November 07 Dispatches 11/30/07

I'm a year older as November comes to a close, and I'm just happy to be here. I'm scheduled to go out to dinner tonight with Best Friend and her Husband (and probably The Husband... and maybe his friend, Tim). It's a birthday dinner, but not on my actual birthday. We've had some trouble deciding where to go, in the wake of our regular bar's closing, but we have some possibilities. I think it's between an old favorite and a new spot in the neighborhood, whose website informs me that they're (we're!) located in "an up and coming trendy area". Who knew?

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

It's been announced that 2008's Yearly Kos Convention (a/k/a Netroots Nation 2008) will be held in Austin, Texas next July 17-20. Austin's a fine choice, an obvious fit for this growing event, but still; it seems to me that an important opportunity was missed. In their words:

Austin is an amazing town, full of great food, great progressives and good times. In addition to all that, we've got a fantastic venue for the first ever Netroots Nation.

There are many reasons that we choose Austin, personally, I was most compelled because the hotel rate was $25 better than the other city. But it also gives me piece [sic] of mind to know the venue can handle our technical needs because they host South by Southwest every year. Another great reason is that we have already been approached by people on the ground to help with organizing local volunteers (always a consideration for a convention that relies on getting 100+ volunteers, many of whom tend to be local to the area). Finally, Austin has everything that our audience asked for in our post-convention surveys this year. The rooms are cheap, the city is walkable, there are many food and accommodation options, and the meeting space is compact.

The other city, in which they were unable to find a venue large enough for their crowd and in which they seem to have expected some difficulty finding volunteers (or great food) was New Orleans. The rationale is beyond my understanding (and vaguely reminiscent of the presidential debate site selection commission's lame excuses) but I'd still love to go. Maybe NOLA for Kos in 2009?

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

There's continued attention to H.R. 1955, the "Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (h/t Dambala and Catty), including Matt Renner's 11/29 article at Truthout.org, which illuminates:   

Despite being written by a Democrat, the current version of the act would probably set up a Commission dominated by Republicans. By allowing Bush and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to each appoint one member of the Commission, and splitting the appointment of the other eight positions equally between Congressional Democrats and Republicans, the Commission would consist of six Republican appointees and four Democratic ones. 

The Commission would be tasked with collecting information on domestically spawned terrorism from a variety of sources, including foreign governments and previous domestic studies. The Commission would then report to Congress and recommend policy changes to address the threat. There is no opposition to this consolidation or research. However, the Commission would be given broad authority to hold hearings and collect evidence, powers that raise red flags for civil liberties groups.

Civil liberties activists have criticized the bill, some comparing the Commission it would establish to the McCarthy Commission that investigated Americans for possible associations with Communist groups, casting suspicion on law-abiding citizens and ruining their reputations. The Commission would be empowered to "hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties."    

Odette Wilkens, the executive director of the Equal Justice Alliance, a constitutional watchdog group, compared the legislation to the McCarthy Commission and to the FBI's Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which infiltrated, undermined and spied on civil rights and antiwar groups during the 1950s and 60s.

The article later quotes Wilkens again:

 According to Wilkens, the bill, in its current form, lacks specific definitions, which would give the Commission expansive and possibly dangerous powers. The Committee would be set up to address the process of "violent radicalization," which the bill defines as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." According to Wilkens, the bill does not adequately define "an extremist belief system," opening the door for abuse.

"An 'extremist belief system' can be whatever anyone on the commission says it is. Back in the 60s, civil rights leaders and Vietnam War protesters were considered radicals. They weren't committing violence but they were considered radicals because of their belief system," Wilkens said.

I guess most (all?) reformers, many of whom are later considered great patriots, are called "radical" at one time or another. Civil rights leaders were certainly considered so, as, I suspect, were our founding fathers (and mothers) themselves. I mean, some of us (Moi!) consider our status as descendents of, gasp, revolutionaries, to be a great honor.

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

Peace, out, y'all.