Just to clear some things up-- here's a piece a friend of mine wrote to rebut anti-Nader arguments. These address some of the things Brin wrote...
Answers to Seven Anti-Nader Arguments --
Ran Prieur
ranprieur at yahoo.com
"Ralph Nader's candidacy is irresponsible because it will take votes
from Gore."
The Gore campaign is irresponsible for trying to take votes
from Nader! Al Gore is not entitled to and votes. He has to
earn them. Ralph Nader has earned your vote by courageously
serving the public interest for 40 years, and by closely
representing your political views and priorities. Al Gore
demands your vote just because he belongs to the ruling party
and he's better than Bush Jr. We will never get anywhere if we
keep voting for candidates just because they're from the same
parties that everyone voted for last time.
"If you vote for Nader, you're throwing your vote away."
A vote for Nader is the best and only way to use your vote to
strengthen the progressive movement. After the election, the
votes for Gore and Bush will be thrown away and forgotten. But
the votes for Nader will be counted again and again for
years. 5%? 10%? 15%?! The bigger the Nader vote, the more
attention Nader's issues will get from the dominant media,
from decision-makers in government and business, from
political campaigns of the future.
Historically this is the way progressive issues have always
entered the American political system - first by drawing a lot
of votes to fringe parties and candidates, and then, because
of these votes, being adopted by a dominant party.
A vote for Gore is worse than thrown away - it is actively
misused. Every progressive vote for Gore gives Gore the
incentive to ignore progressive issues. We'll vote for him
whatever he does, so he can take our votes for granted - which
he has already done by choosing an especially conservative
running mate.
Every vote for Nader gives Gore and all democrats the
incentive to adopt Nader's positions, or at the very least
give lip service to Nader's issues, which will do enormous
good by bringing these issues into the mass public
consciousness.
"What if Nader costs Gore the election?"
Then Nader and his issues and the Green party will get the
full attention of the dominant media; then this election will
echo through countless future elections where candidates will
court the Nader voters, thinking they need us to win; then,
with Nader or another Green party candidate running in 2004
with federal matching funds, progressive issues will be at the
center of the campaign for months and get exposure that a
billion dollars of advertising couldn't buy.
"The country can't take 4 years of Bush."
Of course it can! We took 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr. and
we're still alive and fighting. We're standing at the end of
several thousand years of almost unchecked abuse of the Earth
and the human spirit. Four years of the small margin by which
Bush seems worse than Gore is trivial.
What the world cannot take is many more years of corporate
rule, which Gore represents as much as Bush. A Gore presidency
is not a victory, just a prettier defeat. We need to stop
negotiating surrenders and start fighting.
Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. A
terrible Bush presidency (or Gore presidency) will only bring
more attention to the value of Nader's perspective. What goes
around comes around. The farther the pendulum swings to the
right, the farther it will swing back to the left.
And don't be so sure Bush would be worse than Gore. No
Republican would have got away with butchering welfare the way
Clinton did. They needed a democrat. Maybe they needed a
democrat to pass NAFTA. Maybe they need Gore for further
abuses of poor people and the environment that we would never
take from a Republican. A wolf in sheep's clothing is more
dangerous than a wolf in the Bush.
"I've read Gore's book Earth in the Balance and I know he really cares
about the environment."
Yes, he does. It doesn't matter! Gore has to do his job. Like
all of us, he has to do what his job requires, regardless of
his personal beliefs. And his job, should he be elected, is to
represent the interests of the giant concentrations of money
that financed his campaign - to turn the Earth, you, me, and
everything living and unliving into an object for commercial
exploitation.
"What about the Supreme Court?"
Indeed, Democrats and Republicans still differ on the cultural
issue opinions of their court appointees. This will change as
the giant concentrations of money that rule the world discover
which court opinions on cultural issues are profitable. But
for now, court appointments are a danger of a Bush
presidency.
Changing the world is not safe or
painless. People before us were beaten and jailed and killed
in protests and strikes to earn what little social and
economic justice we now have. For eight years Clinton and Gore
have been selling these gains out from under us. Are we going
to let this continue for fear of something as tangential as
the appointments of people who interpret laws? We're supposed
to have power to make the laws.
Bush is not running for
dictator. He has to work with the system. And he wouldn't dare
overturn Roe v. Wade or any well-known court-created right,
because his handlers know that the people would rise up and
get an actual law for that right. We would learn to pass laws
instead of relying on interpretations of laws by courts held
hostage by the dominant parties. We would start using our
democracy again instead of just casting a cynical vote every
four years. The last thing the ruling powers want is for us to
get energized and feel our political power.
"Ralph Nader is not qualified to be president."
Of course he is! Nader has been working with the American
political system for decades. For decades he has been getting
actual results. He has been working from the outside not the
inside, but surely you're not suggesting that this
disqualifies a candidate. If only people who are already
working inside the system can work inside the system, then the
system will only get more insulated and inbred and corrupt -
just as it has been doing for many years!
Ralph Nader is an opposition leader. Of course he doesn't have
experience as a governor or senator or vice president. What
qualified Nelson Mandela to be president of South Africa? What
qualified Lech Walesa to be president of Poland? Both became
president only a few years after a time when it was absurd to
think either could be president. Ralph Nader can be President
of the United States.
adzapper is a little program that prevents ads from being loaded-- it turns them into transparent (or solid colored) GIFs. it's similar to Internet Junkbuster...
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clear some things up-- here's a piece a friend of mine wrote to rebut anti-Nader arguments. These address some of the things Brin wrote...
Answers to Seven Anti-Nader Arguments
--
Ran Prieur
ranprieur at yahoo.com
"Ralph Nader's candidacy is irresponsible because it will take votes
from Gore."
The Gore campaign is irresponsible for trying to take votes
from Nader! Al Gore is not entitled to and votes. He has to
earn them. Ralph Nader has earned your vote by courageously
serving the public interest for 40 years, and by closely
representing your political views and priorities. Al Gore
demands your vote just because he belongs to the ruling party
and he's better than Bush Jr. We will never get anywhere if we
keep voting for candidates just because they're from the same
parties that everyone voted for last time.
"If you vote for Nader, you're throwing your vote away."
A vote for Nader is the best and only way to use your vote to
strengthen the progressive movement. After the election, the
votes for Gore and Bush will be thrown away and forgotten. But
the votes for Nader will be counted again and again for
years. 5%? 10%? 15%?! The bigger the Nader vote, the more
attention Nader's issues will get from the dominant media,
from decision-makers in government and business, from
political campaigns of the future.
Historically this is the way progressive issues have always
entered the American political system - first by drawing a lot
of votes to fringe parties and candidates, and then, because
of these votes, being adopted by a dominant party.
A vote for Gore is worse than thrown away - it is actively
misused. Every progressive vote for Gore gives Gore the
incentive to ignore progressive issues. We'll vote for him
whatever he does, so he can take our votes for granted - which
he has already done by choosing an especially conservative
running mate.
Every vote for Nader gives Gore and all democrats the
incentive to adopt Nader's positions, or at the very least
give lip service to Nader's issues, which will do enormous
good by bringing these issues into the mass public
consciousness.
"What if Nader costs Gore the election?"
Then Nader and his issues and the Green party will get the
full attention of the dominant media; then this election will
echo through countless future elections where candidates will
court the Nader voters, thinking they need us to win; then,
with Nader or another Green party candidate running in 2004
with federal matching funds, progressive issues will be at the
center of the campaign for months and get exposure that a
billion dollars of advertising couldn't buy.
"The country can't take 4 years of Bush."
Of course it can! We took 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr. and
we're still alive and fighting. We're standing at the end of
several thousand years of almost unchecked abuse of the Earth
and the human spirit. Four years of the small margin by which
Bush seems worse than Gore is trivial.
What the world cannot take is many more years of corporate
rule, which Gore represents as much as Bush. A Gore presidency
is not a victory, just a prettier defeat. We need to stop
negotiating surrenders and start fighting.
Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. A
terrible Bush presidency (or Gore presidency) will only bring
more attention to the value of Nader's perspective. What goes
around comes around. The farther the pendulum swings to the
right, the farther it will swing back to the left.
And don't be so sure Bush would be worse than Gore. No
Republican would have got away with butchering welfare the way
Clinton did. They needed a democrat. Maybe they needed a
democrat to pass NAFTA. Maybe they need Gore for further
abuses of poor people and the environment that we would never
take from a Republican. A wolf in sheep's clothing is more
dangerous than a wolf in the Bush.
"I've read Gore's book Earth in the Balance and I know he really cares
about the environment."
Yes, he does. It doesn't matter! Gore has to do his job. Like
all of us, he has to do what his job requires, regardless of
his personal beliefs. And his job, should he be elected, is to
represent the interests of the giant concentrations of money
that financed his campaign - to turn the Earth, you, me, and
everything living and unliving into an object for commercial
exploitation.
"What about the Supreme Court?"
Indeed, Democrats and Republicans still differ on the cultural
issue opinions of their court appointees. This will change as
the giant concentrations of money that rule the world discover
which court opinions on cultural issues are profitable. But
for now, court appointments are a danger of a Bush
presidency.
Changing the world is not safe or
painless. People before us were beaten and jailed and killed
in protests and strikes to earn what little social and
economic justice we now have. For eight years Clinton and Gore
have been selling these gains out from under us. Are we going
to let this continue for fear of something as tangential as
the appointments of people who interpret laws? We're supposed
to have power to make the laws.
Bush is not running for
dictator. He has to work with the system. And he wouldn't dare
overturn Roe v. Wade or any well-known court-created right,
because his handlers know that the people would rise up and
get an actual law for that right. We would learn to pass laws
instead of relying on interpretations of laws by courts held
hostage by the dominant parties. We would start using our
democracy again instead of just casting a cynical vote every
four years. The last thing the ruling powers want is for us to
get energized and feel our political power.
"Ralph Nader is not qualified to be president."
Of course he is! Nader has been working with the American
political system for decades. For decades he has been getting
actual results. He has been working from the outside not the
inside, but surely you're not suggesting that this
disqualifies a candidate. If only people who are already
working inside the system can work inside the system, then the
system will only get more insulated and inbred and corrupt -
just as it has been doing for many years!
Ralph Nader is an opposition leader. Of course he doesn't have
experience as a governor or senator or vice president. What
qualified Nelson Mandela to be president of South Africa? What
qualified Lech Walesa to be president of Poland? Both became
president only a few years after a time when it was absurd to
think either could be president. Ralph Nader can be President
of the United States.
adzapper is a little program that prevents ads from being loaded-- it turns them into transparent (or solid colored) GIFs. it's similar to Internet Junkbuster...
http://www.pobox.com/~adamf/adzapper/