The Unabomber's use of violence should not disqualify him from
consideration. His willingness and ability to effectively use violence
to achieve strategic political goals merely demonstrate the essential
qualifications to be president. After all, Colin Powell's ONLY
qualification is his performance as an effective killer. No one's
called him a serial killer, or said he craved attention. No running
candidate has condemned the Gulf War genocide. This is a country that
played war like a video game in a high-tech funhouse. We aren't even
allowed information as to how many Iraqis, civilian or military, our
tax dollars blew away. That Bill Clinton avoided the draft and hadn't
killed was considered a lack of qualifications. Luckily he picked up
points for presiding over numerous executions in his home state of
Arkansas. Occupational deaths and diseases...Violence? Cancer deaths
caused by toxins in the air, in food, and workplaces...Violence? A
minimum wage that is half the poverty level, with the hunger, stress,
disease and early death that ensue...Violence? The media just finished
re-elaborating the rationale for bombing Hiroshima and
Nagasaki...Violence? Terror? Anyone bringing up violence should put
it all on the table, not just select attacks on the power structure.
Anyone who can truly take a stand against violence in any form--and
that would include the American Revolution--can say the Unabomber
shouldn't be president on that basis. But he's not running anyway, and
even a landslide wouldn't actually put him in office. That's the
beauty of voting for a fugitive from the law.
- from TOP TEN REASONS TO VOTE UNABOMBER by Lydia Eccles
http://www.paranoia.com/unapack/