Venezuela, Nicaragua Propose Joint Military Force for Latin America by Chris Carlson

Dandelion Salad

by Chris Carlson
Global Research, January 30, 2008 – 2008-01-28

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega proposed the formation of a joint military force among Latin American countries to defend against outside intervention yesterday. On his Sunday TV and radio show Aló Presidente, Chavez also promised to dramatically increase food production in Venezuela during the inauguration of a “socialist” corn-processing plant.

The Nicaraguan president, in Caracas for the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) Summit on Saturday, joined President Chavez on his TV and radio show on Sunday. The two leaders discussed the possibility of creating a joint military force among the member-nations of the ALBA block.

“The countries of Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, and now Dominica should work to form a joint defense strategy and start joining our armed forces, air forces, armies, navies, National Guards, and intelligence forces,” said Chavez. “Because the enemy is the same, the empire.”

Chavez called on the defense ministers of each ALBA member-nation to begin preparation for an ALBA Defense Council “to unite our military forces and have the nations of ALBA united.”

“If [the United States] messes with one of us, they are messing with all of us, because we will respond as one,” he said.

The Venezuelan president suggested the idea after Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega assured that any aggression against Venezuela would be considered an attack on all of Latin America. President Ortega made the statement in light of the recent accusations by U.S. officials that Venezuela is a “threat” to the region.

“If they touch Venezuela, it will light up the region. No one is going to stand idly by, because to touch Venezuela is to touch all of Latin America,” said Ortega.

Chavez said that the idea of a joint defense strategy has already been proposed for the South American nations, and that President Lula of Brazil is in agreement.

“In December, Lula said here in Caracas that we are going to create the South American Defense Council. Okay, let’s create our ALBA Defense Council too, but not only a defense council, the ALBA military forces,” said Chavez.

The two leaders aired the program from the eastern state of Monagas, where they inaugurated a “socialist” corn-processing plant and spoke with local agricultural producers. President Chavez promised to raise food production in Venezuela to reduce dependence on imported food.

“We are determined to raise the agricultural production of the country,” he said. “It is a hard, intense campaign.”

Chavez announced that the Venezuelan Government approved a budget of $600 million for the agricultural sector in 2008. He emphasized that these resources would be focused on improving infrastructure, irrigation systems, and the construction of basic services for the agricultural sector. He also announced the approval of $10 billion in low-cost agricultural credits.

“The day will come that we will not have to import so much food,” said Chavez upon seeing the amount of land designated for the production of tomatoes and corn.

The two leaders inaugurated a “socialist” corn processing plant constructed as a part of an agreement for technology transfer between Iran and Venezuela.

This plant, with a capacity of 72 tons of corn daily, is one of several Iranian-equipped corn plants to be inaugurated around the country in 2008. The plants are called Socialist Production Firms because they are managed and operated by the communal councils in the surrounding community with support from the national government.

Apart from corn, this plant will also process and package other grains such as black beans and lentils. The plant is expected to create around 500 new jobs, with the incorporation of 97 graduates from the job-training program, Mission Che Guevara.

“It is a way for the government and the people to guarantee our food sovereignty for the first time in this country,” said one plant worker. “This plant will signify well-being for the people and we are going to all work together to carry out the production.”

The new plant will work to supply the surrounding regions with its production, starting by supplying local schools, soup kitchens, and the subsidized food markets known as “Mercal” stores.

Global Research Articles by Chris contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Chris Carlson,, 2008
The url address of this article is:


Summit of the Bolivarian Alternative (ALBA) Concludes in Venezuela

Conflict over fundamental change in Bolivia (video)

The Billary Road to Republican Victory By Frank Rich

Dandelion Salad

By Frank Rich
New York Times

In the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate? Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.

What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.

“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.

Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.

In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.

Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.

Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.

Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.

That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.

If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.

Copyright New York Times

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Which Is Worse: Regulation Or De-Regulation? By Paul Craig Roberts

Dandelion Salad

By Paul Craig Roberts
January 29, 2008

Libertarians preach the morality of the market, and socialists preach the morality of the state. Those convinced of the market’s morality want de-regulation; those convinced of the state’s morality want regulation. In truth, neither seems to work.

Consider for example the rules against collusion. The political left imposed this regulatory rule in order to prevent monopoly behavior by companies. One consequence has been that, unable to collude, firms are slaves to their bottom lines. In order to compete successfully in the competitive new world of globalism, firms have curtailed pensions and health insurance for their employees.

Or consider the regulation of new drugs, which drives up costs and delays remedies without, apparently, doing much to improve safety.

Or the fleet mileage standards that regulation imposes on car makers. These regulations destroyed the family station wagon. Families needing carrying capacity turned to vans and to panel trucks. Car makers saw a new market and invented the SUV, which as a “light truck” was exempt from the fleet mileage regulations. The effort to impose fuel economy resulted in cars being replaced by over weight fuel-guzzling SUVs.

On the other hand consider the current troubles resulting from banking and financial de-regulation. The losses from this one crisis greatly exceed any gains from de-regulation.

Or consider the plight of the de-regulated airlines and deterioration in the quality of air service. Or the higher costs of telephone service and the loss of a blue chip stock for widows and retirement funds that resulted from breaking up AT&T. Or the scandals and uncertainties from utility de-regulation which permits non-energy producers like Enron to contract to deliver electric power.

Economists claim that de-regulation results in lower prices. Cheap advanced fare airline ticket prices are cited as evidence. What these economists mean is that the fares without stopovers are cheap to people who can plan their trips in advance. Other passengers subsidize these advanced fares by paying four times as much. Moreover, de-regulation has created bottom-line competition that has lowered service, removed meals, and results in periodic bankruptcy, thus forcing the airlines’ creditors to pay for the low fares. Pilots, flight attendants, and aircraft maintenance crews subsidize the lower fares with reductions in salaries and pension benefits. Are bankruptcies and mergers leading the industry toward one carrier and the re-emergence of regulation?

Consider the fall-out from trucking de-regulation. As in the case of the airlines, the claim was that more communities would be served and costs would decline. But which costs? De-regulation made every minute a bottom-line item. Trucks became bigger, heavier, and travel at higher speeds. Highway safety suffers, and highway maintenance costs rise. The courtesy of truck drivers declined. When trucking was regulated, truckers would stop to help people whose cars had broken down. Today that would throw off the schedule and threaten the bottom-line.

Economists dismiss costs that aren’t included in price. For them the cost that matters is the price paid by consumers. The truck that gets there faster delivers cheaper to the consumer. The myriad ways in which people pay the price of de-regulation are not part of the price paid at the check-out counter.

Economists also say that off shoring lowers Wal-Mart prices, thus benefiting the consumer. They don’t say that by moving jobs abroad off shoring reduces the job opportunities and life-time earnings of the US labor force, or that it wrecks the finances of the laid-off US workers and destroys the tax base of their local communities. None of these costs of off shoring enter into the price of the offshored goods that Americans purchase.

Privatization vs. socialization is another dimension of the conflict. Those who distrust the power of private ownership put faith in public ownership, and those who distrust the power of the state find freedom to be imperiled in the absence of private ownership. 20th century experience established that public ownership is economically inefficient without producing offsetting gains in public welfare. Those in charge of nationalized firms live well both at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

Nevertheless, privatization can be pushed too far, and it has. As a result of the upfront cost of building prisons and their high operating costs when in government hands, prisons are being privatized and have become profit-making ventures. Governments avoid the construction costs and contract for incarceration services. Allegedly, the greater efficiency of the private operation lowers the cost.

Private prisons, however, require a constant stream of prisoners. They cannot afford to have vacant cells. If incarceration rates fell, profits would disappear and bankruptcy would descend upon the owners. Thus, privatized prisons create a demand for criminals and, as a result, might actually raise the total cost of incarceration.

The US–the “land of liberty”–has the largest prison population in the world. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the US has 25 percent of the prison population. The US has 1.3 million more people in prison than crime-ridden Russia, and 700,000 more prisoners than authoritarian China, which has a population four times larger.

In the US the number and kind of crimes have exploded. Prisons are full of drug users, and the US now has “hate crimes” such as the use of constitutionally protected free speech against “protected minorities.” It is in the self-interest of prison investors to agitate for yet more criminalization of civil liberties and ordinary human behavior.

The case for de-regulation is as ideological as the case for regulation. There is no open-and-shut case for either approach. Such issues should be decided on their merits, but usually are decided by the reigning ideology of an epoch or by powerful interest groups.

The Bush regime has de-regulated the government in the sense that the regime has removed constraints that the Founders put on executive power. This was done in the name of the “war on terror.” Simultaneously, Bush has increased the regulation of our travel and communication, spying on our Internet use and specifying to the ounce the quantities of toothpaste and shampoo with which Americans can board commercial airliners.

Crises destroy liberty. Lincoln used the crisis of states withdrawing from the union to destroy states’ rights, an essential preservative of liberty in the minds of the Founders. Roosevelt used the Great Depression to destroy the legislative power of Congress by having that power delegated to federal agencies. Bush used 9/11 to assault the civil liberties that protect Americans from a police state.

Perhaps we have now reached a point where both libertarians and left-wingers can agree that the US government desperately needs to be re-regulated and again held accountable to the people.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Gulag Comes To The USA By Ernest Partridge

Dandelion Salad

By Ernest Partridge
30/01/08 “ICH

A Political Prisoner: The Don Siegelman Case

Today, Don Siegelman, former governor of the state of Alabama, sits in a federal prison, sentenced to a seven year term for bribery.

Every day that Siegelman remains in prison every American citizen who openly dissents from the policies and protests the criminality of the Bush/Cheney regime is less free and more vulnerable to politically motivated prosecution.

For the plain fact of the matter is that Don Siegelman is, in effect, a political prisoner. The formal charge against him was bribery. But, practically speaking, his offense was his political success as a Democrat in a “red” Republican state. When Siegelman indicated an interest in reviving his political career, one of his accusers was heard to say, “[We’re] going to take care of Siegelman.” And so they did.

Larisa Alexandrovna, one of the few journalists to investigate this case in depth, writes:

For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that a prominent politician – a former state governor – could be tried on charges that many observers consider to be trumped-up, convicted in a trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost unbelievable.

Less “unbelievable,” perhaps, if we reflect upon a dominant Republican mind-set: politics as warfare, the Democrats as “evil” and “the enemy,” and not as “the loyal opposition.” “You are either with us or with the terrorists,” said George Bush — no compromise, no alternatives, and no middle ground. Thus the goal of the GOP warrior is not merely to defeat the Democrats; the goal is to destroy them.

This was the objective of those who brought charges against Don Siegelman, in a case that stinks from top to bottom of political vendetta and manipulation. It’s a rather complicated story, which I cannot recount in detail here. Those details may be found in the Raw Story (Alexandrovna et al) series and the DemocracyNow Scott Horton interview, listed and linked below. However, these are the essential elements:

The bribery charge rose out of Siegelman’s appointment of Richard Scrushy to the Alabama hospital regulatory board, a non-paying position that Scrusky had held under two previous governors. The appointment followed Scrushy’s donation of a half million dollars to a Siegelman foundation and gained Siegelman no financial advantage whatever. Of course, political favors to donors is routine in both state an federal government, as numerous ambassadorial appointments will testify. Moreover, clearly illegal campaign contributions were received by Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions and Federal Judge William Pryor, who have not been investigated much less prosecuted.

Siegelman held the distinction of serving all four elective state offices: Attorney General, Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor and Governor. With his prestige, popularity, and name-recognition, he was a persistent threat to the well-oiled Alabama GOP political machine. As his daughter, Dana, describes it,

The men and women behind this conspiracy have a lot against my dad. My dad wanted an education lottery, brought jobs to the state, made big businesses pay their taxes, sought to completely change Alabama’s constitution, raised teachers’ salaries, gave African Americans jobs that Caucasians had supremacy over for years, helped in fundraisers for other Democrats, supported the arts, was well-respected on a national level, etc… It was a battle against a truly liberal leader, not some moderate Democrat. He held the highest offices in the state and was Alabama’s longest running politician. Republicans wanted their state back, and they got it.

“They got it” through a stolen election. In 2002, Siegelman appeared to have won re-election against Republican challenger Bob Riley. But then, in Baldwin county, Republican election supervisors (no Democrats allowed), locked the doors and “discovered” a “computer glitch” that tilted the election to Riley, whereupon the GOP Attorney General, William Pryor, put the kibosh on Siegelman’s appeal for a recount by sealing the ballots. (Siegelman gives his account of the theft here).

While Siegelman vowed “to come back and fight another day,” the GOP was determined to see to it that he was at last down for the count.

Enter Bill Canary, Republican kingmaker, friend and confidant of Karl Rove, campaign advisor to William Pryor and Bob Riley, and, not coincidentally, husband of U.S. Attorney, Leura Canary. It was Mrs. Canary, along with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who brought the case against Siegelman.

Enter next, Dana Jill Simpson, a rare and endangered political animal: a republican political operative with a conscience and an allegiance to the rule of law that trumps partisan loyalty. As Scott Horton reports, in a sworn affidavit Ms. Simpson, Riley’s campaign attorney,

provide[d] a detailed specific account of what transpired, starting with [Bill] Canary’s statement “not to worry about Don Siegelman that ‘his girls would take care of him.’” Then Riley’s son asked Canary if he was sure that Siegelman would be “taken care of,” and Canary told him not to worry that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman.” “His girls” were Canary’s wife Leura Canary, who as U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama, did in fact start the investigation, only dropping off when objections were raised by Governor Siegelman’s counsel due to her obvious political bias and the U.S. Attorney in Birmingham, Alice Martin. Ms. Simpson, who gave the affidavit, is a lifelong Republican and was a worker in the Riley campaign against Siegelman, and her account has been contemporaneously corroborated.

While communicating with Siegelman’s attorney prior to releasing her affidavit, Simpson’s house was demolished by a mysterious fire, and Simpson herself was forced off the road. Mere coincidences, of course.

The judge at Siegelman’s trial, Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee and a former member of the executive committee of the Alabama Republican party, had a well-known grudge against Siegelman. Fuller refused to recuse himself from the case, denied bail, immediately put Siegelman in shackles and ordered him to the Atlanta federal prison. After seven months Judge Fuller, in violation of the law, has refused to release the trial transcript without which the defendant can not appeal his conviction.

Don Siegelman has since been shuttled back and forth among several federal prisons out of touch with his attorneys and not allowed access to the internet or to press interviews. This treatment has prompted an unprecedented demand by forty-four former state attorneys general for a Congressional investigation of the Siegelman case.

The Purge in Progress

The Siegelman Saga puts a human face on a widespread politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice. In a similar case in Wisconsin, Georgia Thompson, a purchasing official in the state government, was convicted of corruption in a case that worked to the advantage of a Republican candidate for governor. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was so shocked by the injustice of her conviction that they ordered Thompson’s immediate release, even before issuing a ruling. The evidence against her, said Judge Diane Wood, was “beyond thin.”

The December, 2006, firings of eight Republican U.S. attorneys, who insisted upon conducting their offices without partisan bias, has brought national attention to the political corruption of the Justice Department and has caused many to wonder about the behavior of the remaining eight-five U.S. attorneys that Alberto Gonzales saw fit to retain. It is a troubling question.

A study by Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, may supply an answer: “the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.” (The numbers: 298 Democrats, 67 Republicans, 10 “Others”).

This apparent partisan purge of Democrats, combined with amnesty for Republicans, hits close to home. It is reported that Carol Lam, one of the eight sacked U.S. Attorneys, was hot on the trail of my Republican Congressman, Jerry Lewis. I’ve heard nothing more about this investigation, so it appears that Lewis is off the hook.

So now we have in place a thoroughgoing corruption of the federal justice system. The blindfold has been torn off the face of lady justice, as the Department of Justice becomes, in effect, an extension of the Republican Party, and possession of a public office by a Democrat becomes a de facto crime, should the hounds of the Department of Justice decide to go after said official.

The Democratic Congress has been remarkably complacent about all this. True, they have called a few young graduates from Pat Robertson’s Regent U. Law school to testify, they have heard from the fired U.S. attorneys, and the Democrats have promised hearings on the Siegelman case. But its all show – a bark without a bite – as the White House and the Department of Justice steadfastly refuse to recognize subpoenas or allow the key players to testify under oath. These offenses, by the way, were included among the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

Unsurprisingly, these outrages by the Department of Defense have not excited much interest in the mainstream media, with the honorable exception of Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams of MSNBC. Abrams series, “Bush League Justice,” which was broadcast last December, was magnificent, and he promised that “we’re not going to let this go away… We are going to be watching very closely.” Six weeks later, we are awaiting the follow-up. In addition, rumor has it that 60 Minutes is preparing a segment on the Siegelman case.

Two Roads Diverge.

The fate of Don Siegelman may reflect the fate of our republic. We are at a crucial crossroads, one road leads to a restoration of the rule of law, and the other road leads to despotism.

If Don Siegelman’s persecutors have their way and he serves out his term of seven years, and if the culprits who stole his re-election and railroaded him to federal lockup enjoy the fruits of their villainy and escape punishment, then the rule of law is dead in Alabama and in critical condition in Washington D.C. Then the gangrene of lawlessness in Alabama may spread until it destroys the entire body politic.

I seem to recall a comment by some Bushie to the effect that “we’re pushing the limits until someone or something stops us.” To date, those limits have extended well beyond the Constitution and the rule of law. Acts of Congress are nullified by signing statements, Congressional oversight is blinded by “executive privilege” and a refusal to recognize subpoenas. Elections have been privatized and are unverifiable. All that’s left to the Congress to contain this burgeoning power of “the unitary executive” is impeachment, and impeachment, as we all know, is “off the table.”

Someone, somehow, must draw a line in the sand and say “no further!” And then, push back – and back — and back.

“Just wait,” we hear, “in less than a year there will be a new president and a new day dawning.” If so, then this new day will require a new leader with qualities and capacities that are not conspicuous in any of the present-day contenders for that office.

Perhaps the next President, once in office, will surprise us with inspired leadership qualities not now apparent. It has happened before.

But the restoration of freedom never simply “trickles down” from great leaders. It must also “percolate up” from the people. And I don’t see much reason for hope in the American public today. But extraordinary crises have a way of summoning extraordinary virtues.

If, somehow, we follow the road to restoration of democracy and the rule of law, we should see at the beginning of that journey the release and exoneration of Don Siegelman, the disgrace and punishment of his tormenters, and the end of political prosecution.

It will be a long and arduous road to follow. But it is the only road worthy of our dedication and effort.

For more Information About the Seigelman Case and the Corruption of Justice:

The Don Siegelman Website. Archives of News reports about the Siegelman case. Interview with Don Siegelman, (Take Back the Media, September 13, 2004).The Raw Story Series:

Part 1. How a Coterie of Republican Heavyweights Sent a Governor to Jail.
Part 2. Interview with Siegelman’s daughter, Dana.
Part 3. Running Elections from the White House,

“Bush League Justice:” Dan Abrams, MSNBC.

Part 1: Civil Rights Division, Dept. of Justice.
Part 2: The Signing Statements.
Part 3: Political Corruption and the Fired US Attorneys, Dept. of Justice.
Part 4: The Don Siegelman Case.

Scott Horton interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales on Democracy Now.

Transcript, Audio, and Video. (Move ahead, past opening news reports).

Scott Horton’s Harper’s Blogs: June 9, 2007, June 28, 2007.

Copyright 2008 by Ernest Partridge

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Nader takes steps towards another White House bid

Dandelion Salad

January 30, 2008 04:00 PM ET


Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, launched an exploratory committee Wednesday for another White House bid, and told CNN he is likely to get in the race if he can put the resources in place.

“John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, deprivations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort,” Nader said.


h/t: Dennis_Supporter

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Edwards to quit presidential race by Nedra Pickler + video

Kucinich Campaign Update 1 29 08 “All for One…” (video)

Ralph Nader Launches Presidential Exploratory Committee to Mull ’08 Run

Dennis Kucinich’s Final Presidential Message To Us All (video)

Single Mothers by Guadamour


by Guadamour
Dandelion Salad
featured writer

Guadamour’s blog post
Jan. 29, 2008

There are millions of single mothers in the world.  Percentage wise the number of unwed mothers has actually grown faster than the overall birth rate. The age of the women giving birth has steadily dropped over the last thirty-five years.

Two distinct types of single mothers exist with as many variations as there are single mothers.  Single mothers who are unwed and most likely will never be married encompass one category of unwed mothers.  The other type of unwed mother is one that was married (be it common law or legally) and who are now free of their husbands.

Traditionally tribal and more institutionalized societies set relatively rigid parameters on sexual behavior; therefore, there were fewer unwed mothers. However, with the population boom after World War II, the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s, and the mass media showing a new type of sexual freedom to the greater part of the world, the number of unwed mothers exploded.  Additionally, unwed mothers have become much more acceptable in most societies.

This has placed a great strain on many societies. These younger and younger mothers living without adequate means to provide for their offspring have taxed the health care, educational and agriculture resources of countries throughout Asia, Africa, India, and Latin America.

No easy and simple solution exists to this problem, and many have  been tried.  The only one that seems to have worked is empowering women worldwide.  When women are empowered they tend to spend more money on health care, educations and food for their children, than when men are in charge.

The question then becomes: How do you empower women?  The only solution that seems to have worked is that taken by the Gramma Bank in Bangladesh. Recently the founder of the Gramma Bank was given the Nobel Peace prize  for his pioneering work in empowering the poor and primarily women.

In the 1970’s Bangladesh was declared an “economic basket case” by Henry Kissinger.  Today Bangladesh is economically viable.  This was achieved because the founder of the Gramma Bank started making micro loans mostly to women, starting with $27.00 out of his own pocket.

Today Bangladesh has a robust garment manufacturing industry mostly employing women.  The now economically independent women are delaying their child bearing, and having a significantly fewer number of offspring. Nevertheless, the children they have are receiving more and better care than when they were having a larger number of children at a younger age.  The children are healthier and better educated, and are much more likely  to become productive members of society.

Currently the United States of America and other countries are spending billions of dollars a month on wars. Wars that are breeding hate, poverty and more wars. This money could be much better spent on making micro loans to the poor of the world, and especially women. It not only makes good sense socially and culturally, but it also makes good business sense, because micro loans are paid back and with interest.  And once someone has there foot on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, they almost inevitably climb to a higher rung.

Single mothers who were formerly married and who are now divorced or separated can also be helped with micro loans.  These women have made a  choice to be on their own, and normally it is a choice made because of their children. They cannot stand to see their children suffer and be abused while their father squanders their often very limited resources.

The lucky ones are those with professions that allow them to adequately care for their children.  Unfortunately that is only one out of fifty or a hundred women.

I have interviewed prostitutes in Asia and Latin America, and though they  certainly don’t like prostituting themselves, they find it preferable to living with the father of their children.  This certainly doesn’t say much for the men of the world, but once you talk to these women, you realize that with only a little capital they would be doing something else–be it sewing, running a store, a small restaurant or whatever.

There is certainly enough capital in the world, a capital that is currently being useless spent on wars and armaments to  give everyone in the world a chance at succeeding. The poor, uneducated and inadequately represented are certainly not without the desire, ability and drive to advance and pull themselves up when given the chance.

Seriously, it’s time to not vote in the presidential election by Lo

Dandelion Salad

Here is a collection of various posts questioning our “free” elections and the choice of not voting in the presidential election. I would still encourage you to support local candidates and put your energy and funds towards electing them.

Continue reading

01.29.08 Uncensored News Reports From Across The Middle East (video; over 18 only)

Dandelion Salad



This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

Selected Episode

Jan. 29, 2008


For more:
“20 Killed in Somalia,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Car Bomb Blast in Algeria Kills 4,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Egypt Struggles to Close Rafah Crossing,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Gaza Border No Longer Crowded,” Abu Dhabi TV, UAE
“Pressure Building on Olmert to Resign,” IBA TV, Israel
“Bush Lied About the War,” Syria TV, Syria
“Iran Receives Nuclear Fuel Shipment from Russia,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Motaki Discusses IAEA Meeting,” Press TV, Iran
“Rare Demonstration by Afghan Women,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Much Ado About Ron Paul by Grim

Reposted with permission from my friend, Grim. ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad


by Grim
Grim’s blog post
Jan. 30, 2008

Not long ago, I was browsing through my bulletins in search of anything that might catch my eye. While doing this I noticed a trend, and upon further examination I came to see that about 40 out of 50 bulletins were some sort of Ron Paul buzz.

So I wrote a bulletin of my own.

It wasn’t terribly insulting or cruel, and it was fairly short and to the point.
A simple point, which was:
The election is not real, the winner is predetermined…the media circus we’re experiencing now is just another control keeping us content, convincing us we have a voice.

I’m willing to be nearly all my Transformers that Ron Paul isn’t the predetermined winner.

So it follows that he cannot win. Not because he won’t get enough votes, but because it is not a real election.

I tried to explain that the whole Ron Paul campaign is just another control, too.

In any system there will be dissidents. The system could choose to ignore them, but in doing so forfeits any control over them.

But if it gives them a false hope…some sort of dead-end trap disguised as a honeypot, then they still feel like they are dissenting, while in truth they are just letting themselves be controlled.

Which led me to a suggestion.

Forget Ron Paul. Ignore Ron Paul.

Concentrate on making this a place where we have REAL elections, and then concentrate on candidates for them.

Don’t tell people to vote for RP, tell people to not vote. Let the media cameras see polls with zero turnout – that would be a far more powerful message than a statistically minor number next to some candidate’s name while the media parade out the predetermined winner.

Then something surprising happened.

Out of my friends list of 1000+ people, I received almost instantaneous assaults from every direction. I was called a zionist, a neocon mole, a hypocrite, a hate-mongerer, a coward, a really cool handsome dude (that one was from your mom. ZING), and all sorts of other amazing and amusing titles. Bulletins went out as people protested in their outrage that I dare, DARE, question the almighty Ron Paul movement.

I also did get a handful of thought out, rational replies. Some who agreed, and plenty who disagreed but were looking to intelligently debate it. To those people, I give my thanks. It was refreshing.

To the rest of you, I have a question.

When I go to your site, and I see the Matrix-esque code in the background, and the Red-Pill ‘wake up!’ pictures, and the inspiring quotes to trust no one blindly, to think for yourself, to speak freely, etc…I wonder about something…

Why is it that you are so comfortable questioning EVERYTHING…the very reality we base our lives on…and yet suddenly so frightened and enraged when I dare suggest you question the political candidate of your choice?

Stop being part of the system, stop marching along in this sad parade. You want to speak out, want to change things, want to make a difference…and that is so noble, but it’s all for naught if you’re doing it by the rules of the system you’re trying to change.




h/t: After Downing Street


Seriously, it’s time to not vote in the presidential election by Lo





Kucinich Campaign Update 1 29 08 “All for One…” (video)

Dandelion Salad


Episode 17 “ALL for One”

This is a Special Tribute edition of this 17 installment program documenting the valiant drive to set America back on track by it’s Leading Progressive Pundit, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

The Kucinich for President Campaign shifts gears into the Kucinich for Congress campaign for Ohio’s 10th District, as the candidate faces a nearly industry-wide media black out and heavily funded attacks on his hometown Congressional Seat.

This culminating episode of the pioneering campaign video series, “The Kucinich Campaign Weekly Update” includes many interviews and video segments spanning this past several months of the Dennis Kucinich for President, 2008 campaign effort.

Watch this final episode and hear the Congressman’s message to his passionate voter base about his new efforts to change the course of the nation.

In this report are clips from several engaging talks with progressive Luminaries like Gore Vidal, Melissa Etheridge, Michael Franti, James Cromwell, Alexandra Paul, Frances Fisher Bree Walker and many others.

As a special feature, this episode includes a racy, never-aired commercial for Kucinich’s Presidential bout, titled “The Race is On!”, that was created by the show’s Producers shortly before the wind down in this presidential run.

You’ll laugh when you see our Blooper-Reel and Cheer along with the crowd as you hear Dennis in some of his most impassioned public moments.

(Exclusive comments from award winning actors from Films and Television shows such as “24”, “Babe”, “L.A. Confidential”, Spiderman 3″, “I Robot”, “Six Feet Under”, west Wing”, ” In the Valley of Elah”, “The Kingdom”, “Boston Legal”, “Hidalgo”, “A History of Violence”, “Melrose Place” and “Baywatch”)

Series created by
Chad Ely

Produced in Cleveland, Ohio
and Los Angeles, California

Kucinich for President 2008

Produced by
Chad Ely, Dutch Merrick,James Legoy,
and Anne Marie Howard

Hosted from the heart by
Anne Marie Howard

Directed by
Dutch “Man of Action!” Merrick

Special Guest Alexandra Paul

Episode Written by
Ben Krompak
and Dutch Merrick

Director of Photography
James “Speed..” Legoy

Camera Operator
John (yes, my real name) Smith

Playback Operator
Brian Wilson

Additional Footage provided by
Tim McHugh
Robert Malin
Paul Hubbard
Dutch Merrick

Graphic Support
John Harrison

Stage Provided by
John Smith Images

“Strength Through Peace”
Music and Lyrics by
Alex Arndt & Kay Glynn

Footage from
PBS/ Moyers Journal

Series Crew:
Chad Ely
Anne Marie Howard
Dutch Merrick
James Legoy
Andy Juniewicz
Sharon Manitta
Ben Krompak
Field Producer, Camera Operator
Tim McHugh
Field Producer, Camera Operator
Robert Malin
Field Producer, Camera Operator
Paul Hubbard

Additional Volunteers
Thomas Gallagher and Phoebe
Chris Taylor
Sam Aaron
Sue Sterkenburg
Mansoor Sabbagh
Jeanne Kyle
Alysia Hall
Bryon Crouch
Brian Kinney
Roger Pietschmann
John Warner
Meryl Ann Butler
Mark Lipmann
Marr Nealon

Those that helped
make this show Possible
Chad Ely, Ely Multimedia
Tim Watts/ Studio B Productions
Ben Krompak/ Krompak Communications
Alan Chimenti/ RAdium, SFO
Mahoko Kuramasu/ Radium, SFO
Dean Andre
David Charnow
John Hays
William Jackson
Gabrielle Noske
Sarah in Michigan
Mary Jacobs
Sean Everett
Sandra Marsh
Marcus Brandon
All of our Dedicated Viewers

Special Thanks,
Jamie Cromwell
Rick Overton
Melissa Etheridge
Alexandra Paul
Davis Fleetwood
David Schiffmann
Michael Benner
Mr. Harry Tuttle
Tyler Durden
Winston Smith
Frances Fisher
Bree Walker
Ani DiFranco
Michael Franti
Sean Penn
Viggo Mortensen
Sharon Jiminez
Bob Jiminez
Byron DeLear
Hector Elizondo
Esai Morales
and Elizabeth Kucinich

Let’s make sure we keep this
Progressive Hero
in Congress in 2008!


Dennis Kucinich’s Final Presidential Message To Us All (video)

State of the Union Reaction from Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) (vid link)

Edwards to quit presidential race by Nedra Pickler + video

My sincere condolences to the Edwards’ supporters, I know how you feel. ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

by Nedra Pickler
Raw Story
AP News
Jan 30, 2008 11:12 EST

AP NewsBreak: Democrat John Edwards to End His Presidential Bid

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters’ sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards’ backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife’s recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians’ Village, the adviser said.

With that, Edwards’ campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn’t hear the cries of the downtrodden.



John Edwards Drops Out


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Follow the Money? God forbid. by Jim Hogue (9/11)

Dandelion Salad

by Jim Hogue
The Baltimore Chronicle

Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before the 9/11 attacks never investigated?

It’s been over six years since 9/11, but U.S. regulatory entities have been slow to follow through with reports about the complex financial transactions that occurred just prior to and following the attacks. Such research could shed light on such questions as who was behind them—and who benefited—and could help lay to rest the rumors that have been festering.

Warning bells about anomalies in the fiscal sector were sounded in the summer of 2001, but not heeded. Among those who has since raised questions was Bill Bergman. As a financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve, he was assigned in 2003 to review the record of July and August of 2001. He noticed an unusual surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply (cash circulating outside of banks) during that period. The surge totaled over $5 billion above the norm for a two-month increase. The increase in August alone was the third largest single monthly increase since 1947, even after a significantly above-average month in July.



FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Sibel Edmonds (archive of posts)

Endless Battle by Edward Jayne (Israel)

Dandelion Salad

by Edward Jayne
Dissident Voice
January 29th, 2008

Almost a Century of Conflict Resulting From the Effort to Establish Israel as a Jewish State

Since the Biblical Diaspora some twenty centuries ago, Jews have survived as a small minority repeatedly driven from one host community to the next, isolated from each because of endogenous marriage customs as well as perceived differences in dress, culture, and religious belief. By both choice and necessity, Jews have inhabited urban ghettos, interacting with others in such useful roles as doctors, merchants, jewelers, and moneylenders. Some have attained remarkable wealth and status for their services, most notably such powerful bankers as the Rothschilds since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Most others have endured far more modest circumstances as peddlers and small shopkeepers.

For much of its history, the Jewish community has depended on the gratitude of kings and autocratic governments that were subsidized by Jewish bankers, but now and again this unique reciprocity has aggravated relations with the rest of society, especially during periods of war and extreme poverty. The resulting persecution of Jews has sometimes led to severe repression, even massacres, for example during the 15th century in Spain, during the 17th century in Poland, and during the pogroms preceding World War I. The Holocaust imposed by Hitler during World War II involved the systematic extermination of six million Jews justified by the contradictory arguments that Jews were an inferior race and, on the other hand, that they were greedy and manipulative, having somehow profited from World War I as well as the inflation and two depressions that followed.

Since the turn of the twentieth century, assimilation between Jews and the non-Jewish European population seems to have both aggravated and mitigated the prejudice against Jews. Many gentiles have been grateful for the plenitude of Jewish contributions to modern civilization, but others have felt threatened and were therefore more hostile. There has also been a substantial trend toward secularization among the Jewish population, with Jews excelling in virtually every calling they entered–journalism, education, medicine, law, art, fiction, music, entertainment, etc. Most Jews have accepted modern science and the materialist perspective without abandoning Judaism, but others have taken the hitherto unthinkable step of emancipating themselves from all orthodox belief. In various fields of inquiry such figures as Freud, Einstein, Bohr, Durkheim, Mannheim, Boas, and Popper have made significant theoretical contributions unencumbered by religious conviction.

Here, then, is a brief chronology of what has happened to date in this extraordinary history of the Jewish people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Conflict over fundamental change in Bolivia (video)

Dandelion Salad


More at
Jean-Paul Guevara: Bolivian indigenous people demand a transformation

Tuesday January 29th, 2008

Jean Paul Guevara is Bolivia’s Director of Bilateral Relations. He was interviewed at the Bolivian embassy in Washington.

Dennis Kucinich’s Final Presidential Message To Us All (video)

Dandelion Salad



The murdering of the Kucinich campaign By Jack Balkwill

State of the Union Reaction from Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) (vid link)

Ron Paul Would Consider Kucinich in Cabinet Post by AlaskaSteven (link)

Kucinich abandons White House bid + photos link + Vows to keep fighting for causes + (vid) (updated)

Dennis Kucinich Announces Re-Elect Campaign (video)


Thank you, Congressman Kucinich + Dennis Kucinich: A Tribute (vids; updated)

Kucinich Quits, but We Don’t! (donate to Kucinich for Congress)