One of the reasons I haven’t been posting much is that I’m spending every spare bit of my energy trying to make sure a pair of ill-conceived pieces of legislation do not become law (at least in their current form). The bills in question are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and the PROTECT-IP Act in the Senate. (Of the two, SOPA is the worst.)

Now, both of these proposals could be considered well-intentioned, but their language is dangerously overbroad and could have serious implications on free speech, innovation and cybersecurity. I won’t bore you with the details, because I have a broader point to make. (Here’s my favorite analysis of the bills’ scope and provisions, if you’re curious.)

What pisses me off most is that there’s likely another way to achieve the bills’ goals — namely, combating foreign sites that traffic in unauthorized American intellectual property. Yet these alternatives are largely being ignored by a Congress eager to simply hand the internet over to Hollywood. And can say with certainty that these folks are always happy to restrict speech and quash competition in the name of preserving an antiquated business model.

In an agonizing twist of irony, Congress’ mad rush to codify online censorship is in direct opposition to the American government’s efforts to promote informational freedom abroad. This article in Slate expertly explains the discontinuity.

There is a recurring theme in terms of how recent legislation is being crafted. We’re seeing deliberate loopholes that don’t explicitly detail how your liberties will be restricted, but nonetheless establish the conditions under which such outcomes are not only possible, but likely.

Take for example, the highly controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Steve Benen has an excellent analysis about whether this law would allow for the permanent detention of American citizens.

Not to compare apples to oranges, but I was struck by the following disclaimer in NDAA:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Oh, good! Then there’s NO WAY a court could interpret this statute as giving the president the option of indefinitely detaining without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism!

This deliberate-loophole doublespeak reminds me of the opening renunciation in SOPA (emphasis mine):

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

That must mean that there can be absolutely NO WAY that any portion of a site that is “avoiding confirming a high probability” of infringement could be blocked by the US attorney general or have its commercial transactions halted on the mere accusation of infringement (the latter without any due process, and and with an impossibly narrow window for recourse). I feel so much better now!

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

To go any further would require a level of legal analysis that would likely put you in a coma. So I’ll close with this hopefully straightforward statement: American civil liberties are currently under threat, and our elected officials have abdicated their fundamental responsibility to safeguard these basic freedoms.

And that should scare the shit out of you.

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” – Luke, 20-21

I have a cousin who is a born-again Christian. I haven’t seen her in years, but she is, of course, on Facebook. Recently, I came across one of her status updates, compelling the OWS protesters to “occupy a job,” and poking fun at the mass arrests. Now, this sentiment doesn’t seem particularly Jesus-like to me, but then again, I am entirely confused by contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

I’m also fascinated by the shift from the social gospel and its emphasis on community and cooperation to the me-first, “Jesus-as-life-coach” culture of modern evangelicals. And I’m scared shitless by their political influence. (There is some great literature on the subject, including a book I’ve recommended before, The Family, by Jeff Sharlet.)

Even more mind-boggling to me is that another Facebook acquaintance, a self-professed LaVeyan Satanist, made a comment on my wall in defense of my cousin’s initial statement. He used five economical words: “She’s right. Deal with it.” Then he proceeded to unfriend me.

Isn’t it interesting that the contemporary evangelical movement espouses the same moral perspective as a religion whose express purpose is to eliminate Christianity? Both groups owe a tremendous amount to Ayn Rand, and preach individuality above self-sacrifice. That’s fine for Satanists, as their beliefs reflect no internal contradictions. But how does any of this jive with the Gospel of Christ?

Clearly, it doesn’t.

The Jesus of the Bible railed against money-lenders and “redistributed” loaves and fish to the hungry. He tended to the needy and sick. Moreover, he encouraged others to do the same.

Compare that to the sweeping push by those aligned with the evangelical movement to eliminate social programs meant to aid our society’s most needy. These are the same folks who loudly and proudly tout their so-called “Christian values” and claim a moral high ground.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark, 10:21-25

Let’s see here… Jesus instructed his disciples to redistribute their personal, material wealth to the poor as a key means to entering the Kingdom of God. It’s right there in the Bible. I hope I don’t need to mention that Jesus freely healed the sick with no regard to “pre-existing conditions” like leprosy.

These teachings were carried on by the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion. It would be amazing if the Christians of today were to take them to heart instead of celebrating the suppression of speech and liberty.

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? – James, 2:1-7

To me, the more frustrating thing than the outright hypocrisy is the unwillingness to engage in even moderate self-reflection. No need to account for your actions, no reason to adjust your personal behavior to be more in line with the articles of your supposed faith. The act of becoming “born-again” simply guarantees your place at the Lord’s table. I can see why this belief system is attractive, as it requires practically zero effort. But it is absolutely not in keeping with Jesus’ actual teachings.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or disingenuous.

Look, I have some sympathies with the OWS movement. I certainly think that my cousin’s statement is ignorant, and that there are hundreds of reasons why people in an economic depression (when one in 16 are below the poverty line, that’s what it is) may want to publicly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with wealth inequality in the United States. But this isn’t about my political views. It’s about the tendency of the modern evangelical movement to mask their disgust for their brothers and sisters behind a veneer of faith.

I don’t care if you happen to be related to me. I’m calling bullshit.

Yet big adjustments were on the way. One driver of change, often overlooked, was the vital role that the paranormal — specifically spiritualism — played in the Feminist Awakening and Women’s Suffrage.

Spiritualist practitioners traveled from place to place and, for a small fee, would use their “spirit guide” — an otherwordly advisor of all affairs — to deliver messages from Beyond. The spiritual medium could contact dead relatives, conjure spirits, cause rooms to fill with mysterious tapping sounds, or make the writings of a ghostly hand appear on chalkboards. Spiritualists of the Victorian Era were highly sought out for comfort, advice and to rekindle memories of long-lost friends and family members.

Primarily, most spiritualists were women. Their role as medium offered an escape from the persistent indignities of domestic life. Spiritualism gave women a platform, one that came with certain degrees of power, freedom and equality absent in contemporary society. The practice also cultivated an air of mystery around the medium, which in turn drew the attention of both men and other women in ways seemingly impossible in other professions. It conferred wealth and fame. In looking at the early years of the feminist movement, you could justifiably point to the séance table as a symbol of equality.

The names of female Victorian-era spiritualists remain synonymous with the profession: Emma Hardinge Britten, Victoria Woodhull (the first woman to run for President, with Fredrick Douglass on the ticket, no less!), Leah Fox Fish and Cora L. V. Richmond — a woman whose exquisite features personified the Victorian male definition of virginal beauty.

All of these women would test the boundaries of feminism before women’s suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Lucy Stone came along. In fact, many female spiritualists would ultimately abandon the profession to directly empower the feminist movement without the obfuscation of the paranormal.

The women of spiritualism used the field as a means to empower themselves and counter the hegemonic rule of men. At a time when divorce and adultery were considered in league with prostitution, women could explore aspects of their sexuality at the séance table through the aforementioned “spirit guide” — a connection to another party that transcended typical matrimonial relations. These spirit guides often “took over the body” of the female medium and the actions — often physical — were not deemed harlotry on the part of the female.

Still, the uptight and conservative society of the day was reluctant to change. Despite its popularity, spiritualism was regularly condemned as a danger to the family and the sanctity of marriage. Writer Henry James despised the burgeoning sexuality and power among women of his era. Inspired by the beautiful Cora Richmond, he created (and condemned) the character Verena Terrant in his novel The Bostonians. Regardless of its editorializing, the novel forever pegs spiritualism to the rising feminist movement of the 19th century.

Over time, the original spiritualists were mostly deemed frauds and con-artists, and today, séance tables are few and far between. Gone are the papier mache “ghosts” materializing out of curtained corners, ecto-plasm and mysterious tappings on tabletops. Yet the role of the spiritual psychic advisor, tarot reader, etc., is to this day often filled by a woman.

The world finally caught up with the those women who, nearly two hundred years ago, sought a better life of equality and justice through the world of the paranormal. Yet even now, many see the empowerment of the marginalized as a threat to a certain way of life and attempt to thwart progress and social change.

Maybe it’s time to fire up those séance tables.

I have invites to the new social Google thingamabob, but I can’t use them because, once again, the company launched a highly-anticipated beta and couldn’t manage demand.

The following are my favorite features in Google+, with the caveat that I still haven’t gotten a chance to use it.

• Huddles — where you play fantasy football while betting on how long it’ll take for Google+ to go the way of Wave and Buzz
• Circles is an accurate digital representation of Dante’s Inferno
• That little button that gives Mark Zuckerberg direct access to your bank account
• Image widget turns Lady Gaga into a normal human being
  
• You get a ten percent share of MySpace just by joining!
  
• Automatically syncs with Baidu in China
• The only social network allowed in Supermax prisons
  
• Cawker: Celebrity penis pic section powered by Gawker
• New Prince album available exclusively on Google+
  
• Unpopular? Biomechanical algorithms “grow” friends for you
• RFID chip knows where you are at all times
  
• Pays third world children to do your homework for you
  
• Girls worldwide enter contract to ONLY go wild on Google+
  
• Free pet sitting
  
• Sparks: Google Alerts for caffeinated alcoholic beverage discounts

HAPPY RAPTURE!

The Contrarian Media and LUX ETERNA wanted to take this moment to celebrate your imminent ascendancy to His Kingdom.

What’s that? Not getting Raptured? Well we’ve got the perfect consolation prize.

Here’s a brand new track from Strange Angels just in time for End Times:

I’ll be in Paris. For real. That is, if I don’t get spirited away to my Father’s Kingdom along with the rest of the pious bigots faithful. Yesiree, Saturday, May 21 is the day — at least according to religious radio broadcaster Harold Camping, who came up with the latest apocalyptic meme to sweep the globe.

Camping is basing his end-times prediction on a numerological formula of his own device. Meaning, all the billboards loudly proclaiming “the Bible guarantees it!” are utter bullshit. In fact, the Good Book explicitly says the opposite: “Of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.” [Matthew 24:36].

That hasn’t stopped Camping’s ministry from driving paranoid Christians into a tizzy. So what’s the math behind his claim? It’s kinda complicated, even to Scientific American. Apparently, it has to do with the date of Christ’s crucifixion, which is conveniently unverifiable. But not to this wackadoodle:

Camping takes Christ’s crucifixion to be April 1 in 33 AD. Come May 21, 2011, Camping says, 722,500 days will have elapsed since that occurrence. And 722,500 is (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17). Those numbers are important, according to Camping, because 5 symbolizes atonement, 10 represents completeness, and 17 is for heaven.

Why does 5 symbolize atonement? Here we turn to Exodus 30:15: “The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.” For those of you who prefer fractions, “half a shekel” would be 1/2 shekel; the decimally minded might favor 0.5 shekel. Camping is evidently in the latter camp; he takes this verse as evidence of 5′s association with atonement.

Blarbity-blarb, derp-derp. Is anyone even taking any of this seriously?

Turns out, yes. Some Christians are even taking that job and shoving it in anticipation of Armaggeddon. I assure you, this is not why I’m going on vacation. Total coincidence.

Organized atheists are also taking advantage of the insanity. According to DC rag Roll Call:

A group of self-described Godless Americans is defying predictions of the Rapture to kick off a new campaign this week against the religious right. As some Christians quit their jobs this week to prepare for the end of the world, the Secular Coalition for America headed to Capitol Hill with an ambitious task: reducing the influence of religious interests on government. The lobby group — created in 2000 to unite atheists, humanists, nontheists and nonbelievers of all stripes — chose this weekend to meet because of its significance to a small faction of Christians. For followers of religious radio broadcaster Harold Camping, Saturday marks the beginning of the end of civilization and the return of Jesus Christ as predicted in the Bible.

Getting ready for a three-week vacation is actually not that different from preparing for the Rapture, come to think of it. We have four cats and a bunny, which makes it difficult to plan a holiday. Imagine if you were taken by God? Thankfully, The Creator has a plan for our furry friends (or at least his followers do). It’s called After the Rapture Pet Care, and it’s an honest-to-Jehovah business.

If the Rapture does come this weekend, I guess most of our readership will be “left behind.” Which leads me to my final point: if there’s a lack of posts here over the next few weeks, it’s because I’m ON VACATION, not sharing fondue with Sarah Palin and Moses.

Unless, of course, I am…

One word: propaganda.

This is why we can’t have nice policies. We don’t know how to sell them.

The good news is that the fix is pretty simple. All anyone has to to do to regiment the attitudes of the public is THREE THINGS, CONSISTENTLY. This has been borne out through history, from Ptolemy to John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush. And I’ve identified them, just for you!

1. Make your message resonate emotionally
2. Make it relevant to the individual
3. Make the opposition look tyrannical

That’s pretty easy, right? You’d think so. But the Left has tremendous difficulty applying all three of these principles in concert, and consistently. By contrast, the Right does it 24/7.

One caveat: different countries and global regions have different value sets, almost like cultural DNA. For example, Canada can and does respond to “greater good” arguments, so long as they are participatory. That’s a social democracy! Many in the East are less susceptible to self-interest motivators unless there is implied collective benefit. In America, INDIVIDUALISM IS IT. That’s the operating paradigm in which all effective messaging must occur. If you make your message fit with America’s Ur-folk narrative, then you can even sell collectivist policy. (Sorry libertarians; it’s true.)

Keep in mind that propaganda is outcome-neutral. Like other technologies, it can be used to cure or to kill. So before you start calling me Goebbels, check out this quote from the godfather of American PR, Edward Bernays:

Propaganda becomes vicious and reprehensive only when its authors consciously and deliberately disseminate that which they know to be lies, or when they aim at effects they know to be prejudicial to the common good.

FOX News is prejudicial to the common good. But ultimately, the technique for shaping public opinion is not partisan. It’s just that one side has figured out how to wield this technology, and the other side… not so much. Speaking of technology, consider the digital space. Each time a new tool emerges that can be used for political organization, the Left thinks they’ve just discovered Penicillin. Twitter is a perfect example. Progressives reveled in its ability to deliver 140-character bullets of outrage, never considering that the opposition was figuring out how to use it even more effectively. What do progressives do next? Complain loudly that conservatives have taken it over.

Let’s go back those three principles. I work in media reform (well, partly, anyway), a movement that has been notoriously difficult to message. I think it could be made easier by checking our advocacy against these three principles.

To set an appropriate frame for messaging on media reform, I’d start with FREEDOM (an uniquely American political synonym for individualism):

Freedom is meaningless where its expression is controlled by powerful groups like major media conglomerates. Freedom must be insured. Your God-given rights depend on it.

In the first sentence, I showed you the tyranny of the opposition. In the second — without using the word government or policy — I told you how the goal is accomplished (government and policy!). In the last, I made an emotional appeal to the individual within the context of American cultural tradition.

The next step would be to identify “key persons” and persuade them that it is in THEIR self-interest to broadly disseminate your core message. Church is an excellent place to start. Hell, you might even snag a few powerful figures from those “media conglomerates” if you use proper persuasion. (Here’s where it helps to have authentic and charismatic communicators on hand. They’re basically product pitchmen, but instead of vacuum cleaners or soap, they sell “values.”)

I could go on and on and on about the how’s and where’s of effectively applied propaganda. But the bottom line is that if there is to be a successful and sustainable progressive movement in the United States, it must employ consistently these three principles of communication.

I’m here to help.

Our good friend Shane of the Government tipped us off to this post from Capital Gains and Games about the religious underpinnings of the Tea Party’s deficit fetish. It’s grim stuff, but it does a good job of outlining why an agreement in Congress about such basic concerns as funding the federal government is likely to remain elusive.

The populist disdain for experts — marked in debate over evolution and climate change — has entered economics. “The fact that we may be completely ignorant to the process here, God bless us, because our ignorance has just saved the American people more money,” Tim Scott, a freshman Republican from South Carolina, told CNN. What we are witnessing is the rise of a new strain of politician: the budget fundamentalist.

“What you’ve got to understand is this is an emotional issue, not a rational issue,” says budget guru Stan Collender, a veteran of both House and Senate budget committees who puts the likelihood of a shutdown at 90 percent. “As far I can tell it has no theoretical economic underpinnings, which is why it’s so difficult for the budget these days to be discussed, because statistics don’t mean anything, equations don’t convince anybody. It is almost a religious belief.”

Viewed in this light, it’s easy to see why the GOP youngbloods are targeting, say, Planned Parenthood. Yet it’s also indicative of a larger trend, which puts Biblical Capitalism ahead of any form of social or civic advancement. This movement is subsidized by mega corporations like Koch Enterprises, which care nothing for the American middle class. Meanwhile, income disparity in our great nation puts us at the bottom of international rankings.  If you think you’re gonna strike it rich here, think again. The charts don’t lie, but the politicians — and their corporate paymasters — sure do.

One of these days, we’re going to publish an in-depth article about how Ronald Reagan — the Bill Brasky of the Right — sold America a shockingly effective fairy tale about exceptionalism, while simultaneously eviscerating the labor force and presiding over the greatest transfer of wealth in history. But we’re simply too sick to our stomachs at the moment.

Seconds after the Canadian critical darlings scored their Album of the Year Award for The Suburbs, the indignant masses took to Twitter, revealing the fact that a large percentage of viewers had never heard of them. Take that, Egypt! America demands Grammy satisfaction!

Forget for the moment that Arcade Fire was lauded in TIME four years ago; never mind the planetary fawning over their 2004 debut (I was the lone professional dissenter) — this win was clearly suspicious.

Check out Who Is Arcade Fire, which aggregates the outrage. Here’s a lovely example from Tawny Kitaen, the 1980s vixen best known for writhing on sportscars in that Whitesnake video:

OK, I’m not THAT old but whos Arcade Fire? & worse who the hell thinks their good? Did I just lose all my followers? Cuz they sucked, sorry.

What are these people gonna do when the Decemberists win next year?

Although it is amusing that anyone sees the Grammys as a bellwether of musical culture (or even record sales), the controversy underscores a broader trend in American life — namely, the emotionally unsettling effects of cultural fragmentation. And this phenomenon cannot be separated from contemporary politics.

The reason for this fragmentation is due to the saturation of information channels. No longer does commercial radio — or the Grammys, for that matter — shape the tastes of the masses. We’ve got a million outlets, and there’s an ass for every seat. This can be very discomfiting to the herd mentality.

Many Americans, still sucking on the Big Media teet, view this fracturing as suspicious, if not dangerous. It’s as if NPR and the Kenyan in the White House are conspiring to make culture something they just can’t comprehend. In actuality, Obama is more conservative than Nixon, and Arcade Fire closer to Bruce Springsteen than G.G. Allin (Google him.)

But that doesn’t matter. America’s heebie-jeebies are being played out on both the political and pop culture stages.

It ain’t about age. It ain’t about who’s “hip.” It’s about whether the tenuous fabric that connects us as a culture can be maintained in an environment where people ONLY get their news from FOX or MSNBC; where either you listen to Black Eyed Peas or Drake; whether you’re a birther or a rational human being.

Maybe it’s because Arcade Fire are Canadian. They do have single-payer healthcare and all. Not going broke due to medical expenses is socialist! Interestingly, Justin Bieber — who many people think was robbed of his rightful award — recently called America “evil” for our lack of a full-coverage medical system.

I wonder if we can make the Culture Wars part of our defense spending? Maybe build a virtual border wall between us and our neighbors to the north? That’ll create some jobs, right?