From Jeff Sharlet's Salon article on Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitt's house-mates:

In its internal documents, the Family refers to itself as an "invisible organization" and the "prayer cells" into which it organizes politicians as "invisible believing groups.'"

The connotations run wild: part Manson Family, part Al-Qaeda, part Illuminati, part Scientology. I try not to invoke the word "post-modern" much these days, but I can't think of another word that fits. Well, other than "creepy" and "ludicrous" and "risible" and "scary."

Thanks to Stupak and Pitts, I learned another interesting word:

Together, they're poster boys for the evangelical/conservative Catholic alliance known as "co-belligerency," a culture war strategy designed to take territory within the Democratic Party as well the GOP. [em-phassis mine]

I don't know if that's the Family's word or Sharlet's own diction, but it raises an eyebrow or two (or three, if your third eye is alarmed.) On Sharlet's part, it could be rhetorical overload; he's genuinely --and rightly-- concerned about the religious right's (admittedly smart) tactic to infiltrate both parties to push their agenda forward. But the rest of us --secular left, religious left, or middle, or whatever word choice you wanna make-- could take a page from the fanatical fundy insurgency manual and (hopefully) adapt it with more intellectual honesty and transparency.

Anyhoo, just to be self-promoting "hoower", here's my relevant cartoon for this week.

Originally published at mooreroom.

From H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means 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.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

This pass the House 400-6 a couple weeks ago. Jessica Lee at Democracy Now asks the right questions:

When you think about these definitions, what does that mean? When you look at the activism going on today, is there planned use of force or coercion going on? When you look at what is going on in Olympia, with individuals sitting down and blocking war shipments. When you look at Code Pink going into Congress and disrupting activities. Could this be included in this definition?

And looking into literature on "homegrown terrorism" published by the Rand Corporation, the think tank that heavily influenced this bill, Lee began connecting dots:

They largely tried to push this bill through on this idea there are these extreme political Islamists in our country and they did not do a very good job stating the actual threat. But when you look through the Rand Corporation's other reports in 2005, they had a report called “Trends in Terrorism”. And they had one chapter called “Homegrown Terrorism Threats”. When you look in that chapter, there’s nothing about political Islamists. In fact, its all about anti- globalization people on the right and left side of the spectrum. The animal rights and the environmental movements; and anarchists. And to me I found that very interesting that that testimony was not mentioned at all when this bill was passed. That this legislation is not just gonna look at so-called violent, religious people, but also people who have been very strong opinions against this administration.

This legislation should have been addressed in last week's debate among Democratic candidates. Diamonds or pearls, indeed.

Writing about both Memorial Day and Veterans Day, Stephen Lendmen cries hypocrisy:

These two federal holidays warrant special condemnation. They represent a galling legacy of endless wars and false patriotic glorification of them including the so-called “good” one there was nothing good about as Ben Franklin knew and once said “There was never a good war or a bad peace.” Choosing days to honor the dead who sacrificed everything is a sacrilege and failure to note they died in vain on the alter of power and privilege for the few. Their deaths assure an unending cycle of violence and killing with legions of nameless, faceless grave sites ahead only to be known by those who’ll experience unconscionable loss.

Like Mother's Day, Veteran's Day began under a different name and with the intention of promoting peace and denouncing war. Memorial Day began as Decoration Day to observe the Civil War dead, Union side, but expanded as the Southern side of the ledger began to fill up with corpses of volunteers from subsequent wars. So its progression toward a general recognition of the sacrifices made by men and women in serving the U.S. military is far more natural than the awful inversions brought upon the other two.

So I confess some sympathy for Paul Morin of the American Legion, who criticized John Edwards' call to use Memorial Day to protest the war in Iraq.

The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because they took an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution.

The sacrifice is the same whether it's for a "popular war" or an unpopular one.

Memorial Day should be an occasion to bring Americans together to honor these heroes.

I disagree respectfully. I believe it is a remarkable thing that people are willing to risk and lose their lives for their fellow citizens. But Morin is shooting the messenger. He should be aiming at the idiots who passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or gave President Bush the authorization to wage the War in Iraq. At least Edwards has had the decency to acknowledge his mistake in voting for it and seeks to atone for that original sin.

This Memorial Day morning my thoughts turn to the future dead. In nine years, my daughter will be eligible for military service, and if Democrats have their way, the draft. In fifteen, my son will, too. Tell me there won't be a war based on bad foreign policy decisions made today (or even twenty years ago), on disinformation and hidden motives, on war profiteering and political cronyism. Tell me that politicians from either party will choose the less politically expedient path of advocating diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolutions and resist fears of being branded "soft on defense" or "unamerican." What is being done now to nip war in the bud? Anything? Hey, how's AIDS in Africa coming along? How's the impending water shortage being resolved? Global warming, anyone?

At the risk of sounding like a bumper sticker, I'll say that if you really want to honor the dead, make a better world for the living.