Letters

11/9/00

Click here for our election-related mail:Election in question

 



Truest things said in jest

RE: “Thank You for Not Voting

11/8/00

Hear, hear!

I’d like to add that there is no truer sign of stupidity than the vote in these here United States, when we have available to us so many more effective means of selecting a leader:

1) After the primaries, combine the major candidates’ names into different combinations and have the people vote between them. Americans would choose whether the president is called Gore-Bush or Bush-Gore.

2) A fight to the death between the candidates, on a pay-per-view Channel. Social Darwinism and good economic sense, rolled into one.

3) Have one of the Supreme Court justices use a divining rod to pick the next candidate on C-SPAN. It would scare the hell out of everyone, allies and enemies alike. Plus, think of what it would do for the divining rod industry. We might actually resurrect an economy in the Smokey Mountains.

4) At a random predetermined time, test each of the candidates’ blood alchohol levels — the one with the hightest wins. If you have to be insane or medicated to want to be president, I’ll take the medicated one. If new recreational drugs are legalized, this could spawn a whole new concept in electing officials, providing limitless job security for Marion Barry.

Peter Vuckovich

 



RE: “Thank You for Not Voting

11/8/00

This article is hysterical. I agree with you, however, it is easier to criticize than to praise. What is the solution to running this country and being a good citizen of the world? We need answers and we need them immediately because it is all going down the tubes. We are spoiled and lazy in this country. All this political hoopla may just be a loud wake-up call for us.

Navid Rahimi

 



Moronic, not ironic

RE: “Thank You for Not Voting

11/8/00

The “Don’t Vote – It’s Dangerous” article was both stupid and destructive without being funny or particularly insightful. Way too many people already believe that their votes mean nothing, and this election has very clearly demonstrated that not one of the points the article made was true — not even in the ironic way the article was intended. (That kind of thinking, whether held ironically or not, cost Ralph Nader and, possibly, Al Gore the votes they needed to accomplish what good they might have in this election.)

Please consider the actual accuracy of an article before you publish it or the name of Mother Jones will come to be associated with self-absorbed, self-righteous, adolescent, willfully myopic, ironically un-ironic articles like the one you posted and the country will drift further into the hands of the right wing.

Not every article that rants about an important subject makes a meaningful point, and we depend on Mother Jones to sort the good from the bad. You failed us by choosing that article.

Martin Azevedo

 



RE: “Thank You for Not Voting

11/8/00

I believe this article is irresponsible. What you are doing here is giving people like me a good chuckle — until we realize that in 5 minutes you undid the two months of work it took for me to convince my neighbor to vote. What do you propose, to require that people pass a test to be able to vote?

Daniel Elmaleh

 



Abandoning Swiss neutrality

RE: “Cheney’s Checkbook Democracy

11/7/00

As an outsider living in Switzerland, it seems impossible that a man like Cheney could ever come into such a position as vice-president. He seems to think only of his own interests, and not those of the country.

To me he seems to be a son of a rather successful father who is still not quite qualified enough to be the president of the most important country of the world.

In my country, with our people, he would just be a nobody. We require more from a man who tries to guide a country.

Hans Michelus

 



Ralph’s plain dealing

RE: “Nader’s Greens Invisible to Blacks

11/7/00

I think Nader is right. He does not go out saying “I am going to campaign for white voters,” or “I am going to campaign for women voters.” These are antics that are not democratic or respectful. He is campaigning for office among all the voters irrespective of religion, race, sexual preferences, gender, etc.

Right now our black organizations are so sold out that if I was in his shoes, I would have problems associating myself with any of the “mis”leaders that the white media recognize as representing us black people.

The leaders we have in the black community are people without direction. Their only thought is money in the pocket.

If I were running for president I would not be dealing with the leaders we have because they are opportunistic. If Nader wants to really change politics, he has to set the tone, from the beginning. To set the tone is to stop this politics of pandering to special interests. “We the people” just meant white folks. The Democrats used that in their posters to pick up the black votes. I expect that Nader will tell the truth and be himself.

Joshua Caulkins

 



RE: “Nader’s Greens Invisible to Blacks

11/7/00

Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s reasoning is mainstream contemporary Democrat, without doubt, but he discounts the more important issue. Ralph Nader is a man of genuine social conscience; therefore, he would never resort to the all-too-familiar pandering that has engendered so much resentment.

Resentment has become a way of life with females and members of minority groups in this country, and this is entirely attributable to political power mongers playing the fear card; they play the fear card because they lack real leadership capability. Ralph Nader might not have tons of charisma, himself, but he does have an overview of the underpinnings necessary for our society to survive. We should get behind him for this reason alone.

The space that the MoJo Wire spent on Mr. Hutchinson’s lamenting Nader’s lack of pandering could have been used for something more positive, i.e. spreading the word that we need to stop resenting each other, and start working together to build a better society.

Richard Sirmons
Tallahassee, Fla.

 



Ralph as Rosie

RE: “Nader’s Greens Invisible to Blacks

11/6/00

Ralph Nader talks the talk, but Nader has never walked the walk. Not on civil or gay rights, many women’s issues, or other concerns. Nader’s admirable successes have all been on a narrow range of issues. Now he wants blacks, Latinos, and others to believe he has always been a real leader on their issues when he simply has not been there.

Nader is the Rosie Ruiz of liberalism. Like the women who jumped in just before the finish line and tried to pretend she ran the Boston Marathon, Nader is trying to pass himself off as a leader on issues for which he has never shown any concern at all. This year, Nader has nothing to offer anyone, except four dark years of George W. and anti-progressive policies and appointments.

Mike Hersh
Wheaton, Md.

 



11/6/00

Nader is like most other white politicians in that he does not want to appear to have too much concern for the plight of African Americans because it would turn off many potential white supporters. This country is still far too racist even among the young, urban, educated liberals he targets, and whom the Democrats have alienated, for any serious contender for the White House to become closely associated with the plight of black folks. In fact, I submit that the Democrats will lose the White House because this racist society isn’t even ready for a Jew being one heart beat away for the Presidency.

Terrence Moore

 



Queerly misleading

RE: “Vote for Me, I’m Gay

11/6/00

“Vote for Me, I’m Gay,” is a catchy headline — misleading, however. It is clear that none of the elected officials succeeded in the ballots because they were queer, but in spite of their being queer. Putting aside political belief, one should celebrate that at least one of the most pervasive forms of prejudice in the country might disappear through practices such as those of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.

Susana Milnes
Ithaca, N.Y.

 



MoJo sells out

RE: “Shell Ads on the MoJo Wire

11/6/00

I must admit that I find myself in agreement with others: Your running of banner ads for Shell is questionable at best. They and their parent company, Royal Dutch Petroleum, have quite possibly the worst record of human rights abuses of any major corporation. It was Royal Dutch money that propped up the repressive system of apartheid in South Africa. I do not agree with your assessment of their attempts to reform, nor your decision to run their ads. It would appear to me that you have given into the lure of the potential ad revenue, and that is sad.

Donald Wescott