hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Happy Halloween - The November 7th Election

John Verin wrote:

> Nader isn't going to win, period, regardless of our ideals. I was going to
> vote for Nader until I realized what really is at stake. I agree, ideally,
> we should vote our consciences, and I also see that ideals must be
> sacrificed in unideal situations, so as to lay ground for the change I wish
> to see.

No, Nader is not not likely to be elected president-- that's not the point.
Nader is running to build a third party presence in the US and to give voice to
a  growing number of American's who are disgusted with both parties compromises
to a corporate agenda. We need to look further down the road than 4 years from

> I invite you to remember that up to 4 Supreme Court justices will be elected
> by the next president. Those justices can have enormous impact on our lives.
> Now, do you want Bush or Gore choosing them?

As for the Supreme Court, the justices are appointed by the president, but they
have to pass the Senate before moving on to the bench. If Gore is elected, that
is no guarantee that the justices he appoints will be liberal. The democrats,
who now encourage us to fear the appointment of conservative justices,
participated in the successful nominations of both Scalia (who was confirmed by
the Senate 98-0-- with two absent republicans) and Thomas (11 democrats joined
the republicans voting for Thomas). The justice who authored the majority
decision in Roe vs. Wade, Harold Blackmun, was appointed by Nixon. See more
in-depth from Alexander Cockburn at:

The possibilities, weighed against the realities of today's corrupt political
realm, don't sway me. Given that the Nader campaign is bringing otherwise
disaffected voters to the poles who are more inclined to vote democratic in
local races (a reality that even Dick Gephart concedes), the dem's have a real
chance to win back control of the house and senate. Yes, I'd be very happy to
see Gore win (with a narrow enough margin to teach him a lesson), a democratic
congress, and Nader at over 5%; but Nader's 5% is my first priority.

> Ultimately, our reality is up to US to create, regardless of who is in the
> White House, AND we should stack the odds in our favor as much as possible.

Amen! I couldn't agree more. I'll weigh the odds of a genuinely progressive
third party over 'new democrats' any day. As many have pointed out, regardless
of who wins the election,  the progressive movement has it's work cut out for
it. The Nader campaign has the real capacity to galvanize a progressive movement
that has been ignored by the powers that be in the democratic party. Politicians
are only inclined to work in our favor when we make them. Social/political
movements that bring people together to challenge the status quo and fight for
the public interest are the most effective way of bringing change. We are
witnessing the birth of such a movement-- how strongly it takes a hold of life
is up to us.

> The risk of Bush winning is, in my judgement, of far greater concern than
> standing by romantic notions of voting one's conscience.

The idea that basing one's vote on one's conscience is somehow wrong seems
ethically short-sided to me. Voting one's conscience is far and away more than a
'romantic notion', despite the fact that our political system needs some basic
reforms (such as instant runoff voting) to make voting one's conscience more
practical. But the reasons to support Nader's campaign-- as I've tried to
articulated above-- go beyond simple-minded, idealistic notions

Thanks for listening. And indeed, the best advice that I can give in all good
conscience is to participate in democracy: get informed, inform others, get
organized, and vote!


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: community_garden-admin@mallorn.com
> > [mailto:community_garden-admin@mallorn.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Webb,
> > Nader 2000
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 3:28 PM
> > To: Honigman, Adam; listserv cg
> > Subject: Re: [cg] Happy Halloween - The November 7th Election
> >
> >
> > Adam and all-
> >
> > I'm surprised it's taken so long for the election to rear it's head
> > here; I've been reluctant to be the one to begin this process, but now
> > that it's started I will enter the fray.
> >
> > I invite you to take a closer look at the issues at stake and the stands
> > of the candidates. Especially, I think it is important to view this
> > campaign within a historical context-- we are told to fear the immediate
> > future, but where will we be in 4 years without a firm foothold on
> > taking back democracy from the corporate interests that have put
> > politics and politicians up for sale to the highest bidder? We have sat
> > through election after election given the choice of lesser evils, how
> > much more evil will the two choices be in four years? We have an
> > opportunity today to begin a new political movement-- this is not a
> > choice to make lightly.
> >
> > A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, it is not a vote for Bush. (See a
> > great article on that topic by Alexander Cockburn, a columnist for the
> > Nation at: http://commondreams.org/views/102800-101.htm) A vote for
> > Nader is a vote for the birth of a progressive third party that fights
> > for the interests of citizens, not of corporations.
> >
> > Adam raised a couple of points in particular that I'd like to address:
> >
> > On GE and 'former Nader Raider' Toby Moffett-
> > Adam presupposed that Gore will protect the public interest in regard to
> > GE foods and in the piece he forwarded by Gloria Steinem she quotes Toby
> > Moffett's claim that the distinction between the two parties is greater
> > than Ralph has said. Let me connect a few dots for you: the Clinton/Gore
> > administration has presided over a bastardization of the regulatory
> > agencies responsible for protecting the public, and no where is this
> > more obvious than with the FDA's handling of GE foods.  Toby Moffett was
> > until recently a lobbyist employed by Monsanto; his affiliation with
> > Ralph was back in the 1970's and was never very close, hardly qualifying
> > him as a 'long time Nader Raider' as Steinem labeled him. For more
> > detail, see John Stauber's story 'Reject Fear And Loathing On Gore's
> > Campaign Trail' at: http://www.commondreams.org/views/102700-109.htm
> >
> > Organic Standards-
> > The Clinton/Gore administration proposed a set of organic standards that
> > included (among other egregious examples of corporate interest
> > triumphing over citizen interest): genetically engineered seeds, sewage
> > sludge, and irradiation.
> >
> > Were the community gardens that were saved in NY saved by politicians?
> > No, they were saved by citizen action, just as the organic standards
> > were dramatically improved by the largest public response ever to any
> > federal rule making. The two parties have become increasingly in debt to
> > their corporate pay masters and not to the wishes of the citizens of
> > this country. The idea that progress is promoted by our current
> > political system is absurd. Change is brokered by the people, not the
> > politicians-- any in-depth review of socio-political history will point
> > that out (Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the US" is a great
> > starting place). That we have an opportunity to begin to re-envision,
> > reinvigorate, and restructure our political system should be cause for
> > celebration, not castigation.
> >
> > Don't give into the culture of fear that is helping to perpetuate the
> > elimination of democracy as we've known it and to destroy the hope for
> > building a better democracy for the future. Vote with your conscience,
> > vote for the future, VOTE NADER.
> >
> > For more information on the Nader campaign, see:
> > http://www.votenader.org/
> > Check out: http://commondreams.org/ for a number of good articles about
> > the election.
> >
> > Please feel free to ask me questions about the campaign, and thanks for
> > your time and patience-
> >
> > Kevin
> > --
> > Kevin Webb
> > Nader 2000
> > Agriculture, Food, and Industrial Hemp Constituency Organizer
> >
> > 202.265.0633
> > 202.265.5352 (fax)
> > http://www.votenader.org
> >
> > "On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And
> > then
> > expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks
> >
> > the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right?"
> >
> > -Martin Luther King, Jr
> >
> > Paid for by the Nader 2000 General Committee, Inc.
> >
> >
> > Adam Honigman wrote:
> > Comrades,
> > Community gardening is 50% gardening and 100% political. This message is
> > political.
> >
> > I apologize in advance to anybody who believes that this website
> > shouldn't be used to promote political speech, but I'm doing it. At
> > least I'm not trying to be funny ( a no-no on this listserve.)
> >
> > If Dubya gets in, I believe that we can kiss real organic standards for
> > food production, FDA cheerleading for community gardening and tax
> > credits for businesses that give to foodbanks good bye.
> >
> > I do think Dubya might be good for a few more laughs than Al the Tin Man
> > (Dubya might even be a good drinking buddy when his wife isn't
> > listening) but I don't like the company he hangs with - bulldozer Rudy
> > Giuliani is a big supporter of his.
> >
> > I really don't expect that pollution emission controls will be
> > strengthened under Dubya, that anything annoying to the petrochemical
> > industry will  get short shrift under his administration.
> >
> > Think about Dubya on these topics:
> >
> > Acid rain? They're Canadians aren't they?
> >
> > Frankenfoods?  Some folks are just afraid of technology.
> >
> > I voted for Nader last time but am voting for Al Gore this time  because
> > a vote for Nader in this election is a vote for Dubya.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > community_garden maillist  -  community_garden@mallorn.com
> > https://secure.mallorn.com/mailman/listinfo/community_garden
> >

Kevin Webb
Nader 2000
Agriculture, Food, and Industrial Hemp Constituency Organizer

202.265.5352 (fax)

"On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then
expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks
the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right?"
-Martin Luther King, Jr

Paid for by the Nader 2000 General Committee, Inc.

community_garden maillist  -  community_garden@mallorn.com

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index