The Progressive Blog Alliance HQ

You are green,
And your arms reach up
To touch the sky
Gently, gently,
How I love you

You are blue,
Soft and smiling,
Kissing cool a promise
Gently, gently
How I love you

You are red,
Drawing me to you
Burning hot
Gently, gently
How I love you

You are yellow,
Burning softly with your head
Upon my shoulder
Gently, gently
How I love you

You are black,
Restful soft as satin
Hands upon my chest
Gently, gently
How I love you

You are white,
Curving over hills and valleys
Distance blinding
Gently, gently
How I love you

You are brown,
Earth and growing things
Come to life within you
Gently, gently
How I love you

You are flesh
And next to me where I can touch you
From time to time
Gently, gently
How I love you

The right wing argument might be that it is better to be safe than sorry. Ordinarily I would agree with that statement, however there is something else I like to take into account and it is called the bigger picture. Right wingers, are not without their own bigger picture, but sadly it rarely reaches beyond their own self-interests and preservation of a rather narrowly focused status-quo.

I watch as many people who identify with this group swallow lies whole and glory in their dutifulness to authority in doing so.

In their most private thoughts do they ever question their allegiance? Do their leaders’ cries of wolf always work on them? Or do they accept the economy of truth as a necessary evil? I wonder if one ever really feels safe with a ruthless master. Who knows? I guess only they do.

But what if Bush saying Boo is not enough anymore for the rest of us?

Good morning Boys and Girls.

Big storm here last night. A lightning show unparalleled in my recent memory. Pretty and loud and long. Hours long.

As a young man, in 1980, I "invented" a game called Triple-Cross. It was simply chess set up on a three-colored hexagonal board and with three sets of chess-men, and obviously, it was meant for three players. It was, and is, a very good game though I've never had the money to promote it all that well. We sold it mostly at high-school chess tournaments and at malls at Christmas time a couple of different years. Even though we always sold out whatever small runs we'd made, we never made enough money to do it up correctly.

The idea came out of the fact that there were three of us that liked to play and we got tired of waiting for a game to end before we got to take on the winner. Once I'd figured out how to keep the moves as similar as possible to normal chess moves, it worked great. The only difference in the set of pieces each player used was that there was an extra Bishop per player because the board had three colors and bishops must stay on their own color... Enough... The point is...

Kenneth Patchen was and is an underrated American poet, a surrealist, an anarchist, a founder of the Beat movement, a painter and illustrator. I came across his works when we ran Erewhon Books, the Anarchist Bookstore in Edmonton in the seventies and eighties.

His stream of conciousness novel The Journal of Albion Moonlight has many memorable mise et scenes. Like Jesus and Hitler arguing about capital punishment, murder and war on a train. Hitler wins the argument.

Or the tale of the little light bulb that hides in the impoverished home of a poor working class family, keeping them in light to live and learn, hiding from the nameless electrical company which wants to kill this lightbulb because unlike its mates, it is eternal. It can provide light forever, but the evil corporation that makes light bulbs has created all the other bulbs to die out, planned obselecence.

It’s a cold and rainy January day here in upstate NY. The kind where you don’t want to even get out of bed. Well, if you’ve got those frigid January blues, J.R.’s got the cure over at Don’t Floss With Tinsel and Carnival of the Liberals #4! A hot mix of the profound and the profane made absolutely sizzling by J.R.’s sharp, off-center wit. This is definitely the most creative presentation of CotL yet!

http://surrogate.tblog.com

Good morning Boys and Girls.

I'm 48 years old. I came of age in the early seventies at a time when this country was trying to figure out a way to extricate itself from a war we should have never involved ourselves in, and with a president who seemed hell bent on covering up some rather stupid moves by his underlings.

I really try not to notice the similarities between then and now, and I'm helped by some rather stark contrasts between the periods.

I was a hippie back then. Had long hair, smoked a lot of pot as did just about everyone I knew and interacted with. I dreaded commercial radio, absolutely refused to wear any shirt or piece of clothing with any sort of advertisement printed on it, unless it promoted "cool non-profit events" or general slogans and works of art... (or, my own "for profit" tiny business.... go figure.)

Evening Boys and Girls.

surrogate here.

A walk.

Looking over my shoulder to check a noise I swore I'd heard a half dozen times already during the mile or so I'd been making my way through this bit of scrub, once again I saw nothing. There was a sound though. I was sure of that. Almost like deer antlers rubbing against bark. Where I was though, I knew it was pretty unlikely that any deer at all, let alone a buck with big enough antlers to make that sort of sound, would be anywhere in the vicinity.

It was a field though! There were tons of weeds, and any number of sparse bushy mini-trees scattered throughout the fifty-acre parcel, that because of it's long thin shape, was almost two miles from one end to the other. But it was fenced - though that was to keep people out - as opposed to keeping wildlife, like those deer I was wondering about, in.

(Folks, for those of you who don't read my home blog, and may not know the premise - and just so there is no confusion here - I don't have a Jesus complex, or anything of the sort. From time to time I do pretend to guess what Jesus might say about things that happen if he were alive and kicking and, as it happens, a friend of mine... I debated posting this here, and decided to, with this weird explanation...)

Hi Boys and Girls,

Jesus reporting on a lousy day.

I had planned on teasing surrogate today.

No such luck.

This London thing is awful, and I fear it won't be the last attack - or anywhere near the last.

There are some frustrated people doing some evil things and no amount of military force will ever stop it. Know that. Accept it.

I'm playing devils advocate here for a minute, and I'm doing it just to make a point. Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say as any sort of approval on my part for this evil deed this morning in London, but only fools ignore WHY people would stoop to killing innocents, and I'm no fool, so we're going to look at it for a minute.

Good morning Boys and Girls!

surrogate here.

Read this please, then come back.

Notice how James Dobson calls the Federal Judges tyrants?

Judges who work to ensure that ALL of our citizens are free to live their lives as they see fit are now tyrants.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

If you know anyone who supports this idea of a constitutional amendment to prohibit gays from being able to marry, and you let them think it's okay cuz, hell, neither of you are gay... remember, next it'll be that people with other differing beliefs, and having to do with other things, other than the narrow minded (and decidedly un-Christ-like) faith people like Dobson espouse that will come under attack.

Good afternoon Boys and Girls,

surrogate here, telling a story that isn't appropriate for kids. But, every now and again, something reminds me of the incident and since I think it helped influenced my political views some, and certainly taught me a glaring lesson about the kind of people who rub shoulders with our leaders, I decided to share it.

Years ago I pinstriped cars - a skill I learned from my Dad.  In fact, through the years, three of the four of the kids in my family ended up in the trade for some period of time. My younger brother still runs the business my Dad started.

For a quite a few years, I worked on my own for car dealerships. Most of the work was simply striping cars that hadn't been sold yet - stock work, we called it - but about a third of the work consisted of striping cars for customers after the purchase. That was kind of fun most of the time. I usually enjoyed the kibitzing with customers. If they'd already taken delivery, they'd just make an appointment to bring it back for me to do my job. Sometimes it would work a little differently, but not too often.

After the great sighs of both relief and disappointment following the 2004 United Methodist General Conference, it may be best to take a time out on the issue of homosexuality. However, it may also be an opportunity to reflect on how we approach this issue and how we might overcome divisions that seem to grow deeper every quadrenium. Are there any common means of loving gay and lesbian people? Is it possible to fashion new approaches to ministry with homosexual persons that transformationalists and reconciliationists can recognize as valid and progressing us towards resolution of this burdensome dispute? Is their a way to move forward without compromising one's convictions or denying another's ability to minister creatively in the same church family?For the sake of discussion let us assume that the traditional teaching of the church on the issue of homosexuality is correct: all forms of homosexual behavior, whether loving and faithful or not, are sinful. Shall we allow them to enter our worship services and join as baptised and professing members? Of course, we should. Should we belabor a point of which they are already aware, namely, the church's condemnation of homosexual behavior? Certainly not. Should we assume that they can be changed in their orientation. No. Are all gay people permissive and exploitive in their sexuality? No, not anymore than heterosexual people are. Are many gay couples deeply loving and faithful towards one another? Yes, these couples do indeed exist more than the church cares to admit. Should we affirm celibacy as a joyous sexual discipline for both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike? Absolutely yes. Should we defend their human and civil rights in the secular world? Most definitely yes. Should we give them grace even when they refuse to repent? As we should do with all sinners, yes! These are but a few of the stances toward gay people in the church that are, or ought to be, agreed upon by both those who affirm an accepting position and those who hold to the traditional teaching of the church. But can we go further and build more common ground on this issue? Surely this is a very important issue in the church which touches upon other vital concerns the church has for all Christian disciples. Justification or the unconditional acceptance of the sinner just as she is, as a child of God, saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, sanctification or the growth in holy purity and wholeness in Christ, and the unity of the body of Christ under the shadow and shade of the cross....all of these critical issues come into play when we speak to this controversial subject. And yet as important as these issues are , where one stands on the issue of homosexuality is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. Orthodox Trinitarian Christians can and do believe differently on this as well as many other very important but secondary issues.

Jesus Reporting.

This is about surrogate. And it's so condensed that it may not make sense, but maybe it will explain his strong feelings about the Terry Schaivo case.

When surrogate and his wife moved into their family's home in Michigan, the first day they were settled in, he and his wife came home from work to new flowers planted along the front porch and a hot dinner waiting for them sitting, wrapped carefully along with a card, next to their front door welcoming them to the neighborhood.

As the years went on, the neighbors who'd shown this initial kindness became very important people to surrogate and his wife.

At the time, Mr. and Mrs. Simpson were in their mid seventies. They had no children, but adopted, in spirit, not only nieces and nephews, but quite a few of the kids in the neighborhood.

Greek and Roman theater presented the larger than life.which is what tends to be with drama.  This doesn't demean the particular, because in those "larger than life" broodings the truth of every man and woman is revealed, is honored, is encompassed.  Now, what are the mechanics of what makes for "larger than life" I don't know, a one and two and three that must be met in order to qualify.  I've been thinking about it a lot over the weekend and today.

When I was perhaps 15 I tuned the television to PBS and there was this dramatic set that was all gray, nothing to it but gray, the actors in mid 20th century gray and black clothing, and this woman, determined in solemn grief to do her duty and bury her brother who had been forbidden funeral rites.  If he remained unburied his spirit was doomed to wander.  But the individual who did bury him would be put to death by stoning.  Antigone's duty was clear.

By John Dear

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.”

With that, the place exploded, and 500 students stormed out. The rest of them then started chanting, “Bush! Bush! Bush!”

The media hath spoken: 2004 was the “year of the blog.” As we all know, whenever a broadcast and print media come to a consensus, a truth is born. Thus, we can relax. There is no need to put any further thought into the matter. Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of thinking. And as a result of my nasty habit, I believe the media has completely misunderstood what the blog represents: the first significant manifestation of much larger trend.

This powerful trend is two-fold:

• the rise of the network as a form of social organization.
• the freeing information from the constraints and limitations of the physical world.

In the first post of this series, we will explore the rise of the network through the lenses of history, and the social sciences.

How the New Sciences and Internet Are Framing A New Global Identity and Order

By John Clippinger and David Bollier (transcribed from full PDF)

The empirical findings of the new sciences do not suggest a reductionist notion of a fixed and universal “human nature” of the sort portrayed in countless “nature/nurture” arguments. Rather, they suggest a far more “spacious” model of human nature. Human nature is not “determined” by genes, as popular mythology often seems to hold. It consists of shared and specific competencies that are expressed in different ways by different societies. It is not a reductionist model, but a profoundly constructivist model.Innate propensities co-evolve over time with a wide range of social and physical conditions. Seen from this perspective, we can see that Free-market Dogma is a highly artificial, if not fictional, notion of humanity. The free-market dogma worldview systematically, ideologically, privileges certain attributes of human beings while disregarding other innate propensities. It ignores the crucial interdependencies that individuals have with each other, with other cultures, and with nature. It validates a normative universe of cognition that is at odds with our genetic, neurological, psychological and social history as a species. It should not be surprising that Free-Market Dogma is also proving to be highly destructive of the natural environment.It is time to recognize that our “neuro-cognitive architecture” has co-evolved with the natural environment over millions of years, predisposing us towards certain baseline psychological, social and cognitive behaviors. In the long sweep of human history, the values and behaviors that we take as normative in our high-technology, market-driven, media-saturated environment, are, in fact, profoundly aberrational. The new scientific findings are not merely parlor-room curiosities. As we will see below, they could be the foundation for more enlightened public policies. Rather than privilege the unexamined tenets of free-market individualism, we could get better and more humane results if we began to leverage our deeply engrained social tendencies. (Read the Full Essay at Nick Lewis's Weblog)

The following is the text from an illustrated essay I wrote in 1990 for an exhibit held at the Connecticut State Legislative Office Building. I've included a link to the artwork online. The artwork is copyrighted. The idea, well, I'd welcome discussion about the premise. I've always thought of this as a starting point. So as to make the discussion productive, let's minimizie the naysaying [i.e. "it'll never pass in congress"] The current batch of folks in USA power wrote their legislation years ago; furthermore, it seems that the premise has international applications anyway.

ECONOMIC TREASON

By George Orwell

The thought of Christmas raises almost automatically the thought of Charles Dickens, and for two very good reasons. To begin with, Dickens is one of the few English writers who have actually written about Christmas. Christmas is the most popular of English festivals, and yet it has produced astonishingly little literature. There are the carols, mostly medieval in origin; there is a tiny handful of poems by Robert Bridges, T.S. Eliot, and some others, and there is Dickens; but there is very little else. Secondly, Dickens is remarkable, indeed almost unique, among modern writers in being able to give a convincing picture of happiness.

Dickens dealt successfully with Christmas twice in a chapter of The Pickwick Papers and in A Christmas Carol. The latter story was read to Lenin on his deathbed and according to his wife, he found its 'bourgeois sentimentality' completely intolerable. Now in a sense Lenin was right: but if he had been in better health he would perhaps have noticed that the story has interesting sociological implications. To begin with, however thick Dickens may lay on the paint, however disgusting the 'pathos' of Tiny Tim may be, the Cratchit family give the impression of enjoying themselves. They sound happy as, for instance, the citizens of William Morris's News From Nowhere don't sound happy. Moreover and Dickens's understanding of this is one of the secrets of his power their happiness derives mainly from contrast. They are in high spirits because for once in a way they have enough to eat. The wolf is at the door, but he is wagging his tail. The steam of the Christmas pudding drifts across a background of pawnshops and sweated labour, and in a double sense the ghost of Scrooge stands beside the dinner table. Bob Cratchit even wants to drink to Scrooge's health, which Mrs Cratchit rightly refuses. The Cratchits are able to enjoy Christmas precisely because it only comes once a year. Their happiness is convincing just because Christmas only comes once a year. Their happiness is convincing just because it is described as incomplete.

All efforts to describe permanent happiness, on the other hand, have been failures. Utopias (incidentally the coined word Utopia doesn't mean 'a good place', it means merely a 'non-existent place') have been common in literature of the past three or four hundred years but the 'favourable' ones are invariably unappetising, and usually lacking in vitality as well.

By far the best known modern Utopias are those of H.G. Wells. Wells's vision of the future is almost fully expressed in two books written in the early Twenties, The Dream and Men Like Gods. Here you have a picture of the world as Wells would like to see it or thinks he would like to see it. It is a world whose keynotes are enlightened hedonism and scientific curiosity. All the evils and miseries we now suffer from have vanished. Ignorance, war, poverty, dirt, disease, frustration, hunger, fear, overwork, superstition all vanished. So expressed, it is impossible to deny that that is the kind of world we all hope for. We all want to abolish the things Wells wants to abolish. But is there anyone who actually wants to live in a Wellsian Utopia? On the contrary, not to live in a world like that, not to wake up in a hygenic garden suburb infested by naked schoolmarms, has actually become a conscious political motive. A book like Brave New World is an expression of the actual fear that modern man feels of the rationalised hedonistic society which it is within his power to create. A Catholic writer said recently that Utopias are now technically feasible and that in consequence how to avoid Utopia had become a serious problem. We cannot write this off as merely a silly remark. For one of the sources of the Fascist movement is the desire to avoid a too-rational and too-comfortable world.

James Carroll of the Boston Globe writes:

I propose this image for our new and urgent discussions about religion. In America, a religious divide has suddenly emerged as politically decisive, and in the world, religion is a runaway engine of violence. A fanatic fringe of Islam asserts its doctrine by joining suicide to murder in Allah's name. In Gaza and the West Bank, some hypernationalist religious Jews stake claims to land with God as guarantor -- disastrous consequences to Palestinians and Israel both be damned. Similarly, America's war in Iraq has evolved into a two-sided holy war, even if only one side explicitly defines it as such.

Meanwhile, mainstream churches waste themselves in conflicts over sexual identity, the new meanings of marriage, and mysteries of the medical frontier -- arguments in which "God's will" is invoked as if sacred texts elucidated the biology of genetics, postsexual reproduction, open-ended lifespan. The "religious right" fervently seeks to impose its definitions of the social good on the devout and the indifferent alike. "Bright" nonbelievers, in turn, match the absolutism of the zealots of faith with absolute rejection.

All living creatures are driven by a compulsion to replicate their genes if they can possibly do so. This is a central pillar of modern Darwinist thinking. It follows that the sex drive is basic to any understanding of the meaning of life. But when I come to consider my own species, the issue becomes more complex. Why not, since we are sui generis in the degree of our complexity?

Our twentieth century is different from every epoch that has preceded it in human history and prehistory, in this fundamental respect: the awareness has dawned on many of us that there are too many people for the planet to support comfortably, or soon will be. It follows that it can no longer be taken for granted that having more children serves humanity's central purpose. But that involves a massive and fundamental attitudinal shift, tectonic in its implications. It mortally weakens what until now has been the central element for many people in their felt definition of the meaning of life--having children. Can you subtract that central element of the meaning of life without life becoming meaningless? The answer has to be the substitution of other purposes that plausibly supply equivalently compelling doses of meaning to the human psyche.