Not surprisingly, the "E" word has yet to come up in either the so-called presidential or vice-presidential "debates". One might think that the affairs of humanity do not take place on planet Earth for the lack of reference to the source of our very existence. This is not only true for the recreant Repugnicans & Dems, but for some of the "3rd party" candidates as well.
Of course, we expect that kind of omission, lack of awareness and respect for the Earth from King George and his gang of planet raping thugs and greedheads; after all, most of them supposedly have their gaze raised toward Heaven where the Earth is of little consequence, right?. However, given that the Dems actually HAVE a better record on the environment, you could not be faulted for wondering just why the fuck they hardly mention that!
It's not like high-profile Dems and liberals haven't made major statements on the Bush regime's sorry-ass record on the environment. JFK,Jr.'s "Crimes Against Nature" makes it crystal clear just how very dangerous King George and his corporate boosters really are for the future of the planet and all who live upon it. Can you get much more Democratic than a Kennedy? But checkout the paltry nod given to the planet in the
Democratic platform. Maybe that's why John Kerry actually used the word "Kyoto" as he wiped up the floor with Bush during their first encounter. But, a mention is hardly much of a statement for what is the most long-reaching issue to face any of us anywhere on the face of the Earth. Stay tuned tomorrow night to see where the Dem Machine goes with this.
It gets worse though. Given that the Bush regime has THE worst environmental record of ANY administration in the history of the United States, and that at least the Dems have a track record (albeit rather corporate-friendly) of protecting the Earth, why won't the allegedly green Nader candidates mention that? Nader's running mate, Peter Camejo, was just heard on Democracy Now! saying that any difference between the Repugs and the Dems is a "complete illusion" and that there's "nothing that Bush has done that the Democrats didn't support". Sounds like spin to these ears! What's this guy thinking: that he can scrounge a few more votes by lying through his teeth just like the other guys?? There goes my asshole meter! Camejo buried the needle.
True confessions time: this observer actively worked for the Green Party and Ralph Nader during the 2000 campaign doing street theater ("The Marriage of Gush & Bore"). At the time, I foolishly thought that if Bush actually DID win (which he didn't), then the people might become galvanized, turn-off the television, get up off their comfort creature butts, and actually get into the streets. When the illegal invasion of Iraq went down, they really did that, but in the meantime the enemies of the Earth wrecked havoc all around them. I knew Gore's enviro record was way better than Bush, but I blew that off. My very own "miscalculation". Sorry, Mother Earth, I knew not what I did.
Shall we make the same mistake twice?.......not on your life. But Nader and Camejo seem oblivious to this critical aspect of the dire circumstances we now face. They're saying there's no difference between TweedleDee and TweedleDum, when there really is, at least as far as the planet is concerned. That omission is bullshit and, frankly, there's enough bullshit flying around already. Why are Nader and Camejo playing the very game they bash the duopoly for playing? Aren't we supposed to expect more from them? Apparently not.
Save the planet, hold your nose and vote Dem, then get in the Dems' collective face in 2005.