsighted and somewhat irresponsible of Mr. Etkind to make such a categorical statement without bothering to check its validity.

Sergei Kobiakov

Nanaimo, British Columbia
Canada

Dear Editors,

It was refreshing to come across your site and to read your Mission. There is nothing as divisive as a position or an "ism". As someone I know once said, "There is no Them, only Us." So lets get to the truth without the "isms".

Well done and I wish you ongoing luck. I have attached a piece I wrote recently which represents my thinking on global warming. I wrote it from the same "space". Please publish it if you find it meets your editorial criteria.

Kind regards

Simon Ratcliffe
Claremont 7708
Cape Town, South Africa