A Quick ACORN Retrospective

Remember ACORN? The community organizing group that catered largely to lower-class people and minorities?

At least until some guy dressed up like a pimp, shot and edited some questionable video and Fox News found its latest "scare white people" story, which prompted legislators to scream that ACORN didn't deserve any funding. ACORN shut down back in March.

Among the things ACORN accomplished was helping first-time voters register so they could actually get into the polls to cast their ballots. The organization also championed raising minimum wage and advocated for universal health care, making the organization the darling of liberals and the target of conservatives.

As the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina passed, The Nation magazine dedicated a large chunk of its Sept. 13 issue to an in-depth piece by Rebecca Solnit titled "Reconstructing the Story of the Storm: Hurricane Katrina at Five." But a sidebar to that article written by John Atlas proved particularly interesting.

In "How ACORN Helped Save NOLA," Atlas details some of the actions the group took in the immediate aftermath of the storm. An excerpt:

A week after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans -- while government officials and charities were still discussing how to send aid to the area -- ACORN was already moving into action. ACORN staffers quickly discovered that many displaced African-American homeowners were in danger of losing their homes. Banks were giving their middle-class, mostly white customers ninety days or more to make their payments, but borrowers who had subprime, high-interest loans (like many black homeowners in the Lower Ninth Ward) were given only one month. Three weeks after the storm, ACORN released a report exposing the industry's double standard and demanded meetings with lenders. Along with labor unions and consumer groups, it successfully negotiated plans to prevent foreclosures for dozens of homeowners. This campaign was only one of many victories, large and small, that ACORN achieved by mobilizing Katrina survivors to confront banks, insurance companies and public officials.

So after a terrible natural disaster threatened to tear New Orleans from its very foundation, ACORN did its part to make sure minority homeowners wouldn't face foreclosure because of the storm. All ACORN did was make sure minority homeowners had a voice, pressuring the banks to give them as much of a fighting chance post-Katrina as the white middle class homeowners.

In part because of efforts like this, the right wing sought to bring down ACORN once President Obama took the White House. They succeeded, partly because the right wing has an entire cable channel dedicated to its cause, and because the rest of the media sat on its hands and was reluctant to call the undercover pimp and Fox News out on their lies.

Read Atlas' entire article here.

I was upset when ACORN was forced to shut down this past spring, sensing something horribly wrong with the fact that the conservative noise machine successfully toppled an organization that was working to make life in America more fair and equitable for a segment of the population that was often ignored -- if not demonized.

Reading Atlas' piece in The Nation brought back those feelings, and brought forth a fair amount of rage. How could an organization that fought to help minority homeowners after Hurricane Katrina be trying to bring about the end of America as we knew it? The only thing ACORN is guilty of, to my knowledge, is trying to help people who would otherwise slip through the cracks. Which, in today's loud political climate, is grounds for a full-scale attack from the right wing -- one aided and abetted by the rest of the media, while aghast liberals merely sat back and let the conservatives drive the narrative.

Wake up, people; this is what happens when Fox News and the Tea Party and the conservative movement as a whole is allowed to dictate the national discourse. Well-meaning organizations, who are only trying to help make the American dream more attainable, are demonized to the point where they have to close their doors, leaving those they served -- people the conservatives would ignore -- to fend for themselves.

Today's conservative movement is sickening, but so is the left's inability or unwillingness to fight back. If this continues, we may see more ACORNs go down in the near future.

Anti-War Music Break

In light of the recent end of Operation: Iraqi Freedom, and the ongoing consternation among people of all political stripes regarding the war in Afghanistan, I figured I'd post a couple music videos that go hand-in-hand with the anti-war sentiment that seems to no longer be exclusive to the more liberal arm of the American left.

The first video is of a song from 2005, System of a Down's B.Y.O.B.



Now, Charades, performed by former System of a Down frontman Serj Tankian (whose new album Imperfect Harmonies comes out Sept. 21).



And before anyone asks: yes, I'm a huge fan of both System of a Down and Serj Tankian (as well as Scars on Broadway, a duo formed by System of a Down bandmates Daron Malakian and John Dolmayan). But anti-war themes have long been a staple of the sound in SOAD, Serj and Scars' work.

On top of being really good music, the above songs seem appropriate in today's political climate when it comes to what we think of war. And since metal isn't always condusive for coherent language, lyrics for B.Y.O.B. can be found here, and lyrics for Charades can be found here.

Enjoy!

Musings About Iraq

Aug. 31 is not only my birthday, but this year it also marked the official end of combat operations in Iraq. For all intents and purposes, Operation: Iraqi Freedom is over. With President Obama's Oval Office address Tuesday night, there are 50,000 troops left in Iraq, serving primarily in an advisory capacity, and the national war focus now shifts back to Afghanistan.

But to what end?

You may recall that I now have my doubts with regards to the war in Afghanistan (read about them here), but it wasn't always that way. I supported the war in Afghanistan when it first started, because that was where those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were hiding, and we had to take swift and decisive action in light of those atrocities.

But the war in Iraq was different; it just felt wrong from the onset. The Bush Administration tried to tell us that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked. They weren't. The administration then tried to tell us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They didn't.

(As an aside: for a truly eye-opening account of the thinking behind the start of the war in Iraq, pick up the book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan. Well worth the time, and you can probably find it cheap at most bookstores.)

Once those reasons were (finally) discredited, the Bush Administration decided to make the argument for building Iraq into a democratic nation, one that would repel terrorist organizations and discredit their narrow ideologies. It likely would've just made Iraq a target for future terrorist attacks, like America and other democratic nations have been, but hey -- no one from the last administration ever asked me.

Don't even get me started on justifying the war based on the idea that Saddam Hussein was gaming the United Nations' oil-for-food program ...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

One of the most under-reported problems inherent within the war in Iraq was the fact that the combat mission diverted attention, focus and resources away from the effort in Afghanistan. Until recently, Afghanistan has been largely regarded as the good war -- the war we had to start after al Qaeda killed over 30,000 of our citizens.

Iraq was always a dividing issue, even before the Bush Administration's reasons for starting that war were proven false. Part of the reason we have yet to find Osama bin Laden and truly bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice is because our military resources and attention has been split for the last seven and a half years. Without the diversion in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan might not have just been more successful, it might be over.

Instead, we still have 50,000 troops in Iraq (at least until 2011) and thousands more being pumped into Afghanistan to do ... what? Nation-building, like we've been doing in Iraq? I thought the idea of Afghanistan was to bring down bin Laden. If that's still the case, high-ranking officials now say he's in Pakistan.

Only we can't go to war with Pakistan. Well, not officially, anyway.

President Obama deserves credit for making good on his campaign promise to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. He campaigned on the idea that Iraq was a needless war and we were better served focusing on Afghanistan.

Well, he got it half right. Iraq was a needless war. Because of the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, we have roughly 4,400 American soldiers who died fighting a needless war. Because we invaded Iraq, we still have not brought down Osama bin Laden and dealt a death blow to al Qaeda.

Because of our decision to invade Iraq, our economic woes look even worse, billions and billions of dollars we don't have going to defense contracts and weapons for fighting a war we had no business starting -- on top of the billions of dollars we were spending in turning the good war in Afghanistan into a quagmire of confusion and stalemates.

Credit also goes to President George W. Bush, who in the last month of his presidency began arranging for the withdrawal of combat troops. President Bush drafted the Aug. 31, 2010 withdrawal date in conjunction with the Iraqi government; President Obama merely adhered to the proposal.

Still, it was a campaign promise fulfilled. In a political climate highlighted by a boisterous, ill-informed minority party and a liberal base that's largely disappointed with what President Obama has accomplished so far, that's not nothing.

Now, about Afghanistan ...

First Amendment, People ...

So ... there's this hate group called the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE) that advocates for the criminalization of Islam. That's right, SANE wants to make it illegal to be Muslim in this country.

I'll give you a moment to soak in the irony of the group's name.

Done? Good ... in February 2007, the group offered the following resolution:

Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US. [sic] Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People. . .It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.

That's right ... in claiming how Islam subverts the Constitution, SANE is arguing for the subversion of the Constitution. Forget that whole freedom of religion thing -- that's inconvenient when it comes to peddling hate speech for political purposes. Never mind that the very foundation of America does not allow for the outlawing of a religion -- how can conservatives scare donations out of their mostly white and Christian base if they stuck to the Constitution they claim to love?

As a primer, I offer the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So there you have it ... a supposedly America-loving group wanting to outlaw Islam from America, thus spitting in the face of the very historical document conservatives and their allies claim to adore.

I leave you to bask in the sickening irony.

Planned Mosque a Question of America

I wholeheartedly support the right for a community center and mosque to be built in Manhattan, two blocks away from Ground Zero, despite my understanding of the potential emotional implications. I understand that allowing Muslims to have a place of worship just two blocks away from a horrible terrorist attack perpetrated by a disgusting perversion of the Muslim faith can open old wounds, and I understand why families of the victims would be offended.

I get that. Really, I do.

However, the right for this community center/mosque to exist is undeniable. The First Amendment, which explicitly protects both freedom of speech and freedom of religion and establishes the separation of church and state, enables and protects the right for such a structure to be built in the area in question. To deny this place to be built would fly in the face of those constitutional concepts.

Who are we as a country if we tell those of the Muslim faith they can't have a place to worship? Are we still America if we deny one group of people the freedom of religion and assembly that are guaranteed to every citizen of this country? Can we still consider ourselves Americans if we forget that religious persecution was part of why this country was founded in the first place?

Some people fled to our shores centuries ago so they could build their churches and worship in peace. That's all Muslims in Manhattan want in this case: to build a place of worship in Manhattan. The fact that this place would be two blocks away from Ground Zero (thus making it *not* a Ground Zero mosque) is unfortunate, but there's already a mosque within four blocks of the site.

Would that mosque have to go away? And what of the other houses of worship in the area? What of the churches? What of the synagogues? If we're going to persecute religion in this country, if we're going to wipe our collective asses on the First Amendment, why not stop with Islam? Why don't we desecrate all faiths while we're at it?

But there's another side of this, one that I feel has been woefully ignored. When those terrorists attacked us on Sept. 11, when they destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon and killed over 3,000 people, that was not their complete endgame. They didn't just attack us to kill a bunch of innocent people.

The terrorists attacked us in part to make us afraid, and to make that fear override all of our values as Americans. If the terrorists had their way, their attacks on us would've left us scrambling in fear, acting out in hate and uncertainty while negating all of the values this country holds dear.

If we subvert the First Amendment and block this planned mosque, the terrorists win. In a way, they already have, since fear-mongering in the name of Islamic terrorism has led to two wars we are still in and still paying for to this day. But if we ignore freedom of speech, if we throw freedom of religion out the window and begin a form of tacit religious persecution, then Osama bin Laden and those who follow him have won.

Do we want the terrorists to win? Do we hate our own country that much?

We cannot abandon our core values, not even when those values defend things we don't like. I vehemently disagree with the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin; I feel their rhetoric is inflammatory and potential dangerous, but I defend their right to express their venomous opinions. I strongly oppose organized Christianity and the way it perverts what faith is supposed to be, but I support its right to operate free from government intervention.

To defend the First Amendment is to defend all free speech and the freedom of all religions -- as well as the right for all those religions to build houses of worship on private property. If we do not defend the First Amendment in every instance -- even when we don't agree with what we're defending -- then we are no longer adhering to our founding documents, and we have let down our founding fathers.

Even worse, we let those who would destroy us win.

Tell me, is that something we really want?

Bravo, Governator!

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite being named as a defendant in the recently-contested trial for Proposition 8 -- a state constitutional amendment that revoked same-sex marriages rights -- issued a court filing on Friday asking that Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling be immediately implemented.

Schwarzenegger was named as a defendant by virtue of being the state's governor, though he did not publicly support or reject Prop 8, before or after its November 2008 passing. He was against the initiative when it was on the ballot -- California already granted same-sex couples marriage rights -- and he did not advocate on Prop 8's behalf even after 52 percent of California voters decided to take those rights away.

Even though, as I mentioned in my last post, such a thing should've never come to a vote.

Schwarzenegger's filing asks that Judge Walker's staying of his ruling -- which he put in place in anticipation of pending appeals -- be bypassed and that California immediately start granting marriage rights to same-sex couples again.

California issued 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses prior to the passing of Prop 8.

Though Gov. Schwarzenegger deserves a lot of blame for California's woes -- particularly on the budget front -- he deserves credit on this issue. Unlike most within the Republican Party, Gov. Schwarzenegger understands the nuances behind Judge Walker's ruling, and he understands that granting equal rights to all of California's citizens are an important part of the state's foundation and identity.

The filing was a surprise, but a welcome one; Gov. Schwarzenegger deserves praise and thanks for helping further the cause of full equality under the law in this country. Opponents like to frame same-sex marriage as a moral or religious issue, when it is in fact a question of whether we should be granting different citizens different sets of rights.

The answer, of course, is that we should not. The Constitution grants all American citizens equal protection and rights under the law, and that includes homosexuals. Judge Walker's thorough ruling reflects that reality, and I applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for realizing that.

It might not seem like much, but having such a prominent Republican fighting for equal rights for homosexuals is not a small thing.

Prop 8 Overturned!

Ninth Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker handed the LGBT community a huge victory on Wednesday, as he offered a scathing, 138-page decision that overturned California's controversial Proposition 8, which took away the marriage rights of gays and lesbians in the state. Judge Walker called the law, among other things, unconstitutional, saying it violates the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prior to November 2008, California was one of few states to legalize same-sex marriage. But anti-gay rights groups (many of whom were not even based in California) pushed to have an initiative -- Prop 8 -- placed on the electoral ballot for the November elections. California became the 31st state to put the rights of same-sex marriage up to a vote among the citizenry, and for the 31st time, that right was denied.

This was not simply a case of a state (like, say, Virginia) preemptively passing a law or state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman; in California, same-sex couples already had the right to marry, and Prop 8 -- and those who voted for it -- took away that right.

It was a dark stain on what was otherwise a celebratory night.

But Judge Walker's decision -- which you can read in its entirety here -- makes a clear case as to why Prop 8, and the concept of marriage discrimination as a whole, is unconstitutional. Prop 8, he argued, "fails to possess even a rational basis" and that the plaintiffs in the case "do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

The argument in favor of same-sex marriage has perhaps never been clearer, and Judge Walker's ruling also served as a scathing takedown of the bigoted argument against same-sex marriage.

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society," he ruled.

The rights of minorities are not supposed to be put before the majority for a vote -- the Constitution is pretty specific about that. Every time the majority gets a chance to vote on the rights of the minority -- rights that are guaranteed by the very Constitution conservatives claim to hold sacred -- the minority loses.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is that the America we want to live in? According to Judge Walker -- and a case in Massachusetts in July that determined part of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional -- it is not. It's been a good month for the cause of same-sex marriage -- and for the larger issue of equality for all in this country.

One of America's greatest strengths -- and part of the reason for its founding -- was the fight against inequality. This country was founded largely on two principals: economic and religious freedom. Some came to our shores looking for economic freedom from the monarchy, while others sought to free themselves from religious persecution. The basic tenets of freedom and equality are the bedrock of this nation ... or they should be.

Some in the political realm like to talk about freedom and equality, but history tells a different story. We know all about the plight of African-Americans throughout this country's history, and the fact that, until 1920, women did not have the right to vote. Before Harry Truman because president, African-Americans faced discrimination in their own military. For decades, interracial couples could not marry.

Any of this sound familiar?

We're fighting many of these same battles today, but largely through the lens of homosexuality. Opponents would point to religion to defend their bigotry, while also citing bogus studies about how unfit same-sex couples are when it come to raising children. By "protecting the sanctity of marriage," opponents have overlooked the high divorce rate or the alarming rate of children growing up in single-parent homes.

But Gods forbid a child have two mothers who love them.

Judge Walker's ruling does a solid job of picking apart the opposition's argument, finding there is no merit or basis of fact in it. His lengthy ruling is heavy on fact, which it will have to be for the appeals that are certain to come. In fact, Judge Walker stayed his ruling in anticipation of such appeals. It wouldn't surprise me if this case went all the way to the Supreme Court -- where anything can happen -- but Judge Walker's ruling is so solid that it would be incredibly different for anyone to find holes in it.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- as well as the provision Rachel Maddow mentioned in the above video protecting the rights of the minority from votes by the majority -- same-sex couples have the same inalienable rights as the rest of us. That's the foundation of this country: rights for all. Not rights for some, not rights for those who can biologically procreate ... rights for all. To deny one person the right they are entitled to as an American is to deny all of us that right.

And since conservative opponents are so fond of quoting their (allegedly) beloved Constitution ... the biblical argument against homosexual rights would have no legal basis, thanks to the First Amendment. You know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. That whole separation of church and state thing ... freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion; many came to our shores looking to avoid religious persecution, and what does it say about us as a country that one political entity wants to deny same-sex couples a simple right because "the Bible says y'all are bad"?

As Judge Walker noted, perhaps better than anyone else has in this debate, the argument against same-sex marriage (or really, any right for homosexuals) has no merit, legally or otherwise. The tide is slowly turning on what is becoming the civil rights battle of our generation, and it's incredibly gratifying to see all of our efforts paying off.

Not because we want to rub homosexuality into our opponents' faces, but because it's what's right. We cannot truly call ourselves American so long as we continue to deny a segment of the population the same rights the rest of us enjoy.

I wish I knew former Lt. Dan Choi personally; if I did, I would want to thank him for his service, as well as ask him why. Why would he, a homosexual man, feel the urge to defend a country that doesn't recognize him as a complete citizen? Lt. Choi joined a military he knew would kick him out if it found out he was gay, and in all but six states, Lt. Choi would not be allowed to marry his partner. Many states would not allow him to adopt a child, or for his partner to enjoy the health benefits and other rights entitled to him.

So if the country views him a second-class citizen, why would Lt. Choi want to defend it?

Maybe because Lt. Choi has far more character and integrity than any politician who stands behind a microphone and thumps the Bible to express his supposed moral superiority.

I leave you with a Special Comment from Keith Olbermann, one he delivered on Nov. 10, 2008 after Prop 8 passed. He aired it again last night in celebration of the initiative being overturned.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy