[Am-info] Re: Global Resistance at home

Mitch Stone mitch@accidentalexpert.com
Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:20:19 -0800


--- From a message sent by Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. on 11/6/01 7:15 AM ---

>It was indeed Ralph Nader who began this list by organizing a public
>debate of Microsoft's business practices. I signed on for information
>regarding that 3 day forum and remained on what became the AM-INFO
>(Appraising Microsoft-Information) list. We owe a great debt to his
>organization for raising this debate to a level where the DOJ could
>no longer ignore their duty. Unfortunately, the same Ralph Nader
>chose to stick to his own political campaign, draining votes in an
>election he knew he could not have a snow ball's chance in hell of
>winning, and thus contributed to the selection of George Bush. Now he
>denies any responsibility for George's rapid reversal of all past and 
>present efforts to do the right thing with regard to consumers, the 
>environment, the economy, war and peace, foreign and domestic affairs 
>of any kind, you name it - George the Destroyer has undone peace and 
>prosperity to maximise his handlers profits. And the DOJ/Microsoft 
>'settlement' is just another example of the "integrity" these bastards
>have "returned to the WhiteHouse". I still don't know why anyone not
>directly benefitting from his Reverse-Robinhood policies (and that is
>a MAXIMUM of 5% of the populace) would ever support George Bush, 
>directly or indirectly.
> 
>I don't know if Mr. Nader has enough of his own integrity left to do
>something positive in this case. But it sure wouldn't hurt for him to
>try.

I'm going to resist this characterization, which became very popular 
among Democrats last year. Neither Nader nor anyone else is required to 
make an excuse for running for public office, or ask permission from the 
major parties, or consult with them with respect to campaign tactics. His 
presidential run does not reflect on his "integrity." Even if he did 
serve as a spoiler, this does not delegitimize his effort. Last I 
checked, the two-party system was not an article of the Constitution.

 Mitch Stone  
 mitch@accidentalexpert.com