Tag American politics

Do You Believe In A Secular America?

Via Friendly Atheist, this PSA is one of the seven finalists in a competition sponsored by the Richard Dawkins Foundation called “Ten Point Vision of a Secular America”. Of the seven, I think this one is the best, because it focuses on a very positive idea: that everyone, religious or not, can support the notion that our political and social structures be secular as a way to insure that people of every sort of belief system are given equal rights and treatment under the law, in education, and in the daily life of the nation.

As a runner up, I would say that this one about creeping theocratic rhetoric and behavior, particulalry among American conservatives, is very effective in pointing out just how pervasive those things have become in our political and cultural discourse, and why it’s important to protect and restore secular ideals.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Guess The Future

Harvard Law professor and Congressional reform champion Lawrence Lessig is interviewed in the latest edition of Boston Review as part of promoting his new book, Republic Lost. If the book title doesn’t give it away, it should: his take on the political situation in this country is that we are in serious danger of reaching a tipping point where our democracy is completely lost to the big money interests that dominate Congress. Despite the seriousness of the situation, it’s clear that Lessig thinks that real reform of the system is stil possible, and that populist movements like the Tea Party and OWS are capable of working together to accomplish some of their common goals. Be sure to have a look at the website for his activist group, Rootstrikers.org.

Keep Lessig’s interview in mind when reading this next link, an op-ed in Sunday’s NYT from Jeffrey Sachs, the director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. The piece is entitled “The New Progressive Movement” and argues nothing less than that the successes of OWS hallmark the dawn of a new era of progressive reform, the swing of the pendulum of American history back away from the counter-reform of the last three decades. The optimism in Sachs’s editorial is a lot sunnier than Lessig’s, and honestly, I feel like you have to go with “it’s always darkest before the dawn” and see that Lessig’s argument that we are not *quite* where Sachs says we are is the more realistic outlook to have. (But, as you well know, I am a glass-half-empty man from way back.) Still, it’s reassuring that even at this point there are Serious People who believe that all is not lost.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

The Nine Eleven Nations Of North America

It has been 30 years since writer and social theorist Joel Garreau wrote “The Nine Nations of North America”, which portrayed the U.S., Canada and Mexico as really being nine distinct national regions based on shared culture, politics and geography. Now journalist Colin Woodard revisits the idea and has decided that it’s actually eleven nations, not nine in his recent book American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. His map’s a little less attached to the existing political boundaries than Garreau’s was — just looking at the book cover, I’d say the territory Woodard calls “The Midland” looks like it was gerrymandered by a Republican redistricting committee. I heard about it via this brief review at The Daily Beast, which is generally favorable (if a little light). Sam Smith of Progressive Review offered a more substantial review when the book was released in September.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

One Bright Bit Of Political News

As angry and disgusted as I have been for so long about the status of politics in this country, this past week has really taken things to a whole new level. For a change, I don’t feel quite so alone in that anger and disgust, but the collective memory of the American public is pretty damn short and November 2012 might as well be a thousand years away.

For a short moment, though, I was encouraged to read that the one man who has truly stood up to inherit the mantle “liberal conscience of the Senate”, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, has a 34-percentage-point lead over the guy who is his most likely Republican challenger. On his own, Bernie doesn’t drive a lot of the direction in the Senate, but time and time again he has been willing to call out the bullshit that the Democrats and Republicans both engage in.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Quote Of The Day

Corrupted by wealth and power, your government is like a restaurant with only one dish. They’ve got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen.

Huey Long

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Funny, I Thought We Got Rid Of George Bush

Is it me, or has Obama completely given up any pretense whatsoever of being anything but a total do-over of George W. Bush? Despite the Charlie Sheen-like ranting of the right-wingers, the guy is a total neo-con meat puppet, and the military intervention in Libya is merely the latest nail in the coffin of his “hope-y, change-y” charade.

Dissent Magazine co-editor Michael Walzer’s critique has earned a lot of attention, though it just sort of hits the highlights: no clear purpose, no defined “endgame”, lots of dissenting response from other Arab countries as well as Russia and Germany. This post at The Awl from American Conservative editor Michael Brendan Dougherty brings a few more points to the table, not the least of which is that the domestic political opposition comes from both sides of the spectrum. My hero Dennis Kucinich is actually thumping the table for impeachment. The only people really happy with this are, you guessed it, the neocons.

Keith Olbermann, who has been off the radar for a couple of months since getting the boot from MSNBC, even took this opportunity to return from his exile with his new blog, cheekily named FOK News Channel (FOK supposedly short for “Friends Of Keith”), to lambaste George W. Obama:

Chris Weigant has a piece at the Huffington Post that looks at the three basic outcome scenarios and what each one might have in store both in terms of domestic political fallout and on-the-ground changes in Libya. And Michael Moore turns his soapbox over to guest-poster Medea Benjamin, who would like to point out that part of the problem with Libya in the first place is that up until a couple of weeks ago the U.S. and its allies were lavishing Gaddafi with all sorts of weapons — a policy maneuver from the Bush Administration that the Obama Administration was all too happy to continue.

The irony of all of this starting on the 8th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War is, quite frankly, almost too much to stand.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Sanity And Fear: Two Great Tastes That Taste Great Together

Well, now that it’s the middle of the afternoon on Monday, all the various pundits and bloggers have had their chance to weigh in on Saturday’s Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally in Washington, so here’s a bit of a bonus post from me with links to four different pieces I think you might want to read:

The Friendly Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta attended the event not in any formal/official way (mostly because he was unable to score a press badge), but his on-the-ground report is the best one I’ve read in terms of giving you an idea of what it was like to be there: crowded but friendly, nobody could see or hear anything on stage, and lots of side action among the crowd.

Writing for The Awl, Maria Bustillos not only got a press pass, but got some facetime with Arianna Huffington, who spewed the usual empty canned responses. This piece is worth reading because it tries to put Jon Stewart into the context of his own career, which is sometimes overlooked in favor of his “Daily Show” success. Bustillos really gets into the discussion of the breakdown between entertainment and politics in this piece, which is a critical gloss on the whole event.

Speaking of Arianna Huffington, HuffPo religion columnist Rabbi Sid Schwartz was also at the rally and confirms the difficulties that the crowd had seeing and hearing the on-stage action. his essay, though, focuses on the sense that many in the crowd seemed to share that somehow the rally was less than what they had hoped for. Many people were looking for a counterpoint to the Tea Party events that have gotten so much attentions, but the rally people seemed very determined to avoid any overt politicization, leaving people to either make it up on their own (witness all the signs we’ve seen posted all over the Internet), or to walk away somewhat disenchanted.

Which may have been exactly the point, writes Chris Hedges. By avoiding the appearances of being a leftie rally and keeping the “radical left” in the same camp as the “radical right” by invoking a “return to sanity”, the rally indulges the mainstream self-rationalization that “everybody is crazy but us”. Thus assuaged that by standing in a big crowd, not really able to see or hear some bands and some comedians, who didn’t really say anything important anyway, the “moderate majority” can feel better about themselves without actually doing much of anything. Given Schwartz’s palpable restlessness about the event, I’m very much inclined to agree with Hedges.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

That Sound You Hear Is America Going Over The Cliff

I really don’t know what is more discouraging: that the Evil Racist Morons are going to win big tomorrow, or that the only alternative to them is a bunch of spineless incompetents who are only marginally less evil.

I have to tell you that I am seriously contemplating not voting tomorrow. My sitting Congressman, John Tierney, whose wife was just convicted of tax fraud, has a comfortable 2-1 lead over the Birther nutbag who is his Republican opponent. I have expressed my opposition to Tierney in the past for his support of things like TARP and the PATRIOT Act. I don’t want to vote for him, he doesn’t need my vote to win, there’s no opposition except a Koch-Sucker, and so that’s one wasted vote if I cast it.

The governor’s race in Massachusetts has been laughably bad. The incumbent Democratic governor is a complete joke. He got off to a piss-poor start by drawing attention to himself for spending a ton of money to redecorate his office after his inauguration, then he got caught making calls in behalf of his former employer, a corrupt mortgage firm. Otherwise, he’s done next to nothing except look like a deer in the headlights with each passing month’s unemployment and budget cut news. The Republican doesn’t seem to be a Koch-Sucker, per se, but he is one of those Republican guys who is a little too cozy sliding back and forth between the public sector (he’s the guy who oversaw the finances on the Big Dig) and the private sector (his last gig was running a major health insurance firm), and seems to excel at lining his own pockets and little else. Even the independent is nothing but a Democratic machine guy who has little to offer and absolutely no chance of picking up any more than 10% of the vote. The Green Party candidate is a woman who is more or less the Harold Stassen of Massachusetts politics and has just about as much likelihood of getting elected. Again, a completely wasted vote, no matter who gets it.

My state rep is a career Democrat who has been in the State House far too long but is too conservative for me to even consider voting for. He’s running against a guy who is on the local school board, who may or may not be a Koch-Sucker, but I ain’t willing to find out.

And I suspect that these scenarios are truer to what is happening across America than the high-profile races that get all the attention in the media: really lame Democratic candidates versus a crop of potentially volatile nutjob Republicans (or else the usual slimeball Republicans), and the really small group of fired-up nutjob Tea Party people can propel their candidates, because there are too many races where NOBODY is a good choice.

The problem is in the aggregate: nobody minds spending a penny on something, but if a few million people all give you a penny, pretty soon you’ve got a lot of money. The entire business model of the Internet is predicated on this very idea, and it works. So the American public is like all those people who bought iFart apps for their iPhones, paid 99 cents for a five-minute chuckle, and turned a bunch of lame-ass “developers” into instant millionaires for SELLING FART NOISES. Next thing you know, every dipshit who can learn how to fart into a microphone and digitize it is trying to cash in, and one of the most revolutionary technology products of the last decade is reduced to being a very expensive whoopie cushion. And that is exactly the state of American politics: offensive-gas-producing lamebrains cashing in on a public too distracted to notice or care that they’re trashing the place.

At least after you’ve gotten your fill of iFarting you can remove the app from your iPhone and pretend it was never there, but all these Koch-Suckers are going to be in place for a minimum of two years, and some of them are here to stay for a long, long, LOOOOOOOONG time. The problem with choosing the Evil Racist Moron Party is that they are already committed to making things worse for the foreseeable future. The problem with choosing the Spineless Incompetent Party is that they can’t do anything at all, for better or for worse. So, while you really wanted your iPhone to do all those cool things like on the TV commercials, you’re stuck with an uninstallable iFart app that forces you to upgrade to iFart 2.0 whether you want to or not, and the new version has found a way to digitize SMELL. But unless you jailbreak your iPhone, you can never get anything better, because Apple is so deeply invested in the status quo.

What worries me is that even though Election Day is Tuesday, on Wednesday the campaign for the 2012 elections will begin promptly at 7:00 a.m. with the morning shows, and the Democrats are going to have learned from the Republicans that you can scrape the bottom of a really deep barrel and still find candidates most Americans will vote for. And that’s exactly what we’re going to get.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Imagine A Boot Stomping On A Human Face FOREVER

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.” — George Orwell

So I guess the Tea Party really IS the future of America.

Thanks to the current flood of posts and arguments about the Tea Party over at MetaFilter, last week I learned about a political movement in France in the 1950s and 1960s called Poujadisme. The movement is named after the man who created it, Pierre Poujade, and was a right-wing countermovement that sought to undo many post-war economic reforms in France. A lot of the rhetoric and ideology behind Poujade’s party, the UDCA (Union de Defense Commercants et Artisans), sounds very much like the complaints of the Tea Party, as this PoliticsUSA article explains. Robert Zaresky, a professor of French history, also explains the rise of the Poujadistes in this NYT op-ed from February.

In the face of incidents like the one in Kentucky this week and the illegal handcuffing and intimidation of a journalist at a Joe Miller campaign event in Alaska, there is the inevitable comparison being made between the Tea Party and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. I have even made this observation myself here, and I continue to believe that the parallels exist. However, I also now see that perhaps the parallel to the rise of the Nazis is merely one possible path, and the parallel to the Poujadistes another. The fulcrum that tips the balance one way or another is likely to be not the short-term outcome of next week’s election, but the longer-term outcome of what actually happens in government once the Tea Party candidates are installed in office. In the case of France and the Poujadistes, the advent of DeGaulle as president co-opted much of the nationalist and center-right elements back into mainstream politics, even as such individuals as Jean-Marie LePen were able to use the UDCA to launch their own more extreme parties. In the case of Germany, the much more radicalized political environment was poorly manipulated by the powers-that-be and in short order the Nazis had completely usurped them.

Even though I’m more than a little disquieted by the willingness of the current campaigns to flirt with violence, I am a bit relieved to learn that there is a way in which a group as unfocused as the Tea Party can be defanged a bit, even if it means having to put up with a much more explicitly right-wing government to mollify them. But I also remain convinced that the Tea Party harkens the specter of something far more sinister that could become an unstoppable force if they ever coalesce around a credible charismatic leader, which, luckily, they still have not done.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Infographic Of The Day

As you can see, this comes via the blog at Mint.com, the personal finance website, and features a county-by-county map of the U.S. showing the percentages of populations living below the federal poverty threshold. Here’s the link to the interactive map itself, which features state-by-state breakdowns (I was kind of hoping for the drill-down to be county-by-county, too, but what can you expect?).

Personally, I was unsurprised to see where the “poverty belt” sits, since we’ve seen that same geographic dispersal before in maps that track where slavery was most prominent and where blacks make up the majority of the population. I was a bit surprised to see that the poorest county in the six New England states is York County, Maine, since I tend to associate that part of Maine with wealthy refugees from Massachusetts and places like Kennebunkport, but I guess that once you get away from the Bush family compound the average income must drop like a rock. Also, what’s up with South Dakota? Are those Native-American reservations, perchance?

If you click on that one button on the interactive map, it will tell you what the poverty thresholds are per household size, but I’ll tell you that the poverty line for a family of four is $22,205. One of the nastiest secrets about American poverty is that every entity that has a horse in the race is fully committed to not coming up with an accurate or reasonable assessment of the threshold of poverty and works from a formula originally conceived in 1965 and which are only adjusted for CPI (consumer price index), not any real-world assessment of the cost of living, nor any regional adjustments. Because if they actually did that, the already appalling figure of 14.3% of the American population living in poverty would skyrocket to reflect the reality of economic conditions in this country. Just like people who stop collecting unemployment no longer figure into the count of the unemployed, there is waaaaaaaay more actual poverty than officially-designated poverty, and there isn’t a politician or CEO around who wants to own that.

So have a look at this map and remember that it only BEGINS to tell you the story of how we are turning into a third-world nation with every passing day.

UPDATE 11/26/10 — A reader points out that since this post originally appeared, Mint has changed/fixed the map and York County no longer shows up as the poorest in New England. That dubious distinction belongs a lot less surprisingly to Washington County.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site