I'm not sure what kind of figure you are looking for. Most of your post really doesn't make sense.

Nader has represented the average citizen for DECADES. He has helped us drive safer cars, drink cleaner water and numerous other initiatives.

Sanders is pushing for single payer health care. He is pushing for the return of usery interest limitations against credit card companies. I don't know about you, but those actions represent me, even if I'm not one of his official constituents. And I applaud those actions. The fact that these things don't go through are not his fault, they are the fault of a corrupt senate that cares more about lobby money than about their constituents and it is our fault for not finding better candidates to run and vote for in the house and senate.

So, again, I ask... Greens, Libertarians, other independents... where are you and will you present some local candidates and some new candidates for senate and house?

Ms. Shapiro:

Give me a figure on how effective Nader and Sanders have been in "representing" the American people, as you say. There is no glory in rhetoric, when the antagonists have carried each and every day, in Iraq, in the extraction of wealth from the economy, in the dead oceans, and on and on.

"Soft-shoe" was a reference to the Hush Puppies the former Burlington leafletter wore in a televised debate with his last Republican crocodile opponent. I was forced to wear Hush Puppies as a pubescent boy, and have never recovered.

I am sorry if these remarks violate the duty to obey our progressive elders and celebrate their wizardly purity. American corporate military academic financial power is now moments from exile, to be replaced at the top by way-past-has-beens who commonly vote for religious legislation (Sanders) or who exist far apart from common social reality.

This is not an endorsement for the odious pro-corporate nativist Ron Paul, either. In view of the Obama con, I would ask all earnest CDers: ready to give up on American politics? If not, are you shipping out on a nuclear ride to Afghanistan, then?

I voted Ralph Nader for president in 2004 and Cynthia McKinney for president in 2008. No regrets on either vote.

Bill Walz
Mr. Nader - this is why I love you and hate you. You are the voice of accountability that we can depend on to confront the madness of this society being run for the sake of profits rather than the well being of the people. Go for it! Organize like hell. Speak up loudly, often and everywhere you can. Get us an accountable government health program like every other civilized nation has.
But shut up about being President!
You need to drum-beat for the instant-runoff election so that new parties can be created and actually affect elections in a positive way - so that Greens and Socialists can create coalitions with the Democrats and actualy have some influence rather than running against Democrats and giving elections to the Republicans.
You acomplish that, and I would vote for you.
Everybody - loud and clear - SINGLE-PAYER GOVERNMENT HEALTH PLAN! Until we drown out the corporations and their paid for political propoganda.

Putin knows how to get things done....
he just exiled the gambling industry in Russia to Siberia.

Maybe we could do the same with our so called health care industry.

BO...with 60 seats has the same kind of political strength at this point in time....let's see what he does with it

On the Thom Hartman radio show, as Ralph's segment was finishing, the host asked Ralph if there was any one thing he recommended a person could do. "Yeah, go to singleactionpayer.org," Ralph said. "Singlepayeraction.org," Mr. Hartmann gently corrected. "Yeah, if you go to singleactionpayer.org, you'll find a lot of good information," Nader stated, again mangling the website.
No "movement" is going to rely on the likes of old-timey soft-shoe Bernie Sanders or Mr. Nader. Honor them for their service, listen to them evey now and then, but damn, as "politicians," they are about as viable as Dick Clark.

Well, yes, Nader has always been clear in his many speeches and essays. It always puzzles me why so many Common Dreamers seem to hate him. Single-payer is just a no brainer, but the Dem Party opposes it.

In the end, I just don't think any reasonable argument will fly with Dem voters. They vote in packs and they vote out of fear. They don't understand their own interests, which aren't represented in the party they vote for again and again. Under such conditions, change will always fail because Dem voters outnumber progressive voters.

Obama may betray his Dem voter constituency, but they won't recall it by the time the next election comes around. They'll just recall their fear of Republicans. The irony is that it's quite clear right now that Dem-Repug policies are one and the same. But Dem voters will forget that too.

-TIA

The last few posts illustrate the problem the Clinton's have had over the past 20 years. I repeat, though it never seems to elicit a response, that HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE for the nomination, against Obama. How can this be?
It must be, that Hillary was acknowledged to be the vastly better politician, the vastly more clever negotiator. One of the comments was, that Hillary was "also" a corporate pig. "Also," meaning, now that we know Obama for the hustler he is. I voted for Hillary, not because I thought she was free of corporate influence, but because I "knew" that Obama wasn't. In fact, he is more of a corporate pig than any of us suspected, or are willing to acknowledge. I voted for Hillary for her toughness, her insight into political reality. When Obama won, in spite of losing the popular vote, we got the worst of both worlds: 1) a corporate pig, and 2) a clever hustler, posing as a presidential candidate. There was enough cash behind his candidacy to buy him the office. The majority that voted for Hillary, will continue to admire her and support her, in spite of her tiresome and foolhardy critics.

I don't think Nader is the point. Getting single payer is. Whatever voices that will push this forward is a good thing. The truly sad fact is that America will wind up, if it is lucky, with a public option. The more probable outcome will be the betrayal of the interests of the people of this country -- more of the same private insurance dressed in drag that claims to be public, and/or the "co-op" plan which is simply divide and conquer of the federal buying block into 50 state buying blocks, none of them with sufficient clout to affect the market. Prepare to be screwed.

Obombya, after the wave of horror of bush cheney had a historical few months when he could have stepped forward into history. The despair of the nation and world gave him a chance to act unfettered to some degree. That moment has passed and Obombya has stepped into the boardrooms of corporate america and wall street.

I've got a professional voting consultant now to think for me, Moondoggy. I voted for bo. My priest says there is no salvation, I will burn for eternity.

But if I can vote for Nader I would like that a lot. I just exhorted a market checker to CD who lit up when I said Ralph Nader had an article here now.

Nice thread. I think of us as a family. Anarchists Zionists WhoEverists Democrats Marxists Existentialists Catholics Mad Glad Asleep? Can't Sleep, Hindus and Sikhs. That is what makes us cd.

Ralph, as each day goes by I feel dumber that my wife and I suddenly voted for Obama on the last minute on Nov 1, 2008 when both of us should have stayed and voted for you despite even the wannabees from suddenly falling for Obama or Mccain. A lot of excellent comments from most of you especially Debbie Shapiro and Jenniferbedingfield. I admit that I was a stupid coward on the last minute but there are a lot of forces that push us to voting even when that illusion isn't for real. I did not want Nader to suffer the system that was stacked against him.

Jennifer, you're right about local and state elections. We the people really do need to pay more attention to our local and state level elections and focus on increasing voter turnout. Look what happened in my state of VA earlier this June. I voted for Brian Moran who was a true populist progressive but thanks to pathetically low voter turnout, DLC hack Creigh Deeds was lucky. When it comes to city elections out here in VA Beach, voter turnout is as low as 5%. If voter turnout was at least 45%, the chances of us getting more leaders who share Nader's sentiments and excellent ideas would be far greater than the clowns we're stuck with. Building a movement works best when done from the ground on up instead of from the top.

Debbie Shapiro, Mike Gravel wasn't getting much coverage even on the major independent media outlets such as youtube.com even though his ideas were tremendously popular. The libertarian party is mixed on the economic front but they have an excellent reputation on civil liberties and freedom. Gravel was mugged by the media polls to lose and the media even lied about him dropping out of the race. I believe that they did the same thing to Ron Paul once. Gravel did endorse an unknown for Green Party nomination but never endorsed his support for Nader or Mckinney. There needs to be better usage of the Internet media to cover 3rd parties and not just in an offyear.

As for those who still cling to Obama, I understand what you're going through and believe me, I used to cling to supporting Clinton even when he kept selling out and didn't believe in 3rd parties. It does not help any of us to still settle for the same old crap when we should be looking to new parties ahead. You may not like Obama being critiqued but Obama and Congress are doing their hell best to fail and possibly give it all back to the Republicans by 2010 and 2012 and they may very well get their wish.

The 30th of July
Against our wishes.
They have destroyed our buildings and killed our friends and family. They have gone to war illegally killing millions and tortured cruelly. Spied and lied and keep secrets from us. Taken our money and given it to the rich or made it vanish into thin air. Poisoned our food and made us sick. Blown off the top of our mountains and spoiled our lands. They have stolen our airwaves and fed us infomercials. They gouge us cruelly for connecting with family and friends.They write our laws and cast us into prison for braking them. They would deny us the dignity of health and life.

For Baal the golden calf of profits.

The 30th of July

A Republican whose name I have forgotten gave the real reason for Republican's (and those of their ilk), resistance to single-payer - "Once something like this passes, we can never go back to the way things were before."
And that, precisely, is why single-payer health care MUST pass - the need for universal health care is desperate; the need for insurance profiteers is non-existent, and the need for re-establishing some form of democracy in this country is crucial, unless we want to become the world's largest banana republic.

I welcome Ralph Nader's getting after Obama about health care. As an advocate for single-payer, I welcome his voice and savvy.

News and information about single-payer has been pretty well suppressed by the administration. It's only recently, since the arrest of the Baucus 13 that we have gotten some news coverage, and some op-ed pieces published. Even the rally on June 25th, where between 10,000-15,000 people descended on Washington, received no mention in the popular media. Ed Schultz is one of the rare exceptions, and speaks about single-payer often. Diane Rehm of NPR had to give in and feature single-payer on her talk show after being inundated with indignant e-mails when a previous show carefully omitted mention of it. These are exceptions.

This country has never had a health care system, contrary to administration claims. In the 40s employers began providing health insurance as an incentive, to lure workers during a time of caps on pay and prices. This was never set up as a health care system, and now it's a deadly mess. The idea of reforming it is ludicrous - employers are disappearing, high costs of insurance make it hard for them to compete, or even continue to provide insurance. And, insurance doesn't even translate into health care, regardless of cost.

An important fact to remember, which came out of the Senate committee hearings, is that three insurance executives stated categorically that they would not give up the practice of rescinding people's coverage on often very flimsy pretexts, retroactively cutting off coverage, even in mid-treatment or procedure.

Everyone needs to fight for single-payer. There will be a rally to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Medicare in Washington D.C., July 30th. information available at www.Healthcare-Now.org - phone 800 453 1305.

Please, be there.

The Nut-case Obama supporters who refuse to see the light,
are the same crowd who have been drinking Kool-aid made
by Bubba Clinton, the same Clinton who raided that religious
compound in Waco Tx and killed all those people.
Clinton sold out our industrial base to China and we are in
a major depression, and the worse is yet to come.
That same Obama-nut crowd will keep supporting Clinton
as if they were blind and cannot read, but listen
to the propaganda that is being dished out.

Obama has failed to impress in his first half year. Rather than lead, he has compromised to the point that no real change is being made. He has used up 1/4 of his time before next year's Fall Congressional elections.

Obama says, "it might make sense if starting from scratch". How can he keep getting by with this kind of shit.

Does he or anybody think the French, Brits, Canadians, Formosans, et al "started from scratch". Hell no, they started from where they were with leadership that brought them to a single payer universal health care national program.

Hillary for president in 2012.

In spite of the irrational hatred that exists against Hillary and Bill, even among many democrats, brainwashed by the constant torrent of vicious attacks against the Clintons, by the moral hypocrisy, jealousy and vindictiveness revealed by the republicans and right wing nutcases, HILLLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE AGAINST OBAMA, for the nomination. It's probably too late to prove it, but Obama swindled the presidency away from Hillary, though she won with the "people's" vote.

I'm so sick of those who attack Nader. The man has been right all along. This past election was the first time I voted for him. I always thought the Democrats were better than the Republicans, but they have increasingly become just like them. They are now nothing but corporate shills with only a few exceptions, like Kucinich.

I would very GLADLY vote for other independents for congressional and senatorial seats if they were running. I am sick to death of the Democratic party. When my own Senator (Cantwell) refuses to even promote a public option for health care, instead favoring a health care exchange... I know for sure that I can't vote for them anymore. I just hope there's another option besides a Republican, which I will NEVER EVER vote for. So, greens, libertarians, ANYONE else! Please represent up here in WA state. We need some new leadership. Cantwell and Murray have worn out their welcome.

Between Obama and Nader, I think it is best for politicans to stay out of health care altogether, elminate health insurances, and re-establish the patient-to-doctor relationship. This original and basic form is where the patient is getting direct services and care from hospitals, clinics, and/or medical centers, rather than through an insurnace company that is making profits or a politican getting benefits of his own passing legislation in favor for health-related companies.

This is a good cause for Nader. I think Obama's plan looks like the incredible spaghetti swirl Hillary proposed, and is being weakened daily by amendments, compromises and the lack of public enthusiasm. Rather, since there is no real probability of compromise and non-partisanship effort in support of the good of the people and the nation. He should replace all this patchwork clap-trap with a tax-based single-payer, not for profit government health care system and damn the torpedoes. Maybe Nader can bring all this to a point and they can vote up or down. Half-measures are to no avail. I just got a $1200 bill for a very bloody injury which turned out to not even require x-rays or stitches. A good practical nurse would have been more than qualified to do it, but the focus now is strictly on profit. Anyone have any advice about where I can send the details of this matter? Thanks.

Phoenix Down
Nader and his supporters do get it. We are not going to send in our checks. We are not going to call our senators. We are not going to march into the face of fully armed police to protest or take it to the street.That does not and has not worked.

Without the passage of not for profit healthcare we understand that the contract we live under is broken. That contract is for our government to provide for the general welfare. As we progress through this recession and find out the effects of clintons end of welfare as we know it. Facing foreclosure bankruptcy and no access to healthcare. Wars without end or reason. We understand that corporations have become King George. They write and pass pollution controls that will kill us and our planet.

No longer will we pledge allegence to a nation that dominates us as the fat cats wish. We are fired up as we see the mountain tops blown into the rivers ruining them long into the future. We will not take it any longer.

Would love to tell you what we will do but we can not as that would get us in trouble. We will just do it. We will not behave. We will not sit down or get out of the way. It is apparent that peaceful means have failed. We will chose a different path. You want to fight we will fight. We may not win but our country will never be the same again.

Occam's razor hangs over our country's head. Democracy will live or die in the days and months ahead.Our country will change whether Obama likes it or not. We will not back down. Our lives and the lives of our children depend on it.

It absolutely does matter who the president is and what they are saying. If Obama was saying, "Single-payer is the best option, and I will fight until we get it," it would put Congress on the hot seat and further expose their corporate ties. It would get people asking about it, and it would begin to discredit the bullhorn from the corporate-sponsored Congress.

If Obama supported single payer and actually brought in experts from Canada or France (or any of the other countries ranked ahead of us, there are 36 after all!) to testify to tell us the benefits and challenges of their systems so we can actually make some decisions based on information and not hysteria.

Yes, the president drives the ship even if Congress often jumps off.

If you don't think what the president says matters as far as public opinion and what gets done, you haven't been paying attention the last 8+ years.

Obama is selling us down the river to corporations. Nader can stay, Obama needs to GTFO. Or Obama needs to grow the stones to do what is right and not what is politically expedient. Either one works for me.

Rastaman vibrations are positive!

'Consumer activist Ralph Nader has a simple message for liberals feeling less warm and fuzzy about President Obama: "I told you so."'

Ralph, I supported you. I voted for you (in 2000). I worked for the Green Party (which you abandoned). Ralph, if you ever point your finger in my face and say "I told you so," I'll break it in two!

Ok all you Obama apologists out there. Name us one thing Obama did that Dubya or Mccain/Palin wouldn't have done.

Nader, Kucinich, etc. etc. etc., no matter WHO was President they still have to work with Congress. Hey people THAT is the set up. You would be whining about Nader and Kucinich too because he did IMMEDIATELY take care of YOUR issue. All liberals know how to do is whine and stamp their feet about their issue. Oh yeah, I am liberal, but am also a realist. Single payer will not happen, yet. The leap is too far. Grown up and start thinking instead of whining, all of you.

Nader and his supporters still don't get it.

No matter who we elect president to change healthcare, any single-payer, any public option, or ANY reform of our messed up healthcare system will be dead in the water because of the senators who sold-out their souls to corporate interests. It doesn't take PhD in political science to figure out why that is.

It's quite maddening listening to the far, far whacked-out left whine on and on about how they feel betrayed by Obama when he said time and again during the campaign about what a single-payer system proposal would be up against. Obama might as well be talking to a brick wall because those on the liberal fringe are fanatically equivalent to their facist counterparts when it comes to criticising Obama for trying to do something that's politically impossible.

If people really want true healthcare reform, they need to attack the Ben Nelsons or Kent Conrads types in the Senate and hold them accoutable for any passage or failure of any potential legislation. Obama did give us certain indications about supporting a single-payer during the his campaign, however, the people are going to have to rise up and take away his exuses to make him go through with it. Don't blame Obama for your own failures. Nadar needs to GTFO.

The president's argument that "we should build on the current system" doesn't stand on its own. What exactly is propping it up? Each of us to some extent has invested ourself in the establishment status quo. Our investment props up an otherwise bogus argument. Why do we invest in the status quo? Because the petro-opiates are highly addictive. It's a trap. Get off the petro-opiates, people, before its too late. Vote third party in all your exchange association. Go local. Help build the alter-economy of small scale farmers, craftsmen and merchants. Demand best value, considering full costs. Demand open information in public policy and closed cycles in material production.

Quickstepper.....WHAT A GEM YOU ARE...

"The only reasonable assumption to make is that you're just another right-wing plant whose intent is to foul the air for emerging third-party movements."

Nader a right-wing plant??? Oh my God....you have no idea who Ralph Nader is!! What are you 20 years old??? You need to do your homework like renting the video "Trade Secrets: A Bill Moyers Special" on the chemical industry....several times Nader's name was mentioned as a problem for the chemical industry...SURE NADER IS A RIGHT-WINGER!!!

for those of you interested....go to: http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/program/documents.html

Quickstepper....you are a dope.

Don't you just love the mainstream press...How they love to hate Ralph Nader! "NAGS" I would hardly say what Nader does as Nagging....more like DEMANDING...what mature people do. Geez!

The fact that Nader was and still is right that both parties are corporate parties and that a huge number of registered Democrats have been dumping their label and becoming "independent" registered voters (like what Nader is) just proves that people are fessing up to the truth that the Democratic Party does not represent US...the people!

My wish is that those who betrayed Nader and went so far as to beg him in public not to run (like Michael Moore & Bill Maher) and those who wrote open letters for him to not run...Like David Korten and the Nation writer John Nichols) would ask for Ralph Naders forgiveness.

Our elections system is screwed-up and serves no one but the rich!!! We either need to change it or stop participating in it and acting like we are doing some civic activity!

peace
m

Send this video to everyone you know who may have forgotten what Obama said in 2003:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Obama's main flaw is that he has an american libertarian capitalist world view. Which is a flawed world view. What we need in this country is a change toward collectivism, and marxism.

Read this from:

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch07.htm

6) Reforminsm and revolutionism. What is the difference between revolutionary tactics and reformist tactics?

Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromises and to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well as anybody else that in a certain sense "every little helps," that under certain conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular, are necessary and useful.

"To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie," says Lenin, "a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted, and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilise the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies, to reject agreements and compromises with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies-is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not as though, when making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain, we were to refuse beforehand ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace our steps, ever to abandon the course once selected and to try others?" (see Vol. XXV, p. 210).

Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of reforms or of compromises and agreements, but of the use people make of reforms and agreements.

To a reformist, reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitability transformed into an instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution.

To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms are a by-product of the revolution. That is why, with revolutionary tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an instrument for strengthening the revolution, into a strongpoint for the further development of the revolutionary movement.

The revolutionary will accept a reform in order to use it as an aid in combining legal work with illegal work to intensify, under its cover, the illegal work for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

That is the essence of making revolutionary use of reforms and agreements under the conditions of imperialism.

The reformist, on the contrary, will accept reforms in order to renounce all illegal work, to thwart the preparation of the masses for the revolution and to rest in the shade of "bestowed" reforms.

That is the essence of reformist tactics.

Such is the position in regard to reforms and agreements under the conditions of imperialism.

The situation changes somewhat, however, after the overthrow of imperialism, under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under certain conditions, in a certain situation, the proletarian power may find itself compelled temporarily to leave the path of the revolutionary reconstruction of the existing order of things and to take the path of its gradual transformation, the "reformist path," as Lenin says in his well-known article "The Importance of Gold,"1 the path of flanking movements, of reforms and concessions to the non-proletarian classes-in order to disintegrate these classes, to give the revolution a respite, to recuperate one's forces and prepare the conditions for a new offensive. It cannot be denied that in a sense this is a "reformist" path. But it must be borne in mind that there is a fundamental distinction here, which consists in the fact that in this case the reform emanates from the proletarian power, it strengthens the proletarian power, it procures for it a necessary respite, its purpose is to disintegrate, not the revolution, but the non-proletarian classes.

Under such conditions a reform is thus transformed into its opposite.

The proletarian power is able to adopt such a policy because, and only because, the sweep of the revolution in the preceding period was great enough and therefore provided a sufficiently wide expanse within which to retreat, substituting for offensive tactics the tactics of temporary retreat, the tactics of flanking movements.

Thus, while formerly, under bourgeois rule, reforms were a by-product of revolution, now under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the source of reforms is the revolutionary gains of the proletariat, the reserves accumulated in the hands of the proletariat consisting of these gains.

"Only Marxism," says Lenin, "has precisely and correctly defined the relation of reforms to revolution. However, Marx was able to see this relation only from one aspect, namely, under the conditions preceding the first to any extant permanent and lasting victory of the proletariat, if only in a single country. Under those conditions, the basis of the proper relations was: reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat... After the victory of the proletariat, if only in a single country, something new enters into the relation between reforms and revolution. In principal, it is the same as before, but a change in form takes place, which Marx himself could not foresee, but which can be appreciated only on the basis of the philosophy and politics of Marxism...After the victory (while still remaining a 'by-product' on an international scale) they (i.e., reforms-J.St.) are, in addition, for the country in which victory has been achieved, a necessary and legitimate respite in those cases when, after the utmost exertion of effort, it becomes obvious that sufficient strength is lacking for the revolutionary accomplishment of this or that transition. Victory creates such a 'reserve of strength' that it is possible to hold out even in a forced retreat, to hold out both materially and morally" (see Vol. XXVII, pp. 84-85).

I wonder who wrote the "Nader Nags..." headline copy?

It's like writing "Nader Harps On Single-Care...", or maybe "Nader Fusses at Obama..."

Nags?

"I don't nag... your MOTHER nags!"

· Yr Obd't Servant

I love a man or woman who never gives up his or her heart and convictions for what's right for America which was why I especially loved Nader's candidacy and found him to be a special independent amongst the many I voted for in local, state, and federal elections.

As for Marie and her wanting her money back, Marie may have claimed to have learned her lessons but I still think she should have thought and checked before throwing money down a corporate blackhole. I proudly voted for Nader thrice and each time prouder than the last. I wanted to give the Democratic Party a chance but not one issue could they be honestly or clearly state their positions.

Sometimes, it can feel sad and depressing being alone but I don't want to just say "I told you so" but I also want to bring aboard those who not only acknowledge their error in judgement but are ready to turn a new leaf. If you've been voting Republican or Democrat but are sick and tired of them not delivering on anything, vote with your heart and mind on the issues and you'll see why Nader, Mckinney, Sheehan, and even leftouts in the parties such as Paul and Kucinich make far more sense. I'm tired of being told that 3rd parties aren't "electable", "can't raise enough money", "are too liberal or nutty", etc ... The more voters stop falling for monied bs and pixy dusts, the better they'll feel about themselves and the less left-out we independent voters will feel as well. It's long time to spread the words and get help people and even those who are constrained by life's stressful hells overcome the seductive media. I don't know how it can be done but we've got to try all venues and connect the issues. United we stand, divided we fall !