Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Find Lesson Plans on getty.edu! GettyGames

RE: jumping into the fray

---------

From: Lawrence A. Parker (occti_at_TeacherArtExchange)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 05:28:14 PST


I trust everyone appreciates that I did not re-start this thread, nor have I
contributed to it (up to this point) - after all, this list is *not* the
place to be discussing politics (especially when a lot of the dialogue is
about what poor choices we are offered by the two Dominant parties).

And I don't want 'Nnaell' to take this all as being aimed at her comments,
although there are some points of hers which I'll start with.

> A friend (male) who is voting for Ralph Nadar. I find Mr. Nadar an
incredible
> candidate. But I cannot vote for him. Because as a woman, artist and
> educator I have to be a realist.

This is a neat little package:

A male friend is voting for Nader.
I find Nader an incredible candidate.
As a woman, artist, educator I have to be a realist.
Therefore, I cannot vote for Nader

First of all, there seems to be a thinly veiled female chauvinism here, as
if voting for Nader were a 'guy thing'. It's not.

More to follow, it seems that women, artists and educators *must* be
realists. For myself, I know that that flies in the face of a lot of women
I've known personally, and if artists must be realists, then what becomes of
Impressionism, Cubism, Pointillism (sp?), and Surrealism? And, yes,
Educators, as with anyone in their job, must be, at least in part, realists.
But I worry when Educators and others lose their Vision for what can be, and
their Idealism gets buried beneath mundane and pedantic arguments.

> I agree voting for Mr. Nadar is not a wasted vote.
> At least it is a vote, making a decision.

Then, by your own statements, you should not waste your vote, vote your
conscience, and vote for the "incredible candidate" you want.

Look, elections are NOT about picking the lesser of two evils from one of
the Dominant Parties. This asserts that we can only choose from what they
offer us. The point of a Democracy is not to vote for one party or another,
or to pick the lesser of two evils. The point of a Democracy is for the
"vox populi" - the "voice of the people" - to be heard and taken into
account. The choice given us by the Dominant Parties is not that much
different from the lack of representation forced upon the American colonies
by the British Crown....UNLESS we vote our conscience! What kind of a
Democracy do we have if people are scared into stifling their consciences
and expressing their true political ideals?

> Perhaps, next time around I can vote my conscience.

Next time may be too late, especially since Nader and the Green Party need
the show of support now to qualify for Federal campaign funding in four
years. So long as the Dominant Parties scare people into not voting for
alternative parties, we will continue to have ONLY a two party system,
controlled and dictated by those two parties. This may be one of the few
existing true bi-partisan agreements!

Lawrence A. Parker
Philosopher/Educational Consultant
The Ohio Center for Critical Thinking Instruction
http://www.acorn.net/lists-ht/occti.html
Truth, Honor and Courage