portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Endorsement for Truth

Rant for Truth
I saw Nader when he was in Eugene a few nights ago. Earlier that day I went to the Bijou and saw "Hijacking Catastrophe" a film that shows how the Bush Corporation instilled (and continues to instill) fear as a way of pushing their agenda so that they could get their blank check and the jingoistic fervor of the aMErican people to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq.

We all know it's about oil, but as the film reminds us, it's not just about oil. It's also a way to gain complete control over the rest of the world, and soon to be with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, a way to wield control right here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

As the credits for the film were rolling a few fervored Democrats in the audience yelled out to go to a table set up in the back of the theatre. So, I took the opportunity and said "Nader is in town tonight", to which a couple of boos and hisses were generated. A few seconds later a woman rushed towards me and with the sound of contempt said "Who said that Nader is in town tonight"? I waved and said "I did". She grabbed onto my hand, as if to shake it, and started proselytizing to me about Kerry. She told me to go see the film of him coming back from Vietnam, where 30 years ago this man became an anti-war activist. I told her "that was 30 years ago". I also reminded her that Kerry is bought and paid for by the corporations.

All the while, she was holding onto my hand, squeezing it with a good deal of pressure, I'm sure as a way to try and impress upon me her opinion. You should have seen this woman's eyes! Talk about fundamental zeal! All I said was "Nader is in town tonight", a fyi kind of thing and this woman came unglued. Apparently she was not paying very close attention to the film when it talked about the differences between the Republican and the Democratic party, which are basically nil when it comes right down to it, which Nader also laid out for his captivated audience at the McDonald Theatre that night.

Why did Nader bother coming to Eugene anyway; a write in vote for him won't even be counted, thanks to the Democrats and specifically to Secretary of State Bill Bradbury who was responsible for threatening and then defrauding Nader's campaign by throwing out over 3000 votes because of some absurd "technical" errors. Nader's a dangerous man you know; truth is always a threat to deception.

I'd never seen Nader speak before. He's about as down to earth as they come. Absent is a glinting smile and the 5000 dollar suit. In fact, he was wearing a suit jacket with crumpled pockets and a pair of slacks. Nader can't be bought. I didn't see him smile at all (what's to smile about when talking about the Corporate Supremacists") but he did raise some ruckus a few times, like when he told us that Bush is a giant corporation masquerading as a human being in the White House.

From what I heard, he's clearly a President for the People. Never mind that he will not be elected. Quoting the late political activist Eugene Debs, Nader said that you "lose and fight, lose and fight, lose and fight until you win!" Further quoting Debs he said "I'd rather vote for a candidate I believe in that loses than vote for a candidate I don't believe in that wins".

This rant is not an endorsement for Nader, it's an endorsement for Truth, that Truth that lies buried beneath the built over rubble at ground zero, the Truth that emerging GI's in Iraq are speaking out about, the Truth about Kerry and his real views on Waging War against Iraq, the Forests, and the Poor. Whomever can rise up and deliver the Truth gets my vote, nothing less.

I'll not be joining the liberal masses to vote for, as Nader says, "the least worst". Not that I'm a "liberal"; I'd be what they like to label "radical". Let me ask, what's radical about wanting equal rights for all living beings, for wanting to protect the planet, for wanting to put an end to warring and controlling, corporate power, and profits over people? That's not radical, its fucking rational.

Nader has a following despite the many democrats who despise him for "stealing the election from Gore". It amazes me no matter how many times I am having a conversation with a group of people (who by this time all know that Bush was not elected president), say that Nader was the reason Gore was not elected. It's really simple. Gore won the election. Bush lost the election. Bush and his cohorts hijacked the presidency and set up camp in the White House. It was a coup! Nader had nothing to do with that.

The problem is that so many people are completely brainwashed. In the film Hijacking Catastrophe they talk about how the media sells the lie that the public so willingly swallows. People would have to be "decoded from the Bush propaganda" before they could hear the Truth.

But there is that twisted faction of aMErica that gets off on all of this madness. One of the speakers in the film, I think it was the author of the "Bush Dyslexicon" said that there are some people that get a "vicarious pleasure" from what is happening to Iraqi's. Maybe if they saw some of the photos of Iraqi children with their limbs blown off or of their bodies burnt to the bone - horrific images that the media has been banned to show - they would get a sobering taste of what War is like (versus the sterilized version that the nightly news feeds them), and wake the fuck up!

The 2004 Nader t-shirt is black with a liberty bell on the front with the word "Spoiler". There is a quote on the back that reads "Revolutionaries always spoil corrupt systems". Who is going to rise up against this corruption and revolt with me and Nader?
I don't know who I'm going to vote for ... 12.Oct.2004 18:55

Dance

... maybe Bush, maybe Cobb, maybe Badnarik. (I decided some time ago that Nader's disinterest in the Green's nomination, complicated by his subsequent pursuit of their "endorsement" (?!?), removed him from my serious consideration.)

I haven't absolutely ruled out voting for Kerry, but I've set an unrealistic, virtually impossible bar for him: he'd have to say something publicly and fairly clear and quotable, such as, "We need to seriously look at Instant Runoff Voting as a means of making our system of democracy real and secure." I might be persuaded merely by a sincere-appearing, respectful request by the candidate for voters outside the two parties to vote for him. But he's just not going to say anything like that in a setting that is covered widely by the media before the election. (And he's certainly not going to say or act on IRV after the election.)

John Kerry said in an interview on TV a couple of months ago, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." That was the last straw for me. His party had been playing dirty (and "stupid", or complicit with Republicans) since, at least, Election Day, 2000. Kerry's campaign has continued these tactics. I had seriously considered voting for him, but was waiting to see how things develop (including how polls look) up to the election.

But I will not vote for someone whose main campaign promise to me is a threat. (Kerry is a bit more subdued in HIS threat: Cheney says if you elect Kerry, we'll be attacked. Kerry says if you don't vote for me, CORRECTION Kerry says if you vote for your first choice you'll be helping the evil fascists to win (except he won't even call them fascists to the "radicals" that he wants to manipulate into voting for him, or at least into NOT VOTING for an alternative that would undermine his "Democratic" Party.)

I can't necessarily fault those who vote for Kerry over Bush. But SOMEONE HAS TO STAND UP AND SAY, "No," when the "only hope" of removing a despot from office 1)regards the destruction of a challenge to the two-party system as a HIGHER PRIORITY than the removal of the despot, and he and his surrogates 1) use lies, disrespect, and intimidation to remove alternative choices, rather than going to potential allies and their organizations and leaders and asking for their support.

The Congressional Democrats, including John Kerry, did nothing to "secure" elections except to put them in the hands of GOP manufacturers of voting machine by supporting the Republicans' legislation requiring the states to move towards implementation of unverifiable electronic voting machines. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Kerry, in saying, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", is merely acknowledging how much their "reform" has increased the prospects of misapplication and miscounting of ballots. In THAT case, the best hope of NOT having my vote count for Bush (and Kerry and I agree, purportedly, that that is, first and foremost, the goal) is to VOTE FOR BUSH.