Dignity's Apostle: My Interview With Author Robert W. Fuller

Progressives are struggling to synthesize a movement that can rise above identity politics and mobilize people under a unified theme. Robert W. Fuller, Ph.D. argues in his newly published book, All Rise (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.), that simple dignity is an elusive need that cuts across demographics of race, gender, age, and class. Fuller attributes this void to a culture of “rankism” which he defines as “abuses of power associated with rank.” In his writings Fuller advocates for a grassroots effort to establish a “dignitarian society.”

Essentially, Fuller is labeling an ongoing human experience. He notes that we’ve all been victimized by the institutional structures of rankism in our lives as well as being abusers ourselves. This is true in our jobs as well as personal or family relationships.

For society at large there are broader implications because rankism breeds incompetence. Fuller cites deadly examples such as the Challenger space shuttle flight in 1986 and the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe as resulting from the direct result of a culture of rankism. Talented individuals were in each instance discouraged from criticizing the hierarchies they served. One can certainly identify rankism as a component of the culture of crony capitalism inside the Republican Party and the corporate world.

Fuller first wrote about the concept of rankism in his 2003 book, Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank (New Society Publishers). The inspiration for Fuller’s book was his own life in which he experienced being both a “somebody” and a “nobody.”

Fuller earned his Ph.D. in physics at Princeton University and taught at Columbia where he co-authored the renowned text Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics. During the social tumult of the 1960s, Fuller became interested in educational reform and at the age of 33 he was appointed president of Oberlin College, his Alma Mater.

In 1971 Fuller served as a consultant to Indira Gandhi and witnessed the famine resulting from India’s war with Pakistan over the fate of Bangladesh. When President Carter was elected, he initiated a campaign to persuade the president to end world hunger. Fuller’s meeting with President Carter in 1977 helped facilitate the establishment of the Presidential Commission on World Hunger.

During the 1980s Fuller often traveled to the Soviet Union working as a “citizen-scientist” to reduce cold war tensions. His work combined with other like-minded professionals led to the creation of the nonprofit global corporation venture Internews, which promotes democracy through free and independent media. He served as the Chairman of Internews for several years.

Fuller has certainly led an impressive and compelling life. Yet when the Soviet Union collapsed, Fuller found himself adrift and marginalized. As Fuller reflected upon his own life experience, he had an epiphany about how our society is ordered. It would be only human to ponder how he went from persuading an American President to questioning his own relevance. Fuller’s journey appears to have engendered both a personal commitment to empathy and the ambition to quantify the most subjective human perspective of all – dignity. He graciously agreed to respond to questions about his new book as well as his opinions regarding current events:
**************************************************************************************

ILJ: In the opening Chapter of All Rise, you wrote “Each of us has an innate sense that we have the same inherent worth as anyone else, regardless of our particular characteristics or our status. Every religion teaches us so.” Couldn’t one argue that religion has historically been guilty of imposing rankism more than any other institution? The Koran essentially legitimizes the abuse of women for example and women priests are often frowned upon.

Fuller: Religion teaches dignity; theology sometimes promotes indignity. When Islam was first introduced it championed women’s liberation (See Huston Smith’s “Religions of the World” which points out that Mohammed’s wife had a very big hand in writing it). Some Islamic theologians have since interpreted it in ways that oppress women, but that’s politics operating under the guise of religion (as it does in every religion). In their core beliefs, religions have all been a powerful force for recognizing the universal and non-negotiable dignity of Man.

ILJ: You strongly emphasize that you’re not anti-hierarchy or utopian. But as President Kennedy once noted, “life isn’t fair.” Is a dignitarian society absent of rankism truly possible in a world in which there will always be winners and losers?

Fuller: Dignity is not dependent on winning. You can lose a contest and not feel your dignity has been affected one way or the other. In a fair competition, your performance is apt to be improved by virtue of competing with the other entrants, and for that you are grateful. Many losing athletes experience gratitude to winners—for raising their game. The problem is that winners may then abuse their rank, and that IS a problem! But so long as rank is legitimately earned and properly used, rank is an important—often indispensable—organizational tool for accomplishing group goals. Not every assertion of rank is rankist—only those that put the dignity of the high-ranking above that of those they serve. We rightfully admire and love authorities—parents, teachers, bosses, athletes, political leaders—who hold their rank and use the power that comes with it in an exemplary way. Accepting their leadership entails no loss of self-respect or opportunity on the part of subordinates. It is when people abuse their power to demean or disadvantage those they outrank that seeds of indignity are sown. Over time, indignity turns to indignation, and smarting victims may be left thirsting for vengeance. The consequences can range from relatively benign foot-dragging all the way to genocide.

ILJ: John Lennon once wrote, “women are the niggers of the world.” Yet your book notes women are typically bullied more from other women in the work place then men. Does this surprise you? Women it seems have been chronically victimized by rankism in society so why do they turn on each other?

Fuller: Rankism is caused by indignity, and indignity festers, gradually congealing into indignation. That’s why rankism causes more rankism. Rankism’s victims are likely to turn into perpetrators as soon as they can get away with it – to even the score, so to speak. This is why rooting out rankism is difficult.

ILJ: When Bush campaigned in 2000, he boasted about learning management skills as an MBA from Harvard and his ability to govern like a CEO. Is the Harvard/MBA model discredited in promoting quality, efficiency, and professional mobility based on merit?

Fuller: If a single graduate’s performance discredited a school, there would be no creditable schools left standing. For many graduates, the imprint made by their Alma Mater is very slight, almost undetectable. And even where the impact is strong and clear, beliefs change over time and what’s good business practice in one setting, may not be in another.

ILJ: Do you believe the cause of gay rights would garner more sympathy if presented in the context of combating rankism and seeking dignity instead of being associated with identity politics?

Fuller: Yes, indeed. That is exactly the right strategy at this point: for gays, for immigrants, for all put-upon groups. People are sick of identity politics. They have come to see it as synonymous with demanding special treatment. The way around this objection is for identity groups to insist that everyone’s dignity be respected equally, including their own.

ILJ: If I’m sitting on top of the social strata why is it in my best interest to replace rankism with a dignitarian society? Why should Dick Cheney’s successor at Halliburton care about other people’s dignity?

Fuller: If you are at the top, it won’t be, in the short run. For the most part, Kings resisted the formation of parliaments. But some of them lost their heads in the process. A longer-run strategy foresees the power of numbers and yields gracefully. Enlightened leaders put getting the job done well above self-aggrandizement and in the name of such success, they shun rankism.

ILJ: Karl Marx championed the concept of “class consciousness” empowering the proletariat. But class solidarity has typically surrendered to individual ambition. Even as we’re victimized in our jobs or personal relationships by rankism, don’t we also crave the very status held by others that we resent?

Fuller: We crave it because rankism is so common that we see status as the only way to shield ourselves from its humiliations. As rankism diminishes, we will be more content to serve in whatever position in the hierarchy best matches our talents and the energy we have for that role. Many people don’t want to lead on the job; they prefer to put their energy into family, an avocation, etc. and are glad to follow at work so long as they are not bullied, harassed, and “indignified.”

ILJ: What corporations have cultures that you most admire and which corporations do you believe to be the worst offenders of rankism?

Fuller: Corporations cited in the media, at various times, for having a relatively non-rankist culture include Whole Foods, Intel, Google, CostCo. But I am not in a position to testify to this. Likewise, Wal-Mart has gotten a lot of bad press lately for a rankist work environment. Jim Collins, in Good to Great, points out that leaders of great companies eschew rankism, both in their own treatment of subordinates, and all the way down the line.

ILJ: Are there any societies in the world today that you believe have models that can be referred to as a dignitarian society? For all of our problems in the United States, it appears the whole world is struggling with human dignity. France for example has alienated their Muslim population. The entire European continent contains Muslims who feel disconnected from their home societies even if they’re enjoying economic success. In the scheme of things might one argue that the United States is far ahead of other nations in cultivating a merit-based culture that facilitates dignity?

Fuller: Yes, the world is struggling with dignity. No nation has yet built a dignitarian society. Doing so is democracy’s next step. Some Scandinavian societies seem to be moving in that direction. The bottom line of a dignitarian society is that everyone’s dignity is afforded equal protection. People can still hold unequal ranks, but in those ranks, dignity is equal from top to bottom. At a minimum, this means that regardless of rank, everyone is paid a living wage, has access to good health care and education. (See “All Rise” for details.)

ILJ: A conservative might argue that rankism doesn’t exist in the United States. Our Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Newt Gingrich once noted soon after becoming Speaker that the Constitution did not mention the “Department of Happiness” or advocate for the “government happiness program.” It’s not difficult to imagine conservatives snickering that in America we rise or fall based on our own abilities. In their worldview respect is earned and not a right. Why is dignity a universal right?

Fuller: Dignity deserves to be made a universal right because that generates loyalty, productivity, creativity. What’s guaranteed is not outcomes, but membership in the tribe. A dignitarian society promises not to ostracize any group or individual. Everyone has a place. Even prisoners are treated with dignity, as they serve their terms. It is very hard for people who have grown up with libertarian values to get this distinction, but getting it is the next step for democracy.

ILJ: Has the culture of rankism impacted academia and the quality of education in this country?

Fuller: Students put more energy into defending their dignity in classrooms than they put into learning. This is a tragedy. Schools that rid themselves of rankism are going to be far more effective than schools of the past. Also, tenure is an inherently rankist institution—because it eliminates accountability to those professors are entrusted to serve. In eliminating tenure, great care must be taken to protect the dignity of those who have enjoyed it. The guarantee in a dignitarian society is to dignity, not to a particular role or rank.

ILJ: You noted in your book that a victim of rankism on their job might become the abuser of rank in their home as a parent or spouse. Do you believe that an employment culture based on dignity might also facilitate better parenting and healthier marriages?

Fuller: Precisely!

ILJ: What are some concrete steps our elected representatives can take to combat rankism and promote a culture of dignity?

Fuller: If you’re in electoral politics you can point the way to a dignitarian society, even if your colleagues aren’t yet ready to embrace your ideas. Treat your opponents with dignity. Don’t sneer, mock, or condescend. Avoid patronizing or posturing. When politicians affect moral superiority, they extend rankism’s lease. Since rankism is an attack on both liberty and dignity, denounce it along with the other isms. Explain to your constituents why you’re against it—in all its forms—and then go after them one by one. Be the leader you wanted to be when you first imagined running for office. Be willing to lose an election for your dignitarian convictions. If you do, run for office a few years later, and win! To paraphrase Victor Hugo, dignity is an idea whose time has come.

ILJ: I’d like to pick your brain about India. Early in your career you served as a consultant to Indira Gandhi. Today India is acknowledged as an information technology power possessing a high skilled and educated work force. Has this translated into a more egalitarian model of society for them that should be emulated? Or has the social stratification of their culture worsened? The gap between rich and poor certainly remains high.

Fuller: India is too big and complex to generalize about. Its legacy of caste still makes for lots of rankism. On the other hand, technology—wherein the young have so much to contribute—militates against the rankism of age. So my guess is that India is will overcome the caste-based rankism that has held it in its grip for centuries.

ILJ: How much feedback have you received internationally about the concepts of rankism and a dignitarian culture? Is it possible to facilitate an international movement of dignity that transcends boundaries?

Fuller: Rankism is universal. It knows no international borders. Societies that may appear non-rankist turn out to be rankist upon closer examination. That’s because rankism is defined as abuse of the power inherent in rank, and it is human nature to abuse power—so long as we can get away with it. After all, what are human beings but predators, and exceedingly good ones at that. Racism and the other isms are types of predation, but we are overcoming them. They are not written in our genes. As survival strategies, they have long since ceased being successful. Rankism will go the same way, and eventually follow the familiar isms into the doghouse. We learn; we evolve; we change. We will overcome rankism not only because that’s the right thing to do, but more fundamentally because dignitarian workplaces, schools, and societies are more productive and creative, more powerful and successful than are rankist workplaces, schools, and societies.

***********************************************************************************

Robert W. Fuller is the proprietor of a website called Breaking Ranks which is dedicated to educating the public about rankism and promoting a dignitarian society. The primary contributor to his site is a close personal friend of mine who skillfully comments on how current events both illustrate the social dysfunction of rankism and the need for establishing a culture of dignity.

*************************************************************************************

SIDEBAR: This topic received some feedback from cross postings in the community blogs. Once again "Susan G" rescued me in Daily Kos. There was also some interest from a cross posting in My Left Wing. My thanks to Wulingren from the wonderful blog Mandate of Heaven, as well as friend and sage Joe Irvin for acknowledgments on their respective sites. Wulingren is quite the world traveler and has interesting postings from Tawain where he's currently working. Joe Irvin is a retired journalist from Quincy, Illinois and his blog is a wonderful resource about timely articles and commentary worldwide.

SIDEBAR II: Also a special thanks to "Nanette" from Man Eegee's blog for citing the Robert W. Fuller interview on their "Are You Ready To Ramble?" feature today. Man Eeegee's blog is always informative and a catalyst for provocative and interesting debate.

SIDEBAR III: Robert W. Fuller has entered the blogosphere and posted a diary of his own on the five community blogs linked below.

Daily Kos

My DD

My Left Wing

Booman Tribune

European Tribune

The Law of Competitive Balance, Howard Dean, and the Democratic Party's Washington Establishment

I was an avid reader of Bill James’ annual Baseball Abstract while growing up in the 1980s. As both a nerd and baseball fanatic, his methodical statistical analysis and incisive prose influenced me almost as much as listening to the Beatles. Perhaps the most memorable essay of James’ career was in his 1983 abstract when he wrote about, “The Law of Competitive Balance.” Twenty-three years ago I copied words of wisdom from that essay into the spiral notebook I was supposed to use for algebra:

“The Law of Competitive Balance: There develop over time separate and unequal strategies adopted by winners and losers; the balance of those strategies favors the losers, and thus serves constantly to narrow the difference between the two.”

James utilized several hypothetical examples to illustrate his point. A basketball team that is well behind will make tactical adjustments. The team that is ahead has succeeded with the status quo and is less likely to change. Hence, the team that is behind will eventually make the game more competitive. A baseball team that finishes twenty games out of first place is more likely to shake up their roster and replace veterans with youth. The team that wins it all prefers to maintain continuity and is more susceptible to decline.

James’ law proves true in many aspects of life as well. The struggling salesman will change his approach until he finds success while someone else earning top commissions can become complacent and rely on the same accounts. A business that is enduring hard times will reassess its’ efficiency and marketing while another grows fat and spends money foolishly until they’re blindsided by a cash crunch.

Until Howard Dean became head of the DNC, the Law of Competitive Balance didn't apply to the Democratic Party. Instead the Democrats lived by the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Dean has the nerve to challenge the party’s orthodoxy and transition the Democrats from a Washington centric party addicted to wealthy contributors to a states oriented party funded by a citizens donor base. It’s remarkable to me how some Democrats whine over McCain/Feingold and long for the old days of soft money donations to the national party. Dean didn’t whine. He adjusted and myopic Washington Democrats remain clueless.

Dean is the first Democrat to think “globally” by acting “locally.” The key to power and a better nation is by strengthening state parties and taking the country back one precinct at a time. It’s basic blocking and tackling in the ground game that has eluded the Democrats for a generation, as the establishment prefers to mobilize the same special interests coalition and rally behind the politics of expediency. Dean’s way is to craft a message of truth about the public interest and fight for every neighborhood. Hence his states oriented strategy has a better chance of transforming the Democratic Party into a national majority.

Today both the Washington Post and New York Times reported about the rift between Dean and the respective heads of the Democrat’s House and Senate Campaign Committees, Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer. The progressive blogosphere has rallied to Dean’s defense. I thought Mole333 wrote an especially fine diary on this topic in My Left Wing.

Dean is hardly a perfect messenger for the Democratic Party. He’s impulsive and occasionally suffers from foot in mouth disease as we saw during the 2004 campaign and his recent appearance on the 700 Club.

Nonetheless, Dean’s 50 state strategy makes both short term and long term sense and even a pretty good political tactician named Bill Clinton has signed onto it. Thankfully, Dean doesn’t need the good will of the proven losers inside the Democratic Party. As the state parties continue to be enhanced the Rahm Emanuels, Charles Schumers and Joe Bidens will be marginalized in favor of Democrats on the local level.

Sadly too many Washington Democrats and consultants prefer their status as kings of the hill inside a minority party instead of making this a better country and standing for principle. The message that needs to be sent to these people is this: lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

SIDEBAR: This topic was cross posted on Daily Kos and once again my diary was "rescued" by the blogosphere's Angel of CPR, "SusanG". She performs an invaluable service because Daily Kos has a million visitors per day and many fine diaries dissappear from the board without making the recommended list. I heartily recommend others look for her open threads at Daily Kos because she provides an indispensable portal for work easily missed. Thanks to her efforts I've learned much from posted diaries I would not have otherwise read.

Shirin Ebadi: The Light At the End of the Tunnel

During the Cold War it was a dissident movement of human rights activists, writers and political agitators such as Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn and Lech Walesa who were largely responsible for bringing down the Iron Curtain.

America’s steadfast counterweight to the Soviet Union certainly buttressed their efforts with the support of the western alliance. Yet for all of the Cold War intrigue, espionage, dramatic summits with men wearing high priced business suits, regional conflicts and billions spent on defense appropriations, it was the efforts of courageous souls who transcended superpower might on behalf of human dignity.

Such people are rare gems in humanity’s tapestry. They jeopardize their own lives to champion the cause of freedom and remind all of us that liberty is a privilege to be cherished and defended. Sakharov for example could have enjoyed a comfortable life as a nuclear physicist but instead became a dangerous irritant to the Kremlin. Shi Tao of China had the option of pursuing a career in poetry or simply being a careerist with the press. He chose to expose truth on behalf of a cause bigger than himself and is currently in jail.

Shirin Ebadi’s path to dissidence in Iran is unique. In March 1969 she became the first woman in Iranian history to serve as a judge. Under the Shah’s rule her career prospered and in 1975 Ebadi became the President of Teheran’s City Court. The rise of Khomeni and the Islamic Revolution in 1979 forever changed her life as women were no longer permitted to serve as judges.

“I and other female judges were dismissed from our posts and given clerical duties. They made me a clerk in the very court I once presided over. We all protested. As a result, they promoted all former female judges, including myself, to the position of ‘experts’ in the Justice Department. I could not tolerate the situation any longer, and so put in a request for early retirement. My request was accepted. Since the Bar Association had remained closed for some time since the revolution and was being managed by the Judiciary, my application for practicing law was turned down. I was, in effect, housebound for many years. Finally, in 1992 I succeeded in obtaining a lawyer's license and set up my own practice.”

In private practice she stood up for the rights of women in Iran’s theocracy, advocated on behalf of abused children, and dissidents from all corners of society. Embadi also unapologetically promoted human rights in her prodigious writings: The Rights of Refugees (Published by Ganj-e Danesh in 1993), History and Documentation of Human Rights in Iran, (Published by Roshangaran in 1993) and The Rights of Women, (Published by Ganj-e Danesh in 2002) are among her most important works.

In 2000, Ebadi received a suspended jail sentence for promoting evidence that conservative mullahs were instigating attacks on pro reform leaders. Ziba Mir Hosseini, of the School of Oriental Studies in London, and a friend of Ebadi’s noted that,

"She is a popular figure in Iran and also she's a key figure in reformist movement and like many other key figures in the movement she's been harassed by the conservative forces who control the judiciary."

Ebadi is currently in the United States to promote her new book, Iran Awakening (refer to the advertisements in the lower left sidebar from Amazon). Last night Margaret Warner on the PBS News Hour With Jim Lehrer interviewed Ebadi. As of this writing a transcript of the interview was not available online. However, click here and you can listen to the interview in its’ entirety. Below I transcribed as best I could a few of the more interesting quotes.

When Warner asked about the progress of democracy in Iran since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became President, Ebadi answered,

“Democracy in Iran is not moving forward because censorship is being applied in Iran more seriously.”

Ebadi further noted that human rights activists were imprisoned and during the interview it was revealed that she was targeted for assassination. When Warner inquired about how she could function in such a hostile environment, Ebadi’s dignified strength presented itself:

“It is in these bad situations that people like me have to work. If Iran was it’s own democracy or an advanced democracy than people like me don’t have to be active.”

Ebadi further noted that,

“Human rights activists regardless of where they are in our world will feel danger.”

Warner proceeded to ask a series of questions about American policy towards Iran and the diplomatic impasse regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Ebadi is not enamored of Bush’s policy to spend 75 million to promote democracy in Iran.

“No I don’t think that it benefits me or people like me because whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having been paid by the United States.”

Warner followed up and asked what Ebadi thought about Bush calling for further democracy in the Muslim world:

“Can democracy be brought to a people by bombs? Democracy is a culture. It has to come from within a society. Not to be brought by America to society.”

Warner inquired how much Ebadi hoped to accomplish by herself in Iran:

“I do count on the help of the people of the world but not on the help of governments.”

Ebadi then returned to the topic of American policy:

“America’s approach on democracy is not a correct approach as I’ve told you. You cannot bring democracy through bombing people. The countries in the region that are allies of the United States do not enjoy an advanced democracy like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.”

Her observation about the current diplomatic crisis regarding nuclear energy was especially interesting:

“The government of Iran claims that it has peaceful purposes for nuclear energy. But the world does not buy that claim. The solution to this problem is bringing an advanced democracy in Iran. In a democracy people have a say in the government and they will not permit the government to abuse its power. For example France has a nuclear bomb but the world is not scared of France because France is a democracy and people supervise what their government is doing. And if the government of Iran wants the world to buy their word and accept their claim they have to move towards an advanced democracy in Iran.”

Sadly, I don’t agree with Ebadi that in a democracy the people “will not permit the government to abuse its power.” I used to feel that way but five years of Bush rule has disabused me of that notion because the American people were content to remain comatose while we invaded another country that did not threaten us abroad and curtailed personal freedoms at home. Nevertheless, an “advanced democracy” in Iran with nuclear weapons would be far easier to stomach.

Warner asked Ebadi what she thought America and the world should be doing about Iran’s nuclear program:

“Instead of putting pressure on Iran to terminate its’ nuclear program the pressure must be put to the government of Iran to bring democracy to Iran this is what I say to America and the world have forgotten about the human rights situation in Iran. Now that they feel they’re in danger they bring up the issue of human rights in Iran. And we should not accept that there is only one police for the whole world and that police can decide on everything.”

Warner inquired as to whether the majority of Iranians believe they should have a nuclear weapon:

“No. They don’t think so.”

I wonder about that response. She’s an Iranian citizen and would know better than any of us but that doesn’t sound likely to me. The people of China for example are very nationalistic. It would be understandable if most Iranians believed nuclear weapons might enhance their international prestige.

Ebadi warned that,

“An attack on Iran can have bad implications on the whole region. And can cause riots in the region.”

When asked how the Iranian people would respond to being attacked:

“The people of Iran criticize their government. Political criticism. However, not withstanding the criticisms the people of Iran will defend their country and will not let the aliens prevail.”

In the ‘70s, President Carter used his office to empower Andrei Sakharov because he recognized that the human spirit was the best weapon America had against totalitarianism. Years later Carter’s putting human rights on the international map paid dividends. Islamic fascism is unmitigated evil and we will not defeat it with gratuitous violence and pre-emptive war. Our best hope is to prevail by empowering an army of Shirin Ebadis.

A real President would empower Ebadi’s status by meeting with her publicly in a Rose Garden ceremony. A real President would also genuinely listen to what she has to say and not simply use her as a photo op for the evening news.

Our best asset is a commonality of values with heroic figures such as Shirin Ebadi. In a crazy world in which reactionary men such as Bush and Ahmadinejad became national leaders, she is the light at the end of a long dark tunnel.

SIDEBAR: It took a couple of days but cross postings for this topic in the community blogs did finally generate some interest. On European Tribune it was front paged by their resident sage, "Whataboutbob." It was also a "rescued diary" on Daily Kos by their CPR expert, "Susan G." and received some feedback in My Left Wing. My thanks to Whataboutbob and Susan G. for the exposure.

The War Powers Act and Iran

In 1964 the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and provided President Lyndon Johnson the legal cover he needed to prosecute the Vietnam War. Partly, the Tonkin Resolution stemmed from the expansion of presidential powers that took place during World War Two under FDR and the Cold War under the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy Administrations. The threats to our national security were real and Americans believed whatever their presidents told them.

That changed when Presidents Johnson and Nixon sundered America’s honor and confidence to pursue an un-winnable and immoral war. The body counts multiplied and social unrest intensified as “peace with honor” eluded the grasp of Johnson and Nixon. Congress was stuck with a mistake it couldn’t undue and never wanted to repeat again.

Hence, Congress in 1973 enacted the War Powers Act. It requires the White House to regularly consult with Congress whenever contemplating military action, written notification within 48 hours of such action and its’ estimated “scope or duration” and congressional consent through either a declaration of war or "specific statutory authorization." Once invoked, the act prohibits a president from keeping the troops deployed for more than 90 days unless congress either declares war or passes a joint resolution upholding the president's policy.

One can make a compelling argument that the War Powers Act is an egregious example of legislative overreach. Indeed, the Constitution empowers the president as commander and chief of the armed forces. Presumably, this gives the President the authority to repel sudden attacks and deploy forces as he or she sees fit to contend with perceived threats. The act appears to encroach upon the President's authorithy as commander and chief. It can also be argued that this act amounts to dangerous micromanaging by the legislative branch.

Politically, no congress has dared to take on the executive branch and invoke the War Powers Act since its passage 33 years ago. Once hostilities are engaged the natural inclination is for the public to rally behind the president. During the early stages of a military conflict a president is at their high water mark of political strength and congress typically becomes docile.

Strategically, in most instances invoking the War Powers Act may also be dangerous if the president is forced to withdraw forces prematurely. America’s enemies may perceive it as a sign of weakness.

If I seem uncomfortable with the War Powers Act it’s because I am. Far preferable is for the president to respect the Constitution and not initiate pre-emptive wars without congressional authority and for the legislature to assert its’ prerogatives and demand justification and assurances before hostilities are engaged. Invoking the War Powers Act is an extreme measure rife with risks and repercussions that we can’t possibly foresee.

Sadly, however we’re living in extreme times. The first President Bush didn’t believe he needed any congressional authority in 1991. Had Congress not given it to him he would’ve pursued Desert Storm anyway. In 2002-03 the current President Bush also would’ve plunged ahead without any congressional authority.

In a way both congresses were effectively coerced into supporting each war with Iraq whether there was popular support for them or not. Neither congress was about to invoke the War Powers Act if either President Bush went ahead without congressional authorization and everyone knew it. Now three years after President Bush declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq he's once again beating the drums of war. Indeed, if Seymour Hersh’s reporting is to be believed, war with Iran is inevitable.

Putting aside whether one agrees with military intervention in Iran or not (I’m vehemently opposed for moral and strategic reasons), we have ample proof that this administration is not competent to manage a conflict with Iran. The Pentagon is currently imploding from within due to their lack of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld because of his mismanagement of our current war with Iraq. Furthermore, the diplomatic aftershocks following a military strike in Iran would require tremendous skill and finesse. Skill and finesse is simply not part of this administration’s DNA

I have no confidence in this administration’s ability to competently process parking tickets. I certainly don’t have faith in their ability to manage a war with Iran and the resulting diplomatic turbulence. It would be an absolute calamity for our country, the Iranian people, and the world.

In spite of the Iranian President’s irrational boasts the threat is not immediate. Indeed his threats are really about enhancing his leverage internationally with the United States North Korean style as well as domestic politics. Also, unlike 1981 when Israel bombed Iraq there are no easy cocksure targets.

Our best weapon against the current regime is time and patience. The myriad of factions and entities within Iran’s bureaucracy and society are hungering for western contact. Covert diplomacy with the regime’s political adversaries may be more effective and realistic than doing anything needlessly rash. Demographically this is a population that is young, restless, and receptive to western culture. They are Iran's future face if we don’t disrupt the evolution currently taking place.

Sometimes we Americans just have to get over our arrogance, hubris, and belief that we're entitled to absolute guaranteed security because we're Americans. The real world doesn't work that way. We do have limitations and a mature society knows when not to overreach. Anyone who believes strategic air strikes or invasion is a viable option is delusional.

However, this President is deluded and that's becoming embedded in our conventional wisdom. Bush is even more deluded then Nicholas II during the final days of Czarist Russia. Politically, he may find it impossible to obtain a congressional resolution for war this time. In spite of polls indicating a slight majority favoring strikes the Democrats are not likely to cooperate and even some congressional Republicans such as Chuck Hagel understand that Bush is off his rocker.

Off his rocker or not Bush retains command of our armed forces and he’s trigger-happy. The only way to stop him may be by invoking the War Powers Act and forcing a constitutional crisis. We can expect the Bush Administration would challenge congress’s authority facilitating far reaching political disruption and trauma for the country. However, allowing a war with Iran to go forward would be even worse.

Brain Fingerprinting and Civil Liberties

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) otherwise known, as brain fingerprinting will revolutionize how governments worldwide administer security and criminal justice. The potential repercussions for privacy rights are devastating. In years to come governments as well as corporations will possess the tools to examine an individual’s brain waves and attempt to determine if they’re lying.

In effect, FMRIs are neural imaging of one’s brain waves. The technology allows researchers to map the brain's neurons as they process thoughts, sensations, memories, and motor commands. Since debuting a decade ago, brain fingerprinting has facilitated transparency with the cognitive operations behind behavior such as feeling stimulated by music or recognizing a familiar face in a crowd.

FMRIs have also successfully helped neurologists to detect early signs of Alzheimer's disease and other disorders without invasive surgical procedures. Hence, there is no doubt that FMRIs represent great power and reach. The temptation to use FMRIs for purposes beyond medical practice may be irresistible for governments and corporations with access to the technology.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor from George Washington University specifically addressed the American Constitution and new technologies in an August 2005 article of the New York Times Magazine about then Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts. Among other issues Rosen speculated about was FMRIs and the 5th amendment:

“It's an open question, under the Supreme Court's current doctrine, whether FMRI scans, used as a sort of high-tech lie detector, would be considered a form of compulsory self-incrimination that violates the Fifth Amendment. If the justices viewed an involuntary brain scan as no more intrusive than a blood or urine sample or an ordinary fingerprint, there wouldn't be any Fifth Amendment problem. But if the court were to decide that FMRI scans are not only searching for physical evidence but also encroaching on a suspect's private memories and consciousness, the justices might conclude that the suspect's mental privacy is invaded and that he has been forced to testify against his will.”

For his article, Rosen also interviewed Carter Snead, a bioethicist at the University of Notre Dame who studied nero-imaging techniques that can detect the presence of electrochemical signals in the brain:

“There is also the possibility that police officers or counter-terror experts may eventually search suspects for brain waves that suggest a propensity toward violence -- a sort of cognitive profiling. 'You can do an FMRI scan showing that the structures in the brain responsible for impulse control and empathy are underactive and the parts of the brain responsible for aggression and more animalistic, violent activities are overactive,' Snead explained. 'Maybe with these nascent technologies, we'll be able to develop some kind of profile for a terrorist.' Suspects who show a propensity for violence might be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants even though they committed no crimes.”

It sounds like science fiction. Yet FMRIs are currently used in India. An article in the March 17th edition of New Kerela reported that Javed Shukat Khurshid, one of seven convicted murderers escaped police custody after sentencing. The article reads as any other newspaper in the world might describe such events except for this:

“The court had earlier awarded life imprisonment to Javed and six others, including Ismail Barafwala, Amjad Khan Pathan, Mehboob Khan Pathan, Sajid Khan alias Anna, Usman Gani alias bhola and Younis Sheikh for rioting and murdering a man on November 11, 2003.

The judge awarded the sentence after considering the results of the brain finger printing tests performed on the accused, among other facts in this case.”

On April 17th, New Kerela reported that India’s Minister for Science and Technology, Kapil Sibal announced a high technology initiative

“to enhance the speed and degree of fair dispensation of justice.”

According to the article, Minister Sibal advocated use of high technology because,

"We have seen many cases in which people have allegedly gone back on their statements. The aim is to reduce dependence on human beings."

As for brain fingerprinting itself, Minister Sibal noted that,

“It will help in validating the evidence. It will give an idea of whether a person was present at the site of crime or participated in the crime."

Sibal boasted in the article that utilization of this kind of technology in solving crimes would be implemented in twelve months. It’s only a matter of time before such a protocol spreads to law enforcement agencies worldwide – including the United States.

Steve Silberman wrote in the January issue of Wired that:

“Now FMRI is also poised to transform the security industry, the judicial system, and our fundamental notions of privacy. I'm in a lab at Columbia University, where scientists are using the technology to analyze the cognitive differences between truth and lies. By mapping the neural circuits behind deception, researchers are turning FMRI into a new kind of lie detector that's more probing and accurate than the polygraph, the standard lie-detection tool employed by law enforcement and intelligence agencies for nearly a century.”

We know that polygraphs, commonly known, as lie detectors are unreliable. Whether FMRIs are reliable requires more empirical data. Perhaps such a device may prove effective in solving crimes or preventing terrorism. The potential to save lives certainly exists and can’t be casually dismissed.

However, it’s use means encroaching upon the province of an individual’s thoughts and what government on Earth can be entrusted with such power? What is the legal framework for deploying this technology? Suppose employers coerce employees into signing waivers for FMRI scans to be administered? What if whistle blowers are intimidated into silence because of FMRI scans? Do the potential lives saved from crime prevention justify the potential abuse?

There are numerous questions about FMRIs requiring debate and civil discourse. Yet it’s doubtful that one in a thousand people are even aware of FMRIs existence. Meanwhile, civil liberties are debated within the familiar context of free speech, reproductive rights, gay rights and so forth. Those issues certainly merit robust engagement by the public but civil liberties are more than abortion rights and gay marriage. Within twenty years many of our contemporary debates will seem quaint and provincial.

Nobody asked John Roberts or Samuel Alito about technology and the law during their confirmations hearings before the Supreme Court. These men will preside over what the legal framework is for protecting civil liberties with FMRI scans for decades to come. Senator Joe Biden for example talked a great deal during both hearings but he didn’t ask a single question about these issues. Neither did anyone else on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The press was more concerned about the tears of Alito's wife.

Without public awareness, no one will raise important questions with future judicial nominees. I urge citizens to familiarize themselves with the issues of technology and civil liberties. Only then will our representatives properly engage

It is imperative that Democrats champion civil liberties by aggressively asking if privacy can be respected in pursuit of security with FMRI technology. Civil libertarians who vote Republican also are obliged to question whether their party can be trusted to utilize FMRI technology responsibly.

I fear my Democratic party will be timid in standing up for civil liberties when this technology is rolled out. It’s not hard to see conservatives portraying opponents to its’ use as soft on crime or terrorism. I also worry that the public at large may be too easily regulated by fear and not question whether their freedoms are in jeopardy.

Citizens worldwide need to start asking their leaders about FMRI scans while there is still time. And time is growing short.

SIDEBAR: I received an email stating that the Jeffrey Rosen New York Times Magazine article I referred to above mistakenly "conflated" brain fingerprinting and FMRIs and he referred me to this website. However, the University of Minnesota describes them interchangeably. Either way the issue of civil liberties and ethics remains the same. I intend to revisit this topic in a couple of years and review India's experience with this technology in their justice system.

I cross posted this topic on Daily Kos, My Left Wing, Booman Tribune, My DD and European Tribune and the comments from those communities are worth reviewing. Numerous comments semantically objected to the term "brain fingerprinting" and suggested that we need different terminology. They may have a point and the thoughtful email I received about Rosen's article makes me inclined to agree.

Anger Is Our Hammer of Justice

As a teenager in the 1980s, I listened to conservative talk radio host Bob Grant on WABC. That was the most hateful person I’ve ever heard. I remember one broadcast when a black gentleman called in and asked, “Mr. Grant why don’t you just admit that you’re prejudiced and hate blacks?” Grant snapped, “I am not prejudiced! Now get the hell off my phone you spade!”

Naïve idealist that I was, I called into to the Bob Grant show a few times. I actually believed I could engage this grown up in a civil conversation based upon facts and logic.

When he first came to WABC in 1984, Grant’s hours were between 9:00PM and midnight. So on Friday nights I would call in and try to persuade him that the Reagan Administration’s Nicaraguan policy was immoral. I even addressed him as “Mr. Grant” because I felt obliged to be respectful towards an adult.

Grant’s usual response went something like this:

“And here’s Rob from Tappan, New York who has nothing better to do on a Friday night then to call me!”

Sometimes he would accuse me of symbolizing all that was wrong with America’s youth. In Grant’s warped conservative mindset I was a bad seed at 15 simply because I didn’t march to Ronald Reagan’s drum. Still, I kept calling because I instinctively believed that civility and reason should prevail over anger.

I’m not naïve anymore. Now an adult I’ve learned that some people can’t be reasoned with and there is a place for anger. Indeed, sometimes it’s darker emotions that inspire action. Anger for example compelled me to phone banking and canvassing activities during the 2004 campaign.

We fell short but I firmly believe that a progressive reformation was launched from grass roots activism in 2004. I’m proud to have been a part of it. Decades from now 2004 will be considered a watershed just as 1964 was for conservatives. The culmination of this reformation will mean an expansion of economic and social justice. Yet the origins of this noble quest for a better world stem largely from anger.

In the past 48 hours, high profile community blogs such as Daily Kos, My DD, and Booman Tribune buzzed over the Washington Post's profile of Maryscott O’Connor, the proprietor of My Left Wing. Maryscott, affectionately known, as MSOC by the liberal blogosphere has become a lightning rod and symbol of the “angry left.”

As a new member of MSOC’s community at My Left Wing I am heavily biased in her favor. We’re both inclined to vote Democrat but our greater allegiance is towards progressive principles. And even as she grows in notoriety MSOC remains plugged into her community and is very nurturing towards smaller individual progressive blogs like mine. The cause is bigger than her or anyone and she knows it.

Hence, David Finkel’s profile of MSOC in the Washington Post left me with ambivalent feelings. I feared this bastion of the mainstream press would do a hatchet job on her. It turns out the Washington Post was considerably fairer than I predicted. MSOC’s conviction and integrity came through. The profile is evidence of MSOC’s growing influence and like many on the Left I’m gratified.

Yet the profile also left me feeling dissatisfied. Mr. Finkel was obviously limited by the amount of words he could use. Consequently, his focus was concentrated more on “anger” rather than exploring the context behind the anger of the Left in America. MSOC managed to cut through with this incisive comment that speaks for many of us:

"I was not like this before. I was riddled with empathy for everyone suffering in the world. Classic bleeding-heart liberal."

Reading those words I couldn’t help but reflect upon my own “empathy” towards the hateful conservative Bob Grant as I attempted to process the emotions of a deranged man decades older than me. Instead of assertively confronting his hate I became Grant’s whipping boy. There is a lesson to be learned from that experience as the Left went through a period of battered wife syndrome.

I don’t believe we on the Left should conceal our anger. We’re not going to accomplish anything by singing, “everyone is beautiful in their own way.” An old friend has often lectured me during my private rants that “Republicans are people too.” Well that’s nice so how about they start behaving like people with a stake in this planet’s collective health?

We on the Left are angry with conservatives who apply power with reckless abandon against the most vulnerable in society. Meanwhile we’re sitting on the sidelines and can do nothing but scream until we have power ourselves. Of course we’re angry.

What I resent is the branding of our anger as petty and mindless. It happens that the Left is bursting with ideas. Indeed, we have too many ideas for our own good. It’s damn hard to synthesize what we believe and want on a bumper sticker or package in a soundbite.

Meanwhile, America’s political Right has successfully established a networked communications infrastructure that promotes vapid hate. Hate against gays, Volvo drivers, latte drinkers, urban dwellers, tree huggers, atheists, agnostics, pacifists, assertive women, thoughtful men, intellectuals, immigrants, ethnic minorities, the elderly who need prescription drugs to survive, unions, judges, whistleblowers, civil libertarians, Muslims, secular Jews, and even Terry Schiavo’s husband!

If that isn’t enough, conservatives brand the Left as pessimists while they’re convinced we’re living in “end times” and at the precipice of an apocalypse! Why do anything about healthcare when the world is going to end? Yet if we challenge the political Right on these points the mainstream media simply portrays our side as angry embittered pessimists.

I absolutely want progressives to continue formulating creative solutions about health care, creating jobs, and facilitating world peace. Anger for us has a purpose. Ours is a political movement that seeks power to proactively address challenges ranging from global warming to wage stagnation.

At the same time, the days of our being treaded upon are over. Anger is our hammer of justice. As the rock group Twisted Sister once put it:

Oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we've Got The Right To Choose And
there Ain't No Way We'll Lose It
this Is Our Life, This Is Our Song
we'll Fight The Powers That Be Just
don't Pick Our Destiny 'cause
you Don't Know Us, You Don't Belong

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh You're So Condescending
your Gall Is Never Ending
we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
your Life Is Trite And Jaded
boring And Confiscated
if That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
no Way!

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

we're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we're Not Gonna Take It, No!
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

just You Try And Make Us
we're Not Gonna Take It
come On
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
you're All Worthless And Weak
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
now Drop And Give Me Twenty
we're Not Gonna Take It
oh Crinch Pin
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh You And Your Uniform
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

My Liberal Fantasy: Russ Feingold's 2008 Nomination Acceptance Speech

Good evening, I love New York! Applause. Smiles broadly and waits for silence. And I proudly accept your nomination for President of the United States. Crowd erupts with sustained applause and cheers.

My friends, the time has come for an American renaissance of community, values, and justice. Almost seven years ago in this great city Osama Bin Laden unleashed his terror and the Republican Party unleashed a reign of indecency. Tonight we begin anew in the very city where it all went wrong. We bring hope.

I am a son of the heartland and proud of it. My grandfather Max first settled in Janesville, Wisconsin in 1917. From my parents I learned the values of education, hard work, and standing up for what’s right. Where I come from, people know what they mean and mean what they say.

My parents also instilled in me the importance of faith. They used to drive one hour each way to Madison for 25 years to attend services and bring me to Hebrew school. Dena, my sister is a pioneer of faith. She is a rabbi at Beth Hillel Temple in Kenosha and we’re very proud of her.

My Jewish heritage is a source of inspiration and pride. The Jewish experience in America represents a journey of struggle, patriotism, and civic duty. Only a few decades ago Jewish people were excluded from colleges, good jobs, and social clubs. We’ve come a long way.

I want to thank the trailblazers from both parties who left their mark and made my nomination today possible. The late Jacob Javits of New York - a great Senator, statesman and important leader for civil rights. Arlen Specter (boos), my longtime colleague from Pennsylvania, who ran for President in 1996. The late Paul Wellstone of Minnesota (cheers) – a true champion of the people, a great personal friend who would’ve made an outstanding President. Paul was a pioneer of decency.

Joe Lieberman (boos). Yes we disagree on a few things but he risked his life as a young man to champion civil rights in the Deep South during the sixties. And as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 he helped carry the Democrat’s banner with dignity and broke an important barrier.

I also want to acknowledge another pioneer – Hillary Rodham Clinton (cheers). Senator Clinton and I waged a spirited battle. She fought ably and well. A woman of conviction, Senator Clinton commands my respect and the gratitude of our nation. Her speech last night was gracious and poignant. She and I stand together to renew the promise of the American dream.

My opponent is a man I know well and call friend. Both our names are linked forever in the campaign legislation known as McCain-Feingold. Truthfully, (smiles), I always thought Feingold should come before McCain because of the alphabet.

We all know his personal story of heroism. A Vietnam POW who put his comrades’ well being before his own. John could have escaped the horrors of the Vietnamese prison camps sooner but he didn’t want to abandon his brothers in arms. No matter what our disagreements he is a man I will always honor and respect. I am proud to call John McCain my friend.

But this election is about the future. Sadly, my good friend John McCain represents the failed ideology of the past. One that has left our nation fiscally insolvent, spiritually corrupted, less free at home and disrespected abroad. We represent change. (cheers)

My good friend John McCain embraces the “agents of intolerance” like Jerry Falwell. Only eight years ago John stood against the apostles of hate in the Republican Party. Today he has been co-opted by theocrats. Incredibly, the Republican theocrats have more in common with the mullahs of Iran then our founding fathers. (cheers)

I am a man of faith. Faith is my personal compass and guide as a father, brother, neighbor and son. It has no place at the policy making table. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Your government must never be allowed to impose a value system favoring any religious sect. That is not America. (cheers)

Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence put it best:

“But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Anyone who invokes the name of God to promote hate or intolerance is committing a sin. (cheers) For these people the Enlightenment that produced the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution never happened.

One may judge a person by the company they keep. I regret to say that my good friend John McCain is on the wrong side of the divide between respecting faith and imposing a theocracy.

My good friend John McCain earned his party’s nomination by becoming an enabler of corporatist values. The tax cuts for the super wealthy he once opposed he now wants to make permanent.

My good friend John McCain supports cutting student loans, cutting funding for education, cutting back on rebuilding the Gulf Coast, and skimping on our seniors. He prefers tax cuts for his new fat cat friends instead of genuine health care reform.

My good friend John McCain talks the talk about deficit reduction but no longer walks the walk. He asks the poor children of Hurricane Katrina to sacrifice at the altar of fiscal discipline but not the captains of industry who outsource jobs overseas.

My good friend John McCain didn’t stand up for civil liberties after 9/11. When President Bush broke the law and spied on our fellow Americans without warrants I demanded accountability. He didn’t.

My good friend John McCain didn’t stand up to President Bush’s crusade to stock our federal judiciary with corporate theocrats opposed to a woman’s right to choose, environmental protections, the social safety net, and civil liberties.

My good friend John McCain supported South Dakota’s anti-abortion law that even denied a victim of rape or incest the right to choose.

My good friend John McCain supported a President who deliberately misled the public into war. Deliberately shed our blood and treasure to pursue delusions of empire at the expense of fighting terrorism.

My good friend John McCain continues to drink from the neocon’s Kool-Aid of fantasy and incompetence.

My good friend John McCain and his party had nearly eight years and still can’t properly equip our troops. The Halliburtons and Bechtels make money hand over fist but GI Joe and Jane still is not protected from land mines.

My good friend John McCain belongs to a party that regards national security as a photo-op for the evening news. Men and women sacrifice their lives to defend our freedom. It is morally wrong to treat those lives as a cheap resource. Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. (cheers)

My good friend John McCain wants to police Iraq’s civil war with our blood and treasure. I want to bring the troops home! (cheers and the convention floor trembles)

Sadly, my good friend John McCain sacrificed his political ambitions for expediency. The “Straight Talk Express” is a one-way ride to empowering religious zealots, corporate plutocrats, and war-mongers.

When America was traumatized with fear after 9/11, I stood on principle and opposed the Patriot Act and was called soft on terrorism.

When political leaders in both parties blindly rubber stamped the Bush Administration’s rush to war in Iraq, I stood on principle and opposed it and was called unpatriotic.

When political leaders in my party resisted campaign finance reform, I stood on principle and joined John McCain to change the system and was called naïve.

When political leaders in both parties robotically supported staying the course in Iraq, I stood on principle and demanded a timetable for withdrawl and was ridiculed as stupid.

When political leaders in both parties were too intimidated to demand accountability for President Bush’s illegal domestic surveillance program, I stood on principle and demanded censuring the President and was called extreme.

When political leaders in my party opposed the nomination of a qualified Chief Justice for the Supreme Court, I stood on principle to support him and was called disloyal.

I have a record of progressive independence. I am a proud unabashed liberal who doesn’t stick his finger in the air to check which way the wind is blowing.

But I’m also a pragmatist and don’t lay claim to a monopoly on wisdom. Smart people don’t intimidate me. I can be persuaded by facts and arguments that make sense. In a Feingold Administration the “reality based community” will have all the seats at the table. (cheers)

One of those seats belongs to my running mate, former General and NATO Commander Wesley Clark. (cheers and standing applause)

Forgive me for sounding old fashioned, but Wesley Clark is a real man. Unlike our current Vice President, his top priority during Vietnam was service. (cheers). Wes is an international statesman from humble origins in Arkansas. He’s a religious man, a smart man, and an honest man who puts country before self and service before profit.

With Wes’s help I will build a national security team that’s tough, smart, has foresight and earns the trust of the international community.

We’re not simply going to scare people about Iran and lob rhetorical insults. We’re going to work with our allies and do something about it. And yes that includes diplomacy with Iran. (cheers)

We’re not going to hide behind China and Japan when dealing with North Korea. We’re going to take the lead and work it out. Under President Clinton, North Korea’s nuclear program was contained. This administration let the genie of the bottle. We’re going to do something about it and yes that includes diplomacy. (cheers)

We’re not going to simply gaze into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s eyes and reward bad behavior. We’re going to engage Moscow as a partner in world peace and expect reciprocity.

We’re not going to pretend that global warming doesn’t exist! (Cheers). Global warming is a threat to our national security. It’s a threat that knows no borders. We need the help of the entire international community.

But first we must lead by example ourselves. I will mobilize our nation’s best minds in academia, science, government, and private industry and convene a domestic summit on global warming. I will ask for sacrifice from our citizens and I’m confident Americans will respond when called upon.

It’s time to consume less and conserve more. Each of us has to change our habits. We can’t shirk that responsibility and pass it on to future generations. Mother Earth’s clock is ticking right now and we don’t have a moment to lose.

Global warming is also an opportunity to become energy self-sufficient and control our own destiny. We need not be slaves to the price of oil and autocratic regimes in the Mid-East that both feed our cars and plot to kill us. We’ve been shortsighted for too long and under my leadership we will be shortsighted no longer. (cheers)

I know many people feel let down by my party in recent years. Some are under the impression we don’t have values. That is a myth. A sick and pathetic myth engineered by the messengers of intolerance. Under my leadership the Democratic Party will not be tread upon anymore. (cheers)

I am proud of my party’s history, its principles, and its legacy.

Ours is the party that saved capitalism during the Great Depression, saved the world from Hitler’s fascism, faced down Stalin and Khrushchev in the Cold War, built the middle class, and expanded civil rights.

Ours is the party that won’t abandon the people to large corporations that default on their pension plans and outsource jobs. The GOP believes the free market is a hockey game played best without referees. We believe America is a community and that we’re all in this together.

If you’re a risk-taking entrepreneur trying to build a business – ask yourself why all the breaks go to the big corporations? Why can a large airline declare bankruptcy and avoid their pension obligations? Yet the entrepreneur has no protection against risk to take care of his family?

Why are you penalized for creating jobs for Americans, forced to endure double taxation and assume the cost of health benefits for employees while the oil companies pay hardly any taxes at all and use cheap labor overseas? You know why. We all know why. The Republican Party is for sale. To all the risk-taking entrepreneurs on the front lines of job creation I declare, we’re on your side. Come home to the Democratic Party.

Ours is the party that believes leaders are elected to make positive contributions. You expect us to serve you, not feather our own nests. Corruption and crony capitalism breed incompetence and gets in the way of solving problems. If you’re fed up with dishonesty and the culture of corruption in Washington, come home to the Democratic Party.

Ours is the party that believes access to universal healthcare is a right of citizenship. Too many companies are forced to outsource their jobs because of the rising cost of health care. I believe that health care reform will also serve as a job stimulus to create employment for American citizens. An entrepreneur that doesn’t have to assume the burdens of paying health insurance is a boss ready to hire. If you’re fed up with skyrocketing premiums, HMO mandates, and disappearing jobs, come home to the Democratic Party.

Ours is the party that believes human rights are universal. I’m not afraid to say that gay rights are human rights. I believe it a sin to deny any child of God equal protection under the law because of their sexual orientation. I’m sorry but that is not a matter to be left up to the states. Once upon a time we had slave states and free states in this country. That didn’t work too well. I don’t believe dividing America along the lines of homophobic states and tolerant states works well either. If you believe that we’re all one country entitled to equal protection under the law – come home to the Democratic Party! (That brings the house down)

Ours is the party that believes government must live within its means. President Clinton left the Republican Party a surplus. They squandered it with irresponsible tax cuts for the rich and a massive boondoggle to the HMOs and pharmaceutical industry. If you believe in fiscal responsibility – come home to the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party promised to change the tone of Washington. They have not delivered. We will.

The Republican Party promised to strengthen Social Security and provide better healthcare for our seniors. They have not delivered. We will.

The Republican Party promised to fix immigration. My good friend John McCain tried to persuade his party to sign onto a comprehensive and compassionate solution. They have not delivered. We will.

The Republican Party promised to control spending. They have not delivered. We will.

The Republican Party promised America would be a humble nation under their leadership. They have not delivered. We will.

The Republican Party promised to strengthen education and not leave any child behind. They have not delivered. We will.

The Republican Party promised to make America safer. They have not delivered. We will! (convention floor rocks with cheers)

My friends, as former President Clinton once said,

“there is nothing wrong with American that can’t be fixed by what is right with America.”

The past eight years have not been kind to our nation. We were attacked and then we made things worse with self-inflicted wounds. But I retain my faith in America’s promise. We’re a hard working, compassionate, and resourceful people.

We’ve overcome tougher times. The Civil War. The Great Depression. Two World Wars. We also have a history of overcoming mistakes and errors in judgment. Vietnam was horrible but we still managed to win the Cold War and enjoy prosperity in the nineties.

Progress sometimes takes a detour. These past eight years were a detour from progress for our nation and the world. But the damage is not irreparable.

Let it be said that our generation met the challenges of our time with resolve and wisdom. We can. And we will.

May God bless the United State of America. Thank you!

Cheers on the floor. Balloons drop. Feingold goes onto win in 2008. Let’s make it happen.

SIDEBAR: Maryscott O'Connor, the proprietor behind the fantastic community blog My Left Wing appeared on FOX News yesterday. Click here to play a podcast of that appearance. As far as I'm concerned, Maryscott is the goddess of the blogosphere who is dedicated to amplifying and promoting the entire community of progressive bloggers. I urge everyone to visit her blog and participate in her community. You can find a link to My Left Wing in my blogroll under "Community Blogs."

SIDEBAR II: Click here to review the comments for this fantasy topic in Daily Kos - although not a recommended diary by that community there were numerous comments. Today's posting did become recommended diaries in My Left Wing, Booman Tribune, and My DD.

An Onion On Steroids

Exposing the truth about GOP rule is analogous to peeling off layers of an onion on steroids. This is quite apparent in two of the most important news items this past week: the January 2003 British memo reported by the New York Times and the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in which former Nixon aide John Dean, agreed with Senator Feingold about censuring President Bush.

First let’s address the latest revelations from our friends in the United Kingdom. When you combine this memo with the original “Downing Street” memo one can’t help but believe the worst. Bush and Blair shamelessly deliberated over how to “provoke” a confrontation with Saddam. This is reminiscent of Adolph Hitler conjuring up a pre-text to invade Poland in 1939. If that offends anyone – I don’t care. What they did is a criminal act and dishonored my country.

Intelligence “failures” which guided both leaders to war is an urban legend. Washington and London both knew there was no evidence of WMD’s in Iraq. The British memos make that clear and expose the public explanation about flawed intelligence as complete fiction.

When CIA director George Tenet told Bush they had a “slam dunk” case, that DID NOT mean there were WMD’s in Iraq. Indeed what Tenet really meant was, “we can scare the American public to support you.” Both memos from Blair’s government put Tenet’s boasts in that context.

Tenet fell on his sword to protect this secret and was rewarded with a medal. I believe Tenet truly wanted to protect America from Al Quaeda prior to 9/11 but was in over his head. That’s the impression I have from reading Richard Clark’s book Against All Enemies. Tenet’s pre 9/11 failures merited his immediate termination the next day. His conduct after 9/11 ought to be enough to have him frogmarched to a maximum-security prison.

Senator John McCain, the GOP’s lying maverick rolled out their standard propaganda regarding worldwide intelligence failures on Meet the Press today. Retired former U.S. Marine General Tony Zinni decisively refuted McCain’s claim’s on the same program (online transcripts not available as of this posting).

Once upon a time I respected McCain because of his military service and willingness to stand firm against his party’s “agents of intolerance” as he referred to Jerry Falwell in the 2000 campaign. McCain's performance today demonstrated that he’s just a garden variety lying Republican.

As for the Bush Administration’s justifications for their illegal domestic surveillance program, I am reminded of a lyric written by the Who’s Pete Townsend on their Odds and Sod’s album:

“You can cover up your guts but when you cover up your nuts you’re admitting that there must be something wrong.”

If as they claim domestic surveillance is required to monitor terrorists they have a legal framework in place with the FISA protocol. It is a very forgiving legal protocol which practically grants the executive branch unlimited discretion.

Some claim that FISA is outdated in this era of computers and emails. A single computer may contain a thousand email addresses and require warrants for everyone one of them. Well, if there is one thing we can all agree government does well it’s generate paper – so I don’t see that as a compelling excuse.

However, if we concur that FISA is an anachronism for today’s challenges, then the Constitution demands the executive branch drafts a new legal framework with elected representatives from Congress. Does anyone doubt that both parties in congress would’ve given this President anything he asked following 9/11? Both the Patriot Act and the 2002 resolution regarding Iraq aptly illustrate that point.

Hence, as a sentient being capable of deductive reasoning and a student of human nature, it seems obvious the administration is using their domestic surveillance program for reasons other than terrorism. Perhaps they’re monitoring political adversaries?

To this point the Democrats behave as if they’re victims of battered wife syndrome. Meanwhile the GOP resembles every divorced woman’s abusive first husband. I don’t expect Democrats to publicly accuse the administration of abusing domestic surveillance for reasons other than terrorism as I have, until there is tangible proof. Even Senator Feingold has refrained from going that far and politically that makes sense.

Their inability to support Feingold regarding censure however is cowardly at best and immoral at worst. The President broke the law and resists all attempts at oversight. Once again we’re expected to “trust” this administration’s intentions and not hold anyone accountable. The battered wife doesn’t want to turn to the law while the abusive husband behaves dishonorably with utter impunity.

In 1998, Senator Joe Lieberman couldn’t rush to the senate floor fast enough to condemn President Clinton for his illicit behavior. Clinton was abroad at the time and Lieberman refused to wait for Clinton’s return – violating the quaint tradition of not attacking the president while he was in a foreign country. Other Democrats applauded Lieberman for this at the time.

Yet most Democrats shy away from taking this President on about violating our civil liberties? Enough! A battered wife will continue to be battered until she decides her days of being tread upon are over.

Feingold smartly put forward a censure resolution to hold the administration accountable under the law and use as leverage for obtaining the truth. It’s an eminently easy and reasonable course. Conservatives habitually cherry pick which laws are worth enforcing: condemning illegal immigration but forgiving lawbreaking from President Bush.

Yes, the Democrats are the minority party but if they unified on this point the Republicans would be on the defensive and we might even learn whom this administration is really spying on.

The time has come to aggressively peel back the GOP onion. Consider this an opportunity for the Democrats to become a confident grown up instead of a battered wife.