Welcome to Aquila News

A lot of people, particularly in Northern California, like Ralph Nader. I don't. Although they think he's the genuine answer to their dissatisfaction with the two political parties, I think he has become a crackpot. At one time he was a dedicated advocate for the consumer. Now I think he's not much different than Perot, a victim of his own self-aggrandizement. What a shame.

Ralph has said quite a few things over the course of this election period that are reprehensibly quixotic. The only thing I can figure is that some of these statements are based on an obsessive desire for recognition, as well as a rationalization for running against Al Gore. He's rationalizing because he doesn't want to feel guilty about the possibility of his candicacy throwing the election to George Bush. Here are some of the irresponsible statements/ideas I've heard Ralph spout over the past several months:

1. If I had been a Senator or a Congressman last year, I would have voted to impeach Clinton.

Obviously, getting oral sex is an impeachable offense to a man that may have never had any, oral or otherwise. Of course, Nader would claim that Clinton's offense was lying about it, not the act itself. There is still time during this campaign for the press to grill Nader about his sex life or the lack thereof. Will he lie or tell us the intimate details?

Joe Coneson, a writer for Salon speaks of Ralph's change of viewpoint. While Coneson was writing The Hunting of the President, a book detailing the background of Clinton's enemies( see Republican Rogue's Gallery), Ralph, a vocal critic of Kenneth Starr, helped Coneson with some of the research for his book.

2. If I wasn't running for President, I'd vote for Bush.

Bush represents everything that Ralph is supposedly against: An awful environmental record in Texas, anti-abortion, corporate prostitution, big oil (energy policy based on oil drilling in sensitive environmentally protected areas), support of judges that are lenient towards corporations, and pro gun. Etc. etc.

3. If Bush wins, the country will move more towards the left. This certainly worked during Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle, didn't it? We had twelve years of horse shit that we're still trying to wade through while Clinton has been in office. Nader's idea sounds a lot like the American Communist complaint that had Roosevelt not been in office, a Communist revolution would have succeeded in this country.

4. The country was better under Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle than Clinton/Gore.

Where did Ralph get his judgement? He must have been listening to the lies coming from the black hole of the Republican propaganda machine. Were we better under Reagan and Bush when the US supported evil dictators like Rios Montt in Guatemala, screwed up HUD and created homelessness, blew out the unions and weakened workers compensation, allowed a recession to almost turn into a depression before Clinton was elected, tried to weaken environmental laws (Quayle had secret meetings in the White House with those corporate functionaries that Nader despises)?

Does Nader think that the country was better off under the Republicans because they gave him more attention and he had a bigger enemy to stalk? The left wing always makes more money for their causes if the person in the White House is a Republican bogey man. It must have been hard for the left to stir up hatred against Bill Clinton, although writer, Christopher Hitchens, certainly gave it his best shot.

5. There is no difference between Bush and Gore.

Either Nader is lying or he doesn't have a clue. A lot of Nader people believe Ralph when he says this, and haven't taken the time to read Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, or studied the policies of either Gore or Bush. Nader is trying to garner votes by telling his supporters that there is no difference between the two politicians. Some people are voting for Nader because they want all of their own pet policies put into action. They have no clear understanding of the necessity to compromise in a democracy. They are like the religious fundamentalists who believe that compromise is anathema to the WORD. If Gore voted for NAFTA, than he must be evil. If Gore has accepted money from some corporations he must be the same as Bush. If this is so, can we also say that if a person makes a killing in the stock market, he/she has no right to criticize corporate structure. Ralph says that he has made over 13 million dollars over the course of his career, mostly from investments in stocks like Cisco, Comcorp, Iomega and Ziff-Davis.

Here are some of the many differences between Gore and Bush:

Gun Control: Gore--For, Bush--Against

Choice (reproductive rights): Gore--For, Bush--Against

Environment Strategies: Gore-- Pro, Bush--Texas worst environmental record in country

Patients Rights against HMO's: Gore-- Pro, Bush-- Wants to protect HMO's, some of his biggest supporters.

Hate Crimes Legislation: Gore--Pro, Bush--Against(doesn't feel their is a need for it. Remember, he doesn't want to give homosexuals special preferences).

Foreign Policy--Stop Genocide, Gore--Pro, Bush: Not in our strategic interests.

Supreme Court: Gore will appoint judges that protect Roe Vs. Wade, Bush will support more like Scalia and Thomas.

Economy: Gore favors government assistance in case of a downturn. Bush will allow the economy to tank, just like his father did, and other Republicans have. Remember depression is another word for Republican economy policy. History shows us that Republicans don't want to intervene in economic policy even though it puts a majority of the population into an economic tail spin. Most Republicans are so wealthy that they aren't as adversely affected by a bad economy as the rest of us. In fact, some of them prefer high unemployment because they have workers under their thumb. They can pay low wages to individuals that are desperate for a job.

Campaign Finance Reform: Gore--Pro, Bush--Against.

Where they are the same:

Pro death penalty( but Gore wants emphasis placed on DNA, and Bush seemed absolutely delighted during the second debate that so many people have been executed in his state. Almost half of all the executions since 1982 in Texas have been on his watch. Bush has supported 145 executions!

Pro-Nafta

Pro Gulf War. See Secret Diary entry on foreign policy.

Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, in his article, "Power over Prophets" in the publication, In These Times, argues that Nader hasn't taken any real part in the nuts and bolts of the political process to establish the legitimacy of his and his followers issues, or to save them from the dust bin of third party irrelevancy. Nader is like a kid in the back of a classroom that takes pot shots at the teacher, without ever really getting involved in the school. Like Perot, Nader has never run for any political office other than president. Neither one have been interested in dealing with the compromise it takes to be a political office holder.

Ralph Nader is a Pisces with Aquarius Rising and Moon in Leo. As a Pisces with Aquarius Rising, Ralph's life path as a consumer advocate was appropriate. His bare bones life dedicated to the greater good was certainly in line with his north node in Aquarius. Aquarius is the sign of humanitarian concerns. The North Node indicates the direction we must follow if we are to achieve our life's purpose. It has sometimes been a hard path for him because Saturn, the taskmaster, sits on top of the North Node, but it was a path leading to a sense of accomplishment and a life worth living. But then the Moon in Leo conjunct the South Node (the direction already explored that leads nowhere), has come to the forefront. Now we know that while Ralph was giving up his life for the greater good, his Moon in Leo was crying out for affirmation and attention, if not adulation. Ralph's present egocentric journey, however, is not productive for him or for the rest of us. It may help to elect a dangerous, silly man for president.

This theme of path of self-sacrifice vs. self-aggrandizement is repeated several times in his horoscope. The degree on his Aquarius Ascendant indicates that he is moving from a focus on and desire for socio-political power to as Dane Rudhyar says in An Astrological Mandala, "the enduring character of human achievements ensouled by a great vision." Rudhyar goes on to talk about the lasting impression individuals with this degree have on the society. We can certainly see the impression he has made when we scrutinize Nader's past achievements.

But now, Nader is getting astrological aspects that indicate that he is seeing through a glass darkly, that he is deluding himself about his goals in this election. With a present stressful Jupiter Pluto aspect impinging upon his Neptune, he has become delusional about his present path and has metamorphed into an imperious individual with overinflated expectations. After a rally in Northern California on October 22, Nader said to SF Chronicle reporters, "I want to defeat Bush. I want to defeat Gore. I want to take more votes than I can possibly dream of."

I'm sick of Nader's present political machinations. I'm deathly worried that there will be enough people following him down his present self-destructive path to hand the election over to a buffoon that will drag us right back into a 1980's America. We absolutely can't afford to elect a government that supports dictators because they promote our strategic interests, ignores homelessness, rapes the environment, allows the NRA to move into the White House, gives Big Tobacco a free ride, helps the big insurance companies screw the consumer, promotes a dying energy policy that relies on big oil, gives the very richest another giant tax cut (trickle down bull shit), and holds hands with the religious right wing on religious school vouchers and anti Choice, appointing judges that could give us the America of A Handmaid's Tale.

I'm as tired of Nader's arrogance as I am of Bush's stupid remarks and dangerous political advisors. Vote for Gore.


Aquila Volume 6, Issue 15, October 2000			NEWS

	Ralph Nader: Unsafe at Any Speed A lot of people, particularly in Northern California, like Ralph Nader. I don't. Although they think he's the genuine answer to their dissatisfaction with the two political parties, I think he has become a crackpot. At one time he was a dedicated advocate for the consumer. Now I think he's not much different than Perot, a victim of his own self-aggrandizement. What a shame. Ralph has said quite a few things over the course of this election period that are reprehensibly quixotic. The only thing I can figure is that some of these statements are based on an obsessive desire for recognition, as well as a rationalization for running against Al Gore. He's rationalizing because he doesn't want to feel guilty about the possibility of his candicacy throwing the election to George Bush. Here are some of the irresponsible statements/ideas I've heard Ralph spout over the past several months: 1. If I had been a Senator or a Congressman last year, I would have voted to impeach Clinton. Obviously, getting oral sex is an impeachable offense to a man that may have never had any, oral or otherwise. Of course, Nader would claim that Clinton's offense was lying about it, not the act itself. There is still time during this campaign for the press to grill Nader about his sex life or the lack thereof. Will he lie or tell us the intimate details? Joe Coneson, a writer for Salon speaks of Ralph's change of viewpoint. While Coneson was writing The Hunting of the President, a book detailing the background of Clinton's enemies( see Republican Rogue's Gallery), Ralph, a vocal critic of Kenneth Starr, helped Coneson with some of the research for his book. 2. If I wasn't running for President, I'd vote for Bush. Bush represents everything that Ralph is supposedly against: An awful environmental record in Texas, anti-abortion, corporate prostitution, big oil (energy policy based on oil drilling in sensitive environmentally protected areas), support of judges that are lenient towards corporations, and pro gun. Etc. etc. 3. If Bush wins, the country will move more towards the left. This certainly worked during Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle, didn't it? We had twelve years of horse shit that we're still trying to wade through while Clinton has been in office. Nader's idea sounds a lot like the American Communist complaint that had Roosevelt not been in office, a Communist revolution would have succeeded in this country. 4. The country was better under Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle than Clinton/Gore. Where did Ralph get his judgement? He must have been listening to the lies coming from the black hole of the Republican propaganda machine. Were we better under Reagan and Bush when the US supported evil dictators like Rios Montt in Guatemala, screwed up HUD and created homelessness, blew out the unions and weakened workers compensation, allowed a recession to almost turn into a depression before Clinton was elected, tried to weaken environmental laws (Quayle had secret meetings in the White House with those corporate functionaries that Nader despises)? Does Nader think that the country was better off under the Republicans because they gave him more attention and he had a bigger enemy to stalk? The left wing always makes more money for their causes if the person in the White House is a Republican bogey man. It must have been hard for the left to stir up hatred against Bill Clinton, although writer, Christopher Hitchens, certainly gave it his best shot. 5. There is no difference between Bush and Gore. Either Nader is lying or he doesn't have a clue. A lot of Nader people believe Ralph when he says this, and haven't taken the time to read Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, or studied the policies of either Gore or Bush. Nader is trying to garner votes by telling his supporters that there is no difference between the two politicians. Some people are voting for Nader because they want all of their own pet policies put into action. They have no clear understanding of the necessity to compromise in a democracy. They are like the religious fundamentalists who believe that compromise is anathema to the WORD. If Gore voted for NAFTA, than he must be evil. If Gore has accepted money from some corporations he must be the same as Bush. If this is so, can we also say that if a person makes a killing in the stock market, he/she has no right to criticize corporate structure. Ralph says that he has made over 13 million dollars over the course of his career, mostly from investments in stocks like Cisco, Comcorp, Iomega and Ziff-Davis. Here are some of the many differences between Gore and Bush: Gun Control: Gore--For, Bush--Against Choice (reproductive rights): Gore--For, Bush--Against Environment Strategies: Gore-- Pro, Bush--Texas worst environmental record in country Patients Rights against HMO's: Gore-- Pro, Bush-- Wants to protect HMO's, some of his biggest supporters. Hate Crimes Legislation: Gore--Pro, Bush--Against(doesn't feel their is a need for it. Remember, he doesn't want to give homosexuals special preferences). Foreign Policy--Stop Genocide, Gore--Pro, Bush: Not in our strategic interests. Supreme Court: Gore will appoint judges that protect Roe Vs. Wade, Bush will support more like Scalia and Thomas. Economy: Gore favors government assistance in case of a downturn. Bush will allow the economy to tank, just like his father did, and other Republicans have. Remember depression is another word for Republican economy policy. History shows us that Republicans don't want to intervene in economic policy even though it puts a majority of the population into an economic tail spin. Most Republicans are so wealthy that they aren't as adversely affected by a bad economy as the rest of us. In fact, some of them prefer high unemployment because they have workers under their thumb. They can pay low wages to individuals that are desperate for a job. Campaign Finance Reform: Gore--Pro, Bush--Against. Where they are the same: Pro death penalty( but Gore wants emphasis placed on DNA, and Bush seemed absolutely delighted during the second debate that so many people have been executed in his state. Almost half of all the executions since 1982 in Texas have been on his watch. Bush has supported 145 executions! Pro-Nafta Pro Gulf War. See Secret Diary entry on foreign policy. Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, in his article, "Power over Prophets" in the publication, In These Times, argues that Nader hasn't taken any real part in the nuts and bolts of the political process to establish the legitimacy of his and his followers issues, or to save them from the dust bin of third party irrelevancy. Nader is like a kid in the back of a classroom that takes pot shots at the teacher, without ever really getting involved in the school. Like Perot, Nader has never run for any political office other than president. Neither one have been interested in dealing with the compromise it takes to be a political office holder. Astrological Remarks on Nader Ralph Nader is a Pisces with Aquarius Rising and Moon in Leo. As a Pisces with Aquarius Rising, Ralph's life path as a consumer advocate was appropriate. His bare bones life dedicated to the greater good was certainly in line with his north node in Aquarius. Aquarius is the sign of humanitarian concerns. The North Node indicates the direction we must follow if we are to achieve our life's purpose. It has sometimes been a hard path for him because Saturn, the taskmaster, sits on top of the North Node, but it was a path leading to a sense of accomplishment and a life worth living. But then the Moon in Leo conjunct the South Node (the direction already explored that leads nowhere), has come to the forefront. Now we know that while Ralph was giving up his life for the greater good, his Moon in Leo was crying out for affirmation and attention, if not adulation. Ralph's present egocentric journey, however, is not productive for him or for the rest of us. It may help to elect a dangerous, silly man for president. This theme of path of self-sacrifice vs. self-aggrandizement is repeated several times in his horoscope. The degree on his Aquarius Ascendant indicates that he is moving from a focus on and desire for socio-political power to as Dane Rudhyar says in An Astrological Mandala, "the enduring character of human achievements ensouled by a great vision." Rudhyar goes on to talk about the lasting impression individuals with this degree have on the society. We can certainly see the impression he has made when we scrutinize Nader's past achievements. But now, Nader is getting astrological aspects that indicate that he is seeing through a glass darkly, that he is deluding himself about his goals in this election. With a present stressful Jupiter Pluto aspect impinging upon his Neptune, he has become delusional about his present path and has metamorphed into an imperious individual with overinflated expectations. After a rally in Northern California on October 22, Nader said to SF Chronicle reporters, "I want to defeat Bush. I want to defeat Gore. I want to take more votes than I can possibly dream of." I'm sick of Nader's present political machinations. I'm deathly worried that there will be enough people following him down his present self-destructive path to hand the election over to a buffoon that will drag us right back into a 1980's America. We absolutely can't afford to elect a government that supports dictators because they promote our strategic interests, ignores homelessness, rapes the environment, allows the NRA to move into the White House, gives Big Tobacco a free ride, helps the big insurance companies screw the consumer, promotes a dying energy policy that relies on big oil, gives the very richest another giant tax cut (trickle down bull shit), and holds hands with the religious right wing on religious school vouchers and anti Choice, appointing judges that could give us the America of A Handmaid's Tale. I'm as tired of Nader's arrogance as I am of Bush's stupid remarks and dangerous political advisors. Vote for Gore. .
		Back To Top