kat/katlaughing, yes I do believe what I posted. If you look critically at the argument at the link you posted, it's not really an argument at all. It's a conclusion, with a few facts drawn from here and there and some dubious math to prop it up. It's effective propaganda, but it doesn't bear close examination: the argument itself is structured a lot like those that prove so-and-so is the anti-christ, or draw mysterious parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln, etc.

I do not believe that a Bush presidency will result in Roe v. Wade being overturned. I do not believe that I can in good conscience vote for Gore. And, truth is, my entire understanding of the cosmos would be turned upside down if Nader were to win. I don't expect it to happen.

But look at Perot. He didn't win, either, but now the Reform party is a very real power -- not in the presidential race, no -- but they got Jesse Ventura elected. I mean, how surreal can you get? Why did the perotistas become "real", in such a short time? Because they were unhampered by Hipness, by affectations of world-weariness, by cynical posturing about the "lesser of two evils". In short, they believed.

I believe in Ralph, I believe in his intelligence and his decency, and I'm going to vote for him. I don't expect him to win. But that's hardly the point.