If you're still thinking about voting for Ralph Nader instead of John Kerry, please consider how many more lives will be lost in the coming years if your vote results in another Bush term. There's much to be said for promoting alternative parties, making a statement, promoting an agenda, and many other reasons one might vote for Nader, but there are times when practical consequences are so grave -- and more importantly, so irreversible -- that one must compromise the ideal for the practical.
Bush's first four years have caused hundreds of thousands of human deaths, millions of animal deaths, and immense suffering that would not have occurred if not for him. Another four years will only consolidate his policies and accelerate the damage. For those who die, the lessons a Nader vote might teach will be offered in vain. To sacrifice their lives in order to make a political point is to betray the value of the individual life, a core value in everything Ralph Nader has stood for.
The Lancet just published research showing that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the war. Iraq is far from resolved, and it looks like Bush is planning to wage exceptionally bloody new campaigns in Fallujah and other hotspots as soon as our election is over. Who knows what new, ill-conceived and incompetently managed adventure Bush might try in another four years.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsP...11455&section=news
Bush's refusal to force chemical manufacturers and nuclear facilities to harden themselves against terrorists puts millions of Americans at risk.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1026-08.htm
Bush's rollbacks of environmental regulations that protect human health and safety have already begun to affect tens of thousands of children and adults. His plans to defy international agreement to ban the ozone-destroying methyl bromide will cause thousands of additional deaths from melanoma. His exemption of mine wastes from regulation under the Clean Water Act will result in thousands of deaths from cancer due to arsenic leaching into groundwater. His Clear Skies Initiative will add thousands more deaths from acute asthma. http://www.nrdc.org/legislatio...backs/rollbacksinx.asp
Wildlife have suffered from an endless onslaught of destructive Bush decisions, from the EPA excluding wildlife experts from review of new pesticide applications to the NMFS allowing tuna caught using a technique that has killed more than seven million dolphins to be labeled "dolphin safe." http://www.defendersactionfund.org/bushRecord.jsp
If you vote for Nader instead of Kerry and Bush wins as a result, many innocent lives will be lost. Even if you see Kerry as "the least worst" as Nader often says, for those individuals who will suffer and die because of Bush, that difference between Bush and Kerry is as important as could be. Kerry may not be everything you wish or even close to it, but on the environment, consumer issues, economic justice, and health care, his long record clearly indicates that his policies will be vastly better than Bush's. Although he's not the peace candidate many seek, he will certainly handle Iraq more carefully and competently than Bush, which will save lives, and he's much less likely than Bush to blunder into another disaster.
Bush's first four years have caused hundreds of thousands of human deaths, millions of animal deaths, and immense suffering that would not have occurred if not for him. Another four years will only consolidate his policies and accelerate the damage. For those who die, the lessons a Nader vote might teach will be offered in vain. To sacrifice their lives in order to make a political point is to betray the value of the individual life, a core value in everything Ralph Nader has stood for.
The Lancet just published research showing that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the war. Iraq is far from resolved, and it looks like Bush is planning to wage exceptionally bloody new campaigns in Fallujah and other hotspots as soon as our election is over. Who knows what new, ill-conceived and incompetently managed adventure Bush might try in another four years.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsP...11455&section=news
Bush's refusal to force chemical manufacturers and nuclear facilities to harden themselves against terrorists puts millions of Americans at risk.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1026-08.htm
Bush's rollbacks of environmental regulations that protect human health and safety have already begun to affect tens of thousands of children and adults. His plans to defy international agreement to ban the ozone-destroying methyl bromide will cause thousands of additional deaths from melanoma. His exemption of mine wastes from regulation under the Clean Water Act will result in thousands of deaths from cancer due to arsenic leaching into groundwater. His Clear Skies Initiative will add thousands more deaths from acute asthma. http://www.nrdc.org/legislatio...backs/rollbacksinx.asp
Wildlife have suffered from an endless onslaught of destructive Bush decisions, from the EPA excluding wildlife experts from review of new pesticide applications to the NMFS allowing tuna caught using a technique that has killed more than seven million dolphins to be labeled "dolphin safe." http://www.defendersactionfund.org/bushRecord.jsp
If you vote for Nader instead of Kerry and Bush wins as a result, many innocent lives will be lost. Even if you see Kerry as "the least worst" as Nader often says, for those individuals who will suffer and die because of Bush, that difference between Bush and Kerry is as important as could be. Kerry may not be everything you wish or even close to it, but on the environment, consumer issues, economic justice, and health care, his long record clearly indicates that his policies will be vastly better than Bush's. Although he's not the peace candidate many seek, he will certainly handle Iraq more carefully and competently than Bush, which will save lives, and he's much less likely than Bush to blunder into another disaster.
Facebook
Twitter