Aftermath

I should probably wait a few days or weeks before writing my reaction to last night's national insanity exhibition. But I doubt I'll "level out" on what has happened. First off, what part of Mr. Obama's "fixing this will take a long time" did people not understand? Did anyone seriously expect all this mess to be cleaned up in two years? Or is it really just that people are only concerned about their own situation and everyone else can just---well, worry about their own situation? Let me say this slowly, so there can be no misunderstanding: we have been digging this hole for 30 years. It will take a bit longer than two years to climb out of it. Thirty years, that's right. Since Reagan. Dear Ronnie, so classically American in so many ways. Carter began the deregulation frenzy with oil, hoping the oil companies would plow their new profits into development of American resources in the aftermath of the first major OPEC embargo. Reagan was surrounded by the rest of the business community, who whispered into his ear, sweetly, oh so sweetly, "Take the restraints off, Ronnie, and we will build you that shining city on the hill all those Moral Majority types are going on about." So he did. And that started it. (Unlike others, I am inclined to believe that Reagan was naive about this. I think he was from that generation that actually trusted people of a certain stature, relied on native patriotism, and so was completely blindsided by the corporate vampires who talked him into deregulating damn near everything. I think he expected them to reinvest in America, not start the whole ugly off-shore account boom and the outsourcing of American jobs. Inclined, I say, but not willing to give him a complete pass. Because along with that, Reagan oversaw the foreign take over of hundreds of American businesses, many of which were involved in basic research and development and manufactured things vital to our national interest. Throughout the 80s, one company after another was bought by Japanese, British, German, French, and occasionally Korean interests and the result was a serious hemorrhage of expertise, know-how, and manufacturing capacity, not to mention the loss of good-paying, high-tech jobs as those businesses were all moved out of the United States and to their new host countries. Why did he do this? Because Reagan was a traditional conservative who believed government should have nothing to do with private sector business, either pro or con, and he refused to establish an "industrial policy" that would have protected these businesses. At the time there was a tremendous wave of sentiment opposed to protectionism, which smacked of a "liberal" or at least Democratic program, but in hind sight clearly was all about keeping international boundaries as open as possible for the multinationals that have presided over the disemboweling of our economy.) Deregulation has been the culture in Washington ever since. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingAftermath

The Pundit’s Whine

I try to ignore Glenn Beck. I think he’s pathetic. All he can do is whine about things he quite often doesn’t understand. For instance, his latest peeve has to do with being bumped out of line by science fiction. Yeah, that’s right. Glenn Beck’s book Broke has been number 1 on Amazon for a while and it apparently got beat out finally by a science fiction anthology. His complaint that this is from “the left” is telling. First off he’s trying to make it sound like some profound philosophical issue, that a science fiction collection outsold his book on Amazon. (He also noted that the Keith Richards autobiography bumped him as well and please note the twist he gives that.) Why the Left? Is science fiction a left-wing thing? I know a lot of SF writers who style themselves right-wing, libertarian, conservative, etc. Some of them are very good, too, and I have read some of their work with pleasure. Unless they were writing from an overtly political stance, I found no reason to call them on their “rightishness” because they outsold another writer’s work that might have been a bit leftish. This is just a silly complaint and displays an obsession with partisan politics or just immaturity. This is, of course, Glenn Beck we’re talking about, who seems to find more reasons to evoke Nazi similes than any other pundit I know of and has occasionally shed tears over the abuse he sees our great country enduring from the left. But this is ridiculous. Because isn’t this…I mean, Glenn, isn’t this just the free market making itself heard? Your book can’t stay number one because that would belie the whole principle of competition you claim to believe in. Everybody who works hard and honestly should have their shot at being number one for a little while and this anthology is a poster-child for hard work and perseverance because, well, it’s self-published! It doesn’t even have a major (or minor) publishing house behind it! It got there all on its own, man! This is the flower of the free market! David whupping Goliath’s ass! This should make you proud! No, he berates it because it has to do with death or the culture of death, which he equates with left-wing politics somehow. And for good measure drags Keith Richards into the whole death equation. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Pundit’s Whine

The oligarch’s president

Charles Ferguson is the director of the new documentary, "Inside Job", which is generating a lot of buzz. It is narrated by Matt Damon, and explains the financial crisis that began in 2008 and continues to this day. Ferguson has contributed an article to the War Room blog at Salon.com, and it's a stunningly clear indictment of the plutocracy that has taken over both the American economy and its political system. Please, do yourself a favor, and read the entire thing. Did you read it? Good, now we're ready to continue. Here's the part that I'd really like to draw your attention to (emphasis mine):

It is, in short, overwhelmingly clear that President Obama and his administration decided to side with the oligarchs -- or at least not to challenge them. This raises the question of why they have made this choice, and whether it is a correct (in the sense of rationally self-interested) calculation on their part. As to the "why," several explanations have been proposed. One is that the president, as a matter of individual psychology, is extremely conflict-averse, preferring to avoid fights no matter how important. A second hypothesis is that the president is simply doing the most he can, given the political climate and the furious lobbying effort with which he is confronted. This explanation, however, is belied by the personnel appointments, among other evidence. A more disturbing possibility is that the Obama administration has simply codified a new strategic equilibrium in American politics, one first devised by the Clinton administration, in which both parties are supine with regard to the financial sector and the wealthy. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe oligarch’s president

Who’s Afraid of the Tea Party, or, What Are Those Silly People Talking About?

At a Rand Paul rally, a woman who intended to present Paul with an ironic award (Employee of the Month from RepubliCorps) was assaulted by Paul supporters, shoved to the ground, and then stepped on. Police had nothing to do with this, it was all the supporters of one of the Tea Party leading lights. What they thought she intended to do may never be known, but they kept their candidate safe from the possibility of enduring satire and questions not drawn from the current playbook of independent American politics. Another Tea Party candidate, Steve Broden of Texas, has allowed that armed rebellion is not “off the table” should the mid-term elections not go their way. Sharron Angle of Nevada alluded to “second amendment remedies” in a number of interviews in the past six months. “Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government,” Angle told conservative talk show host Lars Larson in January. “In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” Next to this kind of rhetoric, the vapidity of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware is more or less harmless and amusing. In a recent debate with her opponent she appeared not to know that the much-debated Separation Clause is in the First Amendment. Of course, a close hearing of that exchange suggests that what she was looking for was the exact phrase “separation of Church and State” which is not in the First Amendment. She thought she had won that exchange, as, apparently, did her staff, and they expressed dismay later when they were portrayed as having lost. The best you could give her is points for trying to make a point through disingenuous literalism. Not understanding the case law that has been built on the phrase that is in the First Amendment does not argue well for her qualifications to even have an opinion on the matter. Leading this apparently unself-critical menagerie is Sarah Palin, who despite having a dismal record in office and a clear problem with stringing sentences together has become the head cheerleader for a movement that seems poised to upset elements of both parties in the midterms. It’s one thing to throw darts and poke fun at the candidates, many of whom sound as if they have drawn their history from the John Wayne school of Hollywood hagiography and propaganda. But the real question is why so many people seem to support them. A perusal of the Tea Party website shows a list of issues over which supposedly grass roots concern is fueling the angry election season. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingWho’s Afraid of the Tea Party, or, What Are Those Silly People Talking About?

The Center for Inquiry responds to the claims made by Paul Kurtz

Until May 18, 2010, Paul Kurtz was a member of the boards of the the Center for Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He was also the Editor in Chief of CSH’s flagship publication, Free Inquiry. On May 18, 2010, these three organizations announced that Kurtz had resigned from each of these boards and as Editor in Chief. At my request, Kurtz agreed to an interview, which I published here at Dangerous Intersection on October 2, 2010. On the day I published Kurtz' interview, I invited the Center for Inquiry to respond. A few days later, I was contacted by Ron Lindsay, President and CEO of CFI. Lindsay agreed to an interview of the same general format (both of these were written interviews and both were guided by about 20 questions from me. What follows is my interview with Ron Lindsay: EV: What attracted you to join CFI? Briefly describe your association with CFI. RL: For over 25 years, the Center for Inquiry or its affiliates have been an important part of my life. (CFI itself was not founded until 1991.) In 1983 or 1984, I became acquainted with the Council for Secular Humanism and its publication, Free Inquiry. (Paul Kurtz had contacted me about representing the Council in a church-state lawsuit.) Once I became familiar with the Council, I found myself in agreement with the approach that the organization took on key issues. In particular, I agreed that religion should not be spared from critical examination and that it was important to develop and foster a humanistic ethics, that is, a naturalistic ethics based on human interests. I’ve considered myself a secular humanist, as well as an atheist, ever since. I did volunteer legal work for the Council and CFI over the next 20 years or so. I also had about a dozen articles published in Free Inquiry and was listed as a contributing editor or senior editor. I also served on the board of directors for the Council for roughly four years. (I believe I served from 1988 until 1992 or 1993.) In March or April of 2006, Paul Kurtz contacted me regarding the opening of CFI’s Washington, D.C. office, and he asked me to assist the office in its work. I told him that might be difficult because I was in the process of leaving my law firm to take an in-house position with a corporation, and the corporation probably would not permit pro bono work for CFI or its affiliates. Paul then asked me to consider working for CFI as its in-house lawyer. We both understood that CFI could not pay me anywhere near what I would earn elsewhere, but I decided to accept this offer because of my commitment to the work of the organization. I thought that at this point in my life—I was 53 at the time—, I could sacrifice income to pursue an opportunity to work full-time on causes to which I was personally dedicated. I worked in the D.C. office starting in July of 2006, and Paul Kurtz then promoted me to various positions. First, he made me a vice president; he then appointed me to CFI’s Executive Committee; and finally, he appointed me to the position of executive director for the Council for Secular Humanism. I did not request any of these positions, so presumably these appointments reflected Paul Kurtz’s confidence in my abilities and my dedication to secular humanism. Then, on or about June 26, 2008, the board of directors (including Paul Kurtz) offered me the position of president and CEO. I have held this position since that time. -- EV: Why is Paul Kurtz no longer a Board member of CFI, CSH, or CSI? Why is he no longer editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry? RL: Paul Kurtz voluntarily resigned from his positions with CFI and all its affiliates, including his position as editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry. His email announcing his resignation from these positions stated that he was resigning because he believed he did not have any “effective authority in these organizations.” His resignation announcement made no reference to being placed under duress. Any suggestion that Paul Kurtz was forced to resign or was “expelled” is without factual support. No one who has made such a claim has ever provided any specifics regarding who supposedly pressured Paul Kurtz to resign, what pressure was applied, when the pressure was applied, and so forth. The myth of Paul Kurtz’s expulsion or ouster from CFI is just that: a myth that does not withstand critical examination. -- EV: Do you contest the accuracy of any of the facts asserted by Mr. Kurtz in his interview? RL: Yes. Virtually all of Paul Kurtz’s answers in his interview contain serious inaccuracies. I will highlight a select portion of them here. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Center for Inquiry responds to the claims made by Paul Kurtz