Thu 22 May 2008
Many of the young people who came to work for Ralph Nader in the 1960s and 1970s - the Nader’s Raiders of our youth - went on to do great things.
One of those early shining stars was Robert Fellmeth.
After writing books and reports as a Nader’s Raider, Fellmeth went on to found the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School.
Last month, the Institute released an eye-opening report titled “State Secrecy and Child Deaths in the United States.”
The report finds that abused children are dying under a shroud of state secrecy.
It ranks all 50 states from A to F - and ten states get an F.
Protect Children Now - read the reportThe report found that the majority of U.S. states fail to release adequate information about fatal and life-threatening child abuse cases, adhering to misguided and secretive policies that place confidentiality above the welfare of children and prevent public scrutiny that would lead to systemic reforms.
We wanted to bring this report to your attention.
Why?
Because throughout his career, Ralph Nader has come to the defense of children - protecting them from lead based paints, junk food corporations, air and water polluters, and manufacturers of unsafe drugs, automobiles, toys and other consumer products.
Right now, supporters of Nader/Gonzalez - young and old alike - are in Pennsylvania, gathering the more than 50,000 signatures we need to get on the ballot in the Commonwealth this November.
Our ballot access drive in Pennsylvania will cost $50,000.
In the past couple of days, 80 of you have donated $5,088.
We need another 450 of you to donate $100 each for us to meet our goal.
So, please, do the children of America a favor.
Help put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
Thank you for your ongoing and generous support.
Onward.
The Nader Team
PS: We invite your comments to the blog.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 am
Doesn’t Nader own some quarter of a million dollars in the Fidelity Magellin Fund which just so happens to control a large amount of Occidental Petroleum stock?
I’m curious as to why Nader is so different from the multitude of corporate influenced political sheep we have in office today?
It seems that the fund also owns stock in Halliburton and Wal Mart.
I ask this with no venom, inquisitive minds want to know the difference between Nader and Mcain, Clinton, and Obama?
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Mr. Gurr,
In my opinion owning stock in a company and actually receiving campaign donations aka bribes is a huge difference. If you look at what Nader has dedicate his entire life to, the control of corporations and how he has unwaveringly done so. Somewhere down south there is a documentary about his life and his unreasonable ideas on how things should be run. I don’t support the idea of government, you know that better than anyone, but I do support what Nader is doing. Our democracy has been lost to a two party dictatorship financed by big corporations that the politicians have to play to to get elected. Why do you think Clinton had such a big change of heart about socialized welfare? She’s singing to the tune of the medical industry and their lobby.
For me it goes without saying that the candidate that is doing everything grassroots and isn’t even allowed to debate is a little different. The fact that he owns money in a mutual fund that happens to own stock in companies I disagree with doesn’t mean a whole lot to me. Owning a mutual fund is prudent in a system where the money and security resides in the hands of those who we oppose.
The ideas that I think most Americans would like to see are what Nader stands for. He never voted to go to Iraq, the other candidates did and he would pull us out as quickly as possible and use diplomatic means instead of political agression to get things done.. He is openly for a socialized system of welfare. He is all about renewable resources and fomenting their development in a realistic manner. But most importantly, he is a third party that could turn this country back into some semblance of a democracy, he is the opposition, the subversive, he is grassroots. The other candidates are simply two sides of the same coin that would not change in any way the status quo of our nation.