You can see the ad here, and spazeboy's commentary here. For regular updates on the Lieberman/Lamont contest, remember to check out My Left Nutmeg. (Right now, the top post there is a video of Rep. Maxine Waters at DemocracyFest. Does anyone know where there are photos or video of Howard at DemFest?)
And don't forget that you can donate to Ned Lamont here.
Alternate link for comments
More DeanFest pictures here. Did anyone get a good picture of Howard?
Update: Not wanting to be completely left out of the Dean community fun, and being in the Chicago area for a family reunion, we got together with Donna and Bill. As evidence, we offer this picture of Donna with her famous sea glass.
Alternate link for comments
Here's a kitten fix from our friends at Cute Overload
Traveling Mercies to those en route, and to all a good night.
Alternate link to comments.
Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder." It does not say, "You shall not kill." What is the difference? The original Hebrew conveys the idea of laying-in-wait, what we would call 1st degree murder. Further illuminating the idea of this passage is the case law that followed it, the practical application of the Ten Commandments. Consider Exodus 21:12-14. This is a clarification of the "You shall not murder" command, highlighting the point that the prohibition is against, contemporarily speaking, sneaking up on somebody and shooting him in the back of the head. On the other hand, if they happen to encounter each other and get into a fight and one dies (2nd or 3rd degree murder), the survivor was to go to a safe haven where no vendetta could be carried out against him. The point here is fairness - do not sneak up on someone to kill him but give him a fighting chance by dealing with him face-to-face, man-to-man. The point here is justice, doing that which is just.
We see even more clearly that God was not prohibiting all taking of human life by His reaction to the Israelites' apostasy a few chapters later in Exodus 32:25-29. Clearly, God didn't have a problem with men killing other men.
But that's the Old Testament, what about the New? What about the Sermon on the Mount? Could Jesus have been any clearer on the pacifistic nature of the believer? The truth is that we must interpret Jesus' words as He intended them in this passage - hyperbolically. Hyperbole is exaggeration for effect, a literary device used to draw attention to an important point. When a suitor tell his lover, "I'll die if I don't see you today" he is exaggerating to make the point that he wants to see her. He knows that he is exaggerating and she knows that he is exaggerating. However, when the doctor calls you and says, "You'll die if I don't see you today," that is not hyperbole and you'd better take that literally.
So how can we tell the difference? One way is to see if literal interpretation would achieve the stated objective. Consider the passage just before the "eye-for-an-eye" section, Matthew 5:27-37. Would ripping out your eye keep you from lusting? Would cutting off your hand keep you from committing adultery? How long would it take for all of society to be handless and eyeless? Days? Minutes? Seconds? Is that the objective of the passage? Obviously not. Furthermore, where in the New Testament do we see anyone plucking out eyes or cutting off hands? Did those who heard these words of Jesus interpret them literally or did they understand them to be hyperbolic?
How does divorcing one's wife make her to commit adultery? Does the simple fact that her husband left her make her an adulteress? Again, this is hyperbole. Marrying one who has been divorced would be adultery if the previous man were still considered to be her husband, however Jesus seemed to take a different view with the Samaritan woman in John 4. If Jesus took the position that only her first husband was her true husband then in verses 17-18 He should have said, "You have incorrectly said, 'I have no husband' for you have broken faith with the husband of your youth and have been with five different men since leaving your husband." However, that is not what Jesus said. Jesus actually affirmed the fact that she had no husband in verse 17. If she has no husband then she does not commit adultery when she marries someone. Clearly, Matthew 5:31-32 is hyperbole as well.
Was Jesus against oaths? When He was brought before the High Priest he said not a word. However, when the High Priest put him under oath, Jesus responded. Look at Matthew 26:62-64. Jesus broke His silence because He was placed under oath and He respected it. Jesus' teaching was not that oaths were invalid but that their use to obfuscate commitments was invalid. Look at Jesus' correction of the Pharisaic abuse of oaths in Matthew 23. Jesus' teaching on oaths was not that oaths were innately wrong but that men must not try to weasel out of their commitments. Jesus' teaching on divorce was not that divorce is the unpardonable sin but that men ought not divorce their wives. Jesus teaching on lust was not that men ought to mutilate themselves but that they should control themselves. Jesus used hyperbole to communicate these truths in this section of the Sermon on the Mount as He continued to the end of the chapter.
Jesus was also correcting the additions to the Law and misinterpretations of the Law by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes. The concept of "Eye for an Eye" had been mangled from its original intent of proportionality. Look at Exodus 21:22-25:
If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.This clear command for proportionality in justice had been misrepresented to mean that each person is entitled to personally seek vengeance for any and every wrong suffered. Jesus demolished this misrepresentation by saying that not only do you not avenge yourself eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but instead you turn the other cheek - exposing your other eye and the rest of your teeth. Jesus used hyperbole to expose the wrongness of the teachings of the teachers of the Law.
The teachers of the Law also misrepresented the command to love your neighbor by adding, "and hate your enemy." Jesus wiped this one clean by retorting directly, not hyperbolically, that we must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. He proceeds to explain why we should do this in verses 45-48, ending the section of hyperbole as He moved into a mode of didactic teaching. Thus, the passiveness inferred by pacifists from this passage is not a norm for all of life. We are to love our enemies and pray for those who would bring us harm, but we are also to defend ourselves.
Consider Luke 22:35-38:
And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."Did Jesus tell them to get rid of their swords? No. Did Jesus remind them about turning the other cheek? No. Jesus said, "It is enough." There is debate over the exact meaning of this passage, but one thing is clear: Jesus did not oppose self-defense here. Even in the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus rebuked Peter for attacking the servants of the High Priest Jesus notes that He could call legions of angels to fight for his defense. Look at Matthew 26:52-54:
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?"Jesus said that he could have angels fight on His behalf if He so chose - clearly not a passive or pacifistic statement. The pacifist will undoubtedly point out verse 52b, "for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." Once again, we see hyperbole at work. Obviously, there are those who have made a living by means of the sword and have died fat and happy; Joseph Stalin is one example out of many. Generally speaking, however, taking up the sword long-term is hazardous to one's health - especially when taking up the sword against the strongest military power in the world, as the 1st century Jews were beginning to do. They felt the brunt of the truth of Jesus' words in 70 AD when Rome sacked Jerusalem and over 1 million people died. So the question remains, "Is it ever just to take up the sword?"
What about Paul's words on the subject? Unfortunately, Paul's words are often taken so far out of context that Paul would probably have trouble recognizing them himself. The passage that says, "for though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh" is usually quoted in isolation from its context. Look at the whole context:
Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ-- I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! I ask that when I am present I need not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.In context Paul is talking about correcting ignorant speculations and beliefs about God. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with pacifism. It has everything to do with discipleship. How about the passage in Romans 12:17-21? Verse 18 is as conditional a statement as you will ever find, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." "If possible" - it may not be possible. "So far as it depends on you" - you may not have a choice. A straightforward reading of the passage gives the clear meaning - do not cause trouble.
Furthermore, if bearing the sword were inherently evil, i.e. sinful, then Jesus would never be presented in that fashion. In Revelation 19:11-16 John sees the conquering Christ:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."Is Jesus ever portrayed as a murderer? Of course not, because murder is innately wrong. Is Jesus ever portrayed as an adulterer? Of course not, because adultery is innately wrong. Is Jesus ever portrayed as a thief? No - his return is portrayed as a thief comes at night, i.e. stealthily, but Jesus is never compared to the thief himself. Notice that the passages that refer to Jesus' return being as "a thief in the night" never talk about Jesus stealing anything. Yet in this passage in Revelation Jesus is presented as a warrior who strikes down the nations. If bearing the sword in this fashion were innately evil and sinful then Jesus would never be presented in this fashion. Moreover, one of the highest words of praise that Jesus had for any human being was for a soldier in Matthew 8:5-10:
And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented." Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."If Jesus was a pacifist then He certainly would have taken a moment to make a point here, yet He did not. One of the first Gentiles to convert to Christianity was a centurion and his household, and the man after God's own heart, King David, bore the sword to significant success. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament confirm the fact that there are times when it is just to take up the sword - the Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever - so clearly, pacifism is not mandated from the Bible.Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel."
Hi, all -
Just home from hearing Howard speak at DemFest...
He was amazing. Vintage Howard and yet somehow even more comfortable with his role and his mission than he ever was. He was relaxed, confident, serious and funny at appropriate times, self-deprecating, and gracious in his praise of all of us and all we do...
Howard listed what the Democratic Platform would be for the next election cycle.
1 - Truth in Government
2 - Strong Defense (a REAL strong defense)
3 - Health Care for All - and yes, he did mention Costa Rica
4 - Education that really doesn't leave any children behind
5 - Jobs for America starting with suppporting devolopment of resources for energy sufficiency using renewable sources
...He was sensational.
One last memory I have of Howard's speech. Towards the end he asked us, "Do you know what Americans really want from their government?" He paused half a second and someone called out "Truth and Love!" Howard responded, "That's an interesting way to phrase it, but that's right. People want to know that their government will tell them the truth and respect them enough to care about working with all of them instead of trying to divide them."
Mind you, I'm sure I've butchered the exact wording here, but I believe I've got the sentiment right.
From Renee--thanks *so* much for the report, tc. And don't feel bad for not transcribing it. I went to the first two DeanFests *before* I had my voice recorder, and couldn't remember squat of what he said after the fact. And for the Crushies, I couldn't remember what tie he was wearing either. ;-)
Alternate link for comments
Bummed that we can't make it this year, so I'm looking forward to lots of great reports from DeanFest III attendees. As I mentioned earlier, there is a moblog available for people who are capable of sending pictures from their phones. I've given the posting details to TeaTimeTim, Denise, Thankful, and puddle. The link to the arrival and planning thread is in the sidebar at the regular Howard-Empowered People blog, and I've also posted it at the emergency backup blog at Wordpress. It's a huge file and takes a long time to load, but here's a link to our DeanFest II memories.
Well, have fun, everyone--and check in when you can!
Welcome to the first OPEN THREAD posted by listener
who really has no idear what she's doing,
but knows you gotta start somewhere!
So here (if it works) is a photo of SUNSET
since the sun is probably setting out on the left coast right now
where many beloved bloggers are gathering for DEANFEST III.
Remember to come by and post, folks!
Alternate link for comments
More kitteny cuteness from Cute Overload.
Traveling mercies to all who are on the road or in the air. (If you're driving, you might want to check out this site for roadside attractions along the way.) Click here for the DeanFest arrivals/planning thread--I've also placed it in the right sidebar where the "buy tickets to DemocracyFest" link used to be, so it's easy to find. There's also a moblog page here that I've made available for DeanFesters to send pictures to.
Just a few more odds and ends. Demetrius made a few new bumper stickers, and we've added an e-mail address to our CafePress shop, so if you have any specific requests, you can e-mail him. You can find products by Demetrius and jc, as well as the National Nurse and Disabled Americans for Democracy schwag on our affiliate sites page.
Update: The Daily Show did a bit on Ted Stevens and his clogged internet tubes. (Somebody made a t-shirt, by the way.)You don't want to miss this.
Also, I've done a boatload of transcripts at my Religious Left blog, and I just gathered all the links into one post. Click if you're interested.
Alternate link for comments
Wow. I knew from reporters who asked me about telling Joe Lieberman he is a fair-weather Democrat that some of his staffers were saying I was a Lamont campaign plant. According to the New York Observer, though, Lieberman himself was pissed enough to call me a plant himself:More here. For anyone who missed it, here is the account Maura posted the other night about what happened. You might also want to check out these posts at My Left Nutmeg while you're there:
Joe Lieberman was incensed.
He'd just been confronted at a campaign event for Irish supporters in his hometown of Stamford, Conn., by a woman who lectured him about his lack of commitment to the Democratic Party.
"She was a plant," said Mr. Lieberman, complaining to two campaign staffers in the parking lot behind the Irish Tigin Pub. "It was a set-up."
This, writ small, is what has become of Mr. Lieberman's political career.
On June 28 I posted "Anglicanism for Dummies", prefacing it with...
For anyone not familiar with the "Idiot's Guide to--" and the "for Dummies" series of books, they both capitalize on the peoples' desire for an unintimidating introduction to a topic they admittedly know *nothing* about. If you pick up a book with a title like that, you can trust that you will be introduced to the topic, whatever it is, without any assumption on the writer's part that you know *anything* about the subject at hand.
I would need an Idiot's Guide to Understanding How Football Games Work, for example. That is, if I was interested in learning, that is, which I'm not. But then, I don't *pretend* to know how football games work, or how poker is played, or whatever--while insisting on debating those topics with people and expecting my views to be seen as just as valid as the so-called "experts".
Via Alternet, it's DJ Ted Stevens Techno Remix "Series of Tubes"...
The Bold Headed Broadcast would like to thank Sen. Ted Stevens for providing the online world with such an amazing sound bite this week. It's a skillful fusion of political doublespeak and perplexing ignorance on how the Internet works. In his honor, we've remixed the most amusing gems from his illuminating perspective of the Internet and remixed it into a techno track for the world to enjoy.
Title updated in response to some comments to my Kos diary, noting that this really was an example of extortion more than blackmail.
I don't know how I missed this before, but something finally clicked for me this morning as I was reading DFA-Marin's letter to Barbara Boxer, pleading with her not to campaign for Joe Lieberman.
Right after Joe Lieberman announced his intention to run as an independent even if he loses the Democratic primary, we started to hear reports of which prominent Democrats declared they would support whichever candidate won the primary. Maybe it's because I was so preoccupied with another blog at the time, but somehow, when I heard those statements from people like Hillary Clinton and others, I was initially satisfied with their responses. But when I read the letter asking Barbara Boxer not to campaign for Lieberman, I realized that leading Democrats were only being asked who they would support *after* the primary. In light of Lieberman's not-so-veiled threat to be a spoiler should he lose the primary, no prominent Democrat reward that kind of behavior with an endorsement. They certainly shouldn't be campaigning for him.
Read this exchange between our Maura Keaney and the senator from Connecticut.
"My dad was a very loyal Democrat until he died. You mentioned how Irish American Democrats are great supporters because they're not fair-weather friends, and I totally agree. So why are you being a fair-weather Democrat, saying you'll only respect the results of the Democratic primary if you win?"Time and time again, Joe Lieberman has been asked why he will not support the nominee, and he has not given a satisfactory answer. Would people have accepted this from Howard Dean when he lost to Kerry in the primaries? Even Paul Hackett, who has taken some criticism for being a sore loser and not endorsing Sherrod Brown right away, has *always* said he would vote for the guy.
All of a sudden I found myself with a bunch of microphones in my face. Joe looked slightly stunned, and then started in on his usual talking points about how he wants even more Democrats to have a chance to vote for him in November and that not all Democrats know that they have to come out for a "hot day in August".
I said, "Don't you think Connecticut Democrats are smart enough to know on what day to vote?"
He said, "I hope so" and then started to wave me off.
I forget exactly what words I said after that (there is video and audio out there somewhere) but I said something like, "Look, if you win the Democratic primary, I'll be supporting you and I wish you would agree to support the winner, too" and he said, "Well, let's make sure I win in August, then!" and waved me away..."
All three parts of Charlie's speech can be found as a single post here. And Charlie has added some alternative video formats here for anyone who was unable to get the Quicktime version to play.
Now my second set of Es, I'm going to give to you very quickly. These are the more traditional, policy-oriented ones. And the three most important important ones that I think--and they're not exclusive--but energy, environment, and employment.
We all know what we are doing to this nation and to this world by our dependence upon fossil fuels. Why cannot we as a state lead the nation in creating new jobs and new technologies to bring *new* alternative sources of energy into reality? (Cheers and applause.) And that ties right hand in hand with the environment, which used to be this state's number one resource, and our number one source of income. And yet we are letting that heritage just be destroyed left and right, as south Florida's developers move up here, as they no longer have lands to exploit down there. This is the last bastion of what was left of Florida once, and we have a duty to fight to preserve it. (Cheers and applause).
And last but not least is employment because we constantly hear both Democrats and Republicans talking about jobs, and bringing Wal*Mart and "big box" stores from Bentenville, Arkansas, and telling you to give $2 million, $5 million, a billion dollars in tax benefits and exemptions to these multi-million dollar corporations. They can afford to come here and give us jobs on their own--they don't need our subsidies! Why don't we invest in ourselves? Employment should mean *ownership*, not a system where we are robbin' the hood, stealing from the poor to give to the rich through our tax dollars.
The Republicans call it when you give it directly to the people, redistribution and socialism, but somehow, if we put a corporate middleman, it becomes acceptable, and legitimate, and the American way?! That's nonsense! We need to take back the language and the rhetoric of our country.
The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the game that politics has become, and the only solution to this, locally, state, and nationally, is to stop playing the electioneering game, and start standing up and fighting for your rights, and that means you as citizens, and anybody running for office, and let's join together, as a team, to take back this country. Let's remember that Democracy is when the people rule for the common and public good, not for the private interests of the few. Let's remember that citizenship is, indeed, the highest office. And I encourage each and every one of you to go by my booth and pick up a card about the Alachua Project, because let's start taking back our country one city at a time!
Part 1
Part 2
Alternate link for comments
Let me diverge for a second and do something that's more typical of a campaign speech, and tell you what I'm for. Now, most people have platforms. And there's a sort of game politicians play. I'm a political scientist so I certainly know about the whole way of electioneering to get into office--something, by the way, that our founders *feared*, and wanted to set up up on a different model.
And "they" say, "Only give the people three things, because that's all they can handle". Well, I believe you can handle a little bit more than that, so I have what I call "The 6 Es". These are the things that I stand for aggressively, firmly, and without hesitation. Now, they're not everything, but I believe that these are the most important.
And the first set of three are the ones that almost no one in government office is standing up and fighting for, and they are the most important. And that is ethics, education, and empowerment. That is the foundation of a good form of government. In the state of Florida, we have a very powerful ethics law adopted by the people via a consititutional amendment, yet it has been eroded and ignored. We have the foxes guarding the henhouse in our ethics commission. This is intolerable.
We have a famous "sunshine" set of laws, open government and public records laws, and they are under attack. They are ignored in local government. They are destroyed in the state legislature, and the governor doesn't care one thing about your right to be part of the process. They look at you as subjects, not as citizens.
And the most important thing for a citizenry is education. If we cannot understand how to critically evaluate arguments and concepts, if we don't know our own history, if we don't know the principles of our government, how are we supposed to defend them as citizens. Forty-eighth in the nation in one of the largest, wealthiest, fastest-growing states is simply unacceptable! (Applause.) Teachers are not the problem, students are not the problem, and the schools are not the problem. The problem lies in Tallahassee, and yes, the problem also lies with us, because we allow the people in Tallahassee to neglect their responsibilities. We need to stand up and made education a top priority. I am here to fight to make this the education state.
Empowerment. Well that gets to the heart of it. That's what it means to be a citizen. It means that your voice is heard. It means that your voice is part of the process. Yet we in the state of Florida are known for what? Fraudulent elections. We're known for it from 2000 to 2004 and those of you who know what's going on in Alachua have seen that it goes on to this day.
This is intolerable! Do you know that in the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that you, the people, do not have a right to vote for the President of the United States, constitutionally guaranteed? Why do we have flag burning amendments, gay marriage amendments--why don't we have a Right to Vote Amendment? (Applause) I mean, think about it, *that's* what the amendments to the Constitution are supposed to be about!
We the people need to become empowered in order to rule again, and we need leaders in Tallahassee and Washington D.C. who will help us get there.
Part 3, the second set of Es Charlie mentioned, will be up later tonight.
Alternate link for comments
Let me just start this afternoon or this evening by answering the question that almost every candidate gets asked by almost every person first. And that is "Why are you running for office?" And the answer I give is actually quite simple: We are in trouble. This nation, this state, this county, this community is in real trouble.
I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a war going on. And I don't mean the war in Iraq. I mean the war for the future, and for the meaning of our country. A war that is taking place in Washington D.C., across this country, and right here in your back yards.
Two hundred and thirty years ago last week, we celebrated our nation's declaring independence from a tyrannical government. Yesterday's patriots stood up--they were called "troublemakers", and they fought for what they believed in, and they fought for what was right. And they established in this country what was intended to be a democratic form of government where we the people rule.
Today's patriots are not those who will defer, as in a deferential society, to your corrupt or influential "betters"--those who claim to be your rulers. We are not subjects in this nation, we are citizens. (Applause and cheers.) We have to be active participants. We have to be treated equally and fairly and we *must* have a voice in the process.
Today's patriots are those who will stand up and fight to restore what this country did 230 years ago. In this country, the *citizen* is the highest political office. (Applause). That's why I'm running. Because I take the role of citizen--I take the duties of citizenship--to right for our rights, to fight for *others'* rights, to defend what we have established. Our rights, and our freedom, must be struggled for eternally, or else we will lose them.
Alternate link for comments
From Charlie, in the comments of the previous thread...
Morning - still free, but still an outlaw!
Just checking in.
About to load up a video of my speech yesterday to the Alachua County Democratic Party's holiday picnic.
Check it out. Tell me what you think (I can take critical feedback).
--
OK - if you go to the Alachua Project (click homepage) you can see a link to a quicktime video of my speech yesterday.
Please take a look - this is the first video we have hosted there - and I am working on perfecting it.
Let me know if it works - and what you think.
Charlie Grapski | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 2:05 pm
--
You guys are great. Really great. I cannot express my incredible gratitude to all of you - and my feeling of being incredibly lucky to have become part of this community. I really mean this - but cannot put into words my feelings accurately.
I checked with Connie - and she said the video is working for her - although it takes some time to download (I am working on getting the streaming function going - and some other alterations to this - but want to make sure it is playable as is right now).
So you guys can be my beta-testers!
Charlie
Click the picture above and see if it works. You might try downloading it (save as) to watch it offline.
Alternate link for comments
UPDATE: Apparently Paul Hackett is going to endorse Sherrod Brown. Watching for more details--that sure didn't seem like a likely outcome when Hackett did this interview in May.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Please recommend this Kos diary about Wednesday's DemFest deadline, and crosspost the link wherever you can.
Here's another picture from Tai Shan's birthday celebration. I was wondering what kind of cake would be appropriate for a panda. Apparently it's a fruit and ice treat.
Here's the CBS story about his birthday.
For anyone who was wondering about Charlie, he posted an update in the overnight thread.
I'm continuing to post parts of recent interviews with Katharine Jefferts Schori--the Presiding Bishop Elect of the Episcopal Church here. One of the segments, I posted as a diary entitled "Some thoughts on marriage" at Street Prophets, My Left Wing, and Daily Kos.
An Inch at a Time has a post about KJS today as well, from an interview she did with Time Magazine.
I've also got a partial transcript here of a video done by the Episcopal group Claiming the Blessing. There are some personal testimonies from same sex couples about what it meant to them to have their unions blessed in front of a congregation to which they belong.
As I mentioned here, I'm updating the affiliate sites page. Let me know if there's anything I should add.
Also, if you'd like to become a front page poster here at Howad-Empowered People, please send me an e-mail at howardempowered(at)gmail.com.
Alternate link for comments
The Third Annual DemocracyFest will take place July 14-16, in San Diego, CA.
You must purchase your meals, lodging, and/or ticket packages by NOON on WEDNESDAY JULY 12th!
This deadline applies to both meals, all lodging, and all ticket package purchases:
Saturday Night Dinner: Choice of Mexican Fiesta or Barn Buster BBQ,
Sunday Morning Bloggers Breakfast.
On Campus Single or Double Rooms
The Whole Enchilada ticket package includes ALL events, lodging, and meals for a regular weekend stay: - Lodging for Friday and Saturday nights - Friday, Saturday and Sunday trainings, panels, and speakers - Saturday night BBQ - Saturday Night Blowout - Sunday Blogger's Breakfast - Only $245 per person!
The Enchilada Grande ticket package includes ALL events, lodging, and meals for an extended weekend stay: - Lodging for Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights - Friday, Saturday and Sunday trainings, panels, and speakers - Saturday night BBQ - Saturday Night Blowout - Sunday Blogger's Breakfast - Only $365 per person!
Alternate link for comments
Our favorite panda baby turns one year old today!
We don't officially have a blog mascot here at Howard-Empowered People, but I think Tai Shan is at least our *unofficial* mascot. SusanD wrote about him in Pandas and Puppies and Kittens, Oh My! way back on May 9, and before that we talked about him a lot in the comments, reporting on the cute things we'd seen him doing on the National Zoo's "Panda-Cam".
I know there's all sorts of heavy, depressing stuff we could be talking about, and all sorts of activism that must be done. but just for the moment I'm going to embrace the cuteness, succumb to the "Awwww!" factor, and say Happy Birthday to this adorable 56-pound toddler!
Alternate link for comments
Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For,A couple weeks ago Senator Barak Obama spoke at the Call to Renewal Conference sponsored by Sojourners made some poignant points about the thorny issue of religion and progressive politics. Senator Obama gave his personal testimony, detailing his journey from skepticism to faith in Jesus Christ (something, by the way, that we are yet to hear from a certain president - "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible"), giving the reason for the hope that he has in Christ Jesus our Lord. This is what all Christians are called to do - with gentleness and respect - so that people will have to address the claims of Christ and not our behavior.Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from deceitful speech.
He must turn from evil and do good;
he must seek peace and pursue it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.
Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
The other day I was saying, I always try to do a little converting when I'm in jail. And when we were in jail in Birmingham the other day, the white wardens and all enjoyed coming around the cell to talk about the race problem. And they were showing us where we were so wrong demonstrating. And they were showing us where segregation was so right. And they were showing us where intermarriage was so wrong. So I would get to preaching, and we would get to talking -- calmly, because they wanted to talk about it. And then we got down one day to the point -- that was the second or third day -- to talk about where they lived, and how much they were earning. And when those brothers told me what they were earning, I said, "Now, you know what? You ought to be marching with us. You're just as poor as Negroes." And I said, "You are put in the position of supporting your oppressor, because through prejudice and blindness, you fail to see that the same forces that oppress Negroes in American society oppress poor white people. And all you are living on is the satisfaction of your skin being white, and the drum major instinct of thinking that you are somebody big because you are white. And you're so poor you can't send your children to school. You ought to be out here marching with every one of us every time we have a march."
Now that's a fact. That the poor white has been put into this position, where through blindness and prejudice, he is forced to support his oppressors. And the only thing he has going for him is the false feeling that he's superior because his skin is white -- and can't hardly eat and make his ends meet week in and week out.
When they come together--they come together a couple of times a year, one of the places is off the Hawaiian islands. They come together for a time, and while they are together, they learn a new song. Each of their individual songs changes, and they begin to sing a common tune. When they go home again, they teach that song to their neighbors in their home localities, and over the coming months, that song changes again. And the next time they come back together, they learn a new song together.More from the Presiding Bishop Elect of the Episcopal Church here. Something that impressed me from the most recent interview I listened to, is that she was a trailblazer as a female oceanographer twenty-some years ago. Facing resistance is not a new experience for her.
From mainefem...
Please add Jean Hay Bright D-ME) for U.S. Senate, also, Renee? Done. And she's listed on the Howard-Empowered Act Blue page as well.
She has zilch seed monies--had to run in a primary w/a good-enough progressive Dem. (won it by a mere 600 votes--disgustingly low turnout in the primary!); so is starting over from scratch.
David & Jean are down in So. ME today (Lisbon/Lewiston area), and there's very little WiFi up here; which makes blogging dicey (she did start an account on Booman; and is ready to diary on Kos--but does have pricey DSL @her home/office on the farm--according to what David told me--her hubster, treasurer, campaign mgr., and all 'round utility person)!
Blogging while stumping up here is difficult--due to the rural nature of ME (high speed internet access is an issue up here, for sure).
Snowe has over $2M in her coffers.
Snowe must be a tad nervous, as she's already opened a campaign office/hired staff in Bangor--that's unheard of--candidates always have their main offices in Portland (and if Snowe is that 'secure' in her position, she wouldn't have bothered--esp. this early on).
So, Snowe is indeed concerned about at least CD#2 (which comprises the vast nature of ME's geography/voter demographics, actually).
Jean does openly list her F.E.C. monies on her portal; and no--she does not/will not waste people's hard-earned monies on "consultants."
Nada.
She's very frugal (same as yours truly!)--is cognizant about snail mail contributions as more desirable (very patient person), as the campaign doesn't have to deduct the credit card "processing fees."
Maine has clean elections monies, but *not* for federal candidates (otherwise, Jean would gladly opt for that route--we've worked diligently over the years to initiate and maintain the clean elections' coffers--it ain't easy)!
They only cover state legislative candidates, local/municipal/county positions, and Gubernatorial.
Boxer has her listed on PAC for Change; and I absolutely don't know why Boxer has listed Bob Casey as "progressive." Blows my mind--i.e., how Dems. across the country are coopting the word "progressive" (DLC is notorious for doing that, for instance).
Progressive female Democratic candidates don't win races, as the seed monies simply aren't there (which is why Emily's List exists), but they don't focus upon *progressive* female Dems.
Bob Fertik (over @ImpeachPAC) did endorse Jean re: his PAC, so that was a boost when she needed it after the primary (flat broke).
From Renee: I also added the other suggested candidates from the comments to the sidebar, but have not yet added them to the Act Blue page. Patience, grasshoppers. ;-)
Alternate link for comments
There's an old saying about biting off more than you can chew that would have done this python some good in the Everglades - he learned the meaning of Pyrrhic Victory tout de suite. Now for the comics:
He was just on, and CNN's transcript can be found here. For those who missed it--I missed the beginning of it myself--Howard said pretty much what we expected Howard to say about the Lieberman/Lamont race.
KING: Well, I want to talk to you for a few minutes about what it means to be a Democrat. As you know, Senator Joseph Lieberman faces a primary challenge in his home state of Connecticut. Senator Lieberman's position seems to be, I'm a good Democrat unless someone dares to challenge me in the primary, then I reserve the right to get on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate.Back with a picture of Howard for this thread--how about "people-powered" Howard from the DNC's 50-state Canvass...
Right now, is that a loyal Democrat? Is Joe Lieberman welcome in the Democratic Party, assuming he loses the primary, but wins the election?
DEAN: We don't get involved in primaries, the Democratic National Committee. Others can do that if they want to. We don't do that. We have to be an impartial arbitrator. What we do do is support Democrats and try to get Democrats to win.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: So help me. Let me just, let me ...
DEAN: And John, we allow the voters to decide who is a Democrat, so whoever the voters choose in Connecticut is who we're going to support.
KING: And would you then lean on the senatorial committee and use Democratic National Committee funds, if necessary, should Ned Lamont, if he beats Joe Lieberman in the primary, get financial support? Should Chairman Dean go up there and campaign for him? Should Democrats who are friends of Joe Lieberman go up there and campaign for him?
DEAN: John, I'm going to campaign for the Democratic nominee, and if it's Joe Lieberman, you're going to see me alongside Joe Lieberman. If it's Ned Lamont, you're going to see me alongside Ned Lamont. We don't get involved in primaries. We do support the Democratic nominee chosen by the people in the Democratic Party in Connecticut.
Since people have stopped by over the past week and asked what's going on with Blog for America, I thought I should say something about that on the front page here. However, I haven't been following it too closely between being busy and finding it harder to follow what's going on there since the commenting moved to DFA-link. But I can at least frontpage the questions and answers from the comments so that they are easier to find. If I am leaving anything out, you can let me know in the comments.
Oh, I just went over to the other blog and if I read it correctly (big if) there's not going to be a blog with comments any more unless you sign up for DFA Link, and that's where you'll go to comment. I can't tell if this is a big change or no big deal. But I'll be annoyed if I sign up and get spammed.
Shelley | 07.06.06 - 10:34 pm
Well, that leaves me out because my DFA link name is not my blog name.
I wrote and asked them how to change it,
but so far no response.
listener | Homepage | 07.07.06 - 11:20 am
You just have to go into your profile and change your name to your blog name. If you want a one-word blog name just enter a single (blank) space as your last name.
Demetrius | 07.07.06 - 11:37 am
Thanks Demetrius.
This just in, as well.
(I wonder if Luigi lurks here. Hi Luigi! )
You can navigate to "My Account" on the right side of the page and "Contact Info". Here, you can change your name to whatever you want it to be (you can put listener as the first name, and just a blank space as the last name)
- Luigi Montanez
Deputy Technology Director
listener | Homepage | 07.07.06 - 11:39 am
Now for the request. Since I am now blessed with some "time off" from work before the next project (other people are happy about it, but I'd just as soon be working), I am updating the Affiliate Sites page. I'm removing most of the links from the bottom of the page like iTunes, Netflix, etc. because those are all through Linkshare which has proved to be way too high maintenance for the benefit I've gotten out of it. So I'm planning to replace those links with links to products at Cafe Press, like jc's and the ones at the National Nurse and Disabled Americans for Democracy stores. Any others I should add? Also, I would like to add more links to specific books, and would welcome any recommendations.
Alternate link for comments
Between Lieberman and his bad attitude, and Ted Stevens and his "tubes" (ultimately very serious even though we've gotten a laugh out of it) it's feeling like a "bad wolf" kinda night. So now you're going to get some Bishop Katharine.
More from Diane Rehm's interview with Presiding Bishop Elect Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Diane Rehm asks Katharine Jefferts Schori if she feels able to speak out on political issues, or if she is restrained in some way.
Katharine Jefferts Schori: I've made major statements about the Federal Budget the last time around, and on immigration issues. The church has a voice to contribute to the conversation, and I think it's essential that we do so. Obviously, if we're a nonprofit organization, we can't promote one particular candidate or one particular political initiative. But we have a responsibility as Christians to express our moral understanding of the implications of actions of Congress, and our government, and I think we need to do more of that work probably than less.
Do you think that there has been a certain restraint in the last few years on the part of the church?
Katharine Jefferts Schori: Perhaps in some quarters. In others, I see a growing willingness to engage. I think the work around Millennium Development Goals has been a politically motivated initiative in the large sense of what that word "politics" means. I understand it as the art of living together in community. We are called to transform the world around us as Christians, into something that looks more like the reign of God. And the last time I checked, I don't think the hungry are all being fed, I don't think the ill people are all being provided with healthcare. We have work to do.
--
If we're called to love our neighbors, we can't do it simply by sitting in our church pews. We have to get out into the world and work at it.
Caller Mike in St. Louis, Missouri asked her to go into more details about the Millenium Development Goals, for listeners who might not be familiar with them.
Katharine Jefferts Schori: Forty or so years ago, some economists sat down and asked what would it take to solve human poverty. And they did some calculations and they said if all the developed nations of the world gave 7/10 of one percent of their annual incomes, we could solve poverty in our own day. And that is reality, the UN voted to endorse that vision in 2000. The churches of the Anglican Communion, through their bishops, acknowledged that that was a laudable goal in 1998. The Episcopal Church signed on in 2000, and seventy-some dioceses of this church have also signed on to that.
The Millenium Development Goals include feeding the one-third of the world's poor who go to bed hungry every night, they include proviging maternal healthcare for expectant mothers, adequate clean water and sanitation, sustainable environmental development, partnerships for sustainable development working on AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, providing childhood vaccines around the world, and primary education for girls and boys.
They're an achieveable vision that is possible by the year 2025, so within 9 years. Several nations in Europe already give at the 7/10 of one percent level. The United States gives at about one fourth of that level, and one of the things we ask our congregations to do is to encourage their people to lobby their legislators--to encourage their legislators to step up to the plate so that we can resolve the needs of some people who are suffering across the world.
Crossposted at Street Prophets, Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and Booman Tribune. Also, just before bed last night, I discovered that my Calling a truce in the "fish wars" diary at Kos had been "rescued" and featured as a link in the Open Thread, so it ended up getting a lot more comments than it would have otherwise. Click here to check out the discussion.
Alternate link for comments
New stories in the High Springs Herald
Except for his home, Grapski now banned from Alachua
By Ronald Dupont Jr.
Commisioners gave themselves pay raise without allowing residents to comment
By Ronald Dupont Jr.
The Lamont/Lieberman debate will be viewable on C-SPAN tonight.
There will be updates at the Ned Lamont Blog and Firedoglake. You can donate to Lamont's campaign through the Howard-Empowered Act Blue page.
Update: Great updates at My Left Nutmeg. And Maura's there!
