... two or three more lengthy things to say about Dem Fest; a rather flabbergasted report on a public forum I attended this evening about the Houston police brutality visited on Halliburton protestors last month -- with HPD in the room; Frist's flip-flop on Bolton and Durbin's weak-kneed apology for invoking Godwin's Law just today, and the only thing I want to post is:
"Adios, Mofo."
Oh yeah, it seems there are quite a few rumors floating around online that Rehnquist has resigned and no one with official knowledge will admit it.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Monday, June 20, 2005
Religion, Democracy, and the Common Good
Even though I did not attend this workshop I found its topic and the reports of others to be one of the most fascinating of the weekend.
Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, author and scholar and director on the national boards of the Christian Church and the United Churches of Christ, opened the discussion by saying that progressives need people of faith as equal partners. Progressives and liberals, and by extension the Democratic Party, have been cast as secular by the opposition, and specifically the 'secular left' -- a right-wing frame you hear coming out of the mouths of pastors in pulpits these days -- is considered "weak" in comparison to the conservative, fundamentalist conviction of Christian faith. In order to win the battle of phraseology, progressives need to emphasize the aspects of love in their practice of faith as well as in everyday life, and to contrast it with the "theo-fascists' war against love". Indeed, Brock noted, some secularists tend to feel isolated from the social aspects inherent in the practice of organized religion (in my own Church of Christ upbringing this was called 'fellowship'). In order to mitigate that sense of isolation, they can seek out an "agency" in order to align their associations with their core values; in short, find others who share their beliefs and hang out with them on a regular basis (just as so many of us did this weekend).
Dr. Davidson Loehr had probably the most interesting bio on the panel: Unitarian Universalist minister, author of the forthcoming America, Fascism, and God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher, former combat photographer in Vietnam, former professional musician. He reminded us again that the left has lost the vocabulary as it relates to nationalism and patriotism, religious conviction, and moral and personal responsibility. His call to action was to reclaim the words like "morals" and phrases like "high ideals" to communicate the goals of progressives. And to likewise use language that casts the opposition unfavorably, just as the Republicans have for so long; for example, the "plutocracy currently being implemented leads to imperialism, and fundamentalism is a natural extension and dangerous ally of the two". Plutocracy, of course, also results in undesirable things like "control of the media, and thereby control of the masses". (Now we just have to dumb this down a bit for the Southerners who haven't gone to college.)
Andy Hernandez, co-author of the Almanac of Latino Politics 2002-2004 and widely respected for his expertise on Latino political strategy, spoke about the fallacy that people cast votes relative to their moral values. We all recall the MSM beating us over the head in the first week of November, 2004 about the 'moral values' voters, right? Well, the statistics are that twenty-two percent of voters in the presidential election indicated they cast their ballot based on 'moral values', and 80% of that 22%, naturally, voted for George W Bush. But in 2000 that number was 35%, and it was 40% in 1996 (and who was elected President in '96, again?). So this choice has actually waned in importance by nearly 50% in two election cycles, at a time when our media is telling us just the opposite. It's important just in terms of one issue -- abortion -- that we begin to say something like this:
"Conservatives aren't pro-life; they're just pro-birth. Liberals are pro-life."
And finally Dr. Paul Woodruff, a professor of ethics at the University of Texas and author of Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue and First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea said that when it comes to ethical behavior, winning is way down the list of priorities. Too much winning, in fact, leads to a swollen head. The Greeks had a word for it: hubris. Indeed, as Brittanica conveys, "in classical Greek ethical and religious thought, overweening presumption suggesting impious disregard of the limits governing human action in an orderly universe" was "the sin to which the gifted were most susceptible". The opposite of hubris is reverence; not religion, not the Diety, but reverence in terms of ethical behavior and integrity. Using the word 'reverence' when progressives speak of caring for the elderly (Social Security), the sick (healthcare), and the environment is an important distinction; one can reap moral value -- i.e. strengthening character -- by losing, for example. And we've had more than enough of that ...
(Aside from me: Boy, I want to hear some Democratic Senator who voted for the war say something like, "I revere the sacrifice our men and women of the armed forces have already made in Iraq, and I feel strongly about this: they have sacrificed enough. It's time for us to bring them home.")
The last postulate on this topic was actually forwarded not in this seminar but by Molly Ivins during our lunchtime forum, where she and Jim Hightower and Glen Maxey and Glenn Smith shared Texas political war stories. She made reference to the "red print" Christians to whom the left can and must appeal.
What are "red print" Christians?
Those of you familiar with the 1970's-era King James versions of your Bibles may recall that the words of Jesus in the New Testament always appeared in red. The New Testament, of course, spoke quite a bit of love, compassion for others, especially those less fortunate, and forgiveness (through the Son of God and his apostles). The Old Testament, by contrast, deals in moral absolutes -- an eye for an eye and so on -- and also speaks about smiting one's enemies and plagues and adultery and sodomy and the consequences of these (usually a painful death).
Sound like any grand old political party you know?
Somewhere there's bound to be some statistics on the percentages of "red print" Christians to the whole, and how many of them don't vote GOP. I would hazard a guess that there are several million votes just in that subgroup that the Democratic Party needs to ask for (and receive).
I'll post about "The DeLay Factor" seminar tomorrow.
Update: Jon Lebkowsky, at his creatively-named Weblogsky, has a report on this seminar as well, and he found a few things I missed.
Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, author and scholar and director on the national boards of the Christian Church and the United Churches of Christ, opened the discussion by saying that progressives need people of faith as equal partners. Progressives and liberals, and by extension the Democratic Party, have been cast as secular by the opposition, and specifically the 'secular left' -- a right-wing frame you hear coming out of the mouths of pastors in pulpits these days -- is considered "weak" in comparison to the conservative, fundamentalist conviction of Christian faith. In order to win the battle of phraseology, progressives need to emphasize the aspects of love in their practice of faith as well as in everyday life, and to contrast it with the "theo-fascists' war against love". Indeed, Brock noted, some secularists tend to feel isolated from the social aspects inherent in the practice of organized religion (in my own Church of Christ upbringing this was called 'fellowship'). In order to mitigate that sense of isolation, they can seek out an "agency" in order to align their associations with their core values; in short, find others who share their beliefs and hang out with them on a regular basis (just as so many of us did this weekend).
Dr. Davidson Loehr had probably the most interesting bio on the panel: Unitarian Universalist minister, author of the forthcoming America, Fascism, and God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher, former combat photographer in Vietnam, former professional musician. He reminded us again that the left has lost the vocabulary as it relates to nationalism and patriotism, religious conviction, and moral and personal responsibility. His call to action was to reclaim the words like "morals" and phrases like "high ideals" to communicate the goals of progressives. And to likewise use language that casts the opposition unfavorably, just as the Republicans have for so long; for example, the "plutocracy currently being implemented leads to imperialism, and fundamentalism is a natural extension and dangerous ally of the two". Plutocracy, of course, also results in undesirable things like "control of the media, and thereby control of the masses". (Now we just have to dumb this down a bit for the Southerners who haven't gone to college.)
Andy Hernandez, co-author of the Almanac of Latino Politics 2002-2004 and widely respected for his expertise on Latino political strategy, spoke about the fallacy that people cast votes relative to their moral values. We all recall the MSM beating us over the head in the first week of November, 2004 about the 'moral values' voters, right? Well, the statistics are that twenty-two percent of voters in the presidential election indicated they cast their ballot based on 'moral values', and 80% of that 22%, naturally, voted for George W Bush. But in 2000 that number was 35%, and it was 40% in 1996 (and who was elected President in '96, again?). So this choice has actually waned in importance by nearly 50% in two election cycles, at a time when our media is telling us just the opposite. It's important just in terms of one issue -- abortion -- that we begin to say something like this:
"Conservatives aren't pro-life; they're just pro-birth. Liberals are pro-life."
And finally Dr. Paul Woodruff, a professor of ethics at the University of Texas and author of Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue and First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea said that when it comes to ethical behavior, winning is way down the list of priorities. Too much winning, in fact, leads to a swollen head. The Greeks had a word for it: hubris. Indeed, as Brittanica conveys, "in classical Greek ethical and religious thought, overweening presumption suggesting impious disregard of the limits governing human action in an orderly universe" was "the sin to which the gifted were most susceptible". The opposite of hubris is reverence; not religion, not the Diety, but reverence in terms of ethical behavior and integrity. Using the word 'reverence' when progressives speak of caring for the elderly (Social Security), the sick (healthcare), and the environment is an important distinction; one can reap moral value -- i.e. strengthening character -- by losing, for example. And we've had more than enough of that ...
(Aside from me: Boy, I want to hear some Democratic Senator who voted for the war say something like, "I revere the sacrifice our men and women of the armed forces have already made in Iraq, and I feel strongly about this: they have sacrificed enough. It's time for us to bring them home.")
The last postulate on this topic was actually forwarded not in this seminar but by Molly Ivins during our lunchtime forum, where she and Jim Hightower and Glen Maxey and Glenn Smith shared Texas political war stories. She made reference to the "red print" Christians to whom the left can and must appeal.
What are "red print" Christians?
Those of you familiar with the 1970's-era King James versions of your Bibles may recall that the words of Jesus in the New Testament always appeared in red. The New Testament, of course, spoke quite a bit of love, compassion for others, especially those less fortunate, and forgiveness (through the Son of God and his apostles). The Old Testament, by contrast, deals in moral absolutes -- an eye for an eye and so on -- and also speaks about smiting one's enemies and plagues and adultery and sodomy and the consequences of these (usually a painful death).
Sound like any grand old political party you know?
Somewhere there's bound to be some statistics on the percentages of "red print" Christians to the whole, and how many of them don't vote GOP. I would hazard a guess that there are several million votes just in that subgroup that the Democratic Party needs to ask for (and receive).
I'll post about "The DeLay Factor" seminar tomorrow.
Update: Jon Lebkowsky, at his creatively-named Weblogsky, has a report on this seminar as well, and he found a few things I missed.
A few DemFest snapshots
... some suitable for framing, coming up.
And speaking of frames, Jeff Feldman of The Frame Shop led a workshop on that topic Saturday morning. It included an exercise on developing your thirty-second elevator speech for the news of the day (or week). But the seminar I attended prior to that was entitled "Film as an Organizing Tool" and featured excerpts from the new Robert Greenwald documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. As Al Norman, the virtual one-man crusader against Wal-Mart says:
Mrs. Diddie and I split to cover two workshops before lunchtime; she went to "Religion, Democracy, and the Common Good" and I attended "Turning Red States Blue", which was moderated by DFT political director Glen Maxey, political consultant Sandra Ramos, and Dallas County sheriff Lupe Valdez. Maxey's best point was that there is still a majority of Americans who do not vote at all, and his campaigns (Maxey served six terms as an openly gay state representative) typically concentrated on projects to register new voters that involved activities like posting -- or holding -- signs on streets and intersections all over the city of Austin directing people to where to register that day. His GOTV efforts likewise focused not on the frequent voters whose opinions are entrenched but on these first-timers; in calls and GOTV literature they were told when to vote, where to vote, what to bring with them when they went to vote, what to expect when they got to the polling place, etc. Rather than force the virgin voter to look up this data, they tried to make the activity of voting more accessible and less intimidating to people who hadn't done it before (or who hadn't done so in a long while).
Ramos, a veteran of seven congressional campaigns in Colorado last year, six of which were victorious with all of those seats previously held by Republicans, said that the Democratic success she managed was due to having candidates who matched the district, and letting those candidates be themselves. One unique example she cited was the cowboy who simply couldn't blockwalk and canvass for votes; he instead held cookouts and barbecues in every park in the district, and he played his guitar and sang about his campaign message. And Lupe Valdez' best advice was, as a candidate, to find a campaign cause that no one can disagree with and dwell on that. It's counter-productive to spend time talking about issues that are divisive when there are issues that everyone can agree on.
I'm going to devote the next post to Mrs. Diddie's notes on the "Religion" seminar, a post by my friend CitySky who was also in attendance, and some related links.
And speaking of frames, Jeff Feldman of The Frame Shop led a workshop on that topic Saturday morning. It included an exercise on developing your thirty-second elevator speech for the news of the day (or week). But the seminar I attended prior to that was entitled "Film as an Organizing Tool" and featured excerpts from the new Robert Greenwald documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. As Al Norman, the virtual one-man crusader against Wal-Mart says:
Wal-Mart, through its own excesses, has become a caricature of itself--- a cartoon company symbolizing what Sinclair Lewis called the "completest boredom" of America. Wal-Mart is no longer just a store, or even a corporation. It is an icon of uncontrollable lucre, the Orwellian business machine with a greeter at the sliding doors.
Mrs. Diddie and I split to cover two workshops before lunchtime; she went to "Religion, Democracy, and the Common Good" and I attended "Turning Red States Blue", which was moderated by DFT political director Glen Maxey, political consultant Sandra Ramos, and Dallas County sheriff Lupe Valdez. Maxey's best point was that there is still a majority of Americans who do not vote at all, and his campaigns (Maxey served six terms as an openly gay state representative) typically concentrated on projects to register new voters that involved activities like posting -- or holding -- signs on streets and intersections all over the city of Austin directing people to where to register that day. His GOTV efforts likewise focused not on the frequent voters whose opinions are entrenched but on these first-timers; in calls and GOTV literature they were told when to vote, where to vote, what to bring with them when they went to vote, what to expect when they got to the polling place, etc. Rather than force the virgin voter to look up this data, they tried to make the activity of voting more accessible and less intimidating to people who hadn't done it before (or who hadn't done so in a long while).
Ramos, a veteran of seven congressional campaigns in Colorado last year, six of which were victorious with all of those seats previously held by Republicans, said that the Democratic success she managed was due to having candidates who matched the district, and letting those candidates be themselves. One unique example she cited was the cowboy who simply couldn't blockwalk and canvass for votes; he instead held cookouts and barbecues in every park in the district, and he played his guitar and sang about his campaign message. And Lupe Valdez' best advice was, as a candidate, to find a campaign cause that no one can disagree with and dwell on that. It's counter-productive to spend time talking about issues that are divisive when there are issues that everyone can agree on.
I'm going to devote the next post to Mrs. Diddie's notes on the "Religion" seminar, a post by my friend CitySky who was also in attendance, and some related links.
"later today" has turned into tomorrow
... as referenced in the previous post, and work and life is still preventing me from being wordy, so there'll be more "later".
A family friend in Beaumont e-mailed to report that she saw us on C-SPAN (which obviously was the DeLay Factor telecast). I'm just not going to be able to stay undercover much longer, it seems ...
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Diebold) wins a belated Moneyshot Quote of the week for this:
Must get back to the grindstone.
A family friend in Beaumont e-mailed to report that she saw us on C-SPAN (which obviously was the DeLay Factor telecast). I'm just not going to be able to stay undercover much longer, it seems ...
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Diebold) wins a belated Moneyshot Quote of the week for this:
"The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq..."
Must get back to the grindstone.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Breakfast blogging
Went down the buffet line this morning with Barbara Radnofsky and Kos.
Kos and Jerome note how vital it is to take our activism offline; that elections aren't won by banging on keyboards, but by banging on doors. And just as elections and politics is local, so are the blogs evolving to reflect regional interests (I've noticed this even in my own posts here). Since our best opportunity to interact with our leaders and potential leaders is on a city and state level, then those issues will be the ones we know best -- and can blog intelligently about. Of course it all expands outward from there, even beyond our country's borders of course.
And by driving the change from the bottom -- just as the GOP did thirty years ago -- then you affect the long-term trends.
Barbara Radnofsky is speaking about breaking down the "babykiller" argument waged against the left by the anti-choice right. If, for example (as I have posted previously in regards to Planned Parenthood) we focus efforts on pregnancy prevention, then everybody can find a common place to agree. It's that old reframing thing ...
More coherent and lengthy postings later on today.
Kos and Jerome note how vital it is to take our activism offline; that elections aren't won by banging on keyboards, but by banging on doors. And just as elections and politics is local, so are the blogs evolving to reflect regional interests (I've noticed this even in my own posts here). Since our best opportunity to interact with our leaders and potential leaders is on a city and state level, then those issues will be the ones we know best -- and can blog intelligently about. Of course it all expands outward from there, even beyond our country's borders of course.
And by driving the change from the bottom -- just as the GOP did thirty years ago -- then you affect the long-term trends.
Barbara Radnofsky is speaking about breaking down the "babykiller" argument waged against the left by the anti-choice right. If, for example (as I have posted previously in regards to Planned Parenthood) we focus efforts on pregnancy prevention, then everybody can find a common place to agree. It's that old reframing thing ...
More coherent and lengthy postings later on today.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
TRMPAC indictments Tuesday?
Charlie at Pink Dome (who proudly declares that his blog publishes rumor as fact) says that there could be as many as eight indictments associated with the misadventurers of TRMPAC handed down next Tuesday, which is also allegedly the day the Texas Lege will be summoned back into special session by Guvnah "God is my campaign manager" Goodhaiyer. To be fair -- something that comes naturally to me -- June 27 is another date being floated for our state legislators to attempt again the titanic struggle to find a way to fund Texas public schools.
Is it possible to fantasize that we could see Tom Craddick being led away from the dais in leg irons? Dare we dream to see the Speaker of the Texas House frog-marched out of the Capitol?
Be still my beating heart ...
The GOP has passed a mighty wind this weekend in order to try to draw attention away from the one thousand progressive activists assembled in Austin working to counter the very crap they are busily dispensing, with Kay Bailey Hutchison finally getting off the pot and Rick Perry and Carole Strayhorn scheduling their dueling press conferences today. It's possible that Speaker Craddick may trump them all by the beginning of next week.
Is it possible to fantasize that we could see Tom Craddick being led away from the dais in leg irons? Dare we dream to see the Speaker of the Texas House frog-marched out of the Capitol?
Be still my beating heart ...
The GOP has passed a mighty wind this weekend in order to try to draw attention away from the one thousand progressive activists assembled in Austin working to counter the very crap they are busily dispensing, with Kay Bailey Hutchison finally getting off the pot and Rick Perry and Carole Strayhorn scheduling their dueling press conferences today. It's possible that Speaker Craddick may trump them all by the beginning of next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)