From The Hill’s Pundits Blog:

America’s Best Days Are Ahead: Al Gore’s Inaugural

Brent Budowsky

… [T]o you, to God Almighty I repeat again the obligation I accepted this noon: to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States every hour, of every day, that I am honored to serve in this special house of this extraordinary place we call America.

America truly is the land of the free and the home of the brave, where tyranny and injustice must never stain our shores, where timidity and fear will never trump the courage and valor that is our legacy from those who fired the shots at Lexington and Concord.

America, one nation, indivisible, where we must always stand together for the values we cherish and commonly believe...

America, where we lift our sights and shed our blood for the self-evident truth that all men and women are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.

America, where we value our diversity, give back to our community, and are bound by our patriotism, faith and honor to leave a better world to our children and grandchildren who will follow.

America, where we know that power must be tempered with principle, and that we must bind our wounds and heal the nation…

If Jefferson were with us today, he would tell us, as he told America when put his hand on the Bible and took the oath we repeat today: We are all Democrats, we are all Republicans.

Let us end the acrimony of our politics and renew the good will of our democracy with two political parties, three branches of government and a spirit of mutual respect bestowed to us by our Founding Fathers.

To my fellow Americans, I promise that I will always aspire to be the president of “we the people,” all the people, and I ask that you continue, and redouble, all of your efforts of service, sacrifice and patriotism in this nation where every man and woman can be a hero, in his or her personal way.

To our allies around the world, your voice will always be heard in our highest councils of government, your interests will always be taken into account, your advice will always be respected and your suggestions will often be followed.

Let us journey together into the future in the spirit of those who triumphed together over fascism, communism and dictatorship. Let us aspire together to a world where all of our people will be safe, where war will someday be no more…

Let us declare to the children of the world:

Our earth is your earth; our future is your future; our world is your world; and our prayer is your prayer. In the end we will save the world together from the ravages that would otherwise someday destroy it; and if we fail, none of us will have ancestors alive to condemn us.

On this day of American renewal, when one era ends and another begins, let us think anew with Lincoln, and act anew to build a national spirit of great dreams, great expectations and great aspirations.

Together let us lift our land, and light the world, as the beacon that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams dreamed we would be on July 4, 1776, and dreamed we would always remain on July 4, 1826, when they left this earth together, and bequeathed their legacy to us, in this great and magnificent land we call America.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Bill Alexander, then-chief deputy whip of the House. He is a contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog and reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.

Click the title, above, to read more and to post a comment that may be read by your congressman and senators!

Carolyn Kay

MakeThemAccountable.com

The excerpt above is posted with the full knowledge and permission, even encouragement, of the author, who wants his essays to be read by as many people as possible.

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

This an entry in a series of blogs to keep people informed on current election reform and voting rights issues in the news.

By Erin Ferns

Featured Story of the Week:

Michigan Supreme Court upholds law requiring photo ID to vote – Associated Press, Chicago Tribune

The Michigan Supreme Court upheld its controversial 1996 voter ID law Wednesday in a party-line decision, according to Associated Press writer David Eggert. Voters must now show ID or sign an affidavit, swearing to their identity in order to cast a ballot, despite past efforts to squash the law for its violation of the constitutional right to vote.

Although the law passed more than 10 years ago and was renewed in 2005, it was never implemented because former Attorney General Frank Kelly said it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, “which guarantees citizens the right to vote.” Justice Robert Young Jr. called the requirement of voters to present ID in order to vote a “'reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction'” of constitutional voting rights. Meanwhile, “more than 300,000 of the state's 7 million-plus registered voters don't have a state ID or driver's license, according to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.”

“'History will judge us harshly for joining those states that have limited the precious constitutional right to vote,'” said Michigan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly, resurrecting the memory of the Civil Rights Movement’s struggle to bring voting rights to all American citizens while also bringing to mind the 26 states that go beyond voter verification requirements mandated in the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Six of those states have chosen to require or request all voters to provide either picture ID or government issued photo ID, a measure often compared to a “poll tax” that has the most impact on the elderly, low income and minority voters.

Young disputed the poll tax argument, noting that voters may swear to their identity instead of presenting ID and said the measure was ultimately necessary “to prevent abuses of the electoral franchise.” However, dissenting justices remained unconvinced, arguing “the state has no compelling interest in requiring ID because there isn't any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Michigan.”

In fact, all of these restrictive ID laws have been enacted ostensibly to combat so-called voter fraud. However, as the Michigan dissenting justices note, actual evidence of any kind of voter fraud that would be stopped by these requirements is vanishingly small. Further, voter ID requirements have been shown to suppress voter turnout of minorities and, as Lorraine Minnite stated in an opinion piece published this week in the Charlotte Observer; “Without exception, these bills are introduced by one party and opposed by the other, suggesting partisan politics and not problem-solving are driving policy-making. The fact is, strict photo ID rules are unnecessary because we can count on one hand the cases of voter impersonation at the polls.”

Ms. Minnite is a professor of political science at Barnard College and is the author of Project Vote’s March report “The Politics of Voter Fraud.” The exact impact of this ruling remains to be seen, but for people concerned with expanding access to the voting booth for all eligible voters this is a worrying step with the potential to revisit America’s darker history of limiting the right to vote – a history that as recently as 40 years ago people were literally dying to put an end to.

See the Quick Links for more information on the voter ID issue.

Quick Links:

N.C. rejects politics of fear: Republicans are using fear of voter fraud to make it harder to vote – The Charlotte Observer, Opinion

Eagleton's Draft Voter ID Report

Restrictive Voter Identification Requirements – Project Vote

The Politics of Voter Fraud – Project Vote

In Other News:

Mississippi's recent ruling requiring party registration has been put on hold, according to the Associated Press. U.S. District Judge W. Allen Pepper Jr. decided primary elections before August 31, 2008 would not be affected, recognizing that “'it is unreasonable to expect the state of Mississippi to pass and preclear a new primary system, gain approval by this court and implement the system overnight.'” Weeks earlier, Attorney General Jim Hood and Secretary of State Eric Clark asked the judge to delay the enactment of the new primary election-system, which also included a voter ID requirement. Pepper denied that part of the request.

Iowa's Green and Libertarian parties settled with the state after filing a lawsuit in 2005, “alleging the government unfairly bars voters from registering as members of third parties,” according to the Des Moines Register. The state will begin to recognize “'non-party political organizations'” on state voter registration forms, beginning Jan. 1.

To be recognized on registration forms, third party groups must file a petition with a minimum of 850 signatures from at least five counties and be filed with the Iowa secretary of state's office by Oct. 31.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote’s Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

If, like me, you believe Attorney General Gonzalez, Vice President Cheney, and President Bush have all committed high crimes and *cough!* felonies *cough!* but fear that removing these criminals from office would be a distraction at best and a nightmare for Democrats at worst, here I offer one possible way this could happen successfully. But you're going to have to stand with a few Republicans to make it work. Just like we did during Watergate when Nixon got the boot and Vice-President Ford was handed the Reigns.

Below the fold: how it is Republicans who will decide the success of impeachment and removal. Thus, if you want to impeach, you're going to have to make a few friends with the GOP. One in particular, John McCain, would appear to have most reason for revenge against the Bushies. But feel free to imagine this scenario with any of your most palatable Republicans.

"But ... but ... but ... this is a Democratic Blog!!!" I hear you scream.

Well, sorry. As much as it sucks, the Democrats lack a supermajority to force the issue. And further, doing so would only incite yet more partisanship warfare at a time when national unity is critical to success.

There is ample evidence to impeach on the grounds of Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Commit Obstruction of Justice. These men are criminals. And if they are let off without sanction, we will set a precedent for lawlessness in the executive that threatens the very foundations of our republic. Thus, seeing Justice done is far more important than Democratic partisanship. Or Republican partisanship. Equal justice is mandatory for the functioning of our constitutional republic. Partisanship wins, less so.

Here is one possibility for how a successful change in leadership might occur. We need seventeen Republican senators and only a few (if any) congresspersons:

• Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid arrange a little meeting with John McCain. They offer him an interim presidency to support impeachment and removal for Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush. McCain may be willing to do this because - I suspect - he is still a little pissed with the Bushies for insulting him, his wife, and his adopted children during the 2000 primaries.

• John McCain has a good deal of political clout with Republican Senators. He arranges a little backroom brokering behind closed doors with Republicans and gets the necessary seventeen.

• Nancy Pelosi places in three parallel articles of impeachment against Attorney General Gonzalez, Vice President Cheney, and President Bush. She next immediately steps down as Speaker of the House temporarily. John McCain is handed the Speakership duties pro-tempe. Note that the role of Speaker of the House can be assigned to any citizen, regardless of House membership.

• The new Speaker places articles of impeachment on the agenda and stifles all debate, instead forcing a voice vote to immediately Impeach all three. Without a roll call, votes are not recorded - so Republicans aren't on the record.

• Senate immediately takes up the trial and convicts on the same day.

• John McCain is sworn into office as President of the United States. He chooses a vice president of his liking.

• Nancy Pelosi returns as Speaker of the House.

• Bad news: John McCain - like Gerald Ford - will have the opportunity to pardon. \*shrug\* I'm not a vindictive prick, I just want these assholes out of office. Fine.

• '08: we fight it out on the election battlefield, just like every other presidential election year.

No debates. No bullshit. No media storm before it happens. Just walk in, do the deed, and get the fuck off the house and senate floor in one day flat. Don't let them prepare. Don't give the Bushies one inkling of the shitstorm coming their way. Do it all backroom and then stick the knife in once you've got the votes. Gonzales, Bush, and Cheney would be then out of office without recourse. Plus, the Democrats would have not used impeachment for partisan gain. So at least a minority of Republicans would have cause to support the action. Certainly McCain, who I think would consider this fair turnabout.

Everybody wins. Except for Gonzales, Cheney and Bush. Who get what they deserve.

[EDIT]: A hat tip to Bill White, who proposed much the same plan over in this discussion at theforvm.org.

The White House has thrown the gauntlet. It has "leaked" that executive privilege excuses DoJ from enforcing contempt charges against anyone covered by privilege. What is very worrying is why this was put out publicly, and why now.

If the "run-out-the-clock" strategy was in play, the White House would wait for action by Congress, take its own sweet time responding, then announce, with sad but serious demeanor, that after careful deliberation and a close reading of applicable statute, it cannot satisfy Congress' "unconstitutional" demands. If contempt charges are brought before recess, the response would probably wait until Congress' return.

Or the WH would simply not act at all. Congress would send a letter to Gonzales, asking why DoJ hasn't enforced a citation. Gonzales takes even more time responding, letters go back and forth, and then the WH steps in, asserting blanket executive privilege and immunity from contempt.

Why test the question now? It's worrying, because it seems unnecessary. It invites speculation that the administration is planning some outrage, as Paul Craig Roberts asserts. It may be a ploy to get the case into the Supreme court before Congress acts on its own to impeach. Perhaps the White House feels confident the Supremes will support them, slowing investigations fatally, by excluding essentially all useful testimony.

Patrick Leahy should move summarily to employ inherent contempt, forcing it past the Court, directly to a test of will, with the arbiters being the DC police, who will end up detaining Ms. Miers, when the FBI recuses itself.

Food and Wine magazine has noticed a new trend: an increasing number of vegetarians are eating...meat:

...eating sustainable meat purchased from small farmers is a new form of activism—a way of striking a blow against the factory farming of livestock...which cram thousands of cows, pigs or chickens into rows of cages in warehouses, feed them drugs to plump up their meat and fight off the illnesses caused by these inhumane conditions, and produce innumerable tons of environmentally destructive animal waste.

The article profiles a small scale rancher and farmer, who is working to raise awareness in his local market about the sustainability and health benefits of pasture-raised beef and pork:

...Nauta loads his truck full of coolers stocked with cattleman's steaks and handmade pork sausages and drives to the Los Angeles–area farmers' markets. Selling his vegetables and meat directly to conscientious eaters, people to whom he talks weekly about rainfall averages and organic produce, Nauta says, is "the best way small guys like me can compete." In the past several months, Nauta has noticed a handful of curious vegetarians, like Andrew, wandering over to his booth to ask questions. And they're satisfied enough with the answers to give his meat a try—and come back for more.

Of course, anyone who doesn't eat meat because they think it's wrong to eat animals won't be persuaded.

But for people looking for an alternative to factory-produced food, local farmers are a terrific (and humane and healthy and environmentally-conscious) alternative, and are increasingly raising more than just veggies.

Environmental economists have been giddy during the past few months as previously academic policy conscriptions are gaining traction. A debate over cap-and-trade policy for carbon dioxide emission is imminent in the Senate, and there are early signs that the national polity might even be willing to cotton such a program.

But there may be no better sign that cap-and-trade policy has been embraced by the D.C. crowd than recently introduced legislation from Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY). Enzi would create a trade system by which the United States can realign market incentives, encourage innovation and finally end its addiction… to tobacco.

That’s right. Sen. Enzi wants to create a cap-and-trade program for tobacco production that will diminish annually in order to reduce the addicted population to less than 2% of the population within the next 20 years. The policy is an interesting idea, and comes at the same time that Congress is considering methods to create “safer” cigarettes through the FDA. Enzi sees his policy as the business-oriented solution to social health problems that have traditionally been the domain of liberals; in a recent statement, Enzi wrote, "'The Democrats' deadly scheme for tobacco would be very costly, and would not result in much of a health benefit."

But is cap-and-trade truly the best way to handle tobacco? After all, a cigarette tax (which frankly, sounds much less sexy than a carbon tax) could be easily implemented, could send money directly to the coffers for public health and could avoid the pesky problems that come with implementing a new market in a system already dominated by a small number of major price-makers.

Of course, this is probably all a moot point, as the U.S. tobacco lobby has enough swing to slow down any policy meant to spend them out of business. Then again, the only industry stronger than Big Tobacco might be Big Oil, and no one thought cap-and-trade would be coming for them.

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of America, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, mandate the following:

My fellow Americans, to help protect you from the aL-CIAduh boogeyman, I, George W. Bush, pursuant to the above Executive Orders officially announce the imposition of martial law.

To help me help you, ALL media, including the Internet, will be shut down. Only government approved media outlets, like our dear friends at FOX News, will be allowed on the air.

The Internet needs to be shut down, but this move is temporary. That will give the DHS time to install common-sense controls on the Internet, to prevent the aL-CIAduh terrorists from using this subversive medium.

To further help promote peace and security in our dear "FATHERLAND", armed troops will patrol the streets of major American cities.

Again, my dear friends, this is to protect you from yourselves. Enemies of the "FATHERLAND" are lurking everywhere and these heavily armed troops will be on hand to perform summary executions on the spot to further enhance your security.

Since the Bill of Rights has been declared null and void till further notice, we are asking that any and all firearms be turned into to your local police department for "Inspection." Specially trained units of the National Guard, fresh back from the killing fields of Iraq, will be sent door to door to help you with this vital task.

This is only a temporary measure, designed to protect you, the citizen.

Further, to protect them from any attacks from terrorists, both houses of Congress have been rounded up and taken to a secure, undisclosed location. Again, this is only a temporary move, designed to keep our dear friends away from harm.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court has now been sufficiently packed with right-wing ideologues of my choosing, there will be no need to disband the court.

After all, they will be needed to "rubber-stamp" any and all of my decisions that are absolute and cannot be questioned.. except by Reich Fuhrer Cheney.

As some of you have already noticed, various agencies of the federal government, including the FBI, the ATF, ICE and units from both the NSA and CIA, have been rounding up certain citizens, maybe even your neighbors, to put these future terrorists in preventive detention.

Furthermore, to help with the interrogation of these homegrown subversives, certain Army units from GITMO and Abu Ghraib will be on hand to help elicit vital information. Vital information that is needed to help round up more domestic terrorists.

Rest assured, these subversives will be treated more fairly than they deserve, but hey, I'm an easy guy to get along with, just ask any of my corporate donors.

Fellow citizens, these are trying times. Uncertain and dangerous times. To help prevent any future terrorists actions against the FATHERLAND, I am hereby canceling the 2008 elections. Again, this is only a temporary measure, designed with your safety in mind.

When we have finally prevailed in the "War on Terror", elections might be held, that is, if we're not at war with another threat to security and stability.

So, my fellow citizens, I ask your help in these trying times. With your help, we can be sure of a secure "FATHERLAND" for all.

George W. Bush

"Protector of the Realm"

"SEIG HEIL." "SEIG HEIL." "HEIL BUSH."

Press Release

[cross-posted to Tikun Olam]

The Israeli Knesset yesterday took what most people in the rest of the world would believe to be an obscure little vote on a dreary bill governing land sales. Who cares. Well, those who don't know or care ought to because this vote will go down as one of the more egregious racist votes in the nation's history.

An Israeli Arab brought a case to the Israeli Supreme Court claiming he had been refused the right to buy Israeli land owned by the Jewish National Fund. The high court found in favor of the plaintiff and ruled that the State must change its policy and allow any citizen, whether Jewish or not, to buy such land. The attorney general subsequently approved such changes. The bill voted on yesterday is an attempt to do an "end around" the court ruling. It would enshrine in law the racist notion that only Jews should be able to purchase JNF land, while other Israeli citizens should not.

Remember the paeans to Israeli democracy you hear from the lips of the hoch-Zionists: "the only democracy in the Middle East," etc., etc. You can can that now. An ethnocracy maybe, but not a democracy--especially not if this piece of crap passes on its final reading (yesterday's vote was the first reading). Haaretz's editorial today pretty much says it all: A Racist Jewish State:

This bill reflects an abasement of the Zionist enterprise to lows never imagined in the Declaration of Independence. Even though the Jewish National Fund purchased the lands for the Jewish people in the Diaspora, the State of Israel has already been established and these lands must now serve all its citizens.

For those living for tomorrow and not the past, the aim is to create in Israel a healthy, progressive state where the needs of the two peoples should concern the leaders and legislators. The Jewish National Fund's land policy counters the interests of the state and cannot discriminate by law against the minority living in Israel.

What is most pathetic about the vote is that a mere 10 Jewish MKs could muster enough outrage to vote against this travesty of justice. Even Ami Ayalon, the supposed Labor Party paragon of Israeli-Palestinian understanding voted Aye. The final vote was 64-16. I know in the history of the world's greatest legislative folly this is but one example. But for Israel it's truly a golden one.

Speaking of golden, follow my Tikun Olam blog link above to an acerbic cartoon from Haaretz. To get the joke you have to know that the Jewish National Fund (or Kerem Kayemet L'Yisrael) has blue tzedakah (pushke) boxes covered with the Star of David which are known by Jews the world over. The cartoonist has changed the color from Israeli blue to racist yellow (the same color as the star Nazis forced Jews to wear). And instead of an Israeli Star of David there is a Kahanist fist. Nice touch.

Those who know their American history will remember that until the 1950s it was illegal for Asian-Americans to own land in the west. Is this the model that Israel wishes to embrace?? Could you give an Israel-hater a greater gift than this? Could you give a Palestinian or Israeli Arab a stronger confirmation of their impression that Israel is irredeemably racist?? What can you do but scratch your head and say: "Huh?" Whatever were they thinking? Well, you know what they're thinking and it ain't pretty.

There are those of us progressive Zionists who have a different vision of Israel. But days and votes like yesterday's make it really hard to keep what little faith you have left.

Thanks to Magnes Zionist, a terrific new blog by Jerry Haber representing a progressive Orthodox Israeli viewpoint, for first bringing this law to my attention; and to Sol Salbe for providing the Haaretz editorial and cartoon.

Yesterday, the Christian Organization to Promote Outward and Upward Theology brought you A through M of our Christian Debating Glossary. Today, we finish the alphabet with more terms that Christians use in debating in various fora.

minority: (n.) A group such as Christians who are under constant attack by the heathen majority (see persecute) in the United States. Christians compose a mere 85% of the American population.

murder: (n.) Usually, the act of taking the life of a Christian or a baby (see baby). Kevorkian commits murder. Abortionists commit murder. "Embryonic" (see embryo) stem cell research commits murder. Examples of life-taking that is not murder include the death penalty for marijuana use, the righteous slaying of abortionists or homosexuals, and the discarding of zygotes that would otherwise have been used for murderous stem-cell research. Also note that Our Lord God does not practice murder even though He aborts more fetuses than all the human abortionists in history.

marriage: (n.) A temporary relationship between one man and one woman of the same race. Jesus himself creates marriage for those he loves, and one proof that he loves Christians more is that he creates so many marriages for each Christian. Note that efforts are moving forward to enhance this definition to include the words, "as sanctified by a Christian minister."

martyrdom: (n.) The Christian act of giving one's life in defense of Jesus. When a superficially similar act is performed by non-Christians, it is known as terrorism (see terrorist).

peace: (n.) The state of being free from war in one's own Christian nation. For example, the United States is currently at peace, because few Americans are dying as the result of enemy action in America. Iraq is also at peace, because most of the people dying there are not Americans, and those who are Americans die outside of American view. Jesus is the Prince of Peace and Christians will continue to fight until the entire world acknowledges it.

persecute: (n.) To harass or punish a Christian, or to suggest that any Christian belief might be worthy of examination. For example, to speculate that an ancient crypt might have contained the body of Jesus is to persecute Christians. It is not persecution when Christians attempt, for example, to ban heathen religions from military bases, because it isn't.

politics: (n.) Christianity by other means.

reason: (v.) To use the mental process to reach a conclusion that furthers the glory of Jesus. For example, Christians reason when we consider that God is All-Knowing because the Bible says He is All-Knowing, and when we point out that the Bible is always correct and flawless because it was written by an All-Knowing God. We use reason to come to the conclusion that when God created the Universe, he put light into space enroute to Earth from stars that are more than 10,000 light-years away. Otherwise, we would not be able to see those stars today.

separation of church and state: (n.) The abandoned and desecrable concept that Christianity should not control government in the United States. Christians point out that all the Founding Fathers were all faithful church-going Christians, with very few exceptions such as Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and a few other minor players. If the Founding Fathers had not wanted the Christian religion to run the government, they would have said so in the Constitution.

soul: (n.) The eternal spirit that inhabits each baby (see baby) from the moment of conception. When a blastocyst splits early in pregnancy, its soul splits with it, creating two sacred souls. When a zygote perishes for any reason before birth its soul goes to limbo to play for all eternity with the souls of other zygotes, heathens who never heard of Jesus, and children killed by God before baptism. Souls of Christians go to heaven. Souls of non-Christians go to hell, regardless of their rectitude. The soul of Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel (Jew), will spend eternity in torment, as will the soul of another winner, the Dali Lama (Buddhist). The soul of Albert Einstein (perhaps deist) sputters over everlasting fire even as we speak, as does that of Ernest Hemingway (atheist). Of course, the souls of Carl Sagan (atheist) and Charles Darwin (agnostic) had no chance past puberty. The soul of Abraham Lincoln (deist) also finds the temperature to be way too high these days.

superstition: (n.) The practice of any system of belief (or non-belief) other than Christianity. For example, to believe that the earth rides on the back of a turtle is superstition. However, to believe that God created light on earth, and plants, before he created the sun is Biblical certainty. It is superstition to believe in reincarnation, but not the resurrection of the dead. Belief in evolution is superstition. However, to believe that God is three people and one person at the same time is inspired.

terrorist: (n.) A non-Christian willing to take his own life and perhaps others to promote superstition. Contrast with martyrdom.

unnatural: (adj.) The state of opposing nature. Homosexuality is unnatural because it cannot not produce children, even though it is natural for people well beyond child-bearing to have a sexual relationship because they are heterosexual, which is natural. Homosexuality is unnatural because only humans (and perhaps a few hundred other species) engage in it, and humans are not natural. Finally, homosexuality flies in the face of nature because the Bible declares it to be an abomination, along with shellfish, pork, and poly/cotton blends.

woman: (n.) A person who is very, very close to human -- so close that she can actually bear human babies as well as daughters. Women also have other uses, according to the Bible. One may turn daughters over to an angry mob to be raped and murdered, as Lot attempted to do. One may sell one's daughter into slavery to pick up a quick buck, as the Bible prescribes. And, upon discovering (or suspecting or pretending) that she is not virginal, one may entertain the entire town by having one's bride stoned to death at the village gate. It is vital, however, not to permit a woman to gain the impression she is in control of her own body, as this may endanger a baby (see baby).

zygote: (n.) Another word that means baby(see baby).

Now that you understand the Christian point of view, we are sure you will want to join us. Unfortunately, this is not possible. You are not permitted to choose Jesus. Rather, Jesus must choose you. When He does, you will be permitted to accept Him as your Lord and Savior and be saved forever.

Have a nice eternity!

The Wiki:

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to popular and political discussion of the concept, including criticism that it overstates the limits created under the Constitution.

This in mind, please explain to me Anderson Cooper's special on CNN entitled God's Country.

"But even though politicians have never been the most loyal bunch, there's one guy they always seem to want in their corner. Someone whose poll numbers are so consistently stellar, it's almost a miracle. Someone who never makes mistakes and whose actions are always fraught with purpose and meaning. I'm talking about God. He was mentioned a whopping 21 times by the Republican candidates last night ... and I'm not even counting "God bless yous" and "I hope to Gods."

His show went in depth discussing polls like "Do you believe the President refers to his religious beliefs enough" to ranking candidates, of both parties, in what appeared to be calculations, the likes Google would have been envious, ranking how electable each was, based upon his/her religious votability.

Shocking remarks like... and I'm paraphrasing, 'Mitt Romney is rated the most religious Republican but he might be a bit much for the Baptists, being that he's Mormon' or 'Obama is seen as the most believable Democrat regarding his religion but he has links to some southern Baptist ministers that could get him in trouble with the Evangelicals in the Midwest."

Why such a shock?

Why is GOD a topic at all? I can't begin to explain how many debates I've been involved in with German CDU proponents (Christian Democratic Union translated) literally boasting that separation of church and state is essential to a stable and fair democracy. That's what I was taught... in America.

In fact, that was the one thing that bound us all together. We've always fought about gun control and abortion, immigration and health care, but GOD was kept out. This is NOT saying there is no place for God. Once we institutionalize God, we are no better than the "crackpot" religious fanatics with whom we are supposed to be at war.

What are we telling other religions in America when we have MAIN-STREAM CNN and "good guy" Anderson Cooper ranking and filing people by how they are with God? Not even that, how conservative farmers in the midwest will take any specific candidate on their personal relationship with God. I wonder what Joe Lieberman thinks of the fact that according to Anderson Cooper's system, as a Jewish man, he's not electable? What would the farmer in the Midwest say if Lieberman was running and started each speech with a prayer in Hebrew?

It is sad to me that the result of the tragedy of September 11th, beyond the obvious suffering of those involved, is a minority in America controlling the majority with fear and Jesus.

Conclusion: The first candidate who says that God doesn't belong in politics has my vote. Extreme? Perhaps, but this issue, to me, is a CENTRAL issue. It is the foundation on which we were built and should not be forgotten in a trend of moral zealotry.

"I don't want to know your 'deal with the Lord', I want to know if you have a plan for this fiasco in Iraq and if you think we can get health care going!"

Finally, part of the explanation for the terror scare that has been hovering over Morocco in recent months. A recent article in the Washington Post tells the story of Saad al-Houssani, a Meknes native who was arrested on March 6 in Casablanca. His arrest and the arrests two of his associates apparently disrupted plans to bomb tourist-related targets such as cruise ships and hotels. Without his arrest, the bombings that occurred in Morocco in March and April would probably have been much worse.

Al-Houssani studied chemistry in Spain during the 1990s, and dropped out just weeks before finishing his degree. His research paper on "the anti-cancer properties of certain chemical compounds" was published in a professional journal. According to his advisor Francisco F. Perez:

He was very interested in social justice. He said his country was governed by tyrants.... He never said anything bad about Western countries. Quite the opposite. He envied our political regime here and said he wanted our political regime and democracy to be installed in Morocco.

This strikes me as reasonable. After all, in Morocco the 1990s were the years of Driss Basri, the feared enforcer of the late king Hassan II. From there, al-Houssani got radicalized. During his interrogation by Moroccan police, he explained how a Tunisian friend exposed him to militant Islam.

Our principal subjects of discussion were around the jihad. He made me understand the importance of religion and faith, providing me with religious books and audiotapes of the great sheikhs' speeches.

As a result of these influences al-Houssani taught himself to make bombs, then went to Afghanistan where he met top al-Qaeda leaders. He stayed there until the U.S. invasion in 2001. After his return to Morocco, he is believed to have been one of the masterminds of both the Casablanca bombings of 2003, and the Madrid bombings of 2004. Thanks in part to "the great sheikhs' speeches," a chemistry student with a passion for social justice was transformed into a mass murderer.

I would love to believe that the conditions that made this possible were unique to the 1990s, and are no longer valid. But I fear the opposite. The events of the Bush era are giving new jihadis plenty of reasons for resentment, and the war in Iraq is giving them training. It shouldn't surprise us to read more stories like al-Houssani's in ten years' time.

Cross-posted to eatbees blog.

I'm going to start off by saying 2 things:

1 - I know this isn't going to be the most popular blog, but to my knowledge nobody has said exactly what I'm trying to say here, and I think its an important argument.

2 - I want to be unequivocal on this point. The coverage of Edwards' $400 haircut has been excessive beyond any point of reason, suggests a particularly vapid and vindictive press corps, and Edwards and his supporters have every right to say as much.

However, there is a growing consensus on the lefty blogosphere, both from bloggers and those who post in their comments sections, that this is a story which never should have been reported in the first place. That even only 1 story on the haircut would be one too many. I take exception with this, for reasons laid out below.

Successful political campaigns rely on 3-pronged narratives to sell the voters on their preferred candidate. The first prong describes the world as we know it, the second prong describes the changes we'd like to see enacted in that world, and the third prong explains why the given candidate is the best agent to deliver those changes. Jay Cost describes this lucidly on his blog at Real Clear Politics, and the narrative's history is explored in more depth by Paul Waldman over at the American Prospect.

Edwards does have a nice narrative. I think Cost (in the above linked article) is wrong, insomuch as he argues Edwards does not understand the need for the 3rd prong in his campaign narrative. I think Edwards understands that just fine. His sell goes like this:

1-The major problem with America is that it has become a society with 2 classes: the elite, and the middle/under class.

2-The solution is a host of policy initiatives designed to redistribute wealth, increase opportunity for the poor, etc etc.

3-John Edwards is the man to implement this action because, as the son of a mill worker, he's faced poverty, he's climbed the impossible climb, and as a result has dedicated his life (political or otherwise) to making sure others have the same opportunity.

That's a wonderful narrative and, what's more, I think there's a lot of truth in it. In all 3 prongs of it, in fact. I agree with him on the basic notion of "2 Americas," I agree with him on the types of policies that need to be enacted, and I actually would not be surprised if he was completely and totally sincere in his fight to improve conditions for the poor and eliminate poverty.

However, a cornerstone of this all is the notion that John comes from humble roots and, as such, understands what life is like for the poor. This understanding motivates his fight. He was the son of a mill worker, as he's been telling us for awhile now

Now, as we roll toward Pittsburgh, Edwards is talking about why he has taken on this issue. His own childhood began amid the working poor in North Carolina, but as his father, a textile mill worker, moved up the ladder, his family became solidly middle class, "which is the way it's supposed to work," he says, but all too often these days it does not.

Very convincing. However, I do think reporters are right to question any/all aspects of that narrative (just as is the case with any of the candidates and their narratives), and offer evidence they think contradicts Edwards' pitch. And in that context, the Hair Story makes sense and is, I think, totally valid. A lot of people have taken stabs at this (or similar stories) and come close in explaining why its valid, but, I think, ultimately they miss the mark. For example, Cost says of Edwards purchasing a large house

That mansion sends the wrong message about who he is. It allowed his political opponents to tag him as somebody who does not really believe what he says, and therefore as somebody unworthy of the office.

This thought is somewhat echoed by Marc Ambinder:

The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously.

I don't agree. Certainly, people have called him a hypocrite, but without merit. I don't think Cost is right in saying he opened himself up to those criticisms. As Cost and many others have pointed out, there is nothing inherently hypocritical about being rich, liking expensive things, and caring about poverty, and that certainly doesn't make him a bad advocate for the poor.

So no, I don't think that's quite right in defending the validity of the story. I think what's going on here is a little more subtle and closely related to what they're saying, but not quite that. At least, not directly so.

I think the hair cut, however, is valid (if incomplete) evidence that his stated rationale for why he's a good agent for social change might be false. That is, Edwards himself uses his impoverished past as evidence of his sincerity in his fight on poverty. This is true enough on its face for anyone who's been following Democratic politics for the last 4 years, but again, one need only read the quote I listed above from a recent Time article about him. His roots are his stated motivation, and the image he tries to create for himself is undoubtedly the up-by-his-bootstraps-son-of-a-mill-worker.

The notion that he'd pay $400 dollars for a haircut can be legitimately construed to contradict the image of Edwards-as-son-of-mill-worker. Paying that much on your hair certainly does not suggest someone who is in touch with his impoverished youth. Indeed, it could be easily read to suggest he has, in fact, distanced himself from his roots in not just tax brackets (which we already know), but also values. It would be hard to imagine someone who was legitimately poor at the time viewing a $400 haircut as anything but incredibly excessive and wasteful or, at the least, absurd. I think one subtle change to Ambinder's argument brings it home.

Instead of:

His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously

It should read:

His credibility as 'John Edwards, son of a mill worker' comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously.

We could do that with Cost as well.

Not quite right:

That mansion sends the wrong message about who he is. It allowed his political opponents to tag him as somebody who does not really believe what he says

Should read:

That haircut sends the wrong message about who he is. It allowed his political opponents to tag him as somebody who is not who he claims to be

It doesn't jive with the public persona he's trying to project. At all.

Once you puncture a hole in that image, the whole narrative starts to fall apart. It's not a big leap to then ask: "Well, if he's not anchored in his impoverished past like he claims, then that can't be his motive for his advocacy. What then is his motivation for his focus on poverty?" And the cynical mind answers: "Politics explains it all." (a contention that's been made rather explicitly at times). I admit, I've been guilty of that very thought process.

So, after all that, yes, I think it was valid to report the story and ask, "so, is the image John Edwards projects phony?" The question of phoniness is one that has dogged him (and dogs him still), and the hair cut seems to me to be valid evidence for his detractors. It certainly is not sufficient evidence. But it is evidence, nonetheless.

What's more, the debate over his authenticity is an easy debate to have. His detractors will say "yeah, he's fake" and point to his shifting political stances/the house/his new ads as more evidence. His supporters will say "no, he's sincere" and explain the changes in political stances, point to all the work he's done on poverty for which he's reaped no political gain, point out that advocacy for the poor isn't really the wisest political strategy anyway, etc etc etc. I think that's a fair debate to have. And a debate those in Edwards' camp could very well win.

However, there's been almost a vindictive glee about the fervor with which some have pursued this story, and that is unsettling. What's more, while the question of Edwards being a phony certainly has been raised, the hair story has continued on completely separate from that debate. As Ambinder says:

John Edwards's haircut was a valid story to cover, although its impact and signifiance were magnified beyond reason and sanity.

And:

a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

The coverage has been shamefully bad regardless of motivation, but if the above does indeed explain at least in part why the story seems to have such legs, that represents a serious ethical breech. Greenwald, Lemieux, et al. are right to call out the reporters and editors responsible. Sargent is right to trash it. It has been nothing short of heinous. I certainly do not argue with that notion.

---

That, at least, is my long-winded take on the Edwards story.

Post-script: I do understand and concede that the haircut story is also about the Right's unending quest to emasculate Edwards, and wouldn't disagree. The fact that it has been co-opted for such use and could explain the story's endurance does not change the fact that, as I argued, the story contained information that is valid for use in evaluating the candidate and as such is a valid political story.

Guys, if you only do one thing that takes about ten or fifteen minutes of your time today, do this:  Watch these two videos, back to back.

First, watch the ABC news story, "Exclusive Look at Soldiers on the Front."

Then, watch Max Blumenthal's incomparable video: Generation Chickenhawk: the Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour.

When I first saw the ABC piece, which was shot by U.K. Guardian reporter Sean Smith and narrated by Nick Watt, I sat there with my mouth hanging open. 

This was gritty.  This was REAL. 

This was American soldiers from the 2nd Infantry, Apache Co., going out on patrol, getting shot at and blown up, searching houses for the bombers--only to inadvertantly terrify an old woman living alone with her dog--treating screaming Iraqi soldiers and bleeding Iraqi children after a bomb blast, standing by in helpless horror while watching buddies burn to death in an overturned APC.  (Armored Personnel Carrier.)

And, as Spec. Michael Vassall did, looking straight into the camera and saying:

"I challenge the president or anyone else who has us here for fifteen months to ride alongside me.  I'll do another 15 months if he'll ride with me every single day for 15 months.  I'll do 15 more months.  They don't even have to pay me extra."

And Cpl. Joshua Lake, who calls the whole thing "a joke" and says that they can never rest, never come down from the adrenalin-pumping daily grind that goes on month after month.  "We've been in-contact, basically, for 14 months."

I would like to point out that this was a BRITISH news crew, embedded with American soldiers.  If you have not seen such raw footage from American reporters it is because they've been shut down by the Pentagon in an effort to control news coverage before Petraeus makes his candy-coated spin-cycle report to Congress in September. 

This is the very reason they no longer allow enlisted men and junior officers to testify before Congress--because they know that high-ranking officers are career-driven and will say what they need to say to advance their careers, whatever, in fact, they are told to say.

These guys on the ground?  They tell the truth.

And you have to wonder, what fed-up junior officer or company commander permitted the Brits to come in and film this stuff.  Maybe they mistakenly thought it would only air in Britain.

ABC news is to be commended for airing this footage, not only in their evening news broadcast, but again that night on Nightline. 

(Had Ted Koppell still been there, he would have dedicated the entire broadcast to it.  As it is, they only repeated the segment--it didn't even rate a 20-minute treatment--but at least they DID air it again.)

Watch it.  Watch it more than once.

Then watch Max Blumenthal's amazing little video.

First he takes a camera crew to Arlington National Cemetery to film fresh graves of those killed in Iraq.

Then he drops in over at the College Republicans Convention.

At first, he innocently asks all these fresh-scrubbed, clean-shaven, suit-and-tied young men and woman what they thought of the war.

Not a single one of them had an original thought in their heads. 

They all said--to a man or woman--"You have to understand.  We HAVE to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

Way to spout propaganda, boys and girls!  Let's hear it for learning critical thinking at college!

THEN, still innocent, he asks those SAME smiling young men and women, why THEY aren't "fighting them over there."

Only one had the decency to lie, drop his head, and mutter that he was THINKING about MAYBE enlisting when he was done with school.  Didn't say it to the camera's eye, mind you.  Said it to his feet.  But at least even as he pawned off the lie without much sincerity, he did give it the old college try.

Everybody else?

Well, first of all, there were soooo many physical ailments preventing these healthy youngsters from going off to fight!  YOU WOUDN'T BELIEVE IT!

One had asthma.

I do wish he'd talked to me.  My son tells me that in the Marine Corps?  You can join up with asthma!  Yeah!

What happens is, the drill instructor is apprised of your condition and you are allowed to carry your inhaler with you.  If at any time during physical conditioning, your asthma acts up, you are permitted to drop out--no questions asked--and get your breathing under control.  They don't even yell at you about it or anything.

I know that young man would be relieved to hear that.

One had "old football injuries."  I thought I heard him mention something about a knee.

Good news, buddy!  The army NOW TAKES AMPUTEES AND LETS THEM RETURN TO IRAQ WHERE THEY GOT THEIR BODY PARTS BLOWN OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE!

It's true!  Isn't that great?

So that old football injury is NO PROBLEM.

Others had ailments that were vague and unspecified.

Then there was the young man who laughed and said, with great relief, "I'm in school!"

The guy next to him, very seriously, mentioned that he was going to grad school and, after all, he had some business opportunities awaiting him after graduation.

At this point, Blumenthal says, "So you've got the Cheney Defense--you have other priorities!"

The young man laughed and nodded, completely unaware of the irony.  COMPLETELY.

Blumenthal taped some of the conference's guest speakers, like the honorable Tom DeLay, and then, word got out:

LIBERAL MEDIA PRESENT!  ABORT! ABORT!

That's when one of those brave young men who was too physically infirm to go fight in a war he fully supports, gathered Blumenthal by the lapels and threw him out of the room.

Blumenthal drives off to the tune of Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son."

The point was so graphically made that I realized I was weeping.

I am so sick of these arrogant little snots and people like them starting wars and sending good people like my family members off to fight their damn wars.  How DARE a healthy young man spout off propaganda about "fighting them over there so WE"--who's this WE, KIMOSABE--"don't have to fight them over here"???

Let me tell you something, you little jerk.

My son didn't HAVE to enlist.  He had a college degree and PLENTY of priorities. 

He could have gone staight into Officer Candidate's School and tied himself up in training for a whole year rather than go fight the Battle of Fallujah.  But do you know what he said? 

He said, "I'm single.  I don't have any children.  Maybe I can take the place of someone who does."

My husband, you little pissant, was a Distinguished Military Graduate of Texas A&M University, commissioned as a second lieutenant upon graduation.

That was an honor shared by only one or two other members of his graduating company.

HE WAS GIVEN HIS CHOICE OF ANY DUTY ASSIGNMENT IN THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE PENTAGON.

He CHOSE combat infantry.

Did you hear that, you cowardly little s.o.b?

HE CHOSE COMBAT INFANTRY IN TIME OF WAR.

They were surprised, in the army.  Even tried to talk him out of it.  Finally said, "Well, we need good combat officers, too."

He went on to receive the Bronze Star for courage under fire, and brought all but one of his platoon members home alive.

My dad?  A crusty old retired Master Gunnery Sergeant.  During the Vietnam war, he wanted the Marines to send him over, because that is what Marines do.  They fight wars, and he'd been too young to fight WWII.  It was his turn, he told them.

He was forty.  He had five kids.  They said no.

He insisted.

And they sent him.  My half-sister, Joi, was only two weeks old, and my brave step-mom, Betty, was juggling all those other kids on a Marine sergeant's pay, but by God, he stepped up and took his turn.

MY DAD STEPPED UP, YOU LITTLE SH**, AND VOLUNTEERED TO SUPPORT A WAR YOUR HERO DICK CHENEY WAS TOO BUSY TO FIGHT.  KINDA LIKE YOU.  AND LIKE YOU, CHENEY SUPPORTED SOMEONE ELSE'S WAR.

I have so many stories like that, just in my own family, and I know there are many, many similar stories out there.

It is one thing to hear some of my right-wing friends spout that crap off, about fighting them over there blah-blah, especially if they are veterans.

But when I hear healthy young Republican men and women reel off the talking-point party line, and then stammer and stutter about how THEY can't fight this war, but by God, SOMEBODY HAS TO!

I repeat what Spec. Vassell said:

YOU THINK IT'S SUCH A GOOD IDEA, YOU GO ON OVER AND RIDE AROUND WITH SPEC. VASSELL.  DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO IT 15 MONTHS LIKE YOUR FEARLESS LEADER IS MAKING HIM DO.  JUST DO IT ONE DAY YOU SNIVELING LITTLE WEENIE.

One day.

Go fight that war with them.

Then come back and tell me what I ought to do about it.

Ok, now I'm really pissed. Just how many times will our government betray us? We are taught from grade school to respect the "authority" of our government and yet time and time again that same entity either fails or betrays us.

Today, Judge John D. Bates dismissed the Valerie Plame case against the WH administration officials who leaked her name to the lump of seditious crap known as Robert Novak. But why would you be surprised at this?

Judge John D. Bates also dismissed the lawsuit seeking to find who met with Cheney and now that we know he met with the big oil companies and their names, why would Bates suddenly want to uphold the law? His decisions to dismiss cases where clearly there is a public interest raise the question, Where do you go to get justice?

As it is now, the judge sits on the same court that rubber stamps Bush's searches of your inner most records, allows them to even ignore his FISA court, and yet when we seek to know who met with Cheney, or when Valerie Plame seeks restitution for the damage done to her career, he decides he has no juristiction and that nothing was proven.

I don't care what college he went to, or even who appointed him. This decision has really destroyed any further faith I have that our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Instead we have a government for the powerful, by the powerful, and for the explicit purpose to use, betray, and deny the citizens of the United States.

I don't know what appeal process follows his current decision, but I hope CREW and the Wilson's continue to fight to out all the traitors.

Even to this day, Robert Novak says he'd publish the information again. So please explain to me,...How in the hell is he not a traitor?

Nothing to see, folks.

Natural ebb and flow of nature's cycles. Definitely not related to global warming.

Move along...

A few weeks ago, I attended the first-ever United States Social Forum, June 27 to July 1, 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. It was an awe-inspiring event, bringing together over 15,000 grassroots activists from every issue area and every corner of the United States. And while the conferences I'm used to anyway are populated by slick white men in suits who work for glossy advocacy organizations in Washington, the Social Forum was dominated by members of community-based organizations who more often wore colorful matching t-shirts detailing their group's origins and their proud participation in Atlanta. And as far as I could tell, most of the participants were people of color, again a far cry from the elite and exclusive gatherings that often claim to represent "the left."

Without question, we need a profound, broad-based movement for cultural, political and economic transformation of the United States -- and we need it soon. And being at the US Social Forum prickled my skin with the inexplicable but tangible sense that a social justice movement in the United States is really possible. Like static electricity hanging pregnant in the air, there is an exciting potential for movement to spark.

But in addition to displaying the many parts of our social justice infrastructure up to the task --- grassroots organizing groups and popular education work and strong, community leaders humming all around us like charged particles --- the U.S. Social Forum also revealed some of the worst of our field. Sectarian bad habits kept us fighting among ourselves and scrutinizing our own navels rather than using the historic gathering space of the forum to actually challenge ourselves and each other, articulate a bold vision for the future and develop a shared strategy for action. If we're ever to build a truly powerful, multi-issue movement for economic, political and social justice, we must overcome the following barriers that loomed large at the U.S. Social Forum -- which I attribute to dangerous patterns across the left more so than the particular organizers of the Forum, many of whom raised the same concerns.

1. We must be allies, not enemies!

At the U.S. Social Forum, one group of immigrant-led organizations nastily attacked another because of disagreements over pursuing immigration reform strategy. A Jewish woman who tried to make a statement sympathetic with Palestinians was publicly attacked as anti-Arab and anti-Islam. One peace activist was attacked with a pie was thrown in her face by others calling her a sell-out.

As someone once said, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" Is that really where to best concentrate our energy, on attacking those who are slightly to the left or right of us on any given issue but generally otherwise in agreement? Don't we have more important things to do?

At one point, I left the Social Forum to visit the museum dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King, who was heartily evoked throughout the forum, preached non-violence and compassion for our opponents. He also was attacked by many on the far-left as a sell-out in his day, for working with the federal government to pass imperfect yet necessary civil rights legislation. Are the immigrant rights groups who pushed for reform legislation any different? Would King have had a pie thrown in his face at the U.S. Social Forum today?

History has taught us that successful social movements have involved a spectrum of ideologies. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers made King and others' demands seem "reasonable" and thus politically acceptable to center-right elites. Social movements that rely on totalitarian dogmatism fail. See, e.g., communism everywhere. Before the U.S. Social Forum, I thought the American left had learned this lesson and believed in compassion and respect for differences. Now I'm not so sure. The US Social Forum was a hot bed of ugly and disrespectful sectarian attacks lobbed by the self-righteous far-left against the merely left-of-center-left. Is it possible that we could appreciate the need for diversity and difference of opinion within the left and cultivate a new habit of respectful yet robust debate -- rather than pie throwing?

2. Identity does not equal politics.

Political correctness and identity politics have been much maligned on the left and right. At their best, these notions challenge us to remedy past habits of exclusion and elitism, include the full spectrum of human diversity in our movement building and society in general, and give voice to multiple perspectives and not just those that generally dominate. But identity politics fails us when we treat racial, ethnic and sexual diversity as a proxy for political and ideological diversity. They're not necessarily interchangeable.

On each plenary at the U.S. Social Forum, for instance, there were as many as eight speakers who were extremely diverse in terms of identity but barely so in terms of politics. Speakers who looked different from one another nonetheless repeated the same rhetoric over and over again. Much of it was identity-based shout-outs, how we have to connect this issue or that with the GLBT community or we can't ignore the plight of women in one situation or another. That's all important -- the whole point to identity politics is to include in the political conversation and process those who have been horribly excluded for so long. But we can't stop at the politics of recognition. If we don't go any deeper -- to not just talk about why we have to connect our issues but have the challenging conversations about how we make these connections in practice, to not just care about who is on stage but also what they have to say -- otherwise, aren't we the self-imposed victims of the tokenism we say we reject?

And if at a gathering of 15,000 left-wing social justice activists who in their daily work and struggle are trying to bring voice and power to those most often left behind, our main internal priority is still the main fight to be fought internally, see point #1 above. Sure, some of the straight folks at the forum could use more analysis around issues of homophobia and gender identity. And sure, the non-Native folks there probably need to learn much more about Native history and struggles. But frankly just trotting out a diverse set of faces and giving rhetorical lip service to these issues isn't much progress in that direction. Rather than saying simply, "We have to respect and include Native communities," followed by a show of solidarity in the form of applause, what if we were really engaged and challenged to think about why Native communities and issues are often last on our laundry list of progressive causes, or what it means for American activists who so often despise the nation-state to nonetheless champion Native sovereignty? What if our solidarity came in the form of rigorous thinking, rather than ceremonial clapping?

The point of identity politics isn't to rank the issues or perspectives of one community as more important than another but, rather, to use the often intense experiences of inequality and discrimination faced by some communities as a lens for better understanding the injustice faced by all of us. In other words, diversity and inclusion are vital but we can't just stop there.

3. We need positive alternatives, not just critique.

Along the same lines, we have to do more than just complain about the problems in society. Analysis and critique are very important. We need to understand structural racism, how it's perpetuated in society's political and cultural crevices and the polluting impact it has in our communities. We need to understand economic inequality, how the economy is designed to produce injustice, how that injustice is manifest. But cathartic though it might be, it's not enough to just complain and critique. If we believe another world is possible and are about building power in communities to achieve that alternative future, then we have to set about the task of actually describing what that future should be.

That's hard. We know what we're against, but we're not entirely sure what we're for. And to the point above, it's much easier to prove you belong in the progressive club by throwing down some fierce analysis of war and militarism and the connection to the prison industrial complex. But what's your alternative solution? Is war necessary and sometimes just? If we can't prevent all crimes, do we think prison is sometimes okay or what's our alternative? At the level of critique and analysis, we're damn good at exchanging rhetorical hi-fives. But what if you and I disagree at the level of vision? Or worse, what if I don't even have a vision at all? It's a much more vulnerable position to be in.

At a meeting I was at recently, a grassroots activist said, "We wouldn't know what to do with power if we got it. We haven't had that meeting yet!" Power, of course, isn't a end but a means to and end. What will the world look like when we, the people, have the power to change it? Critique and analysis are important but not enough. Part of building power is planning for power. And we must build our future vision along the way. From the worker-owned cooperative businesses to models of participatory democracy, examples are springing up across the country of an alternative vision in action. Our power comes not only from critiquing what is but envisioning what will be and inspiring millions with the vivid reality that another world is possible. At social justice gatherings going forward, we should do more than dwell on the many problems in society and talk about how we need alternatives. We should discuss what those alternatives actually are.

Comments or critiques of this article are welcome and invited. Please send them to skohn@communitychange.org. Pies? I prefer banana cream.

Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Lab at the Center for Community Change, supporting grassroots leaders across the United States to explore and debate visionary ideas for the future.

This was my first blog almost two years ago. On re-reading it this morning I was stunned to think how little has changed since that day when I began to think my words might change minds and policies. Unfortunately over 3,600 brave Americans have died for the lies, arrogance and greed of this administration. Nothing short of impeachment is EVER going to change the "Decider's" mind.

Here is that two year old blog:

My memories of the 1968 TET offensive and the relevance of that event to today's situation.

I have only told a few people this story. Partly, I guess, because I was so scared and that is not an image I enjoy portraying or maybe by seeing that fear in myself I feel more vulnerable. I'm not sure. It happened during the last couple of nights in January and the first couple of nights in February of 1968.

We didn't know it at the time but it was the beginning of the TET offensive in Vietnam. Probably the turning point of the "public opinion" reversal in the United States.

I worked in the receiving unit of the NSA hospital in Danang from June, 1967 to June, 1968. The best way to describe the setting is to say it was like the stuff we all saw in the movie "MASH". We were a bigger and more permanent version of that.

I was a US Navy hospital corpsman, the US Navy and US Marine version of a medic in the US Army. I was one of the guys who ran out to the choppers and took the wounded into our quonset hut facility and tried to save their lives with ER type first aid and triage. In other words we stopped the bleeding, started IV's, stabilized them enough to give them a chance to live, and prepared them for surgery. We also carried the dead off those choppers. A few times I went out on medivac flights during my time off. Crazy, but I was young and stupid. A few other times as part of my job I accompanied Vietnamese patients into Danang in an ambulance at night. Those were the only times I carried a weapon while I was in Vietnam. I never had to use one.

I received a Navy Unit Commendation medal and a Letter of Commendation for those few nights in 1968. We put over 2,100 wounded through my unit in 48 hours. I didn't sleep or stop during that stretch of time. We only had a few times that the flow of dead and wounded stopped enough for a break to watch the Hueys firing rockets at our perimeter or to listen to all the constant gunfire of the Marines and CB's who were brought in to keep us from being overrun or to hunker down in a small room discussing what to do if the enemy accomplished their goal and came through to kill us all. We had no weapons. If they had gotten past our defenders we would all have been killed. It was the most scared I've ever been in my life, before or since.

Through it all we did our jobs. According to the letter of commendation I received, we saved a lot of lives. I know we did. And I know the marines we treated still think of that time as I do nearly 40 years later.

The hueys circled above us like wagons in the old west. As they came into position in the flight pattern where their weapons were facing our rear perimeter, they would fire 2 to 4 rockets and a burst of gunfire from the miniguns. The circle remained unbroken each night. As each ran out of rockets or ammunition another would replace it in the circle.

Across the road from us to the front was MAG 16, a marine helicopter base. A constant flow kept the circle filled from that facility. It was constant, awesome, unbelievable firepower. They killed hundreds each night. The Viet Cong and NVA troops who were involved in the TET offensive were relentless. It was hard for me to believe their ability to keep coming in wave after wave knowing there was not much hope of breaking through our lines. We had so much firepower and they were crossing the river where they were exposed by the endless light from flares, climbing the bank behind us through incredible amounts of small arms and rocket fire, and crossing the cleared opening between our perimeter and a small village behind us while exposed at all times to the rain of death from such a military power.

We survived because of our strength and superiority in firepower and because an attacking force must always take extreme losses when attacking the dug-in perimeter of an established facility.

Like Khe Sanh to our north which survived a seige of legendary proportions during that year only to be abandoned shortly thereafter for political reasons, we lived because of air power and superior firepower. All those marines who were killed at Khe Sanh suffered unspeakable fear and pain and were traumatized for the rest of their lives. I know what they felt.

War doesn't change. It was a horrible thing in the fourteenth century when the Scots bravely fought their oppressors. It was a horrible thing when the world fought a German monster with a silly moustache. It was a horrible thing in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia. War changes those who are involved.

Those of us who have known that fear hate war. We know that any option short of war is preferable. Those of us who have seen the blood and death know what it does to the victims. Those of us who know what brains and guts and arms and legs look like when they are no longer part of a living human being know what it does to the victor and the vanquished. We know what it does to the souls of the survivors on both sides.

That's why I write these blogs. I can't stand the people in power right now. These Neo Cons who hid from their duty to protect and defend our country yet are "fearless" when they are surrounded by secret service protection as they send our sons and daughters to see what I have seen.

The American people are beginning to see the truth I share here. Poll number are plummeting for those monsters.

This morning we launched the most massive air assault in Iraq since 2003. It's been over 1000 days since "Georgie" declared victory there. He's a liar and a completely incompetent leader. He has the arrogance of Longshanks against the heroic Scots and those in his administration are a bunch of "yes men and women" who have sold their souls to be close to the power. The insurgents in Iraq will probably keep coming like those who died behind that hospital in 1968. Our military machine is powerful beyond most people's comprehension. It is an effecient killing machine. But if those fighting us in Iraq keep on coming in the face of all this death and destruction, even our forces can't kill them all.

I don't know a good way to end this mess in Iraq. We shouldn't be there but we can't leave. But we must leave at some point. No matter what we hear from the right wing radio about how these brave warriors are different because they volunteered. I know it's all a big lie. I volunteered. I know what they are feeling and thinking. But I know something else. I know what many of them will feel in 40 years.

If Americans have good hearts, at least the British have the good sense to drop the apocalyptic language of war and will now officially view terrorism as a criminal act. Prime Minister Brown has made it policy, instructing his ministers to not use the term "War on Terror." (link hits subscription wall)

Excerpts:

When terrorists tried to blow up civilians in London and Glasgow, Gordon Brown, the new British prime minister, responded in his own distinctive way. What had just been narrowly averted, he said, was not a new jihadist

...Brown and other advocates of the terror-as-crime view are not necessarily under any delusions about jihadist thinking. Rather, they maintain that preventing terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of actual human beings — and that declarations of war, including declarations of wars of ideas, are unlikely to be helpful in this regard.act of war but instead a criminal act.

New broom, sweeping clean.

WASHINGTON, July 11 — Undercover Congressional investigators set up a bogus company and obtained a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March that would have allowed them to buy the radioactive materials needed for a so-called dirty bomb.