Don't curse the darkness, light a candle.
Dear peace activists,
See below a sign-on letter from the US Campaign to End the Israeli
Occupation opposing Bush´s request for $2.55 billion in military aid for
Israel for FY2009. Please let us know via email (info@peaceandjustice.it) by
Sunday, March 2, if you agree that our group endorse this letter.
Please note: this is a sign on letter for groups and organizations. If you
would like to send your own personal letter to Congress, see:
http://tinyurl.com/2da7qd
Again, please let us know by March 2.
Anna, Gene, Maria, Maria Chiara and Stephanie
U.S. Citizens for Peace & Justice - Rome
info@peaceandjustice.it
http://www.peaceandjustice.it
Sign-On Letter to Appropriations Subcommittee Opposing FY2009 Military
Aid to Israel
Deadline for Signing: March 4, 2008
TO: Senate and House Subcommittees on State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Program, Appropriations Committees
We are writing to let you know that our organizations oppose the
President´s FY2009 budget request for $2.55 billion in Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) for Israel, which would be a 9% increase over actual
spending in FY2007.This proposed increase is the first installment of a ten-
year agreement between the United States and Israel, signed in August
2007, to increase military aid to Israel by 25%, totaling $30 billion by
FY2018.
Israel uses weapons purchased through FMF to enforce its illegal 40-year
military occupation and siege of the Palestinian West Bank, East
Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip and to commit human rights violations against
Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and against civilians in Lebanon.
Israel´s ongoing use of U.S. weapons to enforce an illegal military
occupation and to commit human rights abuses places it in violation of the
Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act.
The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
must examine the President´s FY2009 budget request for $2.55 billion in
FMF for Israel in light of Israel´s violations of these U.S. laws. We urge the
Subcommittee to hold Israel accountable for its violations of U.S. laws and
apply the appropriate sanctions for countries that violate its terms. As long
as Israel continues to violate U.S. law, the United States must cut off
military aid, not increase it.
Signed by,
1. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
2. Council for the National Interest
3. Jewish Voice for Peace
4. Peace Action
5. United for Peace and Justice
6. US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Dear peace activists,
As mentioned in the solidarity statement to Florence anti-war activists, four
members of the No Dal Molin movement against the new U.S. military base
in Vicenza were recently served "avvisi di garanzia" (legal notification that
they are under investigation in a criminal proceeding) for having occupied
the office of the Prefect in January.
This weekend, 200 volunteers in over 30 stands set up around the city and
province of Vicenza will collect signatures in support of these activists and
the movement, with the slogan, "We are all guilty of loving Vicenza."
You can sign the petition via email by sending your first and last name,
street address, city/country and postal code along with the statement
"sottoscrivo la petizione in sostegno delle donne e degli uomini raggiunti da
avvisi di garanzia" to 23febbraio@nodalmolin.it
The text of the petition is as follows
(Italian version at: http://www.nodalmolin.it/notizie/notizie_78.html):
"On December 2, 2006, February 17, 2007 and December 15, 2007, tens
of thousands from Vicenza marched against the new U.S. base at Dal
Molin; three mass demonstrations to say NO to the new base and to assert
our right to decide our own future. Our opposition, however, is not merely
symbolic in nature: we intend to stop the militarization of Vicenza. And to
reach this goal, in recent months, we have occupied the Basilica
Palladiana, cut cables leading to the new base, planted 150 trees inside
Dal Molin and blocked the entrance during the initial phase of construction.
As further demonstration of our determination, on January 16, 2008, we
occupied the Prefect´s office in Vicenza.
If it is a crime to dream of a better world and to defend Vicenza, then I, too,
am guilty; although I may not have been present at all the initiatives, I
support goals and the methods used: defending our land, our cities and the
future for our children is a right."
See also final version of the Florence solidarity statement on our web site:
http://www.peaceandjustice.it/letter-authorities.php#florence
(in Italian, if you would like to volunteer to translate this to English, it would
be a welcome contribution)
Anna, Gene, Maria, Maria Chiara and Stephanie
U.S. Citizens for Peace & Justice - Rome
info@peaceandjustice.it
http://www.peaceandjustice.it
A new nonprofit -- Voices of a People's History of the United States -- has been launched and awarded a $50,000 challenge grant!
After three and a half years touring the country with dramatic readings and special performances from the book Voices of a People's History of the United States, we've launched a new non-profit organization of the same name to carry on the work in a systematic way and to raise funds to bring this inspiring work to every school, town hall, community theater, and public space in the country.
Howard Zinn is on the board of directors of Voices of a People's History of the United States and there's a Teachers Advisory Board of public high school and college teachers to help guide the programs.
There’s a man in Florida who has been writing to me for years (ten pages, handwritten) though I’ve never met him. He tells me the kinds of jobs he has held—security guard, repairman, etc. He has worked all kinds of shifts, night and day, to barely keep his family going. His letters to me have always been angry, railing against our capitalist system for its failure to assure “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness” for working people.
Just today, a letter came. To my relief it was not handwritten because he is now using e-mail: “Well, I’m writing to you today because there is a wretched situation in this country that I cannot abide and must say something about. I am so enraged about this mortgage crisis. That the majority of Americans must live their lives in perpetual debt, and so many are sinking beneath the load, has me so steamed. Damn, that makes me so mad, I can’t tell you. . . . I did a security guard job today that involved watching over a house that had been foreclosed on and was up for auction. They held an open house, and I was there to watch over the place during this event. There were three of the guards doing the same thing in three other homes in this same community. I was sitting there during the quiet moments and wondering about who those people were who had been evicted and where they were now.”
On the same day I received this letter, there was a front-page story in the Boston Globe, with the headline “Thousands in Mass. Foreclosed on in ’07.”
The subhead was “7,563 homes were seized, nearly 3 times the ’06 rate.”
A few nights before, CBS television reported that 750,000 people with disabilities have been waiting for years for their Social Security benefits because the system is underfunded and there are not enough personnel to handle all the requests, even desperate ones.
Stories like these may be reported in the media, but they are gone in a flash. What’s not gone, what occupies the press day after day, impossible to ignore, is the election frenzy.
This seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.
And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.
Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the Presidential elections?
The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.
Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system won’t allow them in.
No, I’m not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death.
I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes—the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
Let’s remember that even when there is a “better” candidate (yes, better Roosevelt than Hoover, better anyone than George Bush), that difference will not mean anything unless the power of the people asserts itself in ways that the occupant of the White House will find it dangerous to ignore.
The unprecedented policies of the New Deal—Social Security, unemployment insurance, job creation, minimum wage, subsidized housing—were not simply the result of FDR’s progressivism. The Roosevelt Administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil. The last year of the Hoover Administration had experienced the rebellion of the Bonus Army—thousands of veterans of the First World War descending on Washington to demand help from Congress as their families were going hungry. There were disturbances of the unemployed in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York, Seattle.
In 1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over the country, including a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country. Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture of evicted tenants, and creating self-help organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.
Without a national crisis—economic destitution and rebellion—it is not likely the Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms that it did.
Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.
They offer no radical change from the status quo.
They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.
They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live.
None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.
So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.
Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For instance, the mortgage foreclosures that are driving millions from their homes—they should remind us of a similar situation after the Revolutionary War, when small farmers, many of them war veterans (like so many of our homeless today), could not afford to pay their taxes and were threatened with the loss of the land, their homes. They gathered by the thousands around courthouses and refused to allow the auctions to take place.
The evictions today of people who cannot pay their rents should remind us of what people did in the Thirties when they organized and put the belongings of the evicted families back in their apartments, in defiance of the authorities.
Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war.
Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.
Howard Zinn is the author of “A People’s History of the United States,” “Voices of a People’s History” (with Anthony Arnove), and most recently, “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”
|
Mainstream vs. Main Street A Santa Cruz conference looks to overthrow corporate media in favor of citizen journalism. By P. Joseph Potocki Against a backdrop of increasing public alarm over the power and reliability of corporate news sources, more than 300 progressive media activists, professionals and academics gathered in Santa Cruz over the weekend of Jan. 25-27. The task of the Independent Media Strategy Summit: to bust up corporate media domination by envisioning and launching a reliable, grassroots, equally powerful "main street media" alternative. So what happened�and just how well did they do? |
|
Great White Way
It's Friday morning, Jan. 25. I'm bending into a monsoon downpour, slogging toward Stevenson Hall on the Sonoma State University campus. I'm here to snag a ride to Santa Cruz. My backpack's weight shifts and shimmies, causing me to spaz out on the wet walkway. I nearly land on my ass, twice, before arriving at the office of media summit organizer and Project Censored chief Peter Phillips. Nobody's home. Down the hall I hear a radio weather guy say that six more inches of rain is heading for the Santa Cruz Mountains by noon�which is exactly when we're to cross them. Peter Phillips walks up the hallway and asks me if I'm John. Students start arriving. It's your typical pre-outing anarchy. Peter tells me to ride with Mark. Mark tells me to ride with Peter. I hop in Peter's car, along with John. On the way, Peter outlines the upcoming summit and tells me he's paying $59 a night to stay at a nearby motor lodge. I'm paying twice that at the University Inn.Once in Santa Cruz, we pull up to the University Inn. Scores of prog-folk mill outside the front door. Peter is greeted by many. Wandering into the main room, I situate myself at one of a couple dozen large round tables filling the main conference room. It's your typical ultrafluorescent, soulless rectangular space. The room fills up and everyone seems to be rarin' to go. The place reeks of leftist cool. Me, I'm wearing basic black. It hides the fat. I meet Michael Masley. He's a master cymbalom player who has recorded with both Tom Waits and Ry Cooder. This self-described "Artist General" was voted the East Bay's best street musician in 2007. Masley's here, he tells me, to mount his case against Bush and Co. regarding war profiteering. A series of short addresses commence. Academy Award-winning documentarian Barbara Trent steps to the lectern, hoisting the Oscar she received for 1992: The Panama Deception. Trent invites us to come up and touch it. Great photo op, but I forgot my camera. Dennis Bernstein of KPFA radio's Flashpoints show advocates for "real tough reporting." He and his team are here to broadcast their show live. Four Flashpoints contributors flank Bernstein like a pride of fierce media lions. These collaborators are precisely what's in short supply here. The foursome are all relatively young. They include a Native American/Chicano, a black man and two young women, one of whom is Mexican-American. Each points to what we can't help noticing: that the 300-plus attending this summit are overwhelmingly middle-aged and elder white folk. Butterflies and Bumblebees I'm excited about this grassroots beat-the-bushes approach, but wonder whether a sufficiently wide progressive net has been cast. We've noted the dearth of young people and minorities. And famous people can, after all, participate as equals by lending ideas and expertise without being placed atop a pedestal. Moreover, well-established progressive media sources seem an essential component for any broad-based media network to gain traction. Publications like In These Times, Mother Jones and The Progressive lend immediate credibility to any such effort. So where are they? Flashpoints is a welcome presence, but why we don't have Democracy Now!, and perhaps Air America Radio's Tom Hartman broadcasting from the summit, too? Kubiak's famous people reference notwithstanding, the summit does feature an impressive roster of journalists, publishers and documentary filmmakers, and even notable activists and politicians like Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney and the disembodied voice of Dennis Kucinich. But where's MoveOn.org, Daily Kos.com, the ethnic minority and labor movement pubs? Where are the emerging youth techies, podcasters and bloggers? It seems natural that all these folks be here. I'm sure the organizers have done their best with limited promotional resources. Shortcomings noted, there's still plenty of intellectual firepower here, and should we deliver the network goodies, chances are nonparticipants will hop on board as the network develops. Kenoli Oleari and Mark Tognotti are our paid summit facilitators. They explain that we'll be breaking into randomly selected "Affinity Groups" to generate ideas and write them down on a board. Oleari addresses self-selected misfits. Butterflies get to flit around. Bumblebees take pollen from one group to another. "The Law of Two Feet applies in any case if your group isn't working for you," he says. I'm assigned to Affinity Group No. 12. We are: two film documentarians, Masley, an AM radio host, media advocates, concerned citizens and me. Six women, five men. Salome Chasnoff, a documentary producer from Chicago, is our moderator. We're talking up personal summit goals. It's all pretty vague. I offer, "We are witness-participating in a birthing or a socioevolutionary step forward addressing all nature of old and emerging media, and replacing those rusty old media pipes with a new media conduit so our juices freely flow." They all stare at me like I'm nuts. The Reptilian Arts Charles wonders how it's possible to coalesce disparate progressive media sources into timely, trustworthy, mutually cooperative and still fiercely independent pieces of a cross-media network puzzle. Take, for example, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! Charles says his INN World Report competes for the same audience, though his operation's budget is a fraction of Goodman's. So does the progressive universe have room for the INNs of this world? Compared to network news, or even cable network news, Democracy Now! itself works on a shoestring budget. So, beyond mere coexistence, can the two competitors mutually assist one another in the name of progressive diversity? Perhaps by the end of the summit we'll find out. During the morning's session, antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan relates a vignette illustrating corporate media sensibilities. Sheehan was camped out in Texas, hoping for an audience with George Bush. "People in Crawford kept talking about the media circus. One day [the media] followed me to the bathroom and I asked, 'Is this the media circus yet?' And they said, 'Yes, this is it.'" Comments ensue. Investigative reporter Kristina Borjesson suggests we create a think tank charged with monitoring, deciphering and countering masters of "the Reptilian Arts," by which she means the machinations of mainstream media. She claims, "I'm the reporter with the prize for 'most likely to have her piece killed.'" Borjesson also points out the obvious: "Our problem is what makes corporations successful. They're organized." Meaning, of course, that we're not. Danny Schector calls himself "The News Dissector." He's a journalist and founder of the MediaChannel. Schector's new film is In Debt We Trust. Schector points out that we here at the summit risk the "danger of only talking to people who agree with us." I particularly like his trog-prog comparison. "The right wing is like the Marine Corps. The left is like the Salvation Army." During breaks an comment periods, conversations swirl, indicating that references to 9/11 may not be mixing so well with fundamental media restructuring. My read is that while 9/11's a legitimate investigative issue anchoring the involvement of a significant number of people here, media restructuring is a step-by-step envisioning process. Many feel this process has little to do with investigative inquiry per se, and don't want to collate the two. I wonder if this rub has kept any potential participants away. A Reptile on Main Street We break from our Affinity Groups and head for one of three themed breakout sessions. I opt to cover "Network/Technology." Russ Baker has taught journalism at Columbia, writes for The Nation and is the author of The Bush Dynasty. His take on news gathering differs from the proponents of "citizen journalism," or what some call "community journalism." Baker says if everyone is a journalist and everyone is equal, then journalism itself becomes suspect, leading to a shortage of trustworthy information, and that "we need to get back to funding real investigative reporting." Baker's lefty credentials aren't enough for this crowd. He may as well have suggested a return to child slavery.David Rubinson, former producer of Moby Grape and the Pointer Sisters, asserts that we need more "peer-to-peer communication, not through the gatekeepers, like you"�he points to Baker�"and the mainstream media, but through Napster, through servers. That old gatekeeper model, give me a break. Let's take the knowledge from the young people." Baker responds that he's no gatekeeper and that "anecdotal reporting can lead to a lynch mob mentality. ...We need to distinguish between different forms of journalism." David Mathison is a former VP at Reuters and an advocate of community-access television. He backs Rubinson. "We could see the print industry was going to be destroyed by the Internet. Their business model is obsolete," Mathison insists. "Let's not wait for some future date for this to take place. It's happening now." The question of who is and who is not a legitimate journalist prompts recurring debate throughout the summit. Can or should a citizen (read "amateur") journalist be expected to meet accepted standards of the profession? Various components come into play. There's the training, edit/vetting and experience pieces. Also, the fundamental reliability of the information and the relative quality of its presentation need be addressed. Then there's the money issue. Some contend that the journalist not paid for his work, has, necessarily, a personal agenda. Others claim that no journalist, paid or not, writes without bias. Concerns are raised that accepting citizen journalists into a network risks inaccurate reporting. Countering this, it's suggested that if on-site breaking news "amateurs" aren't given a platform to report what they witness, important events may never get reported. This seems particularly true in this age of ever-shrinking local media newsroom budgets. INN's Charles chimes in, "We've created our own parallel media on the cheap. It's growing, and�point people to it!" It all has me wondering: will main street America support in-depth, well researched and hard-hitting investigative news reporting? Will it read and tune into fact-based analysis and opinion? Or do we, as a mass culture, really prefer infotainment? Our Group 12 meets again. Activist Jeri Bodemar has just returned from the Narrative Breakout Group. She summarizes what she experienced there. Bodemar cites fear�promoted by media playing on our insecurities, the emergence of main street media and the wholesome triad of Connection, Compassion and Community�as issues the Narrative Group tackled. They espouse the creation of a fact resource center and stress the need for theater, art and humor. This all comes down to placing "the Democracy Frame" around the rapacity of corporate power. I'm scribbling, and so is filmmaker Penny Little.Saturday's session ends. I'm squeezed dry, hopeful and fitfully confused. But I'm down for that theater, art and humor. Penny's Thoughts Peter Phillips feels we must "build our own network, but keep relations with established media." The questions Phillips poses are, "Can we build an independent, noncorporate news source in the United States that is open to everybody? Do we have adequate, truthful resources? and Do we have the will?" In the afternoon, Affinity Group 12 meet for our final session. Filmmaker Penny Little proposes a progressive newswire concept, a sort of Google-News-gets-vetted-via-Wiki, "using available online technology." The entire summit reconvenes. We listen to a series of final reports. Toward the end, Peter Phillips gives the Building A Grassroots Media Networks report. Phillips prominently cites Penny Little's Progressive Newswire concept as a key attainable goal. It makes sense. It's cheap and doable. It works with existing technology and seems to me a fine baby step forward. Our work in Affinity Group 12 is affirmed. Seeing Clearly So, did our weekend media powwow achieve its stated aim to "transform the way Americans perceive and defend their world"? Doubtless, no. But, sometimes, with everything raining down at once, it takes waiting out the deluge of grand planning before the entirety of our path forward is clearly seen. Seems to me the Independent Media Strategy Summit was like that. One can only hope for what Johnny Nash sang: I can see clearly now the rain is gone |
Video trailer for The People Speak is now available!
Click on:
http://howardzinn.org/video/thepeoplespeak.mov
Dear Friends,
Yesterday, the leading candidates for the next President of the United States became clear. They are Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and the winner will decide whether the nightmare of the Bush foreign policy is reversed or continued for another 4 years.
US citizens will choose their president, but global public opinion matters to them--they know that US respect in the world has plummeted under Bush, and they want a President who can deliver change. In the next few days, our uniquely global community has a real chance to influence the finalist candidates as they develop their campaign strategy. Click below to read and endorse our letter to the candidates. We'll publish it in US newspapers and deliver it personally to the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns--we need at least 100,000 people to sign it this week – so please sign and forward this email to friends right away:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/us_change_course/8.php
The message of the letter is simple: we are all in this together. The world is ready to partner with the US, but we need to see a real change of course from the Bush years. The letter is based on a poll of the Avaaz community, which found that our top 3 requests for change in US policy are:
Reported on Saudi newspaper AL-Watan, Israel pressured Google to remove all the images of Egyptian footballer Abu Trika showing his T-shirt with the text “Sympathize with Gaza” [also confirmed by Al-Arabiya…or you can do the search by yourself].
See Abu Trika http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=7UokuTlFbjA
An open letter to Silvio Berlusconi
Jul 30th 2003
From Economist.com
Get article background
Silvio Berlusconi
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
Palazzo Chigi
370 Piazza Colonna
Rome 00187
July 30th 2003
Dear Mr Berlusconi,
I am writing to you to pose questions that I believe the public has a right to hear the answers to. As this can no longer occur through the Italian courts, such questions should be posed and answered in public.
On June 18th, the Italian parliament approved a bill to grant immunity from criminal trials to the holders of the five highest offices of state, including the president and prime minister. It is now a law. The law applies even if a trial started before the office-holder was elected. The new law’s most immediate effect is that the one remaining criminal trial in which you are involved —the SME case, in which you are accused of bribing judges—has been suspended until you are no longer prime minister. Even then, the trial will start again only if you were not elected to one of the other offices that benefits from the immunity. But the law is being challenged in the constitutional court.
On April 28th 2001, we published a cover story entitled “Why Silvio Berlusconi is unfit to lead Italy” and a four-page investigation “An Italian story”. We sent you a letter on April 11th 2001, containing 51 questions, that stated: “The Economist intends to publish shortly a feature on your business career and on the various investigations into you and your companies that have been carried out by the Italian magistracy during the last seven years”. You did not reply.
On May 2nd 2001, you filed a writ for defamation against The Economist in the Rome court. As you will know, this court has not yet ruled on your suit.
In light of the above, we are writing to you by way of open letter and challenge you to answer our further set of questions in a similar open, public fashion. Our letter comprises six sections as follows:
1. The SME affair
2. Your spontaneous declarations
3. The smearing of Romano Prodi
4. Your gold medal claim
5. Your other trials
6. Your early business career
We look forward to your reply
Yours sincerely
Bill Emmott
Editor
The Economist
Continue
 |
Barbabianca
Beppe Grillo
Bloggerdiguerra
City Lights
Counterpunch
democracy now
Democrats activist in Italy
GI Rights HotLine
Lawrence of Cyberia
Michael Moore
press freedom
Project censored
The antimafia fight
The shell game.
Us labor against war
World can't wait
today
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
us
casentino
censored news
chile
civil rights
cuba
culture
dante
democracy
elections
environment
europe
gaza
internet
iran
iraq
islam
israel
italy
latin america
nineleven
noyes
palestine
peace
press
resisters
science
torture
vatican
war
world trade
visited *loading* times
