In a message dated 10/29/00 9:02:00 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> At the risk of agitating our dolphin friend and taking up too much
> of his time, I think that you will find that nobody is perfectly
> consistent in their philosophies and actions. Everyone has flaws. For
> example, Nader has investments (through Fidelity Magellan) in Occidental
> Petroleum, the Gap, the Limited, Wal-Mart, and Halliburton Company.
>
> http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html
>
> --
> "Erik Reuter"
If I were to argue that he is a perfect candidate, I would first have to deny
the issues I disagree with him on. Second, I would end up proving that I am
a fanatical lunatic that suffers from delusions of grandeur. He invested in
a mutual fund. Maybe he knew what they invested in, maybe he didn't. What
you might call hypocrisy, I would argue that it may be a sign of courage. He
fights *against* his own financial interests, spearheading movements to
promote change. Most people would do the opposite, doing everything they can
do to advance their money interests. I think the article (unintentionally)
makes a stronger point against Gore though, who invested *directly* into
Occidental Petroleum. Will Gore vote against *his* own financial interests
should an environmental initiative come across the president's desk that
would hurt Occidental Petroleum to aid the environment, or one that would
benefit Occidental Petroleum at the expense of the environment? Somehow, I
doubt it.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
