Fucking Eh!

Well, those filthy Canadians escaped with a squeaker over the U.S. today in the gold medal hockey game. That means the head-to-head is 1-1, but given the fucked up nature of the Olympic tournament, the Canadians win outright, despite being outscored 7-6 in a two game split. Take it away, Peter:

Will All The Real Fascists Please Stand Up?

The Führer 2.0

The fact that a despicable man like Adolf Hitler was able to brainwash the majority of the German populace into buying his twisted worldview is a fact that still seems unbelievable over 70 years later. An analysis of the unique political and social factors present in Germany at the time is not sufficient to explain how the masses were so vulnerable to Hitler’s advances. For that we must also take psychological factors into account. Research suggests that there is a certain type of character structure, called the authoritarian personality, which makes one particularly prone to being submissive to authority. If it were not for the prevalence of this type of character in Nazi Germany, Hitler may never have assumed power in the first place. This is the same type of personality that we see displayed in many conservatives today. In contemporary American politics, the influence of this personality type wreaks untold havoc, effectively acting as a silent killer of democratic progress.

The authoritarian personality was first studied shortly after WWII in the early 1950’s by psychologists at UC Berkley. These researchers found that the authoritarian personality typically consisted of nine specific character traits: conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception (desire for status quo), superstition and stereotypy, power and ‘toughness,’ destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sexuality (sexual repression).” Although the validity of some of these specific traits have been debated over the years (i.e., they have not all been found to correlate highly with each other), it is now well accepted that authoritarians are generally people “who readily submit to the established authorities in society, attack others in their name, and are highly conventional.” The parallel here with extreme right-wingers in this country should be clear enough. An ironic example of authoritarian “conservatives” can be witnessed in the fans of Glenn Beck (i.e., the Obama is Hitler crowd); these folks represent a perfect example of potential Nazis in training. If cultural and political forces were tweaked in the right way, these are the characters that would jump at the opportunity to be cogs in the machine of any fascist dictator.

Many liberals assume that a lack of intelligence is primarily to blame for the conservative or authoritarian proneness to self-imposed slavery. The question is: what specific aspect of intelligence do they lack? Because there are many different facets of intelligence, there are no doubt plenty of half-retarded conservatives that can nonetheless display any amount of competency within various areas of expertise. Where conservatives do show evidence of mild to severe mental retardation, however, is in their lack of critical thinking skills and inability to tolerate ambiguity (i.e., creative problem solving). In other words, they tend to think in absolutistic, black and white terms. This closed-minded way of approaching the world makes the authoritarian character prone to things like excessive religiosity and/or patriotism. The common denominator for these conservatives is the excessive drive to submit to a grand authority figure. Questions of morals, for example, are either perceived to be absolutely dictated by the laws of men or by an almighty god; in either case, there is always an ultimate authority figure that dictates right from wrong. It is this lack of tolerance for ambiguity and the concomitant lack of self agency that makes many a conservative comparable to a childish thumb-sucker in constant need of a father figure to control their every whim. This, my friends, is real stupidity. And this is conservatism in the good old US of A.

It seems to me that the authoritarian’s inability to tolerate ambiguity (anti-intraception) is the most damaging character trait of all. This marked discomfort with uncertainty is what drives conservatives to cowardly strive for maintaining the status-quo, which to them is comfortable because it seems objective and real. Holding onto the status-quo negates the “need to seek subjective thought or imaginative resolution to problems. The solution is thought to be written somewhere in the policies and rules of the organization; if not the authoritarian can turn to a higher authority such as a superstition or myth. If the solution is not written, it is the job of the authority to decide, not the submissive.” It is this masochistic submission of will prompted by the fear of uncertainty that spawns virtually all of the other traits of the poisonous authoritarian/conservative personality.

The conservative mind’s special proneness to fearing uncertainty is also supported by an abundance of evidence suggesting that conservative ideologies serve to allay fears of death. By submitting their will to authorities, these characters can effectively bypass the experience of being alone in an uncertain and dangerous world. In effect, the drive toward conservatism can be boiled down to representing a defense against these basic existential fears. Of course, these are fears that every one of us grapples with just by virtue of being a fragile human being destined to be devoured by meal worms. Conservatives, however, represent the extreme end of this fear spectrum; they are the most fearful and cowardly among us. A horrendous example of a state ruled by such fear was witnessed in Nazi Germany. If it were not for those of us on the opposite end of the fear spectrum (e.g., progressives) to buffer the power of these cowardly conservative souls, we would all surely be fucked.

Franklin Deleano Roosevelt once said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” In a sense, this is certainly a wise and true statement, for it is fear that spawns most of the evil perpetrated by our species. But fear itself only wreaks havoc when it is manifested by the human animal, so perhaps progressives should embrace and accept a healthy fear of those authoritarians among us who unknowingly have too much of it. Maybe we should start to get more paranoid à la Glenn Beck and find some charismatic personalities to go around ranting on popular news shows about the scourge of conservatism that is attempting to ruin our fine country. Only instead of pretending to be an academic by writing on a chalkboard and drawing insanely illogical conclusions in order to spread fear, the progressive paranoid could be a real academic that rants about the actual evidence which suggests that conservatives truly are the cancer eating away at our society.

So go out there and be afraid. Be very afraid. (Beck starts 1:00 in.)



Note

In this essay I have taken liberties with the use of generalization. Not all “conservatives” can be said to have authoritarian personalities. In fact, what I would consider real conservatives (e.g., Ron Paul) can often display the polar opposite traits of the authoritarian. The ones I am referring to are mostly those on the more extreme end of the social conservative spectrum (e.g., people who habitually watch Fox News, religious fundamentalists, George W Bush fetishists, etc). Furthermore, the fact that those with authoritarian personalities happen to exist primarily within the conservative and Republican camps in this country is not to say that these types always fall to the “right” of the political spectrum. Historically, authoritarian types have just as easily been swayed by Stalin’s brand of communism, for example. So yes, super “lefty” communists with authoritarian personalities can also be authority-humping assclowns. Again, it is the unique combination of contemporary social and political forces in this country that make these types gravitate towards the Grand Old Party.

~Wolf

White House Inexplicably Lets Lieberman Soak Up DADT Repeal Glory

The face of douchebaggery

Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, long the bane of the left, is now taking the lead on a cornerstone Democratic issue: don't ask, don't tell. At the White House's request, Lieberman will sponsor Senate legislation to repeal the policy, which bans gay men and women from openly serving in the military and which Lieberman has long opposed. Liberals, wary of trusting Lieberman with a pet issue, are skeptical of his involvement and are asking why the White House would let him reap the glory.

Atlantic Wire

Boy, Barack Obama sure does have a funny way of dealing with recalcitrant legislators. I mean, Joe Lieberman has been nothing but one big pain in the ass for his administration, (a party he once belonged to but quit after he got his ass kicked in the 2006 primary, and ended up winning the general election as an Independent). He single-handedly killed the public option. He killed the Medicare buy-in. He campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin for shit’s sake. And yet, Barack Obama has asked Lieberman to sponsor a bill that would repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on sexual orientation, whose repeal is a fait accompli at this point. So the White House, advised by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, just blasted a 320 yard drive that rolled up to within six inches of the cup and said, “Go ahead, Joe. Tap it in.” And to top it off, Lieberman opposes gay marriage. So it’s not even like he’s some great champion of gay rights.

If Obama were an actual progressive, he wouldn’t give Joe Lieberman the time of day. But the fact that the White House asks Lieberman to take the initiative on this shows just how unserious Barack Obama’s request for a public health insurance option was. I mean, think about it. If you’re the president and you truly believe that having a public option available would do millions of Americans a great service and maybe even save lives, and then Senator Droopy Dog who campaigned for your opponent comes out and says that as the potential sixtieth vote for a cloture resolution he couldn’t vote for something he actually once supported, how rip-roaring bullshit would you be?

But Barack Obama is going to let Joe soak up a lot of the glory on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. The reason why is beyond me. It may be beyond everyone. Lieberman has walked all over Obama and yet gets to sponsor slam-dunk legislation and keep his committee chairmanship.

Obama has shown himself to be an inept, uninspired, uninspiring, run-of-the-mill, lackluster politician and president. Legislative treason doesn’t always have to be met with punishment, but Jesus Christ, don’t ever reward it. Even George W. Bush knew that much.

- Max

God Is For Thumbsuckers

There may be nothing in the world more infantile than believing that one’s existence is the result of the workings of a paternalistic supernatural deity who watches over us all. If the prevalence of belief in god and religiosity in a country is any indication of its population’s maturation level, then the United States is a fetus.

Recently an incredibly disturbing poll was published indicating that 79% of Americans believe in miracles, 68% believe in the existence of angels and demons, and only 40% accept Darwinian evolution.

I am speechless. I am without speech. Thankfully, George Carlin is not (even though he’s dead).



- Max

Faux Conservatives Diss Ron Paul

Disliked and mocked by many so-called conservatives, Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas) is probably the closest thing to a conservative in Washington.

Take a look at the following clip from Fox “News” reporting the results of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll. The winner was Ron Paul, which for Fox was the wrong result. Watch as they try to explain away Paul’s nine point first place finish last week over golden boy Mitt Romney.

This sorry-ass report tells you all you need to know about Fox “News.” Notice how the reporter tried to downplay Paul’s victory by saying that attendees weren’t just handed a ballot, but rather they had to go out of their way to booths in order to vote at the convention. In other words, Paul’s supporters are dedicated and they really believe in their guy. What does this episode say for the support for Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty? It says that maybe they don’t have too many supporters who are excited enough about their potential candidate to vote for self-serving, made-for-TV professional politicians.

Can you guess what the CPAC crowd’s reaction was when the results of the poll were announced? They booed loud enough to drown out the Paul supporters That’s pretty amazing considering that Ron Paul is arguably the most principled Republican in Congress. Unlike the phonies who comprise the GOP, there is no gap between what he says and how he votes. Personally I agree with Paul’s warnings about our interventionist policies in international affairs. I agree with him about the need to protect personal liberty. But we are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the economy. Paul wants government out of the markets as much as possible, which I think will pave the way for a tyrannical takeover of America by big business. Obviously he would dispute this conclusion, but given the dysfunctional nature of American democracy, we are ripe for corporate picking.

Having said this, I admire Ron Paul for his consistency and willingness to stick to his principles, even when it is politically unpopular. And in the modern Republican Party, antiquated ideas such as personal liberty and retrenching our hegemonic ways in international relations are very unpopular. That’s because the GOP of today advocates a mild form of fascism characterized by extreme patriotism which is used to launch wars of choice to secure American (elites’) economic interests. It also seeks to foster an ever cozier relationship between corporations and the government (which Democrats also advocate), and also a gradual erosion of individual freedom via legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, as well as through debt slavery which has a very limiting effect on personal liberty.

Republican bigwigs would prefer that Ron Paul didn’t exist for the simple fact that he makes them look bad. If any one of the 200 plus Republican lawmakers in Congress can claim to be against “big government,” it’s Ron Paul. I find it absolutely hilarious that the CPAC attendees were cheering guest speaker Dick Cheney whose administration exploded the national debt and funneled billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars into the big banks to bail their sorry under-regulated asses out. But what do you expect? The CPAC people are full of shit. All of them. Well, most of them anyway. How else can you explain their mindless applauses for people such as Cheney, and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who helped the Bush administration dig America into a giant hole? The same goes for Newt Gingrich. When he was Speaker of the House, Gingrich’s district was one of the biggest recipients of federal money (pork) in the country. So yeah, Newt said he wanted to reduce federal spending, but not on Cobb County, Georgia where Lockheed-Martin just happened to be the largest employer. Although the Lockheed plant there wasn’t actually in Gingrich’s district, thousands of his constituents were nonetheless employed there. As such, Gingrich helped secure a $503 million government contract with Lockheed to build nine C130-J transport planes that the Air Force said it didn’t need. I don’t remember reading that in the Contract with America.

This is American conservatism at work. Ronald Reagan, for which many conservatives have an almost neurotic fetish, has achieved a mythical status as a slayer of big government in defiance of what he actually did as president. But in order for Republicans to run against “big government,” they need to rewrite recent history in order to portray their party as one of small government. But that’s bullshit, and as soon as they’re in power they show just how full of it they were on the campaign trail. And the sad thing is, the people who voted for them never call them on it. The fact that the teabaggers came into existence the month following Barack Obama’s inauguration speaks volumes about their motivations. Indeed, if a Republican became president today, the majority of teabaggers would go away for the rest of the administration no matter what the new president did or how much he spent from here on in. Sure they’d keep their organizations and websites, but as for the mass protests against nonexistent tax hikes, kiss those goodbye. And if you think I’m wrong, you’re only kidding yourself.

- Max Canning

Appendix

As these charts clearly indicate, Republican presidents have done more to increase the size of government than Democrats.

Gross debt as a percentage of GDP

From the FY 2009 Government budget. Upper chart shows national debt in trillions of dollars. Lower chart shows national debt as percentage of GDP. Both are overlaid with party affiliation. Red = Republican president, Blue = Democratic president.

Charts courtesy of Wikipedia.

The Stoic Psychologist

The following is an interview that I (Wolfgang) conducted in 2005 with the late psychotherapy pioneer, Albert Ellis. He is widely considered one of the three most influential psychologists of all time and was one of the founders of the now tremendously popular Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. His own particular brand of therapy is called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT).

W: In “Sex Without Guilt,” you discuss the various reasons why Americans seem to be the most neurotic culture when it comes to sex. Although much has changed since 1966 when that book was published, sex education classes have remained similar, in that the emphasis is put on the dangers of sex without paying attention to the benefits. Could you briefly explain some changes that you would like to see implemented in sex education courses?

AE: The main thing is to tell the truth, to show them (youths) that sex has its dangers as everything does but that they can have a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure in intercourse, or in petting or anything, without the dangers. Therefore, they can enjoy it freely.

W: How, if at all can REBT help individuals with acute psychoses (e.g. schizophrenia)? For example, could a psychotic person use REBT to become significantly less disturbed by a hallucination?

AE: Normally psychosis is a matter of biology, so that they are born and raised disturbed and they are not going to change very much. You’re not going to talk them out of some of the schizophrenic ideas. So, you teach them, as we teach everybody, USA (Unconditional Self Acceptance). This teaches to accept yourself with your psychosis; to know that it is a handicap; to know that many people will criticize you for being psychotic, but still say I’m OK just because I am alive even though I have schizophrenia and am seriously disturbed. Then you’ll be able to not live as happy a life as other people, but you can still lead a quite happy life.

W: How do you define a vitally absorbing interest, and in your opinion, what degree of importance does having one play in your own mental health.

AE: Well, a vital absorbing interest means you pick something (art, science, music, etc) and you thoroughly get devoted to it, not obsessively or compulsively but thoroughly. You enjoy it just because you like it and you keep at it very often for the rest of your life. So, it helps distract you from all kinds of problems, but it gives you a meaning and a purpose. Your vital absorbing interest becomes a purpose and therefore it adds considerably to your life while other people without it don’t have as enjoyable of a time. You grow with it just because you’re absorbed in it and like it very much.

W: It is of my opinion that if the basic tenets and practices of REBT were preached nearly as much as that of the Bible, the world would be a much better place, or would at least be showing signs of significant improvement. That being said: Why has the public not substantially caught on to this rational and effective philosophy and therapy, and what steps would you like to see support this end in the future?

AE: Well, the Bible has some very good points such as the concept of accepting the sinner but not the sin, or as REBT calls it, Unconditional Other Acceptance. But, the Bible also has some pretty poor points. You damn people, you punish them, you send them into hell, etc. So therefore, I am naturally prejudice because I’m a nonbeliever, and I believe that people would be very much better off with the Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy than with the big biblical philosophy. I would like to see it tried, but I can be pretty sure that they wouldn’t be guilty, they wouldn’t be depressed, they wouldn’t be angry at other people, and they would be self accepting with the REBT philosophy. They might get some of that in the Bible, but they might not.

W: And what steps would you like to see taken to promote REBT in the future?

AE: I would like to see REBT taught in the school system, public and private from kindergarten or preschool on I would teach children Unconditional Self Acceptance (I can accept myself just because I’m alive), Unconditional Other Acceptance (I never hate other people, I just hate some of the things they do) and Unconditional Life Acceptance (The world is pretty rotten in many respects, but it’s not awful and horrible and I can still get a great deal of satisfaction out of it). Now, if every single child was taught that from preschool onward, they wouldn’t all get it, but a great many would get it and lead quite happy lives. They would lead much happier lives than they are presently, where they depress themselves with all kinds of anxiety, depression and horror.

W: In the past, your colorful use of profanity has certainly turned many people off. How would you respond to the notion that a professional-- certainly one of your stature-- should refrain from the use of foul language?

AE: Well, if they want to refrain let them refrain. I don’t force anybody to use my language and I don’t use it all of the time with everyone. But, I do use it with a great many people who know that I think it will do a lot of good. It is very direct, very honest, very frank, and people can see that there is no bullshit about it. Therefore, most people, much of the time, take to it and I think that anything a professional does that gets people to understand him/her and to get across to them better is beneficial. Therefore, I help people with my language and with other things such as writing that doesn’t have the language.

W: Why do humans seem to have considerable difficulty accepting the ultimate uncertainty of all the major philosophical and theological questions? Why is faith in an unfounded belief such a driving force in many peoples’ lives?

AE: Because people think they have to be safe, safe, safe, and if they had certainty then they would know everything and they would be safe. So they say: "I’d like some degree of certainty, security, or safety." That’s OK. But then they say: "I need absolute certainty all times under all conditions," and that’s impossible for anybody to have. So, by needing absolute certainty, they actually make themselves unsafe and follow all kinds of crappy ideas. So, we teach them that there is really no certainty because anything can change all the time. Therefore, you try to get a high degree of probability without needing certainty and then you do yourself pretty good.

W: In the interview cited in “The Road To Tolerance,” you stated that you have not had a miserable day since you created REBT in 1955. Has this remarkable streak continued up to the present day?

AE: Yes, I have unhappy days in the sense that something unfortunate happens. People sometimes object to me, fight me, or do me in actually. I don’t like that so I feel very sad, frustrated and annoyed. But I never, practically ever feel depressed, raging, or self hating. So in the sense of the usual major disturbances, I am not deliriously happy but I am not very unhappy either.

W: Also, please briefly explain your recent surgery and how you refrained from terribly upsetting yourself about it.

AE: Well, I had diarrhea and intestinal problems for about a year and it didn’t do me any good. But one day, when Debbie (his wife) fortunately was here, we called a doctor in on a Sunday and she didn’t think it was so bad until I started bleeding. So they got me to the hospital and within an hour or two they said I really needed to have an operation. So I said: "too bad, tough shit. Do it." So they performed the operation and I was in the hospital for the next several days unable to do very much and she (Debbie) slept over in the hospital and really took care of me and saved me from the nurses. After I got over it, I couldn’t travel very much because I had to have two nurses with me all the time. So that was a pain in the ass, but I was able to take it and do the best I could under difficult conditions and only again make myself healthfully sorry and regretful. I wish it hadn’t happened but it did. Too damn bad! So I still go on with life.

DJ: When you said I was protecting you from the nurses I think you mean from their neglect.

AE: That’s right.

DJ: He’s diabetic and they weren’t checking his blood often enough for the sugar level and he fell into a coma. He was so amazing. Within days of the major surgery after having his entire colon removed, he forced himself to write a little bit every day even though he was weak. Since then, he has written about six books.

W: One behavioral technique that is used in REBT is the shame attacking exercise. Could you provide an example of this experience as used in therapy?

AE: Well I invented it years ago when I was ashamed of doing things foolishly and getting rejected. I thought I was silly from a philosophical standpoint because if they reject me their not going to cut my balls off and their not going to shoot me. But, I didn’t get over it. So I deliberately did these things that I was ashamed to do because shame means self-downing. For example, I made myself go to cafeterias and ask for the check without having ordered anything. I also invented many other ironic ones where I instruct a male client to go to a drugstore and say: “I would like a gross of small condoms so they won’t fall off,” and help him not to feel ashamed afterward. I would have another client go up to a stranger on the street and say: “I just got out of the loony bin. What month is it?” and not feel ashamed. When they do these exercises and have the philosophy that: I do stupid things, but I am not a rotten shameful person, then they lose their anxiety and their depression and they function much better.

W: If you had to estimate, what percentage of people, if any, can cure themselves of a substantial neurosis (i.e. anxiety or depression), simply by reading and familiarizing themselves with the philosophy and practices of REBT without the use of a therapist?

AE: Well I believe that 90-100% can do it but they don’t because it’s too hard and they don’t follow it through. For instance, without a therapist’s support they might give themselves homework but not follow through with it. It is very hard to do given that the human condition is to be rather disturbed or neurotic. So, without a therapist, most of them can get somewhat better, but not as much better as they could get if they really forcefully, emotionally, vigorously and actively kept using the stuff in my self help books.

W: It seems to me that in today’s global situation, the various social evils that you name as intolerance, bigotry, absolutism, rigidity and fanaticism are still reigning supreme. Given that these social evils do not seem to be on the decline in today’s increasingly nuclear age; do you tend to hold an optimistic or pessimistic view of the fate of mankind?

AE: Well if we just let things go as they are right now I would be pessimistic. But, as I have said before, if we teach little children, adolescents and adults in businesses and organizations, even in the churches, the principles and practices of REBT, then I would take a very optimistic view. I would say that it would take a long time to reap the benefits and they will not all get it, but some will get it and teach others. The teachers will be able to teach the children and then the children will be able to teach the teachers. So in the long run I take an optimistic view if USA, UOA and ULA, which are taught in REBT, can be taught to practically everyone and will finally prevail.

W: If someone in the future were to publish a book called: “The Gospel According to St. Albert,” would you approve of or reject this title?

AE: Well, I would approve it because it is a humorous title. But I am not a saint. There is no St. Albert. I don’t think there is a St. anything. None of us are saints, but we are also not devils. We are fallible, screwed up humans who can un-saintly fight the nonsense that we are born with and that we learn, and get better and better and better.

W: In your writings, you blame many of society’s ills on the various types of fascists: including political, intellectual and sexual fascists. Briefly explain what you mean by intellectual fascists. Is there any particular place where these characters are usually found (e.g. academia)?

AE: Well an intellectual fascist not only puts others down, but puts him or herself up by being bright, attractive, informing, etc. So they say: “I’m a good person because I am so bright and capable,” and “You are a bad person because you’re not.” Therefore, whenever you act stupidly, I make you into a stupid person, and whenever you act incompetently, which at times you will, you are a totally incompetent person. So they culturally and actually use intellectual means of putting other people down for not being bright enough or talented enough. This is still a form of fascism or self downing and I call it intellectual fascism.

W: Well, I think that is about all the questions I have for you. Thank you so much for your time.

AE: It was my pleasure. I really enjoyed your questions. They made for a fun interview.

RIP Dr. Ellis

~Wolf

Open Letter To The Democratic Party

Dear Democrats:

My name is Max Canning and I am a registered Independent. Although I usually avoid labeling myself, I can tell you that I’m on the progressive end of the political spectrum, if that helps you understand where I’m coming from.

On January 20, 2009, I was one of the two million people standing in the cold on the Mall in Washington D.C. for Barack Obama’s inauguration. On that day, my rank cynicism about American politics was tempered somewhat by the site of a black man from a modest background saying encouraging things about where he wanted to take the country after eight years of national misery and disgrace. And for one of the few times in my life, I was optimistic—albeit cautiously—about an elected official.

But now almost thirteen months later, my cynicism has returned tenfold. I don’t know how it happened, but you have managed to squander a clear mandate from the American people who gave you the White House and huge majorities in the House and the Senate, which, to remind you, are all you need in order to pass laws. For some reason, the Republicans continue to thoroughly kick your asses up and down the aisles and halls of the Capitol Building, in the media, in public forums, and any other place where it’s possible to get your asses kicked. Your performances in the policy and rhetorical arenas have been so weak, so unimpassioned, so mind-bogglingly pathetic, that I am ashamed to think I once believed that the Democratic Party could possibly bring about some real, positive changes for the majority of Americans who have been smashed by thirty years of deregulatory neoliberal economic policies.

Speaking of which, where is your banking reform legislation? I seem to remember Obama blowing a lot of hot air on the campaign trail and even in the early days of his presidency about how we needed serious banking reform:

When you see more and more of the financial sector basically churning transactions and engaging in reckless speculation and obscuring underlying risks in a way that makes a few people obscene amounts of money but doesn't add value to the economy—and in fact puts the entire economy at enormous risk—then something’s got to change.

President Obama

January 21, 2009

When the Democrats took the White House and expanded their majorities in Congress last year, the country was in the midst of economic nosedive brought on by the unbridled recklessness and greed of tunnel-visioned Wall Street oligarchs. Not surprisingly, most Americans were calling for their heads, especially after the banks received what is at this point, trillions of dollars in taxpayer money. Not since Franklin Roosevelt did a president have such a golden opportunity to pass serious economic reforms. The “too big to fail” problem had (and still needs) to be remedied. Over-the-counter derivates were (and still are) in desperate need of regulation. I imagine that if you really, truly wanted to, you could have rammed through all kinds of reforms designed to rectify these and other glaring problems with the gargantuan financial services sector. And yet over one year later, the Senate is still bickering about the details, including the “controversial” proposal to regulate the $450 trillion OTC derivates market. Republicans are leery of the idea, and representatives from the financial services industry are lobbying members of congress on both sides to keep the legislation as toothless as possible. For some strange reason I think they might succeed.

Then there is your effort to reform health care. What an unbelievable train-wreck that has been. Up until 2009, polls regularly showed that a majority of Americans wanted a single-payer, European-style, Medicare-for-all, national health insurance system. But not anymore. You have been on the defensive on this issue since day one. You have been getting your clocks cleaned as usual in the public debate by people advancing some of the craziest talking points ever to be offered in a policy discussion. Inexplicably, the issue of single-payer was never on the table. You never even considered it. If you had, you could’ve started with single-payer in the negotiations—even if you didn’t actually want that—in order to strike an eventual compromise at a public option. Instead, you started with a public option, and surprise, surprise, that’s been purged from the legislation thanks in part to your allowing Joe Lieberman and his spiteful ego to hold the entire party hostage. Pardon me for asking, but why is this man still the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? After all, this is the person most responsible for the death of the public option and the Medicare buy-in extension to people fifty-five and older. He also campaigned for John McCain against Barack Obama. What does this man have to do to get stripped of his chairmanship? Or are you just going to let him continue to run your party through the ringer whenever he feels like it without any repercussions whatsoever?

By the way, why is there no provision in any of the bills currently under consideration that allows the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies? Also, why is there is no provision that allows Americans to re-import cheaper drugs from other countries? Oh that’s right. Because the White House made a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry to oppose those measures in exchange for Big Pharma’s support and lobbying resources to pass health care reform. I’m so glad that worked out.

In case you couldn’t tell, I’m absolutely disgusted by your abysmal showing to this point. George W. Bush never had the majorities that the Democrats currently enjoy, and yet he managed to get even unpopular pieces of legislation passed. There was no concern about bipartisanship. No stopping to make sure that Democrats felt their ideas were being heard too. Just straight, cold, calculated political maneuvering in the White House and in both chambers of Congress—Democrats and the American people be damned.

All of this has reaffirmed my long-held belief that your party is simply a centrist party unwilling to go to bat for the very people who put you into office. People don’t vote for Democrats because your party has great candidates. People vote for them so they’ll stand up to the Republicans who started but could not finish two wars, spit on the Constitution of the United States, and racked up an unfathomable amount of debt during the last decade alone. Yet you haven’t delivered. While no one expected everything to reverse course in just one year, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have been virtually invisible, which is strange considering the horrid state the country was in when Obama assumed office armed with a heavily Democratic Congress. Historically, in times of national crisis, the executive branch has taken charge with Congress to ensure that the necessary measures are enacted to deal with said crisis. But not this president and not this Congress. And it appears that your window of opportunity has closed. Not that that matters. Because in order to take advantage of an opportunity, you have to want to, and I just do not get that impression from this sorry excuse you call a political party.

You may have sensed that this was coming, but unless your party grows a set I will be staying home for the 2010 November midterm elections. You have given me no reason to vote for you whatsoever. If the best you can come up with in your defense is that you’re better than the Republicans, then that is not good enough. Not anymore. Not even close. I refuse to be a participant in this charade any longer, and I encourage my fellow progressives to do likewise. Maybe what this country really needs is the Republicans to regain control of all three branches so they can finally succeed in destroying the bottom 95% of this country by dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and implementing wonderful market-based reforms that will give this country’s corporatists even more power. That way there will be no doubt about what kinds of reforms need to take place in this country.

So even though I admit that you had me thinking that 2009 could be the start of good things to come, I can’t say I’m really surprised by any of this. I know how cozy you are with the soulless lobbyists who lurk around the capitol brandishing fistfuls of dollars to donate to your campaigns and PACs. Yes, you’re not as bad as the GOP, but that says virtually nothing about whatever real merits you may have. If this past year is any indication, I’d say you have none.

With sincerity and regret,

Max Canning

Doctor Claims To Prove Existence Of Immortal Soul

Is there life after death Mommy? Of course there is you silly goose; Dr. Long said so on Bill O'Reilly’s show last night.

A massive douche has recently been making the rounds on popular news programs claiming to have proved the existence of life after death. In his new book, “Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences,” Dr. Jeffrey Long submits his “evidence” of the soul’s immortality, which is based solely upon a large accumulation of anecdotal reports from people that have had near-death experiences (NDEs). His research suggests that NDEs reveal fairly consistent themes across different age groups and cultures (e.g., approaching a white light, leaving one’s body, meeting a deity, revisiting long-forgotten memories, etc). Although these phenomena are certainly interesting and worthy of study, they do not in any way prove the existence of an afterlife.

Dr. Long’s wild claim that he has uncovered proof of an afterlife constitutes a shameless act of quackery. If he cared at all for the scientific method of which he was trained, he never would have dared to go public with such a bold statement. The title of his book really should be something like: Anecdotal Evidence of Afterlife-type Phenomena: The Phenomenology of Near-Death Experiences. This would be a scientifically honest title and represent an accurate assessment of the data that has been accumulated through his research. Of course, this title would not likely land his book on the bestseller list, nor would it attract the type of publicity he so obviously craves.

I suspect that Dr. Long was inclined to believe in an afterlife before he began researching near-death experiences. If this is true, then perhaps the “evidence” he has compiled serves to help him feel more secure in this belief. In any case, I think it’s clear that his primary motivation for writing this book was fame and fortune. The grandiosity inherent in his claims can also be viewed, ironically, as a herculean attempt to secure a taste of symbolic immortality. By championing himself as the first professional (official) person to “prove” the existence of life after death, Dr. Long must see himself as a renegade hero among the medical establishment. Indeed, his claims suggest that all who have ever grappled with the great spiritual mysteries of human life can breathe a collective sigh of relief now that he has scientifically proven that humans possess an immortal soul. Way to go Dr. Quackjob! The reality is, however, that his “evidence” really comes no closer to proving the existence of an afterlife than the billions of such claims that have been made from time immemorial.

Most of Dr. Long’s evidence of an afterlife is based upon the significant similarities of reports from people that have had NDEs, which by itself does absolutely nothing to support his main hypothesis. The most important question to consider is whether or not NDErs have any brain functioning at the time that they report having these lucid experiences. If we could be sure that all of the reports Dr. Long analyzed took place when the subjects’ brains had entirely ceased to function, the evidence for an afterlife would be much more compelling; however, this cannot be proven conclusively. Most of the subjects were surely close to death and thus were unconscious in the usual sense while having their NDEs, but that does not mean that their brains had stopped working entirely.

Human consciousness is a fascinating subject of which we are learning new things about all the time. Recent (2006) fMRI research has demonstrated, for example, how some comatose patients can actually be capable of processing thought. When a girl in a completely vegetative state was asked to imagine herself playing tennis, the same brain activity expected to be witnessed in healthy subjects showed up on her scan. This is just one example of how someone that is typically considered unconscious may still be capable of using various modes of perception. This same rule probably applies to those who are on the brink of death as well. Dr. Long, however, seems to have a fairly unenlightened perspective on what it means to be conscious (or unconscious). Here is a quote of him explaining perhaps his best argument for the existence of an afterlife:

“Medically, I can’t conceive of any meaningful experience that could occur near death. Aren’t people near death generally unconscious? Doesn’t the very term unconscious mean that there is no possibility of an organized conscious experience? Yet despite what should be a blank slate for NDErs, they describe highly lucid, organized, and real experiences.”

Dr. Long’s dimwitted explanation here leads me to believe that he would dismiss the aforementioned evidence that comatose patients can be capable of processing thought, simply because they appear to be unconscious. What a douche. People are also “unconscious” in this sense when dreaming. In fact, the experiences described by NDErs closely resemble the types of altered states of consciousness witnessed in lucid dreaming, for example. In this state, a certain level of consciousness is attained while in the dream, although this is still significantly different from usual waking states. As far as I can tell, Dr. Long is conveniently leaving out of his discussion the parallels between NDEs and various other altered states. This parallel, however, seems to indicate that at least some part of the brain remains functioning in NDEs. In other words, NDErs are never completely deceased and hence are likely still capable of generating some state of consciousness, even if we don't currently understand exactly how that process works. Thus, although NDEs certainly constitute an anomalous experience in the realm of human consciousness, there is no basis from which to assume that these experiences account for actual journeys to the great beyond.

Since the brain is likely still working on some level during the NDE, we should not view this as evidence of an afterlife any more than similar experiences brought about by other means. If we follow Dr. Long’s logic, however, we should probably consider afterlife phenomena brought about by psychedelic use, for example, to also be evidence of the soul’s immortality. While we’re at it, we could also conclude that the common experience reported by DMT smokers of communicating with aliens and machine-elves should serve as proof for the existence of both of these entities. Again, the fact that people who come close to death often have subjective experiences of an afterlife cannot be refuted. It cannot, however, be proven that those experiences are representative of any kind of objective reality, which is essentially what Dr. Long is claiming. Have fun quacking all the way to the bank you douche.

I would not be taking issue with Dr. Long’s beliefs had he not taken things a step too far by trying to pass off his research data as objective proof of an afterlife. I personally prefer to take an agnostic position on such things, which to me seems like the most honest way to go. Religious people have an easy enough time believing things based on faith alone; they do not need quacks like Dr. Long throwing around the label of science to add an air of legitimacy to their beliefs.

Here is a recent clip of Dr. Long on the O‘Reilly Factor. Despite his tossing around of words like “scholarly” and “evidence,” it is hard to tell whether or not Dr. Long is the more sensible one in this exchange.



~Wolf

Citing The Existence Of Snow, Right-Wingers Delcare Climate Change Bogus

Doh! A polar bear reacts to Sean Hannity’s suggestion that the occurrence of snowstorms calls climate change into question.

Let me begin this post by saying that I am not at all qualified to speak in depth about climate change. Any person who wishes to investigate this matter will find an abundance of online resources from renowned climatologists and scientific academies that comprise the “climate change is real” consensus. What I would like to discuss here is the startling ignorance and gleeful anti-science sentiment displayed by some of the nation’s most visible conservatives.

Sean Hannity, whose highest degree is a high school diploma, presents himself as an expert on a whole variety of issues. The confidence with which he speaks on these topics serves primarily to mask the plain fact that his understanding of the problems of the day consist of predictable platitudes and right-wing talking points. One of the issues on which Hannity is an “expert” is climate change, as evidenced by his reasoning that because the eastern United States has recently experienced a slew of snowstorms, climate change is therefore a fake. “Global warming, where are you? We want you back,” was his ludicrous reaction. Glenn Beck, who also has no college degree, showed similar skepticism on his radio program by suggesting that climatologists commit mass suicide. And many Republican congresspersons, such as Jim Inhofe (R – Oklahoma) have made statements ranging from suspicious to outright disbelieving on the entire phenomenon.

The idea that because the month of February has brought snowstorms and cold weather to the eastern seaboard, this somehow imperils the science supporting climate change, is so stupid, so profoundly idiotic, that one wonders if the people who say such things are being serious. I am aware of no climate change theory that posits there will be no snowstorms or cold weather from here on in. Unfortunately in some circles, the science of climatology is as simple as looking out one’s window in order to gauge the feasibility of climate change. But fear not, my fellow climate change believers; summer is right around the corner. And if we use the skeptics’ own methodology, we should have no problem demonstrating an empirically verifiable warming trend starting very soon. That should buy us some time, at least until October.

These types of criticisms of climate change are quite curious. Hannity, Beck, et al. do not dare discuss or debate the actual science with reputable scientists who have researched and analyzed this problem because they would surely be exposed for the frauds they are. Listening to people like these rail against climate change, one gets the impression that they believe the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by an agenda-minded global scientific community. But cui bono? Whom does worldwide acceptance of global warming benefit? If climate change is real, it would seem to be a giant inconvenience to most everyone on the planet. Governments, businesses, individuals, everyone. It has been suggested that climate change is being pushed by the green industry, but this is an insane assertion when we consider the relative power of the non-green heavy-hitting lobbyists from oil companies, the auto industry, and other sectors who wish to see a status quo approach to climate change. The last time I checked, “Big Solar” does not occur in the Washington lobbying vernacular. And if you think climate change is simply a scheme to make money for Al Gore, please check yourself into the nearest emergency room and tell the receptionist that you require an immediate psychological evaluation.

It isn’t so much the skepticism of such individuals that irritates me. Rather, in denouncing climate change as a hoax and citing the recent snowstorms, people such as Hannity and Beck assume a rather giddy tone. It is as if they truly enjoy ridiculing the scientific professions. We saw the same thing a few years ago when theocrackpots were at their most vocal and obnoxious in attempting to insert creationist hogwash into the science curricula in public schools. President Bush himself supported the idea “so people can understand what the debate is about.” Of course, there is no debate—not a serious one, anyway—involving Darwinian evolution and creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever else the religionists want to call this horseshit hypothesis. When scientists—specifically biologists—across the country condemned this uninformed statement, the theocrackpots reverted to the standard line about the scientific community and its own problems with dogmatism. However, the only dogmatism involved in science is the unchanging adherence to the scientific method, which demands a staunch commitment to evidence, logic, and truth-seeking, even if it means drawing a conclusion that is unexpected or unwelcome. Scientists are in fact “dogmatic” in this sense, in that they are beholden to reality. Living such a life is not always convenient, but it is generally free of the delusional wishful thinking that often plagues the reasoning of so many people.

It’s funny. We’re constantly hearing fiscally prudent Americans denounce the massive debt their country has accumulated, because they say they don’t want their children and grandchildren to be saddled with that burden. But when it comes to climate change, the kids are on their own, which just goes to show that “The Children” talk is merely pious rhetoric masking a self-centered, I-don’t-give-a-flying-fuck worldview. It’s only the planet we’re talking about—the only humanly inhabitable piece of real estate in the known universe. And yet, there are some who would have us believe that the rapidly growing population of humans can burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels on a planet with an atmosphere that retains a good amount of heat, without any repercussions whatsoever. Indeed, in the Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union speech last month, Virginia Governor Bob O’Donnell declared, “We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all.”

Use them all? Really? All of them? Sadly that is the attitude of many citizens in this zombie consumer horror show we call America. People rarely think beyond what’s right in front of them at the time, let alone worry about the state of America and the world fifty or one hundred years from now.

- Max Canning

Happy Islamic Valentine's Day!

Well hey, at least the ban on cards and flowers seems reasonable.

This picture was taken a couple years ago at Hussain Sagar Lake in Hyderabad, A.P., India by the author of an anti-Islam website. Apparently this poster was placed right outside of a park that was full of cute Indian couples doing their best to ignore it and enjoy a bit of privacy. They must have been blissfully unaware of the price that their ignorance will cost them. The same goes for all of you heathen infidels out there.

So I hope you all enjoyed showering your lovers with candy and flowers today, for it will surely cost your souls an eternal penance in blazing hellfires.


~Wolf

On Jesus Christ's Alleged Sacrifice

No

It is a common assumption among many simple intellects that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself so that mankind could be “saved.” Ignoring for a moment the preposterousness of the Gospels as reliable historical accounts, let’s assume that Jesus existed, was the Son of God, and was crucified as a scapegoat for the alleged iniquity of humankind. Even when we grant all of this, we are left with a shamelessly authoritarian doctrine which describes not sacrifice, as Christians claim, but a despicable metaphysical servitude.

A “sacrifice” occurs when something valuable is given up for the sake of something else. As a corollary to this, the person performing the sacrifice does so selflessly in that he does not expect to be rewarded for his actions. One friend does not help another because she thinks it will increase the likelihood of him returning a similar favor in the future. A batter who drops down a sacrifice bunt to advance a runner does not figure his teammates “owe him one” for committing that act. A courageous soldier who uses his body to smother a live grenade to shield his buddies from the impending blast cannot possibly expect anything in return.

These are all examples of sacrifice, and to suggest that the beneficiaries of these magnanimous acts must somehow repay the favor debases the whole idea. Even in the case of friendship, which is in some sense predicated on the principle of reciprocity, friends do not keep a running tally between them of who is owed what from whom. An enduring friendship is founded on an intellectual or emotional affinity that each has for the other. In friendship, a favor is done not on pragmatic grounds or with future considerations in mind, but out of a sincere desire to see the other better off.

The crucifixion of Jesus is many things, but a sacrifice is not one of them. Recall this famous passage in John:

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

As well as this ominous advice in Ephesians:

2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And in Galatians:

2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

And then the somewhat contradictory line in James:

2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Thus, god sent his only son earthward to be sacrificed in rather brutal fashion, so that humans could have their sins forgiven and be given eternal life. It is one thing to make this ridiculous claim that one man sacrificed himself—or was sacrificed by god, which was (confusingly) actually god himself—to absolve the sum total of every human transgression in history. It is quite another to say that in exchange for this act, Jesus/god demands that we recognize this “sacrifice” and accept him as the lord and savior of humanity. If we do, we are “rewarded” with an afterlife of perpetual groveling at the feet of the deity. If we do not, we are punished with everlasting torment and suffering. It is said that god has given humans free will. Well, that is some choice. But at that point the crucifixion of Jesus ceases to be a sacrifice and becomes an unsolicited quid pro quo. This arrangement is not all that different from the “protection” offered by mafia thugs who lend their “services” to business owners in exchange for a cut of the profits. Protection from what? From the very people who are offering it. Jesus and his father are offering you protection from hell. Pay up or that is what you are in for.

Christ’s “sacrifice” does not seem so selfless and benevolent when we pause to consider what he asks in return. Indeed, that he asks for anything defeats the purpose of a sacrifice. As I noted previously, many Christians have even taken to calling themselves “slaves” to Jesus. Perhaps that is a minority opinion, but the consensus on the matter of vicarious redemption entails some level of devotion to Jesus for what any decent person should consider an unwelcome offer. In our everyday lives we understand the importance—indeed, the necessity—of taking responsibility for one’s actions. Christianity is immoral for two main reasons. First, it teaches humans that they are by nature bad because Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree. Second, it teaches that people can be absolved of their alleged wickedness and their responsibilities if they will only commit themselves to Jesus and thank him endlessly for his “giving his life” for them. Notice how Christianity makes people a slave to history as the bible reveals it. Did you ever eat from a tree that god told you not to eat of? Did you ask Jesus to die for you on the cross? Too bad. It’s a done deal. The mafia don has spoken.

The entire premise of Christianity is scandalous and bunk. If the crucifixion actually happened under the above conditions, it would not be a noble sacrifice as Christians claim, but an act of totalitarianism designed to enchain humanity to forever serve a master. In this way, Christianity is much worse than the slavery humans practiced for thousands of years. At least then you could die and get out of bondage.

- Max Canning

Newt Gingrich Proves Our Point About Republicans Appealing To Emotions

Newt Gingrich is a pathetic, carping has-been.

Last night on the Daily Show, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a surprising admission.

Gingrich was talking with Jon Stewart about the underwear bomber, and the former was belching the same tired lines about how absurd it was to read Amdulmutallab his rights. Stewart then pointed out that the Bush administration did the same thing with shoe bomber Richard Reid. Gingrich then falsely responded with all the confidence in the world, “Richard Reid was an American citizen.” Reid was not, and is not, a U.S. citizen. He’s a U.K. citizen, and as such has the same legal standing in the United States as the Nigerian underwear bomber. Unfortunately, Stewart did not correct him during the interview.

Is Gingrich lying? Does he really think Richard Reid was an American citizen? If he does, then clearly Gingrich’s opinions on counterterrorism warrant no respect whatsoever. If he was lying, then Gingrich himself deserves no respect whatsoever. Either way, we should not be taking policy advice from Newt Gingrich.

Shortly after Gingrich’s gaffe/lie, he blabbed some more about terrorism and the American people, and at one point the following exchange took place:

Stewart: That’s a very emotional way to put it.

Gingrich: That’s part of our job—is to reach out to the emotions of the American people.

Stewart: I think that’s wise. And don’t let reality get in the way.

Gingrich didn’t specify which “our” he’s a part of, but I think it’s safe to assume he means conservatives/Republicans. Here we have a crystal-clear admission from the most important Republican of the 1990s that appealing to people’s emotions is an important part of their M.O. Never mind that the underwear bomber is providing authorities with information despite being read his rights. All that matters to Gingrich and company is the opportunity to portray the other side as weak on terrorism. But it seems to me that conservatives are not nearly as interested in acquiring valuable intelligence as they are in meting out draconian punishments to satisfy a primal urge for revenge, even it comes at the expense of obtaining useful information. I mean, what else are we to conclude from this whole charade? The suspect is talking. He didn’t have to be sent to Gitmo. He didn’t have to be waterboarded. If he’s cooperating with the FBI what the fuck does it matter if he was read his rights?

Of course, we know that Gingrich and his ilk are playing politics with the underwear bomber because they raised no stink about the Bush administration’s handling of Richard Reid, which was the same. This is a calculated move by them. They are simply appealing to the lizard-brained folk. And it’s probably working. The politics of fear usually does.

- Max Canning

Scott Brown Votes Against Workers

In due time, the people of Massachusetts will see just how full of shit Scott Brown was on the campaign trail.

Yesterday, new Senator Scott Brown voted in lockstep with his Republican colleagues and two Democrats to block President Obama’s pick for the National Labor Relations Board. The nomination of Craig Becker—a lawyer for the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union—was effectively killed when the Senate failed to muster the sixty votes necessary to end debate on the nomination in order to take an up-and-down vote. Becker is viewed as a threat by the GOP because, among other reasons, he favors card check. Card check is considered “controversial” because it allows a majority of members in a bargaining unit to sign cards authorizing the formation of a union. And because Republicans love big business and hate unions—i.e., American workers—to them, Becker is bad news. They are also claiming that Becker would bring a “personal agenda” to the NLRB, which is another way of saying he’d stick to his convictions about looking out for the welfare of working class Americans.

So thank you, Scott Brown, for bravely casting a vote against the working people of America.

The minority has spoken.

- Max Canning