I am writing in response to a previous post by pjk about the difference between Authoritarianism in Venezuela and the US.

First off, I think it is possible to have a (relatively) benign dictatorship. Under Chavez, the vast majority of the people of Venezuela have benefited. Venezuelans have experienced increased access to education, health care and economic opportunity.

In the US under Bush, American's have been experiencing somewhat of the opposite. If Bush was a dictator, his rule would be malignant and harmful to the well-being of the people of the land. Look at the harm he has been able to inflict without a dictatorship - as reflected in the deleterious conditions of the public education and health sectors.

And this is without mentioning the capital foulness of the Bush Administration's actions regarding Iraq.

To compare Bush with Chavez is to compare, without too much excess hyperbole, a devil and an angel.

Dear Rebecca,

It is a difficult choice. I am dissatisfied with the options. In Washington State, the Democratic Party has decided to completely discount the result of the State's Primary Election, choosing instead to use the results of the Democratic Party's Caucus system for selecting a candidate. I am considering switching to the Democratic Party (perhaps only temporarily) from the Green Party so that I can participate in the Presidential Primary.

Unlike you, between Obama and Clinton, my mind is made up.

Hopefully we can elect someone who won't pardon members of the Bush Administration if they are convicted of war crimes.

Personally, I will consider myself a winner just for voting - regardless of the choices I am presented with. It's too bad we aren't presented with better options, but maybe it will encourage some of us to get more involved. It would be nice if, in the future, people can have more options, and perhaps even be able to vote for a candidate who comes reasonably close to truly representing them.

I am certainly not a constitutional law expert, but doesn't it defy common sense for the US Congress to pass a law that contravenes Constitutional Protections against Unreasonable Search and Seizure as laid out in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Dear Juan Cole,

Your article on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of war in Iraq is sobering and poignant. You do honor to the people of the USA and of Iraq. How are we going to account for the colossal mismanagement of the USA? There is no time like the present, and I believe the time is right, and the moment is ripe to take direct nonviolent action in civil resistance to the illegal and immoral foreign policy actions of our government.

The port militarization resistance movement was born in Olympia Washington as a means to directly oppose the illegal use of our military for aggression against the people of Iraq (and other peoples elsewhere who suffer as a result of US military aggression.) Olympia PMR primarily advocates the use of human blockades to impede and prevent the shipment of the tools of imperialism.

I suggest this as a viable course of action, considering the tremendously destructive, harmful, immoral and illegal actions of our government.

It's one thing to self-destruct, but it's another to drag down half of the life on Earth. Humanity is pathetic in this respect. We're treating the planet like a garbage dump. No respect. No respect for ourselves or future generations.

How can we allow this? What can we do?

I am sorry, but this government (of the USA) is defunct. It is "of, by, and for" only the very biggest corporations. Corporatism has come home to roost.

And we are suffering for it.

"No taxation without representation" - anyone? Does that ring a bell?

If he is Internet illiterate, then it is a mark against the candidacy of John McCain.

But there are so many other more important reasons that McCain is not the chief that the world requires.

We need a chief who is serious about admitting mistakes, apologizing, and setting the nation on the path toward making amends.

The USA is responsible for so much harm around the world. So many people have been hurt. Whole societies have been harmed. Even the planet itself suffers under the load of consumption and waste that is part of a culture propagated from the USA.

We can do better. We can create a society that doesn't do harm to itself or to the world.