Letters

NADER’S RATERS

DEAR EDITOR:

You “conditionally” endorse Nader [election endorsements, October 27–November 2]? I would say you have removed the coeur from the cri. To do what is right even in the face of danger is what gives the act nobility. Imagine the L.A. Weekly in the shoes of the patriots: “I regret that I have but one life to give to my country . . . and given the choice of death or capitulation, I shall choose the latter.” Or “Give me Liberty or give me 5-to-10 years in minimum security.” Such bravery!

If Bush wins, then, dammit, the body politic will have to be vigilant for four years to prevent the evils that may come. God forbid that, following four years of sloth and gluttony, citizenship and political participation be something other than a futile exercise regimen.

The failure of influential people and institutions, including your paper, to take Nader and his campaign seriously for so long has undermined the effectiveness of the campaign and given new meaning to the word impotence. If you don’t think he’s qualified or prepared to govern, fine. If you disagree with him on the issues, fine. But to use your powers of free speech for this . . . “endorsement”? This is a spit in the face.

—Robert SaundersNashville

DEAR EDITOR:

The Weekly says vote for Ralph Nader only when it is clear, by more than a 5-point margin, that the Green Party candidate will not spoil Al Gore’s White House bid. “Flexibility in the cause of progressivism is no vice,” you say. Wake up. The Democrats are not “progressive.” Clinton’s 1996 election-year embrace of so-called welfare reform is evidence enough of the Democrats’ craven politics. Al Gore, don’t forget, championed that particular hammer-blow to America’s underclass. As for health care, the ranks of the uninsured have expanded on Clinton’s watch, and he and Hillary have smothered — in the sludge of “managed care” — any hope for universal coverage.

The time to vote for Nader is when that vote counts the most, and not, as the Weekly urges, when it counts not at all. Give the Democrats the shiv they richly deserve. Or vote for Gore, and toss away your franchise and weaken the possibility of a future in which meaningful distinctions among candidates might help rebuild a genuine democracy.

Don’t validate the corporate kleptocracy. Vote Nader unconditionally.

—Greg GoldinLos Angeles

DEAR EDITOR:

How dare you endorse Ralph Nader, even conditionally, at a time like this? I am disappointed, disheartened, shocked. Voting for Ralph Nader is not a protest vote; it will not be “a knock upside the head to the Democratic Party”; it will not demonstrate anything other than a willingness to sacrifice the well-being of many for the ideals of few. The only thing voting for Ralph Nader will do is help elect George W. Bush.

How dare you be so irresponsible? It is ludicrous to recommend that Nader supporters check the polls and switch to Gore at the last moment if Bush is ahead. This is not a time for games — too much is at stake. It would have been much more effective to seize the opportunity and wholeheartedly endorse Gore.

Ralph Nader has stated that he would rather see Bush win — he seems to think this would inspire a great uprising. But at a cost to whom? Nader has proved himself to be a self-serving hypocrite who cares more about his own name than the true welfare of others. He’s done his job; he’s raised his issues. Now he needs to put his money where his mouth is and release his supporters to vote for Al Gore.

If the L.A. Weekly was truly committed to the most realistic fulfillment of its own ideals, it would have done the same. You blew it!

—Denise DuffieldSanta Monica

DEAR EDITOR:

We all know in our heart of hearts that there is a world of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. They appear so similar because their shared tactic is to play to the center. That’s how they get elected. That’s how the game is played. I look to politically astute journalists to delve deeper than this superficial gamesmanship.

If I could I’d cancel my subscription to the Weekly. But what I can do is refuse to hire the thousands of prostitutes who fund your paper. It’s my own form of trickle-down (as it were) economics.

—Mitchell Rose

Los AngelesSUN LIGHT

DEAR EDITOR:

Re: “Heliocentric Worlds” [September 8–14]. I was out of the country when Brendan Mullen’s story on Sun Ra ran in the L.A. Weekly, and I’d like to bring to light (albeit belatedly) a number of facts.

It was John Sinclair and the MC5 who were responsible for bringing Sun Ra to the Detroit area to perform. The Stooges were ã not involved. My band, the MC5, played with Sun Ra numerous times in the years ’67 to ’69, including shared bills at Community Arts Auditorium, the Grande Ballroom, Ann Arbor Armory, and the first Detroit Rock & Roll Revival Festival at the Michigan State Fairground, in June 1969.