Slashdot Mirror

If you were at H2K you'd remember me.. I was the bloody shouter. (Hey, don't knock it. I got the red shirt and all access ;)

I would, however, doubt that Da Gov'na and Jello would run together. Great he abandoned the Reform Party like a sinking (into corporatism and reactionarism) boat and declaredc himself a neo-independant. (Besides, he's said he's happy as The Sworn Protector Of Minn-e-SO-ta.)

Jello's speech and Ralph Nader's candidacy have inspired me to announce I will run for Congress in 2004, whose election will be one day before I turn 25. (I'll still be eligible, I hope, because I *will* be 25 upon inauguration.)

Vote on who you think will uphold a worthwhile society (*cough*) rather than upon petty personal issues like taxes, Social Security, and Medicare. These issues will not influence significantly one way or the other the decline and fall of American society. Indeed, they take attention away from worthwile issues!

Please, consider the long run, and the worthfulness of American society. Vote what's best for that.

What's wrong with a VOTE FOR RALPH NADER ? He doesn't support the Republicrats and his stated mission would be to remove the US from the WTO, NAFTA and all that other bullshit that is feeding the twisted IP laws to begin with! You might as well write-in "The Devil" on your ballot -- because voting Libertarian is just as useless as voting for Satan himself. But, hey it's a free country (until "Dubya" wins) vote for whoever you want.

This progressive method does not harm corporations directly, but stops helping those who are harming the commons. Currently, the gov't subsidizes the "bad" kind of fuels, and does not give enough incentives to develop new sources of power for automobiles. He has more information at his website

If you look at Ralph's record, you will see that his stance on first amendment issues is pretty strong. It was a very specific question, so unsurprising that there was no answer, but you can bet he would have been in support of rights for everyone, including minority religions.

OT, nader's ideas about IP seem like an open-sourcer's dream - it sounds like he (or staff) wrote them up just for our entertainment. No one else will care what he thinks about IP -what's he going to do, stop getting contributions from Amazon? This is like Gore campaigning in front of minority groups or Bush to the religious right - he's preaching to the choir, after making sure he knows what the choir wants to hear.

Nader does not accept soft money or corporate donations. He is the only candidate actually practicing his campaign finance reform platform. So he doesn't need to reject Amazon's donations specifically; he is not in thrall to special interests of any form. Thus, he can actually do his best to serve the people.

FYI, since these are all drawn from previous statements, he cannot be pandering to Slashdot. These are his real issues and beliefs; look at his website, here. Nader does not pander to anybody; he is extremely popular in Oregon and Washington, yet has spoken out against physician assisted suicide laws, which are fairly popular among his voter base. He has spoken out against the US policy of favoring Israel over Palestine, although his running mate is Jewish. Look at his record, and you will see that here is a person you can really trust. He only says what he means, and is not worried about alienating voters (although he could use every voter he could get). A politician in the best sense.

The problem is that we measure success in terms of economics, not quality of life. While the economy booms, the quality of life has been going down (as measured by several standards). We're all making more money, but only because we work longer hours than any other industrialized nation.

If I could trade in my 40+ hour/week (only 45 hours a week? That's great!) job for some part time job I'd do it. But alas, I've fallen into the Debt Trap. I can't quit my job, even if I sell most of my stuff. This is true for most of the people I know too.

This money-centric mentality makes wage slaves of us all. I think we should do our best to not export this mind set.

This is something that Nader has actually written/spoken about. Check his views on his site.

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.

--

This battle isn't about any of your issues. I wish it were, but it clearly is not. It is not even about Bush vs. Gore; it is about Corporatism vs. Nader. The two main political parties have set themselves up as the only two choices you have; in actuality giving you only the illusion of a choice. Nader is the real choice; and it baffles me that no one sees it that way. Nader is the only candidate out there who has an anti-corporatist message. Gore's weak attempts to speak against corrupt HMO's during the debates were nothing more than pathetic. These people say nothing reassuring.

For anyone voting for Gore or Bush: click this link to find out what corporations with no federal government regulations are capable of:

http://theawfultruth.com/salbmw

Then, go vote for Nader.

-Dan Rempe

See, if you need proof, http://www.votenader.org /is sues/agriculture_letter.html He thinks falling prices for commodities is a bad thing! Hello? Who does he think buys these things? This is a trend that's been going on for hundreds of years. Does he know that around 1900, a family typically spent over half its income on food?

All I want is a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" check-box on the ballot. Especially when all the candidates are as useless as G.W. Bush & Gore.

www.votenader.org

0x0000

Take a look at http://votenader.org or http://www.gp.org/platform_index.htm/a& gt;

Perhaps Katz's pal will understand it better this way.

"Politics" (a word that is rather lazily thrown about these pages) are really about Power. Geeks should understand this because we are also into Power. We see something that we like, think is cool, want to use, etc, and we fusk with it. We make it do cool things. We wield command over the tools in our dominion. And the users in our domains, incidently.

Politicians have been doing this with the world for the lifetime of human social interaction. They're much better practiced at doing that in their realm than we are in ours. They're powerful. We have servers and cell phones and /. There are defininte differences between "us" and "them" but one thing must be clear--you are a "political" animal.

My point is just that they are powerful, and thus often judged. We should understand about power, becuase geeks do have a relationship with power. So think about that before you hold in comtempt a politician for being a politician.

You do not get to live your life independent of society, obviously, and by virtue of your living you are involved, you are therefore politically engaged. In other words, you are a part of the American political landscape even if you choose to "not act."

Inaction is action, as anyone who has read about Buddhism will readily tell you. I never thought about that much before I read into Buddhism, and it seems that Heinlein also notes this (see above). Not that Heinlein should be our guiding, light, frankly I think the man was a sexist pig. But who cares about this.

So what is really happening here is that Deggan doesn't like the politicians that he encounters. He therefore equates "politics" with poor thinking or wrong action (akusala action, to keep with my buddhist theme) and discards it as below his station.

If we do this, we commit a grevious error and we will loose the power that we have wrought for ourselves. We must be aware of the fact that if we do not concern ourselves with the stuggle for power, what power we have could be taken from us. This may be done financially, politically, etc. They can't out tech us, for sure, but we're not immune to our sociopolitical landscape.

That said, vote Nader.

Or Bush, if you really feel he'll be less inclined to regulate free speech on teh web, which has been mentioned on /.

Or Gore if you don't want to "throw away" your vote by voting for Nader.

Or don't vote, but know that you cast a vote by not voting.

All of these corporate attacks on your liberty, all of these draconian restrictions are being paid for by the money YOU spend on corporate-sponsored books, DVDs, CDs, VHS tapes and trips to the multiplex. If you want it to stop you need to re-orient your priorities and better target your entertainment dollar.

If you like movies, go to Atomfilms or head down to the local art-house cinema that shows truly independent work instead of the mega-mall. If you like music, go to mp3.com or use services like Napster and pay artists you like directly via Fairtunes or Paypal. If you are an artist, release your work to the public under the terms of the OPL and let the public know about your account at Paypal.

Don't spend dime one on anything for sale at Amazon.com. Use your local library instead. If you simply must have some piece of corporate media, buy it used.

The only power these pimps have is the power YOU give them. For the DMCA and everything else the RIAA and MPAA have done to your rights, and plan to do to them in the future, you must choke off their access to the cash they expect to have available to fund their ongoing attacks against you, your family and your children. Hollywood has had a terrible year, box office receipts are way off. Keep it up! Make the first decade of the 21st century a finacial Waterloo for them!

Every one of these abuses flows from the ability of corporate money to pervert your democracy, your birthright. Support alternatives to the corrupt two-party system. One week from today vote Nader or Harry Browne.

Night
Geek Goddess

To be fair, Gore might not be much better than Bush anyway, so that's why I'm going to vote for Nader

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.

But Republicrats have a self-perpetuating method of limiting choice. When ISP's can veto websites based on commercial favoritism... and when Cable companies can unfairly exclude local television channels at their monopolistic whim... we need more freedom of choice!

In the words of Jesse "the Gov'ner" Ventura, "What good is it to have just one more choice than Russia?"
Vote Third Party. Vote Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke.

>>So powerful and rich corporations are
>>gonna take care of the handicapped and
>>homeless?
>
>Yes, in a sense. Since the government isn't
>taking any money from you, there's no excuse
>"Well, I pay for charity through taxes!", so
>the average decent man will feel compelled to
>give to charity.

The problem is that you are giving people more credit than I do, you see average people as decent, I see them as destroyers of the environment for a quick buck: "Fuck the air, water, soil - in the long term I'm dead."

>would you pay for the Drug War? The
>Libertarians won't make you. Can you say that
>about Nader?

Erm, yes, see: http://votenader.org/press/000908d rug war.html, http://votenader.org/press/000906 tvl etter.html, http://votenader.org/issues/racei nam erica.html.

>To me, and end to the War on Drugs means
>legalizing all chemical substances. Not just
>the ones Nader likes.

Greens differentiate between hash and cocaine, if you don't, by all means vote Lib.

>I want the right to life, liberty, and
>property. Absolutely. Without any
>restrictions.

That's great if you own the media and means of productions, it doesn't mean anything if you have to work at McDonalds to survive.

>You're voting for that?

Yes, it means that you may not treat nonrenewable resources from the earth like capital available only to you. It means you buy a van from Zero Pollution Motors, and they recycle it after you're finished with it.

>>So powerful and rich corporations are
>>gonna take care of the handicapped and
>>homeless?
>
>Yes, in a sense. Since the government isn't
>taking any money from you, there's no excuse
>"Well, I pay for charity through taxes!", so
>the average decent man will feel compelled to
>give to charity.

The problem is that you are giving people more credit than I do, you see average people as decent, I see them as destroyers of the environment for a quick buck: "Fuck the air, water, soil - in the long term I'm dead."

>would you pay for the Drug War? The
>Libertarians won't make you. Can you say that
>about Nader?

Erm, yes, see: http://votenader.org/press/000908d rug war.html, http://votenader.org/press/000906 tvl etter.html, http://votenader.org/issues/racei nam erica.html.

>To me, and end to the War on Drugs means
>legalizing all chemical substances. Not just
>the ones Nader likes.

Greens differentiate between hash and cocaine, if you don't, by all means vote Lib.

>I want the right to life, liberty, and
>property. Absolutely. Without any
>restrictions.

That's great if you own the media and means of productions, it doesn't mean anything if you have to work at McDonalds to survive.

>You're voting for that?

Yes, it means that you may not treat nonrenewable resources from the earth like capital available only to you. It means you buy a van from Zero Pollution Motors, and they recycle it after you're finished with it.

>>So powerful and rich corporations are
>>gonna take care of the handicapped and
>>homeless?
>
>Yes, in a sense. Since the government isn't
>taking any money from you, there's no excuse
>"Well, I pay for charity through taxes!", so
>the average decent man will feel compelled to
>give to charity.

The problem is that you are giving people more credit than I do, you see average people as decent, I see them as destroyers of the environment for a quick buck: "Fuck the air, water, soil - in the long term I'm dead."

>would you pay for the Drug War? The
>Libertarians won't make you. Can you say that
>about Nader?

Erm, yes, see: http://votenader.org/press/000908d rug war.html, http://votenader.org/press/000906 tvl etter.html, http://votenader.org/issues/racei nam erica.html.

>To me, and end to the War on Drugs means
>legalizing all chemical substances. Not just
>the ones Nader likes.

Greens differentiate between hash and cocaine, if you don't, by all means vote Lib.

>I want the right to life, liberty, and
>property. Absolutely. Without any
>restrictions.

That's great if you own the media and means of productions, it doesn't mean anything if you have to work at McDonalds to survive.

>You're voting for that?

Yes, it means that you may not treat nonrenewable resources from the earth like capital available only to you. It means you buy a van from Zero Pollution Motors, and they recycle it after you're finished with it.

Instead of http://www.vaderfor2000.org/ shouldn't they get http://www.notevader.org/?
--

Re voting systems: Why not give every person 3 votes? Mr Bos gives 1 vote for Gore, 1 for Bush, and 1 for Nader. Mrs Bar votes all 3 for Nader. Mr Baz gives 2 votes for Browne, and 1 for None of the above.

Under plurality voting, Nader supporters are effectively disenfranchised, since they must vote against their preferences to join a winning coaltion -- they have a power of zero.

If however their single vote is so powerfull for some bribed big wig, why is their one vote wasted for a 3rd party? Please explain this to me without giving the "better lizard" bleat.

Any representative system fails whereas grassroots direct democracy would have administrators executing the will of the people, instead of doing things to them.

Vote for a binding None of the above option

Jon Katz wrote:
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.

If large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to vote, than large numbers of Americans will be completely ignored by the system. Nobody who matters reads not voting as a sign of dissent, they read it as a sign of apathy.

What they count as a vote of dissent is a vote for something other than the main candidates. The people in charge listen to large third party turnout. The third parties don't get any closer to real participation, but the major parties lean closer to the third party positions to try to coopt a vote they consider "swing". Nonvoters aren't swing voters, they are ignored.

This year, there are four third-party candidates with significant campaigns, check them out, see if you like any of them more than Al Bush and George Gore:
Ralph Nader, Green Party
Harry Browne, Libertarian Party
Pat Buchanan,, Reform Party (a good chunk of it, anyway)
John Hagelin, Natural Law Party (and the rest of the Reform Party)
The Socialist Party is also running a candidate, but I couldn't find a good link.

If you don't like the two big-party candidates, vote for one of these, any of these, I don't care who (personally, I like Nader, but I'd prefer seeing votes for Buchanan than people staying home). If you don't like these, just decide to pick whoever ends up in the last column of your ballot (the Democrats and Republicans usually vie for the first two columns in most states); or write in a vote. Just don't stay home, and don't leave the ballot blank (some states throw blank ballots out uncounted). This is the most effective way to say you are unhappy with how things are, in a language that the media and the candidates actually understand.

----

So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything!

Saige is correct. As far as I know, only one candidate is trying for the vote of the "non-voters" (Nader), and his strategy seems to be to make the 5% goal rather than even try to win. The candidates are all going for the "undecided voter", the operative word being VOTER, even though the non-voters outnumber them 100 to 1. They will consistantly ignore the opinions of the non-voters, because it is a waste of time and energy. The declared non-voter's opinion would, from a political perspective, be about as worthless as a random foriegner's opinion.

There is even evidence that both sides like the low voter turnout. I've heard the opinion that the Clinton centrist strategy developed by Dick Morris works only in a low voter turnout situation, and that rain on election day hurts the candidates who are challenging incumbents (some people won't bother going out and voting during a storm).

I think it's noble to try to send a message, but these are politicians - subtlety doesn't work that well. Instead, send a message by voting for the candidate that best suits you - and then write letters or email, telling them what doesn't suit you. Anything else is an ivory (or electronic) tower idea, that may look good on the screen, but doesn't translate well to real life.

They may not be selling it however. How tough was the address? If it was something like jimsmith01@hotmail.com, well, that is easy as hell to guess.

Spammers do wonderful things like sending to
jimsmith
jimsmith00
jimsmith01
jimsmith02
etc.

Chances are that is how you got hit. The spammer does not care, since hotmail is just going to say "uh, sorry, that account does not exist". Pick something like fjiogio83fj@hotmail.com. Chances are you won't get hit for a while. If you do get hit right off, then I would say hotmail is selling it.
Vote Nader

Ok, so I've only had time to work there once. But I believe in 80% of what he does, and almost 100% of his moral values and opinions. Also, people in states where one candidate has an obvious huge lead (like Bush in Texas) should definately vote Nader, because your vote will not "take away" from Gore or be "wasted".

Hell yes, you should vote. At the very least, if you sit out you have absolutely no right to bitch or complain about the president's actions come the next 4 years.

Now here's the REAL reason to vote, especially in local elections. Why do you think Gore and Bush are our only two choices? Because someone voted or them in local elections (House/Senate and Governor), and now they are supported by the major parties.

Don't let assholes win local elections, and you won't have assholes to choose from when it comes to President.

Vote Nader

A lot of people tell you not to vote for a third party because it would "waste" your vote. But, really, the waste of your vote is to vote for a more "mainstream" candidate that you don't really believe in.

Bush and Gore both seem the same to me and they both sicken me. Did you see the debates? They were even wearing the same suit!

So, please, take a look at third parties and independents out there. These people aren't so politically entrenched as the major parties, and have some very insightful ideas about what to do with our country.

Don't waste your vote.

Ralph Nader, Green Party (also endorsed by the Reform Party)
Harry Browne, Libertarian
Pat Buchanan, Reform Party (sort of)
John Hagelin, Natural Law Party (sort of)
Howard Phillips, Constitution Party

He's the ONLY QUALIFIED candidate, IMO. And if you don't know why.. Listen to Moore's Real Video piece on the votenader.org site.

NADER! NADER! NADER! NADER!

Even if you don't think Nader can win, that's not really the point. If he gets more than 5% this time around, he's guaranteed to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Do the right thing - vote for Nader!

I hate to be as normative as the pigs but please, check out Ralph Nader.

FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
Thank you. Keep the love alive.

---

Gore actually used the word plutocrat? And he wasn't referring to himself?

He isn't the only one who tries to get the lower and middle class to rally against the rich. Nader and his ilk frequently remind us that over half of this nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population.

If this were truely a democracy, could we vote to increase the taxes of a super-high tax bracket (like $50 million and above) to 75% or even 90%?

Unfortunately, the plutocrats are the ones making the laws...

Seriously, does anybody need that much money?

I understand that you might find 39% a bit high. That's a lot of money for the government to take. But how much are you making? What if we could double the value of ZZ, so you won't have to pay so much until you make a lot more? And in order to facilitate that, we could increase taxes for the super-rich?

And he doesn't want to stop at censoring it; he actually wants to outlaw it.

Even after reading the article to which you linked, I'm unable to understand where you got that idea. Nader discusses the problem (I don't think anyone can deny that violent material falling into children's hands without proper parental guidance is a good thing), but he doesn't propose a concrete solution, quite possibly because he didn't have one worked out in his own mind at the time (May 1999).

I've been unable to find a current, specific discussion of this issue on the Nader campaign site, but I would suspect based on the rest of his (and the Green Party's) positions that he would be entirely in support of stronger laws that outlaw the sale of such products to minors. If adults want to purchase such materials for themselves or their children, that's their right, but the government has an obligation to keep that material out of the hands of children when parents fail to do the job themselves.

It's very easy to say that the government should stay out of the issue entirely because that's the path of least resistance for both government and for consumers of the material, but you've got to realize that when a parent fails to provide a healthy atmosphere in which their child can develop, it becomes the government's responsbility to care for the well-being of that child. It doesn't matter whether the parent is strung out on drugs or is failing to review and restrict/guide the child's access to graphic material--in both cases the child suffers consequences due to the parent's negligence. The child becomes a victim, and the government has a responsibility to step in and protect.

True, but I just read this. So much for the idea that American laws hold no water in other countries. Our corporate government will find any way to push itself on other countries when money is involved, it seems...

Shameless plug: That's why I'm voting Nader!

-------

In most states the battle is already decided, and one candidate has pretty much given up. If you're in one of those states, a vote for either major candidate is a wasted vote.

On the other hand, voting for a third party can help them achieve a crucial 5% of the vote, which entitles them to federal matching funds next time around. It will also raise awareness of the issues people care about. Even if 3rd party candidates don't get elected, if they have significant support they can force the major candidates to address some of their issues.

www.votenader.org for more info on why you should vote what you really believe in.

If you're going to do anything that benefits one group at the expense of another (which pretty much describes any significant legislation), then you should expect to have to fight for it. Saying that "politics needs to have less fighting" or "politics needs to be more civil" is, besides being plain wrong, also pretty boring.

My biggest disappointment with the debates, aside from the near-criminal exclusion of my candidate, was the complete lack of friction between the two candidates most of the time. This isn't a choice among different ideals or great visions for the future, this is more like deciding if you'd rather have espresso or cappucino from Starbuck's. I was screaming for some contrast. I was dying for a point that would bitterly divide the two puppet^H^H^H^H^H^Hmen. It doesn't even matter to me whether I agree or not, I just want to see one of them take on some idea -- hell, let's have something controversial for a change -- and run with it.

But I've set myself up for a fall, of course. In this day or focus group, middle of the road, bland to the core campaigning, hoping for a little blood -- in the vein and out in the open -- is clearly too much to ask for.

Though moderated as "informative", this comment offers no link to any position paper by Nader talking about a maximum wage. In fact, a search of Nader's web site for the phrase "maximum wage" yields no results.

A maximum wage was a plank in Jello Biafra's platform in the Green Party primary.

People, if you want your vote to matter, DON'T vote for the lesser of two evils, go out and educate your selves about the options. Then vote for who you believe is right. It's as simple as that.

Here are a couple of links that I find relevant:
The Libertarian Party
The Green Party
One of Nader's sites.

Those, of course, are only a limited sampling from my bookmarks, but they're a start.

~~Galen~~

The Libertarian party's position:

"Stop Internet Censorship

Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want. "

Harry Browne's specific position:

"You have the right to speak and write freely -- on paper, on the airwaves, on the Internet --even if the government thinks it has a "compelling interest" in shutting you up."

As for Ralph Nader, he even wants to censor non-pornographic web sites; he doesn't want children to be able to access marketting information. He is one of those people we all berate here who think Doom causes violence.

And he doesn't want to stop at censoring it; he actually wants to outlaw it.

-

At the risk of being moderated offtopic, I'll give you two. I will do so because I believe that this is the most important issue and the mainstream candidates simply won't discuss it. Small tax cuts and boosts to social security just do not impress me when Bush and Gore will continue to have peaceful Americans thrown in jail for doing nothing wrong while others are forced to live in fear. They mean nothing to me when the first and fourth amendment are being stripped and property can be seized at will. So I cannot vote for any candidate who supports the war on drugs.

If you care, you can vote for:

• Although his site doesn't seem to think it's important enough to even list it as one of "the issues", Ralph Nader has called for major changes to the drug war. In particular, he wants to support marijuana legalisation, calling to change our "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
• Harry Browne the Libertarian Party candidate, has vowed to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on his first day as president. His explanation of his views on drugs is most impressive.

At the risk of being moderated offtopic, I'll give you two. I will do so because I believe that this is the most important issue and the mainstream candidates simply won't discuss it. Small tax cuts and boosts to social security just do not impress me when Bush and Gore will continue to have peaceful Americans thrown in jail for doing nothing wrong while others are forced to live in fear. They mean nothing to me when the first and fourth amendment are being stripped and property can be seized at will. So I cannot vote for any candidate who supports the war on drugs.

If you care, you can vote for:

• Although his site doesn't seem to think it's important enough to even list it as one of "the issues", Ralph Nader has called for major changes to the drug war. In particular, he wants to support marijuana legalisation, calling to change our "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
• Harry Browne the Libertarian Party candidate, has vowed to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on his first day as president. His explanation of his views on drugs is most impressive.

At the risk of being moderated offtopic, I'll give you two. I will do so because I believe that this is the most important issue and the mainstream candidates simply won't discuss it. Small tax cuts and boosts to social security just do not impress me when Bush and Gore will continue to have peaceful Americans thrown in jail for doing nothing wrong while others are forced to live in fear. They mean nothing to me when the first and fourth amendment are being stripped and property can be seized at will. So I cannot vote for any candidate who supports the war on drugs.

If you care, you can vote for:

• Although his site doesn't seem to think it's important enough to even list it as one of "the issues", Ralph Nader has called for major changes to the drug war. In particular, he wants to support marijuana legalisation, calling to change our "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
• Harry Browne the Libertarian Party candidate, has vowed to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on his first day as president. His explanation of his views on drugs is most impressive.

But, this philosophy has maligned itself in the recent decades with misguided politics. The people we elected to promote these ideals have, themselves, become corrupt and self-serving.

This is the Green Party reasoning for voting Nader.

Clipper Chip - Designed to allow Law Enforcement to read encrypted transmissions through the Key Escrow Initiative. Failed miserably - thankfully.

Skipjack - Designed by the NSA for Clipper. It never received public review to determine if it was secure or contained any backdoors or trapdoors.

"The Greens in the European Parliament are accusing the big political parties in Parliament of obstructing the inquiry on Echelon."

How about failed promises --- HealthCare reform lead by Hillary Clinton. It failed miserably. As a result of this "reform", our Seniors are stuck in HMOs that provide worse benefits than they started off with. That issue has been raised again under the guise of Perscription Plan reform.

You hit the nail on the head. There was no reform passed. HMOs arose as a (non-health care) corporate backlash to the health care industry raising prices (profits) far faster than reason should allow. Rather than corporations and politicians, we should be listening to doctors and patients. Quoting from Nader's website: We find persuasive a plan based on the "Physicians' Proposal" for a national health program published by Physicians for a National Health Program in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and their proposal for a national long-term care program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1991."

A viable answer has existed for some time. Neither the Democrats, nor Republicans seem moved to change the status quo. Nadar's plan would increase coverage, not cost.

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better -- but they are are concerned more with building this country (and their wallets) rather than countries that really don't want us there. Tax breaks may help the rich, but lower taxes for everybody has got to be a good thing. And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?

For a perspective on income and fair taxation, take a look at The L-Curve. Check the numbers and draw your own conclusions.

Economic policies generally take 8-12 years to take effect. What boon we are experienced is because of the previous administrations policies. What we are experiencing now (i.e the slump in NASDAQ and DOW) is the result of Clinton/Gore politics. Don't believe me? Read your history.

{Huge grain of salt.} Does that mean the Eisenhower years can be credited to Roosevelt and Truman, the Carter years to Nixon, the latter Reagan years to Carter? I think we can agree there is more to economics than politics, and certainly more than any president can control by himself.

If you don't want to vote Republican, then at least vote for a party leader who knows the difference between right and wrong.

Again, I agree. As a natural cynic, I feel compelled to point out Skeleton Closet. And yes, Nader's there too.

I was discussing this with a friend a few weeks ago. Way back when I used to have fun with code by making a define, putting some text in it, then having printf's all over the place that were never called but were there just to stick phrases and stuff in the executeable. So why not do this? Make one big ass define, stuff the source in it, then do something so the value will show up when you compile and look at the compiled file, and bingo!

Granted, you would probably want to spread the source out over many files...

Oh - another good place to put the source would be in MP3s using the new ID tag. Can't remember which one it is right now, but it is the one that Music Match uses. It will let you put lyrics, notes, and artist bios in there. Start stuffing DeCSS in there, distribute the songs via Napster or something, and shortly there will be copies all over the world.

Vote Nader

My only shirt problem is that I have to explain it to everyone. I went two places today - had to spend 5 minutes explaining it both times (I have the DVDCCA shirt today). The DeCSS shirt does not raise as many questions.

People do laugh though when I tell them what the shirt is about.
Vote Nader

In this article (part of a Wired debate on technology policy between Nader and Gore advisor Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC during the Clinton/Gore administration), Nader speaks up about the CDA, DMCA, silly patents, and other dangers of continuing to elect corporate stooges like Gore and Bush.

Here's a great (although long) quote:

In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?

In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.

But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.

JMC

I'm glad he finally posted something about Nader, but it wasn't Nader's best writing on the subject, and he had to qualify it with "self-promotional" as if the news stories on Bush and Gore are anything other than reprinted press releases from the campaigns!

JMC

... at the bottom of the letter to the candidates?

*grin*

either way, vote nader!

Not only am I voting for Nader this November becuase I feel that he's the best man for the job, to vote for Gore or Bush would be effectively throwing my vote away.

Sounds strange, doesn't it? Most people would argue that voting for a third party canidate would be throwing a vote away

In the key battleground states, yes. For the love of everything that is good, if you are in the one of those states, please vote for Gore to keep Bush out of office (or vice versa, if you're one of those people - but most Nader supporters are prolly more likely to lean democrat). However, in a small state it is quite the opposite.

For example North Dakota (where I am now, sadly) always goes Republican. Always. And given how close it is now, I have no doubt that it will again. Furthermore, ND only has 3 electoral votes. So, if I vote for Gore (or Bush), my vote doesn't matter because my state's paltry 3 votes (which won't matter anyway) are pretty much guaranteed to go to Bush.

However, my vote for Nader does matter. It's very doubtfull he'll carry even one state (but who knows... Ventrura *is* the gov of Minnesota), but my vote will help him gain a higher percentage of the popular vote. That means FEC matching funds next time around, greater awareness of his cause. More visibility in being the political watchdog. More pressure on the Democatic party to go back to being democrats instead of Republicrats. All sorts of goodies.

So... think your vote can't make a difference? It can. Don't throw it away, Vote Nader!

---

-jon (Vote Nader, rah rah rah!)

From Ralph Nader.

"Social Security is a success story providing retirement income to 35 million people, and disability insurance and life insurance to almost all workers. Its sound financial base ensures solvency well into the future. But because politicians and investment firms use scare tactics for their own benefit, millions of Americans believe that Social Security is endangered.

According to the Social Security trustees' projections, if nothing is done to adjust benefits or revenues, the program would still pay every penny of scheduled benefits through 2037. (The trustees assume slow economic growth. If growth is at or near its historic rate, the program can pay all scheduled benefits for over sixty years.) After 2037, while the trust fund would be depleted, the program would still take enough annually to pay benefits in excess of what the average retiree receives today. So much for the widespread idea that baby-boomers may never see any benefits."

It's worth looking into, maybe he is right, the politicians have been using scare tactics to actually make everyone think that there is a "problem". I certainly hope so, I pay $35 into the social security fund every week...