Ralph would like to change the way the world eats

In the interview with Amy Goodman on the day of Tim Russert's burial Nader staked out his position on the "world food crisis." It was a three point program. First, we do not need ethanol. It is wasted space that should be barley, wheat, or soy. Then we need to stop all this trade for food. Food should be grown in the states where it is consumed.

But most important it is a crime against humanity not to prevent all the food lost in third world countries to insects, rodents, and improper storage. The United States could be a humanitarian superpower if we did this.

He managed to get a little plug in for McCain when he denounced corn ethanol subsidies by noting that McCain has been 'quite critical' of Obama for his position and then places the notion in the listener to watch McCain for more of these criticisms by ending with the statement: "I don't know what his latest position is."

Full-time citizen

Since I have decided to "react" to Ralph's positioning I am beginning to delve into some research on a little perceived footnote character, my relationship to the guy.

He franchised some political think tank operations at colleges in 23 states. They call them P.I.R.G. (public interest research groups) and they are fully operated by the students who pay for and work independantly from anything Nader. He takes the credit for "these" campus advocates valuable contributions. My quotation marks around 'these' were meant to say, the other successful campus advocates get to take the credit or dispense it to some other benefactor, founder.

Peace starts with taking the starch out of the kids

I just do not believe that Greens care about free speech or the rights of individuals as they espouse. The kind of policies they propose are usually brutally finite in their conclusions and are designed to be end resolutions. They also have collected many of the liberal positions and written them out as fascist dogma. Can I still want those things? Statements of position are so far what they do most. And those statements are leftish sounding but usually closed to any other opinion once accepted. They are cultish in the way they seek to have a universal governance over individuals inner convictions on so many issues.

The front where they are making the most effort is in public education. They advocate "anger management" be used on children of every age. They would have all children who are upset taught that it is not an acceptable response to show anger. The child who can not speak in a calm soft voice when they are at school needs to be placed in seclusion and practice breathing and counting exercises until they can "control themselves."

Black is beautiful

Nader has opened his stalking campaign with a racial bomb, honed to be confusing and demoralizing to anyone who is pleased to have a black candidate this far along in the quest for the presidency. Because he has staked his (Nader) position from the left, the charge is that "he isn't enough of a radical." A nice piece of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" style rhetoric. 'He is a radical' for the right and 'He is a sell-out' for the left.'

Nader's supporters claim to have a loose coalition of the varied leftist causes behind Nader the Greens being prominent. I consider him to be primarily a Green since he began as the first major figure to head a Green ticket. Besides observations of Nader's 2008 run at confusing the electorate I will also look at Green policy wonking and the Green agenda.