This evening, I didn’t prepare any food for our volunteers because, well, I’m still sick. And it’s not nice to get volunteers sick.
So instead, I ordered pizza. Yummy yummy pizza. Next week, I’ll be back to cooking up yumminess for our crew of volunteers. Meanwhile, I hope to enjoy the bath that got canceled last night.
There are three crucial issues I believe to be facing us in the world right now, and they are, as I have lately been discussing with some of my close friends, all closely interlinked.
One is our reliance on hard power to dominate the world – the good news is that this will eventually destroy us, if we continue in this path, just as it did the Soviet Union in the cold war. The bad news is that, on the way, there will be tremendous human suffering. The worse news is that we face other another more pressing issue. (more…)
I’m live-blogging from the Oregon Summit, where I attended a private meeting of county party chairs and major donors with Senator Ron Wyden. In that meeting, Senator Wyden made a commitment, which his office confirmed: I will insist that the President obtain Congressional authorization before initiating armed conflict with Iran.
(more…)
Have you seen the news?
After decades of brutal dictatorship, the people of Burma are rising. In the past few days, hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters, led by Buddhist monks, have flooded the streets of Rangoon. But yesterday, the military started shooting monks and journalists.
This is a true emergency. Avaaz.org and MoveOn.org have launched a petition demanding Burmese generals negotiate rather than crush the demonstrators. They’re focused on getting United Nations Security Council members–particularly China’s Hu Jintao–to intervene. Thousands of people from all over the world are adding their names every hour — will you sign? Click here:
http://pol.moveon.org/burma/?r_by=&rc=blog
Thanks!
[Credit where due: this text was composed by MoveOn for their members to send to their friends and family. I did you the favor of sharing it here, instead of filling your inbox with it, because I don’t like spam either.]
A dear friend of mine has recently been saying to me that there is no way for working people to obtain the means of production through the existing economic system. I believe that there are ways in which workers are already acting to use the economic structures of our society to acquire controlling interests in their respective workplaces, thereby creating worker-owned collectives. Thus, I believe that the existing economic system, despite its flaws, can be used by oppressed people in the process of liberating themselves. (more…)
I believe that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed; that the best policies are those that most help the least well-off; and that by thinking together, members of a community can gather their collective wisdom to discover good ways to manage their common assets. I believe (more…)
This YouTube video brought to mind the communications workshop at the FCNL annual meeting, in which we worked on different aspects of communications strategy around presentation of a memorial event with flags to represent all those that have died in the war. I thought you would want to see it.
[Edit: I’ve had to remove the video, because the YouTube code is now doing funny things to my website.]
The presentation you see in this video was put on at both Reed College and Lewis & Clark over the past couple of weeks (though the footage is apparently only from L&C). The people putting it on are friends of mine from the Dean campaign and others with whom they have since connected through Democracy for America. The event was sponsored by the Students for a Democratic Society chapters at the schools, as well as by the Iraq Peace Project.
From over on BlueOregon – I’m not posting this there, because I think this topic threatens to derail the thread.
I have a question about the faith caucus. What’s that all about? Is the goal to reach out to people of faith and encourage them to see the morality and values inherent in traditional Democratic ideas, like universal health care and fighting poverty? Or is the idea to get the Democrats to change their views on hot-button issues - like abortion and gay rights? (Kari Chisholm)
is ‘religious communities’ code for ‘white evangelicals’ and ‘conservative catholics’, or does it include buddhists (of which there may be more of in oregon than there are jewish folk), muslims, quakers, unitarian universalists, wiccans, zoroastrians? or is it more an attempt to make inroads to traditional gop constituencies? … what i really want to know is the details of the type of outreach you have done, what are you planning, what religious leaders and communities have been contacted, what has the reaction been, etc? (pedro)
I am a member of the Faith Caucus, and a lifelong Quaker. Though I don’t speak for Mac Prichard, and I’m not an official representative of the Faith Caucus, I believe I can answer both of these questions. Karen Wood and Rob Brading would be able to give you the official answer, as they are the Co-Chairs of the Faith Caucus.
In any case, I was at one of the first organizing meetings of the Faith Caucus, this past summer, down in Eugene. At that meeting, there were a couple of times when one participant or another corrected someone else’s reference to places and/or times of worship. The correction was always toward the more inclusive. Even the name was a matter of some dispute, as we labored to craft an appellation that would be most inclusive.
I’m absolutely certain that there are dual memberships between the Faith Caucus and both the LGBT Caucus and the Women’s Caucus. I know this doesn’t mean these people necessarily have their heads on properly (somehow “straight” doesn’t work as an adjective here), but I think it is indicative that these perspectives will be well represented. Certainly, holding both of the issues identified above (inclusivity and choice) as close to my heart as I do, I expect the Faith Caucus to focus more on the Way, the Eightfold Path and liberation theology than on requiring compliance with Leviticus.
What the Faith Caucus has planned to do involves connecting our faith communities with our political worlds. This means both educating others about the role of faith in informing our Democratic values (eg: finding scriptural support for our platform positions in wisdom texts such as the Baghavad Gita, the Bible, the Koran, and/or the Tao te Ching, among many others), and bringing people together in listening sessions to learn more about each other (eg: a candidate with a congregation, or a monk to a Party meeting).
It has occurred to me, since writing my previous post, that
In thinking about what to say or not to say so as to honor all my potential futures, it is important to me also to be diplomatic. I challenge myself, in my political work, to speak my truth while maintaining alliances and working relationships with those in power.
I have thought at times that this or that political figure, with whom I am allied, could have done better by making a different choice. I’m not always in a position to voice that opinion to him or her directly, or even to his or her staff. Generally, in the interest of being able to work together on future projects, I have avoided offering public critiques at such times, but I have talked with colleagues about how to handle the situation.
When I can, I address my concerns directly to those involved. For example, when an elected official took an unpopular position, I contacted that person’s staff to ask what I could possibly say in defense of that position. When another elected official spoke at a breakfast, and gave what I thought to be a weak answer to an easy question, I approached the speaker afterwards and suggested what I imagined to be stronger and more effective language. These are in keeping with my understanding of Quaker practice, and seem wise in any case, but I’m not sure I’ve got the whole picture.
How do I know when it’s time to bring attention to my concerns at the next level? What is that next level?
Without revealing damaging (or potentially damaging) details, if you are willing, please tell me (here, in the comments) – what dilemmas have you faced? When have you found it challenging to maintain your integrity while also keeping peace with your colleagues and your community? What have you done to resolve this dilemma? What do you do when the results of your first approach don’t meet your needs?
How does all of this relate to humility? Is it ambition and vanity to hope for future political success, or can this be viewed as a desire to maintain peace and support one’s community (or “further its beliefs”)? How do we communicate our vision for the world in such a way that we don’t sabotage our relationships?
What other questions do you have about this dilemma?
Lost: the initial version of this post, which was much more narrative in style.
Retained: most of the ideas.
Discarded: hyperlinks.
Lost: $360 worth of electronics, including iJuice power supply, iSight digital camera, iRock FM transmitter, and numerous cables.
Retained: cell phone, computer, clothes, and basically all the other *stuff* I brought with me.
Discarded: grrr.
Lost: girlfriend.
Retained: friendship, dignity, sanity. One of my best friends in the world, and likely to remain so for the forseeable future.
Discarded: Distance and tension.
Regained: strangely, the ability to have a conversation about politics with my father.
Gained: ideas for pursuing my application to the Kennedy School of Governement.
Planned: finish Blackbelt in Taekwon-Do (promotion date: December 19), continue documenting best practices in the Dean campaign, take the GRE, write application essays, grieve, and get my needs met as a single man. Not necessarily in that order.