Sara,

I pointed it out as possibly being the lampooning of the reactionary liberal elements, not to try to characterize any part of our movement. I merely looked at the tone, and noted that it is reactionary and professes to advocate a liberal contructionist point of view.

The article raises many ad hominem attacks. I think this is rather sophisticated to be the work of some '15-yr old punk anarchist kid'. Also, even if it were the work of a 15 year old person who subscribes to one of the many variants of anarchic philosophy (primitivist, green, capitalistic, etc.) without evidence, we cannot consider it 'a good joke or stir up the pot'. We must give at least equal consideration to the idea that this was a use of satire and/or absurdism to engage in meaningful social and/or cultural critique like Moliere or Norman Lear's 'All in the Family' and 'The Jeffersons' situational comedies of the 1970s.

I think that regardless of the intent of the author, which we cannot know, since 'Concerned Protestor' chose not to use a real name; it is meritorious to address the concerns of the author in a serious fashion. Just as I think we should examine the issues raised by 'accusations that there was not enough "sexual and racial diversity" in the leadership of the task force.'

If substance is found to support charges made by either side, the our movement can only be helped by redressing the problems identified by such a thorough and critical review of the issues.

I think for either side in this debate to continue to attack those with whom they disagree over tactics is not only divisive and disrespectful; but marginalizing of both groups.

I agree about the seeming contrived nature of the piece. I merely see a different possibility for motive. Without more information, we should not try to attack our putatative allies and ascribe mal-intent to any in the struggle for peace and our rights.