Twelve months ago, Maryscott went on Fox News, provoking a major controversy at Orange, among other places. I'm reposting my thoughts from that time not to re-open old wounds, but for the sake of historical context and pointing out that this latest controversy involving Markos and Orange is not unprecedented. Hope this is at least mildly instructive.

I've been casually monitoring the issues involved in this latest brouhaha over the appearance of our very own blogmother on Fox Radio.

I've found the ambivalence, apprehension, and even outrage the affair has sparked deeply disturbing.  Far beyond the fact that it kills me a little inside when people mistreat Maryscott, the dynamics involved here speak to the nature and course of progressive change itself, and by extension, to the role of the political blogosphere therein.

Our national interests.

Our vital interests.

We reserve the right to defend our interests.

Our legitimate interests.

Interests, interests, interests...

But what does this mean, really?

I was just stopped by the cops while smoking a cigarette on my own stoop, as I do multiple times a day.

I know all the neighbors, who walks their dog, who parks across the street, who's attractive, who goes shopping: I see it all.

But this time, someone saw me.

Cross-posted at www.myleftwing.com, progressivehistorians.com and bluehousediaries.com

(Front-paged at My Left Wing and progressivehistorians.com)

After years of standing by and watching this horrific trainwreck of a presidency, the Dems are caught flat-footed, yet again, tone-deaf to world-historical moment.

What is the Democratic plan for the future?

How will they incapacitate this madman?

Why is Dick Durban waxing indignant against those ungrateful Iraqis whose lives of hedonistic pleasure comes off the fat of American troops?

According to Durban, we liberated the Iraqi people, bestowed them freedom from our boundless largess, and for our trouble all they can do is sit around eating water melon and fried chicken, bestirring themselves just enough to dial 911 and watch us come running.

Why can't they just lift themselves up by their bootstraps?

And we thought the Negro was lazy!

I was humbled to see that this diary made the December 6 Diary Rescue list and more importantly, deeply encouraged by the ensuing discussion.

Because several people have commented that they find the discussion useful and were sorry they had missed it, I am reposting it here.  

Forgive me if this is an egregious breach of etiquette, but I believe this is a discussion that merits serious attention, so I'm reposting it here.

Cross-posted at http://www.myleftwing.com/...


One of the problems with the word "racism," and I think we're all aware of this, is that the term has no clearly-defined meaning yet carries deep pejorative force.

Racism is bad.

By extension, if I call you a racist, I'm calling you bad.  Immoral.

I'm reading into your heart that you have a revulsion towards people of color.

Cross-posted at http://www.myleftwing.com/...


One of the problems with the word "racism," and I think we're all aware of this, is that the term has no clearly-defined meaning yet carries deep pejorative force.

Racism is bad.

By extension, if I call you a racist, I'm calling you bad.  Immoral.

I'm reading into your heart that you have a revulsion towards people of color.

crossposted at myleftwing.com and progressivehistorians.com

Why the Center Cannot Hold: Enlightenment Civility v. Religious Passion

The Enlightenment's valorization of objectivity, reasoned discourse, and the non-confrontational ethic of civility that The reason the center cannot hold is due to a paradox, one might even call denial, embedded within the Enlightenment's valorization of objectivity, reasoned discourse, and a non-confrontational ethic of civility.

I think many of us display a fundamental hypocrisy in our assessments and critiques of the religious right.  We revile George Bush for his direct, emotional appeal and yes, toughness, yet castigate Kerry for his exasperating lack thereof.  

Cross-posted at myleftwing.com and progressivehistorians.com


If you want people to exude beauty, to allow it to infuse their every moment, it is necessary to create and sustain a beautiful environment.

What makes for a beautiful environment?

Exactly, that's a good question.

And a profound one.

So profound we've somehow allowed it become banal.

This, to me, represents a social crisis.

A human crisis.

(Crossposted at My Left Wing)

All this talk about the protest and its image got me thinking about theatrical political propaganda.  The French Revolution had David.  The Communists had Eisenstein and Shostokovich.  The Third Reich had Leni Riefenstahl.  
And us, who we got?  Michael Moore?  Sure, he's entertaining, but not quite in the same class as the others.  

So I love baseball.  Just love it.  Can't get enough.  I've been listening to a fair amount of sportsradio and I've noticed a couple things that have made me reevaluate my general despair over the American public's woeful lack of analytical skills as evidenced in both their voting patterns and the abysmal level of political discourse that passes as such in the corporate media, especially talk radio.      

How powerful is music, really?  A romantic by nature, I've always thought music has real supernatural, magical power.  All art does, really, and to me music is the Queen of the Arts so that's what I'm focusing on.  

I'm writing because I'm finding historical evidence, such as it is, for the power of music to effect religious conversion.  A lot of the early Christian literature I've been reading credits public chanting of Psalms with seducing otherwise hostile or indifferent pagans to Christianity.

Of course we don't know if the texts are inventing these accounts or not, but being a romantic, I'm inclined to believe that music can indeed soothe the savage breast.