Politricks

Google News is the layman's stethoscope for keeping a skeptical eye on the world media's sickly heartbeat. This week I've been keeping a close eye on the democrat's response to Nader's candidacy and here is what I've learned:

Nader is evil because:

1. He steals progressive votes from the major democratic candidates.
2. Our political system has no need for a third party.
3. He won't win so he shouldn't run.
4. He cost Gore the 2000 election (the dems really get pissy on this one)

The more I think about these points the more pissed I get at the democrat machine and the political status quo in general.  Our current system is rigged so that if you want to run for president and have any success at all you must possess a fortune; millions and millions of dollars.  You must have roots in Washington, you must know people.  You absolutely must sell your time and political clout to corporate sponsors; even Obama claiming to stand on moral high ground has received millions from huge corporations sponsoring his campaign.

To hear democrats say that Nader steals votes, or has no relevance or place is ridiculous.  There is a large contingent of people upset with the way things are, people who vote with their mind not guts.  To say that a candidate shouldn't run if he doesn't have a chance of winning is censorship of the worst kind yet this is exactly what we have heard from both Clinton and Obama.  I wonder if they would have said the same words to the civil rights leaders, or Susan B. Anthony when she fought for suffrage and women's rights.  Both movements were unpopular, but should they have been stopped because not many people believed them at the time?  No, of course not.  Every single movement starts as a minority opinion; this is the very essence of change, a small group identifying a larger problem and then setting about making it right.  Should we silence a group because they are numerically small?  

I would argue that it is the responsibility of a good citizen to seek out positions and stances that are not popular, examine them with reason, and stand firm against the torrent of popular opinion.  Every movement starts with vanguards and is sustained by stalwarts; social history shows that holding the path is never easy yet the rewards are beyond measure.  Every generation has a form of authority which commands the masses to fall in line, to fit within neatly constructed boxes of opinion, but this must be challenged on all levels.  

We should also expect to be marginalized as extreme or written off as unimportant.  This is an effective tool the majority uses to avoid actually engaging the issue at hand.  Nader's campaign is currently being written off by the mass media, but does that make it any less important?  

I'd say that being marginalized is a sign that we are on the right path.  Being written off, rather than debated means something.  The internet is a great way to raise a collective stink; so in the meantime keep riding, thinking and being thorns in the ass of popularity.   It is truly worth it.

----

Oh yeah, today is Natemare's big 24th birthday, happy B-day NATE!!

Life without a Car

Contented pedestrian says his life is simpler and healthier without a car

Now if we could just get a few thousand more of these guys this town would start looking a lot better.