WIP

This is why I lost interest in any sort of organizing around atheism -- both online and a CFI-sponsored group locally. The promoting naturalism and opposing religion strategy assumes that everyone is better off in a world without religion. And setting up promoting secularism and ending religion as the core values, means allying with each and every group that just happens to identify themselves as atheist. From my pov, I could join with left-liberal Christians before I would want to join with libertarians or some of the related self-oriented cults, like the objectivists or fans of Frederich Nietzsche. A religion doesn't have to be about worshiping supernatural deities; it can be used to describe any organized belief systems and cultural traditions that a group of people follow. In the case of materialism, it may be a metaphorical reference, but if people are striving for materialistic status symbols, it doesn't matter whether they are doing it consciously or at some unconscious level, the end results are the same if they are spending most of their time working for, and obsessing about things that they 'need.' But, like I said before, if you're playing tourist in NYC, it seems like the worship of money is the most important religion if you go by the flashing ads and some of the shops displaying Rolex watches and $1000 wallets....I assume catering to an income demographic somewhere beyond what I'm making! So, it seems like the place where you might want to challenge people to focus on higher values than acquiring new toys, rather than worrying about the Jesus thing at Christmas.

You forgot all about when our ancestors came here from Planet Nibiru. It's true! I heard all about it awhile back on Coast To Coast.

Why don't you do your own homework if you want to learn something new? Results can be found for four countries just on the first page of a Google search: New evidence reveals Canadian wellbeing on the decline UK wellbeing still 13% below pre-crisis levels Why America Is in Decline Stressful Events Show Trend in Declining Wellbeing - Report(Australia) Again, this is easy information to find out, if you really want to know what the connection is between ruthless western apparel retailers and where they have their suppliers set up manufacturing operations, and how to keep costs low. It's pretty clear after the smoking trail of memos, that the Tazreen factory in Dhaka that burned down, was told to cut costs regardless....safety measures be damned! This came right from pressure applied by Walmart and the other retailers to get the product to them at the lowest cost possible, or they would turn to outside suppliers. Real wages is a joke term in a dirt-poor country like Bangladesh. Why do western retailers need people (including children) working for 37c an hour + unpaid overtime? The growth in Walmart's share value indicates that the profits go right past workers in third world countries and through the Walmart employee ladder, right up to the top, where the six heirs of the Walton fortune reside. But, they need the money; right? And I'm not going to waste time going back over information I posted previously on Bangladesh, showing that economic growth from globalization has not improved the quality of life of factory workers who have been forced to give up farming and take low wage jobs in the cities. They lose the opportunity to grow their own food, and have control over their daily lives, once they move to a city and work in a garment factory. Most of the gains from the transition to textiles has gone to higher income earners...not the sweatshop workers....just like all the other nations who go through trade liberalization: XI.DOES INEQUALITY DRIVES POVERTY? The mainstream argues that sustained and equitable economic growth inevitably leads to poverty reduction. There is widespread concern that economic growth has not been shared fairly, and that the current economic crisis further widens the gap between the rich and poor. However, the impact of growth on poverty reduction can be lessened, if the growth is accompanied by rising inequalities. In Bangladesh, the number of people living in poverty has increased due to rising disparities in the distribution of resources within this country. Unequal accesses in different forms of services hamper the expected level of growth in reducing poverty. Furthermore, persistent geographical or social biases in the allocation of subsidies and public investment are also not favourable to achieve the desired poverty alleviating targets. Unequal growth pattern has a weaker poverty alleviating effect and has been shown to be harmful to growth, and it will also reduce the growth and thereby exacerbate poverty. Therefore, reduction of poverty is hard to pin down without addressing inequality. XII. QUESTIONING THE POVERTY LINE There is no denying the fact poverty measurement is plagued with many problems, particularly due it’s over emphasis on income. The official poverty measurement is determined through income and uses an unrealistically low estimate of USD 1.25. For example, if a person has an income of one USD per day is defined as poor, after one year his income has increased to USD 1.3 and is counted as non-poor. But, in reality, he may be faced with more problems to maintain his livelihood compared to previous year (though he is rewarded as non-poor). Increase in his income is not adjusted with the inflation. Another example, considering the present circumstances, a conservative estimate suggests a minimum spending of about Tk. 50 (USD 0.71) to obtain 2122 Kilocalories per day. That person also needs non-food essentials, including education, clothing, healthcare, accommodation, transportation etc. If a calculation is made based upon expenditure, considering these non-food essentials with food, it is very difficult to survive with the income of USD 1.25 per day per person. Recently Abul Barkat contradicted the estimate of the government about the number of poor in the country, saying that 83 percent population of the country is now poor and not the 32 percent as the government claims (The Daily Star, 9 October 2011). During the last five years (2005 to 2010) the growth rate of monthly household income was 11.87 percent, 11.67 percent and 11.50 percent at national, rural and urban area respectively. However, the growth rate of monthly household expenditure was 16.52 percent, 16.14 percent Poverty and Inequality in Bangladesh 18 | P a g e and 16.40 percent of which the growth rate of expenditure on food was 17.59 percent, 16.67 percent and 19.20 percent at national, rural and urban area respectively. Higher growth rate of household expenditure than that of the income may indicate that more people are suffering to manage their livelihood in the recent time. Therefore, many households might be newly gone under the poverty line. Hence, it is the time to take consumption cost (considering inflation) while measuring poverty. http://www.unnayan.o..._Bangladesh.pdf Then, there is the added problem that regional inequality is not broken down or discussed in those average income measurements you cited previously. And the regional disparities in Bangladesh have increased since globalization, as discussed in this report: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty Trends in Bangladesh: Implications for Development Strategy

There wouldn't have been a blockade in Caledonia if local businessmen, like the guy who went ahead with the Douglas Creek development, hadn't ignored warnings by Six Nations reps that the land he was proposing to develop was part of a long-standing (since 1841) land dispute with the Federal Government. I can sympathize with some of the locals, especially since there have been many who have moved in to that area in recent years (Caledonia has become a bedroom community with that 403 Extension), and had no idea about disputes surrounding sales and promises made involving the original Grand River Settlement, and weren't informed about them by developers and real estate brokers. Also, it needs to be noted that the disputes are many and varied, and some were made before there was a nation of Canada, and just ignored by successive Canadian governments, rather than being dealt with in earlier years. Anyone who studies British North American history even a little, is aware that what is now Canada, was settled largely through making agreements with Aboriginal bands across Canada, since in those earlier times, there weren't enough British or other European settlers to try to force their way west and force the Metis and Indians off their land....like the Americans did with the Indian Wars! We promised most of them that we would not encroach on their lands or try to take over their territories.....many promises that were made and ignored after Canada became a nation and we could overwhelm them with numbers and force of arms.

I didn't say jobs were being outsourced because of stores selling liquor! My point is that there are more important issues than being able to buy booze 24/7.

So, where do you live? Mogadishu? I live in a neighbourhood which has many Muslims, as well as recent immigrants and visible minorities.....and I don't feel threatened. Stop watching so much TV and get outside and meet your neighbours. They are likely just trying to make a living and figure out how to raise their kids in a whole new culture.

Actually, neither Jobs, nor Gates were the real sources of innovative technology at Apple and Microsoft; and that's why they had to pay off co-founders such as Steve Wozniak and Paul Allen respectively, when they wanted them out of the way so they could hog all the glory and future returns. No doubt both were well compensated for actually being the real brains behind both ventures! But, the real talents of Jobs and Gates, are as ruthless businessmen, who are focused on maximizing profits, not creating new inventions for any sort of public good. If anyone wants to bring in the biggest bullshit story of the last 10 years - The Gates Foundation, I'll be happy to put that one under the microscope, because a lot of Bill and Melinda's works, which are labelled as great charitable works in the media, have sinister back stories that are trying to conceal other objectives, such as privatizing education for profit all around the world. And Jobs....well he was a little more honest, since that prick never even pretended to be a philanthropist in the first place! Maybe it was bad karma or divine retribution, that the horrid stories of Apple suppliers like Foxcomm, started leaking out as Jobs was being buried and lauded for leading the way to the future. That was the whole dog and pony show about Trickle Down Economics that supply siders tried to argue when they claimed lowering taxes would provide more revenue, stimulate investment, and provide more jobs for all. The real story has been that they are hiding most of the money in Swiss and Cayman Island's bank accounts, and there is something trickling down on the rest of us, and it isn't money and it isn't rain!

Yes, because as I posted previously....I think in a different thread, it was the spike in CEO salaries and returns on investments by major holders, that started the expectations game to get out of control. Most people judge their needs on the basis of what those a little higher up the income ladder are buying.

The liberalization of banking was sold to the public in much the same way that free trade has been sold -- helping lower income groups move up the ladder. I recall hearing crap about how deregulation and liberalization of the rules would provide the opportunity for homeownership to lower income groups who were stuck with renting tenements. If Clinton was as smart as his supporters claimed he was, why didn't he check into the history of why Glass-Steagall was signed, and why it was considered essential to separate investment banking and commercial banking in the first place! Or, maybe part of the Clintons's sudden increase in net worth after leaving the White House was indirect payments for this and other services rendered while in Office.

I guess everyone can thank Ronnie Reagan for that! He figured out how to turn selfishness and disregard for community into a virtue. And ever since, his Republican heirs have been running on a platform that 'government can't do anything right.....and vote us in so we can prove it!' Sounds similar to numbers I came across awhile back that here in Canada, home sizes increased either 40 or 60% since the 1950's. And when it's also factored in that there are half as many children in those homes today, it becomes obvious that most people think they need a lot more space than they actually do. Once again, it's everyone basing their needs on what people just ahead of them are buying.

Yes, money is power, and that's why I included part of the inequality problem in my post; because measures like the ones I cited from self-reporting surveys of personal happiness and wellbeing, show that people are less satisfied today than they were 50 years ago, because they determine what they should have by what people just above them on the social pecking order have. And that puts freedom further out of reach for most people!

It seems to me that Hudak supporters don't care about outsourcing jobs from Ontario as long as they can buy their booze at every corner store!

On the newswire today in U.S. shootings, a 39 year old man who was taken to a police station got a hold of a female police officer's gun and shot three cops before being shot dead; while also in New England, a landlord shot and killed two tenants in a dispute over parking spaces.....so, now NRA supporters are calling for armed guards posted in front of police stations and every rental unit across the U.S.A......sounds like a plan!

The impression I got from the atheist ad in Times Square, especially after I heard some of my thoughts echoed by a host of a public radio show (WBAI), is that most of us are worshipping the god of money, and most focused on what we own and all that's out there that we want to buy. That's what struck me as strange about the focus of the atheist ad - somebody celebrating Jesus at Christmas time is the biggest problem you can think of, especially while you're walking right through the heart of Babylon itself.

Didn't you mention something previously about being a bum who can't get a job or something? A comment like this tells me that you shouldn't be working any place where you may come into contact with female employees! Your comment isn't funny or amusing, because there are lots of women and girls...since this sort of thing can start right from the time they are hired for their first job, who face sexual harassment, and coercion for some sort of sexual purpose, and face the stress of having to decide how to deal with sexual advances that they didn't ask for. Especially when it involves girls who are young and new at a job, or women coming from other countries who may not speak English very well, and are most afraid of what their husbands or families might react if they find out, it's a subject that is not in the least bit funny!

I'll say that my personal situation is being in the finishing laps (hopefully) of my working life, and being able to afford to retire and having more time to do things rather than focusing on money. If I was young, and looking for a good job, I might resent quotas and affirmative action programs; but it should be noted that when government and business was all owned 100% by white anglos (I'm speaking of outside Quebec of course), nobody from outside groups had much chance to get hired and move up to management or supervisory positions. And something like affirmative action will continue to be necessary in the future, because laws can't redress completely what comes from those with the power to hire and fire people. And it doesn't matter what constitutes a marginalized group whether they be racial, ethnic or religion....and even women also...since women may be equal or slightly larger segment of the total population, but still face job discrimination, especially when it comes to getting into job categories that are traditionally male, earning equal pay, and getting promotions, even in this day and age. So, the way I see most of the critics of affirmative action, are people from a group that has an advantage they may or not be aware of, looking with a microscope of every example where a visible minority may have gained, while ignoring all of the obvious examples where they are discriminated against. I don't want to go into any detail, but I'll just say that at my own workplace, we experienced a situation a few years back, in how a manager - human resources in this case - can effectively discriminate against groups they don't like even with today's laws and rules, after she bragged in an email (sent to the wrong person, about having successfully kept South Asian applicants from getting hired. There were some complaints launched in the years leading up to the discovery of that email; but that email was a smoking gun that made all the difference, since without it, there was absolutely no evidence of any malfeasance, and a series of alibis had worked to carry out this manager's objectives. Just saying, we do not live in a meritocracy, regardless of the propaganda from the right! As long as there are people in positions of authority with bad intentions, these things will happen and there will need to be rules - regardless of how inefficient they are, to force some changes through. It has been mentioned a time or two....even by those who have moved up the supervisory ladder into management, that moving up the company ladder starts with making sure you join the right foursome at golf, and that should not be the yardstick for determining advancement in any workplace! On that last point, have you taken a look at how Arabs or South Asians are depicted in TV and movies since 9/11? Even some of the actors say they pretty much quit Hollywood when virtually all that was offered was playing a terrorist. And from what I have heard....and it doesn't surprise me....the movie Lincoln is no more historically accurate than the average Hollywood bio pic, so why should we be surprised if this one is bad history?

Yes, especially Wall Street! It has been noted a couple of times in recent years that the decline in the middle class in the U.S., and the growth of the wealthier classes has tracked closely with a demographic change in the U.S. economy, which has seen manufacturing decline almost in half, while financial services - including banking, insurance and stock and bond trading, has grown to where manufacturing used to be -- about 30% of annual GDP. A lot of the growth in income of the international banks and traders in derivative investments, is coming from the fact that they are the ones who are creating money and squeezing the real economies to pay in real assets as they drive citizens and their governments into debt bondage. The game being played in the Eurozone for example, makes no sense as a story if German and other bankers actually intend bankrupt nations they are loaning more money, to be able to pay off their debts. There is no plan....even the most optimistic estimates...that can envision these countries paying off their debts. The game is disaster capitalism, and the end game is the seizing of land and public assets by authorized corporate raiders who pay the banks for the rights to cannibalize entire nations of their assets. The phony drama going on behind the scenes in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, sounds little more than a drama concocted to justify raiding the U.S. Economy....starting with Medicare and Social Security!

Thanks for that! Yes, I was focusing on something higher than the 1%....specifically looking at that Forbes 400. And bullshit and bafflegab about how they are "entrepreneurs" can't hide the fact that these gluttons who mostly start off with inherited wealth, have gotten richer at everyone else's expense. Not just here in North America or Europe, but including the profits from third world outsourcing....which have only reduced prices on things like clothing marginally...as most of the profits go to the top of the corporations that run the garment industries.....this is in large part how the Walmart heirs have increased their earnings from the family business. It's certainly not going to Walmart employees or the third world manufacturers set up to supply products at arms length from the mother corporation. It's a matter of using money to earn more money, and that's why they hire lobbyists to push for reducing capital gains taxes and other taxes on investment income. No sign I am aware of that these "entreprenurs" are creating jobs (as if jobs are something that is "created" in the first place) or investing most of the profits in their companies. In 1992, the 400th richest person in America made $24 million. In 2007, the 400th richest person in America made $138 million (or $87 million, inflation-adjusted). Now, that almost certainly wasn't the same guy. There's a lot of churn at the top of the money pyramid. In all of the 1990s, only 25% of the Fortunate 400 made more than one appearance. But the overall message is the same. The rich keep get much richer. According to the IRS, which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an investment , such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages. The average income of a top-400 earner grew by 650% between 1992 and 2007 to a whopping $344 million. Over that time, the average salary barely doubled. But the average capital gains haul increased by 1,200%. How do the richest get richer? Not from their wages. From their investments. Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/how-the-richest-400-people-in-america-got-so-rich/259520/#ixzz2GZGPNJxI And yes, the 400 richest Americans own as much wealth as the poorest half of the U.S. population! I don't make these things up! It's just not something reported often in MSM which is dependent on the benevolence of the wealthy more and more for their own survival, and the big news media stars working for the networks do not have much of an audience to support their high salaries (David Gregory is reportedly in the 10 mil a year range). The Sunday 'news' shows are manipulators who work for the purpose of trying to generate some public interest in the stories their sponsors want the press to focus on during the week.....and many of the other news outlets on TV and in print, just run with the bullshit on Meet The Press! Otherwise, the phony drama behind these Fiscal Cliff reports would not have been crowding out a lot of real news in the last two months that isn't brought to public attention.

I am getting sick of these pro gun dunces who think that having a mall cop with a gun will stop mass shootings! Back when former Congresswoman - Gabrielle Giffords was shot, and others died during the attack, one of the trained, armed security officers made a statement to the media that he almost shot one of the campaign workers in the immediate confusion when the shooting started....thinking that the man was the actual gunman. If there's a mass shooting at an NRA event, I can imagine the collateral damage when a room full of idiots start pulling out their guns and start shooting! It seems obvious that there are situations where guns are necessary, but if you live in a city, and think that carrying a handgun is essential for your safety, you're either living in the wrong place, or have an exaggerated concept of risk. Better to learn a little self-defense training than pointing a gun at someone you might think could pose a threat to you.

I can appreciate Alan Watts's attempt to try to motivate his mostly Buddhist audience to reject materialism and value things that can provide real meaning and satisfaction in life; but what's missing is the acknowledgment that it is a very difficult task in today's world....which is becoming more ruthlessly materialistic and focused on money as inequality grows. More than 100 years ago, an economist named Thorstein Veblen, coined the phrase "conspicuous consumption" to describe a form of materialism that has far more to do with demonstrating one's place in society than it does with meeting a physical or other need. He discovered that materialism had more to do with using products to establish someone's position in a social hierarchy, than actually enjoying what they had purchased. What later sociological research has shown since then, is that as a society becomes more unequal, the focus on conspicuous consumption increases. And as the society becomes more stratified by wealth, the ideals and goals of what should be achieved, move farther and farther out of reach for most people. Every time they earn more money, and can buy more things, 'happiness' becomes more expensive! In one analysis, in 1986, when median family income was only $29,458, survey researchers found that on average Americans felt they really needed far, far more - $50,000 - if they hoped to fulfill their dreams. Eight years later, in 1994, what people felt they needed had more than doubled - to $102,000 (while actual median family income had risen to only $38,782 ). So, no surprise that as incomes have grown over time, Americans (and other societies increasingly unequal) have not experienced greater happiness. On the contrary; given the expanding dimensions of their unsatisfied aspirations, millions feel they are on a treadmill running faster and faster simply to stay in place. Ever more expansive materialism is driven in significant part by the pattern set by those who can afford high-level purchases. After "the rich and super-rich began a bout of conspicuous luxury consumption" in the early 1980s, sociologist - Juliet Schor reported that members of "the upper middle class tried to copy and imitate the luxury spending of the super-rich. In turn, the 80 percent below who lost ground also "engaged in a round of compensatory keeping-up consumption." Psychologists Tom Kasser, Richard Ryan, and several other researchers have shown that low levels of life satisfaction in social and family relationships are strongly correlated with high levels of materialism. "Faced with the loneliness and vulnerability that come with deprivation of a securely encompassing community," New York University professor Paul Wachtel writes, "we have sought to quell the vulnerability through our possessions. What is often interpreted as materialism, is in reality a "demonstration of the pathologies of social deprivation." What is really being sought "is participation in authentic social and natural worlds." So, what if money didn't matter? I think making this sort of breakthrough depends mostly on where you are in life. I can't imagine many 20 year olds....especially in this day and age, not feeling the power of money and feeling anxieties about their own social status, no matter how much meditating or other personal development strategies they try to do. But, if you're older, and you start noticing that some of the people you knew since school, who have bigger houses filled with more stuff than you do, are also fat, out of shape, and a buffet or two from needing one of those hover-round scooters, you may be asking 'how much are they really enjoying life now, after a life of overindulgence and focus on material things'? And, if you're healthier and fitter than most as you get older, then status and money just don't mean quite as much as when you are younger!

I'm sure that right to work legislation will be the same as the ALEC - created model legislation that Republican governors have trotted out state-side. And then we'll see what other model legislation he wants to import.

The PBS may have pointed out that little factoid about the top 400 owning equal wealth to the bottom half of the entire population of the U.S.. And the richest 400 do nothing to contribute to society! They don't make anything! If there are dot.com billionaires rising to the top, the megacorps will either buy them out or create nearly identical products or services to marginalize their business. All they do is use their accumulated wealth (which most of them began through large inheritances) to leverage even larger amounts of wealth, through manipulating tax law and regulations, to increase their wealth even further. And, this is what makes this right/left, conservative or liberal debate mostly irrelevant anyway! The modern political reality is a small wealthy power elite who have slavish devotees who tell them that their great wealth and possessions are a sign that they are simply superior to most, while the liberal alternative is the plan B they go to when their few close advisers tell them that they may have gone a little to far and need to throw a few bones to the great unwashed masses to keep them happy for awhile. The rest of the political debate is pageantry!

Whose racism has the most power to deny jobs, voting rights, education etc.?

It is becoming a case of unequal justice, as fewer and fewer people have the benefits of being under a collective agreement at work, and are left with the bare minimum of what the Law will provide. I'm a little uneasy with some of Rue's post, which indicates that receiving even a minimum compensation in such situations, could depend on the beneficence of the presiding judge. And once again we are left with the cold reality that employers can get away with anything, when they are hiring minimum - or near minimum wage employees, who don't have the money to hire a lawyer to try to fight it out in court. It's pretty disturbing that there are some here who think that employers can run a workplace in a master/slave dynamic, like what's happening in third world countries, where we're outsourcing all of our manufacturing. Equally pathetic that some think the boss's wife should have the right to demand employees be fired without cause.

I looked in on this thread when if first started, but never got around to adding a comment to yet another thread raising the phony issue of reverse racism again. What most of these arguments boil down to is someone who enjoys the privilege of being part of the majority group in a population...and a majority with overwhelming political and financial control of the economy, complaining about each and every example where they think they might lose something or have to bend a little, to address issues like racism. * worth noting that checking back at the link in the OP, it still only has one signature....with 24,999 left to go, before the petition reaches President Obama's desk.....good luck with that! Really? The only good Christmas movie to come out in at least the last 10 years, and you're complaining that Harold and Kumar is anti-white racism. Clearly someone can't take a joke! Really....again? What about the White Saviour who comes in to save the day for the helpless and incompetent savages! It's Dances With Wolves, and the Indians are blue....aside from that, it's another patronizing story about how the natives need the help of that one good liberal white man to survive! Easy to see that racism cases can be made from other sides....depending on which way you are holding up your telescope.