Good Morning and Happy Easter Glenn!!

‘Morning, nahant. And a happy spring day to all.

None of these cooperative efforts are give-aways. They are based on our founding principle that all are created equal and on the democratic belief that we must be responsible for our selves and for one another. They represent our recognition that we all share the fate of the world, including the fates of others.

Keep banging that drum. Mike Konczal calls the focus on the idea of give-aways “pity-charity liberalism.” The progressive ideal that you highlight here is a far better (and traditional) foundation for building a better society.

The pejorative “pity-charity” frame was invented by ideological opponents (read: justification for selfishness and callous disregard for others). But, I’d rather have a bleeding heart than no heart at all.

Joyous Easter to all who celebrate, and chocolate for all!

A woman was walking along the beach when she stumbled upon a Genie’s lamp. She picked it up and rubbed it, and lo-and-behold a Genie appeared. The amazed woman asked if she was going to receive the usual three wishes.

The Genie said, “Nope … due to inflation, constant downsizing, low wages in third-world countries, and fierce global competition, I can only grant you one wish. So … what’ll it be?”

The woman didn’t hesitate. She said, “I want peace in the Middle East. See this map? I want these countries to stop fighting with each other.”

The Genie looked at the map and exclaimed, “Gadzooks, lady! These countries have been at war for thousands of years. I’m good, but not THAT good! I don’t think it can be done. Make another wish.”

The woman thought for a minute and said, “Well, I’ve never been able to find the right man. You know, one that’s considerate and fun, likes to cook and helps with the housecleaning, is good in bed and gets along with my family, doesn’t watch sports all the time, and is faithful. That’s what I wish for … a good mate.”

The Genie let out a long sigh and said, “Let me see that frickin map!”

Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are perhaps the most successful cooperative social programs in history. They are, essentially, promises to one another that Americans have kept. I should add public education to this list. All are under assault by the Right because they are successful.

what i don’t get is why they are under attack by people who self-identify as progressives. :(

Compassion and solidarity should be defining marks of civilization.

yes. but they aren’t. or maybe what we claim to be civilization, or even just community, actually isn’t.

And as I walk on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
Where are the strong
And who are the trusted?

sorry. am too down for this beautiful spring day. will go stand outside and feel the sun….

good to see you egregious.

now for that sun……

Actually, compassion and solidarity are the defining marks of civilization. And the values have helped us accomplish much. So, while you’re enjoying the spring sun, remember with a smile that despite the efforts of the selfish interests, we have managed to create something that almost deserves to be called civilized.

Indeed, and yet neoliberals, as they tend to do, seem to have have internalized that view. Of course, empathy, not pity, is the basis for a progressive world view. The pejoratives are used because our view is persuasive.

I’d rather have a bleeding heart than no heart at all.

Agreed.

Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are perhaps the most successful cooperative social programs in history. They are, essentially, promises to one another that Americans have kept. I should add public education to this list. All are under assault by the Right because they are successful.

what i don’t get is why they are under attack by people who self-identify as progressives

I would have said that these programs are the most successful ‘American’ programs. Certainly most of Europe and other OECD countries have much more successful social programs, mainly because those programs are universal, unlike ours.

To throw in my 2 cents worth to answer selise’s question about why ‘progressives’ can buy into the bullshit. It’s because the extreme right has won the war of words for the last 50 years, especially the last 30 years. The Overton Window has been pulled further and further to the right, so that positions that seemed ‘centrist’ 30 years ago are now considered to be ‘lefty-loony’.

The right has won the war of words because so few Dems/liberals/progressives have fought back. And the few that have fought back have been largely ineffectual. Or if they have shown signs of being effectual, the right has been batting a thousand in destroying or marginalising them.

I wish I could say I had some ideas on how to fight back, but I don’t. When we elect a faux progressive like Obama, it just seems to me like the Rethugs have won.

Although he may not think it’s funny, I do believe that our President thinks there is something hinky, not quite manly perhaps, about peace, love and understanding and the DFH’s who promote it. May he soon see the light!

Good day Glenn. Thanks for bringing the message.

My musings on this glorious day.

We really are, I think, riven by competing moralities; one that holds that all individuals in a society are valuable and contribute to the way of life of others, regardless of wealth, class, class of achievements, or particular capabilities. We form governments to permit an efficient way of living up to our obligations as humans by assuring a reasonable compensation for the gifts of our others.

The libertarians base their morality on the principle that those capable of a certain kind of wealth accumulating ability are the only legitimate heirs to a felicitious life style.All others are parasites to be punished. The Calvinist religious right believes that God determines and rewards value. Those who prosper less are as God determines they should be. Neither recognize the interdependency that binds and sanctifies us. Those who would break those bonds, who are anti-social, would end the species.

Spring is a crazy wind today, in this place. Wild. The sun and the heat will be here all too soon, and the dearth of rain. A happy spring, nonetheless to all.

It seems to me that the best of our emotions (besides love) is compassion. If everyone would hold compassion and carry it everywhere, the world would be a better place.

But the Meanies are a powerful force, and we must continue to fight back. With all the compassion we can muster.

Thank you Glenn and everyone, for your good words again today. ((((selise))))

Elvis Costello’s version is pretty awesome. Great song!

And a musing that I would add here…esp after reading some of FDL earlier this morning….What gives so many people such a hostile and insulting view about religions of various stripes….and empowered to say very offensive things about believers, etc. I will continue to ponder and ask this question until something may make a little sense to me. Or, Maybe hardcore prejudice never makes sense. So I ponder…what provokes of much snark and in a word, mean-spiritedness.

It’s always good to read your musings, TS. Thanks.

The Calvinist religious right believes that God determines and rewards value.

That would be derived from Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

A few years ago Jane Hamsher wondered if someone (hint) would compose and publish a diary (hint) about that work.

Good morning, beautiful, appropriate post!

Christos voskrese! Happy Easter! Glorious Spring!

I was just thinking this morning, if our president would embrace care for the earth, care for its people, as the single priority, how all the divisions and pretences belonging to other issues would simply melt into this important focus. Nature is telling him in no uncertain terms, and we have told him from the infancy of his presidency that he’s got his priorities mangled.

It is not the economy, stupid! The economy will follow where we lead, where we need you to lead. Mr. Obama, you have it all wrong!

The emphasis on fear and ‘I’ve got mine, gonna hang onto that, come hell or high water’ – well, Mr. Obama, that IS going to bring precisely THAT – HELL AND HIGH WATER.

Please let’s get back to basic human decency. Please.

[Sorry about the caps but not too much.] :)

t seems your comment was directed to mine at #13 or at least included. I think one of the reasons liberalism has been brought to its knees is in part because of our attempt to focus on the particular and keep the philosophic debate on an intellectual level. It is in the nature of most of us to not take on moral issues directly. But to ignore that the conservative/libertarian coalition is based on very clear and dogmatic moral principles, now more openly demonstrated, is to surrender the field to them Of course I do not think it seemly or effective to directly confront individuals as to motives but I do think we must be more clear and directed in our opposition to their basic principles eg Christian principles as Calvin and neo-Calvinists define them and the consequences to the culture. I believe Lakhoff has addressed this, I am certain more coherently.

Thanks AitchD. It seems to get harder and harder to write coherently. Maybe I will take your inspiration. I certainly am struck that the point of blending of Rand and Calvinism is the (perverted) moral principle that those who accumulate less wealth and things are of less value according to the God of Calvin if not the evil parasites of Rand.

We’ll be celebrating a friend’s birthday later. Raspberry chocovine for all.

I cannot answer for anyone else’s motivations, but I do know what you’re talking about. And I may be “guilty” sometimes of writing too nastily about religion, esp some strains of American Christianity. Speaking only for myself, I was raised in a super rightwing fundie family. Although there is much that I owe to what I learned at church growing up – as well as from deep knowledge of the Bible – I have watched my family getting, imo, nuttier & less compassionate & waaaay more selfish & self-absorbed over the years… largely to what the indoctrination (my feelings based on observations from attending their churches & other church-related groups) they receive both at church from an addiction to such media as the 700 Club & Glenn Beck.

It’s unfair to paint US Christianity with a big paintbrush that says *all* who practice as Christians are “X.” There’s so much that falls under the umbrella of “Christianity” that generalizations are particularly odious and unfair.

But I believe that some who post here (don’t wish to put words in their mouths) may feel, as I do, complete frustration at the bullying & attacking of *some* who identify as Christians. Speaking from my personal experience, I can state that there are segments of the population who truly *believe* that it is their right & duty to harass those that they “believe” are not following the teachings of Jesus. Along with their belief that they must evangelize constantly, which amounts sometimes to very aggressively shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of those they perceive as ‘non-believers’ aka sinners.

This has led to some segments of the population also believing that ONLY their political beliefs should be adhered to (a neat trick wrought by the MOTU), which is evidenced by the Tea Partiers – esp right after Obama was elected where many ranted and tiraded about wanting “their country” back.

I’ll stop now. That’s the picture I have. It’s unfortuante to cast stones at everyone with religious beliefs bc it’s unfair and inaccurate, amongst other things.

Best to you. I get upset with my family for their narrow-minded, exclusionary & hostile viewpoints, but I’ve made a great effort to *exhibit* and *be* tolerant, even as I dislike their own *intolerance.* I always feel I’m walking on the razor’s edge there.

Happy Easter/Spring to one & all… enjoy some chocolate!!

a little sun and a deep breath and i’ve got a bit more courage to ask the question that has been plaguing me.

sorry TS, but your comment fits perfectly what i want to ask:

We really are, I think, riven by competing moralities; one that holds that all individuals in a society are valuable and contribute to the way of life of others, regardless of wealth, class, class of achievements, or particular capabilities…

The libertarians base their morality on the principle that those capable of a certain kind of wealth accumulating ability are the only legitimate heirs to a felicitious life style…

so, will someone please explain the morality of excluding those without the $45 to pay up from both information and community?

which side of the competing moralities TS describes does this action fall?

and does not a commitment to compassion and solidarity require that i stand with those on the outside?

just asking….

You speak persuasively, and I agreed with the point you made @13 about Calvanist philosophy/dogma. It’s absolutely the case. And it’s what the Prosperity Christian churches definitely preach – I know bc I’ve attended a number to find out directly. IF you are not “making it,” it’s bc you are a sinner & deserve your fate… and/or your belief in Jesus wasn’t “strong enough,” and you simply need to pray more to “get better.”

There’s nothing wrong with having faith in a higher power and attempting to adhere to scripture. But I truly feel that such Calvinist views about why some “succeed” while others may not do so well is a blight on our society and abjectly wrong.

I note that the rubber may be meeting the road in some branches of my fundie family, who lately aren’t doing so well in their businesses and financially. I am truly sorry for their plight, but they certainly cannot claim that they haven’t had enough faith.

Sad to say, it *may* take some of these types of “believers” to really hit rock bottom to *wake up* to the fact that “making it” in today’s world is not solely based on having enough faith.

I thought ‘compassion’ is a translation of the NT agapé, which was also translated as LL caritas, which became ModE ‘charity’. (Ripley’s Believe It Or Not and every good dictionary’s etymology informs us that caritas was coined from L. carus, meaning dear, beloved, esteemed, costliness, with ‘care’ as a modern cognate, and that its IE base karo- meant to like or desire, and that ‘whore’ is a modern cognate derived from Old English hore.)

Medicare, Medicaid, & Social Security aren’t compassionate programs since they rely on enlightened self-interest and, of course, are more or less compulsory.

Compassion meant loving and helping strangers, folks you don’t know, because they have need. It doesn’t mean that anymore because of linguistic and cultural drift. No big deal. It was a uniquely Christian concept at the time (The Parable Of The Good Samaritan), and the Greek word agapé was coined to express the idea.

Civilization seems to mean knowing that if you don’t cook your pork enough you could get trichinosis and die.

There’s nothing wrong with having faith in a higher power and attempting to adhere to scripture.

Depends…

That’s quite a question Selise. :-) I would prefer that there be no differentiation in participation in what I understand to be the primary mission. But of course not all services can be obtained free. I personally am willing to partially support the less able to full participation with my donations.

I also see no problem in, for a set fee, offering some special discounts on some goods and services as a profit sharing project to help fund the organization. In my case I have no access and or use for any of the offerings.

I didn’t even look at your link, but I’ll agree. It does depend… some who have faith get really carried away and a lot of “bad ju-ju” occurs.

Could be better stated to say: there’s nothing wrong with faith in a higher power and adherance to scripture if you can remain open-minded, flexible and question those who may wish to wield authority over you & others, esp in abusive ways, in the “name” of faith and religion. And so on….

Yeah, I was invited to the first FDL Internet live conference (covering the treatment of Pfc. Manning) and asked to RSVP since it’s restricted to 100 members. I replied but wouldn’t RSVP if it would take someone else’s seat at the table. I asked why it’s restricted to 100 but haven’t got a reply. I don’t begrudge the FDL corp for raising funds based on the prestige sanctification. I sure don’t consider myself a Founding Member, though I would feel proud if I had been back in the day. I’ve done zero to make FDL what it’s become. My FDL bumper sticker (came with the membership card — no t-shirt or bag, didn’t want those) adjoins my USGA bumper sticker, and from 10 feet they look like one. The USGA membership costs $25/yr and includes a US Open cap and The Rules Of Golf.

The debate is just over best ways to provide compassionate support and care for the poor and less abled. One side does not believe the poor and less fortunate deserve any help from the affluent comfortable.

It links to a very recent letter from Hitchens to Dawkins.

I personally am willing to partially support the less able to full participation with my donations.

that, i think, is the frame of pity-charity. not inclusion or solidarity. not a morality “that holds that all individuals in a society are valuable and contribute to the way of life of others, regardless of wealth, class, class of achievements, or particular capabilities”

But of course not all services can be obtained free.

but can they not also be obtained by donations which don’t differentiate between those who have donated $$ and those who have not?

(i’m not referring to the discount schemes. it’s the special closed conferences and the ability to participate in planning.)

anyway. i’ve felt the need to ask the question…. and wanted to find a thread where i could hope it wouldn’t have to be a divisive issue. this thread seemed like the right place.

Piggy-backing on Selise’s much more fundamental question, I was surprised to see that only the first 100 of the members would be on the conference call tomorrow. That didn’t seem quite fair either since the calls were advertised as a perk of membership. So, not only do you need to be a member, you also need to be fast.

I paid for a membership and it’s the first time I’ve financially supported FDL and I’m very glad I’ve done so for all the excellent news and analysis I’ve gotten for years. However, if I couldn’t afford to pay or chose other priorities for limited funds, I know I would not at all like it that I was excluded and it would probably sour me on FDL to some degree.

Here’s a link to a fine and pointed (to today’s thread) ‘incoherent’ essay when incoherence was gathering momentum in all our lives (1965), Joan Didion’s “On Morality”…

but can they not also be obtained by donations which don’t differentiate between those who have donated $$ and those who have not?

(i’m not referring to the discount schemes. it’s the special closed conferences and the ability to participate in planning.)

That’s what I was trying to say. I was thinking anonymously and not looking for a photo and thank you letter of/from a particular individual. :-) When I say partially support less able I was thinking in terms of accounting language which when determining server size etc has to be framed in terms of numbers eg if you serve a thousand persons you have to have donations that will cover all 1000.

Thanks. I did go read it afterwards.

Absolutely. The super wealthy – and their libertarian/Tea Party enablers – utterly believe the the wealthy are *in no way* responsible for anyone other than themselves. It is the Shock Doctrine writ large. As I’ve been blogging all morning, go look at any Third World country of your choosing, and you can see exactly where the USA will end up. And the rich in most 3rd world nations feel absolutely NO respon whatsoever to help the poor. The poor are there to be exploited by the rich, and that’s it. When the poor are chewed up & no longer useful, then they can go die & die quickly (and they usually do).

Our libertarian friends who like to blog here would whole-heartedly agree with this view of life and agree that aging Seniors, who somehow didn’t “plan well enough” for their retirement, should just be starved to death… it’s all they deserve according to Ayn Rand (who, duly noted, applied for and got her husband’s Soc Sec & Medicare). Go figure, but that’s what they truly believe.

Thanks. I have saved it. On skim it looks very pertinent. Thinking of “Wagon Train Morality.” I recall reading one of the early Sacramento papers pleading for people to help man the community projects helping the immigrants coming in off the trails, describing many as starving and sick. Also one of my relatives died in what Shasta City called a hospital that was more of a nursing home. In reading the minutes of some of the meetings of the board the doctor in residence passionately defended the right of all people including the Chinese to care in that community funded shelter. That was not a little part of our founding.

I happen to be among the first 100 supporters, fwiw, and I got that email about the special conf phone call. It made me a little sad. Firstly I usually don’t have the time to participate in such events – worthwhile as they are – and seconly, I don’t wish to be in some special/elitist group that gets special treatment.

I happen to have enough money to do this and am happy to support FDL (and donate for others), but I’d rather such events be open to one & all and let the first 100 who respond get to participate.

My plea to the FDL PTB would be to cease such efforts and hold them differently. I don’t want to be among some sort of “elite” group, no matter what. I have responded to my email accordingly, fwiw. I’m the sure the conf call will be interesting, but I don’t have time to participate. I hope that someone will report back on the blog to keep everyone updated.

And a musing that I would add here…esp after reading some of FDL earlier this morning….What gives so many people such a hostile and insulting view about religions of various stripes….and empowered to say very offensive things about believers, etc. I will continue to ponder and ask this question until something may make a little sense to me. Or, Maybe hardcore prejudice never makes sense. So I ponder…what provokes of much snark and in a word, mean-spiritedness.

As someone who in the interests of honesty, does have some hostile views of religion, I’ll explain why I do have them in a fairly summarized manner:

1) As a black man, and especially as a black atheist, I’ve known for a long time that a significant chunk of Christianity in particular would sincerely love it if people like me would drop off of the face of the earth-and if I don’t drop off of the face of the earth of my own accord, would cheerfully use the government and social policy to shove me off (that is, more than they’ve already done so). As a result, I feel absolutely no guilt or remorse in hating them for hating me.

2) I’m often bewildered by liberal Christianity’s unwillingness to acknowledge the sheer monstrosity of their its monstrous, conservative branch-and it’s apparent abject incapability of being willing to do whatever it takes to challenge it. This comes across as especially glaring in the statements from the original author:

“It is an absolute historical fact that hatred, bigotry and oppression always fail. They fail because they are born of human weakness. It’s compassion and human solidarity that are born in courage and strength.

This is also the lesson of virtually every faith tradition, although the lesson is mostly unheeded by religious institutions. ”

For starters, if this lesson is mostly unheeded by religious institutions (I’ll get to the nature of the lesson itself a bit later) then why doesn’t this imply that religious institutions are themselves failures?

Furthermore, I don’t think that it’s an absolute historical fact that hatred, bigotry, and oppression always fail, especially as far as the United States is concerned. How is this even remotely true in a country where half my family couldn’t even vote legally until the 1960s, and for a significant portion of its history every single legal authority of note supported degrading them and treating them as subhuman-or a nation built literally upon thousands upon thousands of dead Native Americans-when the vast majority of religious authorities here either looked the other way or treated genocide as if there was nothing wrong with it?

No doubt your anti-elitist concerns will be addressed by the FDL board members. They certainly don’t want the sort of friction you’re talking about. I agree with you. But I can imagine there are pups who want to be able to share serious concerns about policy and current events without trolls derailing the conversation or jokesters like me making distracting comments. Also, if you limit the field to 100, the lazy cynics won’t RSVP.

You’re right, but try not to hate, it will make you ill and eat you alive. Despise if you must or abhor, that’s different.

i didn’t mean to challenge anyone else’s decisions, just to ask about one part of my own…. that is all.

I hear you selise. It’s very complicated and while I understand the financial decisions and it is very much in keeping with FDL’s long journey to be self-sustaining and the obvious value we all place on that … these dynamics will definitely impact community at FDL. You surely speak for many here by raising these concerns. Your raising these concerns is part of the first step towards resolving/absorbing these concerns among the community members here … and all this may lead to a significant evolution of the community dynamic at FDL. I am not a member and I’m not so worried about it anymore, although I do understand the financial requirements.

I also believe that community at FDL will continue and I will continue to enjoy it, although it may indeed change.

t I do think we must be more clear and directed in our opposition to their basic principles eg Christian principles as Calvin and neo-Calvinists define them and the consequences to the culture.

There’s a “Christian” campaign that I find particularly insidious. There are TONS of ads — both print & radio/tv — from the “Foundation for a Better Life/ values.com.”

They tell these saccharine stories about someone who “succeeded” after losing a foot or whatever. And then there’s some tag line about “perseverance: pass it on.”

To me the message of these little ditties is, “see, this person pulled him/herself up by her bootstraps. That’s what everyone should be doing.”

There’s never a “we’re all in this together” or “let’s help each other,” just a glorification of those Calvinist values [faith + hard work].

Although not apparent on the surface, a little digging shows that this idea/site is supported by right wingers.

Beautiful piece. (Or, as The Replacements’ song by Paul Westerberg would put it, “Sadly Beautiful”.)

One small niggle (and I feel nerdish in the extreme in even pointing it out)–”What’s So Funny” was written in 1974, but for Nick’s band at the time, Brinsley Schwarz, for the LP “The New Favourites Of Brinsley Schwarz”. Elvis Costello was still plain old Declan MacManus in 1973…it wasn’t until 1979 that “Armed Forces” came out (and “What’s So Funny” wasn’t even on the original UK release) with the Elvis version. Actually, the debut of the Costello version was as the B-side of Nick’s 45 “American Squirm”, credited to “Nick Lowe And His Sound”.

Like I said, *big* nerd, especially for Nick, Elvis, Rockpile and all of their assorted offshoots.

But again, great post…I always look forward to reading your work.

Thanks for your response. FWIW, I don’t care about limiting such events to 100, as I agree that to have any kind of reasonable discussion, the numbers have to be limited… otherwise, you need a convention.

But I take your comment about attempting to keep the trolls/derailers out of the conversation. I hadn’t considered that, and i agree that’s important. So, ok.

I am very willing and encouraging to have commenters regularly comment here, who have differing opinions and ideas. Whether conservative, libertarian or whatever: great. Keep posting.

But we all know that some who comment regularly often have little in the way of true “ideas” or information to pass on. They are just about derailing the “conversation.” Waste of time, in other words. Are such commenters paid by rightwing think tanks to do just that? Possibly. We do know that there are such things a sock puppets.

So, alright: limit the conversation. but I wish there was a way, somehow, to make it more open to those who are sincere in wishing to participate honestly and fairly. Just saying… may not be possible.

I’m often bewildered by liberal Christianity’s unwillingness to acknowledge the sheer monstrosity of their its monstrous, conservative branch-and it’s apparent abject incapability of being willing to do whatever it takes to challenge it.

I agree with you. Coming back much later just to endorse what you said.

There are some here who are (as is their right) very sensitive to those who may make perceived nasty/ugly comments about Christianity. It’s fair to call out someone, esp if you make a good point about what they’ve just posted as being dehumanizing, unfair, uncalled for or whatever.

But I, too, am less than impressed by those of Christian faith who profess to being liberal/progressive – who continue to refuse (apparantly) to call out the rightwing Christian Church for their clear abdication from following the teachings of the prophet Jesus, whom they claim to follow.

The rightwing so-called “Christian” church has clearly been co-opted by the corp. plutocracy in order to mis-lead the parishoners into voting in certain ways, as well as to be complaint and complacent about how the govt is run and how citizens are (mis)treated in our society.

I have seen some writings by some liberal Christians, who call out the rightwing fundie movement for its (mis)behavior, but I sure don’t see it very much. I realize that the corp-owned rightwing media does play a role here in suppressing any Christian viewpoints that dissent from the rightwing so-called mainstream Christian church.

Yet when I’ve tried hard to identify that what I’m angry about is the co-oped rightwing fundamentalist movement – and certainly not *all* Christians – I still feel a pushback from some, who don’t wish to hear any criticism of Christianity no matter what (or so it seems to me).

I think every philosophy/dogma/group/organization/church/political party/etc should be able to withstand criticism – whether caustic or constructive. If it cannot, then that group needs to examine why it cannot withstand the criticism. Perhaps there’s something wrong???

Amen to your point. I agree.