Privilege Down the Drain

Whenever I write something here, I bother to formulate my ideas and choose my words carefully. It's important to me both not to waste my creative abilities, and to respect whatever time you, the reader, are giving me. Thank you for spending a few moments considering my words.

So I find it sad and, frankly, somewhat immoral, when an actual editor of a printed publication mistakes the privilege of the editorial position for a casual soapbox from which to blab more or less thoughtlessly in the style of morning radio banter. It's really a shame.

What got me going on this was reading an editorial this morning in the Boston Business Journal. I can't believe the editor, George Donnelly, spent more than 10-minutes writing it up. But even if he had spent hours, I doubt the quality of the ideas in his piece would have been much improved. How depressing that such incurious, uncritical ideas come from the pen of an editor!

If you don't want to read the whole BBJ editorial, in a nutshell, it asserts that it is wrong to allow the Occupy Boston protest to continue in public because it may lead to "politically less desirable" groups subsequently also being allowed to protest both in public, and at length. It displays a terrible ignorance of the 1st Amendment (the law of our land), a fearsome dose of Fake Patriotism (my own, personal nemesis), and an unfortunate amount of misinformation about the roots of the protest itself (the least worrisome part of this editorial).

It's embarrassing that the Boston Business Journal publishes editorials that make it so clear that its leadership doesn't support the fundamental rights of the U.S. Constitution for *all* citizens--not just the ones who agree with the BBJ editor's personal outlook on life. When one has the great, personal fortune of publishing an opinion-based editorial to be read by thousands, it's really a shame to squander it on silly rhetoric. Editor Donnelly isn't Howie Carr, for heaven's sake [note: Carr is something like Boston's print version of Rush Limbaugh]. Doesn't Donnelly feel any responsibility at all to his readers, or even to his own intellect, to craft an editorial based on factual assessments, critical thinking, and some understanding of our laws, rights, and the actual players involved in the suit at hand, rather than slap down some trite hyperbole about "utopians" and "rent-free" living?

It's not even possible to know if Donnelly is, in his words, "perplexed" and literally doesn't understand the judge's ruling, or if he's just irritated that the judge used legal precedent and the Constitution as the basis for the ruling, rather than Donnelly's own subjective, personal opinion that the Occupy protesters are bothersome to him, and thus not entitled to their Constitutional rights. It seems he was just being rhetorical, but his commentary on the situation is so basic, and his use of the phrase "protected speech" (which is not really the protected right at issue in this case) makes me think that in fact, he actually doesn't get what happened.

Donnelly says "the problem with Judge McIntyre's ruling is it sets a broad precedent for other, and perhaps less politically desirable, occupations of public space." That's spurious (and creepy!). The right of assembly is established in the 1st Amendment. It is granted to all Americans and it does not matter one iota whether they are "less politically desirable." To imply otherwise is deeply un-American and unpatriotic.  Furthermore, Judge McIntyre did not create or reinterpret the right of assembly this week. In fact, the judge was *following*, not *creating*, legal precedent established a few days earlier.

The decision in the case of Occupy Wall Street (a few days in advance of the Boston decision) established two precedents for adjudicating any Occupy protest location: (1) Such a protest *is* protected by the 1st Amendment (by the way, for those who are thinking "free speech," you don't know your whole 1st Amendment. Grab your copy of the Constitution--what, you don't have one? why not? I thought you were a big patriot--and re-read the last line); (2) Because the location of the New York City protest is on private property, the 5th and 9th Amendment rights of the property owner are not trumped by an unmitigated protection of the protesters' 1st Amendment rights.

So here in Boston, where the protest is not on private property whose owner wishes the protest to cease, the legal precedent seems to establish that the Occupy Boston protesters are protected by the 1st Amendment, and there is no other condition strong enough to outweigh the right of the protesters to remain.

Look, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I'm not even a lawyer. But I'm a Constitution-loving American who has a brain, a copy of said document, and a  belief that it is a moral obligation of every American to defend our rights for *everyone*, and not just for the people we happen to agree with. For me, personally, part of defending our rights means actually bothering to give some considered thought to the issues of the day, not to just blindly accept the sound bites at face value, and to speak up when someone--especially someone who should care more, like the editor of a popular publication--wastes the privilege of his position with unconsidered talk that is contrary to our democracy.

Posse Comitatus / Sovereign Citizen / Right Wing Extremist Assassinates American Citizens Engaged in Democracy

UPDATE: ABC News is covering the "sovereign citizen" movement tonight, 3/8/12 on Nightline.

Read on for more information about "sovereign citizens" or scroll down for collected links, videos, stories, and other examples of propaganda intended to incite violent rhetoric against progressives.

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - Everyone is by now aware of the vicious terrorist attack on Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her staff, her constituents, and even their children at a public event called "Congress on Your Corner," designed to make the democratic process accessible to any civic-minded citizen of Tucson.

The suspected shooter in today's terrorist attack on American citizens in Tucson, AZ is Jared Lee Loughner.

Although Loughner was willing to use a gun on a child to tell the world what he thought, he is now tight-lipped and not speaking to investigators. I imagine that Loughner was not expecting to survive the attack he carried out, and is now mute in the face of the irony that those present at his onslaught showed him mercy even amidst the chaos--subduing him until police arrived and he could be delivered to the hands of lawful American justice--rather than tearing him limb from limb on the spot. He had just attempted to assassinate a U.S. Congresswoman, and had succeeded in executing a 9-year-old child, a federal judge, and many others.

[at left, James Corcoran's excellent book detailing the violent beliefs and actions of the posse comitatus sovereign citizen movement]

Jared Loughner may not be talking this evening, but the words he left on his social media profiles make it plain as day that he was a member of a small, yet growing, vocal, and extremely dangerous subculture of native-born Americans who believe the government has little legitimate authority, and the police none.

They call themselves "sovereign citizens" and Loughner's YouTube writings echo their usual talking points:

"Every police officer in the United States as of now is unconstitutionally working. Pima Community College police are police in the United States. Therefore, Pima Community College police are unconstitutionally working. The police are unconstitutionally working!"

Jared Lee Loughner, December 6, 2010

While the sovereign citizen movement supports neither the Republican nor Democratic party, they are an extremist branch of the American political right wing. They are preoccupied with the idea that the US government has so overstepped its Constitutional limits so as to have become an illegitimate governing authority. They believe the government has no right to levy any taxes on them or to require drivers of cars to be licensed. They do not believe in any alternate system of organized justice or government, however, and so instead of proposing that those they view as acting illegally be tried in some other "sovereign court," their first reaction is often violence.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has for years been warning about the dangers posed to all democracy-loving Americans by these extreme right wing militants who even before today had murdered and assassinated over 30 American public officials and law enforcement officers in the past 15 years.

[at left, David Neiwart's The Eliminationists, laying out the timeline and the case for how hateful rhetoric has effectively radicalized hundreds of thousands of formerly normal and patriotic Republicans]

Sovereign citizens claim to believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In their ignorant and twisted vision of "true patriotism," a private citizen who engages in his 1st Amendment protected right to free speech can be assassinated if the person he is freely speaking with happens to be a public servant.

Because so much of their ideology pertains to a government they view as too large and too intrusive, there is unavoidable overlap between the Tea Party and the Sovereign Citizen movement. And as the Tea Party has gathered steam, and right wing radio hosts have learned to pander to their fears, the Sovereign Citizen movement has also expanded and been able to expose even more people to its poisonous and treasonous perversion of American nationalism.

The Republican party is entirely aware of these connections, and outside of law enforcement, who abhor the "sovereign" movement because they have learned first hand what it's really all about, they are happy to spout elements of the "sovereign's" extremist ideology in order to inflame their base and provoke deep and visceral hatred of President Obama and the Democratic platform.

As sovereign citizen expert Alex Seitz-Wald at Think Progress noted fully 6-months before the deadly Tuscon rampage:

"While the sovereign citizen movement has existed for some time, its popularity appears to be growing in a climate where the anti-government rhetoric of the tea party movement has become commonplace."

 It is because of these connections, and the obvious and prescient danger they encourage, that I am collecting the various and related examples of Republican vitriol that I feel are, if not causal, still strongly related to today's domestic terror attack in Arizona.

Here is part of yesterday's advance announcement of Rep. Gifford's "Congress on Your Corner" event:

U.S. REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS TO HOST FIRST "CONGRESS ON YOUR CORNER" OF THE YEAR ON SATURDAY
TUCSON - U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will host her first "Congress on Your Corner" of the year on Saturday, Jan. 8 at a supermarket in northwest Tucson.
"Congress on Your Corner" allows residents of Arizona's 8th Congressional District to meet their congresswoman one-on-one and discuss with her any issue, concern or problem involving the federal government.
Giffords has hosted numerous "Congress on Your Corner" events since taking office in January 2007. As in the past, the congresswoman's staff will be available to assist constituents.
Among the congresswoman's first official acts this week was a vote for Speaker of the House and theintroduction of legislation to cut congressional salaries by 5 percent. Giffords was interviewed about her bill this morning on Fox news.
WHAT: "Congress on Your Corner" with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
WHEN: 10-11:30 a.m., Saturday, January 8, 2011
WHERE: Safeway, 7110 N. Oracle Road (southeast corner of Oracle and Ina)

This is Sarah Palin's infamous "target sighting" poster, in which Representative Gabrielle Gifford's location is targeted with rifle cross hairs. As of 6:00PM ET 1/8/11, the poster is still live on Palin's Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434: 

Here are quotes from articles that discuss the right-wing death threats made against Judge John Roll, Chief Justice of the United States District Court for Arizona, and incited by right-wing radio hosts. 

"In 2009, Judge Roll faced death threats after presiding over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher. After Judge Roll ruled that the case would be certified, threats came from talk-radio shows which fueled controversy and spurred audiences into making threats against the judge.
After one radio talk show, Judge Roll's name logged more than 200 phone calls as some callers threatened the judge and his family. This resulted in the judge and his wife being placed under a full-time protective detail for one month."      ~http://judgepedia.org/index.php/John_Roll#cite_note-potential-2

"...when U.S. District Judge John Roll presided over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher, the Marshals Service was anticipating the fallout. When Roll ruled the case could go forward, [U.S. Marshal David] Gonzales said talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats. In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online. "They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,'" Gonzales said." ~http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/07/09/20090709threats0709.html

Republicans falsely assert that had the mass killing not occurred, nobody would have cared about Sarah Palin's violence-tinged rhetoric. That's not the case. Democrats have been asking Palin to stop using such ads since the moment she started. Here is a TV interview from almost a year ago, in which Congresswoman Giffords predicts the violence to follow, saying:

"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

~Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-Ariz.]

This is an add run by the Republican party against Gabrielle Giffords in 2010:

This is Sarah Palin's exhortation to her followers to "reload," not retreat. Democrats had long-requested that Palin avoid this type of incendiary messaging, but Palin refused. Within 2-hours of the terror attack on Rep. Giffords and her citizen constituents, Palin began removing her message (as well as the "rifle sights" poster above) from her various web pages:

This is an article published many months ago that describes the fears that the staff of Rep. Giffords already had for her safety, based on threats and intimidating behavior exhibited by Tea Party supporters and other right wing extremists:

This is Jared Lee Loughner's YouTube channel, where he uploaded 5 semi-coherent, anti-government videos during December 2010:

This is from an interesting article published today that addresses dangers of legal, but very inflammatory, political speech:

"If you're worried that violent video games may make kids prone to bad behavior; if you think that mysogenic and homophobic rap lyrics are dangerous to society; if you believe that a nipple in a Superbowl halftime show is a threat to our moral fabric - then surely you should also fear that the way public and media figures have framed political participation with shooting gallery imagery is just as potentially lethal."

This is what Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had to say about the relationship of this crime to the political environment of our times:

"There's reason to believe this individual has a mental issue and I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said.
"Vitriol" in public debate was a recurring theme in Dupnik's remarks as he blasted the media for "the vitriolic rhetoric" heard on television and radio.
"This has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in and I think its time we do the soul-searching," he said.
"The anger, the hatred the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately, Arizona has become the capitol. We have become the mecca of prejudice and bigotry." Reported on CNN.com

"The New York Post spoke with Rep. Giffords' father:

The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.
'Yeah,' he told The Post. 'The whole Tea Party.'"

~http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ariz_congresswoman_shot_in_head_YFTvsurRHy5OWGSRKnuK8J#ixzz1AVxF6SBe

"The New York Times' Paul Krugman said:

“You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead.” But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47252.html#ixzz1AVyFjReV

Conservative talk show hosts and politicians are busy denying they have ever used language that could be easily misconstrued as threatening. But they've been doing it, and profiting from it, for years. Here's what Glen Beck said nearly 6-years ago about filmmaker Michael Moore:

"I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,…No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out."
~Glenn Beck, May 17, 2005

In the wake of the murders, Fox News' Glenn Beck claims that he has never used violent rhetoric or done anything that could be construed as encouraging armed response. Ironically, he has done just that so often that his website actually shows him "in action" with a gun on the same page where he claims to love peaceful, non-incendiary means. The photo shows Beck posing with a pistol, as if ready for action, while wearing a business suit. He is not depicted as hunting, participating in a militia for the defense of the nation, or has having joined the military or a police force:

Responding to critics who called out her use of violent imagery and rhetoric, Sarah Palin ups the ante and claims that a "blood libel" has been created against her. She seems to have no knowledge of the meaning of "blood libel." Across America, Jews and non-Jews are outraged and offended:

"J Street is saddened by Governor Palin's use of the term 'blood libel.'...We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term 'blood libel' brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words."

~Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street (DC-based Jewish advocacy group)

"Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a 'blood libel' against her and others...Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today...[her] invocation of a 'blood libel' charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction."

~David A. Harris, President, National Jewish Democratic Council

Right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh claims that Democrats support the heinous murderer, Jared Loughner, who assassinated a federal judge, attempted to assassinate a Congresswoman, and executed 5 others, including a little girl and 3 septuagenarians at a Democratic-hosted event:

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country.

~Rush Limbaugh

A democrat who used similarly vile and violent rhetoric is called out by a left-wing publication. It's stark contrast to the total support for violent rhetoric that right-wing publications give to right-wing politicians and pundits:

"it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation."

~Former Congressman Paul Kanjorski [D-Penn.]

In response, the Huffington post writes, "a valid plea, [but Kankorski] had produced some extreme violent rhetoric of his own."

~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/paul-kanjorski-rick-scott-shot_n_807608.html

...by which they were referring to Kanjorski having called for the arrest, trial, and execution of Rick Scott [R-Fla., now Governor], whom Kanjorski believes stole billions of tax dollars through a complex, long-term Medicare fraud:

"they ought to have [Rick Scott] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government...He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

~Paul Kanjorski

Israeli Overkill Strikes Again

Civilian provocation or trigger-happy soldiers...what do you think?

About 600 "peace activists" from 20 countries were on board 6 yacht-type vessels carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid (wheelchairs, medicine, clothes etc.) to Gaza when a confrontation ensued with Israeli defense forces. At least 9 activists were shot dead, many more were wounded (including an American woman shot in the eye with a teargas grenade), and several Israeli soldiers suffered non-life-threatening injuries

Among the 600 peace activists were:

• 1 retired American ambassador in his 80s
• 1 member of the Israeli parliament
• 2 Egyptian lawmakers
• Volunteers from Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Sweden, and the U.S.
• 40 British citizens whom the British Foreign Office said were accompanying the aid

Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman has already come out on the record, saying that "the sole responsibility" for the incident lies with activists who have "chosen violence and confrontation."

It is difficult to understand, though, how the peace activists "chose" confrontation and violence.

By all accounts, the aid vessels were in international waters over 70 miles outside Israeli territorial waters when, according to Israeli Member of Parliament Hanin Zoabi, who was accompanying the aid flotilla, the Israeli Navy fired on the ships for 5-minutes before commandos rappelled from helicopters onto the decks of the ships. Zoabi says the passengers on board the ships were unarmed.

Did Israel believe the ships were smuggling arms into Palestinian territory, as has happened in the past?

It's unlikely, given the scenario. Not only is 600 passengers and a convoy of 6 ships obviously too big a group to be attempting anything sneaky, but the flotilla had in fact planned to reach Gaza in broad daylight the following day so that they could document the delivery.

Additionally, it's not like these were Iranian speed boats. The vessels were all from a friendly nation--Turkey, whom Israel trusts enough to sell weapons to, and which was the first Muslim country to recognize modern day Israel as an independent nation, just after Israel's founding.

Israel's rhetoric after the fact seemed aimed to tarnish the reputation and intention of the civilians accompanying the flotilla. Israel arrested the hundreds of peace activists, and has charged them with illegally entering Israel, which, if true, might give Israel more leeway in how it dealt with "intruders."

But those arrested did not enter Israel illegally. They did not even enter voluntarily.

As Ireland's Foreign Affairs Minister noted in his strenuous objection to the Israeli action, the civilians "did not enter Israel illegally; rather they were essentially seized from international waters, taken into Israel and asked to sign documents confirming that they entered illegally."

In an absurd proof that Israel knew nothing untoward was happening with the aid flotilla, after killing 9 and arresting 600, Israel actually allowed the aid the ships were carrying to be delivered to its intended destination. Palestinian officials have confirmed that five trucks were allowed into Gaza, carrying wheelchairs.

Perhaps most tellingly, Israeli Defense Forces spokesperson Major Avital Leibovitch accused the peace activists of having planned the conflict. Speaking on NPR's All Things Considered, Maj. Leibovitch claimed that the activists "waited for them [the Israeli commandos]. They planned this." Saying, "it's more than an attack. I describe it as a lynch because when you have one Navy Seal and 10 activists jumping on him trying to break his arms and legs, for me, it's a lynch."

Maj. Leibovitch did not explain how the peace activists might have lured the Israeli navy and its helicopter commandos over 70-miles beyond their borders, or how the civilians might have first engaged them in the skirmish.

It's interesting to note Maj. Leibovitch's incorrect use of the word "lynch." Anyone as fluent in English as the Major is, but who is familiar with the term lynch, would know that nobody ever says "it's a lynch," but rather, "it's a lynching." So it seems that the Major did not know the term on his own--that the term was new to him.

Perhaps Maj. Leibovitch was coached to invoke the word "lynch" on U.S. National Public Radio in an effort to strike a chord with a listening audience that is generally thought to be liberal, and sympathetic to demographics who have historically been the victims of lynching. But while NPR listeners may be left-wing, they are definitely intelligent, and they can see through a flimsy political excuse a mile away.

When you shoot at someone, then jump onto their property from a helicopter, and they fight back, you aren't being lynched; you're just being fended off.

As usual, Israel's general approach seems to be that occasionally, in the course of keeping Palestinians in their place, a civilian is accidentally and tragically killed through military action. But if that civilian, in the course of being accidentally killed, attempts to save himself and avoid his own accidental death by fighting back, then while his death may still be regrettable, as Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman has already said, "the sole responsibility" for the incident lies with the dead civilian who has "chosen violence and confrontation."

Obama Is 2nd U.S. President Born in Africa. Really!!!

Today I came across this very funny website, where you can generate a great-looking Kenyan birth certificate for anybody. Here's one that proves George W. was born in the same Kenyan hospital as Obama. Amazing coincidence! You can make your own, genuine Kenyan birth certificate at http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com.


****************************UPDATE: March 21, 2010******************

It's stupefying to realize that months later, the birthers, tea baggers, or whatever you want to call the idiots who believe this bunk, are still alive and in force. Jeeeeeeeez. Comically, the State of Hawaii has now proposed legislation in their State House to give their civil servants the authority to ignore the repetitive, money-sucking, time-wasting paperwork requests from these fools: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/03/17/hawaii-considers-legislation-to-ignore-birthers

Regarding "reverse racism" and the establishment of demographically distinct membership organizations

I wrote this in response to an interesting iReport on CNN that had prompted quite a few posters to raise that common complaint of racism/prejudice against membership organizations whose name indicates the demographic bulk of membership (e.g., NAACP, NOW etc.). In my post, I mention "white men" as a group simply because it is a pragmatic necessity of explaining the situation, and not because of anything intrinsic to white men. In another time and place, any group might play the role that in our recent history happens to have been played by men who were white.

I don't share many posters' views of "reverse racism," as it regards membership- and advocacy-groups like the NAACP. Although I understand from these posters' perspective what they are getting at, and I actually believe most such people are not trying to be disingenuous, I disagree. A lot.

The thing is, by default, most groups just are the "white guys' group." I mean, white guys had, what, 145-years in America to give women the vote, for example, but they didn't do it. Forget why for the moment; they just never did it. It required a bunch of women to get together, and self-organize as women, rather than people, to claim their rights.

Similarly, the people who comprised the Boards of every, single pre-gender/race-desegregation American university, at any moment could have decided to stop behaving so shamefully and admit blacks, women, Asians etc. But they just didn't. And as it happened, they were white guys. It required groups with "women" or "black" in their names to make higher education a legal option for their members.

With few exceptions, this is the way it works in our country. People lacking rights must agitate for their rights. By and large, they will not get them by waiting for people in power to correct wrongs out of a sense of righteousness or civic or moral obligation. It simply has been fact that the folks in a position of power to change things have been white men, and that in almost every case, they have not bothered to do the right thing until the disenfranchised/lacking-rights groups (be it black, women, Asian, gay, handicapped, whatever) have organized themselves into self-identifying advocacy groups to agitate for change.

Given our history, and the fact that only when these groups were formed did real change happen, it is naive to expect the demographics that formed the groups to now disband the groups. I mean, today's white woman makes 78-cents on the dollar for the same work, performed by a similarly-qualified white man, and for black women, it's even grimmer. This has been going on forever. It's just not right. But almost all major corporations continue to be owned and run by people who for better or worse are white men, and these same people, regardless of motivation, are not interested in proactively ensuring equality. So, unfortunately, we continue to need women's groups, black groups, Hispanic groups, gay groups etc. etc.

What if all these groups called "Black such-and-such" just took the "Black" out of their name, but did not change the composition of their membership? I doubt that would make it a ton better for the people who are opposed to such groups. Yet for tens of millions of Americans, this is what we see when we look at the Senate, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the CEOs of all the car companies, the CEOs of all the big banks, the White House etc. etc. We see groups that appear to be not only restricted membership groups, but restricted membership groups of the greatest power, and the membership in these groups is generally white and male.

Are the women all supposed to be just bowled over that we now have zero women presidents ever (!!!) of our country, and one black president? Are black Americans supposed to feel awesome about having 0 or 1 black senator? Are Hispanics supposed to be brimming with a feeling of equality because 1 Hispanic ever is going to the Supreme Court after basically being harangued for being proud of her heritage (and by the same old white guys that apologized in tears to the white, male Supreme Court nominee who was "unjustly" questioned for having been an activist against admitting intellectually qualified women to Princeton while he was himself enjoyed the privilege of studying there!)?

In reality, it is people who happened to be white and male who have taught everyone (including, frankly, the millions of progressive white males who agree with what I am saying) the lesson that if you want to be treated equally, you need to band together with others in your demographic, and make an enormous stink about it or you will be swept under the carpet.

If a time comes when people proactively intervene on one another's behalf, across the board, regardless of gender, race, class, etc., and when nobody needs to ask for equal treatment in order to receive equal treatment, then these "women's goups" and "black groups" and all the rest will likely fade away. But to expect women and minorities to lead the way by dissolving their groups first, and then enjoying the ensuing white, male love is a bit rich.

Are we safer now than we were immediately after 9/11, or have we just been lucky?

This is a piece I originally published on Helium.com in 2007. It continues to be the most highly-ranked Helium article on this topic, so it may be worth re-publishing here even if circumstances have changed considerably in the past 1 1/2 years.

America is not safer today than it was immediately following the attacks of September 11th. While many Americans, as well as certain branches of America's government, may be more aware of security than they previously were, the steps our nation has taken during the past 6 years [now 7+ -ed] have set the stage for long-term security threats to America and its citizens at home and abroad.

Relative safety must be examined in terms of both our efficacy in defending against a security threat, and the existence of such threats.

Following the first Gulf War of 1991, the security threat to America increased greatly. While the threat was understood at high levels of government, America's ability to mount an effective defense was hampered by partisan bickering, bureaucratic red-tape, and frankly, near total disinterest in the topic by the American population at-large.

Simultaneously, anti-American and anti-Western sentiments grew pervasively, enabling Islamic fundamentalists to make easy inroads among poor, disaffected Muslim youth-especially in the Middle East, South Asia and Britain.

In 1993, when the World Trade Center was first bombed, Americans missed a critical opportunity to improve their security situation, either by improving actual defense, or by learning about the nature and origin of the threat, and perhaps acting strategically to decrease those threats.

By the time the events of 9/11 unfolded, 10 years had passed during which America had hardly defended against the security threat, and the existence of threats had greatly increased. Following that tragic day, the tendency of Americans to wonder "Why us?" underscored how dangerous the situation had become. Most Americans seemed to have completely forgotten the original WTC bombing, and to be woefully unaware of the atmosphere that had been developing outside the U.S. for many years.

Since 9/11, America has done much to ramp up domestic security and keep physical threats at bay. Although some of these efforts have arguably weakened core aspects of American democracy, they have likely helped to stop potential attacks on American soil. Substantive proof, however, is lacking, since the government has declined or refused to divulge almost any salient details of foiled plots.

During the same time, anti-American sentiment spread swiftly following the second Gulf War. The massive outpouring of global support for America in the wake of 9/11, and the near universal support for America's military campaign in Afghanistan, were squandered terribly as the U.S. became inextricably tangled in the Iraq debacle-a conflict for which there is virtually no remaining support, either domestically or in other nations.

It is this unparalleled dislike-even hatred-of America that is the greatest threat to our safety. America cannot realistically surround itself with a wall. Nor can it purge those within its borders, be they citizens or not, who wish harm to Americans.

The only real way for Americans to enjoy long-term freedom and security is to seek to understand, and then to strategically reduce and eliminate, the causes of anti-Americanism.

Unfortunately for Americans, it has been impossible to make progress in this direction, and for this, we have only ourselves to blame. Because influential members of the government and the media insist on presenting this approach in the context of a moral judgment on America, it is impossible to get down to the business of strategy. But strategic management of America's image has nothing to do with whether one agrees or disagrees with terrorists and extremists. In fact, it is absurd even to give such people a footing for dialog. But it is a terrible shame, and a failure of our innovative national spirit, that we cannot manage to craft a strategy that increases our critical understanding of the world beyond America, and improves the international standing of America to its former high level.

Until now, we have been lucky to escape another attack of mass-destruction. But experts seem to agree that it is a matter of "when," and not "if," another attack will occur. Luck eventually runs out.