Am I the only one lost somewhere between disbelief and anger at America’s reaction to the Rev. Wright ‘situation’? Are we really surprised that a black man who came of age in the 1950s harbors some resentment and, yes. anger, at the often glacial pace of America’s implementation of promises of equality offered up over forty years ago? No one is really so stupid as to be truly shocked to learn that many blacks are not one hundred percent content with the status of race relations in the United States; and if they are not really surprised, they must be feigning shock for political purposes. Now there’s a surprise for you….

Since you are so easily shocked, you better sit down. As a 48 year old white male who has lived his entire life in urban America (NYC, Boston & LA) I can say with some confidence that I would be far more militant in my anger than Rev. Wright if I was black and living in America. In fact, I would probably hunt white people for sport; you (we) deserve no better.

“The strike destroyed two houses killing three women and three children,…”

I sure hope we got the right women and children this time…. unlike the last dozen incidents of collateral damage due to USA strikes anywhere around the world. Hopefully this will finally make America safe so we can get back to the important things in life: fast food, the tabloids and the Home Shopping Network.   I just read the news three minutes ago, and I’ll be damned, but I feel safer already.

But in all seriousness, I’d really like to hear what the ‘televangelists’ have to say about this? Are innocent bystanders fair game according to the Bible? If we make an honest attempt at getting the ‘bad guys’, are we then immune from any fallout resulting from the fact that once again, we sent high explosives raining down on innocent women and children? 

I just heard the most remarkable series of back to back speeches imaginable. I was late getting out the door this morning and that allowed me to listen to GWB’s scatterbrained ruminations on everything from corporate responsibility (oxymoron?) to his vision for a green energy policy (hint: it involves drilling in Anwar…).   In addition to the failed logic and robotic repetition of neocon talking points, there was an overall sense that we were listening to someone who actually knew that 95% of what he was saying was absolute nonsense. I guess that Republicans place a high value on the ability to act stupid in a very convincing manner.

When I finally got in my car and on the road, I channel-surfed through the AM talk shows before switching over to listen to the FM non-commercial stations: college radio, NPR affiliates and various progressive stations. Although the right wing nut jobs would never admit it, much of the NPR programming is actually the closest thing to ‘fair and balanced’ news reporting that you will find on radio or TV.   On the other hand, a real outpost of the left resides over at KPFK, a station proud to proclaim its liberal bias.   This morning they were wrapping up one of their occasional ‘fund drives’ and I was just about to switch to another channel when the jock announced the next segment: five minute clip from Malcolm X’s famous “the ballot or the bullet” speech from 1964.   For lack of a better descriptive, let me just call it ‘political poetry.’   In contrast with the drivel leaking out of both sides of W’s mouth, the words of Malcolm X were both inspirational and challenging.

My favorite part of the clip we heard this morning began when he suggested that singing “We shall overcome” was of little true value. In fact it was time to “stop singing and start swinging!” He mentioned that Cassius Clay didn’t get to be heavyweight champion by singing, he got there by swinging, and it was time for all ‘black folk’ to start doing the same.

Malcolm’s commanding presence, his powerful use of language and his complete confidence added up to a truly riveting experience. Even a middle of the road independent would have a hard time not being motivated by this speech. Any dedicated lefties were likely inspired to re-dedicate themselves to the struggle. Personally, I know exactly who I’d like to take a swing at, and hopefully it would prevent him from making anymore harebrained proposals about drilling our way out of the energy crisis.

For some unfathomable reason, my dear, departed mother considered WFB to be an ideal role model for a male child growing up in post WW2 America. Before National Geographic and the other ‘educational’ magazines started showing up in the mailbox in my name courtesy of gift subscriptions from assorted aunts and uncles, our home regularly received two magazines: Life and National Review.    I was raised in a home where, in the very early 1960s, mom was forced to split her political enthusiasm between WFB and our first Catholic President, JFK. Although these two stood on opposite sides of many of the crucial policy debates of the day, neither could do any wrong in her mind. A few years later, for an hour every week, my father’s westerns and my sitcoms were pre-empted by “Firing Line’ featuring the man with the reptilian tongue.

At the time, my political knowledge was limited to what I absorbed watching the evening news: I knew that WFB was on the wrong side, but I had no idea that he *was* the wrong side. In my limited experience, anyone over twenty-five who also happened to be a Republican belonged to the “them” team in the great ‘us versus them’ divide splitting our country in half. It would be another decade before I realized that WFB was responsible for articulating many of the Right’s more cogent arguments. His conclusions were universally dead wrong, but he could sure “throw words” as we used to say back then.

Mom’s interest in WFB was so strong that when our family was looking to relocate after my father’s retirement, we came very close to buying a small farmhouse adjacent to the Buckley estate in Sharon, CT.   I left for college around that time and managed to avoid reading a single issue of NR for many years. But I’ll admit to watching Firing Line a few times during the haziest years of the nineteen seventies; I probably took a small amount of illicit glee at watching WFB while under the influence of illegal (and vaguely socialist) drugs.  

It was years later while visiting for the holidays that I was first introduced to WFB’s Blackford Oakes series of ‘spy novels.’ The hero stood firmly against everything I believed in. Castro, Che, socialism, and be bop were the controversies that divided Left and Right during the timeline covered by the Oakes books I read; roughly 1950 through 1965. Even though the protagonist got it wrong on all of these (and many more) hot button issues, I was a sucker for a well written Cold War spy story. (as were most people alive during that era.)

As the Reagan era (and Reagan….) faded into memory, Buckley seemed to disappear as well. There would be the odd editorial in the NY Times, or a brief appearance on one of Firing Line’s countless imitators, but I always viewed these later glimpses of WFB to be little time capsules. He just didn’t seem to be “of this time” and I had so many memories of him from the 1960s that I saw no need to keep up with his more recent life.

Then I clicked on the little house avatar on my web browser to access CNN after finishing a two hour meeting earlier today. There was the announcement of his passing. As a radical leftist who questions the humanity of anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the positive aspects of socialism, I tried to file away the announcement as inconsequential; the passing of an enemy. But in my mind, the ties between WFB and my mom were too great to ignore. I’ve spent most of the past few hours reminiscing about my early life and my family. This is an all too rare occurrence, and for that, if *nothing* else, I thank WFB and offer him a non-judgmental RIP.

Hillary  would have a similarly non-substantial impact on the country.  Her foreign policy would be purposely blustery to ward off any talk of her being soft on our ‘enemies.’ Any chance of historic advances, like normalizing relations with Cuba, or publicly denouncing the worst of our past interferences in other countries would be killed off by her team’s over reliance on chasing public opinion instead of leading the country toward a better future.  Like her husband, she would govern more like a moderate Republican (circa 1965) than anything that might be mistaken for liberal or even progressive.  Why is it that Republicans can go on national TV and rant about their hard core conservative values, while leading Democrats avoid the word liberal the same way Bush and Cheney’s generation of Republicans avoided military service.?

Are Republicans so fearful that they are willing to forsake the Bill of Rights in search of some imagined nominal increase in security?  I’ve never seen so many adults suffer such an overwhelming and irrational terror:  Is Al Qaeda incredibly gifted at instilling fear in their more feeble brained foes, or are most Republicans just remarkably weak, helpless pussies?  (Do I need to include the quote attributed to Ben Franklin concerning the tradeoff between liberty and security?)

The “American century” ended eight years ago.  Time for this dim-witted, overgrown bully of a country to go home and leave the world in the hands of a smarter, more capable guardian.  We should all be glad that America had such a short reign as the dominant imperialist, the earth couldn’t survive much more of this abuse.

Obama seems like a swell guy, but I don’t see any truly bold, radical changes on the horizon.  His one chance to prove himself before the election:  announce that eight term Congressman from Chicago, Bobby Rush, will be named to a senior cabinet post.  If Obama has the guts to announce that the former Deputy Defense Minister of the Black Panther Party will head up his cabinet, I might just stick around….

 Even during the worst excesses of the Nixon administration, most of us were still proud to be Americans. While Vietnam burned through any goodwill we might have stockpiled earlier in the 20th century, Americans were still secure in the knowledge that our country stood for the correct position on most major issues. From ‘separate but (not) equal’ to My Lai to COINTELPRO, the country owned up to its mistakes, and reaffirmed that while we may have faltered, we knew the difference and would strive to be better.

But now, America has lost any pretense of representing ‘truth, justice, and the American way.” The Bush White House comes right out and proclaims that:

“greed is good”,

striking first (aka “sucker punch diplomacy”) has replaced a strong defense,  

torture is just fine if the ends justify the means, and

science is for queers and commies; real Americans get all they need to know from “the book”.

 If I can obtain a work visa almost anywhere in western Europe,I’m outta here…..

Once we get past the limited selection of candidates, I really can’t complain about the outcome of today’s primaries.  As a registered Democrat, I viewed the Republican primary from the perspective of which candidate would be easier to beat in November.  Additionally, as a realist, I also considered which Republican would do the least damage as President, if the election went badly. 

A Huckabee candidacy would be both hilarious and an endless opportunity for critics of all types, but the Republicans won’t provide us with a gift of this magnitude. (No matter how much we all relish the thought of debate questions concerning dinosaurs as pets…) 

While McCain might prove to be a formidable candidate, I feel that the country could survive a single term McCain presidency.  Thinking about how four years in the White House ages even the most obsessive workaholics, the 72 year old McCain will be ready for the old sailor’s home after one term.  I believe that a Congress with stronger Democratic majorities in both houses would be able to stifle just about any major legislation proposed by McCain.  And for all of his “100 year war” nonsense, I honestly believe that the former POW will be more restrained than any other Republican candidate when it comes to actually putting our soldiers in harms way.  (His stand against torture confirms that he can be trusted to follow his own beliefs, regardless of his party’s efforts to align behind an indefensible, purely ideological position.)  If their nonstop complaining can be taken seriously, the far right pundits claim that McCain will have a hard enough time dragging conservative Republicans to the polls in November that they may very well defeat themselves.

Romney is the dangerous wild card: history indicates that he is open to backing any position that helps his candidacy.  He has the worst (most frightening) traits of Reagan in that he appeals to people who have no logical reason to like the man. He smiles easier than Bill Clinton, but without even the pretense of sincerity. His “business acumen” only proves that he could do more damage in four years than GWB could in a lifetime.   While he appears an easy mark for the Democrats, I just have horribly bad feelings about him; and the sudden rush to his side by the worst of the far right lunatic fringe only confirms my concerns.   If I had to choose a highlight from tonight’s results, it would be the effective end of the Romney candidacy.

Back home in the Democratic party, we were choosing between the lesser of two evils.  I was an Edwards backer, as he was the only one of the three “serious” candidates to openly address the severe economic inequalities responsible for most of America’s social problems.  With Edwards gone, my choice is based on the reverse of the logic I used with the Republicans.  With Hillary and Barack, I’m siding with the unknown potential versus the well known limitations.  I don’t need to discuss Clinton; we all know everything about her.  With Obama, I am hoping that he is playing hard to the center for political reasons.  But on the day of his inauguration, the real Obama will be revealed.

Eight term Illinois Congressman, and Obama supporter Bobby Rush joins Obama onstage.  He removes his overcoat to reveal a black leather car coat.  He dons a black beret and dark sunglasses; Rush the co-founder of the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther Party will lead the Obama cabinet. From the rear of the stage comes Angela Davis, Bobby Seale, David Hilliard, Elaine Brown, Flores Forbes…

If I believed in God, I would sell my soul if Obama would reveal himself to be a radical who conned white America to win the presidency.  This is my dream for an America we could all be proud of.

A lead story on CNN this morning concerned the FBI’s plans to award a one billion dollar contract for developing a nationwide database of biometric data.  Iris scans, palm prints, scars & tattoos, and facial recognition techniques will join the existing fingerprint database.  To its credit, the article mentions the problems tens of thousands of Americans have experienced since the government deployed the “no fly” list at airports.  This new database will result in exponential growth of false hits.  However, even if this system worked flawlessly, when did any of us agree to this level of intrusive spying on American citizens?  Fortunately, the ever-reliable American Civil Liberties Union has led the initial resistance to this plan by our government to monitor our lives 24/7.  But this battle does not need to be fought only in the courts.  Every one of us has the ability to actively participate in the struggle to resist government spying. 

Most of us pass dozens of private, corporate or government “security” cameras in our daily travels.  If we would each take responsibility for accidently damaging just one of these cameras, this intrusive assault on America would be set back to the point where they might have to re-think their plan to spy on all of us.  If not now, when?  How much longer will you remain passive in the face of a government gone mad in the name of “security”?  Somewhere, Osama is sipping tea and reading CNN.com and laughing his a$$ off.  Forget anything Harry Reid said; this ongoing “security” madness proves that we have already lost the war on “terror”.

part two – Democracy in the streets, and under them

As mentioned earlier, the important ideas were not being discussed inside the Kodak Theatre; fortunately, the hoard of media crews covering the debate were treated to real participatory democracy outside on Hollywood Blvd.  There, several hundred demonstrators made it very clear that Obama and Clinton were not advocating the wholesale changes necessary for our country to reclaim her former greatness.  Unfortunately, the news media will limit coverage of the protests to a few seconds of video showing the most outrageously attired demonstrators, while completely ignoring the issues advocated by the protest groups.   Only a few dozen of LAPD’s finest and the crowds passing by had the privilege of listening to the demonstrators as they held court outside the Hollywood & Highland shopping mall for the duration of the debate taking place inside.

Any good protest brings out counter-demonstrators and this one was no different; the single loudest individuals were the lone Huckabee supporter screaming about the ‘end of days’ while second place went to the Ron Paul supporter with his “no taxes” refrain.  The largest protest group was led by the ANSWER-LA organization while a smaller, but very determined group of World Can’t Wait folks put on a remarkable display of torture themed street theatre.  The WCW gang was also the most confrontational, getting up in the face of any right wing counter demonstrators to argue their points nose to nose. (it was remarkably refreshing to see that kind of borderline rage aimed at the ‘young earth’ crowd).

While the main group of ANSWER folks led a long running series of call and response chants aimed at the TV news reporters, the World Can’t Wait group was a little further down the Boulevard, where they had room for their anti-torture performance.  A half dozen prisoners in orange jumpsuits, blindfolded, handcuffed and looking suitably uncomfortable were then subjected to even more degradation.  A very strange, very tall women dressed up as the evil twin of the Statue of Liberty (lady Justice?) abused the poor prisoners in a series of humiliating ways.  For those who prefer a more literal representation of our country’s atrocities, one of the jumpsuit clad prisoners was then ‘water-boarded’ right there on the Walk of Fame.

As a fitting tribute to the loss of civil liberties that we have given up so easily, all persons attending the protests / debates who arrived on the subway were subject to a rather invasive search by bomb sniffing dogs.  Every Red Line train was stopped one station prior to the Kodak Theatre and two dogs were slowly walked through each car and led by their handlers to sniff each and every passenger on the train.  I was standing directly in front of the rear doors to the last car and both dogs had to walk right past me to enter the train.  One shoved his nose right into my jacket pocket while the other aimed his snout right at my crotch.  I love dogs, and have two of my own, but I was ready to throw a raw steak toward the third rail if it would have gotten those two off of the train a second earlier.  To make things more nerve racking, no announcement was made to the passengers explaining the situation, so hundreds of teen and twenty-somethings were almost in tears as they expected to be busted by the ‘drug dogs’ searching the train.  One 17 year old kid standing next to me almost fainted as the dogs squeezed past me and rubbed up against his jeans.  When the dogs were halfway through the car, I explained that they were not drug dogs; and that the train ran directly under the Kodak Theatre so we were all being searched for explosives.  I was thrilled to see the kid’s attitude change from abject fear to indignation as he realized what he had been put through for no reason.  Hopefully, another resister had just been created.

part one - How to feign excitement for the next 9 months?

The democratic debate on Thursday was an incredibly sobering experience.  The presence of hundreds of protesters outside the Kodak Theatre served to highlight the minimal differences between the two remaining candidates and, more importantly, exposed the woeful shortcomings of each.  Listening to Obama and Clinton argue over minute differences within substantively similar positions was increasingly frustrating; especially when the protest groups outlined the important issues that should be at the head of the Democratic platform.

Where was the candidate espousing the key issues of our time?

• universal, single payer health care  (no compromises)
• an immediate and permanent end to imperialistic foreign policy and an immediate drawdown of our forces in Iraq; leading to full withdrawal as quickly as possible
• termination of the Patriot Act, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Homeland Terrorism Prevention Act and any other bills shoved through Congress under the guise of “protecting us” from evil.  For a party so fond of referencing the founding fathers, the Republicans have a tough time remembering what they actually said, specifically regarding restrictions on liberty in pursuit of security.
• an immediate end to torture by the USA or our surrogates, anywhere in the world; the closure of Guantanamo and the release of all prisoners who can not be charged with actual crimes in accordance with international laws
• an end to all unwarranted spying on United States citizens and full compliance with the rules of the FISA courts.

Remarkably, the media would have you believe that this platform is somehow ‘outside the mainstream’ when in fact, it just takes us back to America before the disaster of the Reagan/Bush years.  Universal health care, while not in force in the seventies, was considered inevitable and should have been deployed decades ago, along with the rest of the western world.  The other items on this list simply define the America we all grew up in.  How did we let Republicans destroy America without a fight?   And why are we now arguing about band-aid solutions when the country is on life support?  It took the reactionary right almost thirty years to ruin this country; we can’t afford to spend that much time undoing the damage.

I just don’t see Obama or Clinton leading us in the fight to take back America.  Make no mistake, the Republicans will not give up their spoils easily, we will need to take it from them and it will not be pretty. And that is why we need someone unafraid to take on these old fools and stomp their sorry asses all the way back to Texas.  (or wherever it is that evil comes from…)

(a continuing series…)

The current size and scope of our government’s repressive ‘law and order’ campaign dwarfs any previous anti-dissident efforts, even during the worst excesses of COINTELPRO.  Using the World Trade Center attack as justification for the ‘temporary’ suspension of long standing protections against government repression and persecution, the Bush administration has declared war against our previously sacrosanct Bill of Rights’ protections.  

Under the guise of ‘fighting terrorism’ the administration has used every available method to clamp down on dissent, unleash law enforcement from any type of restraint and generally whip the nation into a frenzy of ultra-nationalism.  The Left is guilty of many things, but one that is frequently ignored is how we did not take Bush’s admonition that “you are either with us or against us” seriously enough.  It was initially stated in the context of the international community and intended to let other countries know that they had to make a choice regarding the ‘war on terror’; standing by on the sidelines would not be tolerated.  But this statement has taken on far greater urgency and the brunt of the impact is being felt much closer to home.  In this, the last year of the Bush presidency, you are either part of ‘team America’ or you are her enemy; and this decision is not left to the leaders of foreign countries; every American citizen is being forced to take sides.   Not only are we expected to give up our protections from unreasonable search, seizure or detainment, but we are now expected to rat out our neighbors, monitor our coworkers and report ‘suspicious activity’ among our fellow travelers to ‘the authorities.’

Conservatives, long the champions of individual rights and freedom from unwarranted government interference, apparently see no irony in now applauding the administration’s move toward a police state.  Where is their opposition to laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the new Homegrown  Terrorism Prevention Act, both of which address activities which were already considered crimes? (criticizing proposed laws that address behavior already covered by existing laws has been a long time favorite right wing talking point – what has changed?  oh yeah – ‘911 changed everything!’)   Not surprisingly, any concern for individual rights was sacrificed in favor of all-powerful support for corporate interests.  (to be fair, the Homegrown Terrorism  Prevention Act also criminalizes thought, a first even for Republicans…)

In the face of this unprecedented onslaught against dissent, many on the Left seem unsure of how to respond.  The Vietnam era provides two contrasting examples worth considering.  Some activist groups openly challenged the government, hoping that their direct confrontation in the streets would encourage the poor and working classes to join the struggle.  In contrast, other groups advocated a less aggressive, more defensive posture against government repression and police brutality.  Knowing that the USA government has almost unlimited manpower and resources, declaring open war against it was (and is) foolhardy - even more so in the current climate where the administration has done such a successful job of instilling an “us against the world” outlook among many of the people.  Instead, a more appropriate model for opposition would be to stand up forcibly against government persecution; a model of direct resistance that can build public support by clearly delineating the government’s repressive methods.  Public support for anti-government direct action is much easier to achieve when the government is clearly the instigator and plainly guilty of violating the civil rights of the dissidents.  The Bush administration has completely ignored the failed lessons of “pre-emptive’ war.  As long as they continue to attack without provocation, (at home as well as abroad) we can use this against them, very effectively. 

One of the greatest benefits of modern technology for activists is the ubiquitous video camera.  The CopWatch [http://copwatch.org] organization is an excellent model for local activists to follow when encountering the police.  The key to the success of this type of community oversight of the police is that the cops must be made to understand that they are always under surveillance. If they decide to go after the guy with the camera, three other cameras will be capturing this effort at removing community oversight.  

This method of holding the police accountable is not limited to traffic stops and street corner protests.  Few criminals are held in greater contempt in this country than the “cop-killer”.  But if there is a single criminal type that deserves an even worse reputation it would be the out of control renegade police officer with blood on his hands.  And if the entire incident is captured on video, even the most police-friendly judges will have a hard time ruling in favor of lawless cops who have killed those they are sworn to protect.  In any rational assessment, a killer-cop is a far worse crime against the community than even the dreaded cop-killer; the media has just been reluctant to tell this side of the story.  

The press has become remarkably skilled at ignoring protest marches and demonstrations, especially if the event is even slightly to the left of mainstream opinion.   Whether they fear being labeled with the ‘liberal media bias’ tag by the clowns at Fox or if they just base their decision on ratings (peaceful marches don’t make for exciting TV), the major news stations do their best to ignore political demonstrations in this country; unless of course, the celebrity participation quotient is too high to overlook.

Fortunately for political activists of all types, the next ten months include a series of events where media coverage is guaranteed and political protest would be most appropriate.  I’m referring to the numerous events related to the 2008 Presidential elections, from the ongoing debates through to the national party conventions at the end of the summer.   At the top of the list are the Republican and Democratic candidate debates in California later this week.  Both are co-hosted by CNN and will be covered by all types of media.   Not surprisingly, the Republicans have chosen a location with extremely tight security, thereby shutting down any practical opportunity for protest – their debate is being held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, a location designed with bunker-like security precautions.   Fortunately, the Democrats are having their debate at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, the site of the annual Academy Awards ceremony.  This location, smack in the middle of Hollywood Blvd., is perfect for protest organizers looking to maximize media coverage. 

Although the debates guarantee a level of media coverage far higher than typical campaign stops, the countless appearances candidates have scheduled in support of the February 5^th “Super Tuesday” primaries also offer some great opportunities for creative protests.  Almost every campaign event has some level of media coverage, especially among the local media outlets, so these stops should be considered as potential protest sites.  And with campaign stops typically catering to the party faithful, security is often remarkably lax,   It is often possible for protesters to get right up in proximity to the candidate, making for irresistible video spots that local stations will play over and over again.

While the debates and campaign stops both offer interesting protest opportunities, nothing compares to the national party conventions in terms of historical significance or level of media coverage.  While the locations of this year’s conventions (Minneapolis for the Republicans, Denver for the Democrats) can’t compare to NYC or Los Angeles, there are some advantages to the smaller cities.  When the conventions come to town in a smaller city, they truly monopolize the city’s attention for the duration of the event.  That just doesn’t happen in a place like Los Angeles.  Protest organizers in Denver or Minneapolis can be certain that they won’t be overshadowed by a celebrity arrest or the latest news from Wall Street.  Also, while the smaller cities do their best to ramp up law enforcement capabilities and event security, they just don’t have the resources or experience of New York or even Washington DC.   This doesn’t mean that protesters will be able to run wild in the streets, only that the opposing sides will be a little more evenly matched.  This is most readily apparent in the weeks leading up to the conventions; in Los Angeles prior to the 2000 Democratic convention, protest organizing meetings were overflowing with middle aged white guys wearing brown shoes and  Members Only wind breakers.  Smaller cities can’t afford to allocate dozens of plain clothes detectives to this sort of intelligence gathering. 

With Iraq no closer to a final resolution, the Taliban having re-occupied most of Afghanistan and the economy roaring towards recession, the opportunities for protesters couldn’t be better.  Its up to each and every one of us to do our part to bring down the Bush administration: even if it takes until the end of his term, we need to send him packing in disgrace.  He’s earned it.