It goes without saying that the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was groundbreaking in its depiction of interracial marriage as it was released in 1967, the same year the US Supreme Court outlawed miscegenation laws (of which 17 states at the time still had). Its story is well known: a young white woman (played by Katharine Houghton) brings her black fiancé (played by Sidney Poitier) home to meet her parents (played by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn). A filmic argument for acceptance, Poitier's character is completely non-threatening, challenging the stereotypes of the predatory, hypersexualized black man. He's a soft-spoken doctor, he's been educated in Europe and he seems far more sexually passive than Joanna. In other words, not so scary after all.

I'm really interested in this idea of the non-threatening guest at dinner, the one who at the end of the evening can convince the Spencer Tracey's of the world to deliver a heartfelt "screw those ignorant bastards. You have my blessings" speech. I say this because I had a so-called terrorist over for dinner last night.

In 2000, my friend Jeff Luers was sentenced to 23 years in jail for setting fire to 3 SUVs at a local car dealership, in protest over global warming. His unnecessarily long sentence was overturned, and he was released in December having served 10 years in prison.

I had him over for homemade hummus and naan with apple crisp for dessert, and afterwards he sat at my kitchen table playing Magic the Gathering with Isaiah. In other words, not so scary after all.

When denouncing the rise of environmentally-motivated property crimes in the 1990s and 2000s -- crimes like Jeff's -- the FBI, law enforcement, and the media usually spoke of "ecoterrorism." And the wrath against activists, as seen in the witchhunts in our communities and in their lengthy prison sentences, demonstrates the force with which the State tried to destroy the movement.

To label someone a terrorist, particularly since September 11, makes it easier to deny their civil liberties, makes it easier to demonize their actions, makes it easier to demonize them.

But what constitutes terrorism? Despite the teeth-gnashing and fist-pounding, there really isn't a readily agreed upon definition. U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d) says "the term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;" (But not all politically motivated acts are labeled such (there was a shooting at the Pentagon today, I do believe, but it was merely a "random act.") And interestingly the notion of "spreading terror" as the term should imply isn't part of the definition. After all, if your act has to strike fear and terror in its victims, attacking an inanimate object, like oh say an SUV, doesn't count as terrorism.

Having Jeff home has me thinking about the struggle to define "terrorism." If, indeed, there is no hard-and-fast definition -- legal or otherwise -- then clearly the label remains "up for grabs" -- if not in the legal realm, then certainly in people's imagination. And so I want to push back on that label, particularly when it's applied so damn politically. And particularly when it's applied to someone I've known for ages, someone I love and trust, someone who's coming to dinner.