[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]

Thing is he won't be running on any party ticket.  Independent.  End of
story.

Vote Green for Change!

Drew

--- Bob Alavi <baalavi at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The comments and passage seem to generally make sense.  Thanks!
>    
>   Ralph Nader, in my opinion, has been the number one PUBLIC SERVANT
> in the country, if there were any such thing; in a true sense of the
> word.
>    
>   Chances are if he ran on any party's ticket, he'd have my vote. 
>    
>   Don't particularly care for any form of religious fundamentalism
> either.
>    
>   :)
> 
> 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: 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 
> mattfuniciello at earthlink.net  Two Political Parties = One Massive
> Corporation     
>    Pariah or Prophet?
>  
>
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
> 
> 
>  
> ---------------------------------
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo!
Games.> _______________________________________________
> 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


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/