Slashdot Mirror

Actually, there esd s memo leaked from the Bush (Sr.) administration saying that the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait would be the perfect excuse to maintain Cold War level military spending. You have to remember that Hussein was put into power by the US government. He worked for the CIA. Kuwait was drilling diagonally and stealing Iraqui oil. He ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO INVADE! The US said it would "look the other way" -- which is when the memo was written.

I'm at work now but I do have documentation for what I'm saying.

As far as the current crisis goes, read Stupid White Men. The US was planning to invaid Afghanistan last August. Don't forget the connections between Bush's oil company and Bin Laden (they were partners). Enron was involved too. Don't forget that Enron flew Bush to his campaign stops on their corporate jet. They were also having trouble convincing the Taliban to let them build a pipeline in Afghanistan. Enron may be no more, but who do you think is going to build the pipeline now? If you guessed that the same people who were involved in Bush's oil company and Enron are going to build the pipeline, you'd be right. Is it any surpise? The Bush familly was involved heavilly in the S&L crisis too. Of course, they KEPT the money that we (as tax payers) will have to pay for.

This is not a news site, but then again there are few "real" news organizations left in this country. Almost none of them bothers to make connections between world events. They report things like the Gulf War, Bush's (Sr.) ratings, campaign finance, and oil prices as if they were unrelated.

Castro ... and others who killed hundreds to thousands,

[...] in most counties the local Democratic party is run by just a few people, 'cause most people would never think of showing up. Go to the next county or town Party Meeting, and bring ten friends. In most cases, your bunch will constitute a majority. Use the rules and state party by-laws (which can often be found on the Web) and seize control.

[...]

The one think you should definitely run for is precint delegate. Every precint in America elects delegates from each party. It may be the lowliest office, but it is the foundation on which the whole house of cards is built. Selected delgates attend the national party conventions to nominate the presidential candiidates. You should be among them.

But it would take more dedication then the usual chit chart you see in online forums, etc.

I didn't see your posting when I made mine along the same subject. I agree with what you have to say.

One only has to look the activities of W's cohorts, and where they get their $$$, to see the further damage that is being dealt in deregulation of these things, and handing control to lying, greedy companies like Enron.

Check out OpenSecrets.org to see who is getting money from where. Then check their voting record and see if they voting to represent the people or to represent their own greed.

Some people believe that George W. could have known about the corrupt dealings of Ken Lay and Enron? Perhaps they should read their correspondence with each other while Bush was governor of Texas on TheSmokingGun.com

I would highly recommend Michael Moore's new book, "Stupid White Men". He has done his research well on Bush and his cadre.

There's a long story on Michael Moore's page about how he managed to get his book in print in spite of the best efforts of his publisher.

Basically, his publishing company was either a) gonna reprint the book (at Michael's expense) with more PC language or b) sit on it forever. There was nothing he could do about it, legally speaking. A letter writing campaign by a bunch of librarians (and the promise of considerable bad press) evidently forced Harper Collins to capitulate.

As regards the argument that the publisher was right, and that the book was fundamentally flawed, the onion seems to agree. I am not saying that the Onion would condone censoring it on that basis, merely that they agree with the substantive portions of the publisher's complaints, and that POV deserves to be aired, as well.

I'm think that Michael Moore would agree that it his notoriety that saved his book, and that a less-well-known author would have had no such recourse, since their reamed-being would not have made a splash in the press.

\begin partisan sniping\
And oh, the republicans are soooo for helping the common man... when the common man is defined as 'Kenneth Lay' and the 'helping' is changed to 'bilking his employess out of millions'.

Data found here
\end partisan sniping\

That pales into insignificance compared to the Bush tie up.

It's good to know that stories like these get published, while entirely irrelevent subjects are rejected in record time by our watchful editors. I mean, just take these two for example:

- MS Paints Bulls-Eye On AOL. Certainly of no import to the technically oriented. Little squabbles over who's going to control internet access for millions isn't much of a news item.

- Stupid White Men Debuts At Number 3 On New York Times Best-Seller List. Everyone knows the average geek can't stand to read more than five minutes of political commentary, especially if it has nothing to do with Linux. Little things like investigating the shenanigans surrounding the 2000 presidential elections aren't at all interesting - in fact, they're downright unpatriotic! Besides, most techies are white and we wouldn't want to offend their touchy egos.

Yes, the more I read slashdot the more I'm convinced that our editors do a wonderful job of culling out all those 'unimportant' stories so that we don't have to exercise our brains and do the culling for them. Especially when it's so much more critical to know about the latest kernel release, or the newest toy.

Max

For more on how the government is in collusion with large corporations on trying to maintain the status quo while at the same time whittling away at Constitutional rights using vehicles like the SSSCA, I refer you to Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. I submitted the publication of his book as a slashdot story (thinking it might be as newsworthy as some minor kernel change - guess I was wrong), only to have it rejected. Here's the excerpt for folks who want to know more about the SSSCA, the government, and related legislation:

Michael Moore, who some slackers might remember from TV Nation fame, has finally managed to get his book Stupid White Men published - no small feat when the men in question run the White House and America seems to be willing to forgive them even scandals like Enron. Quite a change from just a couple of years ago when a cigar and some oral hanky-panky could get a president impeached, eh? You can buy the book from from a number of different online stores, and if you're lucky you just might find it in a regular brick-and-mortar store as well. Bush-lovers and right-wingers be warned: this isn't your bedtime reading material of choice.

Max

For more on how the government is in collusion with large corporations on trying to maintain the status quo while at the same time whittling away at Constitutional rights using vehicles like the SSSCA, I refer you to Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. I submitted the publication of his book as a slashdot story (thinking it might be as newsworthy as some minor kernel change - guess I was wrong), only to have it rejected. Here's the excerpt for folks who want to know more about the SSSCA, the government, and related legislation:

Michael Moore, who some slackers might remember from TV Nation fame, has finally managed to get his book Stupid White Men published - no small feat when the men in question run the White House and America seems to be willing to forgive them even scandals like Enron. Quite a change from just a couple of years ago when a cigar and some oral hanky-panky could get a president impeached, eh? You can buy the book from from a number of different online stores, and if you're lucky you just might find it in a regular brick-and-mortar store as well. Bush-lovers and right-wingers be warned: this isn't your bedtime reading material of choice.

Max

From www.michaelmoore.com (opens in new window .. his report has links to all sources):

> The only thing that surprises me more than all the Enron henchmen who ended up in your cabinet and administration is how our lazy media just rolled over and didn't report it. The list of Enron people on your payroll is impressive. Lawrence Lindsey, your chief economic advisor? A former advisor at Enron! Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill? Former CEO of Alcoa, whose lobbying firm, Vinson and Elkins, was the #3 contributor to the your campaign! Who is Vinson and Elkins? The law firm representing Enron! Who is Alcoa? The top polluter in Texas. Thomas White, the Secretary of the Army? A former vice-chair of Enron Energy! Robert Zoellick, your Federal Trade Representative? A former advisor at Enron! Karl Rove, your main man at the White House? He owned a quarter-million dollars of Enron stock.

Then there's the Enron lawyer you have nominated to be a federal judge in Texas, the Enron lobbyist who is your chair of the Republican Party, the two Enron officials who now work for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and the wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm who sits on Enron's board. And there's the aforementioned Mr. Pitt, the former Arthur Andersen attorney whose job it is now as SEC head to oversee the stock markets. George, it never stops! My fingers are getting tired typing all this up -- and there's lots more.

Scalia is one of the more right wing of the justices but he's very much a strict constuctionist.

Unfortunatly, in Bush v Gore, Scalia and the rest of the Nixon/Reagan appointees proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their "strict constructionist" principles are for sale to the highest bidder at a moment's notice.

you may also read the following text which is about "W" and Enron's connexions during and since W's campaign...
I actually don't know who this Michale Moore is but his letter is quite interesting if everything is true.

Ironic of you to think of that. I was thinking the same thing, and how "dubya" would mark it as an attempt at social terrorism on america. An axis of evil's attempt to "confound our tongues", and "confuse us into defeat". I can really picture dubya warning the public about this through the idiot-box while all the hicks who voted for him sit there cleaning their guns, drooling in awe. The sad thing is, we're not to far from that.

Thanks for that link - it confirmed that another random show I saw a few years ago was indeed Mark Thomas too (Tax-Exempt Artworks).

For more similar stuff in the US, with an anti-Corporate bent, try Michael Moore, purveyor of the excellent TV Nation.

While the US has the most censorship on TV than problably any other nation, they don't do political censorship

While the US has the most censorship on TV than problably any other nation, they don't do political censorship

I'm european, specifically Portuguese. I've had very mixed feelings about all of this, and about what is to come. Because I'm not american, I've hesitated in venting my thoughts, because I know how americans are right now. Now I've found this article by Michael Moore, which sums up pretty well my ideas on the attacks and America's responsability.
America is responsible for arming and training terrorist groups, for supporting them and help killing thousands of people, for fueling tyranies, profiting from murders, etc, etc. Is it any wonder you got it back in full force?

Yeah, well apparently Bush gave the Taliban 43 million dollars last may because they banned all drugs in their country. Way to go.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html


I suggest everyone read what Michael Moore has to say about this:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

The media are focussing on one thing, showing the western world terrible images of a wounded country. Everyone sympathises with the U.S., but who was symphatising when the U.S. committed crimes agains innocent civilians? Who was reporting those events?

We don't like to see that, we prefer to listen to media that confirm our perception of good and bad.

A few lines from an article I read on michaelmore.com:
We abhor terrorism -- unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing.

We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me. Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers!

We fund a lot of oppressive regimes that have killed a lot of innocent people, and we never let the human suffering THAT causes to interrupt our day one single bit.

We have orphaned so many children, tens of thousands around the world, with our taxpayer-funded terrorism (in Chile, in Vietnam, in Gaza, in Salvador) that I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised when those orphans grow up and are a little whacked in the head from the horror we have helped cause.

I have a couple of things you can read. Not on the same exact subject but interesting nonetheless
Sense and nonsense about 9.11
Death Downtown

Sure to be controversial, but Micheal Moore has a very interesting message about the attacks. He mentions that the person whose name has been mentioned the most in connection to these attacks, Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA.

Hell, I've got karma to burn, so why not?

the court will provide a temporary injunction allowing XP to be put on the market until they make a decision.

Something good could come out of that. Considering that the Supreme Court (according to the New York Times) ignored the fact that Bush used different qualifications for determining if a ballot was to be thrown out (the very basis of their "decision" against Gore), maybe this could be another reason to impeach the five members of the Supreme Court Maybe then we could all believe in democracy again.

"(4) COMPETITOR CONSIDERATION PROHIBITED- In making the determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the Commission shall not consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'. "

I have to respectfully disagree with that assertion. Yes, the barrier to entry in suffrage has shaped the United States greatly. I would, however, argue that we are worse off for it. There is absolutely no reason for having voter registration as a barrier. At the least we should have same-day registration. Look at European nations with mandantory voter registration (and sometimes, penalties for not voting - though not at all serious ones). They have a far better human rights record than the US in addition to a host of other social reforms. In the US, it is undeniable fact that conservatives tend to vote more often than liberals (yeah, I'm tagging people, sorry). With a decreased barrier to entry, this would change. Of course, those currently in power don't want it to change - Democratics and Republicans are perfectly happy with the near 50/50 split they have amongst the voting public. If everyone came out and voted, maybe Michael Moore would be right and Nader would have won :)

Western Union still hand-delivers telegrams.

Here's how you send a hand-delivered telegram:

1. Call Western Union at 800-325-6000. Then wait for the live operator.
2. Tell the operator that you want to send a hand-delivered telegram that needs to get there within the next few hours.
3. It costs $17.95 for 15 words or less, and another $13.95 for the hand delivery. That's a total of $31.90. Most credit cards accepted.

I thought that who has the most money wins? Not votes. Oh, and who has the supreme court on their side.

Just ask Michael Moore. Good luck dude.

What do 3rd/etc parties accomplish ? They keep the small number of larger parties honest! One of the reasons for the groundswell of Nader support (from my vantage point north of the 49th) was in protest of the "Republicanization of the Democrats." The Democrats seem to think that as long as they're marginally to the left of the Republicans then they will get all the "left" votes...since there's no one else to vote for.

If you want an example, take a look at the leader's debates of the US & Canadian elections. In the US Nader was not allowed into the debate, so what you got was a long session of Gore & Bush agreeing with each other on the majority of isues. How much debate did the 'debate' have ? Now the Canadian leaders debate, that was a debate. Since you had a 2-term incumbent and 4 opposition leaders there was some serious ripping and tearing go on.
Why is this important ? The Democrats and Republicans are just too damned close to each other. Plus they both get their funding from large companies so any issues that might offend the corporate wallets never surface between them. Having Nader in the race helped, having him on the TV debates would have made them worth watching.

At least that's my opinion, but then I'm Canadian and I think Michael Moore is a freaking genius, so what do I know ?

You want a geek charity? Give something back to the country that built (arguably) the first modern computer. Send bottles of Evian to Yorkshire Water and help them prepare for the suprise of next summer.

Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.,
PO Box 306,
Bradford,
BD1 5SU

I dont know, have you been living in a closet? The only way Bush got into either of those schools was because of daddy. He took the spot of people that actually deserved to be in those schools thanks to his nice last name. Wouldn't it be strange to watch him bumble about without daddy next to him? also, read michael moore's comment on this whole thing, very insightful. click me, it helps the ego

Ridiculous. Add it up.

Nader's support in Florida is a little over 90,000 votes. The margin of Bush's (apparent victory) is likely to be much less than that, probably less than 5000.

As a result, Nader denied Gore victory, and the democrats who warned of this outcome were right.

Here's a hint for you: I am not obligated to support Gore; he's the one obligated to support me. That's how voting is supposed to work.

To mangle the Mel Gibson speech from Braveheart, we do not exist to provide the two big parties with power; they exist to provide us with freedom. If the Democrats and Republicans aren't going to support my desires for the direction of this country, I refuse to vote for them any more.

Read Michael Moore's open letter to Al Gore about why he supported Nader. There are probably a lot of people who voted for Nader who feel the same way.

Jay (=

I've been up all night. Don't ask me what I've been doing, I really couldn't tell you. I've been up all night. In about 25 minutes I'll be going to breakfast. I went to breakfast yesterday as well, once again because I stayed up all night. Today is a little different from my other random purposeless all nighters. Today I got to be the first kid on my block to vote. The polls opened at 6 in the UIUC Snyder hall lounge. I rolled myself a cigarette, and mosied on over with my photo ID and certificate of registration. They told me I was the first person to vote at the dorms in this election. I voted for Ralph Nader.

Now I'm in a computer lab. Waiting for breakfast. For my omelet. Some Kiwi-Strawberry. A bagel.

"At some point, you have to say enough is enough. Today is that day for me. I will go to the polls and vote for Ralph Nader. I am doing so for the only reason you should ever vote for anyone. I am voting for Ralph because it is what my conscience says is right. I am doing what they taught us to do in civics class -- vote for who you think the best candidate is. Period." -Michael Moore

2000_11_07, my first election day. I'm really young. I'm really young and angry. I'm really young and annoyed. I'm really young and disolusioned. We all are. And when it comes to voting, it doesn't even take being young to be angry annoyed and disolusioned. This shit sucks. Campaigns suck. Candidates suck. The Government sucks. Every day we see so much bullshit all around us, its pathetic. I'm surprised anyone votes at all. Anyone. The only reason I voted at all, the only reason I looked forward to my first election, was Ralph Nader. The chance to vote for something different. To say "I want something different." To point out in some small way the fact that what we have isn't good enough. We all know why it isn't good enough. Check the web links, read your friends' e-mails, whatever, its obvious, so I wont even get into it.

We all know Ralph Nader is something different. We all know that the Green Party is something different. We all know that simply acknowledging at a federal level the notion of having more than one political party, er, I mean, two political parties (had an inadvertent spurt of real awareness there, sorry) is something different. We need something different. What we have is not good enough. A lesser evil, a lesser anything is not good enough.

It's time for breakfast. I feel good. I voted. I voted for something good.

-chorder

Dear Governor Bush,

It's been awhile since we've talked. I believe your last words to me were, "Go find real work!" You kidder, you! That very night, it was you who found real work for yourself by executing your 117th human being in Texas. How DO you do it?!

Actually, the "real work" I do now, my job, is due in large part to your family. Few people know what you and I know... that it was your cousin Kevin who shot much of "Roger & Me." At the time, I didn't know that your mother, Barbara Bush, and his mother were sisters. Kevin must have missed the train the rest of you were on! He came to Flint to return a favor to me for helping him on a film he was making about hate groups. He is the person who taught me how to make a movie. Without his generosity, "Roger & Me" might never had been made.

I remember the day your dad was inaugurated as President. I was editing the film in a ratty old editing room in D.C. and decided to go down to watch your dad be sworn in on the Capitol steps. How weird it was to see my mentor/cinematographer sitting next to you up on the dais!

Months later, when the film was released, your dad, the President, ordered a print of "Roger & Me" to be sent to Camp David for the family to watch one weekend. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall as all of you watched the havoc and despair your father and Mr. Reagan had helped wreak upon my hometown. I've always wanted to know -- at the end of the film, as the deputy sheriff was tossing the kids' presents and Christmas tree out on the curb because they were $150 behind in their rent -- were there any tears in the room? Did anyone feel responsible? Or did you just think, "nice camerawork!"

And now you want to be President of the United States.

I'm sorry to tell you, but that can't happen.

The American people need to know a few things about you -- and they had better consider them right now, before a tragic mistake is made.

You know what I am talking about.

Your possible victory on Tuesday is a threat to our national security.

That may seem a bit strong, but I don't make this charge lightly. It has nothing to do with your positions on the issues (all of which I disagree with) or your patriotism (I'm sure you love your country).

It has to do with you. I believe, with all due respect, that if you sit in the Oval Office, this nation of ours, its security, and in turn, the security of the world, has the potential to be in great jeopardy.

Why?

There are three reasons.

1. It appears you cannot read and write on an adult level. I'm sad to say it, but you may be a functional illiterate. How can we entrust our nuclear secrets to you if you can't read them?

As I have pointed out before, all the signs of either dyslexia or illiteracy are there -- and no one is asking you about it. First, you lied about your "favorite book" as a child ("A Very Hungry Caterpillar" you said). That book wasn't even published until a year after you graduated from college!

Then there is the question of your college transcripts and if, in fact, they have been doctored. How DID you get into Yale when the prospective students we uncovered had higher SATs and grades? During this campaign you have made up answers when asked to name the books you are currently reading (when quizzed about the books' contents, you didn't know what to say). Is it any wonder you have not had a press conference in over a month and a half? Your handlers are scared to death of what might be asked or what you may say.

One thing is clear to all -- you can't speak the English language in sentences we can comprehend. At first, the way you mangled words and sentences was cute and funny. But after a while, it became worrisome. Now, I'm just scared. If you are Commander-in-Chief, you have to be able to communicate your orders. What if your subordinates don't understand you? What kind of chaos could that cause with our national security? No wonder you want to increase the Pentagon budget. We'll need all the firepower we can get after you accidentally order the Russians to be "wiped out" (when you meant to say that the Russians are just "whipped" these days).

Your aides have said that you don't (can't?) read the briefing papers they give you and that you ask them to read them for you or to you. Your mother was passionately committed to reading programs as First Lady. I assume she knew first hand the difficulty of raising a child with a learning disability.

I say none of this to knock you personally. Forty million adult Americans cannot read above a 4th grade level and millions are dyslexic. There is no shame in this. In fact, there is help. But for you to have your finger on The Button when you may be disabled in this way is too great a risk for the country to take. You need help -- not the Oval Office.

Hey, I'm not one to talk -- just look at this letter and all its wacky syntax! But I ain't runnin' for President. At the very least, the voters deserve an answer to this question of your illiteracy by Tuesday.

2. Are you an alcoholic? Again, there is no finger being pointed here and no shame or disrespect intended. Alcoholism is a huge problem and it affects millions of American citizens, people we all know and love. Many are able to recover and live normal lives. I greatly admire anyone who can deal with this addiction. You have told us that you are not able to drink, and haven't touched a drop since you were 40. Congratulations.

But it has just been revealed tonight on CNN that, in the past, you were arrested for drunk driving (and that you tried to cover it up). You have told us that you used to "drink too much" and that you were "more in love with the liquor" than you were with your own family. That is the definition of an alcoholic. This does not disqualify you from being president, but it does require that you answer some questions.

Why won't you use the word "alcoholic?" That is, after all, the first step to recovery. What support system have you set up to make sure you don't fall off the wagon? Being president is perhaps the most stressful job in the world. What have you done to insure you can handle the pressure and the anxiety associated with being the Leader of the Free World? How do we know you will not resort to the bottle when faced with a serious panic? You have never had a job like this. For 20 years, from what I can tell, you had no job at all. When you stopped "drifting," your dad set you up in the oil business with some ventures that failed and then he helped you get a ball team which required you to sit in a box seat and watch a lot of baseball games. Now you have served as governor of Texas, a relatively ceremonial job in that state. How will you deal with a massive world crisis? Do you have a sponsor you can call? Is there a meeting you can attend? I know this is very personal, but the voters have a right to know.

3. Please, tell us the "felony" you committed and anything else of a similar nature that you have been hiding. When you were asked last year about your alleged cocaine use, you replied that you have committed "no felonies in the last 25 years." That implies that you DID commit a felony before that. What was the felony?

The reason I am asking this is not to seek retribution for what you did. I am concerned that if there is some deep, dark secret you are afraid of, it means you are, in effect, providing ammunition for whoever discovers this secret, be it a foreign enemy (that Bin-Laden guy) or a domestic enemy (ExxonMobil). If they discover your secret felony, they will have something over you -- and will be in a position to blackmail you. That makes you a national security threat.

Trust me, someone will find out what you are hiding, and when they do, all of us will be at risk. You have made yourself a national security threat and you have a duty to disclose whatever this felony was that you committed. To reveal it will nullify its potential use as a weapon against you or this country should you be elected.

There are enough scary reasons why you should never be President. You will oversee further destruction of our environment. You will push to have more people executed. You will make sure your rich buddies make a killing off the hard work and suffering of those less fortunate than you. Any of these reasons is enough to stop you on Tuesday.

But, no matter where any of us stand on the political spectrum, liberal or conservative, Democrat, Republican or Green, all of us have a right to know the answers to these three critical questions.

Yours,

Michael Moore

http://www.theawfultruth.com/
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
mmflint@aol.com

Addendum (added 11/05/2000):

My apologies to my dyslexic friends. That portion of my letter to Mr. Bush was not as clear as I intended it. Dyslexia and illiteracy are NOT the same and, yes, a dyslexic cannot only be President, he can be Albert Einstein (yes, Einstein was dyslexic). I do believe that George W. Bush cannot read and write on an adult level and that he has learned to be a functional illiterate (which means, I guess, he still hasn't read my letter). This is not to say that Bush is dumb or Reagan-like. It is meant to only point out that he is friggin' dangerous.

Also, regarding the other danger I referred to in my letter to Bush -- his "drinking problem" -- the issue is NOT that Bush is an alcoholic -- alcoholics can and have been President -- but that he refuses to acknowledge he is an alcoholic (the first step to recovery) and the way he so quickly wants to blame everyone else but himself. That's a dangerous sign. For those who say, "well, c'mon, it's his personal life, that was 24 years ago," I have this to say. I was hit by a drunk driver 27 years ago, and to this day I cannot completely extend my right arm. When you go out on a public highway drunk, that is no longer your PERSONAL life. It is MY life and the lives of my family.

To watch Bush swagger and smirk as he tried to reduce his "youthful indiscretion" off on just him and the boys having a few beers (smirk, smirk), I felt for the families of the half-million people who have been killed by drunks like George in the 24 years since his "little adventure." Thank God he chose to drive drunk for only ANOTHER 10 years after he "learned" his "lesson."

And the nerve of him using his daughters as the reason he covered up this conviction! "SNL" put it best tonight: "George Bush said he didn't reveal the drunk driving charge because of what his daughters might think of him. He had preferred that they think of him as a man with numerous failed business ventures who now executes people."

Check out Michael Moores' very amusing opinions. It may help to explain some of GWBs answers.

• http://www.michaelmoore.co m/2000_07 _18.html

Dear friends,

DISCLAIMER: If you are planning to vote for Al Gore in November, good for you. Don't let what I'm about to say change your mind because I've been told by all the experts that if you do change your mind based on what I'm about to say, George W. Bush might win the election and I certainly couldn't live with myself if that connoisseur of pharmaceuticals (the kind you snort up your nose or the kind you inject on death row) won, in part, because of a letter I spit out over the Internet.

So let's review -- you like Gore, you vote for Gore. He's a decent guy. I met him last year at some benefit, he came up to me, big hug -- whoa, this veep is no stiff, I thought -- and thanked me for this and that. He even quoted lines from "The Awful Truth" - whoa, scary, I thought, what's he doing watching cable channels above 40 on the box...not much to do on this veep gig, eh?

I told him I admired what he did when he came home to America as a Vietnam Vet and spoke out against the war. That took a lot of courage, I said (his dad lost his Senate seat for being an early opponent of the war).

So, if Al Gore is your man, go for it. In fact, I insist on it, even if you are just throwing your vote away.

What I am about to say, though, is not intended for any Al Gore (or George W.) voters. If you are one, please click off now.

To Whom It May Concern:

I address this letter to the largest political party in the United States - the 55% of you in the voting public who are so disillusioned with politics and politicians, so sick and tired of all the broken promises, so disgusted with all the b.s. that you have absolutely no intention of voting in November.

You know who you are.

AND YOU ARE THE MAJORITY!

You rule. You are the Non-Voters, all 100 million of you!

Until now, you have been the subject of scorn and ridicule. You've been called apathetic, lazy, ignorant. Your actions have been viewed as unAmerican (I mean, what kind of citizen in the World's Greatest Democracy would not exercise his or her most important and cherished right - the right to freely choose your leader!).

Well, may I be the first to tell you that, not only are you NOT stupid and apathetic, I believe you are smarter than all the rest of us combined. YOU figured it out. YOU uncovered the scam. And YOU had the guts to no longer participate in a lie. Way to go! In 1996, you helped set the all-time American record for lowest turnout ever at a presidential election.

The reason you, the majority, no longer vote in America is because you, the majority, realize there is no real choice on the ballot. The "two" parties both do the bidding of the wealthy and agree with each other on 90% of the issues. They take 90% of their money from people who make over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those contributors want passed.

On the ballot this November, you already know there is no contest. The independent Cook Political Report in D.C. last week announced that, out of 435 House seats up for election in November, there are only 47 seats where there is a "true race" between opponents - and, of those, only 14 seats have a race that is even "close" between the two candidates. 14 out of 435!

"Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of incumbents running for re-election will be returned to Congress in November," according to the Cook Report.

The Non-Voters already understand this. And they are not going to waste one iota of their day on November 7 driving to some smelly elementary school gymnasium to participate in a Soviet-style election with no friggin' choice on the ballot.

So, to you brave voter-resisters, I say congratulations on your act of civic disobedience! I joined you this primary season and refused to go along with this charade of "choice." Nearly 80% of those of us of voting age - over 160 million Americans - staged a sit-in on our living room couches during this year's primaries. THAT is the great untold story of this election year. How much longer will the punditocracy be able to get away with dismissing this massive no-show as "a sign Americans are content with the booming economy?"

Now that we have made our presence known (you all don't mind me speaking for us, do you? Good. In fact, I'll just assume the currently-vacant mantle of this majority party and serve as your leader until you say otherwise...), it is time to find a way that says, loudly and clearly, just how mad as hell we are and how we are not going to take it anymore. We need to find a way where our vote screams "None of the Above!" A chance to act, like that Chinese guy in Tieneman Square, standing in front of a moving tank and stopping it in its path.

In November, we should find a way to follow in the footsteps of those intelligent Minnesotans who, even thought they could care less about professional wrestling (and even less, I'm sure, for Jesse "The Body"), proved to the world that they not only have a sense of humor, but they know how to stick it to the whole bloody system. Think of just how high their level of anger must have been against the One-Party-With-Two-Heads monopoly! I mean, state government is no joke - somebody's gotta build the roads, run the schools, catch the criminals. You don't want to turn the asylum over to the chief lunatic but, damn it, that's what the people of Minnesota did - just to send a message! Wow. That took some guts.

So, for those of you who weren't going to vote anyway, well...what if you actually did? What if you drove down to that stinky gym where the little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place ("Pay no attention to the voters behind the curtains!"), walk in, sign in, take the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside the booth like a political molotov cocktail.

Boom!

"You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both support NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased Pentagon spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns in our homes, more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest of us declaring bankruptcy?"

Boom!

Not me.

Boom!

I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

KAAAABOOM!

Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country. We may have already lost it. I hope not. But in the last 20 years of the Reagan administration, Corporate America has merged and morphed itself to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call all the shots. They own Congress. They own us. In order to work for them, we have to take urine tests and lie detectors and wear bar codes on chains around our necks. In order to keep our jobs we have had to give up decent health care, the 8-hour day (and time with our kids), the security that we'll even have a job next year, and any unwillingness we may have to compete with a 14-year old Indonesian girl who gets a dollar a day.

And how frightening (and great) is it that the last place we can freely try to inform and communicate with each other is on this very Web? Six companies run by six men control the majority of the news we now get from newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. One out of every two books is bought at a bookstore owned by one of only two companies. Is it safe in a "free society" to have the sources of our information and mass communication in the hands of just a few wealthy men who have a VESTED interest in keeping us as stupid as possible - or at least in keeping us thinking like them so that we vote for THEIR candidates?

I fear the cement on this new oligarchy of power is quickly drying, and when it is finished hardening, we are finished. The democracy, the one that's supposed to be of, by, and for the people, will cease to exist.

We must not let this happen, no matter how cynical and disgusted we've become at the whole electoral process.

Ralph Nader, to me, represents a chance for us to at least temporarily stop the cement from drying. We need him in there kicking things up, stirring the pot and forcing a real debate about the issues. Whether it's Ralph as Candidate or Ralph as President, he may represent our last hope to get our country back from the clutches of the powerful few.

I am not writing these words lightly. I am hoping to sound a siren and rally the majority who, for good reason, have given up - but might just have it in them to find the will for one last fight against the bastards.

Can Ralph win? Well, stranger things have happened in the past decade. C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought we'd see the Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. After those two things happened, I joined a new school of thought that said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started with 3% in the polls and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and, after proving to everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got nearly 20% of the vote.

Ralph already has between 7% and 10% in the polls - before he's done any serious campaigning. He's gone from 3% to 8% in my home state of Michigan. These are amazing numbers and the pundits and lobbyists and Republicrats are running scared. Hey, you like to watch scared Republicrats running? Tell a pollster you're voting for Ralph.

Now, look, before you all send me a lot of mail about how weird Ralph is 'cause he doesn't own a car or is a "sell-out" 'cause he's got a few million dollars, let me say this: I used to work out of his office, and Ralph is definitely one of a kind. In a future letter I will write of those experiences but, for now, let's just agree that Ralph is at least half as crazy as Jesse Ventura - and about a hundred times as smart. I'd say he's also saved about a million or so lives, thanks to the consumer and environmental legislation he has devoted his life to.

And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who would guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who would raise the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would get up each morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to serve all the people of this country?"

The list goes on and on. You can read more about what Ralph stands for by going to his website (http://www.votenader.org). You'll agree, I'm sure, there's lots of common sense there, regardless of what political stripe you are.

But remember. If you are even THINKING of voting for Al Gore, vote for Al Gore. Ralph Nader does not need a single Gore vote. There are a hundred million of us out there who are uncommitted and currently not voting. Right now, Gore and Bush are each hoping to win by getting only 40 million votes.

If you are in the Non-Voting majority and want to let 'em all have it, if you want to get our country back in our hands...well, if even half of you show up and vote November 7 then you won't be held responsible for Bush winning the White House.

In fact, you won't be held responsible for putting Gore in the White House, either.

Rather, you will have made history by putting a true American hero at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And you will have given every company, every boss who's done ya wrong, the worst nightmare of their lives.

November 7. Payback Time.

The revenge of the Non-Voters!

So sayeth their unappointed leader, yours truly,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
http://www.theawfultruth.com
http://www.michaelmoore.com

PS. Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going to be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the Democrats.

When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for Ralph, and they come across their local race for Congress, they will find no Green Party candidate in most of the 435 Congressional districts. So who do you think Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk down for Congress? The Republican? I don't think so.

The Democrats are only six seats short of regaining control of the House. Ralph Nader will be the reason the Democrats get the House back for the first time since Newt's Contract on America in 1994.

Democrats should send their checks to Nader 2000, P.O. Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036.

(Or, better yet, let's try to elect enough Greens to Congress -- a dozen or so -- and they'll hold the deciding votes because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will have the majority. It'll be a friggin' Knesset!)

PPS. If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed Gore voter to flip over to Nader - and thus lead to President George W. stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's all a bunch of hooey. Please read my latest grassroots.com column entitled, " I Ain't Fallin for That One Again. "

PPPS. Tonight, Wednesday July 19, on "The Awful Truth" (Bravo, 10 p.m. ET/PT), Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken makes a surprise return visit. Don't miss it!

PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT ANYWHERE.

--

Dear friends,

DISCLAIMER: If you are planning to vote for Al Gore in November, good for you. Don't let what I'm about to say change your mind because I've been told by all the experts that if you do change your mind based on what I'm about to say, George W. Bush might win the election and I certainly couldn't live with myself if that connoisseur of pharmaceuticals (the kind you snort up your nose or the kind you inject on death row) won, in part, because of a letter I spit out over the Internet.

So let's review -- you like Gore, you vote for Gore. He's a decent guy. I met him last year at some benefit, he came up to me, big hug -- whoa, this veep is no stiff, I thought -- and thanked me for this and that. He even quoted lines from "The Awful Truth" - whoa, scary, I thought, what's he doing watching cable channels above 40 on the box...not much to do on this veep gig, eh?

I told him I admired what he did when he came home to America as a Vietnam Vet and spoke out against the war. That took a lot of courage, I said (his dad lost his Senate seat for being an early opponent of the war).

So, if Al Gore is your man, go for it. In fact, I insist on it, even if you are just throwing your vote away.

What I am about to say, though, is not intended for any Al Gore (or George W.) voters. If you are one, please click off now.

To Whom It May Concern:

I address this letter to the largest political party in the United States - the 55% of you in the voting public who are so disillusioned with politics and politicians, so sick and tired of all the broken promises, so disgusted with all the b.s. that you have absolutely no intention of voting in November.

You know who you are.

AND YOU ARE THE MAJORITY!

You rule. You are the Non-Voters, all 100 million of you!

Until now, you have been the subject of scorn and ridicule. You've been called apathetic, lazy, ignorant. Your actions have been viewed as unAmerican (I mean, what kind of citizen in the World's Greatest Democracy would not exercise his or her most important and cherished right - the right to freely choose your leader!).

Well, may I be the first to tell you that, not only are you NOT stupid and apathetic, I believe you are smarter than all the rest of us combined. YOU figured it out. YOU uncovered the scam. And YOU had the guts to no longer participate in a lie. Way to go! In 1996, you helped set the all-time American record for lowest turnout ever at a presidential election.

The reason you, the majority, no longer vote in America is because you, the majority, realize there is no real choice on the ballot. The "two" parties both do the bidding of the wealthy and agree with each other on 90% of the issues. They take 90% of their money from people who make over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those contributors want passed.

On the ballot this November, you already know there is no contest. The independent Cook Political Report in D.C. last week announced that, out of 435 House seats up for election in November, there are only 47 seats where there is a "true race" between opponents - and, of those, only 14 seats have a race that is even "close" between the two candidates. 14 out of 435!

"Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of incumbents running for re-election will be returned to Congress in November," according to the Cook Report.

The Non-Voters already understand this. And they are not going to waste one iota of their day on November 7 driving to some smelly elementary school gymnasium to participate in a Soviet-style election with no friggin' choice on the ballot.

So, to you brave voter-resisters, I say congratulations on your act of civic disobedience! I joined you this primary season and refused to go along with this charade of "choice." Nearly 80% of those of us of voting age - over 160 million Americans - staged a sit-in on our living room couches during this year's primaries. THAT is the great untold story of this election year. How much longer will the punditocracy be able to get away with dismissing this massive no-show as "a sign Americans are content with the booming economy?"

Now that we have made our presence known (you all don't mind me speaking for us, do you? Good. In fact, I'll just assume the currently-vacant mantle of this majority party and serve as your leader until you say otherwise...), it is time to find a way that says, loudly and clearly, just how mad as hell we are and how we are not going to take it anymore. We need to find a way where our vote screams "None of the Above!" A chance to act, like that Chinese guy in Tieneman Square, standing in front of a moving tank and stopping it in its path.

In November, we should find a way to follow in the footsteps of those intelligent Minnesotans who, even thought they could care less about professional wrestling (and even less, I'm sure, for Jesse "The Body"), proved to the world that they not only have a sense of humor, but they know how to stick it to the whole bloody system. Think of just how high their level of anger must have been against the One-Party-With-Two-Heads monopoly! I mean, state government is no joke - somebody's gotta build the roads, run the schools, catch the criminals. You don't want to turn the asylum over to the chief lunatic but, damn it, that's what the people of Minnesota did - just to send a message! Wow. That took some guts.

So, for those of you who weren't going to vote anyway, well...what if you actually did? What if you drove down to that stinky gym where the little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place ("Pay no attention to the voters behind the curtains!"), walk in, sign in, take the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside the booth like a political molotov cocktail.

Boom!

"You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both support NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased Pentagon spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns in our homes, more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest of us declaring bankruptcy?"

Boom!

Not me.

Boom!

I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

KAAAABOOM!

Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country. We may have already lost it. I hope not. But in the last 20 years of the Reagan administration, Corporate America has merged and morphed itself to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call all the shots. They own Congress. They own us. In order to work for them, we have to take urine tests and lie detectors and wear bar codes on chains around our necks. In order to keep our jobs we have had to give up decent health care, the 8-hour day (and time with our kids), the security that we'll even have a job next year, and any unwillingness we may have to compete with a 14-year old Indonesian girl who gets a dollar a day.

And how frightening (and great) is it that the last place we can freely try to inform and communicate with each other is on this very Web? Six companies run by six men control the majority of the news we now get from newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. One out of every two books is bought at a bookstore owned by one of only two companies. Is it safe in a "free society" to have the sources of our information and mass communication in the hands of just a few wealthy men who have a VESTED interest in keeping us as stupid as possible - or at least in keeping us thinking like them so that we vote for THEIR candidates?

I fear the cement on this new oligarchy of power is quickly drying, and when it is finished hardening, we are finished. The democracy, the one that's supposed to be of, by, and for the people, will cease to exist.

We must not let this happen, no matter how cynical and disgusted we've become at the whole electoral process.

Ralph Nader, to me, represents a chance for us to at least temporarily stop the cement from drying. We need him in there kicking things up, stirring the pot and forcing a real debate about the issues. Whether it's Ralph as Candidate or Ralph as President, he may represent our last hope to get our country back from the clutches of the powerful few.

I am not writing these words lightly. I am hoping to sound a siren and rally the majority who, for good reason, have given up - but might just have it in them to find the will for one last fight against the bastards.

Can Ralph win? Well, stranger things have happened in the past decade. C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought we'd see the Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. After those two things happened, I joined a new school of thought that said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started with 3% in the polls and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and, after proving to everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got nearly 20% of the vote.

Ralph already has between 7% and 10% in the polls - before he's done any serious campaigning. He's gone from 3% to 8% in my home state of Michigan. These are amazing numbers and the pundits and lobbyists and Republicrats are running scared. Hey, you like to watch scared Republicrats running? Tell a pollster you're voting for Ralph.

Now, look, before you all send me a lot of mail about how weird Ralph is 'cause he doesn't own a car or is a "sell-out" 'cause he's got a few million dollars, let me say this: I used to work out of his office, and Ralph is definitely one of a kind. In a future letter I will write of those experiences but, for now, let's just agree that Ralph is at least half as crazy as Jesse Ventura - and about a hundred times as smart. I'd say he's also saved about a million or so lives, thanks to the consumer and environmental legislation he has devoted his life to.

And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who would guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who would raise the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would get up each morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to serve all the people of this country?"

The list goes on and on. You can read more about what Ralph stands for by going to his website (http://www.votenader.org). You'll agree, I'm sure, there's lots of common sense there, regardless of what political stripe you are.

But remember. If you are even THINKING of voting for Al Gore, vote for Al Gore. Ralph Nader does not need a single Gore vote. There are a hundred million of us out there who are uncommitted and currently not voting. Right now, Gore and Bush are each hoping to win by getting only 40 million votes.

If you are in the Non-Voting majority and want to let 'em all have it, if you want to get our country back in our hands...well, if even half of you show up and vote November 7 then you won't be held responsible for Bush winning the White House.

In fact, you won't be held responsible for putting Gore in the White House, either.

Rather, you will have made history by putting a true American hero at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And you will have given every company, every boss who's done ya wrong, the worst nightmare of their lives.

November 7. Payback Time.

The revenge of the Non-Voters!

So sayeth their unappointed leader, yours truly,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
http://www.theawfultruth.com
http://www.michaelmoore.com

PS. Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going to be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the Democrats.

When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for Ralph, and they come across their local race for Congress, they will find no Green Party candidate in most of the 435 Congressional districts. So who do you think Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk down for Congress? The Republican? I don't think so.

The Democrats are only six seats short of regaining control of the House. Ralph Nader will be the reason the Democrats get the House back for the first time since Newt's Contract on America in 1994.

Democrats should send their checks to Nader 2000, P.O. Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036.

(Or, better yet, let's try to elect enough Greens to Congress -- a dozen or so -- and they'll hold the deciding votes because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will have the majority. It'll be a friggin' Knesset!)

PPS. If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed Gore voter to flip over to Nader - and thus lead to President George W. stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's all a bunch of hooey. Please read my latest grassroots.com column entitled, " I Ain't Fallin for That One Again. "

PPPS. Tonight, Wednesday July 19, on "The Awful Truth" (Bravo, 10 p.m. ET/PT), Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken makes a surprise return visit. Don't miss it!

PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT ANYWHERE.

--

I think the first time I remember hearing this political urban myth was in the 1976 presidential election. Somebody told me the reason I had to vote for Jimmy Carter was because if Gerald Ford was elected, women would lose their right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion had been legal for only three years at that point. It was considered a great victory, one we all wanted to support.

So, I voted for Jimmy Carter -- and guess what? One of the things he did was to stop all abortions provided for women or wives in the armed services! He also stopped any further funding to birth control groups overseas that offered abortion as an alternative. And he ended all Medicaid payments for poor women in need of an abortion.

I felt a bit abused. I mean, Gerry Ford had been pro-choice. His wife was an ardent supporter of women's rights. And it was a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court -- Justice Blackmun -- that wrote the majority opinion making abortion legal. What was I thinking? (Other than that the Nixon Nightmare years had to come to an end! That, I correctly rationalized, was worth the vote for Carter.)

Four years later, Democrats and liberals were going nuts over the possibility that Ronald Reagan might unseat Carter. Dire warnings were issued to all: If Reagan gets in, abortion will be illegal, period.

Well, I didn't vote for Reagan OR Carter, Reagan got in, and then something strange happened: Abortion remained legal! Sure, Reagan built on Carter's abortion restrictions, but Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land when the Gipper rode off into the sunset eight years later.

Yet Reagan had appointed plenty of wingnuts to the Supreme Court, so when the doomsayers in 1988 warned that George Bush would CERTAINLY send women back to the alleys to have illegal abortions, another bizarre thing happened -- Bush got elected, and ... four years later ... ABORTION WAS STILL LEGAL!

But Bush did leave us with Clarence Thomas, so when the Democrats came to scare the bejeepers out of me with what Bush would do to a woman's right to choose if he got a second term, I decided to vote for Bill Clinton.

So what's happened under our first feminist-man president?

Perhaps Clinton misunderstood his mission: he was supposed to support a womanÕs right to choose, not his right to choose women. Roe v. Wade is still on the books (mainly because of the consistent and unwavering support from the Reagan-appointed Justice O'Connor, the Ford-appointed Justice Stevens, and the Bush-appointed Justice Souter! They have voted to uphold abortion rights every single time). But it is now twice as hard for a woman in America to obtain an abortion as it was when Clinton took office. The anti-abortion terrorists have been so successful in their campaign of violence against abortion clinics and doctors and hospitals who perform abortions that a woman can now get an abortion in only 14% of the counties in the United States. That's right. Terrorism has scored its first victory on U.S. soil by assassinating enough doctors and firebombing enough clinics so that no one wants to perform an abortion. So if you live in one of the 86% of counties where not a single doctor will do an abortion, let me ask you this: what good is a "right" to an abortion if you can't get one?

The stunning thing about this virtual elimination of abortion in America is that it has occurred at a time when nearly 70% of the country supports some form of legal abortion. The terrorists have literally gotten away with murder -- with a pro-choice attorney general sitting in Washington, D.C., doing damn little about it. About the only reason I voted for these clowns was because of this issue -- and where the hell have they been?

Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.

All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:

"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"

Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.

Here's my proof:

1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.

2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, if 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue. He is already moving to the center on abortion and has been doing so since the primaries. He wants to win. He already has the majority of women supporting him in the polls, in part because a lot of women are confident he will not upset this apple cart.

3. The New York Times two weeks ago did a study of Bush's court appointees in Texas and found that he did NOT appoint right-wing crazies, but rather moderates or moderate conservatives who have upheld legal abortion in Texas and struck down some cases that tried to put restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

4. Sometimes even conservatives end up accepting that the tide has turned against them. The most stunning example of this came last month when ultra-conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted on writing the MAJORITY opinion for the court upholding the Miranda ruling that requires the police to inform an arrestee of his or her constitutional rights. Now, you know a guy like Rehnquist personally just hates forcing the police to read someone their rights. But in his decision keeping Miranda the law of the land, Rehnquist wrote that the Miranda rights are now "part of the American culture" and therefore should not be done away with. Even pro-Miranda liberals had never heard that line used by the Supreme Court in backing a decision, but it was, in essence, the truth. Reading someone their rights is now like apple pie -- and so is a woman's right to choose what to do if she should become pregnant. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe it a decision best left with a woman, her doctor, her God -- and it's nobody else's dang business. That, too, is part of the American culture. It's called privacy, and it's been around for over 200 years. Nobody, regardless of their political stripe, wants the politicians or the justices in their bedroom.

So, this year, I'm not going to let the fearmongers scare me into voting against my conscience. And I'm not going to let the Democratic candidate for president cynically use this issue when he himself has served in D.C. for 8 years allowing the right to get an abortion to be whittled away to near nothing.

Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.

Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.

--

Wake up and realize privitization = enslavement.

Give us a break, Karl Marx. Think of the last really cool thing that the US government got started but that really exploded once private enterprise jumped on it... give up? I'll give you a hint - Al Gore took the initiative to create it!

It's called the Internet!

Vote Nader in November

By all means, please do. At least that will keep you from giving your vote to Gore.

1. 
   My Vote's On This Doofus
   

Michael Moore (of Roger & Me and The Awful Truth fame) has written a letter to the non-voting majority suggesting they join him in voting for Nader.

We could certainly do a lot worse than put a consumer watchdog in the White House. Ralph Nader has written in his weekly column that Congress and the President should disclose their records on the Internet. If he were elected, I'd love to see him follow through on that and run a wired administration.

I think Jesse Ventura showed that the non-voters can get off their couches and vote against the corporate-friendly centrists, if a third party candidate is famous and charismatic enough. Ralph Nader is famous, but he's not exactly mediagenic. The media that lavished so much attention on the Republican's sideshow didn't paid little notice when Nader appeared across town from the convention, which he denounced as a corporate-paid "political orgy".

Even if he is dry as dust, four years of Nader vs. Congress could be entertaining.

we need more civil disobedience, and these bastards need to be taken to issue on locking the protestors up, blatantly ignoring the geneva convention. whilst i don't agree with the anti-WTO sentiment (these idiots are in bed with protectionists like Pat Buchanan) i feel the Democrats are getting far too right wing and they need a reality check.

The focus of May Day is going to be anti globalisation/anti-corporate rule, with an emphasis on labor rights. UCITA ties in with this because most of these bills are meant to help out a few corporate interests despite screwing people (I refuse to call people "consumers").

Sounds like something Michael Moore would be very interested in. (For those of you who don't know who he is, he has long been against large corporations and their practices among other things - perhaps you've seen his film Roger and me.)

There is a mailing-list setup over there, gosh I don't think I could think of a better target audience to discuss something like this and help raise awareness on this serious and important issue.

Obviously the most efficient way to make money is to have no morals and screw people over (see MM's "Roger and Me" for more details ;). But just as there's money around it doesn't mean we're all dirty sellouts with no respect for others, obviously. So what is this article about then, eh? It's logic is screwed.

It's all a matter of priorities - and it would appear that anyone to take money was just waiting for an opportunity. Already there, "a liar with nothing to lie about"

Another corporation laying people off to gain profitabity? Wonder what the guy who produced "Roger & Me" would say about that?