« Regime Change »

John Kerry made a visit recently to Peterborough, NH (where I live). It has been widely reported that he said "We need a regime change here in the United States." Of course, this created the usual brouhaha, both nationally and locally (several outraged letters in the local paper; sorry, no links). As all of the local letters published so far have been from the pro-Bush point of view, my wife Kathleen felt that she had to respond. Here is the letter she wrote and submitted today.

To the Editor,

I understand that many citizens have been angered by John Kerry's reference to the need for "regime change" in his recent speech in Peterborough. Mr. Kerry did not give birth to that phrase; the meme "regime change begins at home" has been around since at least October 2002 (largely popularized via the website moveon.org) and expresses the sentiments of those who believe that the country needs new leadership — not an entirely new system of government, as some critics of the expression have suggested.

Many citizens are deeply concerned about the motives of a President who repeatedly demonstrates not only a disregard for the convictions of any individual, institution or nation who disagrees with him, but a desire that citizens who dissent from his policies should be silenced, either by law or by intimidation. Many are disturbed by the creeping tendency by both the administration and many citizens to expand the definitions of the word "terrorism" and "treason" to encompass any criticism of executive branch policies. When senior Pentagon officials expressed concern about the President's rush to war, a White House source summarized the official response: "The President considers this nation to be at war, and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." Another example is John Ashcroft's statement, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." This rhetorical tactic is similar to the one described by Hermann Goering, as quoted in Gustave Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary: "Naturally, the common people don't want war... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."

As well as valuing personal safety, there are many citizens who equally value the all-American right to form, hold and express opinions arising from individual conscience and understanding of facts, and to affirm or dissent from the policies of the government, whether the nation is in a state of peace or war. Mr. Bush does not seem to share the latter value, as evidenced by his comment at a May 29, 1999 press conference in Austin TX, regarding a website criticizing his policies: "There ought to be limits to freedom." Indeed, there seems to be a regime change happening already — in the literal sense of the phrase — by the undermining of Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process of law, effected in the name of combatting terrorism, via the USA Patriot Act.

During a meeting with Congressional leaders on December 18, 2000, Mr. Bush stated, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." This was not a one-time gaffe. He was quoted in the July 1998 edition of Governing Magazine regarding his experience as governor of Texas, "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." The "joke" didn't stop in Y2K; with respect to a controversy with Congress, Mr. Bush was quoted in the July 30, 2001 edition of Newsweek as saying, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." As far as I'm concerned, these are not very funny jokes, but a terrifying window into Mr. Bush's vision of a more desirable regime.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Seidel
Peterborough NH

---

« Anger Mismanagement »

Well, the kids and I recently saw the trailer for "Anger Management", and it looked like it might be funny. Because Becca really wanted to see it, I decided to take a chance and break my usual policy of "no Adam Sandler movies", and the whole family went to see it this afternoon.

Well, this is one of those cases where the trailer contains just about every moment that was worth seeing in the movie. I walked out after less than 20 minutes, and Kathleen and the girls left about ten minutes later. What a total piece of crap, and what a waste of Jack Nicholson and John Turturro, among others. Good thing it was a matinee in a small town, so it only cost $22.00 for the four of us. At Boston or New York prices, I would have been the one in need of anger management; as it is I'm still trying to rid myself of of the tainted feeling I got from the movie, and it's been four hours since I left the theater.

(By the way, I still want to see "Punch Drunk Love", but that's only because my interest in Paul Thomas Anderson trumps my disgust with Sandler's lowest-common-denominator approach to making films.)

---