Matters of race should not be discussed in any forum. With our current President taking a definitive stance against race-based affirmative action, it is becoming clear that this issue is far too divisive to score a tactical victory for us. When race is brought up in conversation, know that the person raising the issue is most likely a Republican, seeking only to cause tension and chaos to you personally. A long-term conceptualization of race relations dialogue needs to be taken into account as well. When President Clinton began open dialogue on the matter, he was damaging the needs of the party. His attempt to make a change caused the backlash that gave us our current administration, which is openly hostile to the needs of African-Americans. At the risk of allowing my optimism to spoil my realism, once we do take back the Congress and the Presidency, we should still refrain from any discussion of race. Beating President Bush and the Republicans is far too important to risk on any altruistic deliberations and debate on the growing social chasm between the various classifications of race.

The environment as well is off limits. We shall not be promoting anyone as the environmental candidate. Whenever anyone makes the claim that the earth is a living organism not unlike humans, that can adapt to whatever changes are forced upon it by the surroundings, nod and say you are unfamiliar with the issue. Do not point out that under that analogy, the earth can expire just like humans, for that can raise the ire of the business community, which is so essential to getting our message out on the need to defeat President Bush and the Congress. The environment must be ignored if we want to get those polluters out of office. Keep in mind the old adage, "What goes up, must come down." Any talk of environmentalism will increase pressure to actually take up a pro-environmental agenda in office. Once we are forced into this situation, the anti-environmental backlash to follow us will be too daunting to combat. The best course is to avoid discussion of the matter, keeping expectations reasonably low once we succeed in our mission of defeating President Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

War… forget I even wrote that word.

The poor do not vote for various reasons. A plank in any platform that helps the poor is a waste of valuable wood. Any attention paid to the concerns of the millions of citizens living below the poverty line will only detract away from the most important message of the need to defeat President Bush and the Republicans in Congress. The difficulty in not only reaching the poor with our message, let alone convincing them to vote is far too great an expenditure to consider when weighed against the other weapons we could deploy to unseat this administration. We can examine the poverty question later when in office, for there is little historical precedence of a proactive government agenda in dealing with poverty to anticipate a backlash.

On second thought, once in power, we cannot alienate the millions of dollars and people that are not impacted by poverty. The important factor to remember is not only defeating President Bush and the Republicans in Congress important, on equal footing is the significance of running a government that will not allow future President Bush's into power. An agenda designed to focus attention on the poor will open the door to future right wing dominance.

Health care, as tempting as it may be to advocate universal coverage, now is definitely not the time for such pronouncements. With President Clinton's failed initiative for universal health care, we inherited President Bush and the Republican Congress, which we must defeat in 2004. Health care may be thought of as a vital part of the nation's infrastructure, akin to roads, schools, dams, levees and forests, however the mention of the concept frightens the nation into thinking they would be forced to pay for someone else's medical bills. Although that happens today to some extent, we should not take a position on the issue regardless. The people should not be lead to believe that their tax dollars are going to something that does not directly help them. Even though most people don't realize where their taxes are going, no need to stir the pot during this crucial time, as we strive to defeat President Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

I await with breathless anticipation the announcement of which candidate will be selected to defeat President Bush. Once he is decided upon, it should be the pledge of all of those that wish to see President Bush defeated that issues are not discussed, nor debated. This pledge should be adhered to during the campaign and while occupying the seat of power. This election is far too important to make a difference. Remember, it is okay to vote your conscience, as long as it is telling you to defeat President Bush.

On to Baghdad!
by Brian Patrick Walsh

I was thinking about how it is best to address my support for military intervention… sorry, I mean war, with Iraq when I began thinking about the crazy year it has been. As I ruminated about the seasons, as well as last night's episode of the O'Reilly Factor, I remembered something that slipped my mind down the pike: We declared war on Afghanistan over a year ago!!

"This is a different kind of war," said the President and everyone with a saber to rattle. No shit. I completely forgot we were in a war. Hell, I think a lot of people did, which is why we need another one. My friends in the Young Socialists Club are upset about that latter prospect. I feel bad for them because they are always thinking negatively. "Why on earth would we start a war while another one is in progress?" was one question I heard often. My answer: I think that the first one must be ending soon. Of course, I understand if they can't tell me, national security being what it is. Truth be told, I think we are going to be pulling out of the war on terror. Wars on two fronts never work. Just ask Hitler. In fact, some of the guys in the Pentagon were around to fight Hitler. They will agree with me.

A different kind of war requires different levels of sacrifice. In World War II, there were car pools, rubber drives, blood drives, curfews to save power and hunts for Japanese citizens. Now, the message is to spend. Now that's a war I can live with. No conservation and frugality these days, for it is patriotic to spend and consume. The President called on Americans to get on with their daily lives, go to the movies, fly on airplanes, go to restaurants, open your hearts and wallets. After high-fiving the television, I foolishly blurted out, "Roosevelt was an asshole." I then remembered… it's a different kind of war. Spending money wasn't acceptable then, which is probably why our parents and grandparents are such unreasonable cheapskates. It is American to spend. That's why we put patriotic stuff on our money. Spend the night away.*

Bill Maher, a comedian that favors applause over laughter, lamented that Americans are not involved in this war because there is no sacrifice and no message from the government to do exactly that. He misses the propaganda posters of old, the one with the Tojo's fangs dripping with blood and an invisible Hitler riding in a car next to a man that won't carpool. With all due respect to Mr. Maher, propaganda is all around us. The airline commercial that tells everyone to get out there and fly and extols on the employees that haven't been fired yet, or the anti-drug commercial that ties marijuana to terrorism. It's a wondrous and glorious day for propaganda. In fact, every commercial and advertisement is a piece of propaganda; it's just that the process has been privatized so the government can save money for smart bombs.

I support everything the government is doing or is planning on doing. However, there is one strategic mistake that has been made. Out here in California, the time difference with the east can be either a feather in my cap, or a thorn in my craw. The President spoke on his plan for Iraq a few months ago at eight o'clock eastern standard time. The networks on the east coast would not preempt the Drew Carey Show for this landmark speech. I thought to myself, "Thank God." California had a different experience. At five o'clock pacific standard time, when I normally watch Blind Date on UPN, they cut away to the President's speech. "Fools," I shouted. "Fools," I shouted again. UPN revels in the fact that their demographic has the least amount of money and education. Also, their audience is mostly male and notably young. These are the very people that are going to be drafted. Why run this speech that may unfairly scare them out of the honor of indentured servitude to their nation? Drew Carey's fans on the east coast are none the wiser, though the Drew Carey fans out here are quite petulant. Next time, choose a venue where none of the draft pool will watch, like VH-1.

Worry not; Iraq will soon fade into the back pages of the New York Times. We'll move onto bigger and better things, or smaller and richer countries. Recently, one of the Young Socialists muttered, "It takes a nation of millions to bomb a village." I didn't catch the reference, though I agreed with him. Anything to shut up the naysayers, anything.

*Only spend within the confines of the framework constructed by the government in conjunction with the accounting industry, outlined in the impending bankruptcy legislation that will be passed and signed in the 108th Congress, making it more difficult to declare Chapter 7 and 11 bankruptcy while offering protections to creditors who increase interest rates and cease credit lines to individuals who pay off their balance in full every week, failing to maintain a respectable amount of debt that can keep this country moving and awesome.

Homicide Bombers? It's about time.
by Brian Patrick Walsh

Recently, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer delivered the dictum to the American media that "suicide bombers" shall be known as "homicide bombers." The Fox News Channel has embraced the term, using it proudly and often. Now, any slip of the tongue that refers to "suicide bombers," faces a sharp rebuke from PC (politically conservative) talking heads.

Normally, I would be outraged to hear that a major news organization would allow the government to interfere in their choice of words. In this case, I couldn't be happier.

Bombs have a long and proud history of murder. There was no real need to coin the phrase "homicide bomber" in earlier days. Most bombs of long ago did little else but kill people. Imagine if we made this distinction years ago when we dropped Fat Killer and Murder Boy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Newspaper editorials would have contained sentences decrying these acts. "These bombs are going to kill people? Homicide bombers, like President Harry S. Truman needs to be stopped at any cost."

If you think that sounds ridiculous, you're right. We had little recourse in earlier times. With the evolving battlefield, we have evolving weaponry. The United States military has a diverse catalog of bombs. Bombs nowadays aren't hell bent on murder like they used to be. Take for example neutron bombs. I do not know much about them, though from what I understand they can leave a large city's infrastructure virtually intact. It's refreshing to know this, for often times, bombs cause buildings to fall, killing people. I take comfort in knowing that this bomb will not do that.

The White House couldn't be more on target in their classification of the bombers formerly known as suiciders. These bombers kill people, which puts them in a class all their own. How, in this day and age, could someone use bombs to kill people? The Palestinians need to embrace more civilized methods of conflict, like "smart bombs," or "carpet bombing." Bombs should be used properly, like blowing up hospitals, apartment complexes and churches, not to kill people.

Fleischer's distinction between good and bad bombings signals that we have evolved as a people. We expect more of our bombs today than we did many years ago. Our bombs are so advanced that they do not engage in acts of homicide. The bunker busters we dropped in Afghanistan were what they said they were, "bunker busters." They were not homicide bombs; rather these bombs are designed to destroy underground hiding places. Not once did any members of our Defense Department use the phrase "homicide bombings" when describing these maneuvers. We'll leave homicide bombings to less civilized people and cultures.

We are a country that abhors killing of any kind. In fact, we hate killing so much that we give murderers a taste of their own medicine, in progressive states like Texas and Oklahoma. Other countries need to follow our example and condemn all murder. Countries that tolerate the use of bombs and weapons to kill people need to be brought into step with us. Maybe a dropping a few "house crushers" or "mosque vanishers" will do the trick.