Main

What?

Why?

Nouns

Old Stuff

Mail

A rebuttal, to Braz's first post, Jeremy's comments, and then Braz's follow-up to Jeremy's stuff. I'll try to follow the current trend of going point by point through things.

Braz said, "He thinks a vote for Nader will 'scare a politician.' I think a vote for Nader is throwing your vote away."

I had a bad feeling that line would be thrown back at me, and I almost erased it from the post, but I thought people would understand it for its slight irreverence. So much for assumptions.

Nothing that's been said to me so far got me as fucking furious as Braz's implication that I'm wasting my vote by voting for Nader, and by extension, I'm wasting my time in writing these pieces, because a lot of people don't agree with me. The belief that if your opinions aren't held by a near-majority, then those opinions are worthless is the absolute worst kind of herd-mentality syndrome that can be displayed. Frankly, if you don't want to express a differing opinion because you feel too many people disagree with you, then fall in line. Try not to moo too loudly, it disturbs the neighbors.

Voting in an election is not about voting for who you think is most likely to win that you find most tolerable. Voting in an election is about voting for the person who most want to see in office, representing you and your beliefs. Trying to pick a winner is best down at the horsetrack, where it'll cost you $2, and not your country's leadership.

Braz blasted Nader's desire to phase out nuclear power over the next five years (replacing it with energy from renewable sources) as being nutty. Braz went on to extol the virtues of "cheap, clean nuclear power". I wish I knew where this clean nuclear power was. Possibly in a science-fiction story he read somewhere. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for 200,000 years. In case you're wondering, 200,000 years ago, the Neanderthals were the dominant Homo sapiens strain stumbling about the globe. Humanity has undergone a mass evolutionary development in the time it would take the nuclear waste to become something less than certain death. Nuclear power is a lot of things. Clean, it isn't.

As for getting people onto the alternate energy path... it's practically another Scribbling by itself, but for the moment I'll point you towards the Viridians, and try to remember to come back to it later.

Braz then moves on to the issue of the military and military spending, saying we need to at least maintain the level of military spending, because of "the Gulf War, the conflict in Serbia, the all-too-recent bombing of the USS Cole and the erupting conflict in Israel" First off, the Gulf War was a success only in that we got Iraq out of Kuwait, and are keeping them out by maintaining a large military presence in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, while I wouldn't say it was a catastrophe on Biblical proportions, it was so at least in Middle Eastern proportions. And, heightened military spending wouldn't have stopped the bombing of the Cole, the conflict in Serbia, and sure as shit hasn't helped out Israel. Maybe Braz missed the quote on Nader's page, saying former Reagan Administration Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb has identified $62 billion in military budget cuts, about 20% of the budget, that could be made almost immediately, without jeopardizing our national security in any way.

Nader talks about putting programs into place to reduce redundancy, waste, and procurement fraud in the military. I doubt that these are ideas Braz is opposed to, rather he either missed them or decided not to mention them. Especially since Nader proposes what Bras seems to be in favor of -- that the military should mostly act in a global coalition, instead of jumping into events all by itself. The last paragraph on this page sums everything up better than I can.

I don't know how closely Braz read the statement on health care. In his first paragraph, he seems to combine doctors and hospitals (what is usually thought of as the health-care community) with pharmaceutical companies. Braz is in favor of getting health care to the poor and uninsured (at least he didn't say, "Fuck 'em."), but I'll admit I'm not sure how he thinks it should be done. His wife is a nurse, so I imagine Braz is better acquainted with the healthcare industry than I am, just through Kris talking about work, and is aware of things I don't know. However, his explanation reads more like a knee-jerk reaction, than an actual reasoned response.

On to Jeremy's comments...

Jeremy's first target is Nader's taxation policy. It's rather brief, and to sum up, he favors the standard progressive tax scale, but would increase the taxation on the richest. Jeremy views this as punishment, and howls, "The United States prides itself as being a nation of equality and was founded on the idea of capitalism, yet Nader attempts to play himself as the Robin Hood of politics who is going to 'stick it to' the affluent as if they have done something wrong." Here's a newsflash for Jeremy, and everyone else who screams that the government is punishing them. The government doesn't tax you because it doesn't like you. As mentally convenient as it would be to view the government as a cackling accountant that wants to take all your money, that's not how things work.

I'll say it for everyone who missed in their civics class. People with more money are taxed more... because they can afford better than those with less money! No, no, don't bother to thank me. I'm just here to educate.

Jeremy's health care stance gets the silver medal for Things That Have Been Said That Have Really Angered Me. His opening slippery slope argument (universal healthcare leads to universal thoughts? What?) moves into disregard for those who can't afford health care, since they obviously shouldn't be allowed to have it, since they can't afford it (I can't wait to read his stance on food stamps). He attempts to legitimize this stance with his own experiences, that he had to go to the hospital without insurance, gutted it out, and paid off his bill over six months. It's good that Jeremy was able to get by. I'm sorry that he can't empathize with people less fortunate, and thinks that if national health care was instituted, he'd suddenly be visiting Dr. Sawbones.

One minor bit in Jeremy's writing that I'd like to touch on is the bit about Nader believing corporations to be "evil." The problem with assuming that corporations have ethical stances is that, well, they don't. Businesses work at being profitable. With that goal in mind, when an action is considered, the question isn't "Is this ethically right?" but is "Is this legal, and will it increase our profits?" When NAFTA was ratified, and auto companies had the choice between leaving their plants in the U.S., and playing a higher wage, dealing with health codes, sticking to safety requirements, or moving to Mexico, where they could pay a ridiculously cheaper wage, and not have to worry about such restrictions... well, who's surprised at what they did? Is it ethical to exploit people living in poverty for profit? No. But is it profitable? Oh, yes. Quite profitable.

I have two confessions to make. The first is that I'm too tired right now to respond to Braz's second post, and I'll leave it for later, if at all. The second is that, yes, I've been deliberately hostile in some of this. Braz has admitted to me that in some of his writing, he was trying to deliberately provoke me. Well, congratulations. I'm provoked. So, if this reads like I'm not trying to convince someone to vote Nader, it probably doesn't.

People keep voting for the least-worst candidate, and being disappointed when things get worse. I tried to point out an alternate avenue, and was asked (Bronze Medallist, Things That Have Been Said That Have Really Angered Me) why I didn't just cast a protest vote for a fictional character. So, yes, I'm not feeling like being a nice person at the moment, coddling everyone's egos, and trying to win people over.

Hit me and I'll fucking hit you back. Feriens tego. Striking, I defend.