CalJunket |
|
|
Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze. Site feed: caljunket.blogspot.com/atom.xml
AIM Rebecca:
Archives
|
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Also, the thin line between semi-universal value judgments and faith. I hope each reader's reprive from school work is going well. I just got back from Long Beach today after five enjoyable days with my family in my former city. My parents, sisters, father, and grandparents were very generous with their money and creativity this Christmas season, and I really appreciate every gift I got. The unplanned though not surprising hiatus was due, of course, to my time being absorbed by holiday travel and gift preparation. Plus my parents don't have an internet connection at home. Sigh. On a political note, I'd like to yet again commend Dennis Kucinich for not confusing values with religion. He is a spiritual man, and undoubtedly his politics are infused with his conception of faith. But he does not let religion specifically determine his political decisions or messages, nor does he unwittingly use religion as a means of alienating his non-spiritual constituents. While your average Republican (let's take GWB for example) may say things like "This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life" in reference to abortion policy, Dennis likes to keep things non-denominational. Vaguely spiritual, maybe, but never specific. (Take a gander at his holiday message here. Not even a word about Christmas.) I enjoy Dennis' response to this question. (Full interview here.) Q: The current administration is ideologically bent toward Christian fundamentalism. General Boykin's recent comment about a Muslim warlord - "I knew my god was bigger than his" - went un-condemned by the White House. Is religious extremism in the White House causing a problem for America? A: [Long pause and a smile.] I think that we should pray for the people in the White House, or not, depending on our religious disposition. This approach of 'my god is bigger than your god' is, shall we say, unsophisticated, lacking in common sense, and provocative. It is not mindful of the founders' intention that this country achieve a separation of church and state. On the other hand, the founders never wanted us to be separate from spiritual values. It is very unspiritual to claim that anyone has cornered the market on ancient wisdom, on metaphysics, on transcendence, on paths to redemption. So, I think that we should pray for these people. This universalized attitude toward spirituality may put off many if not most Americans; despite the fact that we celebrate diversity, we also as a nation feel defensive (would "proud" be a less abrasive term?) about our collective Christian identity. For as long as I can remember, I personally have never felt any vestige of spirituality in me. I'm of a mind that everything that exists, even emotionally, exists physically in some form. I believe that the desire to be good ("good" as defined by your personal values) and the ability to feel empathy does not necessarily derive from faith or from a soul, but rather from the ability to simply put yourself in the shoes of another man or woman or culture or chimp or cow or any other living thing. To me, pain is bad, and I do what I can to keep pain to a minimum for every creature around me. (Expect maybe my immediate family, who has to deal with my wacky vegan diatribe.) You can call me an Atheist for Jesus, if it helps. You don't need to be a Christian to be kind. Further, Christianity (and Islam, and Buddhism...) is just one set of values. I can't believe that there is any objective standard of right and wrong. To me, murder is wrong, but homosexuality is not. Anyhow, back to politics. I don't think W's faith-based politics are in keeping with the original objectives of this nation, nor the objectives that its people have continued to support until this day. We claim to be the beacon of freedom of religion, yet we let distinctly Judeo-Christian values decide our laws and inform our prejudices. I think Kucinich presents an interesting compromise in acting under a universal faith rather than proposing that the values of a certain religion can accurately represent America. (0) comments Merry Christmas. Also, I hope Rebecca is not dead. Friday, December 19, 2003
I don't want to become the RIL truth squad (it would take a team of dedicated workers to do the job properly) but how off your nut do you have to be to wish that your own home state gets weighed down by crushing debt? Don't they appreciate how great a state this is? They say its because they want to end "Californian socialism". But that just underscores how mean and vindictive they are. They would rather see the Californian people hobbled and unable to act collectively to defend themselves than to admit that California just doesn't buy the political snake oil they're selling. The election of Arnold Schwarzenegger just underscores my point. After being voted out of office the only way the Republicans were able to weasel their way into the governor’s mansion was to hire an actor who doesn't want to "talk about numbers". There's a reason that Republicans like Arnold don't want to talk numbers: if they did, most California voters would put them to the curb. Maybe some districts in Irvine where everyone is rich enough not to need government services this kind of talk will fly. But in the California that regular people live in, it's not going to happen. If they presented their plans honestly and in a straightforward manner "We cut taxes and in exchange we get rid of the following programs" California would favor the Democratic vision nine times out of ten. Even with a slime ball like Grey Davis running the show. That's why McClintock (who, as far as I know, is an honorable man) got shut out. It's just not popular. I look forward eagerly to Schwarzenegger's budget proposal. Let's see if he has the guts to name what programs he wants to cut. My guess: we won't see it. There is a Conservative vision for America that is relevant. It is possible for the state to spend too much and for government bureaucracy to waste taxpayer dollars. It's good to have people looking to make government do more with less. But these extremists don't just want to trim fat, they want to cut the meat down to the bone. Maybe someday the guys at Res Ipsa Loquitur will finally scrape together enough money from their parents to charter that bus to Brazil, where the taxes are low, the government services non-existent, and the state crippled by enormous debt. For me at least, that day can't come soon enough. (0) comments A not so quick reply to bcr boy's post on Homosexuality Tuesday, December 16, 2003
I grew up in the unincorporated community of Rancho San Diego. For those of you not familiar with the phrase “unincorporated community” this means that it’s an area large enough to be a town, with enough people to be a town, but without an actual government. Why? Because sadly, the frontier spirit of democracy and participatory government are nigh dead. Growing up, my most immediate US government representative was one of five San Diego County board of supervisors. Check it out. That’s me in section 2. It never even occurred to me that this was weird. Politics after all, seemed like something that was only important in large cities or on the state and federal level. When a mini-mall opened up on top of what used to be my favorite section of the local creek, it never even occurred to me that I or my neighbors might have had a say in the placement of said mall. So alien was the idea of people actually being able to affect what the government does. Coming to Berkeley then, was like a refreshing blast of cold No-Cal air. Here was a town where everyone seemed to have an opinion on every topic. Even ones they couldn't affect. Sure, the wave of hyper-participation also washed the crazies along with it; With their protest signs and kooky ideas. But in the end, that’s what democracy is all about: Everyone agitating, complaining, working and striving to improve the damn place. I had read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, but I didn’t understand it till I came to Berkeley. His described ruckus, fully attended, town meetings with citizens forming ad hoc committees and associations for every common cause. He described every hick and yokel being familiar with the minutia of local politics and government. He saw a citizenry empowered by knowing that they could trust their government because they kept a close eye on it. Citizen's not afraid to raise the taxes needed to do what they wanted to do. He saw that Democracy is not about efficient government. It’s about inefficient government with an amazing resource: The minds and will of all its citizens. Heart and Oxford is a dangerous intersection. As it already has a full stop light and crosswalk, you’d think that there isn’t much more the city could do. Last time I went however, I found that there were little buckets set by each crosswalk, filled with little orange flags. That way, when you walked across you could wave the flag and not be hit by a car. It’s the dumbest idea I ever heard. But it’s remarkable in that the government is trying. It’s responsive. It’s how American cities used to be. And it’s how they all should be again. (0) comments |
I hate finals. I hate writing essays that I don't want to write. I hate having to defer my desire to bake cookies and crochet wall tapestries so that I can instead pretend to know something about postmodern photography for eight pages.
But I love Lord of the Rings. See you in Dublin (CA) tomorrow night.
(0) comments
Thursday, December 11, 2003
I've got some beef with Ted Koppel
First, I hope all my readers are finding this finals season agreeable to their health and happiness. Per my own personal philosophy, I've adopted the "Study Schmudy" attitude that has served me so well for the last seven years. But with 15 pages of writing and a photo book (in addition to my lone timed final) due this year, I've been keeping busy. Not to mention all the painting, crocheting, and baking I need to complete for Christmas gifts. In short, sorry for neglecting my blogging duties.
If you didn't catch it the first time around, I rebeccommend that you watch the most recent Democratic presidential debate on C-SPAN.org. (Find the link on the homepage that says "Democratic Presidential Debate" from 12/9/03 or 12/10/03.) It's 90 minutes long, but it'll give you an excuse to stop studying for a little while and still feel intellectual. My problem is that the first third of the debate, as mediated by Ted Koppel and his hair, is spent almost entirely discussing polls and Gore's endorsement of Dean. Koppel insists upon making Gore's endorsement an issue for all nine candidates, even though only a few (Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman) appear to care. Further, he presses the four "non-serious" candidates (Braun, Sharpton, Edwards, and Kucinich) about their low rankings in the polls.
Skip through the video to listen to Dennis' response to these proddings. He tells Ted what for.
(0) comments
Sunday, December 07, 2003
The Moral Hazard of Universal Health Care
Howard Dean and other Democrats have suggested the United States should work toward adopting a universal health care plan. This is a bad idea. As Republicans have warned us repeatedly, if there were no monetary repercussions to getting sick, people would be tempted to get sick all the time, just for fun.
Everyone understands that people love money. And even a child can grasp that if you make people pay for a service, they will ration their use of that service. This is simple common sense. But clear eyed conservative realists understand even more: Making people pay for services is bar none, always the best way to ration those services. It doesn’t matter if every other industrialized country in the world has decided otherwise. In the entirety of God’s creation, there cannot be conceived any kind of service, good, or tangible object which is not best distributed with this system. Except for national defense of course, pure capitalism must reign.
…Or agriculture, since we need our own supply of corn in case we declare war on the rest of the world.
Furthermore, this knowledge does not need to be demonstrated by fact. It is so fundamentally true that in the odd case that data seems to contradict it, like how the US spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country ($4270 per person vs. $2000 in 1998) and that it has a larger percentage uninsured than any other industrialized country (18% also in ’98), those facts must be suspect. After all, it could be that the remaining 82% of Americans are enjoying their healthcare 350% more than the average Canadian. Only the keen and perceptive eyes of a Republican leader can see through such distractions.
Lastly, let us understand that there can be no middle ground. We cannot say that, since we do not want the poor dying in front of hospitals, we will admit anyone if they will die otherwise. This is foolishness. Universal health care would be cheaper than having the poor wait till their ailments were critical and costly, so this kind of thinking is a priori wrong. No, Republicans understand that the potential damage done to poor person’s character is far more serious than anything that could possibly be going on in their spleen.
So next time someone suggests that or current health system needs to be changed, take a good long look at them. This is not a serious person. Serious people understand that life is ugly. Serious people understand that those born rich, who have never worked a day in their lives, (like Steve Forbes of George W. Bush) deserve medical attention far more than people who sweat 40 hours a week picking fruit in the hot sun. Serious people know that if someone were to go around curing the sick and the lame, everyone would go out and get Leprosy.
(0) comments
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Oh Ralph. Will you ever not lose?
Poor Ralph Nader, the Linux of politics. I'd be shocked if he came out victorious in a game of checkers. He loses more than just elections. He also gets beat up by 97.3% of this nation's voters and pundits at every opportunity. This week, his publicist announced that the Ralph Man is starting to raise money to start thinking about considering running for the White House next year. (Full article here, via Paul Bruno via Kevin Drumm, but you hafta register and activate your account with your email and give out your address. Way to be a pain in the ass, LA Times. Pfffttt.)
In short, Dems who feel Nader "robbed" the election from Al are yet again devising unflattering terms and vitriol to the Man in Gray. They fear once more that he will prevent a Democratic victory by giving uber-liberals an alternative to Dean/Kerry/Clark/Gephart/InsertInoffensiveDemocraticCandidateHere in November. The phrase "handing Bush a victory" is undoubtedly waiting in the bullpin along with the cute monikers "thief" and "spoiler" and "stupid Green poopy pants."
I'm registered Green, I've voted Green at every opportunity, and I've even given $11 to the party during my lifetime, so my personal insight into the matter may be appreciated here.
First, I don't buy the Green argument that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Democrats, or at least certain ones, have proven to be just as nefarious as our friends at the GOP at accepting lobby money, supporting war, destroying Welfare, supporting vouchers, supporting the death penalty, not standing up for gay rights, etc. But the good portion of Democrats only participate in these un-liberal tactics in a watered-down form (accepting less lobby money; supporting war, then changing their minds; supporting "civil unions;" etc.). And some Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich, refuse to water down a thing. I think the current House and Senate Dems have been decidedly aquiescent to Bush's Hate Machine. I can only attribute this trend to the desire for reelection in an increasingly conservative environment.
But back to Nader. No, the average Dem is not just as bad as the average GOPpy. I can respectfully disagree with Ralph on that one, and I'm sure he won't harbor any hard feelings. He's cool like that.
But back to Nader. Nobody can make you vote for Nader. Nobody in Florida was forced to vote for Nader. Those voters could have cast their ballots for Gore or Bush or Buchanan (ha ha) if they had so chosen. So the idea of Nader "stealing" votes is ridiculous. Would those Nader voters have voted for Gore had Nader not run? Probably. Some of them wouldn't have voted at all, but the vast vast vast majority of them would have probably voted Democratic in 2000, and Gore would be in the White House right now. (If Pat Buchanan hadn't run, Bush would have been elected without any controversy at all.) So why not "blame" the voters instead of casting Ralph Nader as a hateful jerkface who hates Democrats and is a big jerk and wants to make life Hell for liberals? If Nader were really that persuasive a public figure, he'd have gotten enough votes to be in the debates.
But back to Nader. (Boy, if I got a nickel for every time I used the word "Nader" in this damn post...) I personally don't think a Nader presidential campaign will accomplish anything this upcoming election, except to engender a little more bitterness all around, and to give disgruntled liberals like myself who live in states that are so far Democratic or so far Republican that the Green vote won't matter thanks to the asonine Electoral College someone for whom to vote in good faith. I also believe that a strongish third party will help keep the two big parties on their toes.
Having Bush around for another four years will be tenfold more destrucive to this nation and this planet than will having a three-quarter-assed liberal like Gephart leading the Free World. The chances of another Bush term are increased if Nader runs. But when it comes down to it, a Democrat victory is in the hands of the Democrats and in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of one skinny unenigmatic man with a lazy eye.
(0) comments
ITEM!!!
ASUC Apple Senator Paul La Fata spotted eating alone at Gypsy's at 5:48pm. La Fata was seen sprinkling parmesean onto his unidentified entree. Several weeks ago, the Senator was also seen in line at CUBS, the University credit union located on Lower Sproul. On both occasions, he was wearing his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to several conclusions: First, that Republicans tuck their shirts in. Further, they enjoy Italian food from local eateries. Lastly, they support non-profit banking systems.
These conclusions happen to be uncorraborated by the actions of the other Republican whom I know personally, namely a Mr. Hovannes A. (I've not included his last name for the sake of his anonymity. And I can't spell the dude's last name.) Though I'm uncertain of his eating preferences, previously obtained intelligence would lead me to believe that he uses a commercial bank. Also, I've never seen him with his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to one conclusion: You just can't trust a Republican. They always try to keep you guessing.
(0) comments
First, I hope all my readers are finding this finals season agreeable to their health and happiness. Per my own personal philosophy, I've adopted the "Study Schmudy" attitude that has served me so well for the last seven years. But with 15 pages of writing and a photo book (in addition to my lone timed final) due this year, I've been keeping busy. Not to mention all the painting, crocheting, and baking I need to complete for Christmas gifts. In short, sorry for neglecting my blogging duties.
If you didn't catch it the first time around, I rebeccommend that you watch the most recent Democratic presidential debate on C-SPAN.org. (Find the link on the homepage that says "Democratic Presidential Debate" from 12/9/03 or 12/10/03.) It's 90 minutes long, but it'll give you an excuse to stop studying for a little while and still feel intellectual. My problem is that the first third of the debate, as mediated by Ted Koppel and his hair, is spent almost entirely discussing polls and Gore's endorsement of Dean. Koppel insists upon making Gore's endorsement an issue for all nine candidates, even though only a few (Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman) appear to care. Further, he presses the four "non-serious" candidates (Braun, Sharpton, Edwards, and Kucinich) about their low rankings in the polls.
Skip through the video to listen to Dennis' response to these proddings. He tells Ted what for.
(0) comments
The Moral Hazard of Universal Health Care
Howard Dean and other Democrats have suggested the United States should work toward adopting a universal health care plan. This is a bad idea. As Republicans have warned us repeatedly, if there were no monetary repercussions to getting sick, people would be tempted to get sick all the time, just for fun.
Everyone understands that people love money. And even a child can grasp that if you make people pay for a service, they will ration their use of that service. This is simple common sense. But clear eyed conservative realists understand even more: Making people pay for services is bar none, always the best way to ration those services. It doesn’t matter if every other industrialized country in the world has decided otherwise. In the entirety of God’s creation, there cannot be conceived any kind of service, good, or tangible object which is not best distributed with this system. Except for national defense of course, pure capitalism must reign.
…Or agriculture, since we need our own supply of corn in case we declare war on the rest of the world.
Furthermore, this knowledge does not need to be demonstrated by fact. It is so fundamentally true that in the odd case that data seems to contradict it, like how the US spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country ($4270 per person vs. $2000 in 1998) and that it has a larger percentage uninsured than any other industrialized country (18% also in ’98), those facts must be suspect. After all, it could be that the remaining 82% of Americans are enjoying their healthcare 350% more than the average Canadian. Only the keen and perceptive eyes of a Republican leader can see through such distractions.
Lastly, let us understand that there can be no middle ground. We cannot say that, since we do not want the poor dying in front of hospitals, we will admit anyone if they will die otherwise. This is foolishness. Universal health care would be cheaper than having the poor wait till their ailments were critical and costly, so this kind of thinking is a priori wrong. No, Republicans understand that the potential damage done to poor person’s character is far more serious than anything that could possibly be going on in their spleen.
So next time someone suggests that or current health system needs to be changed, take a good long look at them. This is not a serious person. Serious people understand that life is ugly. Serious people understand that those born rich, who have never worked a day in their lives, (like Steve Forbes of George W. Bush) deserve medical attention far more than people who sweat 40 hours a week picking fruit in the hot sun. Serious people know that if someone were to go around curing the sick and the lame, everyone would go out and get Leprosy.
(0) comments
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Oh Ralph. Will you ever not lose?
Poor Ralph Nader, the Linux of politics. I'd be shocked if he came out victorious in a game of checkers. He loses more than just elections. He also gets beat up by 97.3% of this nation's voters and pundits at every opportunity. This week, his publicist announced that the Ralph Man is starting to raise money to start thinking about considering running for the White House next year. (Full article here, via Paul Bruno via Kevin Drumm, but you hafta register and activate your account with your email and give out your address. Way to be a pain in the ass, LA Times. Pfffttt.)
In short, Dems who feel Nader "robbed" the election from Al are yet again devising unflattering terms and vitriol to the Man in Gray. They fear once more that he will prevent a Democratic victory by giving uber-liberals an alternative to Dean/Kerry/Clark/Gephart/InsertInoffensiveDemocraticCandidateHere in November. The phrase "handing Bush a victory" is undoubtedly waiting in the bullpin along with the cute monikers "thief" and "spoiler" and "stupid Green poopy pants."
I'm registered Green, I've voted Green at every opportunity, and I've even given $11 to the party during my lifetime, so my personal insight into the matter may be appreciated here.
First, I don't buy the Green argument that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Democrats, or at least certain ones, have proven to be just as nefarious as our friends at the GOP at accepting lobby money, supporting war, destroying Welfare, supporting vouchers, supporting the death penalty, not standing up for gay rights, etc. But the good portion of Democrats only participate in these un-liberal tactics in a watered-down form (accepting less lobby money; supporting war, then changing their minds; supporting "civil unions;" etc.). And some Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich, refuse to water down a thing. I think the current House and Senate Dems have been decidedly aquiescent to Bush's Hate Machine. I can only attribute this trend to the desire for reelection in an increasingly conservative environment.
But back to Nader. No, the average Dem is not just as bad as the average GOPpy. I can respectfully disagree with Ralph on that one, and I'm sure he won't harbor any hard feelings. He's cool like that.
But back to Nader. Nobody can make you vote for Nader. Nobody in Florida was forced to vote for Nader. Those voters could have cast their ballots for Gore or Bush or Buchanan (ha ha) if they had so chosen. So the idea of Nader "stealing" votes is ridiculous. Would those Nader voters have voted for Gore had Nader not run? Probably. Some of them wouldn't have voted at all, but the vast vast vast majority of them would have probably voted Democratic in 2000, and Gore would be in the White House right now. (If Pat Buchanan hadn't run, Bush would have been elected without any controversy at all.) So why not "blame" the voters instead of casting Ralph Nader as a hateful jerkface who hates Democrats and is a big jerk and wants to make life Hell for liberals? If Nader were really that persuasive a public figure, he'd have gotten enough votes to be in the debates.
But back to Nader. (Boy, if I got a nickel for every time I used the word "Nader" in this damn post...) I personally don't think a Nader presidential campaign will accomplish anything this upcoming election, except to engender a little more bitterness all around, and to give disgruntled liberals like myself who live in states that are so far Democratic or so far Republican that the Green vote won't matter thanks to the asonine Electoral College someone for whom to vote in good faith. I also believe that a strongish third party will help keep the two big parties on their toes.
Having Bush around for another four years will be tenfold more destrucive to this nation and this planet than will having a three-quarter-assed liberal like Gephart leading the Free World. The chances of another Bush term are increased if Nader runs. But when it comes down to it, a Democrat victory is in the hands of the Democrats and in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of one skinny unenigmatic man with a lazy eye.
(0) comments
ITEM!!!
ASUC Apple Senator Paul La Fata spotted eating alone at Gypsy's at 5:48pm. La Fata was seen sprinkling parmesean onto his unidentified entree. Several weeks ago, the Senator was also seen in line at CUBS, the University credit union located on Lower Sproul. On both occasions, he was wearing his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to several conclusions: First, that Republicans tuck their shirts in. Further, they enjoy Italian food from local eateries. Lastly, they support non-profit banking systems.
These conclusions happen to be uncorraborated by the actions of the other Republican whom I know personally, namely a Mr. Hovannes A. (I've not included his last name for the sake of his anonymity. And I can't spell the dude's last name.) Though I'm uncertain of his eating preferences, previously obtained intelligence would lead me to believe that he uses a commercial bank. Also, I've never seen him with his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to one conclusion: You just can't trust a Republican. They always try to keep you guessing.
(0) comments
Poor Ralph Nader, the Linux of politics. I'd be shocked if he came out victorious in a game of checkers. He loses more than just elections. He also gets beat up by 97.3% of this nation's voters and pundits at every opportunity. This week, his publicist announced that the Ralph Man is starting to raise money to start thinking about considering running for the White House next year. (Full article here, via Paul Bruno via Kevin Drumm, but you hafta register and activate your account with your email and give out your address. Way to be a pain in the ass, LA Times. Pfffttt.)
In short, Dems who feel Nader "robbed" the election from Al are yet again devising unflattering terms and vitriol to the Man in Gray. They fear once more that he will prevent a Democratic victory by giving uber-liberals an alternative to Dean/Kerry/Clark/Gephart/InsertInoffensiveDemocraticCandidateHere in November. The phrase "handing Bush a victory" is undoubtedly waiting in the bullpin along with the cute monikers "thief" and "spoiler" and "stupid Green poopy pants."
I'm registered Green, I've voted Green at every opportunity, and I've even given $11 to the party during my lifetime, so my personal insight into the matter may be appreciated here.
First, I don't buy the Green argument that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Democrats, or at least certain ones, have proven to be just as nefarious as our friends at the GOP at accepting lobby money, supporting war, destroying Welfare, supporting vouchers, supporting the death penalty, not standing up for gay rights, etc. But the good portion of Democrats only participate in these un-liberal tactics in a watered-down form (accepting less lobby money; supporting war, then changing their minds; supporting "civil unions;" etc.). And some Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich, refuse to water down a thing. I think the current House and Senate Dems have been decidedly aquiescent to Bush's Hate Machine. I can only attribute this trend to the desire for reelection in an increasingly conservative environment.
But back to Nader. No, the average Dem is not just as bad as the average GOPpy. I can respectfully disagree with Ralph on that one, and I'm sure he won't harbor any hard feelings. He's cool like that.
But back to Nader. Nobody can make you vote for Nader. Nobody in Florida was forced to vote for Nader. Those voters could have cast their ballots for Gore or Bush or Buchanan (ha ha) if they had so chosen. So the idea of Nader "stealing" votes is ridiculous. Would those Nader voters have voted for Gore had Nader not run? Probably. Some of them wouldn't have voted at all, but the vast vast vast majority of them would have probably voted Democratic in 2000, and Gore would be in the White House right now. (If Pat Buchanan hadn't run, Bush would have been elected without any controversy at all.) So why not "blame" the voters instead of casting Ralph Nader as a hateful jerkface who hates Democrats and is a big jerk and wants to make life Hell for liberals? If Nader were really that persuasive a public figure, he'd have gotten enough votes to be in the debates.
But back to Nader. (Boy, if I got a nickel for every time I used the word "Nader" in this damn post...) I personally don't think a Nader presidential campaign will accomplish anything this upcoming election, except to engender a little more bitterness all around, and to give disgruntled liberals like myself who live in states that are so far Democratic or so far Republican that the Green vote won't matter thanks to the asonine Electoral College someone for whom to vote in good faith. I also believe that a strongish third party will help keep the two big parties on their toes.
Having Bush around for another four years will be tenfold more destrucive to this nation and this planet than will having a three-quarter-assed liberal like Gephart leading the Free World. The chances of another Bush term are increased if Nader runs. But when it comes down to it, a Democrat victory is in the hands of the Democrats and in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of one skinny unenigmatic man with a lazy eye.
(0) comments
ITEM!!!
ASUC Apple Senator Paul La Fata spotted eating alone at Gypsy's at 5:48pm. La Fata was seen sprinkling parmesean onto his unidentified entree. Several weeks ago, the Senator was also seen in line at CUBS, the University credit union located on Lower Sproul. On both occasions, he was wearing his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to several conclusions: First, that Republicans tuck their shirts in. Further, they enjoy Italian food from local eateries. Lastly, they support non-profit banking systems.
These conclusions happen to be uncorraborated by the actions of the other Republican whom I know personally, namely a Mr. Hovannes A. (I've not included his last name for the sake of his anonymity. And I can't spell the dude's last name.) Though I'm uncertain of his eating preferences, previously obtained intelligence would lead me to believe that he uses a commercial bank. Also, I've never seen him with his shirt tucked in.
This can only lead me to one conclusion: You just can't trust a Republican. They always try to keep you guessing.
(0) comments