![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Thursday, January 15th, 2004 03:32 pm"It's important for our country to honor his life and what he stood for." -- George W. Bush, regarding Martin Luther King, Jr.
Does Bush really intend to honor what Dr. King stood for?
Dr. King stood for social change through nonviolence. George "The Dubya stands for (Pre-emptive) War" Bush hasn't even considered nonviolence.
Dr. King stood for worker's rights; when he was shot in Memphis, he was there to support the Memphis Sanitation Worker's strike. Bush has been consistently anti-union. (Strikes are another (hopefully) nonviolent social change).
Dr. King stood for respect of all fellow humans, regardless of skin color, national origin, religion, or any other irrelevant factor. The Bush administration's "Good vs. Evil" relations with the Muslim world, policy of secret detention and deportation of immigrants, and air "security" of summoning the FBI when anyone named Hussein wants to board utterly fail to honor Dr. King's life and work.
George W. Bush would like to use Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday to further his political goals. He's not interested in furthering Dr. King's political goals.
In other news, Bush was recently in Mexico promoting the Free Trade Area of the Americas. From what I hear, and I'm far from an expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, part of the plan allows national and local laws which restrict an outside company's ability to do business to be stricken down. This is done in the name of lifting trade barriers, opening markets, and promoting free trade.
If the U.S. is serious about eliminating legal barriers to free trade in the Americas, it should legalize drugs. One of the most profitable markets for Latin Americans is the drug trade, but most of the money ends up in the pockets of criminals, because it's illegal. If the FTAA is to prevent communities from enacting environmental laws which restrict trade, it should also strike down laws which prevent the cultivation and sale of coca, marijuana, and other crops. And the U.S. should stop funding the chemical and biological weapons used to destroy such crops in Columbia. We would certainly raise a fuss if Canada funded arson attacks against U.S. coal, oil, and gas fields.
Does Bush really intend to honor what Dr. King stood for?
Dr. King stood for social change through nonviolence. George "The Dubya stands for (Pre-emptive) War" Bush hasn't even considered nonviolence.
Dr. King stood for worker's rights; when he was shot in Memphis, he was there to support the Memphis Sanitation Worker's strike. Bush has been consistently anti-union. (Strikes are another (hopefully) nonviolent social change).
Dr. King stood for respect of all fellow humans, regardless of skin color, national origin, religion, or any other irrelevant factor. The Bush administration's "Good vs. Evil" relations with the Muslim world, policy of secret detention and deportation of immigrants, and air "security" of summoning the FBI when anyone named Hussein wants to board utterly fail to honor Dr. King's life and work.
George W. Bush would like to use Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday to further his political goals. He's not interested in furthering Dr. King's political goals.
In other news, Bush was recently in Mexico promoting the Free Trade Area of the Americas. From what I hear, and I'm far from an expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, part of the plan allows national and local laws which restrict an outside company's ability to do business to be stricken down. This is done in the name of lifting trade barriers, opening markets, and promoting free trade.
If the U.S. is serious about eliminating legal barriers to free trade in the Americas, it should legalize drugs. One of the most profitable markets for Latin Americans is the drug trade, but most of the money ends up in the pockets of criminals, because it's illegal. If the FTAA is to prevent communities from enacting environmental laws which restrict trade, it should also strike down laws which prevent the cultivation and sale of coca, marijuana, and other crops. And the U.S. should stop funding the chemical and biological weapons used to destroy such crops in Columbia. We would certainly raise a fuss if Canada funded arson attacks against U.S. coal, oil, and gas fields.
