The debate between David Hazinski and Leonard Witt about whether or not to regulate citizen journalism presents several good reasons to support each position, but ultimately neither argument addresses the basic reforms that must occur to handle citizen journalism.

In "Unfettered 'citizen journalism' too risky", Hazinski argues that citizen journalism is "ripe for abuse" because journalism, unlike other professions, does not regulate itself with any "licensing, testing, mandatory education or boards of review." Hazinski suggests that by imposing such standards, we will be able to prevent the spread of misinformation, such as "a faked Rodney King beating video [, which] appears on the air somewhere."

In "CITIZEN JOURNALISTS: They don't need to be regulated", Witt argues that we do not need to regulate citizen journalism because "you can be a great journalist without formal training". He cites statistics about how journalists without formal educations in journalism have won journalism awards. For example, he cites a survey by Betty Medsger, which shows that, within a 10 year time slice, "59 percent of print journalists who won Pulitzer Prizes never studied journalism."

Witt then argues that citizen journalism grows out of the open-source software movement, and that this "open bazaar form of citizen-created journalism will produce a better informed public and a more rigorous public square" than the top-down, cathedral style approach that would emerge from regulating the profession of journalism. To address Hazinski's concern of unregulated citizen journalists spreading misinformation, Witt argues that "models will be formed, just as they were in the open-source software movement, which will filter out the crackpots, vandals and incompetents and it will happen without a certification board."

Witt's final point is that the regulation of professional journalism will calcify existing bias for majority perspectives. Witt argues that such regulations would institutionalize what Mercedes Lynn de Uriarte calls "censorship by omission", where as Witt describes, "the voices of the poor, the disenfranchised and minority groups often go unheard."

I am largely persuaded by Witt's arguments, even though they do not necessarily prevent the spread of misinformation by untrained citizen journalists. I think that we can establish principles of journalism, and that such principles if mandated would have a significant effect on the professional performance of journalists. Hazinski is correct to point out that we need journalists to practice their profession in an ethical and principled manner, and that if journalists fail to do so, our society suffers enormously - people do die from misinformation.

Although journalism is mission critical for our society, we should not deceive ourselves into thinking, as Hazinski suggests, that journalism requires the regulation that attends the practices of medicine or law. Unlike medicine or law, a mistake in the press, on the whole, can almost always be repaired by increased participation in the practice of journalism. This does not mean that increased participation in journalism alone accounts for such repair, but in theory, a mistaken story, unlike a mistaken surgery or legal judgement, cannot pronounce death at the instance it is uttered. The consequences of the press' speech acts are, on the whole, not immediate, but take some time to develop, at least enough time for citizens en masse to investigate and repair the story.

Of course, this form of self-correcting, largely unregulated citizen journalism presupposes a web platform for near real-time and uncensored publication, and it presupposes a mechanism for filtering through this mess of reviews to find and revise a fallacious story. It assumes that the truth, in its revision, can evolve and bubble up into the public mind and that people will participate in this process. I think we can technologically design such a platform and that we can muster the collective will of the people to use it. Already we see the beginnings of a citizen journalism platform with the social bookmarking site Digg, a site which tries to let users democratically vote for any content on the web. We see the ideas of non-censorship and open publishing evolve and develop with sites like Indymedia and Wikipedia, which permit anonymous posting and archive all submissions for public review. And we see the moral impulse and commitment of citizen journalists like Wei Wenhua, who risked and received death in order to publish truth to power.

Admittedly, the technology of the citizen journalism platform imposes regulation. The program that runs the platform does regulate the status of journalists, but the institution it purports is largely divorced from the hierarchical rules which regulate life-or-death professions like doctors, lawyers, and soldiers. The professional regulations of the citizen journalism platform encode the status of journalist in a democratic manner, one which balances egalitarianism and elitism with the mantra of equal opportunity. The core concerns of such a platform in its polished form is the maximization of informed participation and the minimization of unnecessary suffering for every individual stakeholder, even those who do not participate.

If we could not devise a platform which self-corrects misinformed stories, and if those misinformed stories lead to the immediate and serious harm and suffering of people, then we would need to regulate the profession of journalism, like we regulate doctors. In the corporate media environment that we now inhabit, where the platform for citizen journalism is not truly democratic, but remains filtered by an elite cadre of editors, ones with a vested interest in the maintainence of their elite status, it is not suprising to discover that many stories published by the corporate media do lead to the immediate harm and suffering of people. We only need to think of the shock and awe stories leading into the invasion of Iraq, or the preposterous public posturing of the CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential Debate, where elite editors selected unrepresentative questions from the public that made public participation look ridiculous. Of course, if we are to preserve this corporate media and maintain a semblence of journalistic ethics, we will need to regulate the profession as a life-or-death profession. But why regulate the profession by dictation when you can get rid of its dictators? We can still preserve the business of journalism without the hierarchical corporate mentality.

If we are to preserve the business of journalism, we must reconsider the function of professional journalism - not just in its journalistic values, but in the nature of its work. There needs to be a democratization of the profession itself. Journalists need to establish themselves as investigators - not dictators, as fellow jurors - not judicial officials, as co-authors - not celebrities. Journalists must accept the fact that they no longer have complete editorial control. They must now recognize that their work is to analyze and synthesize citizen journalism as citizen journalists. The new journalism recognizes that eveyone writes, everyone edits, and everyone prioritizes the news.

To realize this new journalism will require a reorganization of the business of journalism. The business of journalism must mirror the organization of the platform - and not the other way around. Journalists must adapt to the medium because the medium will not conform to old conventions. What once was a monolithic and homogeneous corporate media will eventually spread out into the long tail of a boutique business media. The platform will allow anyone to temporarily band together with anyone to get a piece of the pie. As my dad might say, "Little pigs will eat; hogs will go to slaughter." Despite the fact that the corporate media, like bloated hogs, currently control the central communication channels, the tide will change as the digital medium is explored, and the media hogs will go to slaughter. This will be the driving economic force of citizen journalism, all driven by the possibilities of a public digital platform, where everyone can get paid piece-meal, as voluntary freelance groups, and in proportion to the popularity of their participation - whatever information processing that participation constitutes.

Is this populist vision for the business of journalism a pipe dream, conjured up with the hype of social media? I think its immanent potential is what strikes fear into the corporate media, and what gives hope to the people of the Internet.

I recently read the New York Times article, "Kucinich Should Be Allowed To Debate, Judge Rules" by Brian Stelter, and posted the following comment:

"The New York Times continues to participate in the silencing of Dennis Kucinich. Consider the fact that this article fails to mention the fact that Kucinich was also unfairly excluded from the Des Moines Register debate in Iowa. And consider the way they this article overemphasizes his candidacy as a long-shot. And consider the way the New York Times excluded Kucinich in its interactive debate analysis, "Naming Names". I applaud Judge Thompson for his fairness. Call the FCC commissioners and let them know that you want them to investigate the ways in which broadcasters have excluded Kucinich from the debates. I called Commissioner Copps office and told him to issue a public statement that it would be in the public interest to include Kucinich in the televised debates. His staffers told me they would call me back, but they never did. Call Commissioner Copps office at 202-418-2000."

Unfortunately, my comment has not been accepted yet, and no reason was given to me. I read the Comments FAQ, which describes how the NYTimes vets each comment before it is published, and how they welcome criticism, but the FAQ does not describe any process for explaining or justifying their decision to censor a posted comment. For example, the FAQ does NOT describe any process for being notified via email that your comment was rejected or why it was rejected. I would like to know why the NYTimes has not posted my comment yet. Is it because they have not reviewed it yet? Or is it because they have reviewed and decided to censor it? And if they decided to censor it, why? Is it because my post has several typos? Whatever typos my post had did not significantly effect its comprehension. So that could not be a good reason to censor it. Is it because I criticized them? Is it because I asked others to call a publicly available phone number of an unelected official with power over their industry?

How long will the New York Times censor us and our critical comments?

How long will they prevent us from creating links to their own online articles in our comments? I wish I could have linked to the Naming Names article in my comment to show the other readers how the NYTimes excluded Kucinich from their debate analysis. Political censorship is a norm we must challenge in all its forms, especially in the corporate media, and especially when it silences peaceful reform.

I read Robert G. Kaiser's Live Analysis: Iowa Caucuses Returns, a "caucus-night conversation about the Iowa results." Robert Kaiser asked us to post comments or suggestions, but Kaiser censored my comment/suggestion. Here's what I submitted to Kaiser's cherry-picked conversation on the Washington Post website:

"I was barred by top Obama staffers from displaying a hand-made sign that said "Peace Is Good" at an Obama rally at Georgia Tech. Ironically, Obama gave a speech calling for peace and unity and political participation. Are Iowans voting for Obama because they think he embraces civil discourse and progressive politics, and if so, why?"

Why did Robert Kaiser, an associate editor at the Washington Post, decide to block my comment/question?

Why was my comment/question deemed an unacceptable post?

Was it because he received too many posts? If so, his site did not disclose the total number of submissions, or the fraction that were filtered out.

Moreover, he found time to congratulate himself:

"Bethesda, Md.: I don't have a question. I would like to compliment and thank Mr. Kaiser for the most intelligent and accessible sustained discussion of political issues I've seen this year.

Robert G. Kaiser: Are you my cousin? Or a childhood friend? (I grew up in Bethesda.) Thank you! "

Perhaps, Kaiser did not trust the veracity of my claims, that I actually was censored at a public rally by Barack Obama?

Well, this couldn't be a legitmate reason for Kaiser to censor my comment because he posted and expressed gratitude over another unverified report:

"Iowa City, Iowa: Sorry guys, but in my caucus I saw the Obama people bullying poor Richardson's diehards--terrible, not alway polite and nice. Iowans feel passionately about their candidates. This was messy politics and it was very amazing. The state has invested so much time and energy in this event. And are you really going to let someone get away with this comment about Clinton? "She's a divisive, polarizing figure who gets most of her support from people who toe the Democratic party line." Please. Her caucus corner was full of men, women of all ages, with notable turnout from the gay community. What was missing was teenage men. I do think Clinton made a mistake by providing refreshments for her corner -- it just wasn't Iowan -- not sure how to explain it. But it is much more complex than "divisive." Isn't that what people always say about strong women?

Robert G. Kaiser: This is really terrific. Thanks to you for thinking of us to file this report. "

I am writing this article to document another act of unreasonable censorship. My comment/question was relevant, polite, and inquisitive. Robert Kaiser chose to ignore my post. He chose to exclude me from a putative public discussion, one which he privatizes through his editorial control. He made an editorial decision to censor me. I would like to know why. So I will write him and send him a link to this post. It's important for everyone who is committed to democracy to support reasonable public discourse. We deserve to have a chance to voice our views in a reasonable fashion, especially in an online digital space, one where the costs of public expression are minimized and the ability to search and browse such expression is maximized.

We must challenge mainstream media to report the facts and public opinion because we constitute public opinion. We are the public. We the people decide who gets elected. As a reporter, Robert Kaiser has a civic duty to let our voices be heard. We cannot allow the media to exclude our diverse views. We cannot allow Robert Kaiser to only rely on polls which do not demonstrate any deliberation. It's sad but true, polls do not reflect the complexities of political discourse; they do not reflect healthy deliberation or sufficient rationality. Polls format and frame questions without recourse to revision or nuance. It's unfortunate that Robert Kaiser broadcasts the predictions of pollsters with more deference than the views and perspectives of readers like you and me.

He censored me without justification, and so he has censored us. We have no idea who else he has censored. He chose the comments to show. He framed the discussion by choosing the comments to publish. And he did all of this using a format that appears open and discursive. But we are not fooled. We know that Robert Kaiser and the Washington Post dictate the terms and content of our conversation, and that in so doing, they engage us with half-measures and weak democracy. We are sensitive to spin, and we can smell it all over Robert Kaiser's analysis wrapped in "conversation".

For those of us who travel up and down Ponce de Leon Ave. in Atlanta Georgia, past the City Hall East, and in front of the Home Depot, the daily sightings of day laborers is all too familiar and all too uncomfortable. Richard Fausset recounts his interactions with these workers and the underlying racial dynamics at play. In a nutshell, company people in pickup trucks pick up these workers, often preferring Hispanic workers over African-American workers, and pay them for several hours worth of work. What is striking is that many of these workers are in violation of the law, either by illegally residing in the U.S. or by not keeping tabs with their parole officers, and they are doing so in front of city hall, directly across the street from the police department. The companies who hire these workers are also often in violation of the law by hiring people with work visas.

This makes a mockery of the law. It indicates that either the laws are wrong or law enforcement is wrong. We should not have laws that we systematically do not enforce. We should either stop those who violate the law or redesign the law. City Hall and the Atlanta Police Department are demonstrating mercy through their neglect; they now need to demonstrate social justice through progressive legislation and law enforcement.

The Yale Science-To-Action Collaborative published a list of Action Items to fight global climate change. I was very pleased to see media and education as top priorities for environmental action. Merv Williams was less pleased:

" An incredible collection of academic clap-trap. Not a single worthwhile suggestion that might achieve some positive action. "

I think the suggestions were worthwhile, but I think Merv has a point to his concern.

We need to advance specific everyday actions to protect the environment. The Academy, for professional and epistemic reasons, has a problem with prescriptive specificity. Academics are traditionally wary of advocating specific policies for everyday life, such as “Don’t drive when you don’t have to,” “Buy an electric car,” or “Turn off your lights when you leave the house.” Advancing a long list of specific everyday actions may seem to violate intellectual freedom, a core value of the Academy. To maintain intellectual freedom within the Academy, there is a general preference for description over prescription, abstraction over concretion, complexity over simplicity, and skepticism over foundationalism. Academics, by their own brand of knowledge, are largely unprepared to prescribe action, including environmental action.

Where are the intellectual actors? Parents, educators, artists, preachers, lawyers, managers, legislators, and designers accept the premise that they should prescribe specific plans of action. And they accept the premise that they can enhance ideology without systematically sinking into ignorance. I agree with the view that we must explore the moral dimensions of environmental action, but ultimately we must inculcate a specific ethical code with respect to the environment. We must find a way to accustom people to a specific environmentally sustainable lifestyle. If academics want to save the environment, they must reevaluate their own professional and epistemic commitments. They must push further into the domain of everyday prescriptions, and they must make the case that by limiting human freedom, we maximize our freedom.

Our democracy relies on the media to broadcast the views of all Americans, but the Des Moines Register, recently violated its journalistic responsibilities by excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from the last Democratic debate before the Iowa caucus. What does this mean? Well, it means that the people of Iowa will not have a chance to hear reform-minded presidential candidates such as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, legitimate candidates which offer unique progressive policy proposals such as Kucinich's national non-profit universal healthcare plan and Gravel's national initiative to make all citizens lawmakers. By excluding Kucinich and Gravel from the debates, the Des Moines Register demonstrates its discrimination against certain political candidates, sending the message to Iowans, that they do not need to consider Kucinich and Gravel as presidential candidates. This is anathema to a democratic electoral process and to the putative political independence of Iowan voters. Iowa is the first stop en route to the presidency. All presidential candidates deserve a fair chance to compete for the presidency.

The Des Moines Register argues that Kucinich and Gravel were excluded from the debate because they lacked a storefront presence and because they did not have enough paid staffers on the ground. Not only is this a terrible reason to deny legitimate presidential candidates from participating, but it was not applied to Alan Keyes during Des Moines Register's Republican Debate:

If Kucinich was not worth listening to at the debate, if his policy perspectives were irrelevant to the presidential election, why did the Des Moines Register take the time to publish the followng informed interview with Kucinich?

The Des Moines Register did a great disservice to our democracy. They have undermined their brand as a fair moderator of presidential debates. They should publicly apologize for their intentional exclusion of Kucinich and Gravel from their last presidential debate, and they should make amends by hosting another debate that prominently includes Kucinich and Gravel.

Please send your criticism to the following Des Moines Register officials:

• Laura Hollingsworth President and Publisher (515) 284-8041
• Carolyn Washburn Vice President, Editor (515) 284-8502

I am really struggling with who I will ultimately vote for: John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich. If I had to choose between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, I would readily choose Edwards because he acknowledges the need to fight corporate power. But when I think about John's track record and compare it to Kucinich's track record, I have to choose Kucinich. Kucinich is the most knowledgeable progressive Democrat on the stage . He understands and can articulate international law, labor law, and Constitutional law. He's the ranking member of the Domestic Policy Committee. He has a track record of voting against NAFTA and against the war in Iraq. He is co-sponsored the best healthcare bill ever introduced, H.R. 676, which is really the only viable universal healthcare plan offered by any presidential candidate. Kucinich is the only candidate to have introduced legislation to impeach Dick Cheney for the manipulating intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. In a nutshell, Kucinich is the most experienced and reliable progressive of all the Democratic candidates. Check out his bio.

My main problem with Edwards is that he tends to avoid proposing specific plans for progress, and instead relies heavily on generic progressive rhetoric. I admire his willingness to speak boldly about the need to oppose corporate interests, but when you press him on the details, he equivocates. Unlike Kucinich, Edwards tends to avoid delineating specific plans and policies. While this Edwards room to change his mind later on, a definite advantage for any politician, it leaves the voter wondering whether he deeply understands how to solve the issues. Still, I think Edwards has better overall judgment than Hillary or Obama. At the very least Edwards understands that many corporate powers are against the general interests of the American people. I think Edwards would make a fine President.

So will I vote for Edwards or Kucinich?

If I had to decide right now: Kucinich.

While I think that John Edward's plan is more progressive than both Obama's and Hillary's, and I think that John has a better chance of winning than Kucinich, I still think that Kucinich and Conyer's plan, as outlined in H.R. 676 provides a better foundation for universal healthcare than John's plan.

Fundamentally, H.R. 676 transforms our healthcare system from a for-profit venture that gambles with American lives into a non-profit framework that provides high-quality healthcare to "all individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States)".

"In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including--

(1) primary care and prevention;

(2) inpatient care;

(3) outpatient care;

(4) emergency care;

(5) prescription drugs;

(6) durable medical equipment;

(7) long term care;

(8) mental health services;

(9) the full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry);

(10) substance abuse treatment services;

(11) chiropractic services; and

(12) basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes)."

The genius of H.R. 676 is that it requires all participating healthcare providers to be public or nonprofit, while banning private health insurance that duplicates coverage provided by the program.

"It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act."

This means that private insurance can only cover medically optional procedures, like some kinds of cosmetic surgery.

So what kind of insurance will the Act provide? Well, it will provide us with the ability to choose our own physicians whereever we choose. We only have to show our public insurance card, and we get service - no deductibles, no premiums!

"(b) Portability- Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.

(c) No Cost-sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits."

This legislation is the most important healthcare legislation in the history of the United States. Its straightforward language makes sense. Its policy is moral.

But is it unrealistic to implement as some suggest? Shouldn't we go along with John's current healthcare plan because it has a better chance of getting through Congress?

I am not convinced that the struggle to push John's plan through Congress will be significantly easier than Conyer's and Kucinich's plan. Both require significant reform. So, we should go that extra mile to do the job right for ourselves, those who inherit our decisions, and those who will fall through the cracks of incremental reform.

Those of you who are not fully swayed by appeals to moral self-interest, and who need to see some strategic benefit in winning the election, you too, should urge John to adopt H.R. 676. This would bring Kucinich supporters and other progressives into the Edwards campaign and would clearly distinguish Edwards as the most progressive and viable candidate.

Also, if Edwards does not adopt H.R. 676, it would make it very easy for Obama to outflank Edwards as a progressive. If I were Obama, I would switch gears on my universal healthcare plan, which is weaker than John's plan, and adopt H.R. 676. Obama could say that he was convinced by John Conyers and others that H.R. 676 was the best plan. If Obama did this, he would beat Hillary and John. While I think that John's plan is a significant improvement, John should seriously consider adopting H.R. 676.

John's advocacy for H.R. 676 does not have to be viewed as back-pedalling on his own plan, but as an opportunity to reach out to the progressive wing of the Democratic party, and to every American that expects healthcare to be a mission-critical and unified nonprofit enterprise. Ultimately, H.R. 676 is not just Kucinich's plan, or Rep. John Conyers's plan, but the people's plan.

Finally, it's important to recognize that John's plan does not adequately address the red tape that strangles our healthcare system. People really struggle with the paperwork and other bureaucratic hoops to receive care. Most of us don't have time to do a cost/benefit analysis of a giant menu of healthcare plans. As long as we allow segregated care through a buffet of healthcare plans, even those as progressive as Edwards, we will keep our Two or More Americas divided. Every American deserves the same quality of healthcare, independent of our financial status. This is the One America I imagine.

Besides Hillary and Barack, all of the Democratic candidates have been largely and unfairly overlooked by the mainstream media.

I guess the blogosphere will have to take up the slack. Here's my two cents: So far, I like Kucinich and Edwards the best because they oppose war and advocate real universal healthcare. I think Gravel would make a great Vice President. We should help him push through The National Initiative to empower all citizens - that means you and me - to become lawmakers.

I don't trust Hillary. She's too trigger-happy with military might and unable to admit her mistakes. Edwards voted the wrong way on the Iraq War and has apologized for his mistake. Barack Obama doesn't offer a genuine universal healthcare plan. He's a great speaker, but I don't think he is strong enough to fight the corporate interests. Kucinich has a track record of voting correctly on the war and he's offered us the best universal healthcare plan, but he lacks the broad support necessary to become President. He'd be a great Vice President.

My most realistic hope is that John Edwards gets the nomination and picks a progressive Vice President like Dennis Kucinich. If it comes down to Hillary versus Barack... I'd vote for Hillary. But let's not jump to any conclusions. The race for the White House is just beginning. Let's give Edwards a chance to weigh in. He will fight for universal healthcare.

Let's give everyone a chance to weigh in. Who knows... we may get to vote for a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket.

And let's think before we vote. Let's think about whether we want universal healthcare, whether we want to end the reign of HMOs, whether we want to have high quality healthcare for the weakest or among us, or whether we want to give it all up. Should we keep on pretending like we care about our health? When will we really care about our bodies, our health, our happiness, and stop caring about the crooked profits of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies?

Universal healthcare is not a pipedream. America is the only industrialized democracy that does not have it. For a quick tour of the corruption in our healthcare system, watch Sicko.

During the New Hampshire Democratic Debate, presidential candidate Mike Gravel criticized Hillary Clinton for voting for an amendment cosponsored by Joe Lieberman that reclassifies the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. In response to this serious charge, Hillary laughs:

After the debate, Gravel explains the gravity of the situation, and the real danger that her vote represents.

He argued that Clinton's vote was irresponsible, that it was too aggressive toward Iran, that the IRG is large and widely revered by many Iranians, and that the reclassification of the IRG as a terrorist organization would jeopardize diplomatic efforts with Iran. Even Joe Biden, one of the more hawkish Democrats and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted against the amendment. Barack Obama, as Gravel notes, did not vote at all on the amendment.

Senator Lieberman, a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, defended Hillary's position. Lieberman argues that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is killing American troops and so should be reclassified as a terrorist organization. His amendment provides:

"that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224"

Before we can agree with Hillary and Lieberman's reclassification of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, we must ask ourselves what we mean by terrorist. Is every other military force that opposes America's occupation of Iraq a terrorist? Is Iran a terrorist state because it arms the Shiites in Iraq, who use those weapons to kill Americans? What is the nature of terrorism? Was Donald Rumsfield's strategy of "shock and awe" in Iraq a variety of terrorism? Was President Bill Clinton's sanctions on Iraq a kind of terrorism to the 350,000 Iraqi children who died? What counts as terrrorism? Are the military police, military psychologists, and military interrogators who run the torture chambers of Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay terrorists? Are the people who fight to free their country from dictators, Baathist or American, terrorists? Are pilots who fly warplanes over Afghanistan and drop bombs on innocent men and women terrorists? Are the people who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction terrorists? Who are the terrorists?

Perhaps Hillary was right to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorists. Perhaps all military powers, Iranian and American, are terrorists. Perhaps all industrialized nation states are terrorists? Perhaps all people who threaten the use of violence are terrorists.

Before we start another war with Iran, we need think very carefully about terrorism and reflect on our own use of terror.