Daily Kos

I got a somewhat disturbing email today from someone seeking, it appears, to track down the author of a diary on Daily Kos with whom my correspondent had a disagreement; no need to go into details, except to make a few salient points.

First, I'm aware that some people are unhappy with Daily Kos and its proprietor. I am not one of them, most of the time, at least. If you happen to have been banned there, for whichever reason, it is neither a concern nor an interest of mine, nor of this blog.

Second, the Progressive blogosphere is more than just Daily Kos. This seems self-evident, and yet, I find that it must be pointed out again and again. If someone for whichever reason does not fit in there, there are other blogs, not quite as large, but perhaps more amenable to a given point of view.

Third, Daily Kos is not a public right-of-way; they have no reason, certainly no obligation, to accommodate you. You're not that special; neither am I, for that matter. If you feel a point can be made by having a sit-in there, I would question your priorities; if, that is, I were to deem your actions as being of sufficient note to engage even in the questioning of them.

Fourth, if you feel the need to discuss how much you hate Daily Kos, or blah dee blah blabbity blah, really, I suggest you do it elsewhere. We've been through that, and frankly, it wasn't very interesting at all. Yes, you heard me right; maybe it's because there's a conceptual distinction between oppression and persecution and, you know, not being allowed to post on a frigging blog.

There's a splendid rant curently on Kos' Rec list, titled Islamic Countries can Suck Jesus' Chocolate-covered C***.

Go read it. Come back when you're done.

Unsurprisingly, the title and content have sparked outrage. Thing is, once you strip off the hyperbole, there's some profoundly disturbing stuff, as detailed here on HuffPost.

Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion - a response largely to the furor last year over caricatures published in a Danish newspaper of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad...

The resolution, which was opposed by a number of other non-Muslim countries, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

Yeah. How'd that happen?

The resolution was adopted by a 24-14 vote with nine abstentions. Canada, Japan and South Korea joined European countries in opposition, primarily citing its excessive focus on Islam and incompatibility with fundamental rights such as the freedoms of speech and thought...

There are 17 Muslim countries in the 47-nation human rights council. Their alliance with China, Cuba, Russia and most of the African members means they can almost always achieve a majority.

Human Rights Watch said the resolution could endanger the basic rights of individuals.

Never say she doesn't try; Hillary Clinton is currently running ads on Daily Kos, in an effort, presumably, to have a conversation with that community. Or, more precisely, to have a conversation at that community.

Similar ads are running on MyDD, calling on the blog's readers to stand with Hillary as she does something or other calculated not to offend anyone.

The problem with the ads is simple: they're completely lacking in empowerment for the user. If you click through, you land on a screen that allows you to do only one thing: sign up with your email (and all other fundraising-enabling info) to 'stand with Hillary' as she makes the completely uncontroversial demand for Abu Gonzalez to resign. It's basic, simple, textbook email capture.

Which is all fine and dandy, but some people expect more from a conversation than being talked at and being set up for the next fundraising pitch. In fact, that's kind of the whole point of the Progressive blogosphere - it's two-way, not one-way. Too bad Hillary just does not get that.

In the normal course of events, I don't discuss religion much; but there's cause today to do so. Our house troll, Francis Holland, has made the remarkable discovery that the Progressive movement hates not merely Hillary Clinton (though that would be something of an overstatement), but God Himself. I must disagree with him on that – Francis arguments, such as they are, can be found here and here - and not merely because I think Francis' eschatalogy of Hillary is getting to be a bit grating, not to mention theologically unsound. I'm reasonably certain that God doesn't vote in our primaries, in part because God is English and isn't entitled to do so; meanwhile, those who think Hillary Clinton is the Messiah in a pantsuit, I mean, come on, people. No matter how much one may or may not support her: the election of any one individual is not going to make pretty pink ponies fly in the sky, or magically undo all that is bad in the world. Would that it were so, but it's not - and it's definitely not going to happen with Hillary.

But first, allow me to speak briefly about me. My religious background is in the liberal Catholicism of Western Europe. Catholicism, take it from me, is properly understood a wonderful thing (I'm just going to gloss over that Inquisition business for the sake of this argument). We've managed to weave, over the last two millennia, a gorgeous tapestry of rituals, architecture, folkways, music, literature, theology, figural and painted art, that is in sum and at the very least aesthetically pleasing. Western European Catholicism gave rise, among other notable refinements to the human condition, to the Social Gospel, which maintains that the measure of our love of God is our treatment of the outcast, the dispossessed, the despised, and whether we press our lawful governments to better their lot. Under Catholic theology, not paying your laborers a fair wage – not merely what you consider fair, but what is fair – is defined as a Sin that Cries Unto Heaven For Vengeance; as they say, people go to hell for that, maybe a doctrine that Catholic Bush appointees to the NLRB should take note of.

Whether one buys the entire gilt-encrusted kit and caboodle is of course another question entirely. For myself, personally, I've decided that I'm not equipped to know whether or not there actually is a God, and that to claim otherwise would be presumptuous. We are all small, simple – some more so, some less, eh Francis? – humans shuffling merrily about on this mortal coil, making clumsy stabs, in the dark, at the Unknowable. There has to be an element of uncertainty in any kind of transcendental belief, however, an uncertainty that doesn't lend itself to either full-fledged belief or its mirror parallel, atheism. Myself, I'm humble enough, and patient enough, to trust that if there is an answer to the question, I'll find out one day; and if not, no harm done, no fair, no foul. There's value in acceptance of uncertainty, and meanwhile, I can enjoy a good Requiem when the mood strikes me, not to mention ignore some of the ideas floating around in the Church that are a tad less appetizing.

So that's where I'm coming from. Now, to Francis. That's below the fold.