U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today invited Russia to join the United States in its deployment of a “Missile Defense Shield”, a continuation of the program the Bush Administration started during his terms in office.

The term “missile defense shield” is a deadly misnomer. Missiles are extremely difficult to shoot down. Defending against a missile attack is, likewise, extremely difficult. Some (or many) of your interceptors will miss. Your enemy may deploy an unknown number of decoy missiles. You may not have enough time to launch your interceptors once an attack is launched. For all these reasons and more, “missile defense shields” are hardly useful, and hardly ever really intended for defense.

More often, and quite logically considering who is constructing them, they are a first strike weapon. That is, you build a defense shield to protect yourself from any remaining missiles that are launched after your first strike attack lands upon your target (in the case of nuclear missiles, killing millions or billions).

The United States has also declared who this (first strike) missile system is aimed at: Iran and countries like it (a.k.a. countries that threaten U.S. hegemony in any way, shape, or form). Progressives in the U.S. and elsewhere should defend against the construction of such offensive weapons. During the intertwined crises of recession and climate chaos, what we need is billions of dollars invested in repowering our future and economy with clean renewable energy and millions of good green jobs.

Pakistan is pronouced “Pahk-ee-stahn”, or so my Pakistani friends have consistently told me. Tonight during the debate, Barack Obama correctly pronouced the country’s name.

In case you aren’t familiar with the process, after every presidential debates, one of the types of experts that give their analysis are “body language experts”. They tell you how each candidates’ body and verbal language might be received by voters.

After today’s debate, one such “expert”, Lillian Glass, a (white) body language analyst from Beverly Hills, gave her opinion on the Senator’s language. The LA Times reported that:

“She also thought his inflection might be a turn-off to some voters. “He’d say, ‘Pahk-ee-stahn,’ or ‘Tolly-bahn.’ You need to say Pakistan and Taliban like everyone else [sic].”"

Of course she’s probably right. Obama’s inflection might be a “turn-off” to some voters. The major issue is that the implications of Glass’s comment - namely issues of race and racism - weren’t brought up, as has been reguarly the case in this election. There was no question of who would be “turn[ed]-off”, and more importantly, who would be turned-off if he purposefully mispronouced “Pakistan” in his public appearances.

Jason Linkins of the Huffinton Post made a similar comment, throwing homophobia into the mix (because, I mean, why not?), comparing Obama’s inflection to marching in a Leather Pride Parade. (Really now?):

“10:10 - Jason Linkins: Obama hasn’t gotten the memo from every right-wing blog in the universe that pronouncing the word “Pakistan” PAHK-ee-STAHN is the dialectical equivalent of spreading arugula on your body and marching in the Folsom Street Fair.”

Will Obama change his inflection? We can only wait and see. He hasn’t thus far. But we can’t predict the future. We can prepare to call him out on his obvious BS if he does purposefully shift his inflection. And more importantly, we can call out the types of people who bring up such non-issues.

Obama is widening his lead over McCain. Every move McCain has been making is costing him more votes. Obama is playing a near-perfect game. States like New Hampshire are going from the “toss up” category, to “lean Obama”. States like North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri are going from “lean Mccain”, to “toss up”. Most of the swing states are leaning towards Obama - states like Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia. Even states like Montana, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and West Virginia are no longer “safe” for McCain. They only lean his way.

Unless something drastic happens, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. The political context of Glass’s and Linkins’s comments makes them even more disturbing. They aren’t suggesting that Obama needs to use racist language in order to win the White House (not that that would make it any less repulsive). They’re just saying it just because that’s what traditional electoral strategy “wisdom” says, despite the fact that if the election were held today, Obama would win in a landslide of over 364 electoral votes (you need 270). But (white) voters get turned off by non-English words. Best to appease them and be safe the pundits say.

We can do better I think. We’ll see what happens at Hofstra.

I disagree with lots and lots of Obama’s proposed policies - especially his foreign policies. But his language is superb - something that radical democrats need to learn from and use if we are to build a truly transformative movement. Here’s Obama talking about race, religion, unity and contradictions in America. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a mainstream politician - let alone someone running for president - talk in this way. Certainly not someone who could be our next president. To win we must first learn how to communicate our values to all of America.

As the title suggests, here are some ways that events can fulfill Organizing functions. Events might be considered organizing if they:1. help to increase and solidify the commitment of new or preexisting members.2. whenever possible, recruit new members, and get the contact information of all the people (especially the new ones) who join in the events - later following up with each of them, individually if possible.3. are well messaged/framed, with language and concepts used that help to lay the foundation for the construction of a new dominant narrative throughout society - a narrative about justice, peace, equity, democracy, liberty, human dignity, diversity, sustainability, and solidarity.For example, the conservative theme of “small government”, can be exposed for what it is: the destruction of good forms of government (programs of social uplift), and the expansion of bad forms (more money for the defense industry, the nationalization of corporate debt, tax breaks for the rich). We can show that theres an alternative to that - a participatory democracy where people control their own lives and country through a system of elected delegates - as opposed to unaccountable “representatives” who represent corporate interests instead of the interests of hardworking Americans.4. elevate sympathetic voices which people can’t ignore, and indeed, can personally and collectively relate to. These voices must cut through dominant narratives that largely isolate and atomize us, while causing people to have feel solidarity with other human beings - feelings solidarity which can later be translated into solidaristic action and organizing.5. expand democratic control by the people over society. Whenever possible, activist events can be used to organize for democratic popular power by allowing people to both participate in the event, and/or take social power into their own hands. While this power must be directed in a productive direction, it is fundamental to winning a new world that people begin to have ever more practice at what it would take to run a society, and how desirable that would be. Democracy needs to be made viral and contagious.We could list more, but the above are usually pretty crucial. I will add more as I think of them - or others suggest them to me.

“HOPE is a VERB with its SLEEVES ROLLED UP!” - David Orr, Professor of Environmental Studies, Oberlin College

If you’ve been following my site for any period of time, you might have started to understand what I’m trying to get at - perhaps I’ve even become too repetitive on certain subjects. If I could sum up my site into a simple “thesis”, it might be something along the lines of: if we want to change the world, we have to move lots of people in lots of little ways. The ways that we move different people are, well, different.

Ronald Reagan was a mastermind of this. Barack Obama has a similar strategy. To move “conservatives” (politically), progressives need to figure out how to move them on issues that they are progressive on. Many evangelicals, for example, care deeply about poverty and employment. We need to take to them in terms of our values and reframe the debate. Conservatives don’t own the moral high ground on religious and spiritual issues, and indeed, the evangelical voting bloc is splintering. We can regain this ground - we have righteousness on our side.

If we work hard enough, if we are strategic, if we are visionary, and if we are effective communicators, all of these efforts - both qualitative and quantitative - will eventually add up and snowball into dramatic and wide-spread institutional changes.

Lots of people and events inform my thinking on this. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book called “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.” In the book he draws upon many fields, from sociology, to psychology, to marketing, linguistics, cognitive science, anthropology, and evolutionary biology. He focused on: the message, the messengers (including people with various types of personalities), and the context of the message.

Folks ranging from George Lakoff to the smartMeme Collective have taught lots of people in the movement that we need to be effective language warriors. Language, effective communicating, framing, messaging, memes (contagious bits of information that spread virally through society via social networks), and the creation of new progressive narratives are all a vitally important part of changing the world.

And then theres history and dozens of revolutionary and radical movements who’ve waged liberatory movements and conducted liberatory experiments in human social organization - all showing the change is indeed possible and that other forms of social organization are possible.

Basically, theres a grand, yet simple and straight-forward, theory of change, and it has supporting evidence in many fields of science, ranging from evolutionary biology and cognitive science to sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and psychology. Its how human interact, grow, and transform the space around them. There are no statics in society. The category of “conservative” was as much a constructed and arbitrary one as any other political label. We just have to redefine the debate and we’ll start owning the right! And if we are effective in these tasks, and intentional about how we organize ourselves, then before we know it, we will be marching to freedom…