I have made it a policy in this blog to avoid giving any clues as to my location in the universe. Of course, the three or four people who actually read it probably know where I am, so it is a pointless policy anyway. Just this once, however, I am going to appeal to the readers who live in Washington and Oregon regarding the presidential campaign.

I have made no secret that I voted for Nader in 2000 and am actively supporting John Kerry this time around. Hell, I even sent the Kerry campaign money. For those of you who live in Washington and Oregon and are thinking of supporting Kerry, I urge you to change your passive support to active support. These states are considered swing states. If you do not act to make sure that John Kerry wins in these states, there is a possibility that they will fall to George Bush. If this happens, then not even winning Ohio or Florida will make up for it. Kerry would have to win both Ohio and Florida and pick up more states than Gore did in 2000 in order to win in the electoral college. As a side note, if Kerry picks up all the states that Gore did in 2000, except Oregon and Washington and including Florida, then the electoral college would be tied and the decision would go to the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans.

For those of you who are uncertain whether to vote for Bush or Kerry, I urge you to take a close look at the differences between the two candidates on John Kerry's website and George Bush's website. Don't just look at their voting records; look at their leadership styles, their values and their accomplishments over the past 40 years and judge between them. I think John Kerry will come out more favorably than George Bush. John Kerry makes much of his service in Vietnam for the simple reason that his service there reflects his commitment to defending our country and shows that he has experience as a leader that goes back over 30 years. John Kerry has been accused of being a flip-flopper, but where the Republican activists accuse him of flip-flopping, I see a nuanced view of the world from a man who understands complex issues and is constantly challenging his own opinions in order to arrive at the correct outcome. I trust a man with this approach far more than I would someone who sees the world in black and white and refuses to change in the face of changed circumstances. Also, religious values are important. Kerry said in his acceptance speech that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but his religious values underpin all his actions and views.

For those of you who voted for Bush or Nader last time but are unhappy with the direction Bush is taking the country, think about the restriction of civil liberties, the secrecy and manipulative control of information by the Bush administration and the use of false information to take us into an unjust war of choice. Think about Bush's promises in the 2000 campaign of compassionate conservatism and his vow to be a uniter, not a divider. Do you see the compassion in his conservatism? Is the country more united or more divided than it was in 2000?

If you have been a loyal republican in the past but are unhappy with Bush, you probably can't bring yourself to vote for Kerry but don't want to vote for Bush. I cannot advocate not voting at all, but perhaps you can look more closely at some of the other candidates for President. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party might be more to your taste, or Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Perhaps you might vote for Ralph Nader running as an independent or even former porn star Marilyn Chambers of the Personal Choice party. Well maybe not Marilyn Chambers; she's running for Vice-President anyway.