In response to Sam Wong’s column, “Nader Statistically Worthless,” I couldn’t figure out who Wong was supporting. The sarcastic way he described Bush’s stances on tax breaks for the rich and religion in school made me feel like he hated Bush. Wong also called Bush’s running mate a “vote-skipping, multi-million dollar CEO of the `American-asses-only toilet’ company, Halliburton.” This is hardly a flattering depiction of Dick Cheney. If forced to venture a guess, I’d say Wong supports Al Gore. He implies that Gore is “an old, white, multi-millionaire male,” and Gore is a “tree-hugger.” Wong is trying to point out that Al Gore is an environmental advocate, but no environmentalist wants to be called a “tree-hugger,” a term connoting radicalism. Wong criticizes Rage Against the Machine for allowing Michael Moore to film a video supporting Ralph Nader, but fails to consider that maybe the band wanted to produce a pro-Nader video. It’s likely that Rage supports causes other than the two Wong mentions in his column. R.A.T.M. seems quite interested in the political process. After all, they played at the Democratic Convention. There are larger issues at stake here, though. First, Rage should be commended for actively speaking out about important issues, especially when so many other celebrities are content to ignore their roles as arbiters of public opinion. R.A.T.M. is making an effort to actively engage American citizens, especially young adults, in the political process. Unfortunately, its efforts are largely going unnoticed. Wong criticizes Ralph Nader and, by association, Bush and Gore because he’s a millionaire who attended Ivy League schools. Many of us question voting for a millionaire, because we’re afraid he’ll only protect the interests of the wealthy. But we don’t want to elect a poor person, because a pauper can’t be trusted with our tax dollars. We won’t vote for Ivy League grads; they’re aloof and out of touch. Yet, no one wants to vote for a self-professed ninny either. Voters have become fundamentally confused. They don’t know what qualities to look for in a candidate. And Wong’s inane debasement of the candidates only makes matters worse. What disturbs me most about Wong’s editorial, though, is his claim that a vote for Nader is worthless. Millions of people won’t vote this November because critics like Wong have convinced them that their votes don’t count. Americans are being inundated by political cynicism. The only time votes are invalidated is when we fail to vote entirely, or when we vote for a candidate simply because we think his victory is inevitable. We must always vote our conscience, regardless of the candidate’s chances of success. Wong decries the horrors of “old, white, multi-millionaires,” yet he buys into this same establishment by surrendering to the inevitable. That’s an invalidation of the entire democratic process. Dan Pinkerton

Graduate student

English