Much more important than being good is being _relevant_.

Nader and the corp. media that created him would prefer to be good but
if they cannot be that, then _anything_ including evil will do.

As Nietzsche wrote, "even the hollowest nut wants to be cracked."

Bret Cahill

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:05:10 -0700, BretCahill wrote:

Explain this.

Without corp. media praise Nader would never have his reputation or
influence in the first place.

Nader and the media were properly considered effective progressives of
the pre info age era.

Like everything else in that era, however, the internet changed
everything. Now the media know that they have no future -- not a
progressive situation -- and Nader's once useful abilities are now as
obsolete as the buggy whip.

But that doesn't matter to them. Being relevant is more important
than being progressive.

Contrast the way they are acting to former U. S. senator and Florida
Governor Bob Graham.

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill wrote:

"Corporate media" then is not corporate media now, for starters.

His reputation was built upon and is still maintained on consumer
advocacy and fighting corporate fraud and abuse. So how this can sync up
with 'corporate media', I do not know.

Very true.

I happened to see CNN the other day stuck in a waiting line and I
could not believe the extreme foaming at the mouth hysterical eternal
jihader rightards on CNN.

Which is irrelevant post peak oil when most can no longer afford to
consume.

I never said they are identical, just that they are both irrelevant
and responding in the same dog in the manger way.

Both are now the problem.

Zerc, dont feed the trool. Brett Cahill is on so many kill lists
he could call Guiness. He posts because in the real world he is
similarly shunned. Note that he ends his "logic" with an ad
hominum. And the worst part about it is that he just recycles
insults, so there isnt even any originality in his unballenced
opinions.

I would agree with you that Ron Paul and Ralph Nader both have way
more integrety then what is needed for the machine of theft and
political distribution. I dont think its a failure to compromise, but...

I dunno Ron Paul well. But Nader should be judged in light of what he
reached the public eye with, a book on the Chevrolet Corvair.

I usta fix cars back in the 1960s, spent a lotta time in junkyards, and
the Corvair was a deathtrap, yes. But so were all the other cars. People
believed Nader's insinuation that having the engine up front offered
some protection.

Bull shit. I've seen enuf engines shoved thru the dashboard all the way
to the back seat to know there were no survivors.

But Nader was willing to use the public's misperception of reality to
build a political career, and I dont think he ever stopped doing so.

Nader probably had some rational basis, if not a comprehensive life
saving optimization approach, for attacking Corvair and the Beetle but
the way Nader got started is the key to understanding why he is now
obsolete.

Post peak oil now dictates small ultra high mpg "clown cars" or
scooters or motorcycles. If we want affordable personal
transportation we are back to death traps and there is nothing barring
a major _tech_ breakthrough than can change that.

If given the choice of walking, cycling or taking the bus and a death
trap, most will risk their lives in a death trap. Ask the Naderless
Europeans why they have 70 mpg vehicles. Ask any ER person if they
are getting more motor cyclists.

Since Nader cannot do the major tech breakthrough thingy, Nader's past
work will never be very meaningful or popular post peak.

Nader and the consumer society itself were only relevant pre peak oil.

It's an indication of the political stupidity of the Greens that they
thought Nader had some cointerest.

Nader = consumer.

Bret Cahill wrote:

"Day Brown" daybrown.org> wrote in message
news:489b1a81$0$18023$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...