I’m busy. We don’t want somebody sitting back saying you’re not holding the mop the right way.

Why don’t you grab a mop? Why don’t you help clean up?

“You’re not mopping fast enough.”

“That’s a socialist mop.”

Grab a mop! Let’s get to work.  ~~President Barak Obama

The American people by a popular majority of more than eight million votes selected as their President a candidate who had been attacked by his Republican foe as a radical who “began his campaign in the liberal left lane of politics and has never left it.”

If only. In truth, Barack Obama was never the Mao in pinstripes that the rightwing attack machine conjured up. His record on Capitol Hill was never “more liberal than a Senator who calls himself a socialist [Vermont's Bernie Sanders],” as John McCain wheezed at the last stops of a dying campaign. And he has never even been in competition for the title bestowed upon him by former Senator Fred Thompson during last summer’s Republican National Convention: “the most liberal . . . nominee to ever run for President.”

Thompson had apparently forgotten not just George McGovern but Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, all of whom sought the Presidency as more left-leaning contenders than did Obama in 2008. And, as McGovern, an able historian, himself reminds us: Franklin Roosevelt put contemporary Democrats to shame when it came to embracing and advancing radical notions.

For we Liberals and Progressives, who find ourselves moving from the easy opposition stance of the Bush-Cheney horror to the more challenging position of dealing with the first Democratic President elected with something akin to a mandate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, it is important to see Barack Obama for who he is and his administration for what it can be. The best way to do this is by hearing the President in his own words.

After he secured the delegates required to claim the Democratic nomination, Obama found himself at a town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta, where he was grilled about whether having run as a primary season Progressive he was now shifting to the center.

The Senator was clearly offended by the suggestion.

“Let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center or that I’m flip-flopping or this or that or the other,” he began. “You know, the people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

“I am somebody who is no doubt Progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive.”

I believe him. Those were not casually chosen words. Barack Obama knows exactly what it means to say he is a “Progressive,” and he actually understands the subtle nuances of the American left. This is a man who moved to Chicago to be part of the political moment that began with the 1983 election of leftie Congressman Harold Washington as the city’s first African American mayor, who studied the organizing techniques of Saul “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky, who worked with proudly radical labor leaders to defend basic industries and avert layoffs, who used his Harvard-educated legal skills to fight for expanded voting rights, who was mentored by civil libertarian legislator and federal judge Abner Mikva, who discussed the intricacies of Middle East policy with Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, and who learned about single-payer health care from his old friend and neighbor Dr. Quentin Young, the longtime coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. And, famously, Obama did not just make anti-war sounds before Iraq was invaded, he appeared at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago with a “War Is Not an Option” sign waving at his side.

Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate as a candidate endorsed by the New Party, the labor-left movement of the mid-1990s that declared “the social, economic, and political progress of the United States requires a democratic revolution in America-the return of power to the people.” In those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it. When he positioned himself for a 2004 U.S. Senate run, Obama said that he saw Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold-the lone dissenter against the Patriot Act-as the best role model in the chamber.

I celebrated Obama’s election as a victory for what the late Paul Wellstone described as “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” But knowing the ideals and values of the left is not the same as practicing them. As a Senator, Obama did not take Feingold as a role model. In fact, they differed on essential constitutional, trade, and Presidential accountability issues, with Obama consistently taking more cautiously Centrist positions. One of Obama’s first votes in the Senate was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Dr. Young wrote to his friend. “I told him I was disappointed in him,” the veteran campaigner for peace and social and economic justice recalled. “Rice was the embodiment of everything that was wrong with this Administration. So, he called me back and he said: ‘Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call me? Do you think Bush would ever send to the Senate a nominee for Secretary of State who I could vote for? I said: ‘You are the constitutional lawyer. It’s about advice and consent, right? You should have denied him your consent.’ ”

The lesson that should be taken away from the Rice vote, and from the disappointments that have followed it, ought not be that Obama is a hopeless case. In fact, quite the opposite. In that conversation with Young, Senator Obama outlined the relationship that the left ought to develop with President Obama.

Obama was nominated and elected in 2008 by Independents and by Progressives, both younger tech-savvy activists who made his candidacy an early favorite of the blogosphere and old-school liberal precinct walkers like me. The Senator won the Democratic nomination because he was the only first-tier contender who could say that he had opposed authorizing Bush to take the country to war with Iraq. In the Iowa caucuses that would define the 2008 race, those anti-war credentials, above all other factors, made the young Senator from Illinois a contender.

Similarly, as he campaigned in key states such as Wisconsin, Obama’s call for a new approach to free trade agreements and for massive infrastructure investments allowed him to secure backing from labor and liberal farm activists at critical stages in the process. The Progressives who committed to Obama early on were the essential foot soldiers of his long march through the caucuses, the primaries, and the fall campaign. These activists formed a base within the campaign and the Democratic Party, centered on –but not limited to –the Obama team’s open website and blog, www.MyBarackObama.com, which did not always cheerlead for the candidate. In June, when Obama broke with Feingold and other Senate Progressives to support Bush’s rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Senator felt enough heat from his own and independent netroots sites that he was compelled to explain himself, making what Obama described as a “firm pledge” that he would revisit the issue as President to shore up privacy protections.

What Internet activists such as OpenLeft.com’s Matt Stoller did during the FISA fight was roughly equivalent to what Obama told Dr. Young to do back in 2005: “Pick up the phone and call me.” Netroots activists made themselves heard and earned a response from then-candidate Obama. And they can do much more with respect to President Obama. The netroots can get the public engaged, but instead, they have made the public demoralized. Instead of providing suggestions, they have only complained. They have been reactive and not proactive.

One way to influence Obama and his Administration is to speak– not so much to him– as to America. Progressives need to get out ahead of the President. Highlight the right appointees and the right responses to deal with the challenges that matter most. Advance big ideas and organize on their behalf; identify allies in federal agencies, especially in Congress, and work with them to dial up the pressure for progress. I am not seeing much of that at all—but I am seeing a daily barrage of criticism. I am not seeing any discussion of what has been accomplished or what we specifically want accomplished. Indeed, we could take a lesson from rightwing pressure groups in their dealings with Republican administrations and recognize that it is always better to build the bandwagon than to jump on board one that is crafted with the tools of compromise. Don’t just critique, but rather propose.

Sixty activists from The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, Physicians for a National Health Program, and Progressive Democrats of America and allied groups met one week after Election Day at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington with Michigan Congressman John Conyers, an early Obama backer and the chief House proponent of real reform, to forge a Single-Payer Healthcare Alliance and plot specific strategies for influencing the new Administration and Congress.

The point wasn’t to teach Obama about single-payer. Seven years ago, he told the Illinois AFLCIO: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody . . . a singlepayer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Since then, Democrats have taken back the House, the Senate, and the White House, but perhaps in name only. We have learned since the election that too many who call themselves Democrats are only Democrats on some issues. Single-payer was never on the table, and in retrospect, I can see why not. The President’s statements, his strategies, and his appointments evidence a caution born of the political and structural pressures faced by every President. Whether the previous, more progressive Obama still exists remains to be seen. I still believe it does. But the only way to determine if Obama really is the Progressive he claimed in 2008 to be is to push not just Obama, but the public and the media. I am frustrated every day when I watch the political pundits –and not only those on the Right—claim that the public is opposed to Health Care Reform. Why do they think Obama won? It was the central item of his agenda!

The often quoted example of Franklin Roosevelt is still  good to remember. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”

It is reasonable for Progressives to assume that Barack Obama agrees with them on many fundamental issues. He has said as much. It is equally reasonable for Progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for Progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it.

I have never worked so hard as a citizen to get what I voted for. That’s fine; this is the new reality. I can’t say how much difference the involvement of Progressive activists has made, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Where would we be if we’d never emailed and called our representatives? I believe HCR would have died last August. I believe there might not be a second stimulus. I think financial reforms would be forgotten–as well as a host of other mopping chores we still need to accomplish. Congress is cowardly and lazy, and if Progressives don’t push, be certain the Right will win. To paraphrase Roy Scheider’s character in the movie Jaws, “We’re gonna need a bigger mop.”

My first goal in this series is to define the Christian Right and provide some of their history.  The Christian Right has been insinuating themselves into public discourse since the late 70’s.  By the end of the 80’s it was generally assumed that the Christian Right consisted entirely of evangelical Protestants, however, many members of the Christian Right were not evangelical Protestants and many evangelical Protestants were not members of the Christian Right. The Christian Right drew support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons and sometimes secularists. While some people may generalize that all evangelicals were grouped in with the Christian Right, that is not the case. In fact, there are many evangelical Protestants that have showed little interest in the Christian Right’s political goals. At this point I bet you are becoming a bit confused, but I promise I will clear it all up as I go along.

In my research I ran across a paper written by Harvey Wacker, Professor of the History of Religion in America at the Duke University Divinity School.  I found his detailed description to be fairly hard to follow but I will try to translate. In the simplest way possible think of two circles over lapped.  On one side you have Evangelicals on the other side non-Evangelicals, in the middle that intersects the two circles you have the Christian Right.  For the most part the Evangelicals do share the religious views, but not necessarily the political views of the Christian Right.  On the other side you have the non-Evangelicals who do not share the political or religious views of the Christian Right.  However on both sides you have individuals who are more stringent in their moral views or have decided they no longer share the political views of their group and align themselves with the Christian Right.  Some famous examples of these non-Evangelical members are Joe Lieberman and Bart Stupack.  Their political party, while Independant and Democrat respectively, does not mean they share all the party political views and in some cases they more closely align themselves with the Religious Right/GOP.  In the past 25 years or so Evangelicals have flocked in large numbers to the mega churches of the Christian Right, however I have found no research to imply that Catholics have converted as well.  The Catholic church has a group that label themselves “Charasmatic” and they could conceivably be the people who align themselves with the Christian Right(see link below).  In the 1990’s the Christian Right’s numerical strength leveled off but it’s influence in grass roots, national, state and local elections, or in setting political policies has remained in the forefront.  With the election of Barack Obama, their numbers seem to have increased again, however I found this interesting report in The Telegraph from almost a year ago.  It states that the Christian Right conceded defeat when Obama was elected.  I would be skeptical of such an admission being entirely truthful from the Christian Right but it is worth a read.

Catholic Charismatic Renewal

US Religious Right Concedes Defeat

The Christian Right emerged from both long-range and short-range changes in American life. The long-range lay in the growth of biblical higher criticism in the seminaries, the teaching of human evolution in public schools, and, after World War II, the real or perceived threat of Communism, and when Communisim no longer became a critical issue, the GLBT community. The more immediate beginnings of the Christian Right lay in the enormous cultural changes of the 1960s—civil rights, Vietnam protests, the alternative youth culture, the women’s liberation movement, the sexual revolution, and the rise of ancient religions from obscurity.  On the subject of obscure religions, I like to think an enlightened generation became more open to customs that in the past were foreign to us, we began to question authority and that certainly did not fit in with the Christian Right’s doctrine.  These transformations seemed to play out in the Supreme Court decisions that banned official prayer and Bible readings in the schools, legalized first trimester abortion,  and regulated government involvement in private Christian academies.  The Christian Right responsed quickly to counter these developments led by figures like Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Dobson. The intention of these leaders was to defend their traditional Christian values. These values were; authority of the Bible in all areas of life, faith in Jesus Christ and the “born again” experience and biblical values in sexual and marital arrangements.. What differentiated these Christian Right leaders from other Christian leaders was their linking of traditional Christian values with a simpler small-town life, a life they felt was being pushed in to the past. The Christian Right proved so successful in translating its concerns to a wider audience that in 1976 the founder of the Gallup Poll pronounced that year the “year of the evangelical”.  National magazines(Time and Newsweek) ran cover articles on the insurgence of Evangelical Protestant Christianity, and even though many evangelicals did not share the goals of the Christian Right, as is usually the case with the national media they failed to note that distinction.

Then in 1979 Jerry Falwell established this major group of U.S. Christians into a political sledgehammer. As founding pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., Falwell had been meeting with theologians and lawmakers to plan how Christians could fight back. What were they going to base their fight against?  Liberals, Abortionists, the ACLU, Feminists, gay rights activists and the non-believing American population( In recent years what they term as “radical Islam” was added to this list).  In that year, Jerry Fallwell and his allies launched the Moral Majority. Falwell not only drew preachers from behind their pulpits into the world of electoral campaigns, but he also brought conservative politics into the church. He helped persuade thousands of pastors nationwide to conduct voter-registration drives in their congregations, contributing to a flood of new voters on the GOP rolls.  Sermons in his own church included instructions to his flock on how to spend their Sunday afternoons, campaigning against the Liberal Left.  He literally had his members going door to door with an anti-liberal pro-Republican message.  The Moral Majority platform mixed traditional Christian values with a strongly conservative world view:  They advocated for prayer in public school and more money for national defense.

After years of planning and consolidation the Christian Right helped Ronald Reagan win the 1980 presidential race, Falwell credited the Moral Majority and became the mouthpiece for these newly empowered Americans.  Up to this point they had felt their beliefs were disrespected and Falwell’s moral majority empowered them to rise up as activists.  However, they soon learned the limits of their political might, abortion remained legal and gay couples were continuing to gain greater acceptance, the ACLU was still strong, women continued to make strides in the fight for equality and Liberals did not fade away into that “dark night”.

In the late 1980’s, activists began to question Falwell’s ability to focus on politics and not fundraising for his religious work.  Critics to his right, who advocated old-style isolation from the broader culture, attacked him.  In the late 1980’s Fallwell disbanded the Moral Majority and concentrated his energies on Liberty University which he founded.  He did not completely disappear, and GOP political candidates continued to seek his backing and treated him as an elder statesman in the party.  And he opened the door for the Christian Coalition and others to take up where he had left off, continuing the political activism he started.  Liberty University may be the single most important contribution to the Christian Right movement.  With a reported 7,700 students, his Liberty University curriculum reflects the minister’s classic fundamentalist beliefs in an inerrant Bible and the imminent return of Jesus Christ(The Rapture) following seven years of tribulation to establish a 1,000-year kingdom. The school annually turns out young Christians who go on to become active in politics.

With all of this going on, the mainline Protestant establishment and the secular media were surprised by this conservative Christian insurgence and were asking who were these people and what were their ultimate goals?  To answer these questions, you need to understand the world-view of the Christian Right. As close as I could come, the following are four principles by which they operate, I found this description in the paper referenced above by Harvey Wacker, Professor of the History of Religion in America at the Duke University Divinity School:

The assumption that moral absolutes exist as surely as mathematical or geological absolutes constitutes the first. These moral absolutes include many of the oldest and deepest assumptions of Western culture, including the fixity of sexual identities and gender roles, the preferability of capitalism, the importance of hard work, and the sanctity of unborn life. More importantly, not only do moral absolutes exist, they are clearly discernible to any who wish honestly to see them.

The assumption that metaphysics, morals, politics, and mundane customs stand on a continuum constitutes the second cornerstone of the Christian Right’s world-view. Specifically, ideas about big things like the nature of the universe inevitably affect little things, such as how individuals choose to act in the details of daily life. And the reverse. What one thinks about the nature of God, for example, inevitably influences one’s decision to feed—or not to feed—the parking meter after the cops have gone home. Contrary to the facile assumption of mainline Protestants, influenced by the Enlightenment, it is not possible for the Christian Right to draw easy lines between the public and the private spheres of life. (There is evidence that the Christian Right abandoned Jimmy Carter at precisely this point—when he announced that abortion should be legally protected in the public sphere, although he would not countenance it in the private sphere of his own family.)

The Christian Right further assumes—this is the third cornerstone—that government’s proper role is to cultivate virtue, not to interfere with the natural operations of the marketplace or the workplace. The Christian Right remains baffled by the secular culture’s apparent unwillingness, on one hand, to offer schoolchildren firm moral guidance in matters of sexuality, truthfulness, honesty, and patriotism while, on the other hand, proving ever-so-eager to engineer the smallest details of the economy. Why should conscientious, hardworking law-abiding citizens be penalized by mazes of government regulations? Why should the irresponsible, the lazy, and the unpatriotic be rewarded by those same public institutions?

Finally, the assumption that all successful societies need to operate within a framework of common assumptions constitutes the fourth cornerstone. Since the Western Jewish-Christian tradition has provided an eminently workable premise for the United States for the better part of four centuries, it makes no sense to undermine these premises by legitimating alien ones. The key issue is not so much what would be permitted as what would be legitimated. Many, perhaps most members of the Christian Right feel that it is one thing to permit dissidents to live in peace, quite another to say that any set of values is just as good, or just as functional, as any other set.

With the election of George Bush, the Religious Right surged again.  When you look at their principles and then evaluate the Presidency of  George Bush you can see the hand of the Religious Right guiding his decisions.  They felt that without their support, he would not be in the position he was in, they were ready and waiting for their just reward and reward them he did.  Bush appointed staff throughout his administration that were fresh off the Christian Right farm.  Most notably interns and such from Liberty University.  But he did not stop there, John Ashcroft, AG was a very devout “born again” Christian.  We all know how he covered certain statues at the DOJ.  Donald Rumsfeld, SOD had no problem adding religious cover sheets on his war memos to the President and many Christian Right believers were assigned to the newly instituted Office of Faith Based Iniatives in the government, a result of an executive order by then President Bush.  And they took full advantage giving preference to like-minded believers.  In her book “Kingdom Coming,” Michelle Goldberg devotes a chapter to her research on the Faith-Based program. While she confirms many positive outcomes with clients, she concludes that there were myriad abuses in the program.  The chapter is entitled “The Faith-Based Gravy Train.” Her evaluation concluded that the federal government has become a major funder for the recruitment programs of the Christian Right.

Professor Wacker describes the Christian Right in this way:

The Christian Right has developed this sense that they are constantly under siege and are always defending their civilization from outside attack. Perils posed by the “mainstream media”, public schools, enemies of traditional family values are particularly sinister. They feel they are attacked constantly by the media and they especially object to the “perceived” way their children are treated in our schools. Their children are manipulated with the teachings of evolution, while “creationism” is not a part of the public school ciriculum, they are not allowed to pray in school, unless they do so privately. They claim the old-fashioned academic standards have been watered down and schools do not “clarify values” but rather teach students that their parent’s ideals are replaceable at will. They feel the traditional family is beseiged on all fronts, the media, schools and the government whose policies encourage abortion. They also believe that the ERA encourages divorce and fatherless families as it denies security to woman and corrodes the tether that has kept men bound to responsibilities of home and family.

In Glenn Greenwald’s book, A Tragic Legacy he addresses this mentality in terms of George Bush and his declining popularity:

The same people who had previously been writing books praising his greatness as a leader were denouncing him as a weak and stubborn failure, claiming his was a “closet liberal”.  This so-called conservative movement is also not responsible for the destruction brought on by the Bush White House and republican congress.  They claim the conservative movement is actually a victim because it’s lofty principles were betrayed and repudiated by the President and Congress from 2001 through 2007.  This, from the same Conservatives who were cheerleading the Bush administration and their ideas and policies until the wheels fell off and their ideas were repudiated.  Then they became the victims of their own actions.  They acted as though they stood by helplessly while Congress and Bush destroyed the country while the whole time they were anything but passive.

The Religious Right would have us believe that while they touted their direct access to a president who appointed people from their organizations up and down the White House staff that they had nothing to do with the utter failure of the Bush administration.

I wonder if many of these Christian Right leaders are now lamenting, “if only we had had more time”.  When I think of all the damage done to our country in 8 short years, I shudder to think what could happen if they come in to power again.

If we let our guard down and let these people slip under the radar, they will be back at it again in 2012.  They will use all their influence on the right to establish another candidate like George Bush.  All I can say is I will be waiting, watching and speaking out when that happens.

The second part of this series, The Mindset of the Religious Right will be posted on March 15, 2010.

Suggested Reading:

Glenn Greenwald – A Tragic Legacy – How A Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency

Michelle Goldberg – Kingdom Coming

Dr. Robin Meyers – Why The Christian Right is Wrong

Chris Hedges – American Fascists – The Christian Right and the War on America

Real Time with Bill Maher hit the boards running for its eighth season a couple of weeks ago, and I held out great hopes for my favourite fundit program, after a decidedly iffy season last year which ended in confusion.

However, I’m hoping I didn’t speak too soon, as it stalled in what it sought to deliver in the third episode of the season, which aired Friday evening.

A commentator on Bill’s MySpace page deemed the episode ‘caustic’, another friend of mine thought it was ‘quirky’ more than anything else. I thought it just oozed tension, and I’m at a loss to understand why.

To begin with, the guest list was a bit thin on the ground – three guests in the studio, including the one-on-one interview and a satellite interview with a dodgy connection. I think Bill struggles to get people to commit to appearing on the program, and whether that’s the nature of the host or the venue (Los Angeles is as long a flight time from the East Coast as New York is from London), I don’t know.

We’re three programs into the new season, and there’s yet to be a elected politician to appear. The result of this difficulty is that we keep seeing the same recurring guests, almost as ‘regulars’: most of the guests who’ve appeared already are repeat performers.

I approached this week’s installment reluctantly. Arianna Huffington was a panel guest, and to say I loathe this diehard neocon corporate media whore disguised as a Progressive voice only when it became openly fashionable to hate Bush is being kind. The last time she appeared on the show last season, in the cohorted company of fellow (open) Republicans Darryl Issa and Jack Kingston, that trio so railroaded the discussion sequence that Bill, the host and moderator, was reduced to looking like a cross between a bewildered child at the adults’ table and a confused spectator at a tennis match watching such a never-ending volley that he’d forgotten who had the serve.

I’m still at a loss as to why the media in the US continue to give this intellectual lightweight and parvenue airtime to spout her ridiculous talking points, made only to enhance her own publicity; but then, I remember when Mrs Huffington, minus the ex-husband’s divorce settlement and the Wall Street hedge fund, was merely Miss Stanisopoulous, the daughter of a corrupt Greek politician, trying desperately to be taken seriously as an arch-Right conservative by the truly Progressive, serious British media intelligensia.

They considered her a joke.

Bill’s guests this week, besides the Queen Mother of Media Whores, included Andrew Ross Sorkin, financial correspondent for The New York Times, Sean Penn and (from New York) Michael Moore.

Although his previous two monologues this season had hit the bullseye for which they were intended, Bill’s monologue this week fell curiously flat. He wittered on about Oscars’ week, with the inevitable Sarah Palin joke.

I know Palin was a particular target and bete noire for Bill during the campaign and he eviscerated her shallowness with brilliant panache; from time to time, she surfaced last season, but only when she’d done something to merit newsworthy comment – like resign.

This time, I’m getting the uneasy feeling that Bill’s baiting Palin, almost stalking her with continuous snarky comment and open ridicule, and for a curiously self-serving purpose. Of late, those whom Palin has targeted with her snide and ill-founded observations, have achieved almost victim status – Letterman, Rahm Emanuel, Seth McFarlane and Family Guy – all rose like phoenixes from the ashes of her ignorant remarks and misconceptions.

In short, Palin’s invective got publicity for both Letterman and McFarlane, and even Rahm was seen in a more sympathetic light as almost an arbiter for freedom of speech.

Bill’s not above promoting himself shamelessly, almost by any means. That he compromised himself greatly last season with a blatantly opportunistic editorial, slating President Obama for ‘not doing enough’ a mere six months into his Administration, was all too obvious, especially if one cared to remember that the week previous to that particular editorial (June 16th), he was roundly criticizing the GOP for saying the very same thing about the President. Still, it achieved the end Bill desired – he ran the gamut from Blitzer to Olbermann, starting the Obama-bashin’ fashion that the base of the Progressive Left adopted with a fervour unseen since they campaigned for the man during the election.

A lot of real Progressives today still blame Bill for sounding the hammer blow that created a very noticeable ructure in the Democratic Party.

I think Bill is baiting Palin for the same reason. He’s relishing a response from this woman. He wants her to target him, to point a finger, to Twitter a tweet or sully her Facebook page with a diatribe against big, bad Bill Maher, which would gain Bill a soupcon of sympathy and a gaggle of publicity. Thing is, I get the impression that Palin isn’t much of an HBO fan, and I seriously doubt she’s even heard of Bill. Were I he, I’d leave off Palin. He’s only feeding fuel to her fire, and besides, as a part of his monologue and stand-up, she’s becoming boringly predictable as a reference.

But after the monologue, the atmosphere began to become almost surreal.

Sean Penn was the first guest, booked to talk about his humanitarian effort in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti and to plug the relief organisation he had established for that purpose.

I found this odd, to say the least, especially since one of Bill’s ubiquitous tweets during his hiatus had criticised the continuous news emphasis on the disaster by the mainstream media, to the exclusion of any other news. I understood Bill’s complaint; he’d reiterated the media’s propensity to flog one news item like the proverbial dead horse, but the tweet did come across to many as the whiney complaint of a bored adolescent. The other thing I found odd about the interview was Penn, himself.

Penn, florid of face and neck, with a dull, dazed look in his eye, was clearly drunk. More than that, he was a woozy, rambling, incoherent drunk.

To Bill’s credit, his interview questions were flawless. Under normal circumstances, he would have been pushing the right buttons, with the questions he asked. but circumstances were anything but normal. The result was that Penn’s answers rambled on ad nauseam, and he never truly answered any question.

For example, when Penn finally got to the point of his first answer – that the United States needed to give more, more and yet more again to Haiti in an effort to rebuild a viable infrastructure there, Bill, rightly, countered by asking Penn why he sought to concentrate his efforts on Haiti, when there was ample evidence of infrastructural decay in the United States and a plethora of Americans suffering badly as a result of the dire economic crisis.

Valid question; in fact, one many people have been asking in light of this.

This elicited another incoherent and torturously twisted reply from Penn, the gist of which being that by giving – yes – more, more and more again to rebuild Haiti, the US would be a better nation and benefit and learn from the Haitian people. Learn what, exactly, he never specified, and it’s doubtful that he knew. By that point, Penn was just phoning in his replies.

The interview wasn’t without controversy, however. Finally, Bill brought up the subject of Hugo Chavez, a particular ‘friend’ of Penn’s and one whom the actor has defended vociferously. The ensuing reply on Penn’s part is a testimony to the fact that, just because one is an extremely talented actor and icon for a generation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the person has any great intellect, or even basic common sense.

Bill referred to Chavez, the dictator.

Penn quickly took umbrage. Chavez, he replied, in a pique, was most definitely not a dictator, but a legitimately elected head-of-state. In Penn’s mind, that’s not a dictator.

I disagree. Hitler was legitimately elected. So was Mussolini. So was Bush, allegedly. And elections can easily be rigged to favour the strong man who wants to rule. Look at Italy’s Berlusconi. Again, look at Bush and the Republican techniques. I’m sorry, Sean, this dude’s a dictator and a dick.

Bill then pointed out the fact that Chavez had shut down television and radio stations and newspapers who were openly critical of him, but Penn would have none of that. In fact, he declared, anyone in the United States, and especially in the media, who insisted on calling Chavez a dictator, should be put in prison.

From where I’m sitting, it looks as though Sean’s close association with Hugo Chavez hasn’t been for nothing. That’s a blatant denial of First Amendment rights - so are we to infer that the humanitarian and Academy Award-winning actor approves of a suppression of Freedom of Speech? What a walking advertisement for the Left in the face of the Right. And a blatant one as well.

The other interview came midway through the panel discussion with Michael Moore. It was beset by satellite difficulties, as Moore was attempting to be broadcast from New York City, outside Goldman Sachs. Bill was clearly frustrated by the delay, and Moore was frustrated as well, although by what, it was unclear. It was a tetchy, almost irascible interview, from the beginning, done to publicize the fact that Moore’s latest cinematic offering, Capitalism: A Love Story, was now available on DVD.

As the impending Oscars ceremony served more as a veritable Banquo’s ghost than as a backdrop to this episode, Bill began the interview by reminding Moore that it was Oscars weekend and that Moore’s film hadn’t received a nomination – although he couldn’t imagine why, Bill added for good measure. Clearly a joke between friends, but Moore failed to see the humour and tetchily remarked that, for what it was worth, he thought Bill’s documentary Religulous should have won the Oscar the previous year. (It wasn’t nominated).

Moore then went into a diatribe about the evils of Wall Street and the sufferings of the ordinary citizen in the wake of that, which – for some reason – elicited an irritated response from Bill, in which he noticeably raised his voice. Thereafter, the four-minute clip tailed off with Moore remarking that he’d written a letter to President Obama – understanding that Rahm Emanuel was about to leave – offering him his services as Chief of Staff for the salary of $1 per year and a bed in the White House basement.

In the moments after the interview had ended, Bill made two rather snarky allusions to ‘St Michael’ and ‘the spirit of St Michael’, obviously on the tail end of what amounted to a locking-of-horns encounter, no matter how unintentional that was.

The surrealism of the episode was heightened by the fact that almost nothing of any newsworthy event referenced in the panel discussion. It was patently obvious that the panel was there only as a prop for Huffington to publicise her ‘Move Your Money’ movement in an effort to cripple the four big, bad lending banks.

I find Huffington faintly ludicrous at the best of times.  She usually manages to muscle in on any discussion and dominate the proceedings, and this time was no different. Bill began the panel discussion by singling out her ‘Move Your Money’ meme, adding a bit of self-promotion for himself, considering that she asked him to do the promotional video which was released on YouTube.

Now we get to the funny part.

Bill asked Andrew Sorkin, author of the book Too Big to Fail about what he thought of the idea of a mass movement of people taking money from the big four bad boys and placing it in locally-owned banks and credit unions. Sorkin remarked that he thought, in principle, Huffington’s idea was a good one; however, there were drawbacks to her idea:-

First, if everyone ‘moved their money’ from the big guys to the small fry, the banks that formerly had been too big to fail, would … fail, and that wouldn’t be good for the economy. Secondly, many of the so-called local banks weren’t actually independent entities, themselves. Many were part and parcel of the very organisation Huffington sought to scupper.

(Huffington’s always out to scupper someone or something which effected a perceived slight on her fragile ego. Her vendetta against Clinton in the late 90s came as a result of her husband having lost a Senate race to Barbara Boxer; her vendetta against Tim Russert came from Russert’s wife having outed Michael Huffington in an article years before his sexuality became common knowledge; her vendetta against newspapers arises from the newsprint media failing to consider her a viable and reliable journalist, in her own right. So I can only surmise that her vendetta against the big banks comes from some kind of cashflow problem, which they can’t help her remedy – or at least more from that than out of any concern for ordinary people).

Thirdly, Sorkin concluded, these small local banks and credit unions weren’t entirely clean, themselves – that they employed a stringently vociferous group of lobbyists, whose job it was to nobble Congress, and were, in fact, more opposed to the President’s idea of regulating the banking industry than the big guys were, themselves.

At that moment, Huffington chose to suffer from a bout of selective deafness, because later, in her internet newsrag, she trumpeted the fact that Sorkin had given a pontifical blessing to her ‘movement’ and agreed with her entirely, although he actually didn’t … such is her arrogance.

That moved the discussion onto the plight of the middle classes, where Huffington held forth on the fact that anger directed at Wall Street was a unifying factor between the middle class and the Teabaggers (and, in doing this, somehow managed to make Michael Moore sound like teabagging material). There followed a five-minute discussion between Huffington and Bill about the sufferings of the middle class and how the government and financial crisis was failing them.

I’m sorry, but I was mightily offended by what amounted to a dinner party discussion between two faux liberals talking about a demographic of people of whom one had actually forgotten he was ever a part  and of whom the other had no real contact in her daily dealings. It was a moment straight out of a grotesque Goya painting of two narcissistic egoists paying pithy lip service to the plight of the little people and giving themselves congratulatory pats on the back for having noticed that a problem exists.

Frankly, it was insulting.

This led further into an unusual discussion about an American reality television program, Undercover Boss, which Bill, in a rare moment of realising that he was born a son of the working middle class, found insulting to ordinary people, and which Huffington, surprisingly in her Zsa Zsa-plays-Lady-Bracknell mode, found enlightening.

The whole discussion was pointless, with respect to current events. It was an exercise in publicizing Huffington’s latest venture, an opportunity for Bill to reiterate and reinforce the fact that he really, really did like President Obama, but he wished he could have acted tougher last year – the same old same old complaint he’d whined about since June 2009, only not as forcefully. (Earlier last month, in an interview clip with Joy Behar, I noticed the best-seller Game Change on the shelf in Bill’s office. He’d do well to read and digest the content of this, because ‘No-Drama Obama’ is the President’s schtick).

The New Rules weren’t Bill’s best, and the editorial was a bit of fluff, which, in other circumstances, might have been funny; but in these current times, came across as Bill’s Marie Antoinette moment.

It was an extollation of  Hollywood’s virtues as an industry that was entirely American and didn’t come cap-in-hand to the government asking for help. (Of course, it never dawned on Bill that the film which won the Oscar last year was not an American film, or that most films aren’t actually made in Hollywood these days, mainly due to excessive costs). He excoriated the Republicans’ current triviality of promoting their two rising stars (yet another reference to Sarah Palin) as having been a local beauty queen and a nude male centrefold. Hollywood deserved the big party that accompanied the Oscars, as ribald, rambunctuous and excessive as it could be, and the public be damned in its criticism. (‘Let them eat cake, anyone?’)

One of the core messages of the editorial was the fact that any celebrity in the town who openly admitted to being a Republican, was usually of the naff, z-list variety: the late Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson or Fred Grandy, whose chief claim to fame was having played Gofer in The Love Boat.

Amongst the ueber-cool A-listers, only Democrats could be found.

Forty-eight hours later, that left me wondering on what list Bill, whom I love dearly as a fundit, when he’s thinking for himself and not aiming to please others for his own plaudits, could be found … not the ueber-cool A-list, if this tweet, made in the early hours of Monday morning, whilst moving amongst the exalted at an Oscars’ after-party:-

“Actors are just the bestest people in thw world! We are so lucky to be sharing the earth with them!! Fuck!!!” (Typos are Bill’s).

Sarcasm? Heavily laced. Bitterness? A smidgeon. Jealousy? More than just a bit.

Billy, I love the bones of you, and for that, I’ll rate this episode 7 out of 10, but – damn! – it must be a heavy chore being Arianna’s Gofer. You’re much better than that.

I was originally going to write this series of articles in tandem with a partner however I have decided to  move ahead on my own.  I hope I am up to the challenge.   What I will attempt to do is provide some history to understand the Religious Rights beliefs and behavior, but will concentrate more on current activities of the people and organizations of the Religious Right so that you will be able to identify them and their players.  I have found this to be extremely beneficial when watching various newscasts.  It is amazing how many people who have a hidden agenda in any given subject are brought in to the discussions as “subject matter experts”.

It is my hope that when I have finished, I will have shown you a comprehensive picture of all the different factions and how they are ultimately connected.  I will give you a bit of history because that is important in understanding their beliefs and practices but will also help to unravel the secretness of their current day plans.

Their plans really started to gel back in the 70’s with the Moral Majority and The Christian Coalition and their push to insinuate themselves seriously into the political arena.  While The Family has worked the political scene for over 60 years, the religious right is fairly new to the scene in comparison.  While they came on to the scene at different times, their beliefs and intentions are one and the same.  At best, there is a very blurry line between them, but make no mistake they are working in conjunction to dominate the world at large.

What I plan to do is to break it down in to several mini articles, and these articles will be:

The History of the Christian Right

The Mindset of Christian Evangelicals

The Players, Their Organizations

How these Organizations Impact America and the International Community

The Consequences of their Influence/Reference Material

Wish me luck as I try to relay to you all I have learned through months of research and clicking on link after link to dig deeper in hopes of uncovering the truth.  And that truth is that these people are insinuated into every facet of our lives with a mindset of Dominionism and forcing their brand of religion on ultimately the Global community at large.  My first article of the series will be out this coming Wednesday, March 10, 2010.

I also want to give a big thanks to Adlib for helping me to name the series.  I am not having problems with content but was stuck on what to name the series.  Anyway, thank you Adlib, I knew your creative mind would come through for me.

Holi (pronounced ho-lee), also known as Phagwa, is marked at the transition from the Hindu months Phalguna to Chaitra. The Hindu calendar being lunisolar, this date changes every year. In 2010 it fell on March 1st. Besides India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, it is observed by the South Asian diaspora in all its regional varieties throughout Europe, America, Canada, Australia, in New Zealand, South Africa, and of course, Suriname, Trinidad, Mauritius and Fiji which are notable countries where South Asians were brought for labor and now constitute a significant proportion of the population.

Background.

Vaishnava

In a timeless past of the Satya Yuga, a ruler from a race of giants, known as Daityas, held power and riches unrivaled, except by his own attire. Thus, he was known as Hiranyakashipu, or, ‘Golden-robed’. After performing austerities (tapas) and being granted a boon by Brahma which had made him nearly invincible, the ‘Demon King’ attacked the Heavens, lorded over earth, demanded people worship him, and squandered his wealth on destruction and his own greatness, even challenging Lord Indra.

This all was at odds with his own son, Prahlada, a pious devotee of Lord Vishnu; a Vaishnava, whom sought to correct his father in the right virtues of a Maharaja and to guide him in Bhakti realization of the Supreme Soul by renouncing avarice and absorbing his thoughts on Him. This only made his father furious,

[T]he daitya ruler daunted upon seeing how the attempts ran futile, devised with determination for a variety of ways to kill him. Crushing him with an elephant, attacking with the king’s poisonous snakes, with spells of doom, throwing him from heights, conjuring tricks, imprisoning him, administering venom and subjecting him to starvation, cold, wind, fire and water and with piling rocks upon him, was the demon unable to put his son, the sinless one, to death… (Srimad Bhagavata Purana, 7.5.42-4)

And yet, the boy through his devotion to the Lord was protected from his father’s persecution time and time again. At long last his father’s wrath brought him before the court, and challenged to see this God who could challenge his own deific powers. He would try to kill his son himself this time, but before the boy’s head could be severed by his father who scoffed that no one could save him, God made his omnipresence known to all assembled from a pillar. The universe cracked open, and a cacophony of sounds and kaleidoscopic dimensions could be seen; the omnipresence of God within everything.  Narasimha, the fourth avatara of Vishnu, a hybrid with man’s torso and lion’s head then appeared from this pillar and mauled the Demon King Hiranyakashipu to shreds. The king had used a boon from Brahma gained by devotion for evil; thus God had to manifest himself in earthly form to correct this terrorizing and subjection of earth and heavens alike.

Among the schemes Hiranyakashipu hatched against his son was when he asked his sister to have Prahlada to sit in her lap in a bonfire. Hiranyakashipu’s sister had received a special boon that gave her immunity to fire. However; she was burned to death and Prahlad saved. There are numerous accounts as to the reason for this, but suffice it to say, the sister of the king died and good triumphed.

Hiranyakashipu’s sister was named Holika, from which Holi is believed to derive. It is this event that Holi celebrates in Holika Dahan (the burning of Holika), in which bonfires are lit, primarily in North India, the day before Holi. Originally these included effigies of Holika, but in most parts this is now replaced by a simple pyre. Comparisons to their fellow Aryans’ (if only common traditional heritage; I have no intent of opening the Aryan Invasion Theory can of worms here) celebration of Cheharshanbe-Souri in Iran and indeed, bonfire spring festivals in Indo-European cultures throughout Europe, are readily seen. The triumph of light over darkness.

Shaivite

The main story as recounted and summarized above, can be considered by some to be a Vaishnava polemic, with Hiranyakashipu representing Lord Shiva. As such, given where you are, an alternate account is of Kama and Shiva.

As recounted in the Saura Purana, there was another daitya called Taraka whom had achieved a boon from Brahma after severe austerities. He asked for the boon of being invincible to the gods; and like Hiranyakashipu, effectively immortal. Of course, Brahma thought this too much so asked for an exception. The wily Taraka made the condition that only the child of Shiva could kill him. Shiva was doing penance and lost in himself after losing his first wife, Dakshayani (which is the subject of another famous myth which is the source of the practice of sati; Sati being another name for Dakshayani), therefore Taraka had reasoned that Shiva would be unable to produce a son.

Of course, Taraka does what demons granted boons of immense power by Brahma do, he terrorizes the universe of gods and men. He battles Vishnu for 30,000 years alone, but Vishnu has to retreat in confusion and hide. Beleaguered, the gods meet with Brahma, who tells them of Taraka’s weakness. They hatch a plan.

Parvati, who had realized she was the reincarnated Dakshayani from a young age, and had performed severe penances for Shiva’s hand in marriage, was put before Shiva. The only problem, is that Shiva was absorbed in yogic asceticism, having renounced the world after the loss of his first wife. So, Kama (yes, as in the Kama Sutra; and, counterpart to Greek Eros; Cupid) is enjoined to put lust into Shiva and wake him from his trance to produce the progeny that will defeat Taraka.

But, when Shiva awakens from his meditation after being immovable by either Parvati or Kama, he sees Parvati there, and then, sees Kama with his five flowered arrow drawn in its bow and aimed at him. Shiva’s third-eye shoots forth a fire accumulated in his tapas and incinerates Kama by its own power independent of Shiva’s will. Parvati is now distressed, and rebukes Shiva. It is now that she asks for her boon from him, having suffered as an example to all yoginis past and present. She asks that Kama be revived. Consenting, Shiva replies, “Let [Kama] be without a body in order to please you, lady with beautiful eyes. In that form he will be able to shake the world.”

Long story short, Shiva and Parvati beget Skanda (the Hindu ‘Ares’), who destroys Taraka. In South India, Holi is thus referred to as Kama Dahanam. But of course, the larger lesson was the victory of love, for now the disembodied Kama, with his wife Rati, could flit from one corner of the earth to another like the wind. In this context, Holi is like an Indian Valentine’s Day.

Radha Krishna

In this spirit, the Ras-Lila is celebrated (literally, ‘Passion Play’ and quite different from the Christian form, of course!); particularly in Mathura and Vrindavan, where Lord Krishna (the eighth avatara of Vishnu) was born and the place of the Ras-Lila, respectively. The Ras-Lila is the all-famous tale of the gopis’ (milk maidens) love and adoration of the perfect youth Krishna, who playfully teased them mercilessly in the 10th Book of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana (not to be confused with the Bhagavad Gita of the Mahabharata), and the tryst between him and Radha, whom is never actually named, in chapter 30, where she is only a mystery woman held in awed jealousy by the pining gopis who follow the couple’s footsteps into the forest. This story with elaborations is a staple of bhajans and Indian poetry, drama, and naturally, today’s transmitter of myth, Bollywood (here’s an example).

A word of warning. To suggest anything unchaste about Radha, or to reduce Krishna to a Casanova, to suggest anything sexual at all beyond romantic metaphor, is extremely offensive to devout Hindus; particularly Vaishnavas. It has an invective history with the Christian missionaries and continues to this day on Christianist supremacist websites. Having said this word of warning though, of Holi, the entry in A Dictionary of Hinduism says,

A spring festival dedicated to Krishna and the gopis. It took the place of an earlier kind of Saturnalia, ‘the survival of a primitive fertility ritual, combining erotic games, “comic operas” and folk dancing’. Some of the earlier elements remain, such as the singing of suggestive songs, the throwing of coloured water, and jumping over bonfires, the ashes of which are believed to possess magical powers.

Indeed, I tend to take this view, and see the other myths as later accretions or adaptations to an earlier Indo-European fertility festival, as do I see the Radha-Krishna relationship a sublimation of an earlier myth. During Holi, caste distinctions are suspended, and the sexes may mix freely; likely customs surviving from the ubiquitous “safety valve” many early cultures observed at least once a year -- just as modern ones do to this day.

Playing

In a 7th century play, Ratnavali, it was said,

Witness the beauty of the great cupid festival which excites curiosity as the townsfolk are dancing at the touch of brownish water thrown from squirt-guns.

They are seized by pretty women while all along the roads the air is filled with singing and drum-beating.

Everything is coloured yellowish red and rendered dusty by the heaps of scented powder blown all over.

This is the first recording of Dhulhendi, the day of Holi most recognizable today. Let me set the scene. You know nothing of Holi, you are a visitor in India. This delightful scenario is played in this scene from the 2006 film, “Outsourced”:

Instruments of Fun:

Abir and Gulal -  colored powders

Originally made from natural dyes, some with Ayurvedic properties, there has been concern over toxic ingredients in recent years, and a move towards organic products. The symbolism with spring, of course, is self-evident.

Pichkari -- soaker type of syringe

While many of these still retain their traditional design, many more kids can be seen with super soakers and custom pichkaris with Bollywood actors and actresses, cartoon characters and other themes, even in shapes like elephants or one designed as a bow and arrow (like the ancient Hindu heroes).

Bhang

Bhang, made from grinding cannabis leaves and flowers into a paste is mixed into chilled drinks and munchie snacks alike. The signature drink of Holi is thandai, a milk based drink flavored with pistachios, almonds, and, of course, marijuana! But, a bhang lassi can also be whipped up, as seen above. Oh, and if you happen upon a sadhu in Varanasi, see if they will pass the chillum. This is one of a few times where social use of marijuana is acceptable, though generally not by women (patriarchal societies’ ‘designated drivers’). Watch this Bollywood song with the information and vocabulary you have just gained!

Hola Mohalla

Although not widely celebrated in Pakistan, in India Holi is now a secular holiday celebrated by all: Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, Jew, Parsi, Sikh, atheist, etc. The day after Holi, as well, is the closely related Sikh holiday of Hola Mohalla, most visible in the Sikh homeland of Indian Punjab. In warrior-saint Guru Gobind Singh’s martial tradition, Sikhs will mock fights, sing, play music, recite poetry and kirtans, and eat communally, as is per Sikh practice.

So, alas, to explain my title. It is common to say “Holi hai!” which means “it’s Holi!” as a greeting. Unfortunately, due to timing, I fell off on writing this, and thus added the Hindi ‘was’, tha, to reflect the belated nature of this article.

To end with, I only chose one Bollywood Holi song among a plethora of possibilities, as this one clearly lays out several elements outlined herein and brings it to life! (plus my crush on Rani Mukerji didn’t hurt the selection process)

Holi Mubarak! -- Happy Holi!

As the title alludes to, I believe that the most constructive path in blogging is Zen-like, IMO, it is best and most considerate to accept the opinions and blogging of colleagues as being what they are and never take them personally. And I like to keep my motorcycle running too.

This is not referring to actual personal attacks or troll behavior of course, I’m talking about the healthy experience of blogging which includes disagreements with those who may agree in most instances.

Before I continue, let me make clear that this is not aimed at anyone in particular, there have been situations that have arisen along the journey of The Planet with this one thing in common, I’m addressing this in general. So, no one is going to take personally a post about not taking things personally, right? Good.

I have learned a bit about bloggers and people in my brief time as Admin at The Planet. It is natural on every blog for those who become frequent bloggers to become more familiar and friendly with each other, I have never seen an exception to this. It does bring with it a more personal connection between such members and to the site, which on a social blog is fine but on a political blog, can sometimes be a double-edged sword. I see belonging to a blog very much like a relationship, the more we invest ourselves in a relationship, the more we open up, the more we can share and receive…and the more vulnerable we can become.

This can create a conundrum, true freedom of expression where conflicting views are freely shared and vulnerability can’t constructively coexist. So it can become a balancing act, between coming together with others to share personal thoughts and opinions…and not feeling vulnerable, so that responses that oppose one’s opinions are not taken personally.

For me, it’s all about intent. As long as someone is genuinely expressing their opinion, whether or not it undermines or argues against one’s opinions, accepting that without taking it personally is what freedom of expression is truly about.

On HuffPo, the personalizing has led to a too-often ugly and offensive atmosphere. We’ve all seen the troll-Progressive mud fights, petty and exclusive cliques, inter-Dem battles, all that hostility and discord over there that is stoked by taking others’ opinions as personal affronts.

It suffocates true exploration of ideas and perspectives at a political blog and smothers diversity of opinion if there is a feeling that to express oneself openly and honestly is to step into a minefield. This is why we have the rules here that we do enforce avidly, all members deserve respect and are expected to show it to others. However, we can’t be everywhere at all times and we do depend on the kindness of members to support and reinforce this sensibility whenever possible.

The truth is, at one time or another, each member may have an opinion that some, most or all others at The Planet who respond, disagree with. It is not a great feeling to be in that position, I’ve been there, I’d prefer having most people support my POV every time but as long as they’re honestly expressing themselves, I respect their POV as I want mine respected. So even if people disagree with my POV, there is a satisfaction for me that I am on a site that truly believes in and protects freedom of expression.

The fallout from taking others’ opinions personally is a rapid loss of perspective, it is easy to exhibit the same actions one is objecting to in the midst of that. This sometimes leads to generalizing or categorizing people or even the blog, to make them easier to attack in what one may feel is defending oneself or one’s opinion. So, it is not unusual for the ironic protest to be voiced in the middle of such a situation that the members or site don’t allow for a difference of opinions…in the midst of a conflict based on a difference of opinions.

The reality is of course that in that particular instance, it is a situation where one member is in the minority on an opinion…as I have been and most others have been at one time or another. And when I’m in that situation, I rarely accuse myself of being intolerant towards me, I just accept that most people just don’t realize how enormously wrong they are.

In truth, I have found myself standing firm in some cases and being convinced to take a different position in others. If one views having opposing opinions as a process in trying to validate the truth in a situation, then the process is very constructive and one can come away from it more convinced of their original opinion or more confident of their new opinion. So, either way, if the quest is not in being “right” or personally validated but in trying to affirm “truth”, then one can only benefit from disagreements.

It is not an easy thing for strong minded people to always get along. Personalizing and becoming emotionally reactive to disagreement is something that is continuing to tear our party, our democracy, our government and our nation apart. To reject that requires self-sacrifice, being committed first to working towards a better level of cooperation and discourse for the many in the long run even when we feel like swinging back at someone in the short term.

UPDATE:

I’ve assumed that this is well known but just to be clear, no personal criticisms or attacks are permitted under the Terms of Use. All members are required to respect each others’ right to their opinion and personalizing disagreements is not permitted.

In the article above, I am instead addressing tolerance for others’ voicing opposing opinions on issues, not taking legit criticisms of one’s opinion personally.

I read two great articles I want to share. They are elaborations of a piece I posted a couple of weeks ago, about the confounding  and stunning passivity of Americans in the face of issues that should have taken us all to the streets. I keep coming back to this because I am frustrated by the inaction I see on the Left to do more than bemoan the slowness of change. I am searching for reasons why our despair does not translate into more vigorous activism.

The first is pretty short, “Has America Lost Its Mojo” in The American Prospect, by Nina Hachigian. She lists ten things – and I have edited her thesis–that we should keep in perspective about the US:

1. America’s fate is in its own control

This is cold comfort given the dysfunction in Washington, but it is nonetheless important to remember that the decisions Americans make at home determine our fate far more than anything China or any other pivotal power does—including keeping its currency undervalued, as destructive as that is.

2. We are still number one

We shouldn’t forget that America is still far ahead of all other emerging and established powers by nearly every important measure. And we have demographics on our side.

3. Our relative decline is inevitable

Relative to other pivotal powers such as China and India, we are declining—the huge gap between the United States and the others is shrinking. That is a function of two factors completely out of American control: the size of their populations being many times larger than ours, and the fact that they are at earlier stages of their economic growth, still climbing out of poverty and moving people off subsistence farming.

4. Primacy isn’t what it used to be

It is not as important as it used to be for a power to remain on top by a huge margin. Countries used to acquire power by conquering each other, and in that world, primacy is a life or death matter. The contest today is to see who can grow and lure more innovative talent, and become energy independent first. Land grabs are a waste of time and money.

5. Americans have it really good and will for generations

Here’s another key point to remember: China and India’s growth will not change living standards for the vast majority of Americans if we make the right choices at home. Even if China’s economy does grow to be larger than ours one day, there is no reason to think Americans will be worse off. We could even be better off. Look at the British—they enjoy very comfortable lives and take a lot more vacations since they gave up their empire.

6. Americans are safe

Americans enjoy an unimaginably high degree of safety from outside threats compared to most other peoples. We are protected by oceans, a strong military deterrent, and a stable society based on the rule of law. The growing strength of other powers will not change that fact.

7. The trajectories of future powers is unknowable

It seems that China, Brazil, and India are rising inexorably, and maybe they are. But maybe they aren’t. The Soviet Union looked like it would be around forever in 1988, and in 1990, Japan was seen as the undefeatable hegemon. We just don’t know, and can’t control, the futures of other big powers—which is yet another reason to focus on getting our own act together.

8. American leadership is vital, and everyone knows it

Even after eight years of stomach-churning foreign policy under the Bush administration, most countries acknowledge that American leadership is vital to solving major global problems and keeping order.

9. Previous bouts of self-doubt have proven unjustified

As Atlantic correspondent James Fallows recently explained, Americans are prone to cyclical periods of self-doubt. Our worries have been part of American culture since the days of our founders.

10. We have still have fundamental strengths

America doesn’t have nationwide broadband, consistent cell coverage, high-speed rail, or large-scale solar, though we need them. But it does have a high tolerance for failure, which encourages zany and sometimes very profitable ideas.

I can provide counter-arguments to many of her points, but I’m wondering if you agree with her. And even if you do, does it help?

The second article is somewhat more psychological and much more practical. It is “No, We’re Not a Broken people” written by Davis Swanson in The Humanist.

Some excerpts (and the emphasis is mine):

Most of the defeatist questions I get asked are more statements than questions, mostly pointing out ways in which our nation is corrupted, but stated as much out of frustration and despair as out of any hope of having a miraculous solution articulated: Aren’t politicians all bought and paid for? Haven’t we tried being activists for years with no success? Can’t the corporate media just destroy us if it wants to? Won’t the secret permanent bureaucracy just kill any politicians who stray from the plan? Isn’t anything good doomed to fail under our two-party system? And so forth.

Some of these questions, statements, and cries of anguish refer to all that’s wrong and needs to be fixed, at least in the view of the questioner. I tend to agree with much of the analysis I hear, and want to add to it. I want to get people to see the danger of leaving all power in the hands of presidents, for example, even though returning it to Congress wouldn’t do a bit of good until we fix Congress. But I have no sympathy for what I consider the intellectual and moral offense of coughing discouragement on people.

Swanson is responding to another article about our malaise by a psychologist Bruce Levine on the AlterNet. Levine finds causes of our disempowerment in financial stress, social isolation, institutions of higher education that train submissiveness, the treating of rebelliousness with pharmaceuticals, the damaging effects of television, and the replacement of citizenship with consumerism. He finds solutions in “encouragement, small victories, and models of courageous behaviors.” We don’t need to be told what’s wrong, claims Levine. We need the morale boost of seeing people succeed in doing what’s right.

But Levine’s discussion needs to be expanded because it offers no explanation for why activists (at least on the left, and I think across the political spectrum) were hit with despair so severely in 2009. Nor does it specifically address why we’re lacking in encouragement, why we’re missing small victories or courageous behavior. I believe the answer has more to do with our communications system than anything else, so the solution isn’t simply for you or I as isolated individuals to act courageously.

But why 2009 in particular? Why such a dramatic increase in defeatism from 2008?

Another evolving trend is the equation of civic involvement with participation in presidential elections. The president is a character in a television drama, and our job is to vote the lesser of the two presidential contenders off the fictional island. Our job is then complete, and the good president will fix everything for us. So many seem to believe.

No Encouragement to Be Found?
Above all, humans are imitators. It’s how we learn as children and how we learn as adults. We do not, as Levine points out, need to be told to get active. Rather, we need to be shown others being active, enjoying it, succeeding at it, and being rewarded for it. When was the last time you saw that on television?

If we see public activism fail twenty times and are then told to get out there and be active, the actions speak louder than the words. But if we see courageous, inspiring, successful activism—and enough of it—we don’t need as much explicit encouragement to join in.

Our independent media follows corporate media too closely, spinning its stories in a different way, while missing the stories that no one else has covered. When we hear of successes, they’re often disguised as something else. When a policy decision follows public pressure, the pressure is left out of the story. Politicians give other reasons for their actions, and stenographic reporters report them. And, of course, when a policy decision hasn’t been made yet, the media instructs everyone not to imagine they can have any effective input.

WHAT WE CAN DO:

We have to be the media. We have to report on our successes (I will post any good stories you send me at afterdowningstreet.org). We have to use the media. We have to actively search out the sorts of stories we want to learn about. We have to reform the media, bust the monopolies, provide equal access, and support community, public, and independent outlets. We have to build organizations that create good media and press for media reforms. We have to stop supporting bad media in any way. Don’t buy it. Don’t buy ads in it. Don’t participate in it. Put everything into enlarging good outlets that report the news.

Uncausing the Causes of Gloom
Some of the causes of despair that Levine points out may be more easily addressed than some of the causes of congressional misrepresentation (money, media, parties, election rigging, and so on). The primary causes of financial stress are not things an individual can simply wish away. Millions of Americans are under severe financial stress, the only solution for which is getting more money into their hands. The blame for this situation lies entirely with the predatory plutocrats pigging out on the fruits of other people’s labor.

And yet there are things we may be able to do to become more citizenlike and less consumerized, and to alleviate some of our financial stress. We can cease buying unnecessary crap. We can grow and make more things for ourselves. We can trade and barter and participate in local economies. We can save money in local institutions, avoid borrowing, and avoid the mega-banks.

We can also address social isolation whether or not we’re under financial stress. An ideal approach might be to start small political clubs or book clubs—groups of a handful of people who can be friends as well as allies. We can join non-profit advocacy groups that will keep us informed of their efforts, progress, and victories large and small. Announcing your despair is almost the equivalent of announcing that you don’t belong to such a group.

Remember, this is a marathon, not a sprint.

I think that what we do at PlanetPOV—and especially GROW—can help not only democracy, but ourselves. We can build on small successes and attain bigger ones. There is so much about which we can despair; it takes energy and discipline to counteract that. (Frankly, energy and discipline are the themes of my life!) I think we must work harder at that. I least I should.

I am a Virginian.  My mother was a Virginian, and so was her father. His family came to the colonies out of necessity and choice. During the English Civil War in the 1640s, my ever-so-many-great grandfather backed the losing horse (thus, establishing a long tradition in my family): King Charles I.

Years before this little altercation started, the King had given my ancestor a rather large tract of land in the new colony – not that my ancestor ever bothered to go check it out, you understand. He was pretty cosy with the life he had in Halifax, in the North of England. But then the Civil War started, and the King lost his head – literally – and my ancestor was faced with a choice: stick around and lose his head (and land and everything else) or get ye the hell out to the colonies.

(Even though my family aren’t the greatest gamblers in the world, we do have a reasonable modicum of common sense and a desire for survival).

So, that’s how Virginian I am. I couldn’t be more Virginian if I were Poca-bloody-hontas (and one of her granddaughters married into my ancestor’s family), so I’m entitled to a reasonable amount of snobbism … or rather, that pejorative synonym for it: elitism.

It is as a bona fide elitist from that most elite of the original 13 colonies, I would like to address the matter of why the Democratic candidate for governor from the Commonwealth of Virginia lost in November 2009, because a lot of netroots know-it-all HuffPo dittoes, in their infinite misinformed and discombabulated thinking, have ascertained the reason of Creagh Deeds’ s defeat incorrectly.

Put simply: Y’all are WRONG!

First of all, Bob McDonnell was not ”widely popular” as some people regularly claim in HuffPo land. If anything, most logical voters viewed him suspiciously, as someone who ran as a moderate appeaser, but who had the shifty eyes of an arch-conservative in waiting to dismantle every Progressive piece of legislation enacted by the outgoing Governor, Tim Kaine.

When he appeared on the campaign trail at various times under the Confederate flag, hackles were raised along Democratic spines in alarm. The publication of ueber-regressive philosophies written in his doctoral thesis from a glorified Bible-school sent everyone’s mindset into overdrive at the regressive and repressive attitude he exhibited toward women and women’s rights. That McDonnell slickly - he exudes an image of slime trailing in his wake – excused these sentiments as a folly of youth wasn’t lost amongst the more discerning voter. 

When, exactly, does “youth” end? McDonnell was expressing these beliefs as a man of 35, when the thesis was written!!!

Nope. McDonnell appealed to Sarah Palin’s ”real Virginians,” the rural residents along the south-central corridor, extending into the mountainous westside of the state – people like the Wise County constituents, dependent on travelling medical charities for their healthcare. Sarah offered him her expert campaigning skills, and he turned her down. That, it seems, was a political stroke of sheer genius.

These were the people who couldn’t reconcile themselves to the specter of a black man in the White House.

He then turned his attention to the Socialist Communist People’s Democratic Republic of Northern Virginia (so dubbed by Joe McCain, foul-mouthed brother of Senator John), subtly reminding all and sundry that he, Bob McDonnell, came from the Northern Virginia area.

As if that mattered. 

It didn’t because – and here’s the rub – the election was won by McDonnell as much as because of who didn’t vote as who did. And it was also lost, I’m sorry to say, because the Democratic Party endorsed the wrong man as candidate.

Creagh Deeds is a lovely man, but he was little known throughout the state as a whole. He was chosen by the Democratic voters from a field that included Terry McAuliffe (the high-profile Clinton operative) and Brian Moran, the brother of the popular and Progressive 8th District Congressman. McAuliffe came with the tag “Carpetbagger” (a term that still carries images of Yankees marching through the Shenandoah), and Moran, like his brother, was viewed as too far to the Left. That left Deeds a nice compromise candidate – nice, being the operative word.

Mr Nice proceeded to run one of the most negative campaigns in recent history.

That was a big mistake.

The other big mistake was simply that Virginia voters traditionally don’t turn out in droves to elect a governor. The winner of the prize can only serve one four-year term, and then he goes. The voters are savvy enough to realise that the fella in the Big Chair will only work for the first two years and then phone in for the final two, because he’ll be busy raising campaign funds for his US Senate candidacy that will take place immediately he leaves office (Chuck Robb, Macaca Allen, Mark Warner et al). Most people don’t bother voting, considering that they’ll probably be voting for whomever in four years’ time in a senatorial campaign, so McDonnell appealed to the people he knew had a vested interest in voting.

To the goobers in the rural Southern part of the state, he was the white man who’d stand up to the one who had no right to sit in the Oval Office; and to the independents, he could put hand on heart and claim to be a fiscal conservative. He rightly calculated that most of the people who didn’t vote, would be Democrats anyway, lazily complacent, and he wasn’t wrong.

First, that particular demographic which carried Obama in the state did a no-show: the college kids. Why should they? They’d participated in the ‘big one’, the Party party. They’d canvassed and registered voters and campaigned door-o-door. They’d participated in history. Now they were having a voter hangover, or they were studying for mid-terms, or both.

Either way, they didn’t show; or they couldn’t be bothered to do so. They simply couldn’t be bothered to vote for a greying, middle-aged man with a stutter, where they’d turned out in droves for a greying, middle-aged celebrity with a teleprompter.

The other demographic that won the state for Obama failed to show as well – the African American community. In fact, they were divided, with some high profiled African American Virginians, actually, endorseing McDonnell (e.g., the divine Doug Wilder, first African American governor of any state.)

So most of the African American community stayed home too.

Statistics show that in any given election, the lower the voter turnout, the more chance a Republican or an incumbent will prevail. This is exactly what happened.

And as for this being an indictment of Obama’s shortcomings as a President, after less than one year, that’s a fallacy too. In almost every voting precinct in the state, exit polls amongst independents, who voted for McDonnell, showed that the reason they voted Republican had nothing to do with President Obama’s freshman year performance and everything to do with what they perceived to be a shoddily-run campaign on the part of the Democratic candidate. In fact, almost to a person, these voters said that they wouldn’t hesitate to vote for Obama again, as President.

As Walter Cronkite and – even better – that real Virginian Bruce Hornsby would say, “That’s just the way it is” – unfortunate, coincidental, but true.

I am just pissed off and sick and tired of self-appointed pundits in the blogosphere attempting to use this election as a rod with which to beat the President; and if that conjures up images of Simon Legree or Ole Massa beatin’ the field hands, good. I want it to show that.

Because the people making the loudest wailings about the Virginia result (and, to a degree, the New Jersey one and the Massachusetts one) are the same adolescently-inclined people who are threatening to sulk out the vote in 2010 or 2012 or who are whining for some whiter than white (literally) Progressive saviour to descend from secular heaven in the form of Howard Dean or Denis Kucinich and mount a primary challenge against the President. They’re the same people demanding that the President fire his team of advisors, including his Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Treasury and hire a whole new entourage of their own choosing – said entourage to include, again, Howard Dean and Denis Kucinich, as well as Eliot Spitzer and Elizabeth Warren.

They’re are the political innocents, mischief makers and miscreants who proclaim themselves Progressives, far superior in intellect, tolerance, open-mindedness and understanding than the Bible-bashing, gun-totin’ Republican Right, yet they want various Rightwing commentators/politicians ’silenced’; they ban any adverse comment on certain Progressive aggregates, whilst preaching the First Amendment. When they’re told the truth by anyone in a position to know better, they either effect selective deafness or they’re arrogant enough to deem the truth a lie.

So the salutory lesson in all of this is simply this: look at what happens when you decide, for whatever reason, not to vote in an election. The fox gets in the henhouse and all hell breaks loose. McDonnell and his merry men have unleased a war against their LGBT constituents, after Tim Kaine signed executive order legislation banning any discrimination against anyone based on sexual orientation … and that’s just the start of things to come.

A helluva lot of fuck-ups can happen in four short years. Just look at the damage Bush wreaked!

Hello, I’m a recovering consumer.  I have used several techniques to battle my disease and I thought I would share them with you.  Hopefully I can save just one other individual with this horrible disease.

First off, what is consumption addiction?  I don’t know what the technical definition is, but for me it’s a cross between an obsessive compulsive disorder and depression.  It starts when I get depressed and I want to feel better.  So, in order to do that legally, I shop.  I may shop for books, gadgets, online/offline, whatever.  Doesn’t matter.  The pattern of how it starts and refuses to stop is the problem.

What happens is, I get depressed, then I get a wild hair that I have to have something.  It can be anything.  I then start a very deep plunge into researching that thing.  I’ll look at consumer reports, google results, online reviews, ebay and craigslist items, new, used, local, remote, everything.   I’ll then make an absolute decision regarding the purchase and stop.  Dead.  I back off the whole project and tell myself: If I still want it this badly in 7 days, then I’ll buy it.

That’s how I cured myself of obsessive compulsive consumption.  If I still want it in 7 days, then I’ll give in to the urge.  99% of the time, I have no interest 7 days later.  This mentality has saved me a fortune.  First step?  Realize you have the same problem (if you indeed do).

The reason I bring this up now is my wife just did the very same behavior.  She didn’t know it at the time, but she successfully short circuited the desire to buy.  She went into an Ikea looking for bedding and came out to the register area with a whole shopping cart full of random goodies.  She stood in line and had a moment of clarity: do I REALLY need any of this?  She pushed the full cart aside and walked out of Ikea.

Now, it’s true that some store workers will have to place all that stuff back.  But isn’t that the purpose of a job in the first place?  To have purpose?  So, I don’t see this method as a particularly bad thing.

So, there you go.  The solution to the consumption problem is to indulge your mind in the IDEA that a purchase is being made then to quietly back away at the last minute and simply walk away from the purchase.   Your mind gets the rush from the hunt, your pocket book gets saved from the onslaught, and the earth is saved from refuse that it does not need.

In his latest editorial at the end of Friday’s Real Time, Bill Maher put out a poignant plea for the public’s understanding and sympathy toward Hollywood’s big, self-promoting pat on the back that’s known as the Oscars. That one, special night, says our lad, is deserved, because – well, because Hollywood is just about the one major industry which is productive and successful in America these days. (Never mind the fact that it was a foreign film which won ‘Best Picture’ last year, or the fact that foreign actors regularly go off with a gong, or even the fact that quite a lot of films are made outside Hollywood these days.

But Bill wouldn’t know that, would he? I mean, considering the fact that he rarely ventures outside the Hollywood bubble, except to slide into various cities for one night only, check into a hotel room, deliver 90 minutes of stand-up and then depart for the West Coast, yet again, by private jet, no doubt … but we’ll forgive him, because he’s our lad and speaks for those of us on the Left, so we won’t worry too much about the extra carbon footprint. Hey, we’ll be magnanimous and global and extend the same sort of licence to be hypocritical to Mr and Mrs Sting and Bono too. This trio has the art of preaching virtues to the little men of the world, whilst enjoying the greatest and most gluttonous of excesses themselves … because they can.

Bill calls the Oscars’ night ‘Hollywood’s Prom.’ And we should allow our hard-working and overpaid celebrities one night of libertine fun, because they work so hard for us, entertaining us, whilst pocketing our hard-earned dough that we can ill-afford to pay – either to catch the latest Clooney flick or even to pay close to a hundred bucks to see Bill say the same thing he’s said countless times before on Real Time for ninety minutes.

I don’t begrudge Bill his success. I suppose he’s paid his dues, in addition to being in the right place at the right time; it’s not my problem, but his, that he – like countless others – has appeared to have forgotten his antecedents once he’s tasted success. Ne’mind … I had the same problem digesting Margaret Thatcher’s use of the royal ‘we’, choosing, instead, to remember that she, like Cardinal Wolsey, came from pretty common stock.

What I do have a problem with, in relation to Bill, is the fact that he continues to present himself as a voice of the Progressives in this nation. In fact, in this latest editorial, he refers to himself as a Progressive.

I am sorry. I dispute that.

On the episode which aired on October 2, 2009, Bill remarked to his guest, David Cross, that he favoured the death penalty. Bill’s said this countless times before, and on this occasion, remarked, “I always say, if you get’em once with the old death penalty, they sure as hell won’t kill again.”

Do we know any Progressives who are in favour of the death penalty?

On a tweet rendered in late December, after the successful capture of the Underpants bomber, Bill tweeted that he was in favour of racial profiling at airports, because “little, old, white ladies were not terrorists.” (Hey, Bill … don’t give the terrorists any ideas).

On a program which aired March 13, 2009, Bill enthusiastically remarked how much in favour he was of Obama’s slapping down the teachers’ unions, and he went on to rant about how much he disliked unions in general. Later in the year, he reiterated this again. So, he’s anti-union. How many Progressives are against the concept of collective bargaining and union representation?

And, finally, on the penultimate program of Real Time last season, he admitted to no less than Bill Frist that he didn’t want the government to have anything to do with his healthcare. This was after making a brilliant analogy for single-payer by comparing government-controlled healthcare to be as efficient as the government-controlled Post Office.

I know, I know … the Post Office isn’t really that efficient, but Bill’s a bit of a Luddite when he’s caught unawares. He’s probably not even aware of the cost of a first class stamp. He just knows that when he writes a letter to his sister in New Jersey on Monday, she has it on Wednesday, two days later. That, in this day of e-mail and conference calling, is just a gratuitous Saturday Evening Post moment, but it served its purpose and Bill pushed the single-payer envelope for the rest of the season … until Bill Frist appeared and unsettled him.

So, Bill Maher, Progressive:

1. believes in the death penalty

2. believes in racial profiling

3. is anti-union

4. and doesn’t want the government to have any say in his healthcare.

Because I’m a tolerant person and because I genuinely like Bill and like my heroes to have feet of clay, I’ll be nice and say that sure as hell sounds like a Blue Dog to me; but to others, it might just have a whiff of a closet Republican about it.

Either way, Bill Maher is no more the voice of any Progressive any more than he is the voice of the middle classes, whose fashionable plight he was pushing on Friday’s show.

If Bill were to spend one month in either the South or flyover country, living the life of a middle-aged middle-class man, on an average wage, with credit cards and bills to pay, a mortgage and a clapped-out second-hand car to maintain, without the security guards or an available Whole Foods … if he were to rise to that challenge and do that and THEN presume to speak for the middle classes, I might give him the kudos and plaudits I’m witholding.

But I’d still say he was a Blue Dog, politically.

And maybe a Republican … but until then, most definitely, more than a little bit of a hypocrite.

As a follow-up to Hate in America, did anyone see the DKos diary on the group in Texas called Repent Amarillo?

http://www.texasobserver.org/dateline/he-who-casts-the-first-stone

What’s next for Repent? They’ve posted a “Warfare Map” on the group’s Web site. The map includes establishments like gay bars, strip clubs and porn shops, but also the Wildcat Bluff Nature Center. Repent believes the 600-acre prairie park’s Walmart-funded “Earth Circle,” used for lectures, is a Mecca for witches and pagans. Also on the list are The 806 coffeehouse (a hangout for artists and counterculture types), the Islamic Center of Amarillo (“Allah is a false god”), and “compromised churches” like Polk Street Methodist (gay-friendly).

In January, Repent caused a stir when the group rolled out BoycottHouston.com, a Web site that urges economic sanctions against Houston because the mayor is gay and a large Planned Parenthood building is being built.

In  http://amarilloindy.com/wordpress/?p=651, their leader, David Grisham says: “Tolerance is indeed the last virtue of a degenerate society. Any society that starts teaching its children about tolerance and intolerance rather than good and evil will raise an entire generation that simply tolerates evil.”

Grisham works as a security guard at Pantex, a nuclear weapons facility contractor for the federal government. The Pantex website says, in part, that the plant, located 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, is charged with maintaining the safety, security and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The facility is managed and operated by B&W Pantex for the U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration… The Pantex Plant workforce must exhibit the highest standards of ethical behavior. The Company does not discriminate based on race, age, color, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran status or disability.

It’s disturbing when religious fanatics have access to nuclear materials.

Maybe you have already heard of the poet Rumi.  In the US, translations of Rumi outsell all other poetry books combined. One factor contributing to his recent popularity might be a manifestation of our increased interest in spirituality; or maybe the continuing growth of Islam in the West. But whatever factors help explain this phenomenon, I think Rumi’s relevance and popularity has grown because his poetry is both passionate and playful, and because it celebrates the sacred in our everyday lives. If you’ve never heard of Rumi or heard his poetry, you’re in for a treat.

Before we get to the poetry though, I’d like to spend a little time talking about a few of the themes that run through his work, to give you a brief background in Rumi, and, most especially, to have us examine the ways we might share some of the feelings he expresses. Although Rumi’s poetry is intensely personal, it is also universal. (And isn’t that always the case—that the more personal, the more universal?) It must be; he has managed to reach out to us from the distance of seven centuries, from a place very foreign to post-modern America, and from a religious tradition unfamiliar to most of us.

Jalaluddin Rumi was born in what today is Afghanistan in 1206 CE. His father was a well known preacher and legal scholar, and the family lived in many of the important centers of learning. Rumi married and had several children.  When his father died, Rumi took over his position and also continued his spiritual studies. When he was 42, he met an enigmatic mystic named Shams who changed his life, transforming him into an ecstatic and charismatic preacher. Two years after their meeting, Shams suddenly disappeared and this had a profound effect on Rumi; he stopped preaching in public and devoted the rest of his life to training initiates and writing poetry.

Rumi was a follower of the mystical dimension of Islam known as Sufism. Another term for Sufi is Dervish, as in “Whirling Dervish.” Westerners called them “whirling” Dervishes because it is part of their spiritual practice to attain trance-like states by slowly and rhythmically spinning, while at the same time circling around the room as a group. Rumi is reported to have said that he composed all of his works while he spun around in this ecstatic state. It is important in the appreciation of Rumi to understand him in the context of both Sufi mysticism and of mainstream Islam.

The word “Islam” is the Arabic word for “surrender, “meaning surrender to God. For Muslims, surrender to God doesn’t imply only obedience and service to god. It also connotes a kind of yielding, a release that is like the way we sink into soft beds after a long and arduous journey. Another action that is of central importance to Muslims is to bear witness, or testify, to the singularity of God. This declaration is called the Shahadah and it proclaims, “There is no God but The God, and Muhammad is his Messenger.” The word “Allah” is simply the Arabic word meaning “The God” (Al-lah), and refers to the same God of Judaism and Christianity. These two tenets of faith—the necessity of surrender to God and the realization of God’s utter Oneness—inform Rumi’s poems and are keys to understanding his message.

A modern poet, George Santayana wrote, “Prayer is poetry believed in.” Rumi’s poetry is religious poetry, spiritual poetry, and the poetry of the true mystic. In his poems are all the varieties of prayer: prayers of praise, of thanksgiving, and of supplication. Maybe this is the time to pause to think about these terms I use so glibly: “Religion,” “Spirituality,” Mysticism.”

Someone told me that religion is for people who are afraid of Hell, and that spirituality is for people who have been there. (I can attest to that.)But Mysticism, although found in every religion and rooted in spirituality, is of a different order than either. Religious people, even spiritual people, are rarely mystics. The word “mystic” – a form of the word “mystery”—comes from the Greek word muo, to shut or close the lips or eyes. This originally meant that the mystic was one who had been initiated into a secret knowledge of the Divine. Over time, mysticism has come to mean not only a consciousness of the beyond, but also a different way of seeing reality. Mysticism entails a way of looking inward beyond closed eyes; an interiorization. For a true mystic such as Rumi, there is an extension of normal consciousness, a widening of vision that reveals a hidden truth:

Finally, there is a direct experience, or encounter, with God. These are rare experiences given to a rare few, sometimes in a flash, but more often only after rigorous training and preparation. Try to imagine what it would be like to actually be in the presence of God. We would certainly be awestruck, even terrified, and probably mind-blown! Think of Arjuna when he sees Krishna. Could we handle it at all? Yet mystics devote their lives to seeking this experience, because it is this yearning the longing for God that is characteristic of all mystics. Rumi explains:

We don’t need to be mystics to understand that feeling. We know about yearning too, even though it might not be for God. We have all, at some time, loved someone so desperately that we waited by the phone for days, afraid to leave the room and miss the call. Or maybe we’ve felt the unbearable ache of wanting someone who barely notices us, somebody unattainable, who loves someone else. We’ve spent long nights longing for someone, maybe, wanting to be near them, fervently trying to will them towards us.

To Rumi, the Beloved he is yearning for is God. He has an unquenchable urge to escape from the loneliness of separation towards a re-union with the Beloved and to make the only connection that will bring peace to his soul. As lovers ourselves, we can relate to this craving for our beloved. But how can we begin to grasp what Rumi feels towards his ineffable beloved? He replies:

A teacher I heard of was asked by his seven year-old daughter, “Where is God?” He responded by telling her to touch his arm. She did. He asked her to touch his nose, then his chest, which she did. The he said, “Now touch my love.” She smiled but could not. Some time later he asked his daughter, “Where is love?” She pointed to her chest, as if to say that love was in her. He asked her to hug herself and to kiss her own hand. She giggled at the silliness of that. She experienced the flatness of those gestures and she faintly understood that love requires an other. To me, this is a wonderful story about the mystery of transcendence, about something beyond our five senses. Love, like God, is not located just ‘in me” or “in you” but is “between us.” The experience of God as the Beloved points to that between-ness relationship with the Other.

I have been writing about lover and beloved, about union, and about ecstasy. It is no coincidence that Rumi uses these obviously erotic words, and there is just no way we can miss the sexual and sensual aspects of his poetry. It may even be that we are hard-wired for desire, and that our urge for sex is a God-given taste of an even better mystical union. However, like all spiritual truths, there is a paradox to be found in the relationship between the lover and Beloved:

I think Rumi is saying that once the ecstatic union of the lover and Beloved is achieved, we realize that in reality, there was never any separation at all! Oneness of God means that there is only God, and that everything is God. The Beloved so longed for and sought after was always, as Rumi says, “as close as your jugular vein.” According to him, as well as every mystical tradition, it is our ego that prevents us from knowing this. When we are full of ourselves we leave no room for the Divine. The only way it is possible to experience God is by contracting our egos. In order to be filled, we must first be empty.

To the Sufi, self –renunciation is essential, but unlike other ascetic traditions, this does not mean turning away from the world. The only way to see the world as it really is is by merging oneself in it. The world as we know it is only a veil; to understand what is beneath that veil, our senses must be refined and purified. Once the mystic has re-emerged with God, she can see the world as it is, as God sees it, beneath its apparent opposites of good and evil.

Poetry has a power that is not found in explanation. When some wild-eyed guy stands on a street corner, wearing a sandwich board that says, “Repent!” we hurry by. But when Isaiah warns us, we listen. I hope I have opened the gate into Rumi’s orchard by providing some background on him and Sufism, but there is no substitute for direct encounter with his writing. So…

This morning as I was watching last night’s Craig Ferguson Show that we tape since we can’t stay up that late, his monologue struck a chord with me.

He stated that he’s been feeling rather depressed lately, and I have to admit that so have I, and I wonder if anyone else has been feeling the same.

I find it depressing to read the news every day and every day the news seems to be nothing but doom and gloom.

If it’s not articles about the Party of NO, it’s stories about Limbaugh’s and Beck’s latest bloviations, Sarah Palin’s Charismatic Apostolic Warriors taking over our government, the 244% increase in hate groups, unemployment, foreclosures, Americans suffering without health care, earthquakes in Haiti and Chile.

I’ve been thinking about the typical platitude of counting my blessings, and I do have innumerable blessings in my life, and focusing on the positives rather than negatives, and then I log onto the Internet and the depressing cycle starts again.

So, I started thinking of what I can do in my every day life to get around the blues and decided that I need an attitude adjustment.

Today is the day that I am starting my personal movement to cheer up, by finding at least one good news story every single day.

I have also decided to stop playing into the negativity by referring to Tea Party people as teabaggers, and instead calling them, well, Tea Party People or referring to the group as the Tea Party Movement.

I am going to try very hard to speak about Republicans, Palin, Limbaugh and Beck, et all, in a respectful manner, taking a cue from Van Jones and his graciousness in telling Beck that he loves him, even if it was tongue in cheek, but I think the man really meant it.

In other words, I’m going to try to play nice and not lower myself to the opposition’s level.

Have you ever gotten really angry with someone and blew up and told them off?

How did it make you feel afterward?

I’ve done that a few times in my life, and every single time I’ve regretted it afterward and I felt horrible and worse than I did about whatever offense occurred to bring on my anger or hurt feelings.

I’m taking the high road, or going to try my damnedest to do that, as it is healthier for my frame of mind.

My feel good story of the day is this one –

Veterinarian Wins Pay It Forward

Yesterday, March 2, 2010, the Southern Poverty Law center issued a new report on hate groups in America.

The report documents a 244 percent increase in the number of active Patriot groups in 2009. Their numbers grew from 149 groups in 2008 to 512 groups in 2009, an astonishing addition of 363 new groups in a single year. Militias -- the paramilitary arm of the Patriot movement -- were a major part of the increase, growing from 42 militias in 2008 to 127 in 2009.

An April 2009 assessment by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis said pointedly: “Lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

Slowly, but steadily, these bigots are slithering from beneath their rocks, armed and deadly.

Almost as disturbing as the incidents themselves are the family, friends and neighbors who talk about the vitriol they heard and the warning signs they saw. What did they say or do about it? What any of us do? My suspicion is that far too many do far too little.

Although people say that they would be very upset by a racist act and would take action, their actual reactions were much more muted because people are much less willing to pay the emotional cost of the confrontation than they thought they would be. I am not confrontational, but I hope that I could summon the courage to say something.

This is the final piece in my series, Hate in America.  I’ll be honest--I hate certain groups too. Maybe that’s why I undertook this series. I hate most Republicans, and think they are anathema to humanitarian values. I hate Rush Limbaugh and I hate Glenn Beck, to name just two examples, because I honestly believe they are a danger to our country. And Ann Coulter? Don’t get me started! They are every bit the enemy combatants as are the most rabid Al Qaida terrorists. I hate haters, but what does that make me? But in my defense, is it irrational to hate those people who one believes are out to hurt me? I do take their statements and ideology personally, because they are working very deliberately to change America into a place I don’t want to be—and worse, where I don’t want my children and grandchildren to be. I don’t think my hatred is irrational, but then, who does?  I know that hatred is a toxic emotion and wish I had an antivenin for the poison it spreads.

So, enough. Let’s put that aside for a while and see what others, more evolved than I, have done to combat hate.

I am glad to report that there are many groups working hard to combat hate and to prevent it. Hate has been with us since Cain and Abel—or, if you prefer, since Neanderthals encountered Homo sapiens.

We will never be able to eradicate hate. Human beings are irrational beings; we are not Vulcans. But there are steps we can take to combat hate. We can start with ourselves for insight into our own prejudices. We can teach our children tolerance and conflict resolution. We can educate adults about the effects of hate. We can legislate against hate crimes. While we will never eradicate it, there are steps we can take against it.

The Internet has been rightly hailed as a groundbreaking interactive marketplace of ideas, in which anyone with the necessary hardware and software can set up a cyber-stall. But the downside of this unparalleled information exchange is that, alongside its many valuable online resources, the Net also offers a host of offensive materials – including hate materials – that attempt to inflame public opinion against certain groups of people.

A few months ago, I was on the Huffington Post, reading and commenting on a thread about the Federal Reserve. There were several posters expressing their beliefs that the Fed was up to nefarious deeds and should either be abolished or made transparent. Fine—they are certainly entitled to their opinions. But as I read, something started to look familiar about some comments. I recognized that a few posters were indirectly accusing Jewish bankers as controlling the Fed, (and thus the monetary system of the United States and even the world) by listing all the Jewish-sounding names of fed bankers. When I Googled those names, it turned out that they were not only incorrect, but were part of an old anti-Semitic tract called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I called them on it and was roundly and harshly criticized. I was so upset, I emailed the Anti Defamation League about it. I got no reply, but subsequently, I read that several prominent Jewish bloggers no longer post their blogs on HP, due to the response of its readers. (As an aside, Abe Foxman, the National Director of the ADL, has some serious credibility problems .)

Bigotry and hatred thrive on ignorance, fear, false information and half-truths. But if readers are able to deconstruct any messages of hate that come their way, much of the messages’ power is reduced. This makes critical thinking skills an indispensable part of an anti-hate tool kit.

What We Can Do About Internet Hate

If people want to do something about hate material they see on the Internet, there are several options:

Contact the Internet Service Provider

All over the world, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are being forced to become more proactive about hate material on their servers. Most ISPs now have Acceptable Use Policies that clearly define the guidelines for using their services, as well as the penalties for violating those guidelines. However, ISPs do not have the legal power to decide what material is illegal; and so most are reluctant to remove suspect content from their servers without official direction from a law enforcement agency.

Report online hate to the police

Some urban police departments now have a High-Tech Crime Unit to investigate online offences. If none exists, a complaint can be made to the local police. It’s advisable to attach a copy of the offending material to the letter of complaint.

Check out “hate watch” Web sites:

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

Phone: 202-244-2990
Web: http://www.adc.org
(Combats media stereotyping, defamation, and discrimination against Americans of Arab descent through legal action and education.)

Anti-Defamation League

Phone: 212-490-2525
Web: http://www.adl.org
(Combats anti-semitism and racial supremacist ideology,
published Hate Crimes Laws: A Comprehensive Guide.)

Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund

Phone: 212-966-5932
(Community education, legal counseling and advocacy on behalf of victims of anti-Asian violence.)

Center For Democratic Renewal

Phone: 404-221-0025
Web: http://www.thecdr.org
(Published When Hate Groups Come to Town: A Handbook of Effective Community Responses.)

Center for New Community

Phone: 708-848-0319
Web: http://www.newcomm.org
(Publishes special reports on anti-immigrant groups)

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Phone: 202-488-8787
Web: http://www.cair-net.org
(Published, Law Enforcement Official’s Guide to the Muslim Community)

NAACP

Phone: 410-521-4939
Web: http://www.naacp.org
(Combats racisms and fights for civil rights.)

National Council of Churches

Phone: 212-870-2141
Web: http://www.ncccusa.org
(Organized nationally to rebuild burnt churches in 1996.)

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

Phone 202-393-2284
Web: http://www.thetaskforce.org
(Fights hate crime; monitors attacks on civil liberties.)

The National Urban League

Phone: 212-558-5300
Web: http://www.nul.org
(Increasing civil rights, educational and financial opportunities for African Americans through programs and research.)

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)

Phone: 202-467-4999
Web: http://www.pflag.org
(Support for families of Gays and Lesbians with hundreds of local chapters).

People for the American Way

Phone: 202-467-4999
Web: http://www.pfaw.org
(Supports community organizing for freedom of thought, expression and religion.)

Political Research Associates
1310 Broadway, Suite 201
Somerville, MA 02144
Phone: 617-666-5300
Web: http://www.publiceye.org/
(Think-tank monitoring the full spectrum of hate organizations.)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Phone: 334-956-8200
Web: http://www.splcenter.org
(Reports on hate crime and advances the legal rights of victims of injustice. Home of Klanwatch.)

Study Circles Resource Center

Phone: 860-928-2616
Web: http://www.studycircles.org
(Helps communities and organizations begin small democratic, discussion groups that can make significant progress on difficult issues including race.)

100 Black Men of America

Phone: 404-688-5100
Web: http://www.100blackmen.org
(Helps young African Americans to overcome financial and cultural obstacles through mentoring, anti-violence, education and economic development programs.)

Regional Organizations

California Association of Human Relations Organizations

Phone: 213-974-7601
Web: http://www.cahro.org
(Works with groups to develop statewide responses to hate crimes.)

Montana Human Rights Network

Web: http://www.mhrn.org/

Western States Center

Phone: 503-228-8866
Web: http://www.westernstatescenter.org
(Works to fight intolerance in the Northwest.)

Women’s Project

Phone: 501-372-5113
Web: http://www.womens-project.org
(Community-based organizing project that combats violence against women, economic injustice, racism, sexism, and homophobia in the South.)

If hateful Internet communications do not cross the line into incitement to imminent lawless action or a true threat, they receive First Amendment protection. The U.S. is a free speech outlier in the arena of hate speech-- many other countries criminalize online hate speech.

However, even in the United States, certain forms of hateful speech — such as cyberbullying in schools and targeted harassment — may continue to face increased regulation.

How hate sites contribute to hate crimes

The Internet does a couple of things for hate groups. First of all, it raises the impact that a single hate-monger can have. Not too many years ago, a single Klansman would have to go to a great deal of effort and spend quite a bit of money and find a sympathetic printer in order to produce a pamphlet that might reach 100 people.

Now the same Klansman, for almost no money, is able to very quickly put up a Web site that has the potential to reach millions. The other thing the Internet does is let haters network easily. Many of these people are on listserv programs, so if something of interest happens in one part of the country, very soon people all over know about it. Or very often sympathizers just see information posted in announcements on other people’s Web pages.

Law enforcement agencies must assume a central role in implementing the hate crime prevention, and response. The authorities won’t be able to stop every “lone wolf” with a gun and a gripe. But we, as a society, can do a much better job of creating an environment where hateful beliefs are never ignored and suspicious behavior never goes unreported.

What Law Enforcement Can Do

From the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

To develop and implement successful intervention strategies to deal with hate groups, law enforcement personnel first must understand the hate process. The hate model identifies the multiple stages of the hate process. Investigators can use this model to identify haters who have not yet transitioned from hate rhetoric to hate violence and target them with intervention programs, which have a higher probability of success. Likewise, law enforcement personnel can identify and target hard-core haters with appropriate interdiction strategies. Knowing how the hate process works helps interviewers penetrate the hate mask and address the hater’s underlying personal insecurities. If investigators can attenuate these personal insecurities, haters will become more receptive to rehabilitation. Identifying and understanding the stages of the hate process constitute the first steps in controlling hate violence.

From the International Association of Chiefs of Police:

Investing in prejudice reduction and violence prevention is vital to reducing the incidence of hate crime. The International Association of Chiefs of Police convened a summit in 1999 to address hate groups and hate crimes. Participants were hopeful that communities, schools, and justice system agencies could work together to create and maintain conditions in which prejudice gives way to tolerance and bias-motivated violence is replaced with peaceful problem-solving. Summit participants recommended proactive initiatives to help communities prevent bias-motivated incidents and hate crime.

The 1998 IACP Hate Crime in America Summit produced 46 recommendations to:

• Prevent Hate Crime
• Respond to Hate Crime
• Measure the Effectiveness of Prevention and Response Efforts

Collectively, the recommendations constitute an action agenda to advance understanding of hate crime, prevent hate crime, and improve the effectiveness of our response to this complex and challenging social problem. The agenda sets forth roles and responsibilities for a coordinated, community-wide response by citizens, schools and colleges, police, justice system agencies, social service agencies, and victims.

The summit also produced a Law Enforcement Action Agenda —12 essential actions to help police address hate crime.

Following are some useful strategies that may be used as tools to promote tolerance:

What Individuals Can Do

Individuals should continually focus on being tolerant of others in their daily lives. This involves consciously challenging the stereotypes and assumptions that they typically encounter in making decisions about others and/or working with others either in a social or a professional environment.

What the Media Can Do

The media should use positive images to promote understanding and cultural sensitivity. The more groups and individuals are exposed to positive media messages about other cultures, the less they are likely to find faults with one another — particularly those communities who have little access to the outside world and are susceptible to what the media tells them.

What the Educational System Can Do

Educators are instrumental in promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence. For instance, schools that create a tolerant environment help young people respect and understand different cultures.  In Israel, an Arab and Israeli community called Neve Shalom or Wahat Al-Salam (“Oasis of Peace”) created a school designed to support inter-cultural understanding by providing children between the first and sixth grades the opportunity to learn and grow together in a tolerant environment.

Although this is about hate in America, there is probably no better example of intractable conflict than that between Palestinians and Israelis. These short videos show how historic hatred can be overcome. This is an example of an extreme solution, but maybe that’s what it will take.

Problems arise when people simply do not understand one another. At the community school in Neve Shalom-Wahat al-Salam -- named in both Hebrew and Arabic -- children learn both languages at a very young age, thus cultivating a spirit of communication and mutual understanding. 5 minutes.

A 10-min presentation of the binational village of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam in Israel. The “Oasis of Peace” is the only community in the country where Palestinians and Jews choose to live, work and raise their children together in equality and mutual respect.

What Organizations Can Do

There are several wonderful organizations working tirelessly to combat hate through education and intervention. Many of them are listed above, but I’d like to highlight just a few that are doing exceptional work.

Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance program is working to foster school environments that are inclusive and nurturing – classrooms where equality and justice are not just taught, but lived. They distribute a magazine called Teaching Tolerance which reaches more than 400,000 educators across the country. Published twice a year and is provided free to educators.

In addition to the magazine, they also provide multimedia teaching kits, online curricula, professional development resources like Teaching Diverse Students Initiative and special projects like Mix It Up at Lunch Day. These materials are provided to educators at no cost.

Here is a sampling of some of the curricula from their wonderful program:

Toward a More Civil Discourse

Letters to the Editor

Introduction to Refutation

Browse the resources

Teaching Kits and Handbooks

The Simon Wiesenthal Center

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to generating change through the social action and education by confronting anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promoting human rights and dignity, and teaching the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations. It is accredited as an NGO at international organizations including the United Nations, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe. Headquartered in Los Angeles, the Simon Wiesenthal Center maintains offices in New York, Toronto, Boca Raton, Paris, Buenos Aires and Jerusalem.

Museum of Tolerance

The Center’s educational arm challenges visitors to confront bigotry and racism, and to understand the Holocaust in both historic and contemporary contexts. Over 1.5 million children and youth have participated in the Museum experience and its programs. Over 110,000 adults have been trained in the Museum’s professional development programs which include Tools for Tolerance, Teaching Steps to Tolerance, Task Force Against Hate, National Institute Against Hate Crimes, Tools for Tolerance for Teens and Bridging the Gap.

Hate groups are growing. Their techniques of recruitment run the range from simple and inexpensive, to sophisticated and technologically advanced, and are aimed with specificity at every age-group and social class. On the one hand, fascist organizations must be exposed, combated, and destroyed. On the other hand, in order to eliminate the soil in which hate grows, corporate manipulation of the media and exploitation of the people must be reversed. The slogan of the day ought to be: more funds -- not less -- for health care, unemployment insurance, welfare, and education. The rise in hate can be defeated.

In 1963, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in a letter from a Birmingham jail, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.” That’s still true.

Other Helpful Links:

Artists Against Racism
An international non-profit organization featuring dozens of artists taking a stand against racism.

Building Equality
Challenging prejudice, discrimination, and domination based on ethnicity, race, national origin, language, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation age, class, ability, size.

Civil Rights Organization
Recruits, educates and mobilizes individuals of good conscience in the ongoing struggle for equal opportunity.

Cross Point Anti-Racism
A large collection of links in the field of human rights, anti-racism, refugees, women’s rights, anti-fascism, Shoah, etc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
A resource for discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Eliminating Racism and Creating Equality
A non-profit organization focused on dismantling the invisible, yet socially destructive boundaries that have been fortified by the divisiveness of racial discrimination.

Institute for Global Communications
Advancing the work of progressive organizations and individuals for peace, justice, economic opportunity, human rights, democracy and environmental sustainability through strategic use of online technologies.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
Their principal objectives are to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality in the United States and to eliminate race prejudice.

National Association of Black & White Men Together
A group committed to fostering supportive environments wherein racial and cultural barriers can be overcome and human equality can be realized.

Race Bridges
Devoted to bringing the races together in projects that seek to bridge racial division.

AND THANK YOU POSTER KHIRAD FOR THESE:

Muslim Public Affairs Council
http://www.mpac.org/

American Islamic Congress
http://www.aicongress.org/

The Sikh Coalition
http://www.sikhcoalition.org/

Hindu American Foundation
http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/

Hate In America: Introduction

Hate in America, Part 1: A History of Hate

HATE IN AMERICA, Part 2: Hate Speech and the First Amendment

HATE IN AMERICA, Part 3: The Psychology and Recruitment of Hate