[Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Re: Chris Hedges on 2008: "This may be the twilight of American democracy. And it is better to stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to fight at all."]

[JamBoi]

I agree with her that Nader's importance goes completely unrecognized
(except by Naderites and Greens whom she seems to forget entirely). 
Doesn't change the fact that Nader will likely run as an independent
and will not run as a Green in 2008.  More power to him, but I'm very
pleased that the Green Party is  past the Nader Era.  Now we are onto
people who will actually build up the Green Party and make us a viable
force.

Green solidarity!

Drew

--- Wes Rolley <wrolley at charter.net> wrote:

> I am forwarding Lorna Salzman's comments regarding the Chris Hedges 
> piece on Nader that has been referenced several times recently.
> Whether 
> you agree with Lorna on everything, and I certainly do not, her
> comments 
> here are worth reading and her passion is undeniable.
> __ Lorn'a note follows __
> 
> Not one person has yet, to any degree, rebutted the importance of
> Ralph 
> Nader's accomplishments or commitment. NOT ONE. What they have done
> is 
> reveal their own failures and, worse, their continuing refusal to 
> address the issues that Nader has raised in the course of his
> forty-year 
> career. In this respect they are representatives of the Democratic 
> Party, the Democrats writ small. Their only defense has been to
> indulge 
> in personal attacks, with preference given to the accusation that
> Nader 
> has a big "ego". What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. It is the
> last 
> refuge of scoundrels and civil society criminals.
> 
> Because the neglect of these issues, bounded by the perimeter of 
> corporate control, is what distinguishes the Democratic Party and its
> 
> apologists. No amount of distracting insults and accusations can deny
> 
> this. The Democrats, in which we include the self-important but 
> diminutive pundits like Gitlin, Moore and Alterman, continue to 
> deliberately avoid discussing Nader's accusations and issues. Not one
> of 
> them has come up with a single example of the Democratic Party's
> vaunted 
> progressivism and achievements. For those with short memories, Hedges
> 
> reiterates the record of Bill Clinton below, and it would easily fit 
> onto any traditional Republican list. Compared to Nixon, Clinton was
> a 
> neo-con.
> 
> We need to remind ourselves of the huge gap between those of us who 
> distrust and disagree with the abominable electoral system and the 
> character of American culture and politics, and those who have meekly
> 
> accepted it as the "best of all possible worlds". No one has stepped 
> into this gap unless you include the brainless witless extreme left, 
> whose praxis and objectives eerily mirror those of the capitalist
> system 
> they profess to hate. A progressive revolutionary vision has been 
> articulated (and then only partially and ineffectively) by some 
> environmental leaders, decentralists, bioregionalists, and
> occasionally 
> some honest libertarians (though not by minority groups like blacks
> and 
> Hispanics). But the construction of a cohesive principled movement 
> combining the best of these has not been attempted, at least not yet.
> 
> These movements talk past one another, out of competition and
> compulsive 
> ideologies that they as yet refuse to abandon.
> 
> The fact is that most American movements, outside those listed above,
> 
> have bought the American dream of excessive consumerism, materialism,
> 
> growth, development, all of which are not only ecologically
> disastrous 
> but which fit neatly into the plan of corporations. Black Americans,
> for 
> the most part, just want a piece of the wealth; they don't want to
> break 
> the golden egg laid by the capitalist goose. Their major
> accomplishment 
> has been to persuade non-blacks and paleoliberals that the biggest 
> problems facing America are racism and poverty.
> 
> Now, it would seem dumb and cruel to deny this, wouldnt it? But isnt
> it 
> dumber to ignore the fact that it has been PRECISELY the American
> dream 
> of growth, consumption and accumulation of wealth that has DEPRIVED
> so 
> many Americans of their health, jobs, wealth and dignity? Isn't it 
> obvious that the refusal of liberals, centrists and Democrats to 
> confront the inequity, injustice, unsustainability and 
> anti-environmental character of American society has contributed to 
> poverty and racial/economic injustice?
> 
> How can real progressives ever hope to explain this to 
> liberals...explain that the system they trust and love, which is 
> amenable to incremental but marginal reforms, IS the problem? And
> that 
> only a full frontal attack on the system, including its electoral 
> configuration, will address the problem? This is at the heart of the 
> problem with the Democratic Party: that the social and economic 
> injustices they traditionally abhorred grow directly out of the
> SUCCESS 
> of the POLIITICAL and ECONOMIC system they support, not out of its
> FAILURE.
> 
> Of all the failed movements, the green movement/party is the most 
> prominent and the most tragic, victim as it is of not just the usual 
> leftist infighting but of the post-modern fads like Identity Politics
> 
> and Political Correctness. What the enemies of Ralph Nader (and the 
> present Green Party leadership) try to forget is the fact that in
> 2000, 
> Ralph Nader collected nearly THREE MILLION VOTES on the Green Party 
> line. Given that the national P enrollment was, at the most
> exaggerated 
> count, three hundred thousand members, this means that over 2 1/2 
> million Americans voted for Nader!!! And they were non-greens; they
> were 
> Democrats, Republicans, independents, conservatives, and
> libertarians. 
> They were that potential green constituency that lay out there, ripe
> for 
> the picking, which the Green Party then, in alarm and panic, realized
> 
> could be the future decision-making body in the party. Horror of 
> horrors! The Greens in Dem clothing, the centrists, the
> paleoliberals, 
> the self-serving phony populists like Michael Moore, the infiltrators
> 
> like Medea Benjamin, all stood to be ousted from their positions of 
> power by....choke.....AMERICANS! What could be scarier?
> 
> I don't blame the paleoliberals for hating Nader because I understand
> 
> their fears. They have been revealed by Nader as chicken=hearted 
> phonies, utter failures, and hypocrites. They have revealed
> themselves 
> as the embodiment of failed liberalism, the faintly progressive wash 
> painted over the cynical Democrats, and promoted by clever propaganda
> 
> that distracted people from the fundamental problems by focusing on 
> their symptoms instead of their causes.
> And when someone prominent and respected gets the public's ear and 
> exposes their failures, why of course they get mad. But that still 
> doesn't make them right.
> 
> Lorna Salzman
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> I have been impressed with the urgency of doing.
> Knowing is not enough; we must apply.
> Being willing is not enough; 
> We must do. –Leonardo DaVinci
> Wesley C. Rolley
> 17211 Quail Court
> Morgan Hill, CA 95037
> (408)778-3024 - http://cagreening.blogspot.com
> 
> > Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:19:55 -0500
> To: esalzman at aba.org
> From: Lorna Salzman <lsalzman at rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Chris Hedges on 2008:  "This may be the twilight of
> American
> 	democracy.  And it is better to stand up and fight, even in vain,
> than
> 	not to fight at all."
> 
> Not one person has yet, to any degree, rebutted 
> the importance of Ralph Nader's accomplishments 
> or commitment. NOT ONE. What they have done is 
> reveal their own failures and, worse, their 
> continuing refusal to address the issues that 
> Nader has raised in the course of his forty-year 
> career. In this respect they are representatives 
> of the Democratic Party, the Democrats writ 
> small. Their only defense has been to indulge in 
> personal attacks, with preference given to the 
> accusation that Nader has a big "ego". What does 
> this mean? Absolutely nothing. It is the last 
> refuge of scoundrels and civil society criminals.
> 
> Because the neglect of these issues, bounded by 
> the perimeter of corporate control, is what 
> distinguishes the Democratic Party and its 
> apologists. No amount of distracting insults and 
> accusations can deny this.  The Democrats, in 
> which we include the self-important but 
> diminutive pundits like  Gitlin, Moore and 
> Alterman, continue to deliberately avoid 
> discussing Nader's accusations and issues. Not 
> one of them has come up with a single example of 
> the  Democratic Party's vaunted progressivism and 
> achievements. For those with short memories, 
> Hedges reiterates the record of Bill Clinton 
> below, and it would easily fit onto any 
> traditional Republican list. Compared to Nixon, 
> Clinton was a neo-con.
> 
> We need to remind ourselves of the huge gap 
> between those of us who distrust and disagree 
> with the abominable electoral system and the 
> character of American culture and politics, and 
> those who have meekly accepted it as the "best of 
> all possible worlds". No one has stepped into 
> this gap unless you include the brainless witless 
> extreme left, whose praxis and objectives eerily 
> mirror those of the capitalist system they 
> profess to hate. A progressive revolutionary 
> vision has been articulated (and then only 
> partially and ineffectively) by some 
> environmental leaders, decentralists, 
> bioregionalists, and occasionally some honest 
> libertarians (though not by minority groups like 
> blacks and Hispanics). But the construction of a 
> cohesive principled movement combining the best 
> of these has not been attempted, at least not 
> yet. These movements talk past one another, out 
> of competition and compulsive ideologies that 
> they as yet refuse to abandon.
> 
> The fact is that most American movements, outside 
> those listed above, have bought the American 
> dream of excessive consumerism, materialism, 
> growth, development, all of which are not only 
> ecologically disastrous but which fit neatly into 
> the plan of corporations. Black Americans, for 
> the most part, just want a piece of the wealth; 
> they don't want to break the golden egg laid by 
> the capitalist goose. Their major accomplishment 
> has been to persuade non-blacks and 
> paleoliberals that the biggest problems facing 
> America are racism and poverty.
> 
> Now, it would seem dumb and cruel to deny this, 
> wouldnt it? But isnt it dumber to ignore the fact 
> that it has been PRECISELY the American dream  of 
> growth, consumption and accumulation of wealth 
> that has DEPRIVED so many Americans of their 
> health, jobs, wealth and dignity? Isn't it 
> obvious that the refusal of liberals, centrists 
> and Democrats to confront the inequity, 
> injustice, unsustainability and 
> anti-environmental character of American society 
> has contributed to poverty and  racial/economic 
> injustice?
> 
>   How can real progressives ever hope to explain 
> this to liberals...explain that the system they 
> trust and love, which is amenable to incremental 
> but marginal reforms, IS the problem? And that 
> only a full frontal attack on the system, 
> including its electoral configuration, will 
> address the problem? This is at the heart of the 
> problem with the Democratic Party: that the 
> social and economic injustices they traditionally 
> abhorred grow directly out of the SUCCESS of the 
> POLIITICAL and ECONOMIC system they support, not 
> out of its FAILURE.
> 
> Of all the failed movements, the green 
> movement/party is the most prominent and the most 
> tragic, victim as it is of not just the usual 
> leftist infighting but of the post-modern fads 
> like Identity Politics and Political Correctness. 
> What the enemies of Ralph Nader (and the present 
> Green Party leadership) try to forget is the fact 
> that in 2000, Ralph Nader collected nearly THREE 
> MILLION VOTES on the Green Party line. Given that 
> the national P enrollment was, at the most 
> exaggerated count, three hundred thousand 
> members, this means that over 2 1/2 million 
> Americans voted for Nader!!! And they were 
> non-greens; they were Democrats, Republicans, 
> independents, conservatives, and libertarians. 
> They were that potential green constituency that 
> lay out there, ripe for the picking, which the 
> Green Party then, in alarm and panic, realized 
> could be the future decision-making body in the 
> party. Horror of horrors! The Greens in Dem 
> clothing, the centrists, the paleoliberals, the 
> self-serving phony populists like Michael Moore, 
> the infiltrators like Medea Benjamin, all stood 
> to be ousted from their positions of power 
> by....choke.....AMERICANS! What could be scarier?
> 
> I don't blame the paleoliberals for hating Nader 
> because I understand their fears. They have been 
> revealed by Nader as chicken=hearted phonies, 
> utter failures, and hypocrites. They have 
> revealed themselves as the embodiment of failed 
> liberalism, the faintly progressive wash painted 
> over the cynical Democrats, and promoted by 
> clever propaganda that distracted people from the 
> fundamental problems by focusing on their 
> symptoms instead of their causes.
> And when someone prominent and respected gets the 
> public's ear and exposes their failures, why of 
> course they get mad. But that still doesn't make 
> them right.
> 
> Lorna Salzman
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mailto:mattfuniciello at earthlink.net>Matt Funiciello
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 12:48 PM
> Subject: Chris Hedges on 2008: "This may be the 
> twilight of American democracy. And it is better 
> to stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to 
> fight at all."
> 
> Chris Hedges Says He'll Work For Nader in 2008!
> 
> When the book, "War Is A Force That Gives Us 
> Meaning" came out, intellectuals and peace 
> activists alike flocked to it. It 
> was intelligent, well-reasoned and written by a 
> true craftsman with some truly horrific war 
> stories to tell and a keen eye to analyze the 
> costs for all concerned. Hedges says that he will 
> work for Ralph Nader in 2008 if he runs again (he 
> will). In Hedge's article, he talks about the 
> corporate rape of our government and how Nader is 
> one of the only national figures to recognize 
> this and to speak openly about the corrupt 
> corporate ownership of our nation. He notes that 
> someone with Ralph's incredible resume must have 
> only entered the public arena to fight the 
> "rapists" after their purchase of the Republican 
> Lite Party back in the 1980's and this presumes 
> that those who further the "ego trip" theory are 
> just buying into propaganda for those too limited 
> intellectually to think for themselves.
> 
> Thank you Chris Hedges for being brave enough to 
> tell the truth! I sincerely hope that the 
> "propaganda-eaters" don't malign and abuse you 
> for telling the truth, though I suspect they 
> will. They don't appreciate the truth at all and 
> they don't like to talk about it either.
> 
> On a similar topic, I spent half a day on 
> "Democratic Underground" about a month ago and 
> was kicked off (with absolutely no explanation). 
> For those unfamiliar, DU is a website with many 
> forums to discuss "progressive" issues, like who 
> you like better, Gore or Hillary. They also enjoy 
> talking about which pro-war Democratic candidate 
> they should vote for to end the war. Not exactly 
> a hotbed of rational thought .... but they're 
> Democrats. What do you expect?
> 
> The "progressives" I was chatting with were 
> discussing the new Nader film, "An Unreasonable 
> Man". They were literally calling Ralph an 
> "idiot", "a fucking asshole" and a "scumbag". I 
> can only assume that this Democrat venom is 
> residual from the 2000 presidential run although 
> none of these idiots could explain their way out 
> of a paper bag nor do they feel that they owe me, 
> their enemy, any explanation. In their 
> minds, Nader was that guy who was "not a factor" 
> when they mailed out all the debate invitations 
> but who became the "ONLY factor" 
> when Al Gore ran such a weak-assed campaign that 
> he lost his own home state and Clinton's, too! 
> All I did on the forum with a particularly stupid 
> chatter was call Hillary a "fascist". I backed 
> that up by asking how someone can support the 
> Imperialist/Big Oil/Ruling Class agenda and vote 
> for illegal occupation and genocide and 
> also refuse to debate your legitimate opponents, 
> Tasini and Hawkins? I may have also pointed out 
> to a few Nader-haters that there were many other 
> third party candidates on the ballot in Florida 
> in that infamous election and that EVERY SINGLE 
> ONE OF THEM had enough votes to "spoil it" for 
> Gore. Using the Dems own questionable math 
> skills, shouldn't they be propagandizing against 
> all of those candidates! Why have they persisted 
> in vilifying only ONE guy, especially when that 
> one guy has done more for them than any elected 
> official has ever done?
> 
> I guess they don't like having a conversation or 
> they're just frightened that their "logic" 
> doesn't make any sense? Very strange behavior, 
> indeed. These "sheeple" who call themselves 
> progressives lack even a basic willingness to try 
> and defend their viewpoint and their blind 
> obedience to their party bosses. This fearful 
> behavior fortifies me in my certitude that Ralph 
> is right and that we need to support him in 
> whatever number of elections he may choose to run 
> in.
> 
> Peace to all those with open minds who are brave 
> enough to stand up and fight!      ;-)
> 
> Matt
> 
> Matt Funiciello
> <mailto:mattfuniciello at earthlink.net>mattfuniciello at earthlink.net
> Two Political Parties = One Massive Corporation
> 
> 
> 
> Pariah or Prophet?
> 
>
<http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070226_an_unreasonably_principled_man/>http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070226_an_unreasonably_principled_man/
> 
> Posted on Feb 26, 2007
> 
> By Chris Hedges
> 
> I can’t imagine why Ralph Nader would run again. 
> He has been branded as an egomaniac, blacklisted 
> by the media, plunged into debt by a Democratic 
> Party machine that challenged his ballot access 
> petitions and locked him out of the presidential 
> debates. Most of his friends and supporters have 
> abandoned him, and he is almost universally 
> reviled for throwing the 2000 election to George 
> W. Bush.
> 
> I can’t imagine why he would want to go through 
> this one more time.  But when Nader hinted in San 
> Francisco that he might run if Sen. Hillary 
> Rodham Clinton became the Democratic Party 
> nominee, I knew I would be working for his 
> campaign if he indeed entered the race.  He 
> understands that American democracy has become a 
> consumer fraud and that if we do not do battle 
> with the corporations that, in the name of 
> globalization, are cannibalizing the country for 
> profit, our democratic state is doomed.
> 
> I spent the last two years reporting and writing 
> “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the 
> War on America.” The rise of the Christian 
> right—the most dangerous mass movement in 
> American history—can be traced directly to the 
> corporate rape of America.  This movement, which 
> calls for the eradication of real and imagined 
> enemies, all branded as “satanic,” at home and 
> abroad, is an expression of rage.  This rage 
> rises out of the deep distortions and 
> dislocations that have beset tens of millions of 
> Americans shunted aside in the new global 
> marketplace.  The massive flight of manufacturing 
> and professional jobs overseas, the ruthless 
> slashing of state and federal assistance and the 
> rise of an unchecked American oligarchy have 
> plunged many Americans into deep economic and 
> personal despair.  They have turned, because of 
> this despair, to “Christian” demagogues who 
> promise magic, miracles, angels, the gospel of 
> prosperity and a fantastic Christian utopia.  And 
> the Republicans and the Democrats are equally 
> culpable for this assault.
> 
> There are only two solutions left.  We must 
> organize to fight the corporate state, to 
> redirect our national wealth and resources to 
> fund a massive antipoverty campaign and curb the 
> cycle of perpetual war that enriches the 
> military-industrial complex and by extension the 
> two political parties that dominate Washington, 
> or we must accept an inevitable Christo-fascism 
> backed by these corporations.  Don’t expect glib 
> Democratic politicians such as John Edwards, Sen. 
> Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama to address these 
> issues.  They are, as Nader understands, hostage 
> to corporate money.
> 
> Nader, perhaps better than anyone else, has 
> grasped the long, disastrous rise of the 
> corporate state.
> 
> He and his small army of activists helped write 
> citizen legislation in the 1960s and 1970s that 
> gave us, among many bills, the Clean Air Act, the 
> Mine and Health Safety Act and the Freedom of 
> Information Act.  He worked with and was courted 
> by sympathetic Democrats.  Presidential candidate 
> George McGovern saw him as a potential running 
> mate, but Nader refused to be enticed directly 
> into the political arena.  He was a skilled 
> Washington insider, one of the greatest idealists 
> within the democratic system.
> 
> But the corporations grew tired of Nader’s 
> activism.  They mounted a well-oiled campaign to 
> destroy him.  These early attempts were clumsy 
> and amateurish, such as General Motor’s use of 
> private detectives to try to dig up dirt on his 
> private life; they found none. The campaign was 
> exposed and led to a public apology by GM.  Nader 
> was awarded $425,000 in damages, which he used to 
> fund citizen action groups.
> 
> Lewis Powell, who was the general counsel to the 
> U.S. Chamber of Commerce and would later be 
> appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote a memo in 
> August 1971 that expressed corporate concerns. 
> “The single most effective antagonist of American 
> business is Ralph Nader,” the memo read, “a 
> legend in his own time and an idol to millions of 
> Americans. ... There should be no hesitation to 
> attack [Nader and others].”
> 
> Corporations poured hundreds of millions into the 
> assault.  They set up pseudo-think tanks, such as 
> the Heritage Foundation, which invented bogus 
> disciplines including cost-benefit and 
> risk-management analysis, all geared to change 
> the debate from health, labor and safety issues 
> to the rising cost of big government.  They ran 
> sophisticated ad campaigns to beguile voters. 
> These corporations wrenched apart, through lavish 
> campaign donations and intensive and shady 
> lobbying, the ties between Nader’s public 
> interest groups and his supporters in the 
> Democratic Party.  Washington, by the time they 
> were done, was besieged with 25,000 corporate 
> lobbyists and 9,000 corporate action committees.
> 
> When Ronald Reagan, the corporate pitch man, 
> swept into office he set out to dismantle some 30 
> governmental regulations, most put into place by 
> Nader and his allies, all of which curbed the 
> abuse of corporations.  The Reagan White House 
> worked to gut 20 years of Nader legislation. 
> And, once a fixture on Capital Hill, Nader became 
> a pariah.
> 
> Nader, however, did not give up.  He turned to 
> local community organizing, assisting grass-roots 
> campaigns around the country such the one to 
> remove benzene, known to cause cancer, from paint 
> in GM car plants.  But by the time Bill Clinton 
> and Al Gore took office the corporate state was 
> ascendant.  Nader and his citizen committees were 
> frozen out by Democrats as well as Republicans. 
> Clinton and Gore never met with him.
> 
> “We tried every way to get the Democrats to pick 
> up on issues that really commanded the felt 
> concerns and daily life of millions of 
> Americans,” Nader says in the new documentary 
> about his life, “An Unreasonable Man,” “but these 
> were issues that corporations didn’t want 
> attention paid to, and so when people say why did 
> you do this in 2000, I say I’m a 20-year veteran 
> of pursuing the folly of the least worse between 
> the two parties.”
> 
> The Clinton administration pushed through NAFTA, 
> gutted welfare, gave up on universal healthcare, 
> deregulated the communications industry and 
> abolished federal aid to families with dependent 
> children.  It further empowered the growing 
> corporate state and exacerbated the despair that 
> has fueled its allies in the Christian right.
> 
> “For 20 years,” Nader says in the film, “we saw 
> the doors closing on us in Washington, on our 
> citizen groups and a lot of other citizen groups, 
> and what are we here for?  To improve the 
> country.  We couldn’t get congressional hearings, 
> even with the Democrats in charge.”
> 
> There is a fascinating rage—and rage is the right 
> word—expressed by many on the left in this fine 
> film about Nader.  Todd Gitlin, Eric Alterman and 
> Michael Moore, along with a host of former 
> Nader’s Raiders, spit out venomous insults toward 
> Nader, a man they profess to have once admired, 
> the most common charge being that Nader is a 
> victim of his oversized ego.
> 
> This anger is the anger of the betrayed.  But 
> they were not betrayed by Nader.  They betrayed 
> themselves.  They allowed themselves to buy into 
> the facile argument of “the least worse” and 
> ignore the deeper, subterranean assault on our 
> democracy that Nader has always addressed.
> 
> It was an incompetent, corporatized Democratic 
> Party, along with the orchestrated fraud by the 
> Republican Party, that threw the 2000 election to 
> Bush, not Ralph Nader.  Nader received only 2.7 
> percent of the vote in 2000 and got less than 
> one-half of 1 percent in 2004.  All of the 
> third-party candidates who ran in 2000 in 
> Florida—there were about half a dozen of them—got 
> more votes than the 537-vote difference between 
> Bush and Gore.  Why not go after the other 
> third-party candidates?  And what about the 10 
> million Democrats who voted in 2000 for Bush? 
> What about Gore, whose campaign was so timid and 
> empty—he never mentioned global warming—that he 
> could not carry his home state of Tennessee?  And 
> what about the 2004 cartoon-like candidate, John 
> Kerry, who got up like a Boy Scout and told us he 
> was reporting for duty and would bring us 
> “victory” in Iraq?
> 
> Nader argues that there are few—he never said 
> no—differences between the Democrats and the 
> Republicans.  And during the first four years of 
> the Bush administration the Democrats proved him 
> right.  They authorized the war in Iraq.  They 
> stood by as Bush stacked the judiciary with 
> “Christian” ideologues.  They let Bush, in 
> violation of the Constitution, pump hundreds of 
> millions of taxpayer dollars into faith-based 
> organizations that discriminate based on belief 
> and sexual orientation and openly proselytize. 
> They stood by as American children got fleeced by 
> No Child Left Behind.  Democrats did not protest 
> when federal agencies began to propagate 
> “Christian” pseudo-science about creationism, 
> reproductive rights and homosexuality.  And the 
> Democrats let Bush further dismantle regulatory 
> agencies, strip American citizens of 
> constitutional rights under the Patriot Act and 
> other draconian legislation, and thrust 
> impoverished Americans aside through the 
> corporate-sponsored bankruptcy bill.  It is a 
> stunning record.
> 
> Bush is the worst president in American history. 
> If Gore, or Kerry, had the spine to take him on, 
> to challenge corporate welfare, corporate crime, 
> the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate 
> bailouts and issues such as labor law reform, if 
> either had actually stood up to these corporate 
> behemoths on behalf of the working and middle 
> class, rather than mutter thought-terminating 
> clichés about American greatness, he could have 
> won with a landslide.  But Gore and Kerry did not 
> dare to piss off their corporate paymasters.
> 
> There are a few former associates in the film who 
> argue that Nader is tarnishing his legacy, and by 
> extension their own legacy.  But Nader’s legacy 
> is undiminished.  He fights his wars against 
> corporate greed with a remarkable consistency. 
> He knows our democratic state is being hijacked 
> by the same corporate interests that sold us 
> unsafe automobiles and dangerous and shoddy 
> products.  This is a battle not for some 
> unachievable ideal but to save our democracy.
> 
> “I don’t care about my personal legacy,” Nader 
> says in the film.  “I care about how much justice 
> is advanced in America and in our world day after 
> day.  I’m willing to sacrifice whatever 
> ‘reputation’ in the cause of that effort.  What 
> is my legacy?  Are they going to turn around and 
> rip out seat belts out of cars, air bags out of 
> cars?”
> 
> These corporations, and their enraged and 
> manipulated followers in the Christian right, 
> tens of millions of them, if left unchecked will 
> propel us into despotism.  The corporate state 
> has rigged our system, hollowed out our political 
> process and steadily stripped citizens of 
> constitutional rights, federal and state 
> protection and assistance.  This may be the 
> twilight of American democracy.  And it is better 
> to stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to 
> fight at all.
> 
> Chris Hedges’ latest book is “American Fascists: 
> The Christian Right and the War on America.”
> --
> NOW PLAYING AT YOUR LOCAL MARXIST CINEMA: "DR. 
> STRANGELEFT, OR, HOW I  STOPPED WORRYING AND 
> LEARNED TO LOVE THE BOMBERS".
> 
> 
> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully 
> as when they do it from religious conviction" (B. 
> Pascal)
> 
> "We are already fighting World War III and I am 
> sorry to say we are winning. It is the war 
> against the earth".....Raymond Dasmann
> > _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
> 


___________________

JamBoi
Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer

"Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
http://dailyJam.blogspot.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097