Letters to Bill
By Scott Parkinson

Mon Capitaine,

I have a simple question. I know that just by asking it I will show my complete ignorance of politics, and probably general human relations, but I've got to do it anyway because I am confused. So here goes. Why does the U.S. government fund death over life?

Why the hell are we spending about a third of the mind-staggering sum of our annual budget on weapons of destruction and death when we have a rampant disease that has now infected an estimated one million Americans-and let's face it, those are more than likely Clinton Americans.

What's the deal with that?

I have turned this issue over and over in my mind, and I can't seem to find a good angle on this monster no matter how I look at it. Now I understand the need for a good defense force. Lord only knows how important the whole Gulf War thing was in steepening our deficit while we intimidated a bunch of Third Worlders with the might of the good ol' U. S. of A., but enough was too much. Every bomb I saw home in on Saddam's garage or take-out another factory hit me in the deepest sense of the strikes. I know the bombs were directly killing our hated enemies, them damn humans sure are pesky little creatures, but their very presence and use was another tombstone in an American graveyard from a person who died of AIDS.

I kept thinking as I saw all the really neat flashes and cool explosions that they were striking home as surely as they were striking abroad. I know that you didn't launch the Gulf Fiasco, but you haven't help eradicate the system that could actualize that type of menace yet again. In fact, I read in the newspaper just the other day how the government was looking to purchase about 2800 new super-planes, at a cost of $30 million apiece, in the coming years. Well, along with all those planes you might want to set aside some extra land for all the graveyards we're going to need to bury the dead who died of a disease that we did little to cure, because we spent all our dough on guns and bombs.

But I have a solution (You see how I'm always willing to help out.)! I say that instead of buying 2800 multi-million dollar weapons of hate and destruction, you only buy 2000 of the infernal machines. And, (Don't cha' love my grammar, but I did talk to you about the state of my education in the last letter, so I won't go into it here.) the next time they propose to buy 100,000 missiles and bombs, you opt out for only 75,000 life-ruining devices. You see where this is going don't you? We take all the money that we saved by curtailing our penchance for death and do a 180 with it and fund some life-giving efforts instead.

I know this must seem radical and freaky to you Washington types, but I think it is about time we did something to stop the Politics of Death. The arguments just don't seem valid about foriegn threats when we have more people dead from AIDS already than all the American soldiers fallen in all the wars of this century. Let's gear up for the real battle and fight the enemy that is actually killing Americans as we sit here gibbering like fools.

SCOTT

Bill,

Let's play the supposing game for a minute. OK? Let's say Goerge Washington were somehow brought forward in time to our day and age. What do you suppose he would do? Do you think he would go and get innoculated for all the diseases that we have cured, but ran rampant in his time? Or, do you think he'd marvel at modern technology and all the wonderful devices that we take for granted? What do you think he'd do? Huh?

Well I'll tell you what I think he'd do. I think he'd learn that 250 million people were being represented by 100 senators and about 500 congressmen and then pull the wooden teeth out of his mouth, file them down to sharp points, put them put back in his head and proceed to chew the veins out of his arms to punish himself for having anything to do with the farce we so commonly call democracy. That's what I think he'd do. I think he would lose his fuckin' mind, and goofy little wig, when he learned how his ancient system of government had been preserved, even though the changes around it had long since cried out for reform.

Bill, do you think that our Founding Fathers had any idea about the explosion our population would encounter? I don't think so. Christ, there are senators that represent more people than the entire original 13 colonies had combined. How the hell can we begin to think that this is somehow an extension of what the architects of our government had in mind. Huh? I mean what type of representation can the senators of California give the average man when there are about 30 million people in that state. That means each senator represents about 15 million people. 15 fucking million!!!

Doesn't that idea just blow your God-damned mind. How can the vote of one in any way hope to represent the wishes of 15 million? In theory, this one individual could misrepresent 7,499,999 people and still represent the majority. What the fuck is that all about?

You know, you're pretty lucky that we are just playing the supposing game, because George was a stand-up, ass-kickin' type of a guy and he would not take this tyrannical behemoth we call democracy for a second. His dueling pistol would be out faster than you could dodge the draft. That is if he didn't just keel over from horror to see such a well meaning plan go so terribly wrong.

If the initial shock didn't kill him, and he didn't gun down a bunch of you, then the next problem you guys would face would be his reaction to the Lobbyist network that has sprung up to capitalize on our abberation. If the idea of so many people being misrepresented, or not represented, was painful to him, just think of how agonized he would be to learn how easy it is to buy the the voice of 15 million people and how much weight that voice can have when it only sings in sub-committees. Oooooohhhhh he'd be pissed. Man, either you or he'd end up dead, I'd be willing to bet on that one.

But as I said, we are just playing the supposing game, so you're safe from demons of the past coming to hunt you down for being a willing participant in such a miscarriage of justice. But that does not really exonerate you. If you had a heart or conscience they would plague you with doubts everytime you made a weighty move that would in any way silence a minority voice. But I fear that you have become-to steal a term from the honorable Richard Milhous Nixon-a "political man." A creature so adept at manipulating the numbers of mass politics, that you would be frightened to actually face raw and unadulterated democracy in action. The scathing opinions of millions upon millions of votes working independently, rather than bunched and silenced for convenience, and tearing into modern politics and its spin-masters would blow your fucking world.

I know that we can't bring George forward and have him lay a little wampum on your ass, but I don't think that the threat of imminent violence is the only thing that should get the representatives of the American people to do do something that is obviously for our own good. So, just in case you're too far gone along the path of being a "political man" to come up with the obvious solutions, I'll give you a few.

Use modern technology to get rid of the representative system and pull us out of the nose-dive all republics eventually enter by turning to controls of government over to the people. Yeah, that's right, a simple democracy. Whoa there big boy, stop your shakin' and pour the pis out of your boot. I know the idea of people ruling themselves is an abysmal thought to one of your cloth, but I think it would be the only thing that will completely remove the threat of America fully realizing its present trend towards a plutocracy.

If you haven't the fiber to go it cold and let loose the reigns of power, then at least lessen the control that each reign has. I say widen the representative base dramatically. We could use about 10,000 senators and about 25,000 congressmen. That way, when they were bought off by the corporations through "contributions" they wouldn't really be that influencial. Of course this would require two other changes. First, we would have to get rid of sub-committees. Second, campaign donations would have to be limited to a certain amount and there could be no party donations-that's right, no more soft money. With these three changes I think we could seriously retard our slide into corporate domination.

So, Bill, I don't really expect much, but I did want to bring the issue up to you. Hope the Mrs. and kids are fine and I wish you luck as your raft seems to be heading towards the rapids in the heart of the Whitewater.

SCOTT

Scott Parkinson is a free-lance writer who calls Seattle home, at least for the next month or so.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page