Progressive Calendar 07.07.07
From: David Shove (
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
              P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R    07.07.07

1. KFAI/Indian      7.08 7pm

2. vs MN war-pols   7.09 1pm
3. Peace church     7.09 6:30pm
4. Labor v war      7.09 7pm
5. SpiritProg       7.09 7pm
6. Vets4Peace       7.09 7pm Red Wing MN
7. Climate crisis   7.09 7:30pm

8. M Albert/CTV     7.10 8am
9. M Albert/CTV     7.10 5pm
10. Journalism      7.10 5:30pm
11. Green workshops 7.10 6pm
12. Palestine/salon 7.10 6:30pm
13. SocialForum rpt 7.10 7pm
14. Impeach         7.10 7pm
15. SexEd/state/f   7.10 7pm

16. Uganda          7.11 8am
17. Arabic classes  7.11 10am/6pm
18. Iraqi book art  7.11 4pm
19. Bridge vigil    7.11 5pm
20. Organic farm    7.11 6pm
21. Pray for peace  7.11 6:30pm
22. Amnesty Intl    7.11 7:30pm

23. Ismael Hossein-Zadeh - Parasitic imperialism
24. ed - Love and Marriage: Another Slightly Altered Song (SAS)

--------1 of 24--------

From: Chris Spotted Eagle <chris [at]>
Subject: KFAI/Indian 7.08 7pm

KFAI¹s Indian uprising for July 8, 2007 from 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. CST

experiences and perspectives about this historical convergence that
brought over 10,000 people together. Gathered were activists representing
groups such as: Social, Economic and Environmental Justice organizers,
Peace & Justice, community-based organizations, Indigenous Nations,
Unions, Gays, students and many other groups to confront key issues facing
their communities. The forum was organized to be more than a conference,
more than a networking bonanza, more than a reaction to war and
repression.  It was to provide a message to other people¹s movements
around the world that there is an active movement in the U.S. opposing
U.S. policies at home and abroad. The Forum was held in Atlanta, Georgia,
from June 27 to July 1, 2007.

Guest: Tom Goldtooth (Dine'), ED, Indigenous Environmental Network ~
Audrey Thayer (White Earth Ojibwe), Coordinator, Greater Minnesota Racial
Justice Project, ACLU of MN ~ Alberto Saldamando (Chicano of Zapoteca
origin), Legal Counsel, International Indian Treaty Council, San
Francisco, CA.

Audio of panel: ³Colonialism in the United States²

U.S. Social Forum Forges Common Ground by Matthew Cardinale, IPS News,
July 2, 2007. "This was really an awesome opportunity for the indigenous
people of the U.S. to develop family with indigenous people from the
South, delegations from Guatemala, from Chile and Argentina who were
here... It really provided us an opportunity to develop a family," said
Tom Goldtooth "We're willing to share some of our knowledge," he added.
"The Water Ceremony [at the USSF] was our opportunity to help inform all
people about the unification of water.²

US Social Forum: Native Americans and Immigrants Share Common Struggle by
Jonathan Springston, IPS News, July 2, 2007. ³One group has lived here for
millennia, while the other has just arrived. But Native Americans and
immigrants have much in common, particularly the alienation and oppression
they experience in U.S. society, activists and community leaders said on day
three of the U.S. Social Forum.²
<> .

* * * *
Indian Uprising a one-hour Public & Cultural Affairs program is for and by
Native Indigenous People broadcast each Sunday at 7:00 p.m. CST on KFAI
90.3 FM Minneapolis and 106.7 FM St. Paul.  Producer and host is volunteer
Chris Spotted Eagle. KFAI Fresh Air Radio is located at 1808 Riverside
Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454, 612-341-3144.

KFAI's website, provides "Program Archives² that have current
programs available for listening for two weeks. Programs can also be heard
via KFAI's "live streaming" using RealAudio. Click "KFAI Live Streams."

--------2 of 24--------

From: Deborah Rosenstein <dgr [at]>
Subject: vs MN war-pols 7.09 1pm

On Monday, a bunch of us are coming together to launch an aggressive
offensive against local pro-war politicians, Senator Norm Coleman and
Representatives Jim Ramstad and Michele Bachmann. They are electorally
vulnerable and we need to send them a message loud and clear: Bring an end
to the Iraq war or face political consequences.

There are going to be great speakers - like the families of soldiers
serving in Iraq - who'll help remind us why our work this summer is so
important. If lots of us show up, we'll show the media that Minnesota is
serious about turning up the heat on politicians who keep voting to
continue the war.  Can we count on you to join us and help Minnesota "take
a stand" against the Iraq war?

Minnesota citizens, Iraq war veterans and their families, and
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI)

Launch of Minnesota Iraq Summer "Take a Stand" Campaign

Minnesota State Capitol Office Building, Rm 181
75 Constitution Ave
St. Paul, MN 55155
Monday, July 9th at 1 p.m.

Monday's event is part of a series of events across the country to kick
off Iraq Summer - one of the largest campaigns in the history of our work
on Iraq. Together we'll work to turn the tide on Republicans who are
obstructing an end to this reckless war.

Come join us, bring along your neighbors and friends and help Minnesota do
its part to bring our troops home.

We hope you can make it on Monday.

--------3 of 24--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at]>
Subject: Peace church 7.09 6:30pm

Monday, 7/9, 6:30 pm, Every Church a Peace Church potluck including
presentation by 3 or more Red Wing peace activist students, St Stephen
Lutheran Church, 8400 France Ave S, Bloomington.  rollsen6376 [at]

--------4 of 24--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at]>
Subject: Labor v war 7.09 7pm

Monday, 7/9 (and every second Monday of the month), 7 pm, US Labor Against
War,, Merriam Park Library, 1831 Marchall Ave, St Paul.  Thomas Dooley at

--------5 of 24--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at]>
Subject: SpiritProg 7.09 7pm

Monday, 7/9, 7 to 9 pm (orientation at 6:30), Erika Thorne from Training for
Change and a student of Quaker visionary George Lakey speaks at monthly
meeting of Network of Spiritual Progressives, Plymouth Church 1900 Nicolett
Ave, Mpls.

--------6 of 24--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at]>
Subject: Vets4Peace 7.09 7pm Red Wing MN

Wednesday, 7/9, 7 pm, Red Wing Vets for Peace meeting at home of Charles
Nicolosi.  tuvecino [at]

--------7 of 24--------

From: Eric Angell <eric-angell [at]>
Subject: Climate crisis 7.09 7:30pm

Regular meeting of the Climate Crisis Coalition of the Twin Cities (3CTC).
 EVERY 2nd and 4th Monday at 7:30 pm.  The Freight House Dunn Brothers,
201 3rd Ave S, next door to the Milwaukee Road Depot, Downtown
Minneapolis.  Stop global warming, save Earth!

In solidarity w/people and the planet, Eric 651-644-1173

--------8 of 24--------

From: Eric Angell <eric-angell [at]>
Subject: M Albert/CTV 7.10 8am

Revered Minneapolis Television Network (MTN 17) viewers:

"Our World In Depth" cablecasts weekly on MTN Channel 17.  Households with
basic cable can watch.  "Our World In Depth" is on Saturday at 9 pm and
the following Tuesday at 8 am (as well as other times).

7/10 "Michael Albert: From SDS to Life After Capitalism"  Recent talk at
Macalester College.  Part 1.

--------9 of 24--------

From: Eric Angell <eric-angell [at]>
Subject: M Albert/CTV 7.10 5pm

Dear St. Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN 15) viewers:

"Our World In Depth" cablecasts at 5 pm and midnight each Tuesday and 10
am each Wednesday in St. Paul.  All households with basic cable can watch.

7/10 and 7/11 "Michael Albert: From SDS to Life After Capitalism"  Recent
talk at Macalester College.  Part 1.

--------10 of 24--------

From: Editor - Mary Turck <editor [at]>
Subject: Journalism 7.10 5:30pm

LAST CHANCE to sign up for Doug McGill's Largemouth Citizen Journalism
workshop July 10, 17, 25, 31 from 5:3-8 p.m. at the Resource Center of the
Americas, 3019 Minnehaha Avenue, Minneapolis.

Only two or three spaces left! This is an intensive four-session workshop
(not one session repeated four times), with lots of writing and feedback,
reading and discussion, and cookies.  E-mail Doug directly at
doug [at] For more information, see our <a
href=>summer workshop page</a>.

--------11 of 24--------

From: AmiVoeltz DoItGreen <mngreenguide [at]>
Subject: Green workshops 7.10 6pm

[This schedule will be posted JUST ONCE - if you want it, SAVE it -ed]

Free Do It Green! Summer Workshop Series
Visit this link at for ongoing workshop

* RSVP for workshops by emailing number of people, names, emails and phone
numbers to [at] or call 612-345-7973.

Bike Fitting, Commuting and Basic Repair
Discover the fun of biking!  Benefit your health and the environment. Learn
how to shop or updgrade a bike, join a group ride to learn commuting tips,
attend a mini tune-up session and take home a bike map and tire lever for
changing flats!  All ages, bring your bike.

July 10   Penn Cycle   6-8pm
6415 Lake Rd. Terrace, Woodbury

July 11   Penn Cycle   6-8pm
3916 W. Old Shakopee Rd, Bloomington

July 16 Hub Bike Co-op 7-9pm
        Women's Ride 7-8pm, All: repair/ fit 8-9pm
          3020 Minnehaha Ave., Minneapolis

Create Your Own Waste Reduction Kit
Learn ways to reduce waste in your everyday life.  Make your own waste
reduction kit - complete with cloth napkin, biodegradable silverware, food
container, first-aid/sewing kit and cloth hankie. Sewing required. All ages
able to sew welcome.

July 14   Prince of Peace Church  1-3pm
          13901 Fairview Drive, Burnsville

July 19   West 7th Community Center  6-8pm
          265 Oneida Street, St. Paul

July 21           Creekside Community Center 1-3 pm
          9801 Penn Ave. S., Bloomington

July 26           Fallout Urban Art Center 6-8pm
          2609 Stevens Ave. S., Minneapolis

Green Spending & Investing
Expand your local spending power, support community banks and learn about
green investing. A panel of   financial advisors will present info on these
topics and then you will be able to create either a basic financial cash
flow or a green investment portfolio.
Check for updated times/locations.

Home and Apartment Energy
Conservation and Audit
Learn ways to reduce your heating and energy costs and contribution to
global warming. This workshop will   involve a walk-through energy audit of
a local home and will provide tips on insulation, saving energy and
alternative energy options. Take home a fluorescent or  LED bulb and start
reducing your energy consumption!
Check for updated times/locations.

* Brought to you by Do It Green! Minnesota (formerly Twin Cities Green
Guide), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and City Pages.

--------12 of 24--------

From: patty <pattypax [at]>
Subject: Palestine/salon 7.10 6:30pm

Tuesday, July 10, the guest will be M.K. Davis.  Ms. Davis spent last
winter in Palestine working w/Palestine Solidarity Project and works
locally w/ Jews For An End to the Occupation (JFAETTO).  She will talk
about the smaller, less discussed ways in which the Occupation affects
peoples' lives and the Palestinian idea of "Sumoud" or steadfastness.  MK
will also offer a critique of the ways in which the mainstream anti-war
movement discusses the issue.  I heard M K speak recently as she read from
her journal she kept while in Gaza.  It was quite emotional and uplifting
at the same time.  Hope you can come to hear her stories.

Pax Salons ( )
are held (unless otherwise noted in advance):
Tuesdays, 6:30 to 8:30 pm.
Mad Hatter's Tea House,
943 W 7th, St Paul, MN

Salons are free but donations encouraged for program and treats.
Call 651-227-3228 or 651-227-2511 for information.

--------13 of 24--------

From: Meredith Aby <awcmere [at]>
Subject: Social forum rpt 7.10 7pm

Anti-War Committee Report from the US Social Forum
Tuesday 7/10 @ 7pm @ Mayday Books, 301 Cedar Ave S, Mpls.

At the end of June, AWC member, Jess Sundin, will attend the US Social
Forum in Atlanta, Georgia. While there, she will join with other TC
activists, as well as organizers from NYC (which protested the RNC in
2004), to lead a workshop where folks from around the country can talk
about what to expect at the RNC and how to get involved. The report will
focus on RNC preparations, but also be a chance to hear about the growing
anti-war movement around the U.S.

--------14 of 24--------

From: Impeach <lists [at]>
Subject: Impeach 7.10 7pm

Weekly impeach meeting Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m.
Joe's Garage (Restaurant along Loring Park)
1610 Harmon Pl
Minneapolis, MN 55403
(612) 904-1163

--------15 of 24--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at]>
Subject: SexEd/state/film 7.10 7pm

Oak Street to Close for the Summer

Minneapolis, Minn.:  Due to major construction on Oak Street and
University Avenue, the Oak Street Cinema will close for the remainder of
the summer as of Thurs., July 5.  We will reopen after Labor Day.

Special events already scheduled to run during the summer will occur as
planned. These events include a screening of Sex Ed and the State, Tues.,
July 10, at 7 p.m. and the monthly Fearless Filmmakers screening on Wed.,
July 25, at 7:30 p.m.

Contact: Susan Smoluchowski

--------16 of 24--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at]>
Subject: Uganda 7.11 8am

Wednesday, 7/11, 8 am, Emily Brady presents talk "Uganda and the Lord's
Resistance Army" about the ongoing conflict in Uganda, St Martins Table,
21st and Riverside, West Bank, Mpls.

--------17 of 24--------

From: Mizna  <mizna-announce [at]>
Subject: Arabic classes 7.11 10am/6pm

Mizna presents:

Arabic for Teens
Instructor: Antoine Mefleh
Max Class Size: 12
Ages 12 - 18

Wednesdays, July 11- August 16, 2007 (6 weeks)
10 - 12 a.m. OR 6 - 8 p.m.

Arabic for Teens is designed to teach spoken and written Arabic to
teenagers in a fun and educational setting. Students will learn how to
greet one another in Arabic, learn the basics of communication, and the
alphabet. There will be lots of interactive work in this class. Hurry and
register. Spaces will fill up quickly!

To learn more about this class, or to enroll:

Visit our website at

--------18 of 24--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at]>
Subject: Iraqi book art 7.11 4pm

Wednesday, 7/11, 4 to 6 pm,  public exhibition of Iraqi book art, created as
the US bombing took place in 2003,Mpls Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall,
downtown Mpls.  (Private groups showings welcomed through 7/31.)

--------19 of 24--------

From: "wamm [at]" <wamm [at]>
Subject: Bridge vigil 7.11 5pm

"People of Faith Speak Out Against the War On Iraq" Bridge Vigil

Wednesday, July 11, 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Lake Street/Marshall Avenue Bridge,
spanning the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and St. Paul. Come to
Marshall Avenue (St. Paul) side of the bridge so that we can greet you.
Churches and people of faith are invited to join with others in speaking
out against the war on Iraq. Churches are invited to bring banners or
signs identifying themselves. FFI: Call Twin cities Peace Campaign-Focus
on Iraq (TCPC), 612-522-1861 or WAMM, 612-827-5364.

--------20 of 24--------

From: Erin Parrish <erin [at]>
Subject: Organic farm 7.11 6pm

Also July 11: Women's Environmental Institute Organic Farm School with
Chris Burkhouse (Foxtail Farm) Organic CSA Start-up and Operation: Nuts
and Bolts. 6PM- 8:00PM p.m. at Amazon Bookstore, 4755 Chicago Ave S,
Minneapolis MN.

--------21 of 24--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at]>
Subject: Pray for peace 7.11 6:30pm

Wednesday, 7/11, 6:30 to 7:15 pm, Sisters of St Joseph of Carondelet present
11th day prayer for peace, Presentation Chapel, 1880 Randolph Ave, St Paul. or 651-690-7079.

--------22 of 24--------

From: Gabe Ormsby <gabeo [at]>
Subject: Amnesty Intl 7.11 7:30pm

There are several local Amnesty International groups in the Twin Cities
area. All of them are welcoming and would love to see interested people
get involved.

AIUSA Group 640 (Saint Paul) meets Wednesday, July 11th, at 7:30 p.m. Mad
Hatter Teahouse, 943 West 7th Street, Saint Paul.

--------23 of 24--------

How Wars of Choice (and War Profiteering) are Corrupting American Civil
Parasitic Imperialism
July 7 / 8, 2007

Although immoral, external military operations of past empires often
proved profitable, and therefore justifiable on economic grounds. Military
actions abroad usually brought economic benefits not only to the imperial
ruling classes, but also (through "trickle-down" effects) to their
citizens. Thus, for example, imperialism paid significant dividends to
Britain, France, the Dutch, and other European powers of the seventeenth,
eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. As the imperial
economic gains helped develop their economies, they also helped improve
the living conditions of their working people and elevate the standards of
living of their citizens.

This pattern of economic gains flowing from imperial military operations,
however, seems to have somewhat changed in the context of the recent U.S.
imperial wars of choice, especially in the post-Cold War period.
Moralities aside, U.S. military expeditions and operations of late are not
justifiable even on economic grounds. Indeed, escalating U.S. military
expansions and aggressions have become ever more wasteful,
cost-inefficient, and burdensome to the overwhelming majority of its

Therefore, recent imperial policies of the United States can be called
parasitic imperialism because such policies of aggression are often
prompted not so much by a desire to expand the empire's wealth beyond the
existing levels, as did the imperial powers of the past, but by a desire
to appropriate the lion's share of the existing wealth and treasure for
the military establishment, especially for the war-profiteering Pentagon
contractors. It can also be called dual imperialism because not only does
it exploit the conquered and the occupied abroad but also the overwhelming
majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home.

Since imperial policies abroad are widely discussed by others, I will
focus here on parasitic military imperialism at home, that is, on what
might be called domestic or internal imperialism. Specifically, I will
argue that parasitic imperialism
 (1) redistributes national income or resources in favor of the wealthy;
 (2) undermines the formation of public capital (both physical and human);
 (3) weakens national defenses against natural disasters;
 (4) accumulates national debt and threatens economic/financial stability;
 (5) spoils external or foreign markets for non-military U.S.
transnational capital;
 (6) undermines civil liberties and democratic values; and
 (7) fosters a dependence on or addiction to military spending and,
therefore, leads to an spiraling vicious circle of war and militarism.
(The terms domestic imperialism, internal imperialism, parasitic
imperialism, and military imperialism are used synonymously or
interchangeably in this article.)

1. Parasitic Imperialism Redistributes National Income from the Bottom to
the Top

Even without the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are fast
surpassing half a trillion dollars, U.S. military spending is now the
largest item in the Federal budget. President Bush's proposed increase of
10% for next year will raise the Pentagon budget to over half a trillion
dollars for fiscal year 2008. A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay
for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "brings proposed military spending
for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending
since the end of World War II-higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea,
higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup."[1]

The skyrocketing Pentagon budget has been a boon for its contractors. This
is clearly reflected in the continuing rise of the value of the
contractors' shares in the stock market: "Shares of U.S. defense
companies, which have nearly trebled since the beginning of the occupation
of Iraq, show no signs of slowing down. . . . The feeling that makers of
ships, planes and weapons are just getting into their stride has driven
shares of leading Pentagon contractors Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop
Grumman Corp., and General Dynamics Corp. to all-time highs."[2]

But while the Pentagon contractors and other beneficiaries of war
dividends are showered with public money, low- and middle-income Americans
are squeezed out of economic or subsistence resources in order to make up
for the resulting budgetary shortfalls. For example, as the official
Pentagon budget for 2008 fiscal year is projected to rise by more than 10
percent, or nearly $50 billion, "a total of 141 government programs will
be eliminated or sharply reduced" to pay for the increase. These would
include cuts in housing assistance for low-income seniors by 25 percent,
home heating/energy assistance to low-income people by 18 percent, funding
for community development grants by 12.7 percent, and grants for education
and employment training by 8 percent.[3]

Combined with redistributive militarism and generous tax cuts for the
wealthy, these cuts have further exacerbated the ominously growing income
inequality that started under President Reagan. Ever since Reagan arrived
in the White House in 1980, opponents of non-military public spending have
been using an insidious strategy to cut social spending, to reverse the
New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute
national/public resources in favor of the wealthy. That cynical strategy
consists of a combination of drastic increases in military spending
coupled with equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination
creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public
spending (along with borrowing) to fill the gaps thus created.

For example, at the same time that President Bush is planning to raise
military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also
proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of
$1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion.
Simultaneously, "funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut
a total of $114 billion" in order to pay for these handouts to the rich.
The projected cuts include over 140 programs that provide support for the
basic needs of low- and middle-income families such as elementary and
secondary education, job training, environmental protection, veterans'
health care, medical research, Meals on Wheels, child care and HeadStart,
low-income home energy assistance, and many more.[4]

According to the Urban Institute/Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center,
"if the President's tax cuts are made permanent, households in the top 1
percent of the population (currently those with incomes over $400,000)
will receive tax cuts averaging $67,000 a year by 2012. . . . The tax cuts
for those with incomes of over $1 million a year would average $162,000 a
year by 2012."[5]

Official macroeconomic figures show that, over the past five decades or
so, government spending (at the federal, state and local levels) as a
percentage of gross national product (GNP) has remained fairly steady - at
about 20 percent. Given this nearly constant share of the public sector of
national output/income, it is not surprising that increases in military
spending have almost always been accompanied or followed by compensating
decreases in non-military public spending, and vice versa.

For example, when by virtue of FDR's New Deal reforms and LBJ's
metaphorical War on Poverty, the share of non-military government spending
rose significantly the share of military spending declined accordingly.
>From the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s, the share of non-military government
spending of GNP rose from 9.2 to 14.3 percent, an increase of 5.1 percent.
During that time period, the share of military spending of GNP declined
from 10.1 to 5.8 percent, a decline of 4.3 percent.[6]

That trend was reversed when President Reagan took office in 1980. In the
early 1980s, as President Reagan drastically increased military spending,
he also just as drastically lowered tax rates on higher incomes. The
resulting large budget deficits were then paid for by more than a decade
of steady cuts on non-military spending.

Likewise, the administration of President George W. Bush has been pursuing
a similarly sinister fiscal policy of cutting non-military public spending
in order to pay for the skyrocketing military spending and the generous
tax cuts for the affluent.

Interestingly (though not surprisingly), changes in income inequality have
mirrored changes in government spending priorities, as reflected in the
fiscal policies of different administrations. Thus, for example, when from
the mid 1950 to the mid 1970s the share of non-military public spending
rose relative to that of military spending, income inequality declined

But as President Reagan reversed that fiscal policy by raising the share
of military spending relative to non-military public spending and cutting
taxes for the wealthy, income inequality also rose considerably. As
Reagan's twin policies of drastic increases in military spending and
equally sweeping tax cuts for the rich were somewhat tempered in the
1990s, growth in income inequality slowed down accordingly. In the 2000s,
however, the ominous trends that were left off by President Reagan have
been picked up by President George W. Bush: increasing military spending,
decreasing taxes for the rich, and (thereby) exacerbating income

The following are some specific statistics of how redistributive
militarism and supply-side fiscal policies have exacerbated income
inequality since the late 1970s and early 1980s - making after-tax income
gaps wider than pre-tax ones. According to recently released data by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), since 1979 income gains among
high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and low-income
households. Specifically:

The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population
nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000 - for a total
increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures are adjusted by CBO for
inflation.) By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth
of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching
$48,400 in 2004.

The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose
just 6 percent, or $800, during this period, reaching $14,700 in 2004.[7]

Legislation enacted since 2001 has provided taxpayers with about $1
trillion in tax cuts over the past six years. These large tax reductions
have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal by further
concentrating income at the top of the income range. According to the
Urban Institute/Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, as a result of
the tax cuts enacted since 2001, in 2006 households in the bottom fifth of
the income spectrum received tax cuts averaging only $20; households in
the middle fifth of the income range received tax cuts averaging $740;
households in the top one percent received tax cuts averaging $44,200; and
households with incomes exceeding $1 million received an average tax cut
of $118,000.[8]

2. Parasitic Imperialism Undermines Public Capital - both Physical and

Beyond the issue of class and inequality, allocation of a
disproportionately large share of public resources to the beneficiaries of
war and militarism is also steadily undermining the critical national
objective of building and/or maintaining public capital. This includes
both physical capital or infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, mass
transit, dams, levees, and the like) and human capital such as health,
education, nutrition, and so on. If not reversed or rectified, this
ominous trend is bound to stint long term productivity growth and
socio-economic development. A top heavy military establishment will be
unviable in the long run as it tends to undermine the economic base it is
supposed to nurture.

In March 2001, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issued a
"Report Card for America's Infrastructure," grading 12 infrastructure
categories at a disappointing D+ overall, and estimating the need for a
$1.3 trillion investment to bring conditions to acceptable levels. In
September 2003, ASCE released a Progress Report that examined trends and
assessed the progress and decline of the nation's infrastructure. The
Progress Report, prepared by a panel of 20 eminent civil engineers with
expertise in a range of practice specialties, examined 12 major categories
of infrastructure. The report concluded: "The condition of our nation's
roads, bridges, drinking water systems and other public works have shown
little improvement since they were graded an overall D+ in 2001, with some
areas sliding toward failing grade."[9]

Neoliberal proponents of laissez faire economics tend to view government
spending on public capital as a burden on the economy. Instead of viewing
public-sector spending on infrastructure as a long-term investment that
will help sustain and promote economic vitality, they view it as an
overhead. By focusing on the short-term balance sheets, they seem to lose
sight of the indirect, long-term returns to the tax dollars invested in
the public capital stock. Yet, evidence shows that neglect of public
capital formation can undermine long-term health of an economy in terms of
productivity enhancement and sustained growth.

Continued increase in military spending at the expense of non-military
public spending has undermined more than physical infrastructure. Perhaps
more importantly, it has also undercut public investment in human capital
or social infrastructure such as health care, education, nutrition,
housing, and the like-investment that would help improve quality of life,
human creativity and labor productivity, thereby also helping to bring
about long-term socioeconomic vitality. Investment in human capital -
anything that improves human capacity and/or labor productivity - is a
major source of social health and economic vitality over time.

Sadly, however, public investment in such vitally important areas has been
gradually curtailed ever since the arrival of Ronald Reagan in the White
House in 1980 in favor of steadily rising military spending. Evidence of
this regrettable trend is overwhelming. To cite merely a few examples:
"The war priorities have depleted medical and education staffs. . . .
Shortages of housing have caused a swelling of the homeless population in
every major city. State and city governments across the country have
become trained to bend to the needs of the military-giving automatic
approvals to its spending without limit. The same officials cannot find
money for affordable housing."[10]

The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert recently reported that some 5.5
million young Americans, age 16 to 24, were undereducated, disconnected
from society's mainstream, jobless, restless, unhappy, frustrated, angry
and sad. Commenting on this report, Professor Seymour Melman of Columbia
University wrote: "This population, 5.5 million and growing, is the
product of America's national politics that has stripped away as too
costly the very things that might rescue this abandoned generation and
train it for productive work. But that sort of thing is now treated as too
costly. So this abandoned generation is now left to perform as fodder for
well-budgeted police SWAT teams."[11]

3. Parasitic Imperialism Undermines National Defense Capabilities against
Natural Disasters - the Case of Hurricane Katrina

Neglect of public physical capital, or infrastructure, can prove very
costly in terms of vulnerability in the face of natural disasters. This
was tragically demonstrated, among many other instances, by the
destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. In light of the steady cuts in
the infrastructural funding for the city of New Orleans, catastrophic
consequences of a hurricane of the magnitude of Katrina were both
predictable and, indeed, predicted.

Engineering and meteorological experts had frequently warned of impending
disasters such as Katrina. Government policy makers in charge of
maintaining public infrastructure, however, remained indifferent to those
warnings. They seem to have had other priorities and responsibilities:
cutting funds from public works projects and social spending and giving
them away to the wealthy supporters who had paid for their elections. It
is not surprising, then, that many observers and experts have argued that
Katrina was as much a policy disaster as it was a natural disaster.

The New Orleans project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers, Alfred
Naomi, had warned for years of the need to shore up the levees, but
corporate representatives in the White House and the Congress kept cutting
back on the funding. Naomi wasn't the only one who had warned of the
impending disaster.

In 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "ranked the
potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most
catastrophic disasters facing the country," wrote Eric Berger in a
prescient article in the Houston Chronicle of December 1, 2001. In that
piece, Berger warned: "The city's less-than-adequate evacuation routes
would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of ten left
behind as the city drowned under twenty feet of water. Thousands of
refugees could land in Houston."[12]

In June 2003, Civil Engineering Magazine ran a long story by Greg Brouwer
entitled "The Creeping Storm." It noted that the levees "were designed to
withstand only forces associated with a fast-moving" Category 3 hurricane.
"If a lingering Category 3 storm - or a stronger storm, say, Category 4 or
5 - were to hit the city, much of New Orleans could find itself under more
than twenty feet of water."[13]

On October 11, 2004, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a story by Paul
Nussbaum, entitled "Direct Hurricane Hit Could Drown City of New Orleans,
Experts Say." It warned that "more than 25,000 people could die, emergency
officials predict. That would make it the deadliest disaster in U.S.
history." The story quoted Terry C. Tuller, city director of emergency
preparedness: "It's only a matter of time. The thing that keeps me awake
at night is the 100,000 people who couldn't leave."

But government representatives of big business in the White House and the
Congress were not moved by these alarm bells; the warnings did not deter
them from further cutting non-military public spending in order to pay for
the escalating military spending and the generous tax cuts for the

Some disasters cannot be prevented from occurring. But, with proper
defenses, they can be contained and their disastrous consequences
minimized. Katrina was not; it was not "because of a laissez-faire
government that failed to bother to take warnings seriously," and because
of a skewed government fiscal policy "that is stingy when it comes to
spending on public goods but lavish on armaments and war."[14]

4. Parasitic Militarism Costs External Markets to Non-military
Transnational Capital

U.S. military buildup and its unilateral transgressions abroad have
increasingly become economic burdens not only because they devour a
disproportionately large share of national resources, but also because
such adventurous operations tend to create instability in international
markets, subvert long-term global investment, and increase energy or fuel
costs. Furthermore, the resentment and hostilities that unprovoked
aggressions generate in foreign lands are bound to create backlash at the
consumer level.

For example, A Business Week report pointed out in the immediate aftermath
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that in the Muslim world, Europe, and
elsewhere "there have been calls for boycotts of American brands as well
as demonstrations at symbols of U.S. business, such as McDonald's
corporation" (Business Week, 14 April 2003, p. 32).

A leading Middle East business journal, AME Info, reported in its April 8,
2004 issue that "In 2002, a cluster of Arab organizations asked Muslims to
shun goods from America, seen as an enemy of Islam and a supporter of
Israel. In Bahrain, the Al-Montazah supermarket chain, for example,
boosted sales by pulling about 1,000 US products off its shelves, and
other grocers followed suit." The report further pointed out that
"Coca-Cola and Pepsi, sometimes considered unflattering shorthand for the
United States, took the brunt of the blow. Coca-Cola admitted that the
boycott trimmed some $40 million off profits in the [Persian] Gulf in

The report also indicated that in recent years a number of "Muslim colas"
have appeared in the Middle Eastern/Muslim markets. "Don't Drink Stupid,
Drink Committed, read the labels of Mecca Cola, from France. . . . Iran's
Zam Zam Cola, originally concocted for Arab markets, has spread to
countries including France and the United States." In addition, the report
noted that "US exports to the Middle East dropped $31 billion from
1998-2002. Branded, value-added goods-all the stuff easily recognized as
American-were hit the hardest." Quoting Grant Smith, director of IRmep, a
leading Washington-based think tank on Middle Eastern affairs, the report
concluded: "Our piece of the pie is shrinking, and it's because of our
degraded image."[16]

Evidence shows that foreign policy-induced losses of the U.S. market share
in global markets goes beyond the Middle East and/or the Muslim world.
According to a December 2004 survey of 8,000 international consumers
carried out by Global Market Insite (GMI) Inc., one-third of all consumers
in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom
"said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly the 'war on terror' and the
occupation of Iraq, constituted their strongest impression of the United
States. Brands closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro
cigarettes, America Online (AOL), McDonald's, American Airlines, and
Exxon-Mobil, are particularly at risk." Twenty percent of respondents in
Europe and Canada "said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a
protest against those policies." Commenting on the results of the survey,
Dr. Mitchell Eggers, GMI's chief operating officer and chief pollster,
pointed out, "Unfortunately, current American foreign policy is viewed by
international consumers as a significant negative, when it used to be a

Kevin Roberts, chief executive of advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi,
likewise expressed concern about global consumer backlash against
militaristic U.S. foreign policy when he told the Financial Times that he
believed consumers in Europe and Asia are becoming increasingly resistant
to having "brand America rammed down their throats." Similarly, Simon
Anholt, author of Brand America, told the British trade magazine Marketing
Week that "four more years of Bush's foreign policy could have grave
consequences for U.S. companies' international market share."[18]

Writing in the October 27, 2003 issue of the Star Tribune, Ron Bosrock of
the Global Institute of St. John's University likewise expressed anxiety
over negative economic consequences that might follow from the Bush
administration's policies of unilateral military operations and economic

Concerns of this nature have prompted a broad spectrum of non-military
business interests to form coalitions of trade associations that are
designed to lobby foreign policy makers against unilateral U.S. military
aggressions abroad. One such anti-militarist alliance of American
businesses is USA*ENGAGE. It is a coalition of nearly 700 small and large
businesses, agriculture groups and trade associations working to seek
alternatives to the proliferation of unilateral U.S. foreign policy
actions and to promote the benefits of U.S. engagement abroad. The
coalition's statement of principles points out, "American values are best
advanced by engagement of American business and agriculture in the world,
not by ceding markets to foreign competition" through unilateral foreign
policies and military aggressions

Non-military business interests' anxiety over the Bush administration's
unilateral foreign policy measures is, of course, rooted in their
negatively-affected financial balance sheets by those actions: "Hundreds
of companies blame the Iraq war for poor financial results in 2003, many
warning that continued U.S. military involvement there could harm this
year's performance," pointed out James Cox of USA Today.

In a relatively comprehensive survey of the economic impact of the war,
published in the July 14, 2004 issue of the paper, Cox further wrote: "In
recent regulatory filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission,
airlines, home builders, broadcasters, mortgage providers, mutual funds
and others say the war was directly to blame for lower revenue and profits
last year." Many businesses blamed the war and international political
turbulence as a 'risk factor' that threatened their sales: "The war led to
sharp decreases in business and leisure travel, say air carriers, travel
services, casino operators, restaurant chains and hotel owners." The
survey covered a number of airlines including Delta Airlines, JetBlue,
Northwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines, all of which blamed the war for a
drop in air travel. Related industries such as travel agencies, hotels,
restaurants, and resort and casino operations all suffered losses

Even technology giants such as Cisco, PeopleSoft and Hewlett-Packard that
tend to benefit from military spending expressed concerns that
"hostilities in Iraq hurt results or could harm performance." For example,
managers at Hewlett-Packard complained that "potential for future attacks,
the national and international responses to attacks or perceived threats
to national security, and other actual or potential conflicts or wars,
including the ongoing military operations in Iraq, have created many
economic and political uncertainties that could adversely affect our
business, results of operations and stock price in ways that we cannot
presently predict." Other companies that were specifically mentioned in
the survey as having complained about the "whiplash from the Iraq
conflict" included home builders Hovnanian and Cavalier homes, casino
company Mandalay Resort Group, retailer Restoration Hardware, cosmetics
giant Este Lauder, eyewear retailer Cole, Longs Drug Stores, golf club
maker Callaway, and H&Q Life Sciences Investors.[20]

5. Parasitic Imperialism Accumulates National Debt, Weakens National
Currency, and Undermines Long-Term National Financial/Economic Health

A major source of the financing of the out-of-control military spending
has been borrowing - the other source has been cutting non-military public
spending. This represents a cynically clever strategy on the part of the
powerful interests that benefit from war and militarism: instead of
financing their wars of choice by paying taxes proportionate to their
income, they give themselves tax cuts, finance their wars through
borrowing, and then turn around and lend money (unpaid taxes) to the
government and earn interest.

Viewed in this light, the staggering national debt of nearly $9 trillion,
which is more than two thirds of gross nation product (GNP), represents a
subtle redistribution of national resources from the bottom to the top: it
represents unpaid taxes by the wealthy, which has to be financed by
cutting non-military public spending-both now and in the future. This
means that the wealthy has successfully converted their tax obligations to
credit claims, that is, lending instead of paying taxes - which is in
essence a disguised form of theft or robbery.

This cynical policy of increasing military spending, cutting taxes for the
wealthy and, thereby, accumulating national debt cannot continue for ever,
as it might eventually lead to national or Federal insolvency, collapse of
the dollar, and paralysis of financial markets - not only in the United
States but perhaps also in broader global markets.

Prospects of such developments has led a number of observers to argue that
the profit-driven military expansion might prove to be the nemesis of U.S.
imperialism: the escalating and out-of-control militarization tends to
gradually drive the once-prosperous U.S. superpower in the direction of a
mismanaged and destructive military imperial force whose capricious and
often purely existential military adventures will eventually become costly
both politically and economically. While the top-heavy imperial military
colossus tends to undermine its economic base, it is also bound to create
many enemies abroad and a lot of discontentment and hostility to the
established order at home. Unchecked, a combination of these adverse
developments, especially a drained economy and an empty or bankrupt
treasury, might eventually lead to the demise of the empire, just as
happened to the post-Rubicon, Old Roman Empire.[21]

6. Parasitic Imperialism Undermines Democratic Control and Corrupts the
System of Checks and Balances

As noted earlier, powerful beneficiaries of war dividends (the
military-industrial complex and affiliated businesses of war) have
successfully used war and military spending as a roundabout way to
reallocate national resources in their own favor. Appropriation of public
finance by these war profiteers has reached a point where more than half
of the discretionary Federal budget, or more than one-third of the entire
Federal budget, is now earmarked for "national security."

This perverse allocation of national resources in the name of national
security has meant that while the increasing escalation of war and
militarism have hollowed out national treasury (and brought unnecessary
death, destruction, and disaster to millions), it has also brought
tremendous riches and resources to war profiteers. Concealment of this
subtle robbery of national treasury from the American people requires
restriction of information, obstruction of transparency, and obfuscation
or misrepresentation of national priorities-that is, curtailment of

Curtailment of democracy, however, is best achieved under conditions of
war, which in turn, requires invention of enemies or manufacturing of
threats to national security. Therefore, it is not fortuitous that, in the
post-Cold War world, U.S. architects of wars of choice have become very
resourceful in invoking all kinds of bogeymen (rogue states, global
terrorism, axis of evil, radical Islam, and more) that are allegedly
threatening "our national interests" in order to justify their plans of
increased militarization of U.S. foreign policy. (Under the bipolar world
of the Cold War era, "threat of communism" served the purpose of continued
increases of the Pentagon budget.)

This means that U.S. wars of choice abroad are prompted largely by
metaphorical domestic wars over allocation of public resources, or tax
dollars. From the standpoint of war profiteers, instigation or engineering
of capricious wars for profits help achieve two closely-linked purposes:
on the one hand, they will help justify escalation of military spending,
which means escalation of their share of U.S treasury, on the other, they
will help camouflage such a cynical robbery of public money by restricting
information under the cover of war-time circumstances.

For example, only under conditions of war the Bush the administration
could display an attitude of cavalier contempt for lawful norms, undermine
constitutional balances, corrupt national institutions with nefarious
special interests, smear dissent as unpatriotic, suspend traditional legal
rights for certain citizens, obstruct the free flow of information,
sanction domestic spying without legal warrant, institute military
tribunals, and promote torture in defiance of American and international

Likewise, only under conditions of war (and the self-fulfilling threats of
imminent "terrorist attacks" on the U.S.) could the administration
establish and manage a prison system outside the rule of law where torture
can be used. With this system of prison camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba
(Guantnamo), and a number of other undisclosed overseas places, where
detainees are abused and kept indefinitely without trial and without
access to the due process of the law, the United States now has its own
gulags. President Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they
would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons
throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have often
been seized off the street.[22]

>From the vantage point of war profiteering militarists, such prison camps
are an essential ingredient for the justification of war: they are
portrayed as evidence of the existence of terrorists, of the "enemies of
the people," or of "enemy combatant" without, at the same time, having to
show what the alleged evidence really is, or who the alleged "enemy
combatants" really are - as would be required in an open court of law.
Combined with warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance, and
various types of illegal searches, this prison system serves yet another
objective of the beneficiaries of war dividends: inspiration of fear and
cultivation of silence and obedience among citizens, which means
subversion of democracy and promotion of authoritarianism.

James Madison warned against such an ominous symbiosis of war and
authoritarianism long time ago: "Of all the enemies of public liberty, war
is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the
germ of every other." The Congress of the United States of America had
earlier (1784) issued a similar warning against authoritarian consequences
of maintaining a large military establishment during times of peace:
"standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of
republican governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and
generally converted into destructive engines for establishing

But perhaps the strongest and most well-known warning against the baleful
consequences of a large peace-time military establishment came from
President Dwight Eisenhower: "The conjunction of an immense military
establishment and a huge arms industry is new in the American experience.
The total influence - economic, political, and even spiritual - is felt in
every city, every state house, and every office of the federal government.
. . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex" (Farewell Address, January 17, 1961).

Eisenhower's warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence" of the military-industrial complex is more relevant
today than when it was issued nearly half a century ago. The steadily
rising - and now perhaps monopolizing and overwhelming - power and
influence of the Complex over both domestic and foreign policies of the
United States is testament to the unfortunate realization of Eisenhower's
nightmare. As Howard Swint, Democratic candidate for Congress in West
Virginia, put it: "The seat of power for formulating foreign policy and
defense strategy is not in the White House but rather in the Pentagon.
While a civilian Commander-in-Chief may tweak policy in four-year
increments, it's obvious that military careerists together with major
defense contractors effectively control the Congressional budget process
and drive defense appropriations."[24]

7. Parasitic Imperialism Leads to Dependence on, or Addiction to, War and

The fact that the Pentagon appropriates and controls more than one-third
of the entire Federal budget has allowed it to forge the largest
constituency and/or dependents nationwide. Tens of thousands of
businesses, millions of jobs, and thousands of cities and communities have
become dependent on military spending. While a handful of major
contractors take the lion's share of military spending, millions more have
become dependent on it as the source of their livelihood.

It is not surprising then that not many people are willing to oppose the
continuing rise in the Pentagon budget - even if they might
philosophically be opposed to militarism and large military spending.
Because of the widespread presence of military installations and
production sites nationwide, few politicians can afford not to support a
continued rise in military spending lest that should hurt their
communities or constituencies economically.

This helps explain the vicious and spiraling circle of war, international
political convulsions, and military spending: Major Pentagon contractors
and other powerful beneficiaries of war dividends are dependent on
continued war and militarism in order to maintain and expand hefty
profits. This dependence has, in turn, created a secondary (or derived)
dependence; it is the dependence of millions of Americans on military
spending as the source of their livelihood, which then plays into the
hands of war profiteers in their perennial quest for ever newer enemies,
newer wars, and bigger appropriations for the Pentagon - hence the
addiction to and the vicious circle of war profiteering, international
political tension, war, and military spending.

A Most Dangerous Type of Imperialism

Dependence on, or addiction to, war and militarism for profitability makes
U.S military imperialism (that is, imperialism driven by military capital,
or arms conglomerates, vis-a-vis non-military transnational capital) a
most dangerous kind of imperialism. Under the rule of the past imperial
powers, the conquered and subjugated peoples or nations could live in
peace - imposed peace, to be sure - if they respected the interests and
the needs of those imperial powers and simply resigned to their political
and economic ambitions.

Not so in the case of the U.S. military-industrial empire: the interests
of this empire are nurtured through "war dividends." Peace, imposed or
otherwise, is viewed by the beneficiaries of war dividends inimical to
their interests as it would make justification of continued increases of
their share of national resources (in the form of Pentagon appropriations)

Of course, tendencies to build bureaucratic empires have always existed in
the ranks of military hierarchies. By itself, this is not what makes the
U.S. military-industrial complex more dangerous than the military powers
of the past. What makes it more dangerous is the "industrial," or
business, part of the Complex. In contrast to the United States' military
or war industries, arms industries of past empires were not subject to
capitalist market imperatives. Furthermore, those industries were often
owned and operated by imperial governments, not by market-driven giant
corporations. Consequently, as a rule, arms production was dictated by war
requirements, not by market or profit imperatives, which is the case with
today's U.S. armaments industry.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is a professor of economics at Drake University, Des
Moines, Iowa. He is the author of the newly published book, The Political
Economy of U.S. Militarism His Web page is


[1] William D. Hartung, "Bush Military Budget Highest Since WW II," Common
Dreams (10 February 2007).

[2] Bill Rigby, "Defense stocks may jump higher with big profits," Reuter
(12 April 2006).

[3] Shakir F. et al., Center for American Progress Action Fund, "The
Progress Report" (6 February 2007).

[4] Robert Greenstein, "Despite the Rhetoric, Budget Would Make Nation's
Fiscal Problems Worse and Further Widen Inequality," Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities (6 February 2007).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Richard Du Boff, "What Military Spending Really Costs," Challenge 32
(September/October 1989), pp. 410.

[7] Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:
1979 to 2004, as reported by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

[8] Tax Policy Center, Table T06-0279; and Table T06-0273.

[9] American Society of Civil Engineers, "What can happen if America fails
to invest in its infrastructure? Anything," news release (4 September

[10] Seymour Melman, "They Are All Implicated: In the Grip of Permanent
War Economy," (15 March2003).

[11] Ibid.

[12] M. Rothschild, "Katrina Compounded," The Progressive (1 September

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] AME Info, "Coke and Pepsi battle it out," (8 April 2004),

[16] Ibid.

[17] Jim Lobe, "Poll: War Bad for Business," (30 December

[18] Ibid.

[19] James Cox, "Financially ailing companies point to Iraq war," USA
Today (14 July 2004)

[20] Ibid.

[21] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York, NY:
Vintage Books 1989); Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York,
NY: Metropolitan Books 2004); Ismael Hossein-zadeh, The Political Economy
of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan2006).

[22] Naomi Wolf, "Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps," (28
April 2007)

[23] Sidney Lens, The Military-Industrial Complex (Kansas City, Missouri:
Pilgrim Press & the National Catholic Reporter 1979).

[24] Swint, Howard, "The Pentagon Ruled by Special Interests,"

--------24 of 24--------

 Another Slightly Altered Song (SAS)

 Love and marriage
 Love and marriage
 Go together like a
 Horseless carriage.

 This I tell ya brother
 You can't have one
 (You can't have one)
 You can't have one
 Without the o-o-oth-er.


   - David Shove             shove001 [at]
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments

 To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg
 --------8 of x--------
 do a find on
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.