FLAGPOLE HORRID

Let it be known that I will no longer be reading your publication while I am at the University of Georgia. I am making this choice because I believe that the Flagpole is a horrid representation of the American left. For starters, you have essentially whittled down the war debate to a "you're either against Bush or with him" argument. Forget all the other intertwining relationships that exist in this debate: for your publication, it's bash Bush, bash Bush, bash Bush Bush Bush. Also, forget any well-planned discourses against the war (and there are some out there). It's time to be as self-serving and vulgar and BUSH BASHING 'CAUSE BUSH SUX!!!! as possible. Why else would you quote the rambling idiot who created some irrelevant tangent about freaking Jeb Bush at the Doubts About War protest? Heck, if you really thought that was the only interesting thing to come from that event, why not actually quote the guy? I believe he called Jeb's daughter a "crack whore." That's right, crack whore. Let feminism (hey, isn't that liberal?) be darned.

The only difference between you and the excess that comes from FOX News is your political ideology. Please, take your hype and shove it.

David N. Clarke
Athens



I really appreciate your annual reports on election candidates' previous voting behavior and financial contributions. However, I find the table presenting the candidates' vote positions confusing. At first I thought that the smile-face meant they had voted for the proposition and frown-face as against, but alas it was not that simple or practical. Instead these seem to represent whether the candidate had voted according to the position of the author, Flagpole or some other criteria. This is not very helpful, as the reader then has to go back and figure out the author, Flagpole, etc. political position before they can decipher the chart. In the future, could you please simply represent whether the candidate voted for or against a proposition and let the reader decide whether they think that is a position they want to support. Thanks.

Heather Adams
Athens



Most Americans now seem to regard war with Iraq as inevitable, yet popular support is tentative. In most polls, roughly two-thirds support the war only when asked the broadest possible question; when questions are asked about massive U.S. casualties and other worst-case scenarios, support drops significantly. The Bush administration has failed to receive the overwhelming support it expected from Congress. The final vote was 296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate, and it is very likely that the margin would have been slimmer if anti-war activists and other concerned citizens had had more time to put on the pressure. Bush's effort to build an international coalition for war has been an almost total failure, even though he seems perfectly willing to go it alone and alienate the rest of the world. I would like to urge Americans who are opposed to this war to keep up the pressure. Go to http://www.congress.gov and tell your representative what you think. War is NOT inevitable.

Jason Mosser
Athens



Go ahead and invade Iraq! How many people will have to die both here and abroad? Please, ignore history and help create new generations of terrorists, as the United States has done so many times before: let us create generations of people who hate Americans, yet may not even know any Americans. Why subject yourself, family, and children to never-ending terrorism when the remedy is within your reach? The people that you label terrorists do not hate us because "we" are killing their men (fathers), women (mothers), and children (sons and daughters), but because our hegemonic government makes it seem as though "we" speak and act with "one voice." It is sad to see our President twist the words "we" and "one voice" to represent all of us before the world. What our government's words and actions are really doing makes Americans like you and me look like feckless idiots to the rest of the world! Perhaps, "we" are ignorant of our own ignorance.

Let us here at UGA and beyond live virtuous lives and show the world that Americans do have integrity. Let us demand that there no longer be a deference of social and economic costs to other people, including our own children, but instead a system where we are virtuous enough to pay the full costs of our actions now. We are already experiencing the repercussions of the past and current cost-deferment option, and this has become very apparent to the wiser populace since September 11.

That being said, war should not be an option. If you were to step back from the issues and reflect on the current state of affairs, you would realize that the real answers are already in front of you, and believe it or not, the "terrorists" already know them. I think that truly makes Americans look stupid. What really needs to be done is for Americans to put great pressure on their government officials (much like that of the 1960s) to rewrite U.S.-Middle Eastern policy and move away from regional (and global) hegemony in the pursuit of self-interests that are far less than virtuous. In addition, we need to be certain that corporate interests are removed from this foreign policy and start being, and electing, people who have integrity. Without the integrity or virtue I am arguing for, it is not likely that you are going to care about how your actions (and your government's actions) affect the rest of the world. We do not live alone on a big island, but on a patch of land embedded within a larger world matrix. Furthermore, it would not hurt to start valuing other people's children as much as you (might) value your own!

Josh Kincaid
Athens