You eat those words . . . and pass some here

I may not revel in Lay's death, but it seems appropriate for anyone with adequate knowledge of the man, the company and their relation to the crux of why BushCo exists . . . to suddenly discover an untapped emotional outlet within this extreme event, opening a deep vent within our moral bowels where associations of this man and his ilk reside.  I believe it's related to why we are at DKos, supporting Democrats and general ideals that seem to go along with that ride, actually.  But, maybe things aren't so easily summed up.  Or, maybe they are.

More ruminations on flipping off people like Ken Lay at DKos after the flip.

If you have recognized a fiendishly undeclared and violently escalating war for "having vs. not" in both US economy and culture over the past few decades - and, if this seems additionally cruel to your countrypeople that this is how the world increasingly characterizes what our government represents - does it not seem that even some hateful DKos diary comments towards Lay and his family are the expected reactions of reasonable people? In the face of intense frustration and disgust, primarily for those who have been complicit in this long-term, unchecked movement within our country, of course.  I don't want to sound nationalistic and as if I'm a purist on the matter, but the easy association can be made here with people's spleens wanting to find some relief among friends.  I feel that we should listen, an action which probably makes us Democrats and related supporters of a fair Democratic agenda.

That is, I easily support those who seek to express a general image of appropriateness at DKos, with regards to sharing how we might consider expressing our innermost grievances around even this particular lightning rod of an individual and his sudden death.  For, despite the apparent symbol of a pitiful human which Ken Lay has become for many, he was easily a product of our times . . . both an enabler and someone enabled, by what we might more generally despise as the institutionalized breaking down of limitations on unchecked business interests.  Our government and related bodies are supposed to help maintain a conceptually fair structure for balancing growth opportunities with support needs, and the top of our hierarchy is openly corrupted towards private profiteering.

There are seemingly few limits on greed in the public square these days, but I believe that none of us wish to become so habitually driven by the same machine of heartless existence which Lay and his business associations personified.  Yet, I don't think that most comments about Lay's wife have crossed that line yet.

How did we get here, to the point of my writing a diary on metaissues?  Ah, therein lies a sticky issue to unglue and rejoin as whole: why anyone comes here in the first place, and how that relates to the discussion of Ken Lay's sudden demise.  It's actually about Democratic issues, I feel.

I suppose that we at DKos generally want US Democrats to stand for appropriate things, be elected to office in greater numbers, then repeatedly make reasonable and conscionable choices for the country on our behalf.  It seems that this is a typical groupware-enabled community of hopefully converging interests: our individual voices add facets of thinking and feeling towards larger goals, and all these discussions help each person to think outside their own box (or, to form boxes in the first place) as we collectively bubble-up commonly held tenets as fundamental planks for future governmental direction.

. . .

Health care and medical pricing reform.

Tax fairness relative to burden that can be borne and balanced by general need.

Growth industry investments, rather than old industry profit-buttressing.

International peace and trade policies, rather than war-for-profit agendas.

National security which respects the Constitution and our intelligence.

Energy policy which looks forward to developing truly public utilities.

Transparency in the control of money and votes related to actions of elected officials, especially at election time.  Fair and reasonably equitable public voting systems.

Basic assistance for those who have needs, special or not.

. . . and so on.

I'd wager that we at DKos can be generalized as supporting some basic issues which many here and beyond will recognize need to be addressed, but each plank or value is more a mosaic of inputs on the hows and whats, most likely.  For example, you can stand with thousands of online people against the US occupation of Iraq and still sound unique, interesting or simply genuine on that issue at DKos.  It's expected that you have a voice of your own towards a reasonably good thing beyond yourself, which is very Democratic.

So, it seems fine to be reminded by well-meaning members of this particular community that we desire to view all people in a respectful, personal light of consideration . . . though, to a certain extent, I offer.  That is, I agree that even the Ken Lays of this world should gain basic accomodation within our hearts for being fellow people . . . for, I believe that Democratic supporters generally seek a recognition by government and business of the personal condition - a consideration which many of us strive to show has greater value for our country than treating people as faceless, replaceable resources.  Such as how Ken Lay apparently treated most people in his sphere of influence.  Certainly, we should not ironically fall into a pit of our own opprobrium around the bonfire of his death, but his views and associated actions were in many ways the antithesis of what we rally for, at the core.

Should we not accept that even DKos members may be justified and rightful in venting their extreme core of disgust and despair by such examples?  Democrats have slimly (but firmly) lost the voting electorate due to a far-right political onslaught by frightened, selfish public figures, and Ken Lay has represented this viral dehumanization of most individuals into larger clumps of anonymous resources, meant to support the impersonal money grabs of connected elites.  Benefit for relatively few, in any way possible - legal or not.  It's despicable.  These political - and social - issues of choice by the extremely money hungry seem entirely fitting as catalysts for bile-filled screeds once in awhile by Democrats and their general supporters. We each have voices to offer, which add to the larger, mosaic issues (such as offered above), and even some burning words may actually be consistent with general principles here.  I don't mean to excuse fully poor taste which insults the intelligence of our own community, of course.

It strikes me that we can express true and even deeply dark feelings about someone who seems monstrous, so long as we remember that those monsters could very well have been ourselves . . . if we lived in someone else's situation.  We require some sense of humility, in the end.  Somehow.

For example, I was once a VP of my College Republican chapter - yes, I've been one of these monsters in aspects of my worldview and associated actions without actually knowing it at the time.  Wrote about the scourge of gays and how unnatural they were.  Worshipped at the elite money altar.  Looking back, I was not fully aware of being a member, but was nonetheless an indoctrinated sheep by matter of local culture.  Circumstance.  My split with that CR group marked a real change for me, but it was only a start of seeing old things as brand new and wide-open: in waves, over years, much of life lost the sheen of sacredness.  Looking back though, I easily supported the kind of system which begat people with values like Ken Lay, because it seemed right, fine and the way things should run at the time for me.

I deserved any and all scorn or hatred you could have thrown my way, of course - for the part which I played as a minor spoke in someone else's wheel.

If you could truly accept being villified for standing against someone else's honest and open values either directly (i.e., Ken Lay) or indirectly (i.e., Lay's spouse), then maybe your dancing on his grave is fair play.  Perhaps try to keep from dancing too long, lest you become just another drunk partygoer - a member of some power-hungry mob.  Such as Ken Lay.