Hi. I just want to send you my sincerest thanks for your web site. You are an excellent alternative news source. I am so nauseated by CNN and the New York Times, etc. I think it is so important to get accurate news into the minds of the public. How can we strive for a better world when so many do not know the truth? Thanks, what you are all doing is so important.
7 April 2001
To the editor:
Thank you for your incisive analysis of the Nader op-ed piece. This should not have been a surprise to anyone who has taken the time to study Mr. Nader's real career, which seems to have been concerned mainly with using his cachet as a “consumer crusader” to line his own pockets through a series of shrewd investments, many of which he was able to make as a result of inside information gained through his “public interest” organizations.
The facts are not generally known because Nader, as a true Washington insider, has himself plugged in to all the major media, and receives generally uncritical coverage. It is becoming clearer every day that Nader set out deliberately to throw the election to Bush, and is determined to destroy the Democratic Party and the progressive movement in the United States in the process. After seeing his finances in his disclosure report, I can understand why; his interests coincide with those of the corporations he pretends to fight, and the Republican Party that is their creature.
Very truly yours,
I agree with these writers. My wife and I also supported Nader's bid in the last election. We believed then and now that there is no real difference between Bush and Gore. However I am disappointed with Nader and probably won't support him. But where do we go from here? I used to think of myself as a liberal but more and more I am coming to realize that I am probably socialist. Thanks for listening.
5 April 2001
Dear sir or madam,
First, my congratulations on your excellent coverage of the stolen election.
Second, I just happened to be looking at the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (courtesy of the US House web site) and discovered this little piece:
“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
Sounds like we should determine how many Florida voter were denied the franchise and reduce the state's representation accordingly!
4 April 2001
Even before I read your story I knew that the vote in Florida was manipulated by the Republicans. My guess, Florida was an easy target. Brother Jeb could order bad voting equipment spread out over certain areas—black, Hispanic, elderly, and so on. Wouldn't be hard to do but very hard to prove. A few select people could misplace ballots, or I mean lose them. The ballot chosen was so ambiguous with the name arrangement that error was inevitable. Cheney with his residence in Texas, oh oops, Wyoming, or was it Montana, good family friend who could be trusted to keep Bush from elaborating his agenda and sounding more less educated than he did. Special interest groups could easily send out a few people to disrupt voting places. Not enough to make the news but enough to snag a couple boxes of votes from here and there. I could go on but I will spare you the boredom. The vote fiasco in Florida is so thinly disguised. The Supreme Court, my my my. Fair is a recount of all ballots in Florida. period. Even a child in first grade knows that. If you miscount, do it over. So is your article a surprise, well no. Is it kept in the background, well yes. Will the truth ever come out, well no. So we live with a president who cheated to get elected. I already knew that.
4 April 2001
Thanks for publishing this stimulating article about the ideological product of [Ed] Harris's film [ Pollock]. I saw it recently in Chicago and enjoyed it, although I felt that its Hollywood origin sharply circumscribed the author's obvious sincerity and possible identification with the protagonist. Walsh should have mentioned the remarkable physiognomic similitude of Harris and Pollock. I think that's important. The section on despair and concomitant technical maturation is particularly interesting. I am a film scholar and creative music scholar. I look forward to future WSWS radical arts' critiques.
31 March 2001
Sitting on the other side of the globe in India and watching the Academy Awards, I couldn't help thinking that the films that were in contention this year were two films that promote violence. But they became contenders not necessarily because of the aesthetic quality of the film but because of the sheer money power of the producers. It is amazing to see the level to which “prestigious” awards have descended. Is this happening only in the US?
Obviously not. For the next day the National film awards in India were announced. And the game money and politics play became obvious.
Federation of Film Societies of India
29 March 2001