I apologize for writing you an open letter because you are busy corresponding with God.¹

I did not want to write an open letter, but I penned a private one to you some time ago and received no response.

We have met on numerous occasions and have known each other for almost a decade, so I would appreciate an answer.

The point of this letter is to ask you to reconcile your completely contradictory written statements and public pronunciations about voting your conscience on the one hand (Independent Ralph Nader in 2000) and supporting candidates who oppose all the key issues you support on the other (Democrats Barack Obama in 2008 and John Kerry in 2004.)

I’m concerned that your written and oral statements are so contradictory that you are losing any residual political credibility you might have enjoyed. I think the youth of America and non-voters deserve answers, as you have anointed yourself as their representative.

We first met back in 2000 when you supported the Ralph Nader for President Campaign. We met at numerous Super Rallies that Nader held all over the country to sold-out crowds ranging from 20,000 in Madison Square Garden to 15,000 in Portland, Oregon to 12,000 in Minneapolis.

Your message at each rally was crystal clear: vote your conscience. At Madison Square Garden you bellowed while inveighing 20,000 people not to vote for of Al Gore: “The lesser of two evils is still evil!”

One week before the 2000 election, you wrote a letter to Gore:

Look, Al, you have screwed up — big time. By now, you should have sent that smirking idiot back to Texas…. You should have wiped the floor with him during the three debates. But you didn’t…. You don’t realize that it’s YOU and the Democrats that are responsible for the possibility of Bush winning next Tuesday….

Instead of…owning up to your mistakes, you and your people are blaming some rumpled senior citizen lawyer who is only following his conscience… Ralph Nader has devoted his entire life to making the rest of our lives better. Because of him we have the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the EPA, OSHA, airbags and seatbelts, the Freedom of Information Act — the list goes on and on. What have YOU done to save a few million lives?

…You and your “New Democrats” abandoned the poor, the working class, and the middle class….You and the Democrats have created the monster know as “W”…

I want Ralph Nader to get millions of votes on Tuesday. I have seen the response to Ralph at numerous huge rallies across the country. There is a progressive movement afoot in America and it needs to explode into a majority movement — beginning now, not four years from now…. I will not feel one iota of guilt should you screw up and lose on Tuesday. The blame I do share is that I voted for you and Bill in 1992…²

Your position in 2000 could not have been more steadfast.

By 2004 you decided to back John Kerry and the Democrats. You traveled around the country telling college students NOT TO VOTE for Nader after telling them TO VOTE for Nader in 2000.

By 2008 you have become a full-on cheerleader for the Democratic Party.

You basically endorsed Edwards in the primary (good call!) and now you are campaigning all out for Obama; I even saw you on Larry King the other night saying that Obama’s convention speech sent chills up your spine. (Do corporate ads for Pepto-Bismol get you misty as well?)

Last month you wrote a piece calling anyone who voted for Nader “crazy.”³

Earlier in the year you appeared on Larry King and a fan of yours called in and observed that since none of the Democratic candidates support single-payer national health insurance — which you do — that you should support Nader.

Your response was surprising: you called Ralph a “sad” reflection of his former self and urged people not to vote for him. (I can’t remember if this was before or after you told King that one of your top priorities as president would be to give all Americans HBO.)

Many progressives are quite puzzled by your behavior regarding Nader given that he once employed you when nobody would and helped bankroll your first film. But apparently, gratitude is not your long suit.

I ran into you late in January, 2006 when we happened to stay at the same hotel during a vacation. I approached you at dinner, introduced myself (you, of course, had no idea who I was despite having met me numerous times) and then you proceeded to tell me yourself that Ralph Nader is “crazy.” (Fortunately for you, Ralph is a public figure so your constant repetition of this accusation is not actionable.)

After our meeting, I decided that regardless of your erratic behavior, progressive people really should work together rather than fighting one another, so I sent a bottle of wine to your room and penned you a handwritten note apologizing for any disagreements with the Nader camp in 2004 and asking for reconciliation.

You neither wrote back nor thanked me for the wine.

Now, in 2008, you are at it again, relentlessly telling people to abandon their beliefs and to abandon the Nader campaign.

I thought I would compare how your current advice measures up to your past writings.

On November 7, 2000 you penned a “Final Election Day Letter” urging your supporters to back Nader no matter what and in every state. Stunningly, your support for Nader was couched in inviolate moral terms: your letter makes clear that you would always vote for an idealist like Nader and that to do so is a duty to the next generation and to posterity:

For some reason, I never grew up, and, I guess, weirdly enough never gave up hope. To hear my fellow baby boomers this past week instruct me in the intricacies of “strategic voting” and “the lesser of two evils” and “you see, a vote for this guy is really a vote for that guy,” made me wonder how I missed the boat — the one on which you learn to act “responsible,” and be “pragmatic,” and, of course, “compromise.”

That’s why it’s been so refreshing to be around the young people who have thronged by the hundreds of thousands to the Nader campaign. They don’t want to hear about settling for the second worst guy. They can’t comprehend their elders’ pleas to abandon their conscience and do something in the voting booth they don’t believe in. These young people are filled with a fire to stand up, speak out, and make this world a better place. Nothing — not even the fear of the Bogeyman Bush — will smother their passion to do the right thing.

Today, my daughter will vote in her first election. I believe the worst thing I could do as a parent is to tell her that she should not be following her own conscience. I will not tell her to be “realistic”; she will have plenty of time to deal with the harsh realities of this world. Why should she begin her adult life having to settle for something she doesn’t believe in?

Has our willingness to compromise, to vote for the lesser of two evils, gotten us better candidates? Has our abandoning the beliefs and positions we once so strongly fought for resulted in a better life for the poor and the working class?

At some point, you have to say enough is enough. Today is that day for me. I will go to the polls and vote for Ralph Nader. I am doing so for the only reason you should ever vote for anyone. I am voting for Ralph because it is what my conscience says is right. I am doing what they taught us to do in civics class — vote for who you think the best candidate is. Period.

How many of you can honestly say Ralph Nader is not the best candidate? Don’t reach into your bag of rationalizations — just answer this one question honestly. If you want all the dirty money out of our elections, you HAVE to vote for Nader because he is the only one — not Bush, not Gore — who would eliminate it entirely. If you think the minimum wage should go up more than 50 cents an hour in the next year, then you HAVE to vote for Ralph Nader as he is only one who would raise it to a real living wage. If you believe there should be universal health coverage NOW, then you have to vote for Ralph Nader because he is the only one who would sign that bill. Click here (”20 Reasons to Vote for Nader”) and look at this list. And if find yourself in agreement, then how can you NOT vote for Ralph Nader?

Do not vote from your fears, no matter where you live. Decisions made in fear are usually the wrong decisions and lead to lousy consequences. You have to find the courage to act on your convictions. Remember what that felt like? To believe in something, even if it was against all the odds?When Rosa Parks took that seat at the front of the bus, do you think she was afraid? You bet she was. …The revolutionaries that founded this country were not stymied by their fear of King George. And they did not even have the support of 75% of the colonists! Nevertheless, they followed their conscience.…Can we not aspire to what those who came before us were willing to do so that we would ALL have the right to vote our conscience today? Do we not dishonor them by our willingness to settle for less than our conscience demands?⁴

Your 2000 letter was quite compelling. What bothers me and others is that you have completely repudiated your own writings by your words and deeds since 2000. After telling America’s students, and you own daughter, to vote their conscience, you are now telling them to vote for the lesser of two evils, a position you swore you would never adopt.

As disturbing, from my perspective, is that you have removed from your website the “20 Reasons to vote for Ralph Nader.”⁴ This is something a corporation would do when damaging documents are exposed: just shred the evidence.

Years ago you had some intelligent things to say about politics. More recently you seem interested in getting attention by driving an ice cream truck around Capitol Hill and writing books with chapters titled: “Do The Democrats Still Drink From A Sippy Cup and Leave The Light On,” as you all the while promte the Democratic ticket. You like to hang out with Madonna and God and will get on board with any candidate you think might win. Oh, and you once registered a fichus tree as a candidate for Congress. That was useful.

In school, I always enjoyed the class clown, but I would never go to him for political advice. I’m afraid that is what you have become.

Actually, what you have become is best summarized in the following paragraph:

I have seen the slippery slope that type of behavior leads to in the baby boom generation. First, you start with little chips away at your conscience. You agree to do things that don’t seem to directly harm any living thing, actions in which you convince yourself, “I guess I can live with that ’cause the alternative would be worse!” But bit by bit, as you start to abandon what you believe in and compromise your values, you end up being able to rationalize any action. Before long, you give up and head to the middle. You learn that it is safe there. If you strive for complacency and mediocrity, the system will reward you. Promise not to upset the apple cart and you will end up with more money, a nice house, lots of gadgets, and oodles of things. Who wouldn’t want that! But all of this compromise — not doing what you know in your heart of hearts to be right — not only destroys you as an individual, it weakens our democracy.⁴

Remember those words, Michael? You wrote them. You have become what you vehemently opposed.

Ralph Nader’s legacy will be exactly what you said it will be: that of a serious and great American who made a difference by saving million of lives.

Unless you return to your more effective roots, your legacy will be buffoonery, cheapening the political discourse and disillusioning the next generation.

I am reachable by phone or email.

Yours,

Carl J. Mayer

1. See “An Open Letter to God, from Michael Moore,” michaelmoore.com, August 13, 2008.
2. “An Open Letter from Moore to Gore,” michaelmoore.com, October 31, 2000.
3. “How The Democrats Can Blow It In Six Easy Steps,” Rolling Stone, August 13, 2008.
4. “A Final Election Day Letter” michaelmoore.com, November 7, 2000.

It is time to change the Democratic Party mascot from a donkey to a weasel.

I propose a weasel holding a white flag and wearing knee pads.

July 9, 2008 will go down as the day in history that the Democratic Party, on bended-knee, raised the white flag and capitulated to the most fervent desire of George Bush and Dick Cheney: to immunize the giant phone corporations and the Bush administration itself from any legal liability for their unconstitutional, criminal spying on ordinary American citizens.

This vote will be seen as the moment when all pretense of an opposition party in America dissolved.

This fact was confirmed when President Bush, moments after the Democrats capitulated in the Senate, appeared on the White House porch to thank the Democratic leadership for cooperating with him, particularly Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-Verizon) and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-ATT).

The Democratic Party not only rubber-stamped the Bush Administration’s unconstitutional program of wiretapping without warrants, it also betrayed three core historic Democratic Party principles: freedom and civil rights, constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law.

If the Democratic Party in the twentieth century stood for something, it was freedom and civil rights. From Woodrow Wilson’s stated aim of making the world safe for Democracy, to FDR’s Four Freedoms, to the expansion of civil liberties under Johnson and Kennedy, Democrats stood for protecting Americans privacy and civil liberties. By voting to immunize the law-breaking phone corporations and sanction the Bush Administration’s lawless surveillance dragnet, the Democratic Party has placed in danger the civil liberties of every living American and the liberties of future generations.

The second principle embraced by the Democratic Party was the Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of government powers. When it became clear in the 1970s that the Nixon administration was using the CIA and the national security apparatus to spy on opponents of the Vietnam war and on political opponents, the Democratic Party fought back. After the Church Committee hearings, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that required the Executive to obtain a warrant before spying on Americans in this country. When the Bush Administration violated that law by combing through the phone records of millions of Americans, the new and not improved Democratic Party waived the white flag and undermined the principle that the Judicial Branch acts as a check on the Executive Branch.

The final insult hurled at the citizens of America by the Democratic Party is their willingness to undermine the rule of law. The legislation passed on July 9, 2008 is an ex post facto law that is almost certainly unconstitutional. By retroactively immunizing the phone companies and the Bush administration, this law unconstitutionally intrudes on Separation of Powers by telling the judiciary how to rule. The law is also unconstitutional in that takes a property right from all of the citizens who have sued under the original FISA law to stop the wiretapping. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states clearly “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” By joining with Republicans to pass an ex post facto law, the Democratic party has eviscerated the rule of law in America.

There is no opposition party any longer in America.

There is only Big Government in the service of Big Business.

The fight to restore our democracy and wrest control from Big Government and Big Business ought not to be distracted by the side show of the Democratic Party which pretends to stand for change and against the Bush Administration while voting for the status quo and ratifying the worst unconstitutional acts of the Bush Administration.

As soon as President Bush signs the bill voted on by Congress, we will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law.

If the Democratic Party will not protect the Constitution, it is time for the people to lead.

The revelation days ago that federal agents took into custody Norman Hsu — yet another fugitive financier linked to either the Republican or Democratic parties — coincided with the announcement by the United States Attorney for New Jersey that eleven New Jersey politicians, including two state legislators, had been arrested for taking bribes in return for government contracts.

While not directly related, these events offered further confirmation to a scandal-weary public that criminal activity can often be found at the national, state and local level of American politics. Every few weeks an elected official of either party has a “Casablanca” moment and declares they are “shocked, shocked” that they received tainted money and then dutifully donates the ill-gotten booty to charity. After hand-wringing by watchdog groups, tut-tutting by editorial boards and empty promises of reform, politicians go back to business as usual.

Americans may now ask a more serious question: Has criminal activity become woven into the fabric of the operations of the Democratic and Republican parties?

If the these two political parties were different entities – corrupt unions, say, or corporations – there is no doubt that federal prosecutors would bring racketeering charges and seek a monitor to oversee the activities of at least some thoroughly criminal and corrupt local and state party organizations.

The notion that the two parties and their various subsidiaries engage in racketeering is not a radical notion. Federal judge Michael M. Baylson suggested on his own initiative from the bench (sua sponte in legal parlance) that racketeering charges be brought against politicians and lobbyists in a 2005 case in which two executives of Commerce Bank were found guilty of bribing Philadelphia elected officials while seeking government favors.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970 was originally passed by Congress to target the mob. But the Act has been widely interpreted and in dozens of cases has been applied to terrorist organizations, corrupt business and hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether RICO can be used to target governmental entities or political parties, but there appears to be no bar.

New Jersey may not be the most corrupt state in the union, but it may be a good place for prosecutors to begin using the racketeering laws because criminal activity is central to the practice of both political parties. Over ninety New Jersey elected officials have been found guilty or pled to criminal activity in the past few years, including many Democratic and Republican power brokers. Well-known New Jersey lobbyist Alan Marcus confided to New York Magazine: “In New Jersey, you contribute money not for access but results. Anybody who doesn’t admit that is lying.” In the Garden State, the practice of exchanging money for government contracts and favors is routinely referred to as “Pay-To-Play,” leaving no doubt that an illegal quid pro quo is the order of the day.

The logic of the political money race and of trading government contracts for cash contributions has no end. When even the New York Governor – who has somewhat of a record of fighting corruption – finds his own administration mired in a criminal investigation in its first few months, it is time to reflect on how to end a money-chase-at-all-costs system that forces individuals and organizations to skirt the law.

If prosecutors get serious about using the racketeering laws to target individuals and political party entities in a bi-partisan fashion, the possibility of restoring the public trust might begin.

To determine if media exposes and lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General have redressed mounting buyer complaints, our law firm recorded a customer service conversation with Time-Warner Inc., a corporation notorious for knocking about consumers. (It was recorded lawfully, in anticipation of litigation.)

The conversation began with promise, as the company apparently has replaced fallible humans with infallible machines:

[Ringing]

America Online Computer with “Voice recognition” Software (AOL): Thanks for calling AOL. To ensure quality service, your call may be monitored or recorded. Today there’s even more choice with the new AOL. Introducing AOL Open Ride, our newest software…it will revolutionize the way you use the Internet. You’ve got to see it to believe it… [Note to reader: “Open Ride” is what crashed my computer to begin with; hence, the call.] Are you currently paying to use the AOL service? Please say yes or press one. No or press two.

Customer: Yes.

AOL : Great, let’s look up your account. Please enter or say your home telephone number, area code first.

Customer: [Number recited.]

AOL : Sorry. I didn’t understand. Please enter or say your home telephone number.

Customer: [Number entered.]

AOL : Let me make sure we’ve got the right account. Your screen name is spelled C-A-R-L-M-A-Y-E-R. Is that right?

Customer: That’s right.

AOL : Sorry, I can’t tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

Customer: Yes.

AOL : Sorry, I didn’t hear you. Please say “yes” or “no”.

Customer: Yes.

AOL : I’ve pulled up your account information. First, please choose one of the following AOL Departments. You can say: “order high speed”, “tech support”, “billing”, “passwords” or “cancellation.”

Customer: Tech support.

AOL : All right. I can help you with your password. But first, AOL security requires some verification. You’ve got an account security question here. Let us try that. What school did you go to?

Customer: Uh, Princeton, but I need tech support.

AOL : Hmm, that doesn’t seem to match what I’ve got on file. Let’s try that again. Please speak your answer or say, “I don’t know it”. What school did you go to?

Customer: Princeton University.

AOL : I think you said you wanted to start over and go back to the main menu. Is that correct?

Customer: Uh no. I want tech support.

AOL : Sorry, I can’t tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

Customer: Yes.

AOL : You can say: “order high speed”, “tech support”, “billing”, “passwords”, or “cancellation.”

Customer: Tech support.

AOL : Sorry, I didn’t understand. Please choose one of the following AOL departments: “order high speed”, “tech support”, “billing”, “passwords” –

Customer: Tech support.

AOL : Sorry I still didn’t understand.

Customer: You’ve got to be kidding me. Tech support.

AOL : You’re calling for technical support, right?

Customer: Right.

AOL : Sorry, I can’t tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

Customer: Yes.

AOL : Now in a few words please tell me what tech support problem you’re calling about. For example, you could say something like, “I’m having trouble with email attachments”.

Customer: Having problems with the software. It crashes.

AOL : Sorry, I still didn’t understand. In a few words, please tell me why you’re calling today. For example, “I can’t send email”. Okay, go ahead.

Customer: I can’t send email.

AOL : I think you said you wanted to start over and go back to the main menu. Is that correct?

Customer: No. I said I can’t send email.

AOL : Sorry, I can’t tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

Customer: I can’t send email.

AOL : Please say one of the following words: “connection problems”, “can’t sign on”, “web browser problems”, “installation”, “email”.

Customer: Web browser problems.

AOL : When you’re ready to continue just say, “Let’s go”. If you want to call back say, “Goodbye” or just hang up.

Customer: I’d like to speak to a customer service representative.

AOL : When you’re ready say, “Let’s go” or press 1 or if you want to call us back just say, “Goodbye”.

Customer: No, I’d like to speak to a customer service representative.

[Two Beeps]

AOL : Current wait time to speak with a customer service consultant may be up to two and a half minutes. May I continue where we left off? Yes or no?

Customer: No. I want to speak to a consultant.

AOL : Okay, thank you. Our tech support staff should be able to help you with this situation. Please hold.

[Two Beeps]

[Music playing]

[Phone rings twenty-two times.]

AOL : We are unable to answer your call at this time. Please try your call again later. Thank you.

[Dial tone]

[Beep after machine hangs up]

Eureka! Time-Warner Inc., the world’s largest media conglomerate, has created a perfectly closed loop. No need for humans in this operation.

No longer do customers have to worry about language barriers generated by service personnel in foreign lands.

Time-Warner Inc. stock is surging along with the market. This economy is great unless you belong to the majority of Americans who do not own individual stocks. Then, you are merely a lowly consumer. And as long as companies can keep padding the bottom line by skimping on customer service, who cares about consumers?