~ firefly-dreaming a virtual home to learn (or teach!) alternative methods of solving problems we find facing us each day. By sharing ideas & knowledge on living with less stress, more joy & embracing tolerance & compassion we are working towards building a sustainable future for all living beings.
The United States of America, the greatest country the world has ever known.
I heard that alot growing up.
Accolades for American greatness came from politicians, foreign statesmen, artists and writers, journalists, Hollywood, my teachers. It could be heard in the crashing of generational waves of immigrants onto our shores, all wanting to become Americans. Hell, even my own kin folk broke down in sentiment on a 4th of July or two.
America's secret to greatness was no secret: we were the land of the free. We were free and we celebrated and touted it, exported it and, we told ourselves and the rest of the world: this freedom is enduring.
Freedom defined who we were and it justified how we lived... the big ideas, the free markets, the hippies and Hollywood, helping our neighbors worldwide in times of crisis... we were great, rich, and generous.
In remembrance of our freedom and its stamp on the the American character, I give you two great Americans, Franklin Roosevelt and Norman Rockwell ...
THE FOUR FREEDOMS excerpt from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's speech to Congress, 6 January 1941
... and illustrated by the great Norman Rockwell In the future days which we seek to make secure,
we look forward to a world founded upon
four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression --
everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
Okay. Cheap joke. I'll get to that in a second though. First, below the Fleur-de-Kos, you'll find a listing of diaries republished to A Perfect Conversation since the last diary I posted (which was something like two weeks ago), as well as a quick update on APC matters, such as why I've been gone so long and what the future holds for the group. In other words, stuff those of you who follow the group will be interested in, but everyone else will likely not give a rat's ass about. (Well, except the republished diaries. I hope everyone is interested in checking them out.)
Now then, getting back to the title. Apologies, but I'd like to start with some links.
So, what does coalition politics have to do with WeinerSchnitzel?
I don't see politicians as part of our coalition. I'll make my argument for that in next week's diary. (One of those infamously long-awaited diaries I keep talking about but never seem to get to.) For now, let me say that politicians and activists are two different beasts with goals and motivations too remotely removed from each other for us to form a workable coalition. We can however be situational allies.
Why is Weiner being targeted, and why is it our job to defend against those attacks?
What the specific reason is for the attack doesn't matter. Anthony Weiner is seen as a progressive champion, much like Obama. Whether or not you agree with that view, that's the media consensus, not to mention the right-wing belief. So the right is more than happy to use any excuse they can reasonably make to themselves to attack him. (The excuse doesn't have to make sense to us. It only has to make sense to them.) They found one and went with it.
If we-the progressive/liberal/lefty coalition-don't defend him, we lose by default, because the attack is not just against him but also against us. Again, Weiner is seen as a progressive champion. So if the right takes him down, the media broadcasts it as a loss for us. Like it or not, the beltway media narrative holds strong sway in DC. For now, we have to fight using those rules.
Okay, Gabriel. Riddle me this. If we should be defending politicians viewed as progressive champions, why don't we defend John Edwards?
That attack isn't coming from the right. It's coming from the government.
Uh...Hello! Don Siegalman?
Okay, I'll elaborate.
We can only respond based on the information we have and how credible we believe that information to be. The credible information on Edwards indicates he shot himself in the foot. He's not being attacked by the right. He did this to himself, and there's nothing we can do about it.
The credible information on Siegalman indicates the government was a proxy in the right-wing attack. Whether Siegalman is a progressive champion or not, in this case, a certain old adage holds true. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." So we should defend him. If we lose, we lose. But we don't have much to lose at this point, so it's a risk worth taking. And if we win, the least we get out of it is a stronger coalition. Overall, it's worth the risk.
The credible information on Weiner indicates he was framed. Does it pass legal muster? I don't know. I'm no lawyer. But there's too much evidence indicating that it's not only possible, but that the people most likely to have framed him are acting suspiciously like they did so. So we fight this for much the same reason we fight for Siegalman. And if it turns out later that we were wrong, at least we've shown that we can hold together as a coalition, which sends a message to both our allies and enemies. In other words, even in the worst case, we're better off fighting.
The basic point, then, is that there are things we do as a coalition that, as individuals, we might not fully agree with. We do these things because they make our coalition stronger, and a stronger coalition means that, as individuals, we are more likely to get what we want. This is what it means to be in a coalition. So even if you have your doubts about Weiner's responsibility in this incident, there can be no doubt that we're all under attack. It's up to each of us to step up so that together we can fight back.
Tonight, I'd finally like to finish (for now, at any rate) the conversation I started last week when I posed the following:
If you had supreme authority over the nation for a day, what social policies would you want to enact and why? Feel free to be as idealistic or pragmatic as you prefer.
Now, whether you answered that in comments or not, I hope you've been kicking the thought around in your head since then.
I think a lot of arguments we have, whether on this site or others, stem, at least in part, from the conflict inherent between the perception of pragmatism versus idealism. There are the pragmatists who say we shouldn't rock the boat, so to speak. Let our politicians work things out. This is the best we can hope for, so let's just show our support and keep working to get better leaders in the future. The others are the idealists who are never satisfied with what we get, no matter how good it may be. They rock the boat.
But when you have to answer the question I posed, you can be neither. The idealists cannot achieve any of their goals without recognizing certain pragmatic choices. The pragmatists are put in a position of power, thus allowing them to act on their ideals or prove they are not interested in achieving anything.
A quick reminder. I'm being kept pretty busy at the moment, so I haven't had time to read anything today, let along even check in except to get this diary published (thus the lateness). So feel free to share what you're reading. I should be back for the weekend.
This is a quick thought dashed off to give you something to talk about, should you want.
As everyone here is well aware, one of the lines you don't cross at the GOS is the principle of electing more and better Democrats. Key word being Democrats. This is a site for electing Democrats. Not Greens. Not Libertarians. Very definitely NOT Republicans. Democrats. The rule is pretty firm, right?
Now, this makes sense when we consider the standard electoral situation in most cases. Democrat vs. Republican and sometimes a third party (usually on the left). Our system makes third party candidates into leeches, which sucks, but that's how it works. So the rule of electing Democrats makes sense in that context. We stick together so we make sure we're defeating Republicans. I can get behind that.
But what if the Democrat is the third party candidate? Let's say a Democrat decides to enter a race against Bernie Sanders and some Republican. Now, as you know, Bernie may caucus with Dems, but he's made it very plain that he's no Democrat. Even so, he has broad support within the progressive community, and a large portion of this site. (Or maybe I've misread things? Feel free to correct me, as always.)
Who would you vote for? What if you knew yours was the deciding vote? If you knew it wasn't the deciding vote? Would you volunteer for the one you vote for? Would you advocate for them on Daily Kos? What other questions does this bring up? Feel free to make all kinds of assumptions about which office they're running for.
Reminders:
1. Site rules are very clear. Daily Kos is about electing more and better Democrats. Not candidates from any other party. Democrats.
2. Bernie Sanders: Not a Democrat.
Okay, so maybe not the best conversation starter, but hopefully it'll give you something to think about.
well, you could start with some specifics (0+ / 0-)
For example, what should the President have done? What would the costs have been?
What could the President do about Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow helping the Republicans on the EPA?
(don't know about that? why not?)
How bad is the 2010 budget compared to 2008 - what's the perspective?
How safe is Planned Parenthood against an override proof vote if the President had played it that way? Do you know?
Which specific cuts did you hate the most? Do you oppose the cut from DOD? Don't know about that? Why?
value added
by citizen k on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:54:41 AM CDT
These are all excellent questions. Well thought out. Very reasonable. Very rational. Wonky as all hell.
And completely missing the forest for the trees.
First off, these are the types of questions that result in the pie fights. Here's how it works. Now, I don't know jack about citizen k. I don't know his/her stances on the issue. I don't even know his/her gender (as you can see by they way I'm writing.) But let's assume for the moment citizen k is an Obama defender. After I answer the questions, citizen k responds by trying to rebut. All very reasonably. Then I respond, then k responds. Again, reasonably, but maybe a little strained. It goes back and forth, slowly building up until we're both pissed off at each other and flinging donuts like nobody's business. The problem here is not that one of us is right or not. It's how we frame our positions.
And that brings me to point number two. Framing is about the way in which the questions are posed and answered. For example, if Republicans were to answer these questions, you can be certain they'd use "socialism." No matter what Obama did, the actions and results are all socialistic and Obama is a socialist. That's their frame.
So, I'm not going to answer citizen k's questions. They're a trap. I'm not saying citizen k set out to intentionally trap me into starting a pie fight or something. As far as I'm aware, they were asked in good faith. (And as I said above, I don't know which side of the debate citizen k is on, either, so it would be disingenuous of me to remark on it further.) Rather, they're a trap of the mindset that has subsumed this site with the pie fights. And if we're going to get out of that, we have to find a new frame. Because there will always be those of us who disagree with the President, no matter what he does. So it's better to have a frame that we can always use to argue that while we think what the President does is not helping, we still want him to do well and are rooting for him.
A) Challenge the DK conventional wisdom.
B) Provide information which may lead to new ideas.
or
C) Push for action that is innovative or not just playing defense.
The point is not to agree (or disagree) with these diaries. It's about challenging ourselves to rethink our political philosophies, activities, and issue positions.
Please remember to not look at the GOSian curve as you make your way past.
I want to start by thanking RiaD for offering to let me cross-post this DK diary roundup here. She also offered to put this on the front page, but I think it's just a tad soon to be doing that. I'd like to establish a schedule and prove my reliability, first.
For those who don't know (that would be pretty much all of you), A Perfect Conversation is a group I started on Daily Kos. To quote the Profile page:
A group to republish diaries that I hope:
a. challenge the DK conventional wisdom;
b. provide information which may lead to new ideas;
c. push for action that is innovative or not just playing defense;
I do not always agree with the diaries I republish, but the point here is not about agreement. It's about challenging ourselves to rethink our political philosophies, activities, and issue positions. Perhaps we'll come back to the same conclusions we already have but with a better understanding of why we have them. Other times, we may decide to change our positions.
The group name comes from the first line in the song Cool James by Harvey Danger. "Can I have this: a perfect conversation?" (I've also read lyrics sites that claim it's "Cannot have this: a perfect conversation." I think the ambiguity between these transcriptions suits the group given it's purpose.)
Currently, I schedule these diaries to post on Daily Kos at 11:45PM Central every night. I'll start posting them here, as well, though there will likely be a delay.
I've modified the format slightly for tonight to put my ramblings from the original diary in the extended section. Usually, that will go up top, and the lists and video will be all you find in the extended.
And with introductions complete, please enjoy tonight's offerings!
As we approach our first blogoversary I thought it might be fun to look back at some of our first year posts that exemplify our firefly dreaming spirit and mission. Original post with comments can be found here: out of whack by pfiore8
A little to the left of starboard if you get the drift. A harbor or anchorage.
About The Concept
There's a lot of news and commentary that could be receiving more attention.
Rather than crosspost on a single central site what we'd like to encourage is crossreading and commenting.
We'll be using two mechanisms to accomplish this-
Firedog Lake style links to affiliated sites across the banner (props). I've always admired the way Jane and her crew have been able to maximize excitement and can only hope to emulate it.
Regular cross promotional digests of associated sites' content.
How Does This Work?
Each site will decide for itself the content they want to feature and how often. They'll produce a digest and publish it on the affiliated sites. It will be promoted by the host or not whenever, depending on the desires of the host site.
Authors must choose for themselves if they want to crosspost, though they should expect requests to do so.
The point is to increase visibility and impact.
Independence
Each site has it's own vibe. Formula One and Le Tour and if you ever think I'm talking about Politics you are sadly mistaken.
Content that is acceptable in some places is not in others and it is up to the host to decide. All you free speech advocates can find a place to express yourselves I'm sure. Port Writers Alliance sites enforce their own polices which are not uniform.
Success
The objective is that we'll drive some traffic and raise some awareness. I like to keep expectations realistic.
What you will see as a reader
Below each site's Banner you'll see some buttons that take you to the Front Page of each site. Fairly frequently you'll see a digest post from the individual sites that provide links to content they wish to highlight. Sometimes it will have been crossposted but often not, so the pieces may be of special interest to you and you'll want to click through and read them. Even for crossposted pieces the reactions will be different.
If you wish to comment or contribute you'll have to register independently at that site. We just don't have the technology Jane does at Firedog Lake.
If you are used to the pace of Daily Kos (and I don't link just because I'm not sure about stability with the advent of dK 4.0) what you will find is that our blogs run quite a bit slower. You can't expect instant reactions or high volume responses.
On the other hand we're attempting with this project to expose you to a wide range of diverse content so that there is plenty for you to read and explore.
I'm interested in your reactions to this initiative. Please let me know below.
Or is the story some macabre parable of America (and maybe even the white western world) gone wrong?
Maybe the story is an allegory about the powerful (men like Leaf) and powerless (like the child), and what passes for "civilization" these days: an epidemic of woman and children sold into slavery, the rape and plunder of third world countries, and what plays as the pornographic orgasmic uberness of our own lives... in this bigger and more is better universe where everything has to be special, unique... it must be uber sex, uber religion, and uber partisan politics. Not to mention, um, uber consumerism.
Really, not as intense a tragedy as Kent State, but if he gets the Speaker's Gavel in a wave election, another tragedy from my home state, Boehner of Orange.
Versus Nancy Pelosi.
People, its the midterms. I understand that many had their hopes stoked by the Presidential campaign, and many had their hopes satisfied, at least somewhat, and many had their hopes dashed, at least somewhat ... but this aint Presidential Primary season. Its the General Election Midterms.
Where are the YouTubes telling young Hispanic first time 2008 voters in Spanish "Poder para el Pueblo / Nadie Silente! Vota!" ... where's the Green fightback against Republican scorched earth ... is it all lost in naval gazing in the middle of General Election season?
(1PM~
i somehow ran across this today & thought it serendipitous recalling our recent conversations....
i thought this deserved a bit more attention~
- promoted by RiaD)
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
The US Military and the CIA are increasingly concerned that climate change raises the prospects for military intervention to deal with the effects of severe weather, rising seas, drought, mass migration, spread of disease, and increased competition for resources.
In Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change, National Public Radio reports today that "for the first time, climate change will feature as one of the key threats under assessment in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. [...]"
Recent war games and intelligence studies have found that sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia will likely be the most vulnerable regions, facing food shortages, water crises and severe flooding that could require an American humanitarian relief or military response.
If they can plan War Games to manage the Human Chaos, expected from Climate Change -- Why can't we plan to minimize that Climate Change, in the first place?
Anyone who knows anything about my political views understands that I have moved from the liberal-left to a post-ideological view that seeks to emphasize humanity (or, really, humaneness) as the proper core of political expression. Up until fairly recently, I, like many, many others, tended to view politics as a manichean contest between liberals versus conservatives, the left versus the right, Democrats versus Republicans. When I looked out across the field of issues virtually all of my opinions fell on the left side of the political divide. For example, I found myself in favor of a woman's right to choose, in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in favor of the regulation of polluting industries, in favor of universal health care, as well as in favor of GLBT rights. Taken together my stance on these issues, among others, clearly places me on the political left.
There could be a point, a moment in which you look around your home. There are perhaps pictures or paintings hanging on walls. Pots and pans in the kitchen. A dozen pair of shoes and rows of hangers holding shirts and pants in a bedroom closet. Not to mention assorted potted plants. Lamps. Shades. Nicknacks. All that infrastructure. All those things . . .
Anyway. That point, that moment could happen: looking around your place and it all goes funny. It hits soft, at first, this simple thought: maybe... maybe it's all a bit ridiculous. Slightly absurd. The idea that a thing could hold value. Have meaning. Or stir memory.
It goes further. I'm in a wheel upon which I run. The wheel keeps turning because I keep running on it. I can't stop running. Actually, I don't know how to stop. Or how to get off the wheel. I don't think I'm trapped. In fact, I think I'm free. And yet, I can't get off the wheel.
Really, not as intense a tragedy as Kent State, but if he gets the Speaker's Gavel in a wave election, another tragedy from my home state, Boehner of Orange.
