As everyone knows, there is a huge debate in the lame duck session of Congress about the sunset provision of the Bush Administration's tax cuts from 2001, which are mainly for individual and estate taxes, and 2003 tax cuts for corporations. If I recall from the Clinton years, we had higher rates for everyone, and everyone made money or lived decently. I was one of them who struggled, but my tax rate was not that high to begin with. We had a balanced budget, although I was very unhapppy how welfare mothers were treated. On the other hand, poverty and unemployment were not as great as they are today.
Rep Alan Grayson, who lost his Congressional re-election nearly 3 weeks ago, still has conviction and courage to stand up against the Wingnut machine. I missed this speech the other day, but noticed links to it on various blogs, including Taylor Marsh's which is where I finally saw the entire clip. It is classic.
I wish the Obama Administration would hire this man, but I think Alan Grayson is not enough centrist for them. They don't like anyone defending their progress directly, especially good Democrats. Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann try, but I think even they will get fatigued at some point.
Taylor Marsh has some serious criticisms of this Administration, especially on the weak messaging issues. More often these days, I find myself agreeing with Taylor's strong opinions. The only reason that I don't have her site on my blogroll is that her readers still keep pining for Hillary Clinton and how Hillary would have made a better president. I don't she would have as I think she would have moved to a more centrist position, albeit she would have worked on keeping her message consistent. While John Edwards was let go by this blogger sometime ago, I keep thinking Alan Grayson reminds me so much of what an Edwards Democrat would want for this country to get it out of the ditch.
President Obama learned a lesson. You can have happy hour at the White House, but it doesn't help unemployed people. Look at the vote yesterday in the House on the Stimulus Package.
JRE understood this all too well. The special interests still got to the Congress. You cannot sit at a table with lobbyists or else they will take all of the food.
Taylor Marsh has the important parts the Dems gave up in this bill.
Great concluding remarks. Thanks, Joe. You continue to be transparent, whereas your debate opponent was not, and you were kind not to call her on all of her BS about her assets, how she squeezed taxpayer money for herself and family.
Taylor Marsh nails the performances of the debaters.
EENR launched a new series, Progressive Pages, which is talking to authors about their books. David Sirota, progressive activist and author of The Uprising, live blogged at EENR this evening. He wasn't able to answer as many questions as he was on the road and had to do a call into Rachel Maddow's show, but his answers were pithy.
Quantcast: a website that keeps up with demographics on blogs. Here's the one for the Big O. Tell me if this is what fits the other Big O's demographics in running for president and why he won the primaries.
Obama goofs in selecting Jason Furman as director of his economic policy group. I just hope he's not unwise enough not to invite Mark Penn either as part of the "many voices" group. I've heard in some quiet circles Obama is a closet libertarian in economic policy and it will be interesting how he will make the populist message work in rural areas when the two are mutually exclusive of one another. Mudcat, your phone will be ringing at 3am many times or he will throw you and David Bonior under the bus as Obama did Jim Johnson today.
White suburban women currently favor McCain over Obama. Not surprised. Maybe that will change.
Taylor Marsh has been savaged by her readers for getting on the Unity Bus. That's too bad. She's a smart lady and she started getting on this bus sometime ago when she saw it was better to do that then have the bus leave her behind. I hope Obama's Internet team will reach out to her, but they may not. She and I have had our differences about the Edwardses and their campaigns, but by the by, I think she's gutsy. She's a bit like Clinton in many ways, sometimes she just hears her own drummer, and sometimes she's playing like a full fledged band. I happen to like her and her radio show.
John Edwards to appear this Saturday at a Caregiver's conference near Kansas City.
Best snark video this year: "I'm Voting Republican."
My favorite line:
women just can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies. Never. ever. ever.
I'm certain the Freepers will have one of their own soon, but at least the Dems were first.
I haven't quite put my finger on what Skippy or others are pushing when it comes to blogroll amnesty, but I guess it is giving shout outs to others that we don't notice very often, or at least that is the approach Taylor Marsh has taken. Skippy is one of them. One other post today is by Tom Rinaldo, a former blogger for Wes Clark. Tom and I used to spar over at the DU, but once it became clear that Clark wasn't running again, we began to read each other's stuff more often. We met at Yearly Kos, and it was very nice to meet him. Candidly, his appearance took me by surprise, as he looks as though he never left Haight-Ashbury from 1967; I expected him to look more like a military person. That taught me a very important lesson about stereotyping.
Along that same line, I wanted to thank Taylor Marsh and her readers for not trying to change my mind in switching candidates, but to participate in the conversation as I choose. That shows class.
Over at the Daily Kos and MyDD, it has gotten to be pathetic. The Obama supporters in particular are demanding that Edwards endorse someone, and some in both camps, but mainly Obama's, have ridiculed and tried to intimidate Edwards supporters by saying their vote for him in upcoming primaries is waste of time. I find it ironic considering how many complaints there were about candidate support diaries, especially about Edwards, and now, no one is complaining about the remaining candidates, most especially Obama.
Our democracy belongs to us, it does not belong to the media nor to the Internet, albeit I trust the Internet more because folks like Taylor, Chris Bowers (Open Left), and yes, even a little blogger like me are driving the conversation. My blog has been shown on TV and because of my blog, I was asked to participate on the BBC Radio' World Have Your Say.
I've noticed that all of the remaining candidates have not endorsed anyone, although my guess is that Bill Clinton will be seeking Bill Richardson's this afternoon while they are watching the Super Bowl. I prefer none of them do. Clinton and Obama will have to earn our votes, albeit, I'm not likely to vote for either one. But I know Edwards supporters who will look at both candidates more closely at the convention.
Thanks again, Taylor, for the shoutout you gave to my blog this week. And to other bloggers, I ask that you give me and my fellow supporters time to heal before asking for our votes. Only the candidates can convince them. I drew my line in the sand a long time ago.
As many of BW readers know by now, my gender is female. Last night, I was in a tumble for awhile at Taylor Marsh's place, which was a mistake, since Taylor defends Clinton almost no matter what and constantly uses sexism as her defense rattle. I get offended when Taylor does this as I see it as the general Clinton doubletalk, and to me, Clinton got a dose of reality at Tuesday night's debate. She has been cooed by the MSM (and yes, she's gotten a lot of negative press compared to Obama) for months, and I think she just assumed she could operate in general election mode, and get by with the usual refrain "We cannot elect a woman unless we try."
Apparently, I am not alone in this view. RJ Eskow wrote an excellent rebuttal on HuffPo to an opinion Taylor typed yesterday. The name of the blog piece is "Defending Hillary at Feminism's Expense." Eskow nailed it when he wrote his reaction to Clinton when answering the driver's licenses for undocumented workers question at the debate:
At best, Clinton was uncharacteristically ineffective in communicating about this issue -- so much so that Mark Penn had to spin heavily about it right after the debate. But things are simpler for Taylor Marsh, and probably for others in the "boys vs. girls" crowd. It's about sexism and nothing more.
I think Taylor is getting a dose of reality on this one, but because a man wrote it, he will be deemed sexist too. I'll be glad when the primaries are over, especially if Edwards or anyone but Hillary wins. Taylor will have to deal with the reality that people don't object to Clinton because she's a woman. It's because she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, a person who is driven by selfish ambition and will take dirty money to do get what she and her spouse want, not what the American people want. And Clinton and her spouse cannot be trusted.
If you want transparency with a clear moral compass from the next occupant of the White House, I suggest voting for John Edwards.
Update: Clinton is considered a drag on the ticket in California. One doesn't have to wonder why.
What About Sexism and Racism in the Mainstream Blog Sphere?
Taylor Marsh has a good show, and occasionally, she is right about the impressions a campaign can make. She's from the entertainment business, so she has a sharp eye about what the populace's lenses may be.
I disagree with Taylor's commentaries when she shouts sexism and racism where it is not warranted. She is correct sometimes, but I think she stretches it a bit far at other times. She's had her share of discrimination, but one cannot call "wolf" each time someone of an opposite gender and race is critical of Clinton, of her, or her guests that favor Clinton in their comments.
I am very progressive but do not look for every ceiling to be necessarily glass either. One looks for ways to break the barriers. My observation is that Taylor thinks it is OK for Hillary to have Bill break the upper floor windows for all to see (Hillary already broke glass ceilings). And he has done it well, since he continues to have questionable "Dream Merchants" and "Carpetbaggers"in both negative and positive ways to solicit his advice and channel money into his wife's campaign coffers. Just read Harold Robbins, who had been gone 10 years this month, but a novelist who understood these transactions and why.
To me it is not OK.
As a woman, I've never had a man to promote me based on connections to my spouse, nor would I welcome those. Yes, basically, I can say in job interviews (which I've not needed for 6 years, but do an evaluation for peer reviews) I learned from mistakes and worked on my own to be a better manager and stepping into leadership, not just control the message which is all I see Hillary has learned. To her, that is all it is because of what happened to Bill and the 1998 scandal got out of hand.
I've not had name recognition based on my spouse either.
Either Clinton takes the aggressive route and claim credit for all what she did with Bill (which if NAFTA, horrible welfare reform, telecommunications act or not getting Bin Laden count) are accomplishments... or she runs strictly on her records outside First Lady roles in Ark and WH, and instead on her senate/her own activist (since 2001) records to run on.
So my vote for someone else not Hillary is laid out here. Name recognition is great, but status-quo is not.
I don't have the transcript yet, but from watching the AARP debate, most especially observing the applause factor, Edwards' ideas resonated more with the audience than the other candidates. Will post the transcript when I get it.
Now, to all of you Progressive pundits who think the Senate vote was so important today on Moveon.org today. Here's my response on Taylor Marsh's blog, mainly because I am tired of reading that Mrs. Edwards was sent out to make her husband's comments for him.
Despite TM's high regard for a woman who cannot get to the WH on her own without her husband (and I might add, without Edwards' defense of Bill, which got him acquitted--and how he gained national prominence or at least the attention of Al Gore)and Mrs. Clinton will continue to sell out the progressives to wingnuts via Fox News, and American people alike to lobbyists, it's clear to me that Taylor (and perhaps Jane) does not understand Elizabeth Edwards and why (or when) she says what she does.
I've been acquainted with Elizabeth Edwards (EE as she known to long time supporters) for some time, and I know how she is. Mind you, I am not affiliated with the campaign other than an enthusiastic supporter who is glad that Edwards is taking the side of the ordinary American and for the voiceless, since many of the big lobbyists in the drug, insurance, and pharmas don't give a flip about us, and we know it. Mrs. Edwards speaks her own mind, just as she has jumped on One America's own chat room and started a conversation with anyone who wanted to engage her. EE made a comment on my own blog when I wished her happy birthday. Totally out of the blue, but welcomed. However, I seriously doubt John ever knew she was there or posted on non-A list blogger sites until another blogger brought it up at the One America site.
Mrs. Edwards has been the Daily Kos several times, at times blogging with John, but sometimes by herself (and w/a staffer to do the set up of the diary). She's made comments on the DU as well, and on Jane's blog too. The point that I am making is that Mrs. Edwards has been one of us for a long time, more than any candidate or her/his spouse. So she has been out there long before the last couple of months in defense of the netroots. Moreover, the Edwards campaign hired some very prominent netrooters: Tracy Russo, formerly of the Dem Party site, Joe Trippi, and most noteable, Ben Brandzel, formerly of MoveOn.org.
TM readers, Mrs. Edwards was never sent out to make the criticism of the ad--and even if she were, it bothers me that TM, Jane and others may be playing into the wingnuts' hands by saying she was sent out by her spouse.
This was the same criticism of Mrs. Clinton in the 1992 (when Mrs. Clinton said she would not be at home baking cookies, remember?), and she was forced to negate rumors for a 60 minutes interview to show support of her husband who had accusations of adultery with Gennifer Flowers, and was third or 4th in the polls in NH at the time. And they turned out to be true. Yet, Mrs. Edwards is supposed to be like Laura Bush and it's OK for Big Dawg to campaign for his wife.
Seems to me there is a double standard here, and I expect more of Taylor (and Jane H of FireDogLake) to dispense repeating Re-thug nonsense, especially John Solomon's articles/blogposts because he might as well be on Fox News. Otherwise, if TM readers believe Mrs. Clinton going on Fox News on Sunday AM is OK, considering that TM and Kos have repeatedly said they doesn't consider it a legit news outlet, then one has to examine the mirror a bit more carefully.
For what it is worth, I did e-mail the campaign and I got a response about today's vote in the Senate. From Jonathan Prince, Deputy Campaign Manager, on MoveOn vote:
"On Iraq, we've seen what Congress' symbolic resolutions get us -- more of George Bush's failed strategy. Congress should be voting to end the war in Iraq, rather than on symbolic resolutions that have no effect."
Clinton may have been there to vote against the amendments, as Dodd, and Kerry did too, but we really should be focusing on getting us out of Iraq. If Clinton (and Obama for that matter) says she (and he) can get Republicans to work with them, then they need to prove it.
Now.
Clinton will be on all of the major talk shows. Taylor Marsh thinks that the Clinton camp is already starting the general election. While it's nice the corporate media is giving Clinton air time at once, the timing is quite something else. I think her camp is more concerned about John Edwards. He is still ahead on all of the head to head match ups with the Rethugs, except in Alabama, and at that, he can win the South.
I got this tip from Taylor Marsh's site. My spouse looks somewhat like EC, but can't play like Eric. Eric has dark eyes, whereas my spouse has handsome blues. Both the same height and both Scottish.
That amazing "American Woman" to your left and my right is Taylor Marsh. In my view, she is the best radio talk show host on the Internet and on regular frequencies--AM and FM.
This picture was taken after a Hot Topics panel she was on at the Yearly Kos Convention(soon to be renamed the Netroots Nation). Taylor spoke about National Security issues, especially concerns about a potential Dem president inheriting the baby, the Iraq war. She also spoke to an issue near and dear to her: media consolidation. Taylor likes being on the regular frequencies, but she is concerned about big conglomerates buying everything, then limiting our voices.
I hope she will get on XM radio. Meantime, one can listen to her show 2-3 CT Mon-Thur and I guarantee, you will get the most recent political news and commentary on her show. If you can't listen live, she has podcasts within a couple of hours up on her site.
Taylor is a true progressive, and I like that she is herself and never phony in what she says. Not that many radio talk show hosts are phony, but I like her show because she's not so bent to the far left. She has a clear understanding of security issues, and she doesn't believe government is the answer to everything either.
Give her a listen. Taylor, BW salutes you and your work.
Note: while I am on vacation, I thought I would pull a post I saw on Digg. This commentary is by Jeff Feldman, who is the blogger of Frameshop. It is very worthy of reading. Also, Taylor Marsh has a good one too.
Seemingly without any sense of self control or sense of modern perspective, more and more journalists seem to be picking up sharp objects to poke the Edwards family--writing articles not worthy of this century, let alone this country...
Taylor Marsh has written a piece that echoed what Keith Olbermann said last night.
After you get back from Taylor's place, visit the Daily Kos, where Be Inspired has an excellent report up about her visit to ACORN and seeing JRE give a fabulous speech.
When you get back, have some birthday cake with me. Today's my birthday too. I am American Made.
Taylor Marsh has Fire in the Belly like John Edwards
Today, Taylor Marsh had some fire about what progressives elected to Congress aren't doin' and she's right. But I like this sports analogy she posted.
Her show was great too. I listened and finished a few minutes ago.
And let's look at John Edwards, in response to some balderdash thrown at him by Rudy, Mittens, and the Divider in Chief:
“George Bush has made America less safe and less respected in the world. The Republican candidates are now trying to double down on his failed foreign policy.
They just don't get it. George Bush's strategy is a failure - the threat of terrorism has increased. We don't need more political huffing and puffing, we need a smart strategy that uses American power to stop terrorists from hurting us and to stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place.
That's why I laid out a comprehensive plan to build a strong military focused on protecting Americans and to use all the tools available to us to defeat terror groups and restore our moral leadership.”
This is really neat. Gore is following John Edwards' lead in speaking with bloggers first then going on prime time to discuss his new book, "The Assault on Reason". Taylor Marsh was one of those invited (I think nearly all on MyDD were invited to call).
For those of you BW readers who appreciate cockroach cocktails, I've got one from you. I borrowed thisfrom Taylor Marsh's site, who has all of the ingredients...just pick and choose on the ones that love tax cuts, wars, and deficits from wars in which we have no reason to be involved when it comes to their civil wars. If the insurgents have problems with us being involved in their problems instead of political solutions they should try to solve, then we should leave Iraq..today.
Listen to Edwards at an Emergency Rally at Moveon.org recently in Portland.
Different from the cowards on the run. Or should I say, the "repubs on the run".
And now, I’m happy to introduce the first presidential candidate of the night, Senator John Edwards.
John Edwards grew up in a small North Carolina town, where he worked with his father at the local textile mill.
The first in his family to attend college, Edwards went on to earn a law degree and become an advocacy lawyer before being elected to the Senate in 1998, where he wrote key legislation on port security and protection from biological threats. In 2004, he was the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, were married in 1977, and raised their children in North Carolina. Senator Edwards is the former director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.
Welcome, Senator Edwards, and thank you for joining us. Our first question to you, which we’ll pose to every candidate, is simple and it comes from MoveOn Member Anita Todras (TA-dras), a mortgage loan officer from Coconut Creek, Florida:
(audio)Anita Todras: My name is Anita Todras, in your opinion, what is the best and fastest way to get out of Iraq?
SENATOR EDWARDS: Well, thank-you. First of all let me say for the past nine months, MoveOn members have accomplished amazing things for the progressive movement. Last year you helped elect a new congress, and thanks to your relentless grassroots pressure you helped shift the national debate about ending the war in Iraq from a question of if, to a question of how soon. Thank you. As you probably know I voted for this war. I was wrong and I take responsibility for that. Every day this war drags on is worse for Iraq, worse for our troops, worse for our country. We don’t need more debate. We don’t need symbolic resolutions, we don’t need abstract goals. What we need are binding requirements, and we can’t wait until this President takes off in 2009. Here’s what I think ought to happen. Simply put, Congress should use its funding authority to force President Bush to end the war, and start immediately bringing American troops home from Iraq. I’ve been advocating for Congress to use its funding authority since I voted against the first $87 billion supplemental back in 2003. That funding authority’s still the most powerful check we have. If congress is willing to use it. I propose we begin by capping funding levels at 100,000 troops to stop Bush’s escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40 to 50,000 troops which would come out of the north and the south of Iraq. During that time, we should not allow Bush to deploy any replacement troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards, and that have not been properly trained and equipped. Our withdrawal will help us to directly engage the Iranians and the Syrians to help stabilize Iraq. The withdrawal of all combat troops should be completed in about a year. So, that’s the outline of my plan for what out to happen.
But we should not be talking hypothetically, because we’ve already reached a critical moment, and what we do right now will make all the difference. Thanks in part to your hard work, both Houses of Congress have passed spending bills to set a time-table for withdrawal. President Bush has promised to veto that funding, calculating that he could use the bully pulpit to intimidate Congress and get them to back down. But this is not the time for political calculation, this is the time for political courage. This is not a game of Chicken. This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death. This is about war. We are done letting George Bush manipulate the rhetoric of patriotism, only to use our troops as political pawns. If Bush veto’s funding for the troops, he is the only one standing in the way of the resources they need. Nobody else. Congress must stand firm. They must not write George Bush another blank check without a timeline for withdrawal. Period. If Bush veto’s the funding bill, Congress should send another funding bill to him with a binding plan to bring the troops home. And if he veto’s it again, they should do it again. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of ending this war. If our side stands firm, if we show courage now, we can finally bring our troops back home, and bring this war to an end. Thank-you.
ELI PARISER: Thank you, Senator Edwards. And now, another question from MoveOn member C. Davey Utter, a retired NBC broadcaster from Venice, California
(audio)C. Davis Utter: “What are you going to do about prosecuting war profiteering in Iraq?”
SENATOR EDWARDS: Well, let me say first, I will end war profiteering in Iraq. What the Bush administration has done is they signed no-bid contracts with Halliburton and Bechtel, and complete billions of dollars of work in Iraq. Not only does war profiteering waste taxpayer dollars, it undermines the credibility of America’s reconstruction efforts in the eye of the world. We need to do everything in our power to get rid of fraud and abuse in Iraq. We need to hold powerful corporations like Halliburton accountable for no-bid contracts they’ve secured through cronyism. None of you would be surprised to hear that I believe in using the US Judicial system to hold powerful corporations like Halliburton responsible for their wrong-doing. I’ve done it for a long time. For all new Iraq contracts, we should impose a cap on profits from Iraqi reconstruction. Contracts should be permitted only for a reasonable profit on their Iraq contracts, based on the average profits on comparable competitively bid government contracts. This is a version of the excess profits tax that was imposed during the first and second world wars. As President Franklin Roosevelt explained: In a time of war the few should not gain from the sacrifices of the many. We should also bar corporations, senior executives, lobbyists, and directors, from making donations to presidential candidates, and political parties, at least a year before or after bidding on a major government contract. Finally, we ought to break the link between government procurement and private sector contracting jobs. Private sector executives seeking government contracts would not be able to take official contracting jobs for 12 months, and similarly, those with the responsibility for contracting would not be able to go to firms seeking contracts for 12 months.
ELI PARISER: Thank you Senator Edwards. I have one final question for you: The Iraq bill recently passed by the House included a version of Rep. John Murtha's proposal forcing the President to certify that troops going to Iraq meet the Pentagon's standards for sufficient training, proper equipment, and overall readiness to fight. Do you support this approach and do you think it should be in the conference committee's final version of the Iraq bill?
SENATOR EDWARDS: Yes. Representative Murtha’s bill echoed the policy that I actually announced in February of this year. I believe in it strongly. In my policy I have prohibited funding to deploy any new troops or any replacement troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards, and have not been properly trained and equipped. So that American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, and not used to escalate this war. Requiring this President to make sure that the troops are prepared is actually the best way to stand by our troops, and is also the best way to force this President to change his policy. The members of the conference committee have to stand strong on this requirement. They should stand up to this President’s veto threat and they ought to pass this legislation and stand behind it.
ELI PARISER: Thank you, Senator Edwards. And now, please take a minute for your closing remarks.
SENATOR EDWARDS: I spoke earlier about the need for political courage and the need for political courage to trump political calculation. We know George Bush and Karl Rove will deploy the full-fury of their PR machine to blame Democrats for Bush’s choice, Bush’s choice to veto funding for the troops. There are many people in Washington that are gonna be tempted to cry uncle, and they’ll say, they’re gonna let Bush win another round in this fight, so where will Congress find the courage to stand firm? I’ll tell you where they’ll find it: they’ll find it in your letters. They’ll find it in your calls. They will find it in your voice. Forty years ago, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave a sermon speaking out against the war in Vietnam. He said, “There comes a time in all of our lives where silence is a betrayal.” That has never been more true than it is today. It’s true because in the weeks and months to come, our voice has extraordinary power to really change things. And that means we have an absolute responsibility to use that power to the absolute fullest. So, that’s what I’m committing to: using every opportunity I have in this campaign to speak out for immediate action to end this war. And it is what you’re doing through your work with MoveOn and in your communities. Together I believe we’ll succeed, and it is a great honor for me to join you in that effort. Thank you all very much.
ELI PARISER: Senator Edwards, we thank you so much for being the first candidate in our first Virtual Town Hall.
This thread was inspired by being at Taylor Marsh's blog today, in which she has a really nice piece about the framing of faith by our Founding Fathers and yet in this century thus far, our onward Christian/PNAC soldiers, Bush Co, continues to put us into debt and make us pay a very heavy price for a war 71% of Americans wish we would get out of sooner, than later.
This is what my comment was on her blog:
The separation of church and state, albeit not explicit in our Constitution, is one of the more important aspects of the Founders' framework to keep sacred. Last year and the year before, when I watched the confirmation hearings of Roberts and Alito, I was concerned that their faith might color their judgment and not uphold this separation of church and state. So far, we have been fortunate that not much has appeared before the court that has tested them in this regard.
I'm from the same group of Jefferson and Adams, both who were Unitarians, whereas that group merged with Universalists in 1961, thus the term UU for Unitarian Universalist. Most of us are for peace, support community actvism for the good, and seek out ways that even Jesus told us: to comfort the poor. For us, that is a moral imperative.
Today I am reminded of a UU tradition which is the Flower Communion, often held on Easter Sunday. To borrow from Pastor Margo McKenna, here is the story of the tradition of it:
The first part of how we arrived at the ritual we celebrate today begins with Rev. Norbert Capek (1870-1942), who founded the Unitarian Church in Czechoslovakia. He introduced this ritual to his congregation on June 4, 1923. He had felt the need for symbolic ritual to bind Unitarians together, and chose to use the “communion service,” as it was familiar to many Unitarians who had left Roman Catholicism. He also felt strongly that Unitarians should not allow Christians to claim the word “communion” solely for christological purposes, rather, wanting to return to the original use of the word which is defined as: drawing together.
Rev. Capek chose flowers as the symbol of this ritual. It was his way of honoring the native spring blossoming of Czechoslovakia, drawing Unitarians closer to the earth, a nod to the agrarian life of most members, and a ritual to draw Unitarians together. To him, the significance of the Flower Communion is that as no two flowers are alike, so no two people are alike. Each flower contributes its own unique scent and color to the larger bouquet, and thus has a unique contribution to its overall beauty. The flowers, joined together, form a spectacular splash of color and scent that transforms a room. So, each person sitting here is unique and colorful and brings a contribution to our whole bouquet - our congregation! Our common bouquet would not be the same without the unique addition of each individual flower, and so it is with each UU congregation. Flower communion is a statement of this community.
By exchanging flowers, we show our willingness to walk together in our search for truth, setting aside attitudes and actions that work to divide, rather than unite us. Each person takes home a flower brought by someone else, thus symbolizing our shared celebration in community.
The second part of our story today, is the larger history of Unitarians and Universalists. Before the UU merge in 1961, there was a rather large divide on the issue of celebrating Easter. Universalists, who had largely remained liberal Christians, and who believed that Jesus died and was raised again to save all humanity, loved to honor Easter Sunday. Unitarians, who had largely become humanist and/or atheist through the years, usually did not celebrate Easter, due to its connotation of a need for blood sacrifice to a deity, in order to save humanity. This difference was a large one for these two groups as they were discussing merging in the 1950’s. So, when the Unitarians and Universalists decided to merge in 1961, discussions about how to handle Easter were long and heated.
This brings us back to Flower Communion…As I mentioned at the beginning, Flower Communion was first celebrated in Czechoslovakia on June 4, 1923, not on Easter Sunday. Rev. Capek seems to have done this for two reasons: First, the spring blossoming did not arrive in Czechoslovakia until June, and second, Unitarians did not honor Easter.
Though Rev. Capek died in a Nazi concentration camp in 1942, Unitarians were already celebrating his Flower Communion service here in the U.S. by 1940. It was being held yearly in many Unitarian congregations just before the summer recess, and continued to be honored for the reasons Rev. Capek had first dreamed of, and in his memory after WWII was over.
The long and heated debate about Easter was resolved when someone suggested a recommendation to congregations: that they honor the Unitarian ritual of Flower Communion and celebrate it on Easter Sunday for Universalists. Thus, in the Flower Communion, the symbol of “drawing together” as envisioned by Rev. Capek is still honored, and when celebrated on Easter, continues to honor those who come out of the Christian tradition.
Given our poor situation in Iraq and the thousands of not only Americans, but Iraqis, Brits, Italians, Koreans etc have died and the violence continues to surge as we are embroiled in Iraq's civil war, I'd like to take a moment to give thanks to all of them who risk their lives each day. I also want to commend those on the ground boots here, serving a meal to the elderly, the homeless, or perhaps inviting a single person to a seder.
At the Flower Communion service, each person brings flowers, either from their yard or elsewhere, and puts them in a community basket. Then at the end of the service, each person goes by the basket (or if a smaller congregation, the basket is passed around) and takes one as a symbol of love, peace, and remembrance.
Here are some baskets from Second Parish's Flower Communion (I'm sure they will share), and I am passing it to BW and Taylor's readers to take a symbolic flower.
This blog is for my friends and acquaintances who were formerly with the John Edwards campaign, which had the most progressive agenda. I am a progressive liberal, musing about politics and life.
