Bill Moyers on the state of the nation

On today's episode of Democracy Now, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales the entire hour interviewing Bill Moyers, who had a lot to say about the state of the nation. Here are Moyers' closing comments:

I think this country is in a very precarious state at the moment. I think, as I say, the escalating, accumulating power of organized wealth is snuffing out everything public, whether it’s public broadcasting, public schools, public unions, public parks, public highways. Everything public has been under assault since the late 1970s, the early years of the Reagan administration, because there is a philosophy that’s been extant in America for a long time that anything public is less desirable than private. And I think we’re at a very critical moment in the equilibrium. No society, no human being, can survive without balance, without equilibrium. Nothing in excess, the ancient Greeks said. And Madison, one of the great founders, one of the great framers of our Constitution, built equilibrium into our system. We don’t have equilibrium now. The power of money trumps the power of democracy today, and I’m very worried about it. I said to—and if we don’t address this, if we don’t get a handle on what we were talking about—money in politics—and find a way to thwart it, tame it, we’re in —democracy should be a break on unbridled greed and power, because capitalism, capital, like a fire, can turn from a servant, a good servant, into an evil master. And democracy is the brake on my passions and my appetites and your greed and your wealth. And we have to get that equilibrium back. I said to a friend of mine on Wall Street, "How do you feel about the market?" He said, "Well, I’m not—I’m optimistic." And I said, "Why do you, then, look so worried?" And he said, "Because I’m not sure my optimism is justified." And I feel that way. So I fall back on the balance we owe in a—in the Italian political scientist, Gramsci, who said that he practices the pessimism of the mind and the optimism of the will. By that, he meant he sees the world as it is, without rose-colored glasses, as I try to do as a journalist. I see what’s there. That will make you pessimistic. But then you have to exercise your will optimistically, believing that each of us singly, and all of us collectively, can be an agent of change. And I have to get up every morning and imagine a more confident future, and then try to do something that day to help bring it about.

Continue ReadingBill Moyers on the state of the nation

Dutch Parliament defends net neutrality

Congress, please take note that the Dutch Parliament is fighting back against the phone companies on the issue of net neutrality:

A few weeks ago, we talked about Dutch mobile phone carriers planning to charge for the use of different kinds of application, such as Skype, WhatsApp, and so on. They would check people's data traffic using deep packet inspection, and charge accordingly. This led to a massive outrage here in this glorified swamp - and this outrage has had its effect. Our parliament stood up to defend the concept of net neutrality, and as such, motioned the government to have it added to our telecommunications act. Not only will this prohibit carriers from forcing customers to pay additional fees for specific types of data, it also prohibits them from blocking certain types of traffic - something the Dutch branch of Vodafone is already doing by blocking VoIP services. This applies to regular internet service providers as well.

Continue ReadingDutch Parliament defends net neutrality

Accommodationist defined

Over at Daylight Atheist, Ebonmuse carefully sets out the meaning of a word that is sometimes hurled by one non-theist at another: accommodationist.

It seems there are some people who don't know what the word "accommodationist" means. In its original sense, that word was used to describe those who believe that religion and science occupy strictly non-overlapping spheres of thought, and that we must never argue that science disproves any religious belief. It's since widened somewhat to include those who urge atheists to stop criticizing religious belief or publicly expressing our atheism. But it's never referred to those who merely express the opinion that mockery and ridicule sometimes aren't the best strategy. If that's the definition of accommodationism, then I'm an accommodationist. (But it isn't, and I'm not.)
Excellent discussion follows the post, focusing on the extent to which ridicule aimed at theists could/should be used by non-theists.

Continue ReadingAccommodationist defined

Weiner episode raises questions about online flirting with strangers.

Over at Slate.com, William Saletan uses the recent scandal involving Anthony Weiner to explore the propriety of online flirtation with people one has never met.   Does this sort of activity constitute cheating on one's significant other?   Saletan offers a thoughtful and serious discussion that meshes well with another recurring question these days:  to what extent are those Facebook "Friends" I've never met my friends?  If not much, then it would seem that our time with them amounts to social masturbation, and not any meaningful expression of friendship. In the case of Weiner, I do think it's telling that that he claims that he was not cheating, and he was not engaged in "relationships," yet he was willing to lie to cover up what he was doing.   But maybe that raises another provocative question:  Just because one would rather not be exposed for doing an activity, is that any evidence at all that the activity is morally wrong?   Is social condemnation always an indicia of moral lapse.  After all, quite often the crowd is simply judgmental.   Or maybe the onlookers are simply permeated with schadenfreude. I know people who have been married for decades who don't talk to each other, and who don't really know each other, yet they officially have a marriage.  Why is this situation not condemned?  Isn't it a farce?  On the other hand, I know many people who are married, who sincerely admit that they can't and shouldn't expect that they could have all of their diverse needs and interests met by only one other human being.   Hence, in the face of a strong relationship at home, they have a wide variety of outside friends (often friends of both sexes) that they spend time with regarding those things their significant other isn't passionate about, whether it be photography, history, raising dogs or whatever.  Sometimes that interest is flirtation; sometimes even sex.  I'm not suggesting any sort of lesson here, but what gives the crowd the right to judge a particular marriage that, in its own crazy-seeming way, seems to work? And how could anyone concerned about this country not be dismayed, once again, when a sexually-tinged side show takes 90% of the media's attention, such that real issues are not given proper coverage.  Could this be solved by requiring members of Congress to stand up naked while they give speeches on important topics?   How could we focus media attention on Wall Street corruption or the massive amount of money we spend of discretionary warmongering and, instead, encourage viewers to talk about these things intensely, to the same extent that we are all now jabbering about a horny man who has otherwise done an admirable job of being a thoughtful representative?   I have no answer to this question.

Continue ReadingWeiner episode raises questions about online flirting with strangers.