[Am-info] Re: Nader Vote (Matthew Elvey)

[Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.]

>Re: Nader Vote (Matthew Elvey)
>Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 13:02:11 -0800
>From: Matthew Elvey <elvey@pacbell.net>

Nothing you or Eliza Sproat have said negates the statements in my 
post nor the ultimate price that voting for Nader in this election
may represent - specifically as it relates to the DOJ vs MS case.
And that was the point I was making 'on topic'.

You state;
>I want to overthrow that ['DUOPOLY'] system with my vote.

You may want to, but there is zero probability that you will reach your
goal in this election. On the contrary, there is a great probability
that such votes could be key to a marginal Bush victory. And the shift
in power a Bush win could create with a republican majority retained in
congress is a fundamental threat to any chance you have to make any 
real difference within 'the system' in your lifetime - specifically 
with respect to the Microsoft case, privacy issues, monopoly power, and
nearly any legitimate topic for discussion on this list. The law and 
the technical underpinnings will become even less relevant to the 
outcome than they are now. The politics of money will see to that.
I object to your insistence that it is legitimate to make us ALL pay 
so high a price for your protest vote, and I object to the fact 
that Nader seems to hold the same view. 

You have every right to vote as you wish. If you desire a Bush victory,
then either a Bush or Nader vote seems reasonable. But don't tell me 
I'm wrong for pointing out the price you and Nader will extract from 
the 95% of us who will not benefit from a Bush victory, if indeed the 
margin of that Bush victory is smaller than the votes cast for Nader.
Certainly not everyone who might vote for Nader would otherwise vote
for Gore (you are a case in point). But I can't imagine the 
psychoactive cocktail one would have to swallow to change one's vote 
from Nader to Bush or Bush to Nader. Therefore, the larger the Nader 
vote, the more likely it is extracted from the Gore vote.
Both Bush and Gore have attempted to project a more centrist position
for this campaign. However, the post election return to their 
respective true colors is a hard right for Bush and a soft left for 
Gore. The history - the REAL history, not the campaign spin - of each
of them is sufficient to divine their future efforts. Look to the 
circle of advisors each has gathered 'round them, or the source and sum
of the money being poured into this race and the differences are even 
more obvious. If I hear one more "there's no real difference between 
them" I think I will projectile vomit into the source of that 
statement. It reflects an ignorance that is astounding, be it genetic
or environmental/experiential in origin. Or a cold conniving lie.
The 'point' of this discussion is far larger than Microsoft's business
practices. However, it underlies all of this list's concerns. If Bush 
insures the perpetuation of the 'Microsoft Way' (as he has promised), 
we will never reclaim the legitimate definition and relevance of 
technical innovation.

But as we are all well aware of the facts, the only things left to 
'discuss' are our conclusions and their basis. This concludes
my contribution.
 
Glenn
-- 
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota
Neuroscience Department
Room 6-145 Jackson Hall
321 Church St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455

(612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009 
glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu
absent-minded_professor@bigfoot.com

The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that 
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
~ Bertrand Russell
Which is the only plausible explanation for Bush showing 
a lead in the polls.
~ Glenn T. Livezey  11/3/00