We have a bit of a probem here in America in that a bunch of people sort of lost their minds after 9/11. I was there. It was a bad fucking day, and a deeply weird and sad and confusing time for a while after, but some folks seem to have taken a harder swerve than others. A few seem to have never returned.

When the shit went down I was in a meeting in Midtown, pitching some older guy for funding on a business plan I worked up with my man Peter Crawford. Once we got the gist of what was going on, that this wasn't some terrible tragic accident, this older fellow took a quick and savage turn of mind, going off on a diatribe about "flamethrowers in the foxholes" and "the sands of Iwo Jima."

That's fine and all. Vengance is a deeply human desire, especially in the immediate face of such a monsterous act. But I think a lot of people took two steps down that path and never looked back. Now it's going on five years later, and we have the likes of Joe Lieberman claiming:

"too many people... don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists..."

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking insane. Mark Schmitt at TPMCafe:

[U]nder any possible definition of "threat" or "enemy" it cannot possibly be as dangerous than the Soviet Union at the peak of the Cold War, with multiple thermonuclear devices pointed at every one of our cities and towns. And, I don’t know exactly how to score "evilness," but not much matches Hitler. I suppose in some way bin Laden and Zawahiri’s hearts may be as filled with evil as Hitler’s or Stalin’s, but they don’t have the SS and Luftwaffe at their disposal. Maybe they would send us all to concentration camps if they controlled half of Europe, but thankfully, they live in caves and can’t use the phone.

I'll reiterate: I experienced 9/11 live and in-person. I have no illusions about the committment of terrorist networks to strike at the US, their willingness to destroy innocent human life to do so, or the threat that this represents. However, looking at the statements from the likes of Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney and company, I can draw only one of two conclusions: either these people have gone off the deep end, or they're among the most cynical and manipulative fearmongering douchebag demogagues to ever hold positions of power and authority in this country. Crazy or criminal, take your pick.

UPDATE: Likewise, you have pundits like Andrew Sullivan who are trying to stake out a new position against the war, but who still need to peddle the belief that people who are (and always have been) anti-war (which is to say: right), are still somehow "unserious" and have not in the past four years put forward alternate proactive strategies for dealing with the problem terrorism presents in particular, and/or the problems of the Middle East in general. This is willfully-ignorant dishonest bullshit. The Editors rap it down.

Subcomandante Kos:

The Lieberman defeat has electrified activists nationwide, showing them that the most powerful, entrenched establishment figures are not safe from people-power. Tuesday wasn't a morale boost, it was proof that we could accomplish the politically impossible.

Although I rarely wade into the commentary section on the old DailyKos anymore, and I find myself often skimming the front page for headlines, the man himself still has a good visionary sense for things, a sharp and refreshing take on a lot of issues, and can really turn a phrase to boot.

I think he's right on here: the Lamont campaign is proof that the concept which Dean rode out of the gate -- internally challenging the establishment in an effort to pull it around -- can in fact succeed. This is a slow and lengthy process, fraught with setbacks and disappointment, but it's not a waste of energy in my opinion.

Simply put, there is no conceivable social action that can rival the political process in terms of return on our investment of time and money. A presidential election costs $200M and 100s of 1,000s of volunteer hours. That's a lot of cash and effort, but at the same time, when you win, you're directing a budget that's about two thousand times as large. There are strings attached all along the way, but there's nothing like the State to take an idea to scale.

Credit for this concept really goes to my man Frank, who as far as I'm concerned coined the phrase: Investment Activism.

For those who are already engaged in their community though some existing apolitical service organization (e.g. clean the river, feed the hungry, teach the children) it's important to realize that:

1. Political participation and direct-action community service are highly compatible. How you engage is not a zero-sum decision.
2. If you truly care about your social-service objective, you're going to have to engage in the political process sooner or later. You can clean the river all you want, but picking up litter won't stop the timber mill from dumping sulfuric acid in the water.
3. While a lot of the media narrative is national, the real action is at the community level. Organizing to improve your city council achieves a double impact both in that local government has a lot to do with your daily way of life, and because authentic local organizations are critical to winning national elections.

So there's no reason not to get hot and start juicing your scene. The actual number of committed participants that are needed to change the balance of power in this country is surprisingly small. With the right message, a little savvy, and some hard work and perseverance, we can run this shit.

Agenda Time

Having proof positive that local networks can defeat established institutions, the question really becomes "what will we do with this newfound power?"

Some back of the envelope political math tells us there's majority support already for the following Good Ideas™:

• Getting Out of Iraq (60%)
• Establishing National Health Care (62%)
• Breaking Our Dependence on Foreign Oil (92%!!!)
• Raising The Minimum Wage (83%)
• Checking Corporate Abuse and Greed (70%)

All of these ideas will make life better in the world. They also all have broad support. The only real opposition comes from fringe political groups and the fattest of corporate fatbacks. These issues fit together as a messaging piece pretty well, and as philosophy and policy too. It's a consensus in the wings, and the best the other team can do is call us "hippies," which won't work. If we fight, we win.

Unlike any of this insider-DC "Unity" daydreaming (McCain/Lieberman? What?!?) this kind of agenda is good governance and has broad public support. Imagine that: giving the people what they want, and having it work out. "Democracy, eh?"

The only thing that's really preventing this kind of agenda from being implemented is a lack of political will from the institutional leadership.

But that's now a solvable problem.

It's time to stop waiting for our feckless national political leaders to ride in like the calvary. They won't. But if momentum can build on these fronts, politicians who know what's good for them will get in front of the wave. Those who stand in the way are now proven to be replaceable.

I'm not sure if this is coordinated or not (e.g. whether Bob Greenwald is going to do some kind of Colbert-related film or something), but it's remix fun, and I like that Eli is putting himself out there:

Glenn Greenwald:

Ultimately, it seems we are painting ourselves into a corner. We continue to block a cease-fire and attach ourselves to the Israeli military effort on every level. But, as even neoconservatives like Lowry are acknowledging, it seems increasingly clear that the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah is not going to produce anything resembling a victory. Neither the U.S. nor Israel can afford to simply have this war peter out without having a credible claim to victory. So what are the realistic options other than escalation?

If there is a significant escalation against Syria or Iran, it must be resisted by the populace here at home. This means politically savvy resistance, because this won't bring about a wholesale collapse of the government, and conducting some proto-revolutionary crap will only alienate people. What needs to happen is for the popular consensus to be foursquare against more war, and for representatives who supports it to loose their jobs come November.

This will cause people to pay attention.

Here's another hint. Politically savvy anti-war activism doesn't revolve around "defending the people of Palestine and Lebanon". While that's a laudable humanitarian cause, protecting the people of Israel is equally worthy, and conspicuous by its absence. This is not the right message. If you don't want this to be Our War too, we need to make the case in terms of costs and benefits to us, to Americans, and the hard sad fact is that the civilians caught in the middle of all this don't figure into that equation other than in a "making more enemies/bolstering terrorist recruiting" sense.