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

On A Christian Nation

Polls recently indicate that more and more Americans link being an American with being a Christian. Yet the consensus on what this actually means is as nonexistent as ever. We hear a lot about how this country was founded on "Christian principles" and that the Founders wanted this to be a "Christian nation." Yet with a few exceptions, most folks would likely chafe horribly should be actually try to return to anything close what that meant in 1787. The question of what the Founders intended is an interesting one, since even cursory research produces conflicting statements on both sides. Many of the most prominent clearly felt that what they had wrought in the Constitution was a device for keeping religion from distorting government. They intended, it seems, that people as individuals should decide for themselves, within a private sphere, how to believe and subsequently how to worship. The government, they claimed, should not be permitted to interfere with that. The question, of course, is whether they intended this to be the case in the other direction. In a way, it's a ridiculous question. How do you prevent an individual's religious ideas from informing his or her political actions? You don't. However the individual believes, that is what will be taken to the polls. All such questions may be similarly addressed---what goes on within your skull is yours and the government cannot interfere with it. But public displays, judicial acts, and legislation ought to be free of overt religious sentiment. Passing laws should be based on common welfare---if an exhortation to god is necessary to make a law seem "right" then that law is not Constitutional. It has to make secular sense. But the issue is muddy, because the same Framers often talked about christian principles and the common bonds of christian community, at least in private, and often in speeches. Is this a contradiction? I believe not. The problem is, the idea as currently framed and debated is simply out of context, not broad enough. What did it mean to be part of a christian community in 1787? That everyone went to church, prayed the same way, believed in the same god or description of god? At that time, I suspect, "christian community" was a label for a total package of cultural markers. One didn't have to believe overtly in any specific christian doctrine in order to accept social ideas about what made a community. Being a christian was a political, social, and economic condition as much if not more than a religious conviction. While you might not pray in that church down the street, you would defend it and move easily in the externalized community around it. What would this have meant in practice? [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingOn A Christian Nation

A glimpse at the Expo 2010 in Shanghai, China

More than 190 countries are displaying their culture and architecture at the Expo 2010 in Shanghai, China. The Expo will run until October 31, 2010. My brother-in-law, Dan Jay (who is an architect in St. Louis at Christner, Inc.) kindly allowed me to publish some of his many photos of the pavilions of participating nations; he returned from the Expo only a few days ago. Click on the photos for expanded views. What you will see immediately below is the U.K. Pavilion, The 20-meter-high cube-like Seed Cathedral is covered by 60,000 slim, transparent acrylic 7-meter long rods, which quiver in the breeze, each of these rods containing a certain type of seed. This exhibit is designed to be a call from the UK to protect our natural species.

Continue ReadingA glimpse at the Expo 2010 in Shanghai, China