October 20, 2000
Subject: Miscellaneous Subjects #31: Some Feedbacks + Ten Good Reasons for opposing the G-20: Free Trade is the new face of Colonialism + To change a world: Corporate globalization is giving rise to a new wave of campus activism + IMF/World Bank: Stupid, Cruel, Brutal + An honest politician is one who once bought -- stays bought: 21 Good Reasons to Vote for Ralph Nader (if you live in the U.S.)
As usual, I do not have enough time to keep up with all that I receive. Still I managed to read and put together the following compilation. Lots of compelling and troubling stuff in this one!
Enjoy and pass it on to others
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
P.S. See at www.earthaction.org
Important Action Alert: Candidates Questionnaire
The most important issues on Earth are hardly being
discussed in this US election campaign
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000
From: justwendy <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: The Hour of Truth in the Middle East
Thank you for your extraordinary newsletter. I feel very blessed to
receive your information and to be connected to a world of people who
care about making the planet a better place through you.
One logistical question: How are you able to mass-distribute your
newsletter using the recipient string "Undisclosed recipients:;",
whereby the actual names and email addresses of all of your subscribers
Any assistance, advice, or resource referral is greatly appreciated.
MY REPLY WAS:
Thanks a lots for expressing your appreciation ;-)
Regarding the "logistical question", what you need to do is use an emailer software (I use Eudora - the Light version - which I downloaded for free from the Eudora.com website) that allows you to do mass email through a Bcc (Blind Cc) function which is definitely the ethical way to go so as to protect the privacy of all the recipients. So many people are unaware that by using the Cc function instead of Bcc, they are exposing their recipients to be spammed by other people afterwards because all the recipients can then see - and copy! - the entire list.
Since I can paste up to 720 email adresses in the Bcc of one single email, it means that I have to send only 3 emails to send each new compilation to the 1800 people on my ERN e-list. As for the undisclosed-recipients:; you simply put that under "To:" because you need to put something there.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: Tim Lash <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: GMO Update #31: TACO HELL + Co. Stops Selling Biotech Corn +
Scientist 'killed Amazon indians to test race theory' + Bt-Corn Pollen
from Iowa Fields Kills Monarch Caterpillars + Revealed: secret GM crop
trials + YOU CAN WRING MY BELL
Hello Jean -
I'm one of your globalvisionary subscribers, just writing to thank
you for all the research and communications you do for us all - it
is a real contribution to wakefulness.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000
From: Mark Graffis <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [energyresources] I'm not optimistic today
Yes, thanks for including it Jean. I expect Steve may call you a `utopianist' or whatever.
Being a 30 year meditator myself i have every respect for both views and
can just say i've done my best to walk `lightly' on earth but the gravity
of what's happening has to be looked at for what it is. I have dreams of
the `circle makers' stepping in when it gets so bad we can't ignore it
and giving us help and an ultimatum -we all need to hope.
-- _ \<,_
-- (_)/ (_)
AND MY REPLY WAS:
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the situation is very critical. Every night when I watch Discovery Channel, all I hear about is yet more species on the brink of vanishing forever. Almost every day when I read a magazine or listen to radio, there is some bad environmental news and more polluting business-as-usual. Of course you also hear sometimes some politicians paying lip service to the environment or see some self-greenwashing corporations depicting themselves as all about caring for the environment - the worst of the lot are the pro-biotech lobby ads depicting a rosy future in a ploy to have us believe their frankenshit is good for us and the environment when it is definitely NOT. The US media have virtually shut out Nader, the only true crusader for the environment, and have us watching the droning Bush and Gore who keep repeating their slogans that are totally disconnected from the harsh reality of this world, perpetuating the established lie that only money matters to most people. Of course, Al Gore is trying to depict himself as a somewhat greener, more pro-middle class candidate than Bush, but he agrees on some of the worst things Bush favors -- the death penalty and forever more money to the military, for instance -- and it really remains to be seen if he will actually be able to keep up his word and deliver on all the otherwise worthwhile promises he made, the first one on his agenda being the campaign finance reform that he promised to send to the pork-barrel Congress circus where it will most likely be derailed by yet another Republican majority.
Like you, I'm trying to do my small contribution to protecting the environment by adopting a self-sustaining, labor intensive lifestyle 20 years ago, as well as trying to foster a greater awareness of our individual and collective responsibility to do our best to leave a healthy planet to our children. And like you I sometimes dream that some outside help will come in extremis to spare us all the worst consequences of our profligated, polluting and wasteful way of life. But I know deep within that we have to earn such assistance by our own efforts and true spiritual progress for anything like that to happen. The cosmic Law of Non-Intervention is the prime directive of all advanced civilizations and there is no chance - for us - that they will infringe it. Drawing innocuous, intricate designs in some of our fields to draw our attention away from the numbing daily struggle of the "Survival of the Fittest" game to have us realize we are definitely not alone is probably all the "Circle makers" can do for now.
I may sometime sound like an utopian, but I prefer to focus my mind on the utopian vision of a saner, safer future than allowing myself to believe there is no future at all.
The choices to be made by people around the world, and particularly in the U.S., in the next few weeks may signal if we have the will or not to change and adapt to the new reality of an absolutely needed global culture of peace, sharing and environmental sanity.
Like it or not, we live in some very "interesting" times...
Note from Jean. If you are unaware of what the Circle Makers do, give a thorough look at
From: "Samia Mastandrea" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Prayer Vigil-for all?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000
A friend of mine e-mailed the information about the prayer vigil for peace
in the Middle East. My heart rejoices that the world community can come
together for this cause.
I'm hosting a large party for my parent's 50th wedding anniversary on that
day and will be sure to stop at the right moment for us all to participate
in a moment of prayer.
I do question though, your link to the NY Daily News.
During the two weeks leading up to the sensational front page about the
slain Israeli soldiers, this newspaper among other major papers and most
American Media, failed to inform the public fairly about the 99 Palestinians
who were killed by soldiers. If Palestinian children's and young mens' lives
were valued as much as those of the slain soldiers, the general public would
have been educated about them.
My prayer is also for American recognition and acceptance of blame for the
unjust, racist view that we've blindly promoted against the Palestinians and
the Arab world in general.
I've prayed for peace in that region since being a little girl. My prayers
were answered by seeing and hearing my fellow Americans speak of Arabs as
terrorists, never as people with families and lives like ours or like Jews.
Fair reporting is rare but available. Please take a look at "The Christian
Science Monitor" or listen for a while to WBAI in NY.
THIS ONE IS REALLY AN EYE-POPPER!! ALL THE INJUSTICE AND LACK OF SHARING IN THE WORLD ARE SUMMARIZED IN THESE STATS BELOW. This was written from a Canadian perspective by a Montreal group preparing to oppose the upcoming G-20 meeting of finance ministers there. The next article after this one is also related to this meeting. PASS IT ON!...
Ten Good Reasons for opposing the G-20
Free Trade is the new face of Colonialism
The G-20 is an extension of the old boys' club, the G-7. It is made up of the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, The European Union Presidency, the European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Development Committee of the IMF & the World Bank. Its stated purpose is the stabilization of trade. It is focused on financial matters & is part of a global system that subordinates social & environmental concerns to profit motives. Paul Martin, Canadian minister of finance, heads this new trade partnership. But will the G-20 consider the Tobin Tax of 0.1% on international speculation to the tune of one trillion dollars every day on world financial markets? The Tobin tax would alleviate world poverty with a revenue of $10 billion per year. Will the G-20 abolish Third World Debt, which is choking the poor while enhancing the rich bankers? It remains to be seen!
1. The truth is that globalization of market forces has greatly increased the inequality in the world. Now the richest 20% of the world's people receive 83% of the world's income. While the poorest 60% of the world's people receive just 5.6% of the world's income. The richest 20% of the world's population in northern industrialized countries use 70% of the world's energy, 75% of the world's metals, 85% of the world's wood and 60% of the world's food. This 20% minority is also responsible for producing about 75% of the world's environmental pollution.
2. As Corporations gain more and more power to pillage, destroy the environment & the habitat, workers in free trade zones are reduced to automatons who work 50 to 80 hours a week for as little as 36 cents an hour. Women who refuse to work overtime are dismissed. Many developing countries such as Mexico, contend that labour standards constitute a barrier to free trade. In the global economy, cheap labour is the name of the game.
3. Domestic laws are considered "trade barriers". The ability of governments to legislate laws that are favourable to their citizens or to the environment is eroded, little by little, to suit the big multinationals and their profits. A case in point is when Canada refused to allow Ethyl Corporation to sell MMT, a harmful gasoline substance. Ethyl sued under the eleventh chapter of NAFTA and won the handsome sum of 20 million dollars. Moreover, the Canadian government was forced to rescind its decision to ban the toxic substance & gave its blessings to the American company to sell its poisonous wares in Canada.
4. Globalization undermines national sovereignty. When the European Union tried to ban the import of beef injected with growh hormone, the WTO forced the members to roll back their ban or pay stiff penalties. In the same way, Canada is trying to impose the export of asbestos, a carcinogenic product, on other countries through the arbitration of the WTO.
5. Environmental protections are considered "trade barriers". The US Clean Air Act which required both domestic and foreign producers alike to produce cleaner gasoline, was considered illegal by a WTO ruling in 1993. Pharmaceutical multinationals are given priority at the expense of generic, life-saving drugs. For example, sub-Saharan Africa where 80 per cent of the world's new AIDS cases are found, is not allowed to import the generic, less expensive drugs.
6. The IMF imposes structural adjustment conditions on developing countries, which are encouraged to get rid of their social programs notably in the most essential areas of health and education with disastrous implications.
7. Corporations are considered persons and are treated as such. Local policies, which are aimed at rewarding companies who hire local residents, use domestic materials or adopt environmentally sound practices, are essentially illegal under WTO practices. The auto-pact, which has served Canadian interests well, for years, has been declared illegal by WTO.
8. The wealthy countries which have long used protectionism to develop and subsidize their own industries, are now asking developing countries to abandon state interventionist policies, suddenly deemed illegal under free trade international laws.
9. World Trade policies have been disastrous for the environment. Developing countries are cutting down their forests; they are pumping chemicals into their land to produce export crops such as coffee, tea, tobacco and cotton, thus poisoning their land and water. They are ripping minerals out of the ground at a frantic pace to ensure that questionable debts can be repaid to wealthy bankers so that the latter can have more money to gamble with on international markets.
10. Trade is placed ahead of human rights. Talisman, a Canadian company, is financing the civil war in Sudan with impunity. The Canadian government refuses to intervene lest it should upset its trading partners.
Join us for a demonstration against the G-20, on October 24, 2000, in front of the Sheraton Center on René Levésque (corner Stanley, metro Peel) at 5:00 p.m. For more information, call the Montreal chapter of the Council of Canadians: at: 846-0644, or fax at: (514) 846-0888, e-mail: email@example.com
Join us in solidarity with the poor of the world.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000
From: Mark Graffis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Corporate Glabolization Is Giving Rise To a New Wave of Campus Activism (fwd)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000
From: Clore Daniel C <email@example.com>
Monday 16 October 2000
To change a world
Corporate globalization is giving rise to a new wave of campus activism
by KATE SWOGER
The [Montreal] Gazette
In a hot, humid third-floor room, a dozen bodies were
squeezed together in a circle of chairs to discuss "a
necessary evil" that's "out of control" and "is trying to
take control of the world" - corporate globalization.
Gathered in those steamy quarters at a Concordia University
building on Mackay St. were CEGEP students, university
undergraduates, artists, teachers and longtime activists.
"We're not against globalization per se," said activist
Jaggi Singh, part of Montreal's Anti-Capitalist Convergence,
as the workshop he was leading picked up speed. "Our group
is talking about corporate globalization. It's a vision that
sees everything as having a dollar value - people, the
environment, the air. We need our own positive vision of
what the world should be."
However you define it, globalization is doing more than
expanding the reach of industry around the world. It also
has the potential to bring together some of the
long-fractured elements of activism, and do so more
powerfully than any other cause has in decades.
The issue of corporate globalism is broad enough to bring
together a diverse range of critics, from environmentalists
to peace activists, from consumer-rights lobbyists to trade
unionists to those concerned with the treatment of women,
minorities and the populations of developing nations.
The movement brings with it critiques of governments and of
powerful world bodies. And it carries visions of an
alternative way of doing things. But this same movement is
sometimes accompanied by images of anger, destruction and
clashes between protesters and police.
That face of the new activism was apparent in street
protests that disrupted the World Trade Organization
conference in Seattle last fall and the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund meetings in Prague last month.
We might see that kind of activism in the streets of
Montreal this month, when federal Finance Minister Paul
Martin meets representatives of the "G20" developed and
emerging nations to discuss global financial reforms Oct.
The protesters promise to be out in even greater force in
April in Quebec City, when the heads of 34 governments of
the western hemisphere meet for the third Summit of the
But this umbrella protest movement has many sides to it,
almost as many as there are individual activists.
To get the rest of this ask it from Clore Daniel C <firstname.lastname@example.org>
or check the archives at www.egroups.com/smygo
To subscribe to this group, send an email to email@example.com
From: "Rob Wheeler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: IMF/World Bank: Stupid, Cruel, Brutal
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000
Relayed by Doug Everingham from Dr John Hermann
Economic Reform Australia
ERA EMAIL NETWORK
IMF/World Bank: Stupid, Cruel, Brutal
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
There is no policy of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World
Bank that is more stupid, cruel and brutal than the insistence that poor
countries charge fees for children to attend school and for people to
access basic health services.
The IMF and World Bank condition loans to impoverished countries on
the adoption of Contract with America-style "structural adjustment"
policies. User fees -- also known as community financing, cost sharing
or cost recovery -- are often one part of the structural adjustment policy
In passing an appropriations amendment in July that would stop future
funding for the IMF and the World Bank if the two lending agencies do not
stop imposing user fees for basic healthcare and education services, the
U.S. House of Representatives has taken an important step toward ending
this callous and wrongheaded policy.
Unfortunately, the Treasury Department, anxious to avoid any
appropriations limitations for its IMF and World Bank policy arms, is
working to block inclusion of the amendment in the final foreign
operations appropriations bill. As administration officials and members
of Congress and their staffs negotiate the terms of a final foreign
operations appropriations bill, the educational opportunity and health of
millions of people in the world's poorest countries hang in the balance.
The evidence accumulated from around the world over the last decade is
quite clear. User fees for education lower school attendance rates,
especially among young girls. User fees for primary health services deny
access to care and preventative treatment for the poor, leading to the
spread of unnecessary and preventable death and disease. And user fee
"exemptions" for the poor, or sliding payment scales, routinely fail due
to administrative problems, corruption, inadequate notice to the poor or
* In Gambia, in primary health care program villages with insecticide
provided free of charge, bednet impregnation -- for malaria prevention --
was five times higher than in villages where charges were introduced.
Households consistently cited lack of money as the main reason they
chose not to dip bednets.
* Introduction of a 33 cent fee for visits to Kenyan outpatient health
centers led to a 52 percent reduction in outpatient visits. After the fee
was suspended, visits rose 41 percent. In Papua New Guinea, the
introduction of user fees led to a 30 percent decline in outpatient
visits. Studies in Niger have found that user fees extend the period
that patients wait before seeking outpatient care.
* UNICEF reports that in Malawi, the elimination of modest school fees
and uniform requirements in 1994 caused primary enrollment to increase
by about 50 percent virtually overnight -- from 1.9 million to 2.9 million.
The main beneficiaries were girls. Malawi has been able to maintain near
full enrollment since that time.
* In India, reports Dr. Vineeta Gupta, general secretary of Insaaf
International, a Punjab, India-based organization, a World Bank-inspired
system which is supposed to exclude the poor from healthcare charges
fails in practice due to corruption and administrative difficulties, denying
the poorest Indians access to healthcare services.
The purported logic of education and healthcare user fees is that payments
from children's families and sick people will enable government service
agencies to provide services to more people.
But this is a twisted rationale, which should be rejected on both
principled and practical grounds. As an issue of principle, access to
primary education and healthcare is a right that should not be conditioned
on ability to pay.
In practical terms, the real-world record shows that user fees deny
children educational opportunity and people of all ages access to basic
health services. Charges typically generate little revenue in any case.
So the ultimate result of user fees is service denial, not expansion.
The IMF/Bank user fee rationalization presents a false choice: even poor
country governments have multiple sources of potential revenue there are
ways to increase funding for basic services without imposing charges.
Most importantly, the real way to free up resources for education and
healthcare is for the World Bank and IMF, without delay, to use their
existing assets to cancel the debts owed them by poor countries.
There are no significant corporate or monied interests served by the
imposition of user fees in desperately poor countries. The IMF and World
Bank continue to support them out of a dogmatic commitment to a
marketized ideology that refuses to concede to empirical refutation. The
Treasury Department is opposing corrective legislation so that it can
preserve its control of the IMF and World Bank without Congressional
interference. These are shameful counterweights to the humanitarian
imperative of removing user fees. Whether the humanitarian claim prevails
will depend, in significant part, on whether U.S. citizens act now to put
an end to user fee nightmare.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The
Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine:
Common Courage Press, 1999).
Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or
repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on
a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us
(email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org).
Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
email@example.com. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail
message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the text: subscribe
Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at
Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to
comment on the columns, send a message to email@example.com or
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000
From: Vadim Nemirovsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"An honest politician is one who once bought -- stays bought."
-- Robert Heinlein
Over fifteen thousand people paid $20 each to join in last Friday's
"super-rally" at Madison Square Garden to support Ralph Nader's
presidential campaign. Neither Gore nor Bush can attract more than
a few hundred supporters, although they offer them T-shirts, caps,
buttons, drinks and snacks. Note: Nader does not have
money-for-influence backers, people actually pay money to get his
Time magazine found Nader to be the most respected person in USA
for the past three years. He is the founder of "Public Citizen" the
watchdog over consumer justice and government and corporate
accountability. He is the one man responsible for stronger bumpers,
seat belts and baby seats. He has, in fact, saved hundreds of
thousands of lives in just that one campaign. Nader has a unique
record as a public servant without ever being elected.
He has been on a life-long crusade to protect Americans from
government complicity in corporate consumer abuse. He has fought
for us, the citizens, wrestling away government's corruption that
gives away to corporations those resources and rights that are
reserved for us -- citizens, according to U.S. Constitution. Nader
popularity is continuously climbing taking the votes away from Bush
and Gore alike. Let's hope Americans are wiser than most political
Here are a few reasons to vote for Ralph Nader for President:
1. There is no difference between Gore and Bush according to their
agreements on everything (their last debate.) They want more army,
more wars, more police control of our lives. They will both
continue Clinton's agenda of world dominion by forcing more third
world countries into debt by duping them to accept loans from the
monetary funds. And, of course, they both agree on greater,
exclusive democracy for U.S. and multinational corporations.
"Demos" and "Reps" only signifies who buys them and will profit from
them once in power.
2. Demos and Reps would have you think, thanks to the mass media,
their sponsor, backer and future beneficiary, that they are the only
choices. "Flat beer or warm beer?" would be fitting since the
debates were sponsored by Anheuser Busch, or maybe "Flat tire or
exploding one?" to go along with choices of the other supporter -
Ford Motor Co.
3. The pundits tell us Gore has securely clinched California. In
this awfully fair scheme the winner takes all, i.e. ALL California's
votes go to Gore (did you know that?) so why not vote your
conscience? Note: 43% of Gore voters would vote for Nader "if he
had a chance!"
4. If we vote for Bush or Gore -- four years from now we will have
just as many choices.
5. Voting for one of the corporate parties is voting out fear and
apathy that they, especially the last administration, instilled in
the voter. Why not vote for future and hope!
6. American Indians made decisions that would be good for seven
generations. Do we entrust such wisdom to Clinton/Gore's or
Bushes? More corporate control over our lives? More prison and
fewer schools? More of that for more generations?
7. Since only 30% of Americans cared to vote in the last election,
if all "non-voters" voted for Nader, Bush and Gore would get less
than 15% each!
8. Some will vote for a lesser evil. Why vote for evil at all?
Vote for someone who's never been accused of any impropriety or
sullied a public office!
9. "Save us from Bush" as well as "Environmental Vice-President"
are both very successful if not plain lucky promotional campaigns
that have no roots in reality. Gore, according to his voting
record, is not better than Bush, neither is he for consumers or the
environment. As for being a vice-president, he bore it with dignity
and in silence, i.e. hadn't done much. Eight years ago I would have
voted Gore for president, now seeing what he did and certainly would
do - I would as soon vote for Bush.
10. When Clinton came to power many believed it would be a period
of greater personal freedoms, especially improvement in women's and
minorities' rights -- good advertising. Gore was there, he could've
done something. Note: Clinton/Gore administration, no matter what
they promised, carried out mostly Republican agenda - check the
11. Both Gore and Bush have changed their minds during the campaign
to fit in with their handlers' ideas arrived at from endless focus
groups. Nader hasn't changed his mind at all or ever inquired into
how to be popular (notice the suits he wears.)
12. Presidential debates, originally sponsored by the League of
Women Voters, is now run by corporate sponsors that exclude third
party candidates. Why? Because historically third parties do
invariably well compared to the Two. Note: More than fifty percent
of Americans would have liked to see Nader and Buchanan in the
13. After Clinton, the journalists will have a hard time quitting
poking fun at the President, in which case dumb Bush will certainly
be more entertaining than wooden Gore, whereas Nader might not
create any guffaws at all. So, would you like some entertainment?
14. If you would like to be on the winning side by voting for the
one who wins - how will that serve you? You know, once politicians
get into office they do their own thing as they planned, aided by a
few special interest advisors. Nader, a man rather impervious to
change (his hairdo) will keep on doing what he's been ceaselessly
doing - fighting for us.
15. "Nader will create too much change." Does anyone want this
country to decay of stagnation and erode through continuing
corporate influence, if not domination, of our democracy? Prisons
are the fastest growing industry in U.S., trying to catch up with
every infringement of the law that corporations helped to write into
our judicial system so as to protect their profits.
16. Nader, with few exceptions, has been ignored by the media, even
now, during his exceptional rise in the polls. Presently, national
polls show Nader at 5 percent. In key states like California and
New York at over 7 percent, in Alaska at 17 percent, in Maine at 11
percent and climbing everywhere while Gore/Bush polls stagnate.
Timothy Leary said, "The next revolution will not be televised."
17. We know what professional politicians have done to us. We know
what Nader has done for us. Period. Maybe Americans believe that
one must be a crook to go into politics - would you like to change
that or leave it the same?
18. Presidential candidates are given public money for campaigns
depending on how many votes they got. If you don't think the oil
boys got enough greenbacks - give them more! They'll keep the same
money based political system that we now enjoy.
19. If you are over 21 and consenting to read some strong language,
click on this:
20. We have some of the most corrupt politics the world has ever
seen, which the sold out politicians (read: Democrats and
Republicans) and the corporate money lobbyists created behind our
backs. Now there is a way to vote them out of power. One can vote
Fear and Apathy, or vote Nader NOW!
21. When our founding fathers threw out the Britons they went
against their own government, they had vision and guts! Do we have
the guts to take our country back through a direct democratic
process? Do you have the courage?
"I want to be President for a very simple reason. This country needs
a very strong progressive movement that challenges the accepted
concentration of power and wealth in the hands of global
corporations who dominate our government, our workplace, our
environment and many other areas of our political economy."
-- Ralph Nader - June 23, 2000
The more prohibitions you have - the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have - the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have - the less self-reliant people will be.
-- Tao Te Ching by Lao-Tzu
translated by Stephen Mitchell
Here are some links to Nader's official, Nader-inspired and Green
http://www.votenader.org/" this is the official Nader for president page
http://www.nader2000.org/this is the unofficial Nader for president page
http://www.nader.org/ this site is about Ralph Nader's history
http://www.gp.org/ this site is the party platform for the GREEN Party
http://www.green-party.org/ this is the site for the U.S. GREEN Party
In Sincere Service to You,
"The only truly revolutionary act left is to tell the truth about everything."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Ben Franklin, 1759
"The environment is hostage of the multinational companies"
- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE