Food prices are going up. Gas prices are going up. Homes are foreclosing. Health care is becoming more and more of a staggering cost for Americans. Jobs aren't paying a living wage and unionizing is becoming next to impossible. And it's that time again---That time when the House and Senate proves its good for nothingness and votes for more funding for an illegal war of aggression with no end in sight---a war that is looting the U.S. treasury, killing off thousands of young people, and impoverishing tens of thousands of Americans whose loved ones are going off to war in a "poverty draft".
Neither Obama nor Clinton want to talk about fixing these problems with no nonsense solutions. All their solutions involve being politically safe or "politically correct" and involve not upsetting their corporate financiers of their campaigns.
Nader proposes to adopt single payer health insurance (which Michael Moore's film Sicko helped promote and which unfortunately was stopped from being supported by Obama or Clinton when AARP stepped in to prevent that from happening in Iowa; Dennis Kucinich was kept out of events so that he could not promote single-payer health care as part of his campaign for president). This would significantly fix the health care problem for Americans and more and more physicians and doctors in America support this system.
Nader proposes to cut the huge bloated military budget. This would let money go to programs that aren't getting money. Just go to the American Friends Service Committee website. You'll see what money you could be getting if we weren't waging a war without end or allowing candidates to perpetuate Bush's "War on Terrorism." Don't forget that neither Obama nor Hillary wish to end the phony "war on terrorism."
While Obama and Clinton would like to make food prices go up and prop up new industries by supporting biofuels or ethanol as the best alternative to oil dependency, Nader has the best no nonsense solution: Solar energy first. And while the other two will consider nuclear power, Nader knows the dangers and says no. He knows wind and solar can set us on the right path to sustainability.
Nader proposes a crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare. He proposes repealing the Taft-Hartley anti-union law and NAFTA. And he proposes ending corporate personhood.
The nightmares of this Bush administration have occurred and hurt your friends and family that have decided to not vote Republican anymore because Democrats are spineless on corporate crime, corporate welfare, support Taft-Hartley and NAFTA,and see no problem with corporations trying to claim the rights of citizens.
To paraphrase Nader, corporations are not people. They don't eat, sleep, vote, or die in Iraq.
So, you've got a "grudge" with Nader for "helping" Bush win in 2000 and 2004. So, you wish to ignore the facts and believe Nader's "arrogance" and "ego" wronged you and millions of other Americans. Fine. But let me ask you a few questions...
1) Do you believe in voting your interest? And if you do, what do you want? Lower gas prices, lower food prices, lower health care costs, a living wage, job security (knowing you won't be laid off or outsourced as a result of outsourcing or corporate crime), etc.?
2) Do you believe Obama or Clinton offer you these lower prices and a living wage and a policy that will keep your job safe from NAFTA or corporate crime/welfare/personhood? Or do you believe Nader's platform is your best bet if you seriously hope to improve your life in the next year or two?
Kevin Gosztola goes to Columbia College in Chicago where he is studying film. He hopes to become a documentary filmmaker. He is currently working as a production assistant on a documentary called "Seriously Green" which traces the development of the Green Party throughout the 2008 election. He has a passion for journalism and writes articles or press releases in his spare time. He is a Nader/Gonzalez supporter in this election but welcomes anyone who wishes to have an open discussion on why he should support somebody else. Kevin Gosztola is also a student activist who believes in questioning the way America's systems work(its electoral system, its military-industrial complex, its foreign policy of American exceptionalism, its media which has become the Fourth Branch of government,etc.)
His ambitions have him currently organizing and raising money for a Chicago Conference for Media Reform in April or May of 2009. It will be organized by college students to promote youth involvement in media reform and justice. Those interested in attending or helping with the organization of the program should contact him.
Aside from the fantasy of Ralph Nader having any chance at the Presidency, equally unrealistic is your position that was this to actually happen, he would wield his newly acquired magical powers, and exorcise all of the problems which beset this country.
Disregard of facts, construction of completely unsupported conclusions, and use of emotional language, is antithetical to your goals of returning “the good life” to America.
You write of the “phony war on terrorism.” Is it really your contention that we should completely withdraw our troops from Afghanistan? Would the immediate reconstitution of the Taliban and Al Qaeda somehow magically be prevented. Or perhaps you are saying that even if it did occur, their presence there and in Pakistan would present no threat to the region, or the United States?
True, some 80% of Americans want us out of Iran. Jut how is this going to occur? Is Patraeus going to be told, “Cease fire. Load up the boats and planes, and send everyone home?” Forget the civil war that will start as the troops begin to leave. Forget the fight for the oil fields as the country is left to fend for itself. Forget the half-billion investment in the new embassy and the rest of the green zone. Forget protecting the thousands of civilian contractors diplomats, and humanitarian workers, struggling to restore some kind of working infrastructure. Has Nader presented a plan for dealing with these issues?
You talk of cutting the “huge bloated military budget.” Broadly, the military budget can be segmented into several areas – Personnel, Procurement, and R&D. where are you going to make your cuts? Inevitably, cuts in the area of personnel will affect veteran’s benefits, medical treatment, and rehabilitation. With thousands of veterans waiting months to get needed treatment for PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and other psychological injuries, is this an area you really want to cut?
Or, perhaps you wish to end the production of those systems which serve to reduce the lethality and injury rates sustained by those in combat. As but one example, much of the existing fleet of F-15 fighters has been grounded, resulting from irreparable metal fatigue, holding high potential for mid-air destruction of these planes. The plan is to replace this aging fleet with the F-135 Joint Strike Fighter, currently being flight tested. Want to cut the budget for this? Of course, there are all those huge companies producing everything used by the military. When you cut their contract budgets, you lay off thousands, if not millions of workers. What do you think is the engine that keeps much of our economy going, if not the defense contractors you hate so much?
Did you forget that the Internet which makes the publication of your thoughts possible, originated with DARPA, that R&D agency of your beloved Department of Defense? You talk of using solar energy to replace the current fossil-fuel plants. You know who is doing the basic work on developing solar thermal, rather than the grossly inefficient costly and area eating solar photovoltaic cells? Turns out that it is the China Energy Group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Guess who funded that lab from it’s beginning as a nuclear weapons lab? You got it, the DoD.
I could go on and on, but if I haven’t made my point by now, there is little more I could say that would further clarify my view. To summarize, there are no simple solutions to extraordinarily complex and interacting problems. Much that you discuss in this, as well as the hundred plus other articles you have written, makes the error of assuming that simply electing your preferred leader in a decision making capacity will put us on the path to solving these problems. Neither this action, nor ascribing blame for these problems will accomplish what you hope to achieve.
by
Sherwin Steffin (14 articles, 21 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 73 comments)
on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 3:14:44 PM
Does not permit me to respond to your remarks right now, but thanks, Sherwin.
I will respond at some point.
In the meantime, I am pursuing an agenda here on my campus that will help students defend their civil liberties and rights on campus and I am also putting together final projects for school.
For clarification, I do not care how likely or unlikely the election of Nader is. I do not carry in my closet a white flag. And so, because I feel like taking a side in this election and dictating the terms for change, I have taken up Nader's candidacy because the terms for change have been poorly defined by Obama, Clinton, and McCain.
Remember---I do not care about what can be done. The facts do not constrain the need to create a reality that produces different facts.
I care about what should be done. Through the should, imagination can take hold of the mind and aid in the development of policies for reenvisioning and rebuilding this withering democracy that has succumbed to so much military and corporate control over the past few decades.
by
Kevin Gosztola (168 articles, 82 quicklinks, 62 diaries, 674 comments)
on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 3:32:08 PM
