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.

Endorsing Justin Trottier, Green Party of Ontario Candidate, Parkdale-High Park

I am proud to throw my out-of-riding support behind Justin Trottier, Green Party of Ontario, who is seeking to represent the Parkdale – High Park riding. Justin Trottier is a principled and active advocate for science, reason, freedom of and from religion, nontheism, free speech, gay rights, and environmental responsibility.

I have had the pleasure of getting to know Justin during my time as a supporter of the various secular, science, reason, nontheist, humanist advocacy organizations that he has played leading roles in. Justin has been at the crest of the wave of Canadian science, reason, atheist and secular activism for, by my estimation, about 6-7 years now. He began by starting up the Toronto Secular Alliance, which simply exploded due to what was clearly perceived by a segment of the Canadian population to be a much welcomed voice. In collaboration with the US-based  Center For Inquiry, TSA morphed into a combination of the Freethought Association of Canada and Centre For Inquiry Ontario, Justin heading both. These organizations played leading roles in seeing affiliated groups popping up on university and college campuses across the nation, and city centres in Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, operating under the new umbrella organization, Centre for Inquiry Canada, which (unsurprisingly) has been led by Mr. Trottier.

While many atheists, agnostics, humanists, rationalists, science enthusiasts and environmentalists might easily gravitate toward Trottier, his position at the forefront of the national atheist movement may be seen a strong turn-off to others. If you are a devout conservative religionist in the Parkdale-High Park riding, there may not be much I could say to you that would bring you around to considering Trottier. However, Trottier has a lot to offer religious folk in general.

His commitment to secularism – i.e., the separation of religion from politics, such that governments can neither favour nor disfavour one religion or some religions over others, or religion over non-religion – is a commitment to ensuring a level playing field to people of all religious and belief communities. It says that, no matter what you believe, you will be treated equally under Canadian law and policy. It means that in the court room, the same laws apply to all Canadians. In the political chambers, it means that all faith and non-faith-based policy initiatives are vetted in the same way. In public education, it means subjecting ideas championed by any establishment to the same peer-reviewed processing as all other ideas before they are considered for public curriculum inclusion. It means not treating, for example, Muslims or Muslim ideas as if they deserve less than others and not treating, for example, Catholics and Catholic ideas as if they deserve  more. Relatedly, both the Green Party of Ontario and a multi-faith/nonfaith coalition, the One School System Network (ONESSN), co-led by Trottier have been at the forefront of political efforts in Ontario to discontinue public funding of Catholic elementary and secondary schools, an uneconomical privilege that is available to no other religious or other community group. While some proponents of the status quo have argued that this is an anti-Catholic or anti-religious movement, nothing could be further from the truth. It is about leveling the playing field and bringing Canadians together, not dividing them by religious affiliation.

While secularism has become somewhat of a loaded word, it is something that just about all Canadians can get behind. It is freedom of and freedom from religion, which enables each of us to practice this or that religion or no religion as we like without being pressured or favoured one way or another by our public institutions.

As an advocate of free thought and an educated citizenry, Trottier has favoured introduction of public school courses on religion and belief that teach students, in a neutral fashion, about different schools of religious and nonreligious belief and value systems. As a free speech advocate, he has actively supported the free speech rights of people with markedly different politics than himself, including York University pro-life/anti-abortion activists and well-known North American conservative figures Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, when they were under investigation for speaking out against radical Islam in The Western Standard and MacLeans magazine, respectively. Trottier has also been an active supporter of LGBT equality. Yet more examples of Trottier working to level playing fields.

As an advocate of science and science-based policy, Trottier is precisely the kind of person we need in political office when it comes to addressing the growing challenges we face in healthcare, energy and environmental policy. Trottier is a man with the principle and scientific acumen to skillfully advocate for evidence-based policy.

As a person whom has had the privilege to get to know Justin Trottier the person, and not just Justin Trottier the emerging public figure, I can attest to his good character. When I first met Justin, he had already attained some public attention, but not really much. It was after I began getting to know him that he started to regularly appear on television, in newspapers, and at the forefront of a movement that had gone from being University of Toronto and downtown Toronto centred to being a well-known national cultural voice. Throughout this time, as far as I can tell, he’s still the same Justin. The same earnest, friendly, driven, passionate, and infinitely curious guy I first met in 2007.

If you are in the Parkdale – High Park riding or know someone that is, I encourage you/them to consider Justin Trottier, a grassroots champion of equality, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, science, reason, and so many of the values that make Canada one of the most admired and most progressive nations in the world.

Best of luck, Justin.

UPDATE:

Progressive Proselytizing has posted several good articles, unsurprisingly from a progressive perspective, on the candidates in the Parkdale – High Park riding.

Support Justin on Facebook by LIKING his candidacy page!

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.

Help make “fauxgressive” a recognized word – and Obama its poster child

Last week I coined the term “fauxgressive” in reference to fake progressives. People like Barack Obama, who embrace a progressive image when it suits them, only to repeatedly jab their thumb into the eyes of progressives, ignore them and continually walk the corporatist walk. At least one other blogger was on the same page as me on this assessment. I assumed when I coined the term that I was unlikely to be the only person to have independently stumbled up on it. This ended up being true.

Che Pasa also uses this word. However, rather than speaking of corporatists masquerading as progressives, he speaks primarily of libertarians playing the role of the wolf in progressive’s clothing. This is not a surprising alternative, however, as there has been no shortage of corporatists calling themselves libertarians.

Slang words like fauxgressive can, if they take hold, affect the public conversation. Loaded with socially charged meaning, being quick and fun to use, and serving as a banner word for a social movement, these types of words have the potential to be socially influential memes. This is why I took it upon myself to do a blog post on the concept, and also to enter it into Urban Dictionary:

Fauxgressive:

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.

If this definition jives with you, follow the link and give it a thumbs up. Alternatively, if you have a different definition for fauxgressive in mind, follow the link and submit your definition for fauxgressive.

How homosexuality is destroying the English-speaking world

Cultural anthropologists have observed that a language and culture are keenly intertwined – language being a centrepiece and primary medium of culture – and that as one decays, so too does the other. With this in mind, I come with a warning:

***homosexuality is eroding English-speaking civilizations***

Marcus Bachmann was right for calling them "gay barbarians"

Don’t say another word before you learn about how homosexuality is tearing down our civilization one word at a time

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?

 

Tomorrow’s Dinner: Homeopathic Chicken Stirfry

As a busy single individual I like to limit my cooking to once or twice a week, each time cooking enough food for several days. Five days ago I made five days worth of delicious chicken stirfry. After finishing off my final serving, all of the chicken and lovingly cut fresh vegetables are gone. However, about a serving’s worth of rice remains. What to do with this rice? Have it as a snack or throw it out? Then it hit me!

HOMEOPATHIC CHICKEN DINNER!

Winning!

Think about it. Homeopathic is clearly a load of anti-reality nonsense burgeoning and eminently valid field of evidence-based healthcare. After all, the Ontario Ministry of Health wouldn’t be setting up a homeopathic regulatory board – The College of Homeopaths of Ontario – if homeopathy is nonsense, right? I mean, what’s the point in regulating nonsense? I suppose it could promote safety. But in terms of maximizing effectiveness, it’s not like doing something nonsensical “the right way” (“Bill, you’re not succussing it right! You shake up and down first, then side to side!”) is gonna make it less nonsensical. Am I right? Similarly, I wouldn’t have gotten brow-beaten by my Masters of Occupational Therapy professor for being a black-and-white thinker for criticizing an idea that had a leg to stand on, right? Exactly. So anyhow, homeopathy=good.

Homeopathy contends that water maintains memory of all that had ever been dissolved in it. Similar to how water as a solvent is the base (i.e., foundation) for solutes, rice is the base of many meals. So maybe if water will remember a solute that has been completely and decisively diluted out of it (which, by the way, makes everything we drink a homeopathic solution – I wonder how many times I’ve drank homeopathic dinosaur urine…. but I digress…) my rice will remember the chicken that was in it the day before. And even if that argument doesn’t hold up, the rice is more than half water! Bulletproof.

Look how much money this will save me, too! No wonder the agricultural and farming industries don’t want us to know about homeopathic chicken dinners….

If anyone knows the conversion rate of memory proteins to actual proteins, feel free to enlighten me in the comment section below.

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.