Red eye, green eye

My eyes are killing me from staring at the computer all day. Or it could be that my contact fell onto the pavement yesterday while I was playing cricket (don't ask) and I had to run to the nearest public toilet to drink some tap water on it to hydrate it.

I find it impossible to keep still for any length of time. The result is I tend to wander the university in search of inner peace and tranquility. Unfortunately I never find it because I either run in to one of you (depressing), or run in to a girl which makes my heart rate leap above the fabled 230 bpm (exhilarating, mildly depressing on occasion but good for the old metabolism). Today I've had my break at the computer. I knew something else would screw up after enrolment, and it turns out I can't get after hours access to the history building. Now that I am inside I can't go and then come back in until tomorrow. So no inner peace walks for Dave.

Instead my attention has turned to that soul-destroying specter of the American domestic elections and all the potential international ramifications. To be precise, the role that Ralph Nader will take in the upcoming election. While some observers have argues that Nader lost the Democrats the election in 2000, Nader has maintained that Gore lost the election for Gore. I disagree with both. I would argue that biased media coverage lost the election for Gore, the bizarre brand of 'democracy' they have in the USA, and the intervention of Jeb Bush in Florida 'won' his brother the 2000 presidency. Several articles have suggested that Nader will run as an independent this year, as opposed to running on the Green party ticket as he did in 2000. Democrats are annoyed, saying that he might cost them the election again. I don't buy this. It will be remembered that Nader got 3% of the national vote last election. He might get between 3 and 6% this time. If he gets 5% then I think his party is eligible for federal funding assistance for the next election. I'm not sure what this means for an independent and I won't pretend to be an expert on this issue. The question is, should he run if it means that some democrats who might have supported Deans vote for Nader instead of Kerry/Edwards? I think so. A close race will be won by Bush, regardless of the number of votes cast for the Democrats. To be honest, I think if the Democrats are to win this election they will need 60+% of the vote have to win comfortably to remove the possibility of interference from the powers and brothers that be. The only way they can get 60% of the vote is if the voter base can be energized in such a way that they can get up off the sofa and go and vote. Nader could even help the Democrats. If they are worried that Nader will cost them the election, more people may well turn out and vote for Kerry/Edwards. It is not as if that many people turn up to vote in the presidential elections in the States. I might hold a different opinion if the same was to happen in NZ where most registered voters turn out - only 51% of registered voters voted in 2000.

That the Democrats were complaining that Nader lost them the election when 49% of voters didn't turn out speaks volumes about their mentality. Dean jolted them out of Bush-lite policies and statements and energized the electoral base and the mainstream Kerry/Edwards adjusted accordingly. Now that Dean is out of the race, Nader's entry could help win the election for the Dems.

I'm no expert on this. Just trying to find peace of mind and inner beauty. Through USA electoral politics. Maybe I need to find another hobby....