Sometimes, I think that everything is connected. For example, after this morning's medical appointment, I stopped at an art store, to but some supplies for my children. By no coincidence, the supplies will assist them in a project that involves the publication of a book on some important connections in human cultures. As I was speaking to the owner of the store about local and global archaeology, we discovered that he had been my oldest sibling's art teacher in high school.

“The world is a very small place,” he noted. “And everything is connected.”

Sometimes, I've questioned if things that connect in my mind, make much of any sense to others. For example, recently one of my good friends on this forum posted something about a republican's claim about the political outlook of Martin Luther King, Jr., early on in the 1960 presidential election. Weeks later, and partly in response, I posted a brief H2O Man survey, asking what individuals or groups other members here believed were trustworthy, when it was most important. It's possible, of course, that if anyone has ventured this far, they might be wondering how these two things are connected? Or, is it merely an optical delusion in H2O Man's mind's eye?

I'll try to be brief.

In 1957, VP Nixon – with an eye on the 1960 election – was advocating for a civil rights bill. The Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson, favored the legislation, but recognized that it would be hard to get it passed, as proposed. Now, I'm going off memory, and so I'll try to keep it relatively simple. In the Democratic Party, there were numerous factions: liberals from the northeast; Dixiecrats; and others that have faded into obscurity.

Nixon was, of course, a strange fellow. He was of the opinion that different races and ethnic groups were of very different intellectual abilities; yet, he believed that a person was entitled to any job they were capable of doing, and should have the right to buy any product from a store, or home in any neighborhood, that they could afford. Thus, he backed the proposed bill.

However, one might suspect that Nixon recognized the bill could split the factions within the opposition party, harming LBJ, and helping Nixon's chances in 1960.

A third politician, Senator John F. Kennedy, did not have strong views on civil rights issues in 1957. His role in this part of the story was minor. Johnson was tasked with helping strip the proposed legislation of some important sections, that civil rights leaders felt were essential. LBJ took the position that passing part of a lesser bill was better than losing on a greater proposal. As a result, civil rights leaders, including Daddy King, not only came away with a positive view of Nixon, but were convinced that LBJ was an untrustworthy Texas wheeler and dealer.

When JFK picked LBJ in '60, several factions within the party were unhappy. Equally upset were most civil rights leaders, who believed that Kennedy showed promise. Again, briefly, after Martin Luther King, Jr., was incarcerated before the election, and the Kennedy brothers attempted to assist him, people like Daddy King came out in support of the democratic ticket.

As president, JFK had LBJ take positions that were aimed at helping blacks in gaining civil rights. Some were done quietly, but the civil rights leaders were familiar with LBJ's efforts to gain economic and voting rights advances. Before Dallas, a number of the more mainstream civil rights leaders had come to favor Johnson over Kennedy.

After Dallas, LBJ would advance many of the programs from the Kennedy efforts. He did it in a more public way. He knew that his actions risked a large split in the Democratic Party, and that as the 1964 election was on the horizon, it could lead to his defeat.

One of the things that has been largely forgotten – purposely so, in my opinion – is that LBJ took the intelligence reports from the FBI, CIA, and the military (for they were watching the civil rights movement for many years), and showed it to the leading racists from the south. He noted that they needed to update their thinking. The NAACP, which many had called a communist-influenced threat, was now a moderate group, Johnson showed them. CORE was actually centrist. The college students were moving to the left. And the Nation of Islam, and in particular Minister Malcolm X, were now not only the most radical of groups, but were gaining in influence at the fastest rate.

Thus, although not out of any sense of good-will, fairness, or respect for the Constitution, the racist democrats in Congress eased up their efforts to stop LBJ's efforts to promote civil rights, including those efforts aimed at “poverty” in general.

So, what does this have to do with my little survey? I thought that while DU is a relatively small group, it does reflect the views of the progressive/liberal democratic left. And, like across the country, many people here have expressed a lack of faith in the elected representatives in Washington. Some do not trust President Obama; most don't trust Congress; and none trust the Supreme Court. More, there is less belief that many/most of the formerly reliable groups are actually out for the average man or woman anymore.

Just as the move to the left by the grass roots in the civil rights movement helped LBJ get the rabid Washington “leaders” to stop fighting any and all progressive legislation, (and even moved some centrist civil rights leaders to ask, off the record, for the other groups to apply increased pressure on DC), the same dynamics can and should be applied today.

Thanks,
H2O Man

I'd like to think that there is a potential for a semi-united front of liberal and progressive social & political activists in the USA.

Hence, a question: In your own experience, in the context of social/political life, what group or groups of people do you consider to be reliable -- in the sense that you can safely count on them to be there for you?

January 23
At New York (HBO): Steven Luevano vs. Juan Manuel Lopez, 12 rounds, for Luevano's WBO featherweight title; Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Rogers Mtagwa, 12 rounds, for Gamboa's WBA "regular" featherweight title; John Duddy vs. Juan Astorga, 8 rounds, middleweights.

There is an outstanding card on HBO's Boxing After Dark (BAD) tonight, at 10 pm est. If you have an opportunity, be sure to watch it.

The main event features Steve Luevano defending his title against Juan Manuel Lopez. Luevano is a talented boxer, and should be able to give Lopez some trouble. However, Lopez is expected to win the fight.

In Lopez's last match, he was almost knocked out in the final two rounds by tough Rogers Mtagwa, who fights in the co-main event. Lopez, who is one of the sport's most impressive young fighters, had been impressive in overwhelming and knocking out almost every opponent he had faced. His bout with Mtagwa was supposed to set-up a late January bout with Yuriokis Gamboa, who meets Mtagwa tonight. However, Lopez had such a tough fight, that his management decided to give him a tune-up before meeting Gamboa.

Lopez is moving up from the junior featherweight class, to featherweight, for tonight's bout. Although it isn't a huge weight difference, it allows him the chance to get comfortable in Gamboa's weight class. However, Lopez can't afford to look past Luevano, who might lack Mtagwa's punching power, but has superior ring skills. It should be a tough, interesting fight.

The co-feature, between Gamboa and Mtagwa, is definitely the more anticipated bout. Most people believed that Mtagwa had earned a return bout with Lopez, though I understand exactly why Lopez's management refused to grant that fight. Gamboa's management has more confidence in their fighter, and believe that if Yuriorkis beats Mtagwa convincingly, it will give him a significant psychological edge when he faces Lopez in the late spring or early summer.

As always, styles make fights. It may well be that Gamboa will have an easier time with Mtagwa than Lopez did. He is a bit faster, and has superior reflexes. More, he has the advantage of studying Mtagwa's fight with Lopez. And finally, he has greater punching power than Lopez, and can definitely knock any featherweight unconscious with a single, well-timed blow.

However, Gamboa has poor balance, primarily from being a show-off in the ring, and being over-eager. He has solid defensive skills when he uses them, but has a bad habit of relying upon his uncanny reflexes too often, ignoring high-risk situations. Thus, he has been decked several times in his short career. It's one thing to get floored by an inferior opponent who you can punish for such a thing; it would be quite another thing to get hit by Mtagwa, and then have to defend against him.

Both Lopez and Gamboa face serious risks tonight. Without question, Gamboa faces the far more difficult task. Still, each should win. And, if they do, their proposed meeting will definitely be one of the very best fights of 2010. It actually would be worthy of being called a “Super Fight,” as both of these young sensations have the ability to become all-time great fighters. That's not something that I tend to say about anyone except the very best of boxers in any generation.

Enjoy these fights, and, if possible, let me know what you think of Lopez and Gamboa.

The trial of Scott Roeder for the cold-blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller, while his victim was sitting in church, is being carried on Tru TV's "In Session." I think that trials such as this are worth watching. Is anyone else watching it, or planning to?

When John Lennon traveled to Canada, he met Marshall McLuhan at the University of Toronto. McLuhan, a wordsmith intent on displaying his imagined superiority, started their conversation by saying he believed language was a form of organized stuttering, which was stretched into harmonious patterns in music. Hoping to put Lennon on the spot, he asked John for his view?

“Language and song to me,” Lennon responded, “ apart from being pure vibrations, is just like trying to describe a dream. And because we don't have telepathy, we try to describe the dream to each other, to verify to each other what we know, what we believe to be inside each other. And stuttering is riight – because we can't say it. No matter how you say it, it's never how you want to say it.”

I think that John did justice to the art of communication. So much so, in fact, that in the sense that human beings use symbolism to communicate what they know, and what they believe is inside of each other, John Lennon and his music are symbolic of concepts ranging from personal growth to the quest for world peace. Hence, in my attempt today, to communicate an internal and eternal vibration, I hope that this Lennon quote will help to explain the shortcomings in this essay.

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

The first month of 2010, while not yet over, has been eventful. Three things, which I believe are related, come to mind: the tragic events in Haiti; this week's election to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy; and the holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.

The events in Haiti bring two things to mind. First, as advanced as the human race has become in terms of technology, we still inhabit a planet upon which nature is the first law. Second, the response to the human tragedy illustrates the wide range of human potential – from the most decent and concerned efforts to help members of the human family, to the vile and evil rants coming from some of the self-righteous fools in our nation. In the past, I've spoken of Malcolm X's lesson about placing a clean glass of water next to a filthy one, and trusting that thirsty people will make the right choice. Few examples of clean and filthy water have been placed before the public as these.

This week's election means many different things to many people. In my opinion, the Democratic Party did not have a clean enough glass of water to place before the public, to demonstrate how dirty the republican glass was. In order to convince the public of the significant differences that each party represents, we need not only to improve on our communication skills, but we need to produce a sparkling clean glass of water.

Dr. King was a master of communication. His genius went far beyond the ability to deliver a moving speech. He put himself on the line, advocating for those marginalized by society, and exposing the hypocrisy of a system that oppresses human beings. Perhaps his greatest insight was that those who hate – and the urge to oppress others, like the emotions that would justify not helping the needy in Haiti, are 100% rooted in hatred – do severe damage to themselves, in the context of creating roadblocks to both individual and group advances towards human potential.

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

I was in the nearest Barnes & Noble bookstore at the beginning of the week, buying a selection of reading material to last me through the end of the month. One of the things that I found interesting was that, in the religious and philosophy sections, there were no books by or about Martin Luther King, Jr. Odd, that, considering that he was the most influential religious philosopher in our nation's history. Of course, I was able to find “King books” in the section where “minority studies” were kept. Although we celebrate King's life with a holiday, his message continues to be marginalized.

When I think of King today, in the context of current events, I try to focus on his teachings about the power of love and forgiveness. It is a sparkling glass of clean water, that a thirsty culture desperately needs to drink from.

Part of that message is as difficult as it is important to take hold of. This is no coincidence, for King was not seeking to set an example in an easy or unimportant way. I love how he explained his interpretation of Jesus's message to “love your enemies.” King relied upon the Greek language to communicate this concept. There are three words that describe love: eros, or romantic love; philia, which is the level of love between personal relationships with those close to you; and agape, which is different than romantic or personal relationship love. King described agape as “understanding, creative, redemptive, good will to all men.” King himself did not “like” his enemies. He had some hilarious things to say about men like Eugene “Bull” Connor, in private among his friends. But he had a love of mankind that included his enemies.

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

As I walked through the aisles of the bookstore, I was reminded of something that one of my favorite authors, Erich Fromm, had noted more than fifty years ago. There were a large number of books in the “Christian” section of religious books, that focus on how to get rich by way of Christian principles. To say that these are filthy glasses of water is an understatement. They go far beyond merely missing the mark: they are blasphemous. However, as tempting as it is to continue on this line of thought, and risk having my OP placed in DU's religion & philosophy aisle, I'll go back to Fromm.

Erich Fromm was, of course, a noted psychiatrist and sociologist. His writings, many of which are being re-published, attempt to communicate avenues that lead to personal and community/national “sanity.” While I strongly recommend that people read his books, I am obligated to warn you that his enemies called him a socialist and an atheist. So be careful, especially when reading his views on the power of the teachings of Jesus and other great teachers in human history.

Fromm, like King, recognized that individuals experience “love” on various levels. Infants experience what is known as a narcissistic form of love: everything is self-centered, with an inability to recognize any distinction from self. This is a healthy, natural stage of human development. However, when narcissistic love continues beyond the stage of infancy, it is a pathology. And an unattractive one, at that. More, this pathology does severe damage when it is manifest on a national level, when it promotes “leaders” such as George W. Bush or Pat Robertson.

Fromm also wrote about the levels of love associated with family and friends, and romantic love. In terms of romantic love, he notes that the sensations associated with it will fade, unless the individual advances to a mature love of the significant other.

And he also writes about the type of love of mankind, including one's enemies, that King spoke of. In the same way as King, he does not advocate that people like those who are their enemies. While in some cases, a formerly hostile relationship can evolve into a friendship, in numerous other cases, this is not going to happen. It would be both unrealistic and another stumbling block to an advance in human progress, to expect that to happen.

Yet the greatest stumbling block to individual and group advancement is the toxic ball & chain of hatred. This does not mean “hating” injustice. It is about hating other people. The extreme example of a hateful person, Fromm points out, is the narcissistic individual. And, again not by coincidence, the narcissist always, at the deepest level, has either a self-hatred, or an absence of the ability to love anyone, including themselves.

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

Both King and Fromm recognized that an individual infected by hatred is incapable of reaching their full human potential, in terms of mental health. Likewise, they knew that a society infected with hatred was equally incapable of reaching its potential, including being what Fromm termed a “sane society.”

I suspect that the vast majority of people are aware that our society is not healthy. And the level of disease, or pathology, is not based upon things such as earthquakes, which are beyond our control. The sickness is found in the way some people react to things such as the earthquake in Haiti, or the violence in Afghanistan, or the needless suffering found in communities across our country.

We need to offer that clean glass of water. It cannot have a film of corporate corruption, such as that which the “leaders” of our party so often serve up in Washington. It cannot have particles of hatred floating in it. No, instead we need to offer our society the same transforming drink that King served.

Just as individuals and groups of good will have assisted our brothers and sisters in Haiti, we need to offer our country that same type of assistance. Without the filth that contaminates Washington, as well as state and local government. I am still convinced that there is a need, for example, for an up-dated version of King's planned 1968 Poor People's Campaign, to communicate the reality of injustice and suffering in America. After events in 2009, I think the time is ripe for this. Maybe it's just a dream. Even if that's all it is, I thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope that I have been able to communicate what I believe, and what I think is inside each one of us.

Peace,
H2O Man

In Taylor Branch's book, "The Clinton Tapes," President Clinton presents some important information on election contests. This was in the context of the 2000 presidential contest. (See chapter 38, pages616-7)

Republican "think tanks" rely upon the same basic methods that any corporation uses to sell a product to the public. In elections, they decided to avoid any meaningful discussion or debate of serious issues. Instead, they focus on "the three P's": personality, prosperity, and partisanship.

Personality is obvious. A shallow person, such as Sarah Pallin, appeals to a segment of the public, not based on her insight or beliefs, but because of her looks and delivery. Prosperity is an easily manipulated issue, because one can play upon the anxieties and fears of a population, and capitalize on their ignorance. Partisanship is likewise easily manipulated: pretend that you represent people versus corporations, and point out the ugly side of the opposition party.

This simple formula, which a very close friend of the Bush family explained to President Clinton, can be applied to what has taken place in every important election since 2000. Win two of the three P's, and you are in office.

The upcoming election in MA appears to be the source of some debate on DU:GD. Much of the debate strikes me as being of some very real value – for example, my good friend David Z posted an outstanding essay that outlined his beliefs on what the status of that election means for the Democratic Party at the state and national levels. There are numerous equally valuable posts on that thread, that take the opposite position from David. This is, in my opinion, the value of this political discussion forum.

There are also a number of OP/threads that reflect a different level of understanding of both the dynamics of the MA election, and of what it means for our party. My goal today is not to engage in finger-pointing, nor to take sides in these debates. I think that there are plenty of solid points being made by those who believe in always supporting democratic candidates, and those who are more comfortable in supporting those democratic candidates who most closely reflect their values. I trust everyone to make up their own mind who they will donate their money to, which campaigns they will volunteer time for, and what lever they will press when they are inside of a voting booth.

Rather, I would like to briefly discuss a dynamic that I suspect plays a major factor in many of the more emotional, less productive arguments that continue to repeat themselves on these threads. We saw these same things in previous elections, including the 2008 democratic primaries. We are likely to endure the same type of thing in the future. Yet, if we are willing to show the same level of respect for those with opposing values and views, as we would like shown for our own, we could definitely reduce the amount of nonsense and unproductive tension that we find here today.

There is a pretty basic theory, known as “Fundamental Attribution Error,” that I submit plays a large role in promoting the road blocks that hinder rational discussion here. Many D.U.ers are no doubt familiar with this concept, and likely recognize it. There are other names for it, as well. And probably those here who are not familiar with it yet, will recognize the role it has played in disputes with those in their lives.

A simple way to illustrate it is: If I am driving down a slippery road and end up in a ditch, it was because of weather conditions; if you were driving down that same road and went into the ditch, it was because you were driving too fast, and not paying close enough attention to the weather conditions. Darned you!

It is human nature to be selective in attributing motives and responsibility, for better or for worse, to ourselves, to those who we agree with, and to those we disagree with. We are likewise selective in our application of current weather conditions, be they on this forum, in MA, or on the national level.

It is safe to say that the Bush-Cheney administration drove the nation into the ditch – indeed, a gutter that represents a cesspool of republican muck and mire – and that we worked to pull our vehicle out in the 2008 elections. We are on the road again. Some people think we are heading in the right direction, and some do not. Some people think we are being driven as safely as possible, under the present conditions, while others do not. Discussing and debating these issues is fine. But we should take care when attributing the best of motivations to ourselves, and the worst to those who disagree with us.

Peace,
H2O Man

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
--John Lennon

Rather than watch the "news," and arguing, I propose that each and every one of us sing (or humm) this song today.

Thank you for your consideration.

H2O Man

(Note: My son Darren co-wrote this with me.)



“A boxing match is like a cowboy movie – there's got to be good guys, and there's got to be bad guys. That's what people pay to see, the bad guy get beat. But I changed things. I don't get beat.”
--Charles “Sonny” Liston

Now that it appears that boxing's most interesting, important, and lucrative bout – Mayweather vs Pacquiao – is not going to happen in March, it is interesting to consider the response of the Great Sport's “experts” and fans, in the context of Sonny Liston's timeless quote. It does not require the training of a professor in sociology to accurately identify the roles that Manny and Floyd play in the preview of this old western: the Pac Man is definitely that good guy, versus Floyd the villain. Yet, a brief review of the sociological ingredients may shed light on what is needed to insure this Super Fight is made later in 2010, on a level playing field.

It is no coincidence that boxing, far more so than any other sport, reflects the nature of the larger society. Boxing has long held a special fascination for politicians, just as boxers have for the great authors. Hence, in American society, we find ample evidence that a certain group of black boxers were type-cast in a manner that fit the needs of the larger society to express its fears and anxieties. In this first group, there are Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Rubin Carter, and other men who were viewed as Bigger Thomas of Richard Wright's 1940 classic, “Native Son.” These “bad guys” were so dangerous, both inside and out of the ring, that boxing fans payed to see a “good guy” beat them.

There is a much smaller sub-group of black fighters that Floyd Mayweather, Jr., belongs to. Though the “experts” and fans today will dispute if his skill-level and ring accomplishments justify his being placed in this group, his inclusion has more to do with his role, based upon style. And, in this case, “style” definitely includes the manner in which the man carries himself both inside and out of the ring. This very small group includes Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali (in the first half of his legendary career).

In the ring, each showed uncanny defensive skills; tended to fight “safely,” rather than with the aggression that many fans prefer; and displayed a hint of arrogance, rooted in their belief that their skill-level was far superior than that of their opponents. Outside the ring, each came across as arrogant, sometimes offensive, and to take pleasure in exploiting the tensions between the self-identified elite society, and those on the margins. In Johnson and Ali's day, those tensions could be more narrowly defined in “black and white” terms; today, while our society has made significant advances in the context of race relations, there are still a number of very real cultural divides – which is one reason why, early in his historic campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama's advisers were opposed to their candidate appearing in public with Floyd Mayweather, Jr., as he had wanted to.

In Johnson's day, there was the very public search for a Great White Hope to defeat him. His defense against former champion Jim Jefferies remains one of the most important sociological events in our nation's history. In boxing circles, there remains a belief that during this time, Johnson “ducked” certain black contenders. However, if one is familiar with Johnson (read G.C. Ward's 2004 “Unforgivable Blackness,” for example), it becomes apparent that in truth, Johnson did not “duck” them – he was a complex character, who held grudges against those who denied him his opportunity earlier in his career. It is in this context that Mayweather's behavior towards Shane Mosley – who refused numerous offers to fight Floyd earlier in his career – is best understood.

Once heavyweight champion Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, many of those same “experts” who knew that Sonny Liston would destroy him in their first fight, were hoping that Liston would recapture the title in their return match. After that brief encounter, the search for a contender with Any Hope went out. It wasn't until early in the second half of his career that Joe Frazier, one of the sports world's greatest athletes and a proud black American, was miscast as a White Hope by those who were blinded by their hatred of Ali, that he was finally defeated in the ring.

That there is a similar blind-spot today seems obvious. Boxing writers and promoters have looked for the next Oscar de la Hoya, a fighter who can sell extraordinary amounts of Pay-Per-View with their big fights. HBO, for example, invested in a talented young contender that they attempted to sell the public as the next Golden Boy, and remain bitter over how he lost his first showcased main event. At the same time, they ignore that Floyd Mayweather's fights continue to sell at the top level. Certainly, much of the credit goes to opponents like Ricky Hatton and Oscar; however, in each fight, many people paid for the chance to see Floyd get beat.

That passions prevent objectivity in many fans can be easily documented in reading some of the internet columns regarding the proposed Pacquiao vs Mayweather fight. For many fans, it is a given that Pacquiao will definitely – indeed, easily – defeat Mayweather. It is just as sure to happen as Sonny Liston knocking out Cassius Clay, or George Foreman destroying Muhammad Ali. In truth, the reason this fight would be great is because it involves the two fighters with the greatest skill level today, and because either man could win.

Both Pacquiao and Mayweather rank extremely high in terms of skill level: they are physically gifted, highly motivated, and have been able to impose their will upon the top opposition they have faced. In a match-up between them, the fighters and the public have the right to insist on a level playing field. That some fighters and trainers have attempted to gain an unfair advantage in the ring is beyond question. The recent HBO documentary “Assault in the Ring” provider a reminder of the potential for a tragic outcome. The Mosley vs Margarito hand-wrap controversy shows that the temptation to seek an unfair advantage remains strong. And boxing, like other sports, creates a situation where some athletes and their closest advisers will seek to use illegal or banned substances, for their own advantage.

The issue of Mayweather's position on blood testing has generated controversy within the boxing community. The validity of Mayweather's concerns was substantiated, beyond any doubt, by Teddy Atlas's stunning reporting on ESPN's Friday Night Fights on January 8. Teddy Atlas is a man who places the highest value on the principles of honesty and telling the truth. Last Friday, he talked about two e-mails from Team Pacquiao to Team Mayweather regarding the issue of blood tests. Any attempt to discredit Mayweather's position in light of Teddy's reporting is, in sociological terms, a Fundamental Attribution Error. All of the boxing community should be in favor of the principles of truth and fairness in the sport. It's that simple.

Well before it appeared the fight would not happen in March, Top Rank was considering three other opponents for Pacquiao. That Paul Malignaggi was the first name mentioned suggests that they had not done their homework, considering that he has openly expressed his opinions on the topic of Manny and performance-enhancing substances.

During this same period, Mayweather's team was focused exclusively on Floyd vs Manny. It's the most exciting contest in all of sports, at this time. It should be held on a level playing field. Mayweather isn't asking Pacquiao to submit to any conditions that he is not willing to be subjected to. When the “bad guy” asks for a level of fairness that the “good guy” refuses to accept, it suggests that there are sub-plots in the cowboy flick that could make it a classic. Let's get it on!

appears to be off, at least until fall. While I prefer a June fight, it is too bad that the two couldn't agree on the issues for the March date.

It appears that Manny will meet Yuri Foreman next. That is not much of a fight. It will give Manny another paper title in a different weight class. Yuri is a talented fighter, but poses zero threat of pulling off an upset. I certainly do, however, understand why Manny would take an easy fight after the brutal match with Cotto.

Mayweather will likely meet Paul Malignaggi in March. Paul has earned a shot at a top fighter. He can also stir up some interest, with his trash-talking. Both Paul and Floyd have been public about their belief that Pacquiao has used PED. Both draw sports fans who want to see them defeated.

It's unlikely that either Manny or Floyd will lose between now and the end of the year. However, I do not think that they are going to build the potential gate much, either. Both fighters would have earned at least $25 million in March -- probably closer to $45 million each. I assume that they will make about the same when they do fight.

“...Clinton ...strained to observe courtesies in the midst of warfare, but even he expressed shock at the disinterest in the political motives of Timothy McVeigh. Early profiles revealed the bomb suspect to be a survivalist from the militia movement, who demonized Washington as the tyrannical promoter of secularism, Jews, and racial minorities. ...Of course, the bomb triggered horror and revulsion instead. Americans were aghast over the terrorist carnage at home, and baffled by McVeigh, but commentators reacted shrilly against reasonable inquiry, and scorned even the president's appeals for civil discourse. ...The president said this was only the start. Within a week of discovering that Oklahoma City was the handiwork of anti-government zealots, his opponents decided the real issue was Waco, and they crusaded to extend investigations of the disastrous 1993 raid. ...Republican leaders scheduled new congressional hearings on Waco – not Oklahoma City.”
--Taylor Branch; The Clinton Tapes; 2009; pages 253-254.

I consider Taylor Branch's “The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President” to be one of the most important books published this year. And, as a bonus, it is an enjoyable read.

In 1992, I had organized a grass roots group, consisting primarily of human service workers, to engage in a voter education/registration campaign. A large part of that effort was to get out the vote for candidate Bill Clinton. But, it was also intended to benefit the poor neighborhoods that we focused our attention on. Having a group of psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers coming into their homes had the potential to both engage and empower them, as voters, on a number of levels. I suspect that was why the county attempted to put stumbling blocks in our way.

We engaged in a similar campaign in 1996. By this time, my view of Bill Clinton had changed, and although I rank him near the top in his ability to get many positive things accomplished, I passed up an opportunity to meet him when he passed through our area. Reading this book, I kind of wish that I had taken advantage of the opportunity to meet and talk with him, along with the others from our group, even though I know that he met many thousands of individuals who wanted to impress their special messages upon him.

Taylor Branch is the author of the three-part series of books on “America in the King Years.” They are each important books, and are helpful in documenting many of the lesser-known episodes of the civil rights era. And although there are numerous points where I disagree on his interpretation of those episodes, I'd strongly recommend those three books to anyone who loves history.

Perhaps my strongest “issue” with Branch is rooted in his relationship with Bernard Barker in the 1970s. Branch and George Crile, of “Charlie Wilson's War” fame, worked with Barker on the still unpublished 240-page book, “Cuban Terror and the CIA in the mid-70s. When pressure from Barker's former employer, the CIA, caused the project to end, Branch authored an August 1975 article for Harper's Magazine, that was supposed to be on the same topic, but avoided even mentioning Barker's curious role in those Bay of Pigs days, much less Watergate. Thus, when on page 379 of the new book on Clinton, Branch notes that he had become disillusioned in the '70s, due to “Vietnam, assassination plots, and constitutional scandals,” I'm reminded that he has still to fulfill his obligations as a historian.

I'm reminded of some of the most important information in his new book, such as the quote I used to open this essay, when I've read some of the debates on the approach that progressive and liberal democrats should take with the Obama administration. In particular, I'm thinking of the issue of the woman from FireDogLake, who is apparently uniting with a character I consider to be as morally bankrupt as Bernard Barker, in calling for investigations of one of President Obama's top aides. While I recognize that everyone has the same right and responsibility to identify what is right for them to do, I cannot support any effort that I believe could only be abused in a way that harms the Democratic Party's ability to advocate for positive change. I say this, without in any sense intending to express any support for the administration aide in question.

“The New Left has tried to create a sense of revolution by shouting slogans and marching up and down the streets. But when the hated establishment is left secure in its citadel, certain that it cannot be dislodged, then it has very little reason to pay attention to them and maintains the power to suppress them. The New Left should use the system to create uncertainty in the minds of Congressmen it dislikes so that all would change lest lightening strike them in their next election. ….If the system is to be changed, then those who would change it should pinpoint its weakest spot, its blockage points, and place all the pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared.”
--Vine Deloria, Jr.; We Talk, You Listen; 1970; pages 65-66.

Over the years that I've participated on this forum, I've quoted from this general section of Deloria's book several times. The reason is that Deloria, a Standing Rock Sioux who was both an attorney and a progressive activist, was communicating a basic truth about grass roots political action. And, what was true in 1970 is just as true today.

Again, I do understand and appreciate the reasons that some members of the progressive and liberal left-wing of the Democratic Party would like to see a challenger in the 2012 democratic primary, even if it was to make a symbolic statement to express their strong opposition to President Obama's domestic and international policies. However, I believe that we should be focusing our attention on the 2010 democratic primaries. We need to be creating an awareness among those democrats in congress that not only can they ill afford to take our support for granted, but that lightening can strike them. That is the most promising blockage that we should be applying our pressure on today.

By selecting the appropriate targets in 2010, we send a much clearer message than if we instead opt to think of potential activities in 2012. We increase our options for tomorrow, by taking action today.

In peace,
H2O Man
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party

“Federal law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have a dark history of targeting radical and progressive movements. Some of the dirty tricks they use against these movements include: infiltration of organizations to discredit and disrupt their operations; campaigns of misinformation and false stories in the media; forging correspondence; and the use of grand jury subpoenas to intimidate activists. Today's activist must know and understand the threat posed by federal law enforcement agents and their tactics as well as several key security practices that offer the best protection.”
--Center for Constitutional Rights; If an Agent Knocks.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was founded in 1966, by a group of attorneys who represented people involved in promoting the civil rights movement in the southern United States. It is dedicated to using the laws of our land as a positive force to bring about progressive social change. The CCR focuses on protecting and advancing those rights defined and guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The CCR also is involved in public education. In 1989, it published the first edition of “If an Agent Knocks,” a booklet that advises grass roots activists on their best protections if targeted and approached by federal and/or other police agencies. In 2009, the CCR released another updated edition of IAAK. I strongly recommend it to members of this internet forum.

While some basic truths still hold true since 1966 (and 1989), others have changed. The most obvious example would be that the internet allows for a level of communications that activists could only have dreamed of enjoying in decades past. Likewise, the same internet allows for a new level of surveillance, infiltration, and disruption than in those past decades.

IAAK includes sections on visits and searches; infiltration and human surveillance; electronic surveillance (telephone, internet, and electronic security); grand juries; and special considerations for non-citizens. More, the booklet provides information that explains that activists today are not simply of interest to federal, state and local police agencies, but also from corporate-owned and private intelligence agencies employed by corporations. This, of course, is simply evidence that what goes around comes around, as many federal agencies were formed in the WW2 era from private, corporate services. An example of this is the CIA, which began as a collection of intelligence operatives employed by the oil industries.

One of the most basic messages that IAAK states repeatedly is that the US Constitution provides you with the right not to talk to police, without having an attorney present to advise you. There is a reason for this: to protect you. Those involved in surveillance, etc, will as a rule lie to you – for they are allowed and indeed encouraged and trained to lie to you – and say that the best thing that you can do to protect yourself is to speak openly with investigators. Often, they will try to trick you with statements such as, “Well, if you really have nothing to hide ….” And, other times, they will take that lie even further, and pretend that their experience has been that those who actually exercise their Constitutional rights are more “at risk” than those who do not.

Besides having decades of experience as a social activist, I also have the advantage of having been raised in an extended family that includes state and federal law enforcement agents. I can say, without any chance of being wrong, that the CCR is correct in their advice, and is looking out for law-abiding citizens' rights to protections provided by the US Constitution. And anyone who tells you otherwise is either an idiot, a purposeful liar, or a combination of the two. But, they are not your friend, and they sure as heck aren't interested in promoting either your welfare, or the Constitution.

As I've mentioned before, friends Rob Warden and Steven Drizin, of the Northeastern University's School of Law and the Center on Wrongful Convictions, published a book titled “True Stories of False Confessions” earlier this year. It documents a number of shocking cases where innocent individuals, believing that it was in their best interests to talk openly with investigators, ended up convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I strongly recommend this book.

For those interested in a copy of IAAK, and/or other CCR information, here is contact information:

http://ccrjustice.org/ifanagentknocks

iaak@ccrjustice.org

Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway; 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012

212-614-6464

I was considering writing an essay on an updated booklet that is available to individuals and groups involved in social activism, “If An Agent Knocks” (IAAK), by the Center for Constitutional Rights. This publication could be of interest to a number of people here at the Democratic Underground in the context of their efforts to promote progressive change in the larger society. But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it should be read by the vast majority of D.U.ers, because a good portion of it actually involves dynamics that we see on political discussion sites on the internet. I am not suggesting that the police per say are keenly interested in all of the discussions on this forum, or that they are not interested in some threads. Rather, I think that we should be aware that industries in this country have private operations that indeed take an active interest in what group discussions and activities may influence the public.

Perhaps by coincidence, my wife recently told me that she is considering teaching (part-time) at the local university. She enjoys teaching psychology and sociology. In the past, I have served as a guest speaker in her classes. Thus, I have been thinking about things such as “groups” and “the public,” and some of the dynamics that we have all seen – and probably participated in – here at the Democratic Underground.

A “lackawanna” is where two streams meet. In this case, it is two streams of thought. Because, as so often is the case, I could speak about this general topic for hours and hours, I decided that it might be a tad less tedious if I attempted to break this down into a couple separate, though related, essays that I hope to post over the holiday season.

For today, I'd like to concentrate on three things: the public; groups; and collective behavior. For many people here, these are familiar topics. But, because many others may not have sat through an “intro to sociology” course, or attempted to apply some basic concepts to help understand some of the highly emotional debates and arguments taking place on this forum – for example, about the proposed health care legislation – it might be worth reviewing them.

More, because in terms of industry and politics (another lackawanna!) those seeking to peddle any product base their approach to advertising and sales on these very concepts, I hope that you will find this worth reading.

“Public(s)” is, of course, a broad term which includes a population, or a combination of populations. The public is not restricted to a particular collection of people that inhabit a single space at one period of time. Rather, it is a larger collection, that tends to support the social order.

All of advertising, be it a commercial for a “new and improved” product, or a political campaign commercial, is aimed at creating a “public” that will view that product/politician as something worthy of their investment. Often, in politics, those selling a product are aware of their ability to manipulate the public, by using highly charged words that intend to unite their target audience: “abortion,” “ gun control,” and “protecting the institution of marriage” are obvious examples.

Another example that comes to mind would be Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in 1968. He was presented as the “new and improved” candidate, who targeted “the silent majority.” Today, it may seem hard to believe that the public bought this product, not once, but twice. How did this happen?

Corporations and political interests often seek to organize groups within the public, which were previously “unorganized groups,” into what is known as an “interest group.” An interest group can be best understood, I think, as a group that shares a common interest which is important enough to them, that they will take steps beyond buying a product, signing a petition, or writing a letter. Thus, in order to maintain control of the interest group's potential activities, those in charge make full use of a closely related set of corporations, known as the “media.” As a rule, when the public begins to show signs of forming interest groups, the corporate media goes into overtime in manipulating how it presents the products/politicians that its advertisers are attempting to sell. Now, that may sound both simple and obvious, but the implications are neither simple nor obvious.

There are many types of “groups” that combine to create the “public.” For today, I'd like to focus on a category that can be organized or unorganized, and which frequently involves some type of common interest: the crowd.

If you happen to go to a store today, such as a Wal-Mart, you are likely to encounter a crowd. This is a specific type, known as a “casual crowd.” It is comprised primarily of individuals who share a common focus – in this case, some last-minute Christmas shopping – that results in their being at one place for a relatively brief period of time. (“Brief,” of course, includes annoyingly long lines of disorganized individuals and families.)

The next type that should be of interest is known as a “conventional crowd.” These are gatherings of people who tend to have a greater number of connections with others in the crowd, who are at a specific event as spectators. It could be a rock concert, or a political convention. Because the individuals have connections with others, there is a much higher degree of personal interactions between members of these crowds, than there will be today at Wal-Mart. Still, because of the setting, the casual and conventional crowds' behaviors are highly structured, patterned, and predictable.

Much, if not most of the time, this forum is a conventional crowd. We gather as a group of spectators, watching the theater of the absurd in Washington, DC, and discuss the good and especially the bad that is found in the public. The forum is structured, the discussions tend to follow patterns, and for the most part, things here are predictable.

Every so often – for example, during the primary season – there are events that we watch unfolding in the media, that result in a rapid increase in emotional outbursts. When this takes place, either a casual or conventional crowd morphs into an “expressive crowd.” An expressive crowd is, simply put, a crowd where individuals express strong emotions. Sometimes, such as the night Brack Obama was elected president, the outbursts are of joy. But, more frequently, these outbursts of emotion are in response to something negative. In those cases, there is an increased potential for hard feelings and divisions.

In these instances, the response includes efforts to maintain some type of order: threads may be locked, individuals may be tombstoned, and/or a respected member may attempt to inject rational thought into the heated debates.

Still, a number of phenomenon can take place, which tend disrupt – intentionally or unintentionally – the structure of the crowd. These tend to fall into three categories, and are common within any emotional crowd where some member(s) has an agenda that is not highly structured, patterned, or predictable. These include: rumors, which are generally anonymous, unconfirmed information that plays to existing fears and prejudices; panic, which is rooted in anxiety and fear, and results in “herd” activities; and hysteria, which is usually an environmentally-based form of extreme panic, which often results in the crowd identifying some members as “the enemy.”

By this time, I suspect that anyone who is still reading this is thinking, “Well, this is all good and wonderful, H2O Man, but what are you really trying to say? And why haven't you mentioned that the initial news reports about the Kerner Commission's Report were made public on March 1, 1968?”

These are valid questions. And considering that the health care debate shows that we are at least two distinct publics, separate and unequal, I appreciate your asking. Now, the Kerner Report was one of several studies that showed that crowds often engage in disruptive group behaviors, not so much when the group has tired of constant oppression, but rather at a time when after having expectations for progress raised, they find those opportunities being denied.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, we know, was mystified at the “race riots” that destroyed large sections of American cities, after he had raised hopes with civil rights legislation. His administration had endorsed a type of “interest group” in poor, often non-white neighborhoods, known as “Political Action Agencies” (PAA), which engaged in “Political Action Programs” (PAP) which were intended to benefit the poor communities. When the promise of progress was unmet in a meaningful way, crowds of people rioted.

In the years since, some republicans have lied – shocking, I know – and blamed the riots on the PAA and PAC attempts to bring progressive change in America. Obviously, I do not endorse rioting; I didn't then, and I don't now. I do endorse group efforts to bring about progressive change in America, and I believe that we are approaching a point where enough of “the public” realizes our continued problems are not the result of those interest groups which advocate for social justice. No, the majority of our problems come from those corporations and their puppet-politicians that are attempting to sell us their lies, and to capitalize on our fears and anxieties.

And, as I said earlier, we see the corporate media working overtime, trying to spread rumors, create panic and hysteria, and disrupt our ability to unite and go beyond simply letter-writing and petition-signing.

The majority of members here, who either support the proposed legislation, or oppose it, are good and sincere people. I believe that. Some believe that while the legislation isn't perfect, that it is a valid first step in the right direction. They are concerned that we do not have fractures within the party, that benefit the republicans. Others believe that the proposed legislation may benefit a number of people, but that because it doesn't go far enough to help the majority of us, and goes way too far in enriching corporate interests, it does not deserve their support. I understand both positions, though I do not support the legislation.

We should be able to have discussions here, without letting emotions get so out of control that threads are locked and people tombstoned – unless they are the few who are identified as intent upon stirring the pot and disrupting the forum. We might disagree, even strongly, but we can respect each other's right to hold their own opinions, and act on them accordingly. For me, that means recognizing that the majority of elected democrats in Washington in no way share my values, much less represent them. I will continue to support the minority of democrats who do advocate those values. And I will look to create and participate in “interest groups” that seek to identify and elect more progressive candidates.

Thank you for reading this.

H2O Man

{1} “They say I 'mold' a fighter, but no. I help him mold himself. I bring out with him qualities he has buried deep down, that many times he does not know he has. My job is to discover and uncover, to bring them to the surface, slowly or quickly, depending on how much dirt is laying on top. When I bring them to the surface, I not only become fully and completely aware of them, but the fighter does, too.” – Cus D'Amato

There has been a lot of interesting discussions on this forum in the last couple of weeks, regarding progressive and liberal democrats feel about the Obama administration and Congress. Two of the most important issues being discussed, I believe, are health care and the war in Afghanistan (which is not, of course, limited to Afghanistan). I find the majority of the threads relating to these two issues to be of value.

Many people are outraged at the proposed health care “reform.” Others view it as a first step in a long process. Likewise, many people are strongly opposed to the administration's policies regarding Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, while others believe that, while not ideal, that President Obama is attempting to make the “least worst” decision from the array of bad options left from the Cheney administration's policies.

A couple of other O.P.s/threads that have gotten my attention suggested that D.U.ers focus on looking at ways to organize – both at a community level and on a larger, more coordinated state-wide and national level – to empower progressive and liberal democrats who are not satisfied with the behaviors of those who were elected to represent them in Washington, DC.

I've mentioned before on this forum that I believe that all of life imitates the sport of boxing, and I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek. I was raising in a boxing family, and the Great Sport influenced my view of and participation in society, including politics. Among the most interesting people that I had the opportunity to meet and learn from was Cus D'Amato, one of the most intelligent and fascinating figures in all of sports. Hence, my use of a few “Cus Quotes” that I hope the reader will enjoy.

{2}“A boy comes to me with a spark of interest. I feed it, and the spark becomes a flame. I feed the flame, and it becomes a fire. I feed the fire, and it becomes a roaring blaze.” – Cus D'Amato

There are numerous organizations that progressive and liberal democrats can join, that are of value in giving a voice to the political left which would not otherwise be heard in Washington. I have joined some that focus on elections, the environment, social justice, and related issues. At the same time, I know that it is essential to invest in local, community organizing.

Now, when I was born, my family lived in the largest “poor” neighborhood in a three-county section of upstate New York. My family moved when I was young, and I returned as a teenaged hoodlum, living in an apartment with my future co-defendants. Years later, when I started in social work, much of my time was spent working with families in that neighborhood.

Some of the parents spoke to me about their concerns with the way that their children were treated in school. They had spoken with teachers, administrators, and even approached the school board, but felt they were ignored. So I took this spark of interest, and I fed it with the power of an idea that they had never considered: they could elect one of their own to the school board. At some point, I'll go into detail about how the school administration attempted to stop that growing flame, and how I was able to put them in check by using the ACLU's services. We eventually elected two representatives on that school board.

That created a sense of self-confidence in the neighborhood. Parents then noted that the playground there was the only one in the entire town, where literally everything was broken. We approached the village board. The members of the board seemed convinced that poor folk liked broken things, and would indeed break any new equipment. So, we took up a neighborhood petition, and took advantage of the local media to give voice to the neighborhood's needs.

Within a year, the village board had secured a HUD grant, that they intended to use to buy the properties, evict the low-income families, and build expensive “town houses.” Their plan would have resulted in the approximately 120 families being “homeless.” We organized a neighborhood tenants' union; used the media to expose the under-handed abuses of the village board; and attracted the active support of one of the nation's top advocates for the poor, who was employed at a leading university in our state. Long story short: we won, and that HUD grant was used to improve the quality of life for the people it was intended to benefit.

I know that this is “small stuff.” But if we can't compete on the local level on these types of issues, we are not going to be able to step up to the next level, much less the state and national stage. I look at it like guiding a young boxer's career: you start out with easier fights, and build both his confidence and skills, before entering him in tougher competition.

{3}“The first lesson I teach these kids before I teach them to box is a lesson about Fear. About what Fear is, and why we have it. Fear is like a fire. If you control it, as we do when we heat our houses, it is a friend. When you don't, it consumes you, and everything you do, and everything around you.”
Cus D'Amato

In “A Tale of Two Cities,” Mario Cuomo's keynote address to the 1984 Democratic National Convention, the then governor of New York provided a brilliant response to President Reagan's delusional view of our nation's being a shining city on the hill. The truth, both at that time and a quarter of a century later, is that there are many, many neighborhoods across this country that are confronted with all the problems endured by the people living in that small, isolated neighborhood I spoke of.

When a community of people are confronted with severe problems, they tend to look to someone from the outside, who they believe is capable of helping them. It could be a politician like Mario Cuomo, or an organization like the ACLU. Often, when they are unable to get a qualified person or organization, they turn to a more local person (or group), who they have seen fighting for a cause that is similar to their own. Hence, over the decades, when some regional groups have been unable to access the direct support of a qualified advocate, they have approached me.

One of the things that I am fully convinced of is that the resources needed to engage in struggles for social justice are found within the community of people itself. And that includes “leadership.” But the true power in any group is not found in its “leader(s),” but rather in the people standing with that leadership. This is the essence of true power, and it is equally true in the context of organizing at the grass roots level, and in understanding why so many elected “leaders” serve the interests of corporations, rather than you and I.

Many of us have been lied to, so often and for so long, that we have become convinced that we are powerless to influence the circumstances within our households and neighborhoods. We look for some “leader” to do for us what, in fact, only we can do for ourselves. It can be difficult for people to speak up at a public meeting, to write a letter-to-the editor of a local newspaper, or to call the office of a elected representative. As a rule, it is not because that person thinks that their message itself is not important; instead, it is because they not only lack the self-confidence to take action, but worse, they have been made to feel inadequate, inferior, and unintelligent. They fear making a mistake, of being ridiculed, or of being subjected to backlash for standing up for themselves.

Our job is to help them understand their fear, and to remove it as an obstacle that keeps them from reaching their potential. We find that we are often best able to do this while working with small groups of people. By encouraging them to take that first step, and to experience some pride in being part of a larger movement, we help uncover those potentials they have always had, but which have been buried by the larger society.

{4} “With fear, a man becomes emotionally tired, and when he is afraid, he has no faith in himself. But the hero and the coward feel exactly the same fear. Heroes just react differently.” – Cus D'Amato

When I was a youngster, I had but two goals in life: first, to be a champion in boxing; and second, to be a high school math teacher. Although I won quite a few amateur boxing titles, and did a bit of teaching in classrooms, somewhere along the journey my life took a different path. I ended up a social worker and community organizer/activist. Life is strange, all in all, I suppose.

In my experiences as a community activist, I've had some wonderful experiences. And some peculiar ones, as well. I've been involved in some issues where my role has been unpopular with some of the opposition. In one public meeting, an elected official who found my style of debate annoying actually threatened my job. And in one protest march, a fellow swung a stick at me – luckily, it hit me on the head, breaking the stick without causing any injury to me.

Of course, anyone who stands up for what they believe is right is going to face a certain amount of that backlash I mentioned. And that can create inner doubts. Also, the more one works for progressive political change, and for social justice, the more you find the system to be entrenched with injustice. One can become tired. Finally, even after one helps to elect a seemingly good politician, or invests a lot of energy in advocating for a good cause, there are often set-backs and failures. One becomes tired, has inner doubts, and even comes to question if it is possible to make meaningful progress.

That's the exact same self-doubt and fear that old Cus D'Amato knew that every fighter eventually confronted in the ring. Oh, yes, trust me: I have experienced this many times. I had more than my share of bouts where it would have been easier – at the moment – to say, “No mas.” But because I prepared properly, was stubborn by nature, and realized my opponent was just about as hurt and tired as me, I would keep on plugging away. And won almost every time.

Our opposition wants us to get tired. To become disillusioned. To think that it isn't worth continuing the struggle for social justice. That's when they pick up the pace in this contest. They always look for openings, for weaknesses in our defenses, and for openings to hit us. Last year, after Obama and Biden, along with many other democratic candidates won their elections, we let our guards down. We thought that we had won on a level far greater than we did. And, while our side let its guard down and let the structure of our organization at the grass roots level slide, the dark energy of the republicans and corporate interests took advantage of that opening.

We need to get back to work. Now, I know that some here have not let up, and my comments are meant in a general way. But we have to get ready for the next round. Part of it might be simply signing internet petitions and the like. But the task at hand requires a greater level of hard work than that. It demands that we get out into our own communities, and organize and prepare in such a way that we are able to identify real leadership within our own ranks. Add to this task the ability to find that strength within ourselves. To not become tired, afraid, or discouraged. To not believe the enemies' lies. And while we may not be heroes, we will find that ordinary people are fully capable of extraordinary talents.

Thank you,
H2O Man

I make a habit of turning the channel if a report on Tiger Woods comes on. And I'd rather not think or speak about his sad state of affairs. However, because of the connection between that issue and a serious topic that I do care about and want to discuss, I will ask your forgiveness for this brief introduction. I want to express my belief that those who betray their spouses are bags of shit dust.

Last fall, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain and Sarah Palin. This cannot actually be viewed as a betrayal, because Joe Lieberman had already betrayed the Democratic Party so many times, and had already openly identified himself as being in a committed relationship with the neoconservative movement. No bag there; he shed that like a snake skin years ago. He is simply shit dust.

During that same campaign season, grass roots liberals and progressives supported Barack Obama and Joseph Biden. We also helped elect and re-elect a heck of a lot of democratic candidates in the House and Senate. We donated money to their campaigns. We worked the phone banks. We knocked on doors. We went into the voting booths on election day. We put them first, and now we see that many of them are putting us last.

I like this man Howard Dean. I listen to him. I respect his opinion. I trust his conclusions in regard to the proposed health care bill. He is putting us first, rather than the private insurance companies that so many democrats in Washington are advocating for.

When our elected representatives in Washington are moving towards Joe Lieberman, and trashing Howard Dean, they are betraying us. And I will not donate a penny, make a single phone call, knock on any door, or vote for a bag of shit dust.