(Not surprisingly, the following opinion piece was rejected by the LA Times.  Today, the L.A. Times has a virtual monopoly on print news in southern California.  LA has the dubious distinction of being a city with essentially one newspaper.  The San Fernando Valley, which considers itself so much of a distinct city that, well, they are trying to secede, has the 
Daily News, which is local.  Orange County, which may as well be Kansas, has the O.C. Register.  Now, in addition to being the only major newspaper, the Times parent company, Tribune Broadcasting, owns television station KTLA channel 5 and it's news programs.  Thus, when the LA Times recently hosted a gubernatorial debate, they single-handedly had the power to exclude the Green Party from participation despite the very real fact that the Party is not only on the ballot, but that statewide polls showed that 69% of CA voters wanted the Greens in the debate).  So, I offer the opinion piece here, and I welcome your comments.

_______________________________________________ 

A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

A recent article by Brian Murphy of the Associated Press (10/16/02) quoted a Kurdish businessman who referred to Tuesday's "vote" in Iraq as a joke.  

"It's not a real election," said Bala Nihad, 31, who runs a taxi service in Sulaymaniyah in the southeastern part of the Kurdish zone. "It's a charade."  Murphy's article went on to note that "the Kurds' utter disinterest displays just how far removed they feel from the rest of the country."

Indeed, the vote in Iraq is nothing short of comical.  The lack of choice, coupled with the fear of reprisal for casting an opposing vote, all but guarantees a victory for the incumbent party.  To frame this scenario an exercise in democracy is nothing less than "a joke," and it should offend those who truly believe in open and free elections.

As the November elections rapidly approach, we Californians would be wise to reflect upon our own voting practices, for like the Kurdish businessman, many within the Golden State feel far removed from Sacramento.  It is hard to recall a gubernatorial election with less public enthusiasm and voter support for either "major" party candidate.  With neither Gray Davis nor Bill Simon garnering anywhere near a majority of the vote, the time seems ripe for the emergence of third party candidates.  To achieve this, however, requires a commitment by those who claim to defend democracy to provide voters with the greatest number of choices.  

Recently, the Los Angeles Times hosted a gubernatorial debate from which Green Party candidate Peter M. Camejo was wholly excluded, perhaps because California's sitting governor refused to participate  should a third party candidate be included. (Whether Davis would behave similarly should the third party be any other than the Green Party we will never know).  In New Jersey, the State's highest court allowed the Democratic Party to switch candidates mid-race.  If only this practice extended beyond the political metaphor; the United States would surely win the gold at the next international track and field event. Echoing Kurdish sentiment, in deciding the case, the justices reasoned that the state's voters deserve to have a choice of candidates in democratic elections.  They do.  In addition to Democratic candidate Robert Torrecelli, the New Jersey ballot includes numerous third party candidates. 

Now, as we Californians prepare to cast a ballot for the State's highest official, many voters are likely experiencing some fear of our own.  Disenfranchised from the platforms of the two leading candidates, many believe this election to be a joke.  Yet we, too, (if we are Democrats) may worry about the consequences of not voting for the reigning leader.  If we are Republicans, we, too, are unlikely to stray from the path set forth by the Party's leadership.  We may simply shy away from alternative parties and write-in candidates.  Whatever the case,  it is likely that many of us will cast our votes out of fear and not as the manifestation of our conscience.  And this, sadly, is no laughing matter.

_______________________________________________

A Tale of Two Countries: Israel and Iraq

Israel has biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons (supplied care of the U.S.).  Iraq has biological and chemical weapons (supplied care of the U.S.) and may have the potential to create nuclear weapons. In 1991 the U.S. invaded Iraq because Iraq violated the sovereignty of Kuwait.  In 1991 the U.S. funded the Israeli army so they could violate the sovereignty of the Palestinian people.  Israel is run by a "suspected" war criminal.  Iraq is run by a "suspected" war criminal.  Israel has ignored all U.N. resolutions regarding occupation/withdrawal from the West Bank. Iraq may have ignored U.N. resolutions regarding weapons inspectors (there are credible claims from Scott Ritter and others that U.S. led U.N. inspectors ignored the evidence and instead ordered U.S. inspectors to spy for the American government).  Israel refused to allow U.N. inspectors into Jenin to investigate evidence of a massacre or the targeting of civilians.  Iraq refused to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq after the U.S. ordered them out and bombing proceeded despite allegations that U.S. inspectors were spying.   The U.S. continues to fund the Israeli army.  The U.S. continues to threaten war with Iraq.  To be critical  of Israel is anti-Semitic.  To be critical of Iraq is patriotic.