Misc kvetches

Wrote these notes several days ago and just now got on long enough to actually post.

And now that the Greens wouldn't have him, there's Ralph Nader, running as an Independant. I'd suggest anybody considering voting for him first ask yourself "If he weren't in the race, who would I vote for?" If the answer is "nobody", or a third party candidate very unlikely to win, go ahead. If the answer is "George W. Bush"... by all means vote for Nader - I'll drive you to the polling place! :) But if it's the Democrat, whoever that turns out to be, ask yourself also "do I think Ralph Nader can win?" If you do, sure, go ahead and vote for him. But if not, and if you agree with Nader that the important thing is to replace the incumbent... which approach do you think shows the best chance? Has the size of the showing he got last time had any noticible effect on the policies of the current administration? Yes, the main thing demonstrated by the statistical dead heat of the last presidential election is that people ARE getting fed up with both parties, to the point where they might as well flip a coin. But the way to replace both Democrats and Republicans is to start at the local and state level, and demonstrate to enough people that you can win. THEN go for the top seat. Goodness knows, the votes are out there...

Meanwhile, with the war in Iraq, environmental pollution, the economy at best climbing out of the toilet, health care costs, educational problems, etc. etc. etc... and there go our leaders obsessing over who marries whom. Oi...

Some parenthetical remarks sparked by the above - frankly given that as it stands once you've got that license the government doesn't care what rituals, religious or otherwise you're married by, it would be trivial for the government to separate the civil contract from the religious one.