Author: catnip

The House is set to discuss a resolution today that serves to 1) provide legal justifications for the administration’s terrorist financing investigation methods 2) rebuke the New York Times and other newspapers for reporting the bank records (SWIFT) story and 2) legally mute the media from publishing any classified information.

Via the NYT:

The resolution says Congress “expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs.” Democrats are proposing a variant that expresses support for the treasury program but omits the language about the news media.

It seems to me (IANAL) that such a move would violate the first amendment which guarantees freedom of the press and that passage of such a bill would open up the strong possibility of a legal challenge. Surely no media enterprise, not even FOX, could support such a serious gag law.

(see update below which asserts that the resolution is not legally binding)

The wording of the actual bill extensively lays out legal justifications for the administration’s use of its methods for tracking terrorist financing. One has to wonder why the House would even consider such a bill as being necessary if it so firmly believes in the legality of the program. It’s just another rubber stamp effort by the congress to assert the authority of the president.

The fact that there are anti-espionage laws on the books as well would also seem to preclude the need for such a bill. Thus, the main motive for this resolution is to attack the press. Have congresspeople considered that the Bush administration itself leaks favourable classified information to the press whenever it wants to pump up its war propaganda efforts? Would the media also be blocked from printing those stories? Apparently so.

This is nothing but an attempt by Republicans to bring the hammer down on a media machine that has finally found its spine and has begun doing its job – informing the public of all aspects of the administration’s conduct.

To blight that voice now would be seen as a huge threat to freedom and civil liberties to anyone who actually cares about those quaint aspects of American life anymore and if the American people collectively have any self-respect left, they ought to oppose efforts like this at every turn.

You can watch the debate online this afternoon on C-SPAN’s site.

UPDATE: According to CNN, this resolution will not have any legal force. In other words, it is a purely political move. Haven’t these guys got anything better to do with their time? Wankers.

(crossposted from liberal catnip)

UPDATE: The resolution has passed.

Via The Independent, a doctor who works at Gitmo and spoke anonymously to reporters at the newspaper blames Red Cross protocols for not allowing the prompt discovery of the recent suicide victims at the facility:

He said medical personnel examined the detainees some 10 minutes after they were found and “did everything we could” to revive them. He suggested that American guards might have noticed the detainees sooner had the prison not been following International Red Cross recommendations, including how dark their cells should be at night. “If we did everything the Red Cross wanted, there would be very little that we could do to keep detainees alive short of putting them in a strait-jacket,” he said.

“Every time we give them something to make their lives easier, they use it against us by trying to harm themselves.” Since the deaths, the military is guarding against future suicides by only giving out bed sheets and blankets during sleeping hours and monitoring detainees in their cells every three minutes.

Despite the obvious need to change the guards’ monitoring techniques, the same doctor also said that he agreed with Admiral Harry Harris’s assertion that the suicides were politically motivated – an act of ‘asymmetrical warfare’ – because the doctor says he has determined that the detainees were not depressed prior to the incidents.

The doctor suggested the examinations, performed one to two weeks before the suicides on 10 June, supported assertions by military officials that the prisoners killed themselves as a political act – not because they were despondent about their prolonged detention.

A lot can change in ‘one to two weeks’, especially in an environment like Gitmo where detainees are held indefinitely and have no idea what the future holds for them.

The doctor said there have been no suicide attempts since the deaths on 10 June, but there have been several incidents of detainees harming themselves, such as cutting themselves with paint chips or beating their heads against walls.

One can only conclude, according to the doctor’s logic, that those detainees were also just making political statements.

Sidebar: Yes, I’ve actually posted two diaries here today – a very unusual move – but this story must be seen far and wide.

(crossposted from liberal catnip.)

This is a diary with questions – not answers. Far be it for me, a Canadian with no right to vote in US elections, to determine what my neighbours to the south should do in November when they go to the polls -especially when I don’t know the ins and outs of supporting individual candidates that you know far more about than I do.

Because of that, I’m looking at the broader picture.
Over at my blog I just wrote two posts about the Bush administration’s attacks on the freedom of the press. That, coupled with a lack of congressional oversight of the president, leaves me deeply disturbed – especially considering the long erosion of civil rights in your country under an administration that exists soley for its own power; an administration so corrupt that America will suffer decades in order to heal the rifts created by a destructive political machine that has so venomously divided your country in the name of “war” and that has lied repeatedly to make that situation a harsh reality.

America – the ideal – is in danger.

Now, my main question is this: what ought to be the determining factor in how people on the left vote this November?

I have long been opposed to people like kos who claim that the only consideration ought to be winning. And now I find myself asking if I was wrong. (This is not intended to be a diary about him. This is about strategy.)

I am an ideological liberal, but I am also a practical idealist. There are some ideals I absolutely refuse to surrender and I would not expect others to do so either.

But… and that is a huge word in this current political atmosphere, how can those ideals and the reality of a country in danger be meshed and resolved in order to attain Democratic control in congress? That control is absolutely essential if your country is to begin to heal. And, for those of you whose allegiances live with other parties, such as the Greens, the sad reality for you is that the Democrats are the only party that has any sort of realistic chance of overturning Bush’s policies and holding him to account.

It’s a very uncomfortable place for many Americans who want to remain true to their ideals to face. The Democrats are not the left-wing representatives that so many would like them to be. They may, in fact, never be that. What remains then is to answer the question: how can the Bush administration best be held accountable? The only reasonable answer at this point to many is for Democratic candidates to win so they can use subpoena powers to investigate Bush.

So, you on the American left are stuck in a very difficult position. There have been many conversations in the blogosphere about whether a pro-life Democrat should be supported; about whether a longshot (netroots-supported) Democrat even has a chance to unseat a Republican; about the best strategy to follow. (And, yes, Lieberman has to go – no doubt about that since he would just put up obstacles to hold Bush accountable for anything).

I’m not sure I’ve been able to get the pulse of where my American friends are at. That’s why I’ve written this.

Do you reject ‘winning for the sake of winning’, preferring to stick to your purely ideological guns? And, is that a realistic strategy? (I’m just asking. You have the information to be the judges.)

Should winning be the sole focus? Can the Democrats win and stick to their quasi left-wing (centrist) ideology? Or, is it enough that more seats are won solely to have the power to investigate Bush?

These are hard questions and, yes, they’ve been debated endlessly. In the end though, what is the consensus? Are people like kos 100% wrong or can a reasonable compromise be found that will satisfy most everyone?

This is an absolutely crucial election. Give Bush two more years of unchecked power and who knows where your country is headed?

What is your main concern and how do you, personally resolve it?

Thank you.

Update: I forgot that I can add a poll here, so here it is:

Do you ever lay awake at nite, listening to the rain, safe in your bed, secure in your house and wonder about others who lay and listen to the rain as well?

A child soldier in Colombia who just fired a gun the first time that day; a woman in Congo who was raped earlier that evening; a sister who just lost her 5-year old brother in a bombing in Iraq; a woman in China who works in a factory and dreams of freedom and a large family; a man in Darfur whose family was slaughtered last week; a daughter in Canada who worries about her dad fighting in Afghanistan; a child prostitute in Thailand who will only have a brief reprieve; an overworked Japanese man who no longer has time for his family; your neighbour down the street who has just been beaten by his wife; a homeless woman in Toronto forced to sleep in a tent made of blankets; a boy in LA whose brother was shot in a gang fight; an immigrant fleeing from extreme poverty in Honduras laying in a field; a child living in a tin shack in the ghettos of Jamaica; a Muslim man who lays dying in an alley after being stabbed in Paris…

All who lay in what is their ‘bed’ for the nite…listening to the rain…wondering what tomorrow will bring.

Do you ever wonder about them?

I do.

(crossposted from my blog)

Linton F Brooks, Bush’s appointee in 2003 for Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security / Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration informed a congressional hearing on Friday that “A computer hacker stole sensitive information on 1,500 people working for the nuclear-weapons unit of the Energy Department, but neither the theft victims nor high officials were notified for nine months.”

The theft, at a National Nuclear Security Administration center in Albuquerque, involved names, Social Security numbers, birth dates and information on where the people worked and their security clearances.

The leak, on the heels of a much larger breach in the Veterans Affairs Department, is sure to raise new alarms about government’s cybersecurity and may provide Democrats more grist to attack the competence of the Bush administration.

The disclosure of the breach and the fact that Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman and his top aides were not told for months, prompted outrage at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee on oversight and investigations. Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas and chairman of the committee, told Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the nuclear security agency, that he should resign.

“And I mean like 5 o’clock this afternoon, if it’s possible,” Mr. Barton said. “I don’t see how you could meet with the secretary every day the last seven or eight months and not inform him.”

Heckuva job, Brooksie! Give that man the Medal of Freedom.

(crossposted from liberal catnip)

In 1999, the Associated Press ran what would later become a Pulitzer prize winning article about an incident that had occured during the Korean War, almost 50 years prior, at a place named No Gun Ri.

At the time, allegations were made via a declassified memo that soldiers had been ordered to shoot approaching refugees from South Korea. The AP’s story was met with criticism by other news outlets but the Pentagon took up an investigation.

The Pentagon concluded that the No Gun Ri shootings, which lasted three days, were “an unfortunate tragedy” — “not a deliberate killing.” It suggested panicky soldiers, acting without orders, opened fire because they feared that an approaching line of families, baggage and farm animals concealed enemy troops.
link

The reality of the situation, however, is quite different from the conclusions of the Pentagon’s findings.

The soldiers were following orders from the US ambassador to Seoul.

More than a half-century after hostilities ended in Korea, a document from the war’s chaotic early days has come to light — a letter from the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, informing the State Department that American soldiers would shoot refugees approaching their lines.

The letter — dated the day of the Army’s mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950 — is the strongest indication yet that such a policy existed for all U.S. forces in Korea, and the first evidence that that policy was known to upper ranks of the U.S. government.

“If refugees do appear from north of US lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot,” wrote Ambassador John J. Muccio, in his message to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

The letter reported on decisions made at a high-level meeting in South Korea on July 25, 1950, the night before the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment shot the refugees at No Gun Ri.

But Muccio’s letter indicates the actions of the 7th Cavalry were consistent with policy, adopted because of concern that North Koreans would infiltrate via refugee columns. And in subsequent months, U.S. commanders repeatedly ordered refugees shot, documents show.

The Muccio letter, declassified in 1982, is discussed in a new book by American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz, who discovered the document at the U.S. National Archives, where the AP also has obtained a copy.

The Army report’s own list of sources for the 1999-2001 investigation shows its researchers reviewed the microfilm containing the Muccio letter. But the 300-page report did not mention it.

Asked about this, Pentagon spokeswoman Betsy Weiner would say only that the Army inspector general’s report was “an accurate and objective portrayal of the available facts based on 13 months of work.”

There are varied estimates on the number of civilians shot.

When Bill Clinton was president he offered an apology for the incident and established a memorial scholarship fund.

Survivors said U.S. soldiers first forced them from nearby villages on July 25, 1950, and then stopped them in front of U.S. lines the next day, when they were attacked without warning by aircraft as hundreds sat atop a railroad embankment. Troops of the 7th Cavalry followed with ground fire as survivors took shelter under a railroad bridge.

The late Army Col. Robert M. Carroll, a lieutenant at No Gun Ri, said he remembered the order radioed across the warfront on the morning of July 26 to stop refugees from crossing battle lines. “What do you do when you’re told nobody comes through?” he said in a 1998 interview. “We had to shoot them to hold them back.”

Just following orders…

Since that episode was confirmed in 1999, South Koreans have lodged complaints with the Seoul government about more than 60 other alleged large-scale killings of refugees by the U.S. military in the 1950-53 war.

The Army report of 2001 acknowledged investigators learned of other, unspecified civilian killings, but said these would not be investigated.

Meanwhile, AP research uncovered at least 19 declassified U.S. military documents showing commanders ordered or authorized such killings in 1950-51.

In a statement issued Monday in Seoul, a No Gun Ri survivors group called that episode “a clear war crime,” demanded an apology and compensation from the U.S. government, and said the U.S. Congress and the United Nations should conduct investigations. The survivors also said they would file a lawsuit against the Pentagon for alleged manipulation of the earlier probe.

Justice takes a very long time indeed if it is, in fact, ever realized in matters of war.

The Pentagon’s report on No Gun Ri can be found here.

Crossposted from liberal catnip.

Canada’s National Post [ed. note: the story has now disappeared] (see update below) reported on Friday that a new law has been passed in Iran that would require all non-Muslims to wear colour-coded “badges” to identify which religious group they belong to. But the veracity of that story is far from conclusive.

A quick Google news search reveals that no other major media outlets are carrying this story. Instead, the links mostly go to blog or news sites that have reacted in horror to the National Post article. To this point, there has not been any other independent verification.

PM Stephen Harper only said the claims “might be true”, but an Israeli reporter and expert told a Montreal radio station that the reports are false.

The National Post is sending shockwaves across the country this morning with a report that Iran’s Parliament has passed a law requiring mandatory Holocaust style badges to identify Jews and Christians.

But independent reporter Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli Middle East expert who was born and raised in Tehran, says the report is false.
“It’s absolutely factually incorrect,” he told The New 940 Montreal.
“Nowhere in the law is there any talk of Jews and Christians having to wear different colours. I’ve checked it with sources both inside Iran and outside.”

“The Iranian people would never stand for it. The Iranian government wouldn’t be stupid enough to do it.”

Note: I’m crossposting this from my blog because this story is spurning mass hysteria in the right-wing blogosphere with the predictable comparisons being made to Nazi Germany. This must be treated with caution and with the consideration that it may just be pumped up Bush propaganda to justify an attack on Iran. It is also worth noting that Canada’s National Post is notoriously right-wing.

UPDATE: Canada.com, which actually hosts the National Post online is now carrying this story from the Canadian Press:

OTTAWA (CP) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to condemn Iran on Friday for an anti-Semitic law that appears not to exist.

Harper seized on a report in the National Post newspaper that Iran’s hardline government would require Jews and Christians to wear coloured labels in public.

The prime minister couldn’t vouch for the accuracy of the report, but said Iran was capable of such actions, which he compared to Nazi practices.

[…]

But western journalists based in Iran said they knew of no such law being passed. And Iranian politicians – including a Jewish legislator in Tehran – were infuriated by the Post report, which they said was false.

Politician Morris Motamed, one of about 25,000 Jews who live in Iran, called the report a slap in the face to his minority community.

“Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament,” Motamed told the Associated Press.

“Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here.”

Another Iranian legislator said the newspaper has distorted a bill that he presented to parliament, which calls for more conservative clothing for Muslims.

“It’s a sheer lie. The rumours about this are worthless,” Emad Afroogh told Associated Press.

Afroogh’s bill seeks to make women dress more traditionally and avoid Western fashions. Minority religious labels have nothing to do with it, he said.

“The bill is not related to minorities. It is only about clothing,” he said.

“Please tell them (the West) to check the details of the bill. There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill.”

UPDATE: The National Post has moved their original story. It can now be found here.

Since writing last nite about the new revelations of torture in Iraq, I find myself in a very familiar place. It’s that place where no other news of the day can even begin to inspire in me the passion to write, because so much of it seems so inconsequential in comparison to this continuing inhumanity that is, for the most part, ignored on a very wide scale.
Just as people turn away from knowing too much about the catastrophe of genocide in Sudan,  along with similar stories that reach us day after day about unholy uses of power around the world that leave our fellow human beings as mere shells where spirits once soared, we do so because our pain is just too great when we feel so incredibly helpless to effect any change. It’s an understandable reaction. To immerse oneself in the reality to any great extent seems to be the luxury of those directly involved in providing aid to those who suffer.

The acknowledgment of suffering has its own saturation point. Witness the grief for the victims of the Indonesian tsunami or the horror after viewing the situation in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina. It seems that many think that once they have done their part by donating money or expressing their outrage, the only thing left is to let someone else sort out the details. Meanwhile, the survivors must cope for years as they literally get their houses back in order. More often than not, they rightfully feel forgotten.

And so it is with the victims of torture in Iraq.

In all of this, I need to remind myself that my fellow bloggers on the left may seem to have moved on at times when they simply post about the latest Republican scandal or the most recent poll numbers for candidates in the upcoming elections in the US but, in the whole scheme of things, the work that they do on a daily basis that contributes to support for greater human and civil rights via the push for true democratic values by aiming at retaking Democratic control of the congress cannot be seen in a vacuum. Their goal – my goal – is to inform people about the need for change and to encourage broader conversations about how that can be achieved.

The current power structure must be challenged and, while we must not rely too heavily on governments which move notoriously slowly – tangled in the bureaucracy they have created – we have to concede they have the power to effect policies that can and do reach the people who are suffering. Where they often fail is in their single-minded approach to grasping power for the sake of power itself – forsaking their duties as stewards of humanity and that is where individual citizen advocacy comes in.

No matter how hopeless or futile it may seem as we find ourselves wrapped in the pain of people we cannot ever personally know who live thousands of miles away, we all have a duty to express our deep concern and to support humanitarian organizations who do the direct work that we cannot. They exist not only to act on the victim’s behalf, but to act on behalf of the rest of us as well and they often do so in relative obscurity as we fight amongst ourselves over our political differences.

If we are unable to come together to end inhumane treatment because we are so selfishly focused on claiming the moral high ground, people will simply continue to be tortured, abused, raped, molested, wounded and killed and their fates will have gone unnoticed.

We are too far removed – emotionally, spiritually and intellectually.

One of the great failures of the large, community-based blogs that have become so popular in the past few years is the huge amount of time simply wasted on discussing ‘meta’ issues – concerns about the community structure or the personalities involved. They really should be renamed ‘me’ issues. On any given day, you can find thousands of comments on blogs like Daily Kos, Booman Tribune and My Left Wing that only serve the participants themselves: arguments about who is or isn’t on the ‘recommended list’, discussions about hurt feelings over ratings, intellectual exercises in ‘community development’, attacks on community members with differing viewpoints that challenge the conventional wisdom – all simply a colossal waste of time and energy.

None of these endless conversations has so far helped those communities to get beyond their problems. No one can know how these still new blogging communities will actually develop. What members fail to realize is that, simply allowing these forums to be what they are and to grow and change as they will – just as life ebbs and flows in unpredictable directions – would release them to focus on real life changes that directly impact the lives of the people they are fighting for who have been the victims of inhumanity.

There simply is too much emotional, spiritual and intellectual snobbery in these communities that diverts much needed focus from real world issues. The self-centered navel gazing comes at the expense of people who are subjected daily to horrific abuse in faraway countries and in their home countries as well. Before anyone chimes in with the idea that these communities can actually walk and chew gum at the same time, I’d challenge them to justify the imbalance of the energy expended on these meta issues as opposed to discussions about situations that impact peoples’ daily lives. Each of us only has a limited amount of time and energy each day with which to impact someone’s life. When those resources are wasted, they cannot be regained. Time is gone. Energy that could have been better spent can never be reclaimed.

What more would you have me do, you ask? I would respond simply by suggesting that some thought be given to the fact that all we really have is this moment. The only thing we really have control over is how we live this moment. The only impact we can measure is that affected by what we choose to do with this moment. And, if this moment is spent on insignificant issues about ‘me’, it is lost forever to those who need you to focus on them.

(crossposted from liberal catnip to Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. I do not post on Daily Kos.)

Once again I pop into BT to see what issues are up for discussion. I pop into Man Eegee’s diary and, while reading it, think I might just link to it over at my blog to promote the protests against the war.

And then, I read the comments.
Here’s the deal, people: (…and you can call me an intruder who only pops in when there’s a controversy if you like, but this happened quite by accident…maybe I’m psychic or something…)

1. Booman: you know I love you, but when someone gets banned, post an announcement with the reason ie. “stark was banned because she exceeded the 2 diary/day rule and refused to coelesce for the good of the community. When that limit is exceeded, others diaries are often missed”. Period.
2. Once Boo posts his message, respect his decision. Everybody wins.
3. Check your egos and anger towards each other at the door. Anger is a destructive emotion. Even continual anger towards Bushco will wear you down fast. Proceed with caution or you’ll be useless to the revolution.
4. Everybody wants the same thing here: a community that works; a community where progressives can meet and exchange ideas about issues in order to develop solutions. Be the left-wing intellectual elitists that you are (that’s snark) and talk about the issues – not each other.
5. Get mad at me for lecturing you if you need to let your anger out. I don’t care. I can take it and if it will help you treat each other better, I’m all for it.
6. Running a blog is hard. Booman needs your help. If you can’t offer that, as they say (and, as I did): get your own damn blog or find another community. If you’re not willing to do that, then you’d better be willing to make things work here if you plan to stay sane while the Republicans are still in power.
7. Focus.
8. Get humble, damnit. Contrary to the popular belief among the voices in your head, the world does not revolve around you.
9. Shit happens. Deal with it and move on when you’re done. Life is not like the movie Groundhog Day. You don’t get to do the same thing over and over until you do it right and there’s a happy ending. The reality is that you’ll just end up popping your head out of the ground and getting clubbed like the gophers in Caddyshack. Today is a new day. Do something differently that brings peace and happiness to your life instead of misery and angst (which is already provided in bulk via the Bush administration). Example: bashing Republicans=fun; bashing your community mates=not so much.

As usual, I’m long-winded. Oh well. My point is that diaries about the war and the economy and the poor ought to have 100+ comments. Diaries with infighting ought to slide right by.

Think about it: why are you here?

I will now go home to my blog and I will post the information about the protest, sans the link to ManE’s diary – unfortunately.

Don’t drag out the comments in this diary or I’ll have to come back here and lecture you again. And, neither you nor I want that to happen! Right??

P.S. You guys should be happy you don’t have right-wing nutbar trolls to deal with like I have over at my place. If you’d like some, however, I can send a few your way.

I pop into BT this morning to see if I can find out when the spying hearings are on and I find an endorsement by SusanHu and others of the completely offensive portrayal of the prophet Mohammed. How utterly disappointing and devastating.

Does the issue deserve discussion? Absolutely. Does that image deserve to be reprinted on a progressive, left-wing blog? Absolutely not.

Is this a free speech issue? Definitely. Are there acceptable limits on free speech? Absolutely. Free speech laws exist not only to provide people with the opportunity to voice their opinions, but also to protect those whose voices/opinions/beliefs may be marginalized to such an extent that they are then placed at risk. I’m proud to live in a country (Canada) that has hate speech laws so that those who choose to defame others to the extreme have no public voice. Let their hatred fester in their sick minds. It doesn’t deserve a public forum.
Liberals constantly berate right-wing extremists like Pat Robertson for his insane rantings because you know that his dangerous ramblings attract eager followers, yet it’s okay to support this portrayal of the prophet (remember this – Islam does not allow any images of Mohammed) by stating that it’s just some right-wing propaganda trick to garner support for a war on Iran? What kind of rationalization is that?

The fact that some Muslin extremists are reacting with violence ought not even be a factor here. This is offensive to all Muslims. Those extremists are just using this opportunity to cause violence. This is about the broader picture and I think it’s more than appropriate to recall the sick characterizations of Jews that fostered Hitler’s murderous campaigns when considering this issue.

This isn’t the free speech hill to die on. This is about understanding that respect for all people, regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, social status, disability etc is a core belief of liberals – at least it is for this liberal.

Since 9/11, the Muslim community and community leaders of all stripes have sought to foster understanding in the world of the real aims of Islam. It seems that some have yet to learn those lessons, despite years of education. Sadly, I find some of those people here.

Don’t respond with something like: ‘this has nothing to do with Islam; it’s about the protection of free speech’. That’s simply choosing denial over reality and if you claim to live in the ‘reality-based community’, take those blinders off because you have totally missed the point. This is about spreading yet another ugly and abhorrent distortion of the Muslim religion and that’s all it’s about. And if you believe that Muslims should give up their right to be protected from hate speech, then you must be prepared for your rights to be stripped away as well. Haven’t you had enough of that already? Or, will you simply just sit back and take it?

Many of you know what it’s like to feel utterly powerless in the face of those who seek to destroy your beliefs – no matter which category they fall into: abortion rights threatened? same sex marriage crushed by a constitutional amendment? racial status marginalized? privacy invaded? You fight against every effort to take away your equality. Why would you lay down and surrender when others rights are at stake? Is that what it means to be a liberal? That definitely is not what it means to this liberal.

Today, I find myself deeply saddened by these developments. Having listened to the incredibly inspirational speakers at Coretta Scott King’s funeral this week, I was struck by the fact that greatness is a calling that we are all born to hear. Only a few actually heed that call and take up the extraordinary challenges that greatness demands because the responsibilty is overwhelming. Greatness, however, does not occur in a vacuum. It must be surrounded with the love and support of others who are like-minded and equally bound to the cause. Humility ensures that we seek those people out and challenge those who would choose to set us back – always acknowledging that truth and an understanding spirit must be the ultimate goal.