LOOK OUT KID, THEY KEEP IT ALL HID

LOOK OUT KID, THEY KEEP IT ALL HID: During the decade or so we regularly attended council meetings there were generally three sets of attendees.

First were governmental apparatchiks who slept in the back, if possible under the air conditioner, until called on by the council.

Then there were the great unwashed- the clueless who wandered in because they heard something was up or they took a wrong turn at the elections office.

Finally there were the regulars- aka nitpickers- and the reporters who generally sat around acting like the unruly kids in the back or the classroom kibitzing, whispering, giggling, passing notes, chewing gum and generally making a mockery of the whole thing.

But they always had something that the others two groups lacked- a copy of the agenda.

The administration people didn’t really need one. They know what they’d been summoned for.

But for the great uninitiated novices sometime we’d grab a stack and walk amongst them calling “Program- getcha program heah. Can’t tell your bill without a program- program heah.”

The truth is that even with a “program” many were often left shaking their heads, unable to follow the meeting and find their issue before it whisked by, by which time it was too late and they were left asking “wha-wha-wha just happened?”

For those who try to follow the proceedings on TV it’s even worse. As “Esatiene” wrote today in the comment section of a totally unrelated article in the local newspaper:

Watching the HOIKE Channel a few days ago i was saddened to see our elected officals skim over financial "bills" and passing them as fast as possible w/ no mention how the money will be earmaked. Sewage and Wailua (county workers' private) Golf Course, was a combined $300,000 of taxpayors money. The county council looked like a table of thieves in a den distributing stolen loot (all sic).

And it’s no wonder. Rather than actually having to read many measures the council rules state:

RULE NO. 3-OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES

(c) County Clerk. It shall be the duty of the County Clerk or an authorized representative, in addition to those duties prescribed by law:

(1) To read bills, resolutions, and other matters to the Council, if so required (emphasis added);

And for bills and resolutions the rules say

RULE NO. 10-GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS

(h) Full oral readings of bills and resolutions are hereby waived and may be by title and/or number only unless a full reading is requested by any of the members present (empasis added).

As Esatiene noted many bills go through their four required appearances- going through the first reading, the public hearing, the committee meeting and the final reading- and are passed with nary a word other than the perfunctory reading by the clerk of the minimalist information already on the agenda.

Many times those notices seem to be intentionally sketchy so as not to peak anyone’s interest.

And it’s worse for “communications” especially those that don’t require approval. They aren’t even read but rather listed, by communication number, and “received” for the record, never to be heard- or heard from- again.

Not only aren’t they discussed, anyone watching the proceedings doesn’t even know they exist.

And while some are fairly innocuous, many contain vital information that is being communicated to the council- and presumably the public- including all sorts of administration reports, audits and other information.

It was only through people questioning the “reports” from the personnel department- ones listed for receipt by number only with a bunch of other communications- that the practice of downgrading budgeted positions so as to allow administration-favored applicants to get a skilled job (and to be taught “on the job”) came to light a couple of years ago... although it has seemingly died for lack of interest by the council since then.

It’s all too convenient for councilmembers who are seeking political cover to controversial subjects.

Even when the subject isn’t contentious it gives the impression that something is being hidden. Councilmembers who wonder why the public doesn’t trust them and is always calling them “secretive” and even “corrupt” need look no further that this practice to figure out at least one thing they can do about it.

As for bills and resolutions most of the times the actual “meat” of the bill or reason for the reso are short and sweet. But most of the time, unless a councilmember or a member of the public says something they fly on by under the radar unexplained and many times undebated.

So why do we mention it?

Because when the new council sub-committee recently designated to look at the council rules meets, one of the only things suggested so far is to hide things further.

Not only is there no plan to change the rules to require that they at least give a public explanation as to what each measure is about, they have proposed that those communication designated for “receipt” and even some routine “approvals” be moved to what is being called a “consense calendar” where, in one fell swoop, without even acknowledgment of each communication number as is now the practice, they will be dispatched at the beginning of the meeting.

For those attending the meetings now it’s hard enough if they want to speak on one of these “matters for receipt.”

They must listen carefully to the clerk mumble the number and jump up and frantically wave their hand so the chair sees them and then, to the dirty looks from councilmembers angry that they must endure three extra minutes at the meeting, sheepishly apologize for interrupting the “zoom agenda” with their testimony.

We’ll be looking at some other rules over the next few weeks as the sub-committee meetings get underway. But we can only hope that the review of the rules isn’t used as an excuse to pare down the public’s participation in the process- a matter that seems to get plenty of lip service but is thrown under the bus when the rubber meets the road.


---------

UPDATE/CORRECTION: In our January 6 post regarding President Obama’s Kailua vacation rental and a story in the on-line newspaper “Civil Beat” about how the agreement with the owner apparently violated the City and County of Honolulu’s ban on rentals for less than 30 days, we suggested that it might also violate the state ban on vacation rentals in the state conservation district.

While, as this map (pdf) of Kaua`i state districting shows, much of the coastal area on Kaua`i is in the state “conservation” district, that is not so in Honolulu where, as this map (pdf) shows, much of the coast is districted “urban.

This screen shot of a google map along side the relevant section of the state district boundary map- with point “A” on the google map indicating the 57-A Kailuana Place address where the president stayed- shows that the house in question is in the urban, not the conservation district.

Thanks to Civil Beat’s Mike Levine for setting us straight and providing the screen shot and map links.

We regret any confusion resulting from our incorrect presumption.

SNIFFIN’ IT OUT

SNIFFIN’ IT OUT: For the neophyte, reading the county charter is a MEGO (my eyes glaze over) experience. But once the committed nitpicker reads it and then attends or even just watches council and/or board and commission meetings for a while it can be cause for a lightbulb-going-on flashback.

So it was that our friend Rob Abrew- who has exposed quite a few irregularities recently- came across a passage that may be applicable, especially of late.

Here’s his testimony to the council regarding the slew of board and commission nominees they have been asked to confirm lately.

Aloha Council Members

Today we are here to review the Mayors selected applicants to become members of various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai. Many of the applicants before you, you all ready know as friends, business associates and fine citizens of the County of Kauai. This process is not about judging these fine citizens as members of the community, but do these recommend appointments follow the process as stated in The County of Kauai Charter as approved by the citizens.

Section 23.02 Boards and Commissions

This section of the Charter lets us know how the Mayor appoints the applicants and how the Council approves this appointment.

In my opinion only two items would be need to reviewed by the Council in order for the applicant to be approved.

These two requirements would be :

23.02 D Each commissioner shall be, at the time of his appointment, a duly qualified resident elector of the county.

It is my understanding that the applicant tells us this on the form submitted to you for review

23.02 E No more than a bare majority of the members of any board or commission shall belong to the same political party.

It is also my understanding that the application asks the applicant if they are a member of a political party.

In C2009-393 received in the County Clerk's office on 12/04/2009 from the Mayor via John Isobe,

Executive Assistant, asks for the Council's favorable consideration and conformation of the following appointments to various Boards and Commissions. At the end of the communication Mr. Isobe states that the application forms are attached.

I believe the application would give the Council some of the information needed to assure that the applicant meets the requirements that the Charter asks for but, the communication does not give the Council the information as need in 23.02 E ….the political make up of the various Board or Commission.

If the applicant in their application tells the Council they are a member of a political party, how would the Council know, if they approve the applicant they would not violate section 23.02 E of the charter.?

I have looked for a public document that shows the public the political make up of the various Boards and Commissions. I have not found any document here today that would give the Council and the public the information needed to approve an applicant that tells us they are a member of a political party. Please request all the information needed to move the applicants forward in a timely matter.

Many discussions in the public lately has been about the way our county government functions and how separation of powers are necessary. The issue before you today is a perfect example of how a check and balance form of government works.

Mahalo for you time

Rob Abrew

Abrew was instrumental in instigating the recent compliance with the law by Isobe and the Board of Ethics in releasing the public disclosure statements filed by prospective B&C members. The release of them was actuated through a filing by reporter Mike Levine who has posted them as they are received at the web site of the local newspaper.

As some may know, membership in a political party in Hawai`i is strictly the province of the party itself and very few people actually join parties by “signing a card”. So not only was the information hard or impossible to obtain in the past but the chances that “a bare majority” of a board or commission would come from one party was probably slim or none.

But last year when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were battling it out for the Democratic nomination for president the Democratic Party signed up tens of thousands of new members statewide, with membership being a prerequisite for voting in their “primary”- which was actually just a poorly conducted internal party function not affiliated with the state elections.

We don’t have the information yet but it should be interesting to see whether any of the boards and commissions have more than a bare majority that are members of the newly expanded Democratic party.

One of the problems might be verifying with the party whether they are or are not actually members. There’s no law that we know of that they must disclose their list. But since supplying false information on the application is a criminal offense we would expect- even if we wouldn’t assume- the applicants to be truthful.

We’ll keep you up on Abrew’s latest quest. But knowing the administration’s response to these kinds of things- we can only imagine what kind of naked dodge the county attorney might come up with in defining “bare majority”- we expect it to be anything but a walk in the park.

YANKING ON THE CHOKE-CHAIN

YANKING ON THE CHOKE-CHAIN : Among red diaper babies who came of age in the sixties, when paranoia struck deep into our lives it often crept in the form of a book which had not yet come of age- George Orwell’s 1984.

Written in 1948, at it’s then futuristic heart was a depiction of the now common practice of using less ominous euphemisms to replace hot button words with cooler though less accurate language.

Sure enough the practice was perfected during the Regan years and has become a de rigor cog of the modern political spin machine.

At first the press was skeptical but as real journalism devolved into a quick juxtaposition of unexamined opposing quotes of the “he said she said” ilk, truth became a casualty and “they say it- we print it” became the standard M..O. for every corporate reporter and editor.

What used to be episodes of acknowledged Orwellian doublethink- and the resultant popular term doublespeak, which is actually not part of the book- are now part of a widely accepted Orwellianism that doesn’t even elicit a second thought from the Joe News-consumer.

So it’s not really surprising that every- and we mean every- news report about the Bush administration’s torturing of prisoners refers to “enhanced interrogation techniques” sometimes adding “that some refer to as torture”

No! (and we don’t use exclamation marks lightly). What are we, freakin’ idiots? It’s torture- it never was and never will be anything else. The only ones who call it “enhanced interrogation” are the ones who tortured people.

The fact that some wigged-out wise-asses tried to write their way out of it at the behest of the administration overlords doesn’t make it anything but torture under an assumed name.

But the mainstream corporate press is so entombed in the cacophony of their own echo chamber that they can actually no longer press the BS button and report the “truth”, allowing special interests to dictate the very language that the last generation so profoundly feared would supplant the apparent.

Perhaps due to 21st Century corporate-style reporting, apparently the current “current occupant”- to use humorist Garrison Keilor’s catch-phrase for the last White House denizen- is perfectly happy being every bit as lawless as his predecessor, using George Bush’s creative constitutionalism to think himself enough of a “unitary executive” to say who is and isn’t above the law.

It is illegal to the US to torture prisoners, not just under international law but under the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Torture that Ronald Regan signed, making the law of the land.

What’s even worse than the misuse of language may be the notion that somehow “it worked” so it’s all an “ends justifies the means” wash.

Where to start with this little bit of disingenuous drivel, where to start?

We could start with the fact that the ends rarely justify the means.

Or we might ask who defines “works”... Dick Chaney? His citation of the fact that there hasn’t been another 9/11-style incident to show it “worked” is like the old joke about the guy wearing a tin-foil hat, dancing on one foot on the center stripe of the freeway, saying he’s keeping away the elephants and citing the lacking proximal presence of pachyderms as proof of his success.

Only a war-criminal could ignore decades of research showing that torture does not work.

The latest in a long line of interrogators who have almost unanimously reached this conclusion is U.S. Major Matthew Alexander -a named assumed for security reasons- who personally interrogated 300 Iraqi prisoners.

According to the UK newspaper The Independent, in his book with John R Bruning called “How to Break a Terrorist: The US interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq”, he details what everyone from the FBI to the CIA to every cop-on-the-beat knows- that developing a relationship with a subject is what elicits information.

Torture elicits, at best no information and at worst incorrect information and “confessions” from those who will say whatever the torturer wants to hear, many times “information” designed to mislead and sometimes to injure those in whose name the torture is performed.

The squishy moral center of American political leadership isn’t something new- for all the deification of the founding fathers their genocide of 30 million native Americans and enslavement of an equal number of Africans sometimes makes the Nazis look like incompetent amateurs.

According to Wikipedia the Nuremberg Principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime, set down during the Nuremberg trials of Nazis after WWII and signed by the U.S.
Principle IV says:

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

That’s principle came as a result of the famous Nuremberg Defense used by those who, like the CIA personnel and others in Iraq and Guantanamo, were “ordered” to torutre or kill but said they were not responsible because they were “just following orders.”

As important for President Barack Obama, who has apparently “decided”- or at least “instructed” the Attorney General- not to prosecute the actual torturers, is Principle VII which says:

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Complicity under U.S, law includes obstructing justice especially to hinder prosecution which would make Obama an accessory to war crimes if he bans prosecution of those covered under Principle IV.

It should also be noted that war crimes include not just actual torture but any “ill-treatment of prisoners of war”

Torture itself is banned under Article 4 of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention and defined in part as

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information...

Some, even among those who show the intelectual curioisty and consistancy to go beyond the usual left-right, Democratic-Republican and American-forigner axese, may accepet the “truths” herein described and yet still feel compelled to case-specifically shun the rule of law.

They may see the war crimes of Bush, Chaney, Rice, Gonzalez and others so heinous as to shake the county to it’s core and undermine the foundation should they be proescuted and many rather call for a “truth and recociliation commission” type resolution.

But the rule of law, if not to insure punishment or make re-offending impossible, is to insure, as people said after “the” holocaust, it happens “never again”.

If they count on the people of the country to “never again” elect someone with a predilection for such criminal intent they’d best remember how unlikely many American voters thought such a scenario in November of 2000.

1984 came, just as predicted- both the year and the world ascribed to it in the book. But while we calmly munch our pita-bread and watch reporters on the wall mounted screen discuss the circus of a recent NY Times editorial discussion regarding whether the “enhanced interrogations” were merely “harsh” or should now be described as “brutal”, we’d best remember that 2540 is yet to come and even now it’s beginning to look like a “Brave New World”.

SIDESTEPPING THE OOZE

SIDESTEPPING THE OOZE: A stroll down Main Street, Anytown USA these days expose one to a panorama of boarded up windows and, with people furious at Washington over the federal bank bailouts and executive bonuses, the only store doing business is Ernie’s Pitchfork Sharpening and Torch Fuel Emporium.

Yet here on Kaua`i the we mushroom’s don’t seem to care we are being kept in the dark and fed a bunch of horse manure.

The Kaua`i County 2009-10 budget hearings are once again being conducted out of public view despite what sources say is the availability of funding for televising the all important sessions.

Despite promises by at least two councilmembers to make it their business to get them on pubic access TV, all powerful Chair Kaipo “the Minotaur” Asing, is apparently intent on, as the song says, keeping the dark as dark as can be and doing what’s wrong as long as he can.

But at least the local paper has seen fit this year to provide extensive cover of the first two sessions. In doing so reporter Michael Levine has highlighted how local governments like ours on Kaua`i are taking advantage of the so called “federal stimulus” money to stimulate nothing and rather, simply free up money already designated for essential services to spend, at best, on some “nice to have” but less than urgent needs of the people and at worst, paybacks for backing from well connected corrupt cronies and fat cat campaign contributors and supporters.

This highlights the absurdity of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- aka the stimulus bill- as we discussed a couple of months ago and the whole issue of “earmarks” which somehow has become the dirtiest word in national politics.

For those who can’t remember the whole idea of the stimulus bill was to add to, not supplant, money for actual “shovel-ready” projects that state and local governments would not normally be able to fund, with a bottom line of “creating jobs”.

But instead of allowing our duly elected representatives to designate these projects in the bill, because of the media-directed populist denigration of these “earmarks”, the bill instead just divides up $700 million among the various state and local jurisdictions to essentially use as they please.

In our Feb 17 column we detailed the projects Kaua`i designated for the “stimulus” funding showing how most were projects already in the pipeline and in most cases already funded, demonstrating how they simply freed up money for other things, whether essential or not, in the budget rather than making the tough choices on how to spend limited resources in a time of decreased revenues.

And sure enough Levine tell us that’s exactly what at least one of not all councilmembers are planning. Levine writes:


Budget and Finance Committee Chair Daryl Kaneshiro, who led the meeting, said potential stimulus funds should be looked at largely as a means of assistance, arguing the council should not rely heavily on the help it might receive from the federal government as it makes budgeting decisions.

Councilman Tim Bynum disagreed, saying the ARRA funds are “not just gravy” and will be an integral part of the county’s general fund, encouraging all departments to take a serious look at evolving stimulus grants for any and all opportunities.

“In the past, Kaua`i has not gotten its fair share of state and federal funds because we didn’t stand up and ask for them,” he said. “You have not because you ask not.

”Using county funds to finance programs that could be covered by stimulus grants with the expectation that if the stimulus funds eventually come through, the county funds can be moved elsewhere is dangerous because it could remove the motivation for departments to push hard for those grants, Bynum said, citing “the human factor.”
We don’t doubt that this same thought is driving local government budgets across the nation. It certainly is doing so statewide as our governor and legislature have been anything but shy about using the money to “balance the budget” rather than to “create jobs”.

They are actually taking the money and eliminating jobs by trying to balance the budget by carving savings out of the butts of their employees, setting the worst possible example for the business community by emulating the penchant for making human resources the most expendable.

But while the cruel businessperson discards their formerly “valued employees” like a dirty dishrag in order to maintain enough profits so the owner doesn’t have to forgo that ivory backscratcher he had his eye on, politicians use the excess to maintain that “free lunch” that comes with the demand for more services in one breath and lower taxes in the next.

Recovery and Reinvestment Act? More like another Incumbency Preservation Act.

Its all thanks to the Play-Dough-Factory type results of congress’s capitulation to the “earmark equals pork” fervor resulting in their refusal to specifically designate funding for important local projects that are politically tough but absolutely essential- something our congresspersons and senators should be well aware of if they are doing they representational jobs correctly.

Sure the system is abused by the corrupt to pay off campaign contributors. But the vast majority of earmarks are used for things like this week’s $5 million plus in monk seal protection funds that came from the federal government.

While these projects might be ridiculed by other jurisdictions they are often needed and popular but orphan projects locally.

What happens is that while we are busy hand-wringing over the potential for corruption by our federal representatives- where the scrutiny is magnified 100 times by all the public interest groups and investigative reporters from all over the country concentrated on the national’s capitol- the potential for a thousand crooked flowers to bloom at the local level remains unscrutinized and virtually unchecked.

As Levine wrote:

With essentially no members of the public in attendance and the Ho`ike television cameras powered off and covered up, the seven-member council started its work on likely its most important function and the task its members are elected primarily to manage: divvying out more than $150 million in projected expenditures for the year starting July 1.

While many scream for “home rule” the fact remains that the closer to home the government entity, the more the opportunity for corruption.

And on Kaua`i, where no one shows up and the machinations of the council’s budget sessions are out-of-sight, out-of-mind, where corruption is rampant and incumbency virtually guarantees re-election as long as it serves the greedy desires of the revolving-door, inbred, nepotistic barons, you can bet that as the finances shake-out the “stimulus money” will go directly into the pockets of the shake-down constituency.

BUT NO WE WON’T

BUT NO WE WON’T: Our hostess Saturday night had had enough with the post- election conversation at her birthday party and asked exasperatedly “please- can we stop talking about politics” to which the guests looked up, looked at each other and answered in unison “Yes We Can”.

And she isn’t the only one, although we worry about those depicted in this account from The Onion.


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

While the alternative of four more years of stomach-churning fascism-creep might have quadrupled the sales of Prozac overnight, the coming depression born of unrequited devotion will yield to a rude awakening for many as the between-the-lines meaning of “yes we can” is reveled to be “well, yes, we could ... but, well, no, we won’t.”

Because the future no doubt holds out to be a mocking shadow of the policies most Democrats think their savior is going to actualize.

Yes we could get out of Iraq... but no, we’re going to not just going to stay for the foreseeable future, we’re actually going to ramp up the imperialistic colonialism in Afghanistan and maybe invade Iran and Pakistan to boot.

Yes we could initiate single, government-payer healthcare and eliminate the insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit medical corporations from the equation... but no, we’re going to fully empower these overlords by further fracturing care, denying medications and services and mandating that people boost corporate health care profits.

Yes we could repeal NAFTA, GATT and all the other international corporate welfare programs or at least clamp down with strong environmental and worker protections... but no, we’re going to expand unbridled free trade until, instead of elevating all boats with a world-wide rising tide of living-wages and implementation of sustainable practices, we’ll let robber barons steal all the water, grounding the dinghies of workers of the world on the reef of abject poverty.

Yes we could invest in a renewable non-fossil, carbon-free, energy and infrastructure... but no, we will continue to drill off-shore, and support absurdly oxymoronic concepts like clean coal and safe nuclear energy

Yes we could fully regulate our financial system and institute worker-based fiscal policies... but no, we’ll continue to bail out the Wall Street casino denizens and rescue insurance companies, auto manufacturers and the rest of the den of thieves that just gave the candidates the billion they spent convincing you of whatever you wanted to believe.

Don’t forget- it was “change you can believe in”- the kind that takes a blind faith to swallow.

Amidst the verbal diarrhea from the TV talking heads in the post-election euphoria was the idea that we’ve somehow “moved beyond the 60’s” by electing the first “post-boomer”.

But that simply means giving up on fighting against things like hawkish war-mongering behavior, corporate control of the apparatus of government and the stripping of worker’s- and yes even civil- rights.

During the campaign a fellow unrepentant radical reprobate we know would, whenever the topic came up, start screaming "William Ayers for President"..

Boomer and 60’s radical Professor Ayers, unlike members of the progressively more self-absorbed and apathetic generations since, still holds onto the concept that we don’t have to compromise with those that seek our acquiescence in our own oppression.

So we’ll leave you with some words about the 60’s and their meaning today in an excerpt from Ayer’s first writings on the election. from In these Times

...That ’60s show

On Aug. 28, Stephen Colbert, the faux right-wing commentator from Comedy Central who channels Bill O’Reilly on steroids, observed:

“To this day, when our country holds a presidential election, we judge the candidates through the lens of the 1960s. … We all know Obama is cozy with William Ayers a ’60s radical who planted a bomb in the capital building and then later went on to even more heinous crimes by becoming a college professor. … Let us keep fighting the culture wars of our grandparents. The ’60s are a political gift that keeps on giving.”

It was inevitable. McCain would bet the house on a dishonest and largely discredited vision of the ’60s, which was the defining decade for him. He built his political career on being a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

The ’60s—as myth and symbol—is much abused: the downfall of civilization in one account, a time of defeat and humiliation in a second, and a perfect moment of righteous opposition, peace and love in a third.

The idea that the 2008 election may be the last time in American political life that the ’60s plays any role whatsoever is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, let’s get over the nostalgia and move on. On the other, the lessons we might have learned from the black freedom movement and from the resistance against the Vietnam War have never been learned. To achieve this would require that we face history fully and honestly, something this nation has never done.

The war in Vietnam was an illegal invasion and occupation, much of it conducted as a war of terror against the civilian population. The U.S. military killed millions of Vietnamese in air raids—like the one conducted by McCain—and entire areas of the country were designated free-fire zones, where American pilots indiscriminately dropped surplus ordinance—an immoral enterprise by any measure.

What is really important

McCain and Palin—or as our late friend Studs Terkel put it, “Joe McCarthy in drag”—would like to bury the ’60s. The ’60s, after all, was a time of rejecting obedience and conformity in favor of initiative and courage. The ’60s pushed us to a deeper appreciation of the humanity of every human being. And that is the threat it poses to the right wing, hence the attacks and all the guilt by association...

In a robust and sophisticated democracy, political leaders—and all of us—ought to seek ways to talk with many people who hold dissenting, or even radical, ideas. Lacking that simple and yet essential capacity to question authority, we might still be burning witches and enslaving our fellow human beings today.

Maybe we could welcome our current situation—torn by another illegal war, as it was in the ’60s—as an opportunity to search for the new.

Perhaps we might think of ourselves not as passive consumers of politics but as fully mobilized political actors. Perhaps we might think of our various efforts now, as we did then, as more than a single campaign, but rather as our movement-in-the-making.

We might find hope in the growth of opposition to war and occupation worldwide. Or we might be inspired by the growing movements for reparations and prison abolition, or the rising immigrant rights movement and the stirrings of working people everywhere, or by gay and lesbian and transgender people courageously pressing for full recognition.

Yet hope—my hope, our hope—resides in a simple self-evident truth: the future is unknown, and it is also entirely unknowable.

History is always in the making. It’s up to us. It is up to me and to you. Nothing is predetermined. That makes our moment on this earth both hopeful and all the more urgent—we must find ways to become real actors, to become authentic subjects in our own history.

We may not be able to will a movement into being, but neither can we sit idly for a movement to spring full-grown, as from the head of Zeus.

We have to agitate for democracy and egalitarianism, press harder for human rights, learn to build a new society through our self-transformations and our limited everyday struggles.

At the turn of the last century, Eugene Debs, the great Socialist Party leader from Terre Haute, Ind., told a group of workers in Chicago, “If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out.”

In this time of new beginnings and rising expectations, it is even more urgent that we figure out how to become the people we have been waiting to be.