I Support Occupy Wall Street Because…..

• I don’t want wealthy, well-connected individuals, corporations and lobbies buying politicians;
• A large and secure middle class is vital to a democracy; vast wealth inequality creates vast political inequality and exploitation;
• By reducing the role of corrupting private influences in politics (e.g., big banks, insurance, pharmaceuticals, defense, private prisons), America could possibly lower its taxes while also improving its financial stability, healthcare, education and social security systems, domestic and international security and international reputation.
• Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism.
• I want America to be this:

and not this:

- Signed, a Canadian in solidarity with OWS.

To Bloggers: Support Occupy Wall Street via Blog-Bombing.

Support Occupy Wall Street Through Blog-Bombing

What is Blog-Bombing?

The term is inspired by the concept of Tweet-Bombing, in which many Tweeters engage en masse in tweeting a particular message in order to fill the Tweetosphere with the message. In the case of Blog-Bombing, the idea is for bloggers to make regular (e.g., daily, every few days) quick blog posts in support of Occupy Wall Street so that such posts continually appearing on community blog feed programs such as those run by the major blog platforms – e.g., WordPress. These posts can contain short messages, pictures, videos, links, etc.

My first OWS Blog-Bomb contribution (Note: Posts need not be this long or detailed; the point is to get the word out – JUST POST):

I Support Occupy Wall Street Because…

• I don’t want wealthy, well-connected individuals, corporations and lobbies buying politicians;

• I believe that having a large and secure middle class is vital to a democracy, and that massive gaps between haves and have-nots creates vast political inequality and exploitation;

• I believe that America could simultaneously lower its taxes while also improving its financial stability, healthcare, education and social security systems, domestic and international security and international reputation by countering the costly influence of corporate/industry lobbies (e.g., insurance, pharmaceuticals, defense, private prisons).

• Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism.

• I want America to be this:

and not this:

- Signed, a Canadian in solidarity with OWS.

Where do Observant Jews and Conservative Christians get their Morals, Theologically Speaking?

Bill Maher pointed out the irony of American Right Wing Christianity when he said that if Jesus were a Presidential candidate, the Christian Right would NEVER elect him because he’s a long-haired, sandal-wearing liberal hippie Jew. The issue of how a Conservative Christianity that demonizes nearly all government social programming directed at helping the less affluent, sick, disabled, elderly and so on, could have evolved has perplexed many.

Some on the American Christian Right have attempted to argue that Jesus was not a socialist or even remotely liberal. The honesty-impaired crew over at Conservapedia have even taken it upon themselves to literally begin re-writing the Bible, claiming that previous translations have packed it full of liberal spin. Of course, the Conservapedia answer to this alleged problem is not to create a balanced Bible, but to create a Conservative Bible – hence the name of the project, the Conservative Bible Project.

Daniel Florien, ex-Christian turned atheist, recently posted some of the more liberal, socialist New Testament passages on his blog, Unreasonable Faith. Here are a few of them:

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 2: 44, 45

13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.
14 You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 14:13, 14

If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Matthew 19:21

24 You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 6:24.

In addition to these quotes are Jesus’ famous endorsements of forgiveness, compassion and acceptance, rather than grudge-holding, retribution-seeking and judging (e.g., Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; judge not lest ye be judged; turn the other cheek).

When you look at these sorts of quotes, it is perplexing to fathom how Conservative Christians could see themselves in Christ and how they could appreciate let alone revere him. How do they square their widespread antipathy for government assistance programs and homosexuality with these iconic passages? Now, it’s true that the Bible may well be the most cherry-picked, quote-mined text of all time. Given this,

Are there New Testament passages that Conservative Christians can interpret as endorsing their political values?

We’ve all seen Conservative Christians site verses from the Old Testament, perhaps none more so than Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.”). Indeed, the more grim, authoritarian theme of the Old Testament appears – to me, at least – to jive far better with modern day American Conservative values of respect for authority, tradition, corporal punishment, capital punishment, and thoroughly retributive justice. The New Testament, judging by mainstream cultural folklore, sounds to be far more liberal, socialist, egalitarian, compassionate, and forgiving. Am I wrong? I’ll admit that I’ve only read parts of the Old Testament and none of the New, so my question is not rhetorical. What exactly is the Right taking from the New Testament?

What About Jewish Moral Theology?

The Old Testament is often viewed as hellishly harsh and unforgiving. If a country today were to use it as a strict policy guide, said country would rightly be considered to be a stunningly cruel, vicious, totalitarian state. Many Christians today, in my limited experience, seem to downplay the moral significance of the Old Testament, pointing to the New Testament as the relevant Christian moral framework. Accepting this, I can’t help but ask:

Where is the warmer, more humane side of Jewish Theology?

For Christianity, it’s the New Testament. The New Testament gives license to Christians to move past authoritarian barbarism toward less judgmental forgiveness and acceptance. Where does that come in within Judaism? Where is the feel good part of Jewish Moral Theology? It’s got to be in there somewhere. Is it burried within the OT, or in a sister scripture? I don’t for a minute buy that people get their morals from scripture. But there are plenty of people who do. So from this perspective,

Where do observant Jews get their morals?

 

Share your views and knowledge in the Comment section!

The Obama Cult Apparently Still Has Some Members…

Over the past few weeks I have posted several articles critical of Barack Obama and his clear-cut progressive fakery. For a brief run-through of some of the things that Obama has done to earn the title of fauxprogressive, click here.  I even went so far as to enter the first definition for fauxgressive on the Urban Dictionary (which I encouraged others to vote up), defining it as follows:

A fake progressive.A politician, pundit or other political player that pretends to be progressive while actually supporting unprogressive/corporatist policies.

*

Barack Obama is a fauxgressive. He pretends to be progressive in his campaigning, but he rarely fights for progressive causes and consistently supports corporatist, unprogressive policies.

As of this writing, the definition has 57 thumbs up and 10 thumbs down. I admit that 5-7 of those thumbs up were by me. As for the thumbs down, I imagine that most or all of them are from Obama Kool-Aid drinkers at Daily Kos (Note: I am surely not saying that said Kool-Aid drinkers in anyway represent the broader Kos community; I don’t know the demographics). I managed to piss off a number of Kos-ers by making my first post on it a link to this blog, plugging the article encouraging people to vote up the definition of fauxgressive cited above. In fairness to the Kos-ers, most of them were annoyed primarily by my use of DK to promote an article on my blog. I wasn’t aware of the culture against that there, and I respected their position and haven’t “re-offended”.

*

In addition to getting flack from Kos-ers about my disagreeable use of the website, I got some flack for referring to Obama as a fake progressive corporate sellout (though fully 56% of the 103 Kos-ers who voted on my nonscientific poll asking if Obama was or was not a true progressive agreed with my position: that he has not really advanced progressive causes, and that while he may or may not actually hold progressive beliefs, he is definitely willing to sell them out). In addition to likely making up the lion’s share of the 10 thumbs downs to the first definition of fauxgressive,  I suspect that the source of the second definition also came from this group.

Now, when you search fauxgressive on Urban Dictionary, below the definition that I posted is the following, newer one:

Someone who hates President Barack Obama and pretends to be a progressive to make the hatred look like it’s coming from within the Democratic Party.

*

Sally has voted Republican for 30 years, but she calls herself a “progressive” now to make it seem like the Democratic Party is splintering. She’s a fauxgressive.

Yeah.. That sounds reasonable. Because Obama has been just suuuch a progressive warrior that the ooooonly way that a person could say that he hasn’t been is if he’s a Republican in disguise, right? Riiiiight!?!

*

Someone has clearly been drinking the Obama Kool-Aid if they think that a progressive couldn’t possibly be so disillusioned with Obama’s constant corporate and Republican reach-arounds as to call him out for the shilling sell out that he has been.

*

Now, surely this person has not seen this blog, but if they had they would know that the last thing that I am is a Republican. Well, I’m not even American, but if I were, the last thing I would be is a Republican.

*

What is more, listen to what Republicans actually say. They are not mad at Obama for not being progressive enough. The ones who call him out and relate it back to progressivism in anyway are uniformly saying that the problem is that he is too progressive; that he’s some sort of left wing idealogue; a borderline communist incognito. Now clearly, the Republicans who say this sort of thing simply have not been paying attention to what Obama has actually been doing, and really, they do not know what progressivism is well enough to distinguish between it and corporate hand-jobbing masquerading as “Historic Achievements” in the progressive direction.

*

If whomever created the second definition thinks that a Republican masquerading as a progressive calling Obama out for not being progressive enough is more likely than an actual progressive being fed up with the Sell-Out in Chief, they are clearly proof-positive that despite his clock-work corporatism, Obama has somehow managed to not dissuade all of his fanboys and fangirls on the genuineness of his “Hope” and “Change” slogan-peddling.

*

It was a gimmick. It’s over. It’s time to leave the Obama Cult of Personality and move on.

How much do you notice the politics of your fellow city dwellers?

In a few months I will be moving to California for my first job as an Occupational Therapist. During my job search a key factor I considered was the political leanings of cities. As a politically oriented progressive atheist I applied to positions in Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, Portland, Eugene, San Francisco, LA, Anaheim, San Diego (yes, I know that SD is relatively conservative, but still California), Hawaii, Halifax, Toronto, and various other locations in Ontario, Canada. By contrast, I did not apply to any postings in Texas, Alabama, Florida, or Utah, and only applied to a couple in Alberta. Liberal bias much? Much too much. And I’d do it again.

Here’s what’s interesting. I currently live in London, Ontario, a city which I’ve heard referred to as “ultra conservative” (at least by Ontario standards) on several occasions. I’ve never really felt like I live in a conservative city. There was one time when I went to an Ann Coulter speaking event in London and was pretty stunned by how many far-right conservatives came out. But by the same token, I’m sure that if Michael Moore had come to town, I’d have been surrounded by Lefties. The Coulter event was the only time that I’ve ever felt like I was in a conservative space.

On the other hand, I have been living in London as a graduate student. Liberalism tends to run high in universities. Furthermore, the occupational therapy field can be argued to be left-of-centre at its core. These have no doubt been key factors in affecting the degree to which I perceive myself to be living in a conservative city.

Another factor that has significantly affected my experience is that being a strong atheist progressive, the people I hang out with have tended to be secular and left-of-centre. I have progressive religious friends, but I don’t know that I have any conservative friends. Unless a person lives in an incredibly polarized place, they will probably have a disproportionate number of friends of similar moral/political opinions (including relative indifference) to themselves. What is more, when I have interacted with people of significantly differing social/political/religious opinions, these differences often do not come up in conversation. A few days ago I spoke with a Christian Conservative. The subjects of our conversation: Charlie Sheen, winning, hot sauce and restaurants. It was delightful. All of this has got me thinking:

How much do the political views of a populace leak into day-to-day life?

If you live in a liberal city or town, to what degree does it feel liberal? The same for conservative cities and towns.

Talking to political adversaries: Tips on reaching across the aisle

Reaching Across or Reaching Around?

With corrupted campaign finance and limited oversight and regulation over the intersections among government agencies (e.g., The White House and The Pentagon) and between government and private industry, big finance and media, one could easily argue that genuine ideological debate in America has taken a backseat to public-to-private reach-arounds masquerading as Republican-Democratic reaches across the aisle.

If the Republican and Democratic parties were mixed drinks, they would be glasses of corporatism with small shots of ideology.

Of course, whether the bartender was George Bush, Barack Obama, John Boehner, or Harry Reid, the patron would be led to believe that they had just bought a straight triple of their ideology of choice; likewise, they would be told that the reason that the other drink tastes so bad is because it is a straight triple of that other, yucky ideology. And almost none of the Senators, Congressmen and women and members of the mainstream media who would be the alcohol regulators at the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in this metaphor would call any of these bartenders out on this, as they’ve been at the bar drinking for free since lunch time. They are typically too drunk and too hooked on the free drinks to do anything but uphold the lie. This often leads to the trusting patrons of The Establishment being unnecessarily divided. While Republican drinkers and Democratic drinkers do have different palates, they are often mislead into believing that the corporatist solvent in the other Party’s drink is the ideological shot, or solute.

Often times, it would appear that members of each drinking group don’t mind the qualities of the other group’s shot as much as they think; they’re just confusing it with the flat, tainted corporate coke that it has been deeply diluted in.

How do we get past this? Just drink shots.

Cenk Uygur Vs. Fareed Zakaria on Progressive Dissatisfaction With Obama

In this clip from The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur responds to CNN‘s Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria criticize’s American liberals for their strong dissatisfaction with President Obama, saying among other things that they need to grow up, that they need to learn to appreciate compromise, and the like. Uygur responds by going on the offense and staying there, driving home strong points which, in my opinion, are hard to mount much of a rebuttal to.

 

What do you think?

 

Why Obama and Democrats are Less Trustworthy than Bush and Republicans

It might seem hyperbolic or facetious that a left-leaning blogger would argue that Obama and the Democrats are less trustworthy than Bush and the Republicans. Part of this impression can be done away by me immediately disabusing you of what your first impression may quite reasonably be: I am not saying that Bush or Republicans make better, more desirable leaders than Obama or the Dems. What I am arguing is that Republicans can generally be trusted more than Democrats to do what they say they are going to do. In a nutshell, the reason is that interests of the stakeholders and influencers of the Republican Party (i.e., voters, donors, lobbyists, and party elites) are far more aligned than those of the Democratic Party. As a result, it is far easier for Republicans to walk their talk than it is for Democrats.

Is Obama a Fauxgressive – a Fake Progressive, or Simply a Non-Progressive?

Obama is no progressive. Not even close.

A progressive wouldn’t load up his front office with corporatists like Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel; he wouldn’t look the other way when Chief of Staff Emanuel calls progressives “retards”; he wouldn’t spend years prior to his Presidency being mentored by, of all people, Joe Lieberman – every corporatist Republican’s favourite “Independent” “Democrat”; he wouldn’t give up the public healthcare insurance option (which had massive majority support of Americans across the political spectrum, which by the way, he rarely or never mentioned) without a fight; he wouldn’t support corporatist/Republican efforts to cut Social Security, MediCare and Medicaid, three of the most popular social programs in American history; he wouldn’t continually accept Republican framing of issues and perpetually treat Republicans and “Conservative Democrats” (read: corporatist Democrats) as honest actors whom sincerely want to do what is best for America; he wouldn’t hire on the people who broke the banks to run the banks; he wouldn’t waffle and wain over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; he wouldn’t pretend to close international CIA black sites and then turn a blind eye to those in Somalia; he wouldn’t continue and escalate Patriot Act policies; he wouldn’t pass Financial Reform that fails to put a stop to many of the most risky and system-threatening financial practices (e.g., bank over-leveraging, intermixing of depository and investment banking, continued poor regulation of derivatives trading); he wouldn’t outspend Bush on defense; he wouldn’t extend the unpopular “temporary” Bush tax cuts to the rich; he wouldn’t further lower corporate taxes; he wouldn’t continue funding Faith-Based Initiatives; he wouldn’t derisively refer to progressives like Bernie Sanders as “you progressives”; he wouldn’t escalate the fight in Afghanistan at a time when there were no more than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remaining there; he wouldn’t largely ignore and completely excuse the egregious economic mismanagement, international law debasing and civil liberties destroying practices of the previous administration and then continue the very same practices himself; he wouldn’t pretend that the Dems and Republicans are equally at fault when policy discussions come to stalemates when only the Republicans are being obstinate.

It’s  not his lack of success in advancing progressive causes that make him not a progressive. It’s his perpetual lack of effort and capitulation. There is nobility in trying and failing. There is no nobility in playing the role of the jobber in professional wrestler: the pre-determined loser of every match.

Some may say that it is unfair to call Obama a fake progressive, or a fauxgressive, because he so clearly distances himself from progressives and progressivism.

Why Japanese Healthcare is More Efficient Than Canadian and US Healthcare

A recently published report by the Conference Board of Canada, a not-for-profit economics and policy research organization, indicates that Canadians are spending more on their healthcare and getting less than most advanced nations. Canada spend more annually per capita on healthcare – $4100/person, or 10% of GDP – than all but three advanced nations, but ranked 10th according to the Conference Board’s quality of medicine metrics. By comparison, Japan spent only $2,729 per capita annually while ranking first in life expectancy and infant mortality rates. The United States healthcare system, on the other hand, performed abysmally. While the US spends astronomically more per capita on healthcare than any other nation – $7,500 annually – the Conference Board rated the quality of American healthcare to be among the worst in the 17-country study.

Why are the Japanese paying so much less to receive so much more?