By Robert Green Ingersoll [found via Majikthise]
A LIBERAL paper should be edited by a Liberal man. And by the word Liberal I mean, not only free, not only one who thinks for himself, not only one who has escaped from the prisons of customs and creed, but one who is candid, intelligent and kind -- that is to say, Liberal toward others.
This Liberal editor should not forever play upon one string, no matter how wonderful the music. He should not have his attention forever fixed upon one question -- that is to say, he should not look through a reversed telescope and narrow his horizon to that degree that he sees only one thing.
To know that the Bible is the literature of a barbarous people, to know that it is uninspired, to be certain that the supernatural does not and cannot exist -- all this is but the beginning of wisdom. This only lays the foundation for unprejudiced observation. To kill weeds, to fell forests, to drove away or exterminate wild beasts -- this is preparatory to doing something of greater value. Of course the weeds must be killed, the forests must be felled. and the beasts must be destroyed before the building of homes and the cultivation of fields.
A Liberal paper should not discuss theological questions alone. Intelligent people everywhere have given up most of the old superstitions. They have pretty well made up their minds what is false, and they want to know something that is true. For this reason, a Liberal paper should keep abreast of the discoveries of the human mind. No science should be neglected; no fact should be overlooked. Inventions should be described and understood. And not only this, but the beautiful in thought, in form and color, should be preserved. The paper should be filled with things calculated to interest thoughtful, intelligent and serious people. There should be a column for children as well as for men and women.
"What we need to discuss urgently is strategies of resistance. We need to aim at real targets, wage real battles and inflict real damage. Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theatre. When, in a simple act of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own salt, they broke the salt tax laws. It was a direct strike at the economic underpinning of the British Empire. It was real. While our movement has won some important victories, we must not allow non-violent resistance to atrophy into ineffectual, feel-good, political theatre. It is a very precious weapon that needs to be constantly honed and re-imagined. It cannot be allowed to become a mere spectacle, a photo opportunity for the media."
-Arundhati Roy [source text]
And I say, "god damn straight", Mr. Anderson. Thank you for reminding we Progressives of our collective responsibility to support each other.... As for the rest of you, get you're butts over to ISOU and read his reminder. If you follow the link, all of your wishes -- and I mean all of them -- will come true. But if you don't follow the link, an angel will get set on fire. Don't say I didn't warn you.
By John DearÂ
Last September, I spoke to some 2,000 students during their annual lecture at a Baptist college in Pennsylvania. After a short prayer service for peace centered on the Beatitudes, I took the stage and got right to the point. “Now let me get this straight,†I said. “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed, which means, if you want to follow the nonviolent Jesus you have to work for peace, which means, we all have to resist this horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq.â€
With that, the place exploded, and 500 students stormed out. The rest of them then started chanting, “Bush! Bush! Bush!â€
So much for my speech. Not to mention the Beatitudes.
I was not at all surprised that George W. Bush was reelected president. As I travel the country speaking out against war, injustice and nuclear weapons, I see many people consciously siding with the culture of war, choosing the path of violence, supporting corporate greed, rampant militarism, and global domination. I see many others swept up in the raging current of patriotism. Since most of these people, beginning with the president, claim to be Christian, I am ashamed and appalled that they support war and systemic injustice, that they do it in the name of God, and that they feign fidelity to the nonviolent Jesus who gave his life resisting institutionalized injustice.
By Howard Zinn
As I write this, the day after the inauguration, the banner headline in The New York Times reads: "BUSH, AT 2ND INAUGURAL, SAYS SPREAD OF LIBERTY IS THE 'CALLING OF OUR TIME.' "Two days earlier, on an inside page of the Times, was a photo of a little girl, crouching, covered with blood, weeping. The caption read: "An Iraqi girl screamed yesterday after her parents were killed when American soldiers fired on their car when it failed to stop, despite warning shots, in Tal Afar, Iraq. The military is investigating the incident."Today, there is a large photo in the Times of young people cheering the President as his entourage moves down Pennsylvania Avenue. They do not look very different from the young people shown in another part of the paper, along another part of Pennsylvania Avenue, protesting the inauguration.I doubt that those young people cheering Bush saw the photo of the little girl. And even if they did, would it occur to them to juxtapose that photo to the words of George Bush about spreading liberty around the world?That question leads me to a larger one, which I suspect most of us have pondered: What does it take to bring a turnaround in social consciousness--from being a racist to being in favor of racial equality, from being in favor of Bush's tax program to being against it, from being in favor of the war in Iraq to being against it? We desperately want an answer, because we know that the future of the human race depends on a radical change in social consciousness.It seems to me that we need not engage in some fancy psychological experiment to learn the answer, but rather to look at ourselves and to talk to our friends. We then see, though it is unsettling, that we were not born critical of existing society. There was a moment in our lives (or a month, or a year) when certain facts appeared before us, startled us, and then caused us to question beliefs that were strongly fixed in our consciousness--embedded there by years of family prejudices, orthodox schooling, imbibing of newspapers, radio, and television.
I've just returned from the Progressive Democrats of America summit in Washington D.C. First off, I wanted to thank the 3 other PBA members that helped lead the blogging workshop, Roxanne from Rox Populi, Terrence Heath from Republic of T; and of course the man who made it all possible, Aldon Hynes of Orient-Lodge. It’s become clear that the PBA has come of age; to put it into perspective, the Progressive Blog Alliance, a group of about 180 bloggers, had as many representatives in DC as my entire home state of Texas. We should be very proud of what we've accomplished together. Just imagine where we might find ourselves next year.
The first 13 members of this alliance might remember something I wrote last October... I said that our two week alliance had found itself at a cross-roads. I took a risk, and asked of the original 13 members to follow me. Now, on the eve of our alliance's 4 month anniversary, we once again find ourselves at a cross-roads. However, where as last time I asked you to follow me, this time I'm asking each of you to stand up and lead. A great social movement is forming as we speak, and this conversation only represents a part of a much larger conversation that is taking place. For the sake of ourselves, our country, and our future, I hope each of you will join our conversation. After all, who will make up the movement if not us? When will we start, if not now?
You might ask, “where is the movement?†My answer would be that it has been here all along. It’s your mind and my mind; together we are the movement. Our first step is to recognize that connection. Think about that very carefully, and we will continue this discussion tomorrow. (crossposted at PBAHQ)
Beyond Lakoff’s strict father vs. nurturant parent, a strong community manifesto
George Lakoff’s new best-seller Don’t Think of an Elephant has been heralded as the “bible†for battered progressives searching for direction in the post-election doldrums. Lakoff himself has become the Left’s answer to Frank Luntz, the focus-group genius behind the branding of Bush’s “death tax,†“Clear Skies†and “Healthy Forests†initiatives.
“Frames,†according to Lakoff, are the key to understanding how political ideas are received. Human beings don’t absorb information as raw material; we sift input through frames of meaning carried in the language we use.
Lakoff’s central idea is that conservatives see the world through a “strict father†frame emphasizing discipline, self-reliance, forceful defense, while progressives see the world through a “nurturant parent†frame—supportive, nourishing, emphasizing mutual responsibility. Lakoff claims that thirty-five to 40 percent of Americans fall into each camp, although most are some sort of mix.
The Right, Lakoff points out, is extremely good at selling their policies in clear, easy to understand “strict father†frames. Progressives, on the other hand, too often seem to offer laundry lists of issues lacking any overarching moral framework.
So, it’s easy to see why progressives are rallying around Lakoff’s call to arms. Since polls show majorities actually agree with the progressive agenda on many key issues, including corporate power, the environment and abortion, focusing on “framing†issues in ways that Americans can understand them seems like the answer they’ve been praying for. Certainly, much of Lakoff’s advice about communicating progressive ideas is powerfully insightful and right on target.
But two big dangers loom.
"The nonvoter party is global. Given that we don't vote, we do not need to be sanctioned by current political jurisdictions. We can be active all over the world, without concern for national boundaries and rules. Imagine." -Jim Moore
Jim Moore, author of The Second Super Power Rears Its Beautiful Head, gives us 11 reasons why we should stop voting. Believe it or not, he's got a good argument:
1. In any case, politicians don't represent you. Politicians act on behalf of big campaign contributors and major political parties. The major political parties in turn act on behalf of the same big contributors. Unless you are a billionaire, you can't give enough money to have any influence. So don't waste your time and money hoping for politicians to represent you. They won't.
2. Your vote does not matter. Rarely an election is so close that your vote might help elect one person over another--not often, but sometimes. But that does not matter because neither person represents you (see item #1, above). Even that letter you wrote to your congressperson did not matter. Did you think it did? What evidence do you have?
3. But don't despair. Politicians don't matter. The really important problems facing our society are not helped or hurt by what politicians say or do. Consider the problems that really matter: improving education for our kids, strengthening our families and communities, encouraging kindness and care, promoting social and economic innovation, saving the environment, reducing racism, sexism, ethnocentrism and other stereotyping of individuals. None of these are helped by the actions of "political representatives." The most vital contributions in American history are large social and spiritual movements, not who won this or that election.
4. Thus, voting is a false virtue. Voting is a relatively meaningless activity dressed up as a virtue. Voting encourages you to feel you have taken action, when you have not. Voting undermines personal creativity by providing an easy, socially-sanctioned
Using animals for food and clothing causes suffering, is bad for human health, is bad for the environment and is a huge public safety risk. Protecting other sentient creatures from humans is to protect the weak from the strong and to expand the definition of 'us'. So why isn't animal rights more frequently identified as a core progressive value? Why do so many sites that deal with progressive issues not include an animal rights category? - From Salon Table Talk
The moderator of that discussion proceeded to point her finger at us first, and then about 5 other progressive sites as example of unconcious organizations that do "not have an animal rights category". As a result, II feel warrented to tear her position to shreds. Normally, I would have settled the matter at her forum, but since Salon only allows "premiums" to chat, I'm forced to shout from here. (BTW, see the "add new subject" button to your top left?)Lets start with suffering: As we speak, our brave soldiers, who've sworn to protect our lives, are getting their hands and legs blown off, only to be herded to some ship in the middle of the person gulf so no one can see what BUSH did to them. As Rumsfeld said, death and disfigurement have a tendency to give war a negative connotation. Sure, "our" president wears his cute little yellow ribbon, and waves a little flag for the cameras; but that is a photo-op. As to the extent our president supports our troops in action, he basically tells our soldiers to fuck off, take their 10 thousand dollars, and wheel themselves to the nearest homeless shelter within 5 years. Forgive me for forgetting about the horrible conditions that our cattle are suffering.
Recent comments
39 sec ago
3 days 14 min ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
1 week 6 days ago
1 week 6 days ago
1 week 6 days ago
3 weeks 2 days ago