Nashville City Paper, Apr 16, 2003
The current glorification of the United States as the great liberator doesn't match reality. We've had a pattern of supporting repressive regimes and interfering with self-determination since World War II. Examples include overthrowing a democratically elected leader in Iran, supporting Cambodian and Vietnamese dictators, opposing Nicaraguans' overthrow of their violent oppressor, and enabling Saddam Hussein.
The United States has now invaded Iraq under the guise of imminent danger and liberation of the Iraqi people. Facts, past and present, do not support this propaganda. To date, no proof has been given to convince most world leaders or people that Saddam posed a serious threat.
The only excuse that is more insulting to our intelligence concerning the recent slaughter is that it was done to liberate Iraqis. Any American who buys this tripe has never studied their own country's history.. It was our government that empowered Saddam to commit atrocities in the first place. Then we invaded Iraq in 1991, promised to help overthrow Saddam, but pulled out, leaving the Iraqi freedom fighters to face the deadly consequences of our actions.
Our "compassion" for the Iraqis continued after the first Gulf War. We bombed them for a decade, wiping out infrastructure, tormenting children, increasing cancer rates, championing sanctions that resulted in a million deaths, half of them children.
As an American who believes in human rights and seeks to end the root causes of oppression and violence, it is my duty to speak out against jingoist pundits, armchair patriot, and those in my government that glorify the recent U.S. invasion. Were we the morally superior people that some like to believe, the world would indeed be a safer place because we would never help to create the Saddams of the world in the first place.
Nashville City Paper Sept. 17, 2003
You've probably heard that George W. Bush came to town last week. You may have also heard that he visited a school and attended a fundraiser. Did you also know that nearly 1,000 people came out to protest him? Did you hear the multitude of reasons why so many disapprove of what he represents?
The idea of free speech as ensured in the First Amendment is not only about a citizen having the right to express her opinion, but also having the right to assemble and express her opinion to her peers. In this way, ideas may be exchanged and debated within the community at large. This can no longer happen under the inappropriately named Free Speech Zone (FSZ).
FSZs seek to give the appearance of allowing for free expression. In reality they are used to corral and hide dissent from public view. The same detour that diverted thousands of commuters from passing Bush's fundraiser at Loews Vanderbilt also prevented them from witnessing a large mass of fellow citizens opposing the administration's dismal record on a range of issues, including the loss of a million jobs in the last three years, the highest amount of innocent lives lost since Vietnam, Bush and Cheney's surging re-election coffers and our country's spiraling record deficits. These issues were addressed in the FSZ but were not covered in newspaper or TV reports.
The importance of citizens witnessing other citizens exercising their First Amendment rights - first hand as opposed to reading a snippet second-hand in the newspaper or seeing a brief image on the TV news - cannot be overstated. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the protesters, they should find comfort when they see and hear them. Conversely, to "see no dissent, hear no dissent, and speak no dissent" should cause alarm because these are signs of an oppressive, totalitarian state.
Nashville City Paper Oct. 3, 2003
Our grade school teachers taught us word meanings by asking us to spell, define and use them in sentences. Before more bombs drop, every American must do this exercise with words that are being used by our government and media, starting with: terrorist, terrorism, war, aggression, vengeance, and justice
The original reason for a war on terror was to seek out and punish Osama bin Laden and al Qaida. We haven't heard much mention of Osama lately. Nonetheless we have bombed Afghanistan, killing thousands of innocent civilians, and now focus our full sights on Iraq (different from frequent bombings over the last decade).
For more years than not, we deemed the Taliban and Hussein regimes as friends, giving millions in aid that came from tax dollars. None of the 9-11 terrorists were from Afghanistan or Iraq. They were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt; two countries that, despite having repressive governments and terrorist connections, we call friends. Therefore there is no talk of invasion. Perhaps realms that do not renounce terrorist citizenry yet do not openly shelter them are not terrorist nations.
Openly harboring terrorists must be what defines a terrorist nation.
By this definition, the US should be planning strikes against Spain. When recently asked if we were going to invade Spain, Ari Fleischer dismissed the possibility. Why? Spain, after all, is protecting 14 suspects in connection with the September 11 attacks, refusing to extradite them to the U.S.
Apparently we do not define terrorist nations as those that openly harbor terrorists.
The war on terror is ambiguous. We need only look to Georgia to literally bring this point home. The School of the Americas at Ft. Benning has trained 60,000 foreign soldiers in assassination, oppression, torture and terrorism, the most well-known graduate being Manuel Noreiga. No word on bombing the terrorist cell in Georgia or the country that harbors them—for now.
Nashville City Paper Jan. 8, 2004
Recent reports tell us that Tennessee tops the list of states for bioterrorism preparedness. And that's not all.
We also rank in the top 10 for highest rates of heart disease and cancer, toxic chemical releases, violent crimes, children living in poverty, infant mortality, high school dropouts, untrained workforce and personal bankruptcies.
While funds were drastically cut in 2003 (with more cuts slated for 2004) for programs and services that would have helped improve these dismal ratings, Tennessee increased spending for bioterrorism preparedness.
The state devoted 90 percent of its federal fiscal funding to bioterrorism preparedness. It also increased its state's budget by 10 percent for public health related to bioterrorism as opposed to threats of disease like AIDS or tuberculosis, both of which kill more people annually than bioterrorism. Not sure about this?
When was the last bioterrorist attack in Tennessee? How many have died in Tennessee as a result of bioterrorism? Answers: Never and Zero.
Tens of thousands of Tennesseans may become ill or die annually due to ingesting some of the most polluted air and water in the nation and may struggle financially due to lack of a 21st century education and opportunities to find decent paying jobs. I guess we must take comfort where we can. It sure is good to know that in the event of a bioterrorist attack, Tennessee will be safe to continue its role as a state with one of most unhealthy and uneducated populations. Click to return to slmckay.com