RTP-area local music and culture

[grady AT ibiblio.org]

Yes, but Ralph doesn't care about all that stuff anymore. Now he cares 
about keeping our Young People free from being drafted to fight in Iraq:

http://www.votenader.org/

"Today enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard are declining. The 
Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, 
as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is 
being quietly put into place.

Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run 
over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated 
the lives of those who came of age in the sixties.

I am running for President, and have been against this war from the 
beginning. We must not waste lives in order to control and waste more 
oil. Stand with us and we may yet salvage your future and Americas' 
future from this looming disaster."

Your friend needs to revise his letter in light of this vital new 
information. He doesn't even mention the draft in his current draft.

John Eyles wrote:
> Sigh ... not Nader again.
>
> A friend in DC wrote this open letter to Nader.   He wishes that I
> reprint it anonymously.  It does a good job (I think) of rebuking
> the bullshit that there's not really much difference between the
> Democrats and the Republicans (assuming anybody is enough of
> an idiot to still believe that after the last 3-1/2 years).  Maybe
> on the war there isn't that much difference - but the Iraq war
> ain't the only important issue in this election, folks.
>
> John
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> Dear Mr. Nader,
>
> As a 52-year old politically liberal male and a registered Independent,
> I have watched your career with admiration, marveling at your tireless
> campaign to challenge powerful corporate interests in defense of
> consumers.
>
> I am but one of millions of ordinary citizens who have benefited
> enormously from your relentless efforts to ensure that automobiles and
> other consumer products are safe and reliable, to protect America's
> environment, to demand affordable health care for every American and to
> make the workplace safe for workers.
>
> I understand the frustration with the Democratic Party that led you to
> pursue the Presidency in 2000. In fact, in that year my own disgust
> with the party's pandering to corporate interests led me to change my
> party registration from Democrat to Independent, and I voted for you in
> 2000.
>
> But since President Bush's inauguration, I have watched with dismay as
> his administration has undertaken a wholesale campaign to undermine
> many of the landmark environmental, consumer and health protections
> that you and your public advocacy organizations have worked so hard to
> put in place over the past three decades.
>
> While you might take issue with claims that your candidacy in 2000 cost
> Vice President Gore the election, there is little doubt in my own mind
> that if you had not run, Gore would be president today. I acknowledge
> that as President, Gore likely would not have pursued some of the
> political reforms that I and millions of other Americans fervently
> desire.
>
> But I also think the events of the past three years demonstrate the
> error of your own claim that there is little difference between the
> Republican and Democratic parties.
>
> In environmental and energy policy alone, the current administration
> has pursued policy efforts that would dramatically increase U.S. oil
> imports; devastate our precious national parks and wilderness areas in
> the illogical pursuit of fossil fuels; allow electric utilities to
> delay for 20 years vital reductions in emissions of mercury and other
> dangerous air pollutants; roll back Clean Water Act protections; and
> continue America's ever-increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and
> other greenhouse gases that most scientists say are warming our Earth's
> atmosphere.
>
> The Bush economic and anti-regulation policies have saddled ordinary
> Americans with unprecedented budget deficits, rolled back basic
> consumer protections against the corporate exercise of market power and
> allowed the export of millions of U.S. jobs. At the same time, Bush's
> disastrous tax cuts have shifted billions of dollars to corporations
> and wealthy individual contributors to Republican political candidates
> at the expense of the Social Security trust fund, Medicare, Head Start
> and other vital federal programs.
>
> I have no doubt that a President Gore would have pursued far different
> goals, particularly with respect to environmental policy. I therefore,
> with all due respect, urge you not to seek the presidency this year.
>
> The 2004 presidential election will be one of the most important in our
> nation's history--and certainly the most important in my lifetime. I
> think the two top contenders for the Democratic nomination--Senators
> John Kerry and John Edwards--both would be effective nominees.
>
> While I have not made up my mind which of these two candidates to
> support, I do believe that either one could win the election and stop
> the wholesale destruction of environmental protections, the rollback of
> consumer safeguards and the outrageous generosity to multinational
> corporations that have been the dubious hallmarks of the current
> administration.
>
> I think that a Kerry-Edwards ticket would re-energize the Democratic
> core to rid America of the current anti-consumer, anti-worker,
> anti-environmental protection crowd now occupying the White House.
>
> This re-energizing of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is
> happening already.  The news media have reported enormous spikes in
> Democratic and Independent participation In the Democratic primaries
> and caucuses held so far. To cite just one example, turnouts for
> Edwards campaign events in Oklahoma--one of the most politically
> conservative states in the nation--reached levels not seen in 20 years,
> according to The Washington Post's Lois Romano.
>
> Despite Kerry's losses in Oklahoma and South Carolina, overwhelming
> majorities in these and other states have told pollsters they would be
> happy to see either of these candidates win the nomination and take on
> President Bush in November.
>
> I believe your candidacy, which I have little doubt you would undertake
> in good faith and with honorable intent, would take away crucial
> support for a Democratic candidate in vital swing states and allow
> President Bush to win a second term. I can only imagine in nightmares
> the kind of agenda that Bush--unencumbered by constraints imposed by
> his desire for re-election--would pursue in a second term.
>
> Therefore, I once again humbly beseech you not to pursue the presidency
> in 2004. Instead, I urge you to support the Democratic nominee and help
> defeat Bush in November.
>
>
> -- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene