One of my favorite political websites is http://swans.com/. They have some very interesting and insightful progressive or left of center commentary on the issues of the day.

Currently on their front page is an article by Michael Doliner of Ithaca College titled "'Terrorism' and 'Security'" with both terms in quotation marks. I think this in itself says a lot about how both words tend to be politicized and twisted to serve the often selfish needs of whoever happens to be using them. One person's "terrorism" is another person's "noble fight for freedom." And what some call "security" may well seem to others like "fascist negations of freedom and privacy."

Doliner's last paragraph makes many important points that we would do well to heed:

"The twitch from "terrorism" to "security" is a reflex, natural but brainless, like those in dead bodies. "Security" is a mad response to "terrorism" and so damaging to everything we value that we should reject it out of hand in spite of its reflexive appeal. It is also incredibly expensive in a time of rapidly diminishing resources. Those who advocate more security as opposed to real attempts at peace are either complete idiots (a remote possibility), swept away by the pernicious emotion of "patriotism" (a likely possibility), or have a purpose other than national security (my vote). "Security" does provide an excuse for repression and gives windfall profits to the corporations who provide the gadgets and personnel. It also serves to rationalize unjust wars. Since "security," paradoxically, wastes the substance of the country, destroys the freedom of the citizens, poisons the culture, instigates war, and supplies profits to connected private interests, isn't it possible that those who advocate increased "security" intend these ends rather than the safety that "security" obviously never can supply? Our only hope is to recognize that "terrorism," when it is not actually a false flag operation, is "blowback," a response to our own foreign policy. "Those to whom evil is done do evil in return." Those who are treated unjustly become worse, and respond with injustice, in some cases, terrorism. The use of force to subjugate other countries will corrupt us, encourage "terrorism" and, in the end, fail. We have reached a point where people would rather die than live like slaves. All we can do is end our empire. Treat every terrorist act as criminal, and prosecute the perpetrators. "Security" can protect an airline or a ball field, but not a country. As of now we need an army to protect ourselves against armies of other nations, but not foreign bases to control foreign populations. We need a police force to repress crime, but not a secret police force for "security." Any rational response to terrorism that is actually meant to stop it cannot be in the form of "security." "Security" will destroy the country in order to save it. This should be obvious to anyone who wants to look. "

To which I can only say "exactly!" We MUST work for REAL peace and justice for all, or we will never really be secure. And until this happens, the hard core military/police attempts at "security" will only make us less free. We must start transforming our society, including voting for real progressives like those running under the Green Party banner. A prerequisite to this may have to be forcing changes in the political system to make it more open and fair, such as Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, and meaningful reform of campaign financing.