President Bush today called for passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that if ratified, would define marriage as a union only between one man and one woman.

"What this president has done is appalling and is not in defense of anything, instead its a promotion of hate and bigotry against taxpaying American citizens solely on the basis of their sexual orientation" says Perry Slone, Director of Ohio Citizens for Social Justice (OCSJ), an organization working to create social change and address social justice issues.

"This man is only interested in getting himself re-elected, and those of us who support diversity and freedom must do everything we can do to defeat him and also work to defeat this hateful Amendment" says Slone.

Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards, are opposed to same-sex marriage, but they also oppose a constitutional amendment, saying that its an issue that should be decided by the states and not the federal government.

bush may have inherited a slight recession, but he turned it into a depression by turning a surplus into a deficit, shifting the tax burden onto middle american consumers, encouraging corruption, escalating income stratification, running up gargantuan military commitments, killing off renewable energy, decimating the natural environment, gutting the economic reporting apparatus and much more...

As usual, Wasserman is wrong, wrong, wrong. George W. Bush is not the worst president ever. He is one of the best presidents. Wake up and smell the bong water.

"It's my right to run."  

This is Ralph Nader's core case in announcing his 2004 presidential candidacy. Yes, Nader has a legal right to do this. He also has a legal right to donate $100,000 to the Republican Party and become a Bush Pioneer. That doesn't make it a good idea.

So much of Nader's career has been built on reminding us of our common ties. It's not ok, he's argued, for companies to make unsafe cars, pollute our air, or pillage shared resources. Actions have consequences, he's pointed out with persistence and eloquence.

Now, he's taking the opposite tack, fixating on his own absolute right to do whatever he chooses, while branding those who've argued against his running as contemptuous censors, who  "want to block the American people from having more choices and voices." This argument would seem familiar coming from an Exxon executive. Coming from Ralph Nader, it marks a fundamental shift from an ethic of responsibility to one of damn the consequences, no matter how much populist precedent he tries to dress it up with. No wonder participants in right-wing websites, like FreeRepublic.org, have salivated over Nader's

Mr. Wasserman,

Nice piece: www.truthout.org/docs_04/021904I.shtml.

Though friends roll their eyes, I've never doubted for a moment in the past 2.5 yrs that GW Bush will be known as *the* Dot-Com President of the nation.

As things start to get more interesting, just remember:

ALL warfare is psychological warfare...There is no other kind. Denials of this assertion are exposed as debate about tactics.

Regards,
Paul
Chicago