2008 Woodie Awards
Ralph Nader: man of principle or nefarious mole?
Jay Donde
Issue date: 3/3/08 Section: Opinion
Last week, not long after the indefatigable-if-nothing-else Ralph Nader announced his campaign for the presidency on Tim Russert's Meet the Press, the inevitable reactions emerged from both the left and right wings of the political spectrum.
The Republican response was predictably oxymoronic, and could only be described as "reserved jubilation" (according to cultural anthropologists, this emotion exists only in response to two highly unique stimulus paradigms, those being either a) the discovery that Ralph Nader is - yet again - running for president, or b) the passage of major - yet silent -gas during a substantially important business meeting).
On the other hand, the Democratic response was somewhat more outspoken and emphatic, and, if I recall correctly, consisted of something along the lines of "WHY RALPH?!? WHY?!?"
Meditating upon this inquiry, a startling - and I must say, disturbing - notion entered my thoughts. No matter how hard I tried, as I recalled the presidential campaign of year 2000 (shudder) I couldn't shake from my mind the image of Ralph Nader telling America (with a straight face) that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
"WHY RALPH?!? WHY?!?"
Why, indeed. Perhaps, I began to ponder, there is more to this Ralph Nader character than meets the eye. So I decided to engage in a little investigative journalism.
From the outset, I found suspicious inconsistencies in Nader's official biography. For instance, did you know that Nader was born in Connecticut, the only state in the union with a conspicuously (and needlessly) silent consonant? Why the secretiveness, Mr. Nader? What are you and your fellow Yankees trying to hide?
Moreover, Nader claims that his parents were Lebanese immigrants, yet also claims they were Christian, which is just absurd - because everyone knows that if you live in the Middle East you're either Muslim or Jewish. Duh.
Lastly, there is the 2004 episode of Bill Maher's "Real Time" in which Maher and some fat guy named Michael Moore are on their knees (literally) begging (also literally) Nader not to run for president.
The Republican response was predictably oxymoronic, and could only be described as "reserved jubilation" (according to cultural anthropologists, this emotion exists only in response to two highly unique stimulus paradigms, those being either a) the discovery that Ralph Nader is - yet again - running for president, or b) the passage of major - yet silent -gas during a substantially important business meeting).
On the other hand, the Democratic response was somewhat more outspoken and emphatic, and, if I recall correctly, consisted of something along the lines of "WHY RALPH?!? WHY?!?"
Meditating upon this inquiry, a startling - and I must say, disturbing - notion entered my thoughts. No matter how hard I tried, as I recalled the presidential campaign of year 2000 (shudder) I couldn't shake from my mind the image of Ralph Nader telling America (with a straight face) that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
"WHY RALPH?!? WHY?!?"
Why, indeed. Perhaps, I began to ponder, there is more to this Ralph Nader character than meets the eye. So I decided to engage in a little investigative journalism.
From the outset, I found suspicious inconsistencies in Nader's official biography. For instance, did you know that Nader was born in Connecticut, the only state in the union with a conspicuously (and needlessly) silent consonant? Why the secretiveness, Mr. Nader? What are you and your fellow Yankees trying to hide?
Moreover, Nader claims that his parents were Lebanese immigrants, yet also claims they were Christian, which is just absurd - because everyone knows that if you live in the Middle East you're either Muslim or Jewish. Duh.
Lastly, there is the 2004 episode of Bill Maher's "Real Time" in which Maher and some fat guy named Michael Moore are on their knees (literally) begging (also literally) Nader not to run for president.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 12
diane shammas
posted 2/29/08 @ 10:12 AM PST
You must be one ignoramus. I happen to be of Lebanese heritage and Christian. Until the recent state of affairs in Lebanon, the majority of Christians were in Lebanon, 60 % to 40% Muslim up to the 1970s. (Continued…)
Derek Fleming
posted 3/04/08 @ 7:26 PM PST
Unlike Diane, I realize this is satire, however bad it may be, but do you not bother fact checking? However, putting the label "prominent Democrat" on Michael Moore, a man who is not a member of the Democratic party, demonstrate the sort of naivet? that transcends all of Jay's editorials. (Continued…)
Jay Donde
posted 3/06/08 @ 3:51 PM PST
I don't know folks... I lived in the Middle East for 9 years. I met a few Baha'i's here and there, but no Christians. I mean, when I visited Bethlehem those few dozen times, I DO recall seeing a bunch of people wearing crosses around their necks and yakking about some guy named Jebus, but I'm pretty sure they were just talking about a player on the local soccer team. (Continued…)
Zari Aziz
posted 3/16/08 @ 1:05 PM PST
When has sarcasm become an acceptable of journalism? We get plenty of satire on late night talk shows to TMZ, Access Hollywood, and others like them. (Continued…)
ANONYMOUS
posted 5/15/08 @ 2:58 AM PST
The problem and solution with journalism is in the journalists. But when you remove the journalists, how can there be journalism? Through experential accounts. (Continued…)
Nath
posted 5/29/08 @ 4:56 PM PST
WOW, you wanted to spark a controversy and you succeeded. You are article was funny; too bad some people took it literally. Yes, we all know that there are Christians in the Middle East and we know that you know it too well. (Continued…)
g
posted 6/18/08 @ 5:41 PM PST
It's fun starting controversies, isn't it? When does La Voz meet? And yes, there is a such thing as stupid questions... (Don't need to answer them. (Continued…)
Post a Comment