The Progressive Cop

Gun Control, Science, And The 2nd Amendment: Breaking My Silence

2013-04-05T15:29:00.002-05:00

Soon after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, tempers and emotionally charged words began to fly on both sides of the gun control issue. Readers of this blog already know that my views most issues are almost always slightly left to far left of center. Gun control is one issue, however, in which my views are somewhat ambiguous. You see, I am a gun owner who enjoys shooting guns and I did not want to weigh in on the issue until now.

Despite the fact I am a gun owner, I do not believe America’s founding fathers intended for everyone from gang bangers to white supremacist and drunken rednecks shooting road signs, to have a right to bear arms. The text of the second amendment of the US Constitution reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” What this means to me is that at a time when the US did not have a strong standing army, the founding fathers deemed it necessary to have a force of minutemen who could respond to any sudden threats to national security. In stating this purpose-the only amendment to state a purpose-the founding fathers use clear and concise language when they say “A well regulated militia.” Regulation, in this verbiage, is the key.

Currently in the public square we are seeing the gun rights crowd trying everything under the sun to explain why we need to be armed. Some communities have actually proposed local laws requiring all citizens to be armed. Many of these people are the same ones who argued that requiring individuals to have health insurance was unconstitutional. Preventing any form of regulation against the gun industry is their main objective. This is an industry that has made record profits off of gun owners unsubstantiated fears of gun roundups.

Recognizing the need to regulate an industry and overcoming stiff corporate resistance and powerful lobbyist is nothing new. For decades car manufacturers argued that traffic fatalities were to be blamed on the driver not the car; kind of a “cars don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. It wasn’t until the 1960’s, when we began to force safety regulation on the automobile industry that we learned it was the cars that greatly contributed to deaths when drivers made mistakes. Today drivers still make mistakes but the cars they drive are safer and in turn there are fewer overall traffic fatalities.

Many of the safety breakthroughs in the auto industry came about after research into traffic safety. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration continues to this day to conduct research into how to improve traffic safety but what they do not do is try and take our cars away. Many have suggested that the US Government would be prudent to sponsor research into gun violence and how to make guns safer. The Centers for Disease Control actually did conduct research on gun violence but after they announced that evidence suggested the risk of death by gunfire increased threefold for those who had a gun in their home, the National Rifle Association went berserk and one of their Republican buddies, then Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas, shut the CDC study down.

Since the Sandy Hook massacre, President Barrack Obama has instructed the CDC to resume gun violence research. The NRA will no doubt do everything they can to stop this just as they did in the mid 1990’s. It is up to each of us who care about safe and responsible gun ownership let our representatives know that we want research to continue unabated. Ultimately, finding a way to make gun ownership safer is the only rational choice we have since the US Supreme Court continues to interpret the second amendment to mean that a “well regulated militia” is anyone with the money to buy a firearm, a case of beer, and has the time to blast a deer crossing sign on a rural highway.

-The Progressive Cop

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman Changes His Stance On Marriage Equality

2013-03-15T17:42:00.000-05:00

Republican Ohio Senator Rob Portman, thought by many to have been a possible running mate for Mitt Romney’s 2012 Presidential bid, officially changed his position on marriage equality on Thursday after his twenty-one year old son came out as gay. Before I get ahead of myself, I would like to commend Senator Portman for his recent use of reason and understanding pertaining to this human rights issue.

It’s easy to stand against a group of people when they have been dehumanized and ridiculed by virtually every level of society for generations. It's made easier when you don’t have a close personal relationship with someone who is a member of the group. Governments have often intentionally used similar methods by using propaganda to turn their own populace against the people and governments of their enemies.

What Senator Portman now seems to understand is that members of the LBGT community are just as human as the son knows and loves. He now understands that they have families who love them too and that they do lead honorable and worthy lives. Most importantly, Senator Portman now seems to understand that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect to include the right to fall in love with someone, marry them, and spend a lifetime of happiness with them just like he can.

Senator Portman’s epiphany is proof that awareness combined with close personal relationships can change the world. It takes more than just awareness and relationships though. With an estimated eight of of ten people already knowing someone who is LBGT, it takes courage and a willingness to speak out for what is right. Senator Portman displayed tremendous courage in changing his political stance.

I encourage each of you to write to Senator Portman and let him know you support his decision to stand for equality. His mailing address is 338 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510. His office telephone number is (202) 224-3353. You can reach him by email at https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form.

I'm sure he’s going to receive a lot of correspondence, both supportive and condemning his new stance. Let’s do our part to make sure the support far exceeds the negative.

It's 2013 And Yes That's Dennis Rodman Elbowing His Way Back Into The News.

2013-03-04T12:59:00.000-06:00

For starters, I would like to apologize to all of my readers for my recent hiatus. I’ve been fulfilling an obligation with the National Guard and have been quite busy. To be honest, I haven’t really been able to keep up with the news and have found myself joining the ranks of the uninformed. I can’t stand not knowing what is going on in the world.

So, what did I see when I started scrolling through current news stories from my undisclosed location? I found none other than Dennis Rodman. I must admit I was at first somewhat perplexed. I mean, is the twenty teens or the nineteen nineties? I've always like Dennis Rodman and I even enjoyed his book. It was insightful in that it gave a good account of the experiences that have made the man. I've always felt Dennis was simply misunderstood by the world and now I can say that I no longer get him either.

I’m sure we all know the story I’m referring to; his interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. In case you didn't see it, Rodman visited North Korean leader Kim Jung Un and came back praising the guy.

Look, I don’t know if Kim Jung Un is a cool guy to hang out with or not. Maybe he’s the coolest but the fact remains that he continues to head a repressive regime that is the scourge of the world. I’m not here to help spread American propaganda against the North Korean regime the way a lot of folks do against more reputable people like Hugo Chavez. Heck, the US Government doesn’t even need to make Kim Jung Un’s government look bad; the North Korean dictator does a good enough job of doing that himself.

I admire people like former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson who have visited North Korea in hopes of establishing some type of diplomacy. I could have admired Rodman for visiting a dictator who clearly has a crush on American celebrities, in hopes of convincing the guy that we in the west aren’t so bad after all. We are going to have to deal with Kim Jung Un whether we like him or not and we may as well start by letting him rub elbows with stars.

What rubs me wrong is that Dennis Rodman has the gall to return to the US and tell us all that Kim Jung Un is a really cool guy that was led down the wrong path by his father. Perhaps there is a lot of truth in that statement. I get what Rodman was saying about Kim Jung Un being a human being and a young leader too. What Dennis doesn't get is that we know the regime and we know it well. This is a regime that has blackmailed the world time and time again with its nuclear weapons program in exchange for food and fuel which is given but never quite makes it to the North Korean people.

Dennis, you could have done some great things with this visit but you've destroyed any hopes of your efforts bearing fruit when you thought you could convince us that Kim Jung Un is a “good” and “honest” guy. Perhaps the word I would use to describe you, Dennis Rodman, is gullible.

Senate Reaches Agreement On Tax Revenues But What Of Spending Cuts?

2013-01-01T14:10:00.001-06:00

The latest Tea Party talking point seems to be that the Senate deal reached late last night will raise only $60 billion whereas the deficit is actually $1.1 Trillion or something like that. The numbers seem to vary depending on whether it’s an educated opinion or a Fox News opinion that you are hearing. Anyway, the point they are trying to make is that this proves the solution isn't tax hikes but spending cuts. Perhaps in at least one area they are right.

I have said it once and I’ll say it again; the United States makes up roughly 44% of all money spent on armed forces. The next biggest spender, China, makes up only about 7% of global military spending. Together with our NATO allies, we account for nearly 3/4 of all global defense spending. Maybe it's time we lefty's surprise the Tea Party by adopting one of their planks and demand we cut the heck out of defense. We’ll all be just as safe and save a heck of a lot of money in the meantime. Maybe then their rich contributors like Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers can keep their tax cuts too!

While figures change from year to year they have remained very close to this graph for at least the past decade.

Alas, the Tea Party is not for cutting handouts to defense contractors, the oil company fat cats, or the investment bankers. They only want to cut assistance for struggling working families and those even less fortunate. This New Years morning agreement reached in the Senate returns tax rates back to the prosperous years of the Clinton Administration only on those making over $450,000 a year. I don't know about you dear reader but I do not know of any struggling middle class workers making $300,000 a year. It is very telling that the Republicans seem to thing that such an income is middle class.

In any event, if the House passes this bill then I guess it's on towards finding cuts. I think it's time for progressives to insist that the bulk of the cuts come from places such as defense, where we are clearly overspending to support the military industrial complex that Ike first warned us about.

Arkansas Police Chief To Mandate All Pedestrians Provide ID Or Be Jailed

2012-12-17T19:16:00.000-06:00

Every so often some cop comes up with a boneheaded idea that is destined to make the lot of us look like would be tyrants on a power trip. I would like to think that in most cases this is done with the best of intentions despite poor judgment. What troubles me more than boneheaded moves is when a police officer decides to go and write his own version of constitutional law. This is made even worse when the officer is a top administrator.

In the Northeast Arkansas town of Paragould, Police Chief Todd Stovall has found his community plagued with a higher than usual crime rate; at least statistically speaking. It seems that crime in Paragould is higher than the national average and Stovall claims his citizens are scared. Stovall’s answer is to start new street crimes unit which will patrol the streets of this community of 26,000 on foot, in SWAT gear, and bearing AR-15 assault rifles slung around their necks. According to Stovall this unit will confront anyone out walking and make them identify themselves. Sounds scary right? That’s because for most Americans, having a SWAT team lurking in the neighborhood poised to make you identify yourself on a Sunday evening stroll is downright frightful!

Stovall takes things a step further. He says this team will not only get out and identify anyone out walking but if someone fails to identify them self, they could be arrested for the offense of obstructing government operations. This is a charge that is commonly used in Arkansas against anyone who refuses to identify him/her self or misidentifies themselves when legally ordered to provide identification to a police officer conducting a legitimate investigation. In order to be a legitimate investigation, there has to be at least reasonable suspicion present to even justify the temporary seizure of a persons liberty. Stovall however, claims that the fact his town’s crime rate is high is reasonable suspicion enough.

Let’s look at something that would amount to reasonable suspicion to get a better understanding of what the police must have to stop and identify you against your will. Imagine its 2:00 A.M., and you are on patrol as a police officer. You venture into a shopping center that has been closed since 10:00 P.M. and will not reopen until 8:00 A.M. Furthermore there have been actual documented cases of commercial burglaries in the area. You have located a person loitering near one of those closed businesses. Are you justified to make them identify them self to you? Yes, you would have satisfied the requirement of reasonable suspicion to stop this person, compel them to identify them self in the course of your investigation. After all, there are few legitimate reasons for this person to be in the area when these businesses are closed so you can reasonably believe that a crime either has or is about to take place and that this person is worthy of further investigation. On the other hand, if I am out jogging or walking my dog down the sidewalks of town at any time of day or night and such circumstances are not present, no reasonable suspicion exist to deprive me of my liberty for even a moment. You as a police officer can request that I talk to you in what are commonly referred to as a consensual encounters but if I ignore you or tell you I don’t want to talk then you are left with no choice but to let me be.

What Stovall is suggesting is that because his town’s crime rate is higher than he deems acceptable, he has this same level of justification to stop anyone walking in the town and he doesn't care if they are walking their dog, "they will have to prove it” he says. In a newspaper article in the Paragould Daily Press, Stovall is quoted as saying the statistics actually justify the even more stringent level of probable cause. Probable cause usually exists when there is a belief that a crime has been or is being committed and that a particular person(s) committed that crime. For anyone in law enforcement administration to say that statistics alone justify probable cause to stop random pedestrians is laughable.

If I were an attorney in Northeast Arkansas rather than a police officer in Northwest Arkansas, I would be literally salivating at the Christmas gift Stovall was wrapping for me. For the sake of the average taxpayer, pedestrian, or just someone passing through Paragould, let’s hope someone gets through to Stovall and gets him to rethink his strategy. A lesson in constitutional law might just be the best gift someone could give Stovall this holiday season.

-The Progressive Cop

Conservatives Want Secession? Thoughts From A Proud Loyalist Progressive.

2012-11-13T11:39:00.000-06:00

You may have heard that some conservatives are so miffed over the outcome of the recent presidential election and they have started petitions in twenty-two states calling for secession. I've spent a lifetime growing up in the south listening to ignorant rednecks spout off about how the "south is going to rise again." Rise again and do what? Those of us who went to school know that the causes of our nation's first post revolution experience with secession weren't very honorable and the results were disastrous for the seceding states.

Those poor of the south who did not volunteer were often drafted and forced to fight the rich man's treasonous war of slavery and involuntary servitude. Conditions were harsh and many of them never returned home. Those who did often did not return whole. The State of Mississippi for instance, once one of the richest states in the Union, was forced to harvest its pristine hardwood forests in the years after the war because there was no other way to pay for the cost of prosthetic limbs for its veterans. Remember they weren't U.S. veterans and therefore rightly weren't the U.S. Government's responsibility. Mississippi, like many of the southern states, still has not recovered economically.

It is not the potential cost of war that should make us scratch our heads at conservatives calling for secession however. We have to take a step back and ask why they want to secede. Is it simply because their guy lost the election or is it because they can't stand the thought of a black guy living in the White House? Is it because all of this tolerance and progress that we on the left strive for is just too much for their bigoted and compartmentalized minds to take? The motives for their cries for secession are likely far more sickening than the thought that they would actually want to bring secession to our land once again.

Regardless of the reasons for wanting to secede, the fact remains that such an act is traitorous and such acts should be viewed as a threat to national security. As a veteran and a police officer, I have given an oath to support and defend our constitution more than once in my life. While some may have repeated those words without pondering the true meaning, I did not. I understood precisely what I was swearing and I understood the potential consequences for making such a commitment.

Should the conservative secessionists manage to bring their ridiculous petition movement to the level of physical unrest, I honestly won't feel one bit of regret in fulfilling my oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If this is what the bigots and conservatives want then bring it on I say! Just let me get my family moved to a blue state first.

-The Progressive Cop

Some Final Thoughts This Election Night

2012-11-06T18:05:00.001-06:00

Look. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. I'm not going to threaten or cajole you, beg or belittle. Just let me have some final thoughts as this election night unfolds.

Four years ago I voted for McCain. I was conservative, and hardcore at that. I couldn't stand Obama. I thought his ideas were a poison for the country. Honestly, after the election I didn't give politics much thought until about two and a half years ago.

Back then, I still worked as a civil servant. The pay wasn't great, but my wife and I both worked full time, and we got by. We had a budget, and our needs were met. We planned for a child, fit it within our budget, and thought we would be fine. We found out we were pregnant, and we were happy.

Then my wife lost her job. I can cry and complain all I want. I know it was because she was pregnant, but there's no way we'll ever be able to prove it. Call it the benefits of living in a "right to work" state. Call it what you will, but we can't change it.

That was 4 months before our son was to be born. Honestly, that was the first time I truly felt unbridled fear. How would we get by on just my salary? How would we afford the birth of our son? We had been putting money aside for the delivery (I couldn't afford to put my wife on my insurance with the county), but with the loss of her income, we would come up severely short of our planned budget.

How could I raise a family like this? How could I protect them from disease or injury if I couldn't afford a hospital or clinic bill? These questions kept me up late at nights. They made me cold with fear and worry.

I understand there are flaws with Obamacare. Honestly, I hate that it doesn't do enough. However, what it does is help people who find themselves in situations like I was. To be completely honest: we were lucky. Damned lucky. My heart breaks at the thought of families that have it worse than we did. How do they survive?

I've heard a lot of talk about repealing Obamacare this election. Too much. It sends chills up my spine. For the first time in history, we have the chance to give a little bit of opportunity to those who need it most. For the first time in this country, we can look at the weary and downtrodden and tell them "It's ok. Don't worry about getting sick. All of us taxpayers? We got your back."

For the first time, we can be the people our Christian nation claims to be.

I hear all this talk about repealing Obamacare, and all I can think is "What if that had been me?" I got lucky, but there are many, many more who don't have that chance, and all the politicians can say is "let's take that away?"

One thing that has shocked me more than anything else this election is the sheer amount of people who claim to be Christian yet willingly attack a measure to help others. I realize it's flawed. A repeal doesn't solve that. All that does is twist the knife in the hearts Christ commanded us to heal. You can talk about social issues all you want (and most of you know my position), but the heart of the matter is this: There are millions of people in this country - men, women, and so many children - that have next to nothing, and all I hear is whining about helping them. That makes me sick. I can spout scripture, I can quote facts and statistics, and it doesn't seem to matter. The rhetoric is so strong and laced with hatred that reason and compassion fails to pierce through.

So do this for me. I won't tell you who to vote for, but please. For the love of all of us, think. Use your head. Use your heart. Vote responsibly.

-Brandon "Innocence Jaded" Nolan

The Right Continues With Tactics Of Fear And Fallacies

2012-10-25T07:41:00.000-05:00

Once again I have come across propaganda claiming President Obama is a Muslim. It seems this stuff is out there no matter where you turn. What does it matter whether he is or isn't? For that matter what does it matter that his challenger is of the Mormon faith? The people who continue to make this election about a candidate’s faith are no better than the Taliban we are fighting and in fact, have more in common with them than they can fathom.

If we adhere to the separation of church and state that founding father and President Thomas Jefferson felt so strongly in favor of, then it should not matter whether the president is Mormon, Church of Christ, or even Muslim. Personally, I believe it is about the policies and vision for our collective future and not their belief in what happens when we die, that should determine which candidate we support. It is this vision for our collective future that every American voter should concern themselves with and not whether a candidate prays or to whom they pray.

Speaking as a Catholic, neither of the presidential candidates shares my faith yet I have the utmost faith that they both love this country dearly and wish to see it succeed. I simply believe that President Obama’s vision is in line with mine and that Governor Romney’s vision was proven unsuccessful from 2001-2009. Their faiths do not and should not have any bearing upon my vote. Governor Romney being Mormon or President Obama being Church of Christ has no more bearing on their qualifications or patriotism than it would if one or both both of them were Muslim, Hindu or Atheist for that matter.

For your entertainment, here is a links to the video and website that inspired me to vent in the form of this post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HkjFc3S21nY; http://www.infiltratednation.com/2012/10/the-obama-timeline-can-it-all-be.html?spref=fb

-The Progressive Cop

Presidential Politics, The Oath Of Office, And Islamophobia

2012-10-24T11:41:00.000-05:00

I recently came across a post online that said something to the effect of how the mere fact that every American president going back to George Washington having sworn the oath of office on a bible is “proof that America was founded as and is a Christian nation. The poster went on to conclude that with a perceived pursuit of Sharia law by our courts under the administration of a supposedly undercover Islamic president that the tradition could change at the next inauguration if our president is reelected. The implication was that President Obama would shock the world by swearing into a second term with his hand on a Koran. My reply to this post was that if tradition were to be broken it would be far more likely that it would be someone swearing in with their hand on a Book of Mormon. In doing this, I wasn't trying to stir angst against any religion or political figure but instead I was simply trying to keep it real for the radical right. By the way, I cannot remember where this post was and all attempts I have made to re-locate it for this blog post have failed.

In reality a person’s religious beliefs generally should not matter in a presidential election unless that candidate intends to govern the nation by imposing their religious beliefs on the nation. Vice President Biden said it best in the VP debate when he said about his faith and belief on abortion, that his Catholic faith “defined” him but that he did not believe he should impose his faith on Americans of other faiths. I proudly share Vice President Biden’s Catholic faith and his belief on the role that our shared faith should play the public arena.

Islamophobia like many other phobias, irrational by definition, has no business in our political process. Those who profess such irrational fears should be ignored and pushed out of every political discussion. To those on the right who continue to think that being Muslim is somehow a disqualifier to the Office of President of the United States of America and that our current president is a latent Muslim, I have to ask then, did you believe President Obama to be a Muslim when you tried to stress the years he and the first family spent sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ?

Irrational fear of something the very definition of a phobia. It is irrational to fear other religions, other sexual identities, other nations, other ideologies, and other people in general, simply because they are different from us. I suspect that it is not a matter of religious beliefs but appearance, melanin in the skin, that is the difference between the first family and the majority of Americans, particularly right wing Americans, and that is the source of this irrational fear of our president.

In the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” I ask you all to fear not but instead to vote and to vote to continue progress!

-The Progressive Cop

Critical Theory Part 9: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"

2012-10-17T17:57:00.000-05:00

This is the ninth entry of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This post explores the origin of the Christian/Capitalist ethic, specifically referencing Max Weber's works. Cited sources can be found here.

How then, did Christianity become the standard-bearer for capitalism? Weber suggests that this came about after the Protestant Reformation, during the rise of Calvinism. As Calvinism took hold and gained popularity in multiple Protestant sects, rational capitalism was also picking up speed (Weber, 1905). The core doctrine of Calvinism is predestination, which is the doctrine “that God eternally decreed the salvation of some and the damnation of others, not in view of the good or evil deeds they would do, but simply ‘because he willed it’” (Kilcullen, 1996). Salvation was not guaranteed based on strength of faith or on deeds performed. Rather, salvation was dependent upon the mystery of God’s will. This meant that “part of humanity is saved, the rest damned” (Weber, 1905, p. 742). This posed a crisis for Calvinists. How were they to know that they were predestined for salvation? For Christians, “God’s grace is, since His decrees cannot change, as impossible for those to whom He has granted it to lose as it is unattainable for those to whom He has denied it” (Weber, 1905, p. 751).

Since it is impossible to fully understand or know the will of God, Calvinists sought to alleviation from their “salvation anxiety.” A Calvinist cannot be “certain of his own election, he has at bottom only the answer that we should be content with the knowledge that God has chosen and depend further only… in Christ which is the result of true faith” (Weber, 1905, p. 827). There is no external difference between those predestined for salvation and those who are destined for eternal suffering. Therefore, Calvinists were forced to look for signs in their own existence as verification of salvation. The led Calvinists to “seek reassurance in… the belief that God signifies his favor by giving prosperity to the undertakings of the elect” (Kilcullen, 1996). According to Weber (1905), “In order to attain that self-confidence, intense worldly activity is recommended as the most suitable means… it alone disperses religious doubts and gives the certainty of grace” (p. 850).

The Protestant faith was experiencing a debacle that had never quite been encountered before the Reformation. Members, especially those of the Calvinist persuasion, could not be reassured of their salvation by means of the priesthood. Instead, the only guarantee of salvation was through the divine will and foresight of God, which was unknown to the mortals. To alleviate this anxiety felt by believers for not knowing their eternal fate, they took cues from the world. It was deemed that material wealth was a sign of God’s good graces, a blessing bestowed upon the elect. Wealth became the measure of salvation, and spurred its accumulation. Thus, “In practice this means that God helps those who help themselves” (Weber, 1905, p. 867). By their warped thinking, the accumulation of material was a sign from the almighty that their salvation was assured (Weber, 1905).

Have You Forgotten?

2012-10-16T09:32:00.000-05:00

In the early 2000’s a hit song by Darryl Worley, Have You Forgotten, became the rallying cry for the right against those of us who thought from the very beginning that invading Iraq was the greatest blunder in the War on Terror. Crowds took to the streets in cities across the world in protest to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq under the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and either had shared or planned to share them with Al Qaeda.

Bush was miraculously successful in connecting Hussein, a secular dictator who stood for the very principles Osama Bin Laden railed against, to Bin Laden by making us fear that the next 9/11 would come in the form of the infamous “mushroom cloud.” The Bush administration and their supporters began to publicly question the patriotism of any American who dared to ask what Hussein had to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News even advocated renaming the "french" fry the "freedom" fry as a slight to our NATO ally to whom we owe our very independence and who gave us our Statue of Liberty, after France suggested invading Iraq was a bad idea and irrelevant to the War on Terror. Remember seeing all of those "Boycott France" bumper stickers?

Watching our nation be led by the likes of Bush into an unnecessary war for bogus reasons while letting the real culprit of 9/11 slip away in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan was a sickening time for me and for most rational Americans. This disgust was fueled into downright hatred every time I heard Worley sing "don't you tell me not to worry about Bin Laden" after the song had just addressed the public angst over the invasion of Iraq as if Hussein and Bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan were interchangeable names.

Worley, like a huge chunk of Nashville stars of the early 2000's operated as de facto Bush Administration propagandists. Remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks' Nashville career when they dared to speak out against Bush's war? Nashville would have rather had Americans encouraged by Toby Keith to "put a boot in your ass" because "it's the American way." That is precisely why, in disgust, I quite listening to contemporary country music during this time. For my wife Ali, this was a time of stress in that when she would listen to country stations and clowns like Keith or Worley came on the radio, I would go into a tirade about the topics these clowns were carrying on about. I cannot stress enough, even now, how much I hate these songs!

Now, as I see support for Mitt Romney and the Republicans running pretty much dead even with the President, I am brought back to Worley's question, "Have You Forgotten?" Have we forgotten the waning years of the last GOP White House, when the economy was in free fall and the future looked so bleak? Have we forgotten the damage done from eight years of fighting two wars completely on credit as the taxes needed to pay for those wars had been cut? Have we forgotten the stress that many of our fellow Americans felt each day as they drove to work wondering if today would be the day they would face a lay off or have their position outsourced? Have we forgotten the sights of house after house boarded up and foreclosed on in cities such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, or Orlando? Have we forgotten how our property values across the nation, the only investment many Americans own, dropped by half in the wake of those foreclosures?

Today, for completely different reasons, Darryl Worley's words echo like nails on a chalkboard in my ears into yet another decade. To think that after four short years in which we have come so far from the bleak outlook we faced in 2008 that we would ever want to look back and give Bush's policies another chance is simply as outrageous as ignoring the people who attacked us on 9/11 and attacking a third party who was not involved, under the guise of fighting a War on Terror. I plead for you to wake up America or have you forgotten?

-The Progressive Cop

Critical Theory Part 8: The Christian Ethic (Continued)

2012-10-11T12:00:00.000-05:00

This is the eighth entry of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This entry continues to take a critical approach to Christianity in America and related Christian economic ethic. Cited sources can be found here.

Biblical text presents a church similar to what I imagine Jesus had envisioned of his followers. In the book of Acts, the early church described a setting very similar to following the “golden rule” and other teachings of Jesus. Members of the church “were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need” (Acts 2:44-45). This phrasing may seem familiar. In fact, Marx used a phrase similar to this description, a common socialist slogan in the nineteenth century: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Marx, 1875). Those that had material possessions, and the means (ability) to attain them sold those possessions to those that had none (need). The members of the early church did this “day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord… they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart” Acts 2:46).

This is not an isolated incident, either. Another chapter explains that “the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one [of them] said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common” (Acts 4:32). This is another instance where the members shared every possession, not keeping private property to themselves. Again it strikes familiar tones with the works of Marx, who stated “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 212). It should be noted that Marx is proclaiming the abolition of private property regarding the capital structure, allowing it to be shared among the working class, just as members of the early church shared property amongst themselves (Marx & Engels, 1848).

There are distinct differences between the model of the early Christian church and the prominent modern Protestant church. While different denominations perform different rituals and have different interpretations of the scriptures, most still identify themselves as part of the larger whole of the Protestant faith (McGuire, 2002). Interestingly, however, different denominations tend to draw members of society from certain classes more than others. For example, “Episcopalians and Congregationalists (i.e., United Church of Christ) draw members disproportionately from the upper classes, while Holiness and Pentecostal groups draw relatively large proportions of members from the lower classes (McGuire, 2002, p. 238). Religion also seems to relieve the “tension of economic deprivation by substituting the value of religious achievement for economic achievement” (McGuire, 2002, p. 239). Perhaps this is the reason Marx considered religion to be an “opiate of the masses” preventing the lower classes from seeking revolution (Coser, 1977). Religion also plays a heavy factor in maintaining oppression of others in the social structure. Especially in a capitalist state that is built upon growth through oppression, religion serves to “legitimate existing social arrangements, especially the stratification system” (McGuire, 2002, p. 240). Religion has “historically explained and justified why the powerful and privileged should have God’s approval of their hard work and moral uprightness” (McGuire, 2002, p. 240). These two factors combined allow capitalism to continue to exploit and oppress the masses without fear of revolution.

A 2011 Gallup poll on religious identity found that “78% of American adults identify with some form of a Christian religion” (Newport, 2011). 15% of American adults did not identify with any religion, which means that “95% of all Americans who have a religious identity are Christians” (Newport, 2011). Of those that identified themselves as Christian, 52.5% identify themselves as Protestant. According to Gallup, “in two separate surveys conducted… an average of 55% of Americans said religion is very important in their lives” (Newport, 2011). Gallup also did a study to measure Christians’ “love of neighbor” as stated in Jesus’ Great Commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27b). Regarding the statement “I believe all people are loved by God, therefore I should love them too, regardless of race, creed, wealth or place in life,” 76% of respondents agreed that the statement applied completely to them (Gallup Jr, 2003). The statement “I believe that a Christian should live a sacrificial life, not driven by pursuit of material things,” received a positive response of only 50%. Only 44% identified with the statement that "God calls me to be involved in the lives of the poor and suffering," and only 31% agreed that their "first priority in spending money is to support God's work" (Gallup Jr, 2003).

While a majority of Americans profess to maintain Christian beliefs, "there appears to be a fall off on survey items dealing with Christian 'practices'" (Gallup Jr, 2003). This is interesting, as it provides perhaps clear insight into the reason capitalism, though it contradicts core Christian ideology, still remains prevalent among a nation that has a strong Christian majority. The Christian church is strongly alienated from its doctrine, even though the scriptures are available en masse. One Protestant church theorized that “since [Jesus] never required disciples to surrender all wealth to the poor, modern Christians should not surrender theirs either. Rather, they should strive for wealth and put it to good use” (Ribuffo, 1981, p. 209). There is a strong disconnect between the early church and the one that practices its particular brand of religion on American soil, even though the two share the same God and the same commandments.

Critical Theory Part 7: The Christian Ethic

2012-10-10T12:00:00.000-05:00

This is the seventh entry of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This entry begins a critical approach to Christianity in America and related Christian economic ethic. Cited sources can be found here.

While there are many interpretations of the Protestant Bible, this report will use one of the more recent interpretations: the American Standard Version (ASV). This version is similar in wording to the classical interpretation of the King James Version (KJV). Christian doctrine, from its inception during the life of Christ to the present day church, has changed countless times. Biblical interpretations and doctrine vary between both Protestant and Catholic sects, and there are approximately two hundred Christian groups in America alone, and “each of these maintains some peculiar attitude in faith or in practice” (Moehlmann, 1922, p. 17). This study will attempt to examine a generalized version of Christianity in America. Moehlmann (1922) argues that instead of attempting to make distinction between the varying doctrinal interpretations of Christianity, “it is easier and more worth-while to interpret the New Testament” (p. 26). He contends that the church’s attempt throughout history to interpret and summarize the text has created a superficial replacement for faith (Moehlmann, 1922).

One basic point of traditional Protestant doctrine is that “the wealthy have no more access to heaven than anyone else” (Paul, 2011). To understand the contradictions between modern Protestant ideology and traditional teaching, I will examine several instances in scripture that illustrate a strictly anti-capitalist attitude. In the book of Matthew, chapter nineteen, Jesus is approached by a wealthy man who asks what must be done to enter the kingdom of heaven. After Jesus commands the man to ensure that he follows all the commandments set in the Old Testament. The man acknowledges that he has complied thus far with the commandments, so Jesus instructs the man to “sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and… come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21). Scripture mentions that when the man heard this, he “went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions” (Matthew 19:22). Jesus then announces to his followers that “It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And… it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:23-24). What Jesus is trying to point out to his followers is that living a life devoted to God required sacrifice, and that the wealth of individuals was a hindrance to following his commands.

In Matthew chapter twenty-five, Jesus illustrates the coming of heaven to his followers, mentioning that “I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me” (Matthew 25:35-36). When his followers question when these things happened to him, Jesus answered, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, [even] these least, ye did it unto me” (Matthew 25:40). Jesus’ emphasis on the “least” individuals is an important distinction. He calls on his followers to treat others as if they were treating him. This is an extension of the “golden rule” that he presents in an earlier sermon. This rule instructs “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). This distinction is important, especially considering the oppression experienced by impoverished individuals in the United States, and the stigma that maintains an air of indifference regarding their welfare (Russell Sage Foundation, 2006). In both of these instances, Jesus is appealing to the values and moral sets of his disciples, instructing them to treat all men as if they were either Jesus, or as if they were in the same position. With that logic presented, it would seem the church would be focused toward a more socialist-style environment that consisted of sharing of material possession with others and equal treatment regardless of social, political, or economical status. While this is the case in the early church, as evidenced in New Testament scripture, the modern Christian church tends to slant toward capitalistic values while reinterpreting the teachings of Jesus and the early church (Ribuffo, 1981).

Critical Theory Part 6: Other Critical Theorists

2012-10-09T12:00:00.000-05:00

This is the sixth entry of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This entry examines three other popular Critical Theorists: Adorno, Marcus, and Habermas. This concludes the entries following the historical thinkers. Tomorrow begins the critical examination of Christianity. Cited sources can be found here.

T. W. Adorno
T.W. Adorno worked closely with Horkheimer on Critical Thinking, especially in regards to critique of capitalism and fascism during the height of World War II (Kellner, 1989). During this time, Horkheimer and Adorno shifted their focus to extending their “critique of fascism and capitalism, [and] they distanced themselves from the Marxian theory of history and critique of political economy” (Kellner, 1989, p. 83). Adorno focused his theories on philosophical models of modern society that didn’t rely on definitions put in place by reigning institutions (Held, 1980). Adorno believed that “the struggle for emancipation depends upon particular material and historical conditions, which… are less and less favorable to its success” (Held, 1980, p. 212).

Adorno and Horkheimer worked together to write Dialect of Enlightenment, which sought to discover “why humanity, instead of entering into a truly human condition, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism” (Kellner, 1989, p. 85). This work is a turn from the disciplinary sciences in favor of a more philosophical stance because they believed the scientific method and thought “had become increasingly formalist, conformist, instrumental and in thrall to the interests of the existing social system” (Kellner, 1989, p. 85). They argued that current thought had shifted to accommodate the dominant ways of thought, which devalued their critique. Because the language and symbols themselves had begun to shift in favor of the oppressive capitalist state, a scientific critique on the system would be subject to scrutiny. According to Kellner (1989), Adorno argued “There is no longer any available form of linguistic expression which has not tended toward accommodation to dominant currents of thought; and what a devalued language does not do automatically is proficiently executed by societal mechanisms” (p. 85-86). The current social structure had put in place a series of systems that limited expressions of Critical Theory as a factually based argument, and this caused a shift toward philosophical discourse (Kellner, 1989).

Dialect of Enlightenment was an attempt to present a new method of presenting the facets of Critical Theory without relying upon foundations that had become engulfed by dominant culture and bureaucracy. The work presented a massive philosophy of history “which encompasses the history and pre-history of the bourgeois subject and its attempts to dominate nature” (Kellner, 1989, p. 87). Adorno introduces the stage of enlightenment (an event similar to the historic period), where humanity is emancipated from domination (Kellner, 1989). Dialect of Enlightenment also contends that to “comprehend society we must know it from the inside; we must know its formative processes” (Held, 1980, p. 218). Adorno argues that “if society is treated as a ‘neutral object’, these processes will not be grasped” (Held, 1980, p. 218) and qualities of society will not be understood properly.

Herbert Marcuse

Herbert Marcuse stressed a greater value in the early writings of Marx, focusing on a general theory of labor and alienation as a common element in his writing. He emphasized the role of politics as a key structure in examining the current social stratus (Held, 1980). He also emphasized the utopian objectives of classical Marx, attempting to defend and reconstruct the socialist movement and objectives (Held, 1980). Held (1980) argues “The goals of his critical approach to society are the emancipation of consciousness, the nurturing of a decentralized political movement and the reconciliation of humanity and nature” (p. 224).

Regarding Critical Theory, Marcuse argued that the theory is oriented “toward the understanding of all forms of social practice and the factors which hinder their self-consciousness and free development” (Held, 1980, p. 224). He was aware that contemporary social structure had changed since Marxian theory on class conditions had first been introduced, and Marcuse stressed a rethinking of Marxian formula (Kellner, 1989). He argued that “the full weight of exploitation was falling more and more on marginal and nonintegrated groups: ‘outsiders’, unorganized and unskilled workers, agricultural workers, minorities, colonial groups and regions, prisoners, and so on” (Kellner, 1989, p. 111). Marcuse’s obstinate commitment to Marxian revolutionary politics, along with his growing insistence that the Institute take specific political positions, caused a growing ideological rift between himself and Adorno and Horkheimer (Kellner, 1989).

Marcuse also argued that one “should not criticize consumption and mass culture without also criticizing capitalism” (Kellner, 1989, p. 157), and that “one could say that according to Critical Theory one should not critique the consumer society without critiquing the capitalist mode of production of which it is an expression” (Kellner, 1989, p. 157). He claimed that mass productions, along with mass consumption, demand the entirety of an individual. Marcuse argued that “the production of commodity needs is the key to social integration in contemporary society” (Kellner, 1989, p. 157). With this in mind, it seems Marcuse was trying to connect consumerism with the oppressive nature of capitalism.

Jürgen Habermas

Jürgen Habermas was brought up in Nazi Germany, and did not become a leading thinker in Critical Theory until the late 1950’s (Held, 1980). With the goal of self-emancipation from domination, “Habermas’s Critical Theory aims to further the self-understanding of social groups capable of transforming society” (Held, 1980, p. 250). Habermas argues that the recent course of history, particularly in early twentieth century with the major developments in socialist and capitalist societies, demands reformulation of Marxian theories.

Habermas argued that increasing interdependence between the state and economics could lead to “an ever greater involvement of administrators and technicians in social and economic affairs” (Held, 1980, p. 251). As capitalist society expands, it also fuses with science, technology, and industry, “to the emergence of a new form of ideology; ideology is no longer simply based on notions of just exchange but also on a technocratic justification of social order” (Held, 1980, p. 251). The more capitalist-centric the state becomes, the more intertwined the state becomes with economic institutions. Habermas argues that “demands of advanced capitalism restrict the scope and significance of democracy… [and] the state is ‘crisis ridden’ and unable to solve structural problems of unemployment, economic growth, and environmental destruction” (Bohman, 2005). He explored the notion that “growing pressures on the capitalist state to provide crisis management which will produce economic policies that will enhance capitalist accumulation” (Kellner, 1989, p. 191). As social institutions experience decline, the state, while interwoven with capitalist interests, will push forward policies that benefit the capitalist structure rather than the masses of society. Habermas was concerned that because of this social crises would remain unresolved in a capitalistic state because of social contradictions (Kellner, 1989).

Critical Theory Part 5: The Frankfurt School and Horkheimer

2012-10-08T18:13:00.000-05:00

This is the fifth entry of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This post discusses the origin of the Frankfurt School and one of its top thinkers: Max Horkheimer. Cited sources can be found here.

Critical Theory traces its origin back to early twentieth century Germany. As Marxism began to see widespread teaching throughout German universities, it was realized that an institute for Marxist-oriented research would be highly beneficial (Kellner, 1989). In 1923, the Institute of Social Research was founded at the University of Frankfurt by Felix Weil. According to Seiler (2006), “One of the major purposes of the institute was to study (and eventually explain) the dynamics of social change,” especially in regards to the oppression of members of society. Horkheimer became the head of the Institute in 1930, and it was under his guidance that members fled to other countries ahead of the fascist uprising in Germany (Kellner, 1989). Members of the Institute fled first to Geneva, and then to New York to the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. Members of the Institute settled throughout the United States during World War II, and continued their work on Critical Theory. These members are known as the Frankfurt School (Seiler, 2006).

Max Horkheimer

Max Horkheimer was director of the Institute until 1958. Horkheimer agreed with Grunberg’s concern for theoretical analysis and empirical investigation of society, but he also “sought to discuss the role of theory and social research in a more radically historical and theoretical mode” (Held, 1980, p. 32). Horkheimer rejected the traditional purely philosophical approach to social context. Horkheimer “stressed the necessity of a program of interdisciplinary study in which ‘philosophers, sociologists, economists, historians and psychologists must unite in a lasting working partnership’” (Held, 1980, p. 33). Horkheimer also rejected the notion that economy was the single influence of society. He argued that the focus should be on interconnection between other institutions in society, along with the economy (Kellner, 1989). He claimed this would “result in a better understanding of the complexities of modern social life” (Seiler, 2006).

Horkheimer’s works examine the “concepts of metaphysics, character, morality, personality and the value of the human being” (Kellner, 1989, p. 15) as they appeared in capitalism during the 1930’s. He attacked bourgeois society, capitalism and imperialism in his early work Dammerung. He argued, “The capitalist system in the current phase is a world-wide system of organized exploitation. Its maintenance is the condition of immeasurable suffering” (Kellner, 1989, p. 15). It is important to note that while Horkheimer was critical of capitalism, he made an effort to distance his study of Critical Theory from politics “for fear that this would endanger the status of the Institute” (Kellner, 1989, p. 84).

Horkheimer stated that the goal of Critical Theory was to “assess the breach between ideas and reality” (Held, 1980, p. 183). To do this, he argued that immanent criticism, which “confronts the existent, in its historical context, with the claim of its conceptual principles, in order to criticize the relation between the two and thus transcend them” (Held, 1980, p. 183). An example of immanent criticism would be a later section of this paper that outlines the conflict that arises between Christian doctrine and the present support for capitalism by the modern Protestant church. Immanent criticism looks at the ideas presented by a particular group and society, and compares them to the effects and practices of members of that group, highlighting the inconsistencies that separate the idea and the practice (Held, 1980). Immanent criticism looks at the object of scrutiny, examining the conceptual ideas. It then examines the consequences of the ideas held by the object, and re-examines the conceptual principles of the object in consideration with those consequences. By examining an object this way, “a new understanding of the object is generated – a new comprehension of contradictions and possibilities” (Held, 1980, p. 184). Horkheimer notes that immanent critique, while useful, is bound to the cultural and chronological constraints within society. While this does not prevent maintaining a general critique of contradiction between ideals and their consequences, it is important to note that “justified positions for critique will not be justified ‘for all time,’ and will not have the same connotation ‘for all time’” (Held, 1980, p. 187). Standards of critique are mostly contextually and chronologically relative.

Critical Theory Part 4: Marx

2012-10-07T16:29:00.000-05:00

This is the fourth entry of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This post covers perhaps the most brilliant and provocative (not to mention misunderstood) thinker of this age: Karl Marx. Cited sources can be found here.

Marx is a major figure in the economic and philosophical thought, and his work as a sociological theorist provided the basis for the Institute of Social Research. According to Marx, society “comprised a moving balance of antithetical forces that generate social change by their tension and struggle” (Coser, 1977, p. 43). He emphasized that struggle was the “engine of progress,” rather than peaceful growth. The manner in which men relate to one another in the “continuous struggle to wrest their livelihood from nature” (Coser, 1977, p. 43) is the motivating drive in human history. In order to satisfy both basic (food, water, shelter) and secondary (property, capital) needs, men engage in “antagonistic cooperation.” This is what forms the basis for the division of labor present in capitalistic society, and that division is what provides antagonism between the classes (Coser, 1977). In a capitalist society, oppression is implemented by the class that controls the means of material production. Control of material production allows for a simultaneous control of the means of mental production, prescribing a role of subjugation for the classes that are oppressed (Coser, 1977).

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated to author The Communist Manifesto: a blazing propaganda piece directed to the working class (the proletariat) to make them aware of the Communist Party’s platform against the wealthy (the bourgeois). The Communist Manifesto is a call to arms, so to speak for the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeois (Coser, 1977). According to Marx (1848), “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles” (p. 9). He argues that the modern bourgeois society has created “new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 12). Society has split into two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeois, and the bourgeois has maintained a state of oppression over the proletariat. This is done by “constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 46). This has allowed the bourgeois to manufacture a market for products to fulfill their ever-enlarging business structure. This expanse of the capital structure requires independence upon the market that, in turn, continues to expand the market (Marx & Engels, 1848).

According to Marx (1848), “the bourgeois has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population” (p. 65). The bourgeois established a vacuum by creating an urban empire of production. To better afford means of life the rural populations were drawn in. This made them dependent on the production of the bourgeois, maintaining a steady local workforce to supplement growing production facilities. In an attempt to further the avalanche of production, “differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more of less expensive to use, according to their age and sex” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 112). As soon as the worker receives their compensation for labor, they are subject to “other portions of the bourgeois, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 112).

Everywhere the proletariat turns, there are forces of oppression made present and controlled by the ruling class. Meanwhile, the lower and lower-middle class businesses and individuals find themselves in a situation of diminished profit, “partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which modern industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 122). Marx (1848) also contends that the specialized skill of these laborers is rendered useless by the massive productions methods by the bourgeois. Marx (1848) states that “Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 179). This is the basis of Critical Theory. As industry rises from the experience of a free market and a consumerist society, the laborer “sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 179). The proletariat finds itself in a vicious cycle of poverty and oppression that fuels further poverty and oppression. Marx contends that this is the reason the bourgeois is no longer fit to be the “ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 188). Marx argued that this continuing state of oppression, coupled with increasing suffering of the proletariat, will lead to revolution and the eventual downfall of the bourgeois. He presented the notion of Communism as the answer to the class conflict presented by the capitalist structure. Communism would remove from the bourgeois the right to the property they use to subjugate others. It also promotes equal liability to labor, expecting equal work from all individuals to progress industry and society in a more equal fashion (Marx & Engels, 1848).

Critical Theory Part 3: Critical Thinking

2012-10-05T12:00:00.000-05:00

This is the third entry of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This series is the result of months of hard work and research. Cited sources can be found here. Enjoy!

Critical Theory originated out of the Institute for Social Research, a group that is often referred to as the “Frankfurt School” (Kellner, 1989). The Frankfurt School actually spent a great deal of time in exile in the United States during the time of the rise of Nazi Germany. During this time of exile, the group produced some its most important work on social research and development of a Critical Theory of society (Kellner, 1989). The purpose of Critical Theory is “to construct a systematic, comprehensive social theory that can confront the key social and political problems of the day” (Kellner, 1989, p. 1). Critical Theory serves to relate theories of politics and is motivated by the interest “in the emancipation of those who are oppressed and dominated” (Kellner, 1989, p. 1).

Critical Theory also places high value on how historical events lead to modern practices and social structures. Carl Grunberg, the first director of the Institute of Social Research, “stressed the historical context to research, recommending research which combined historical study and theoretical analysis” (Seiler, 2006). According to Kellner (1989), Critical Theory “claims that the socio-historical context is crucial in determining which questions a theory poses, how it formulates and answers them, and what the limitations, grounds and insights of a theory are” (p. 9). To completely understand any particular phenomenon, one must look at the full historical spectrum that brought the situation about. Critical Theorists emphasized the importance of history, placing it “at the centre of their approach to philosophy and society. Yet the issues they addressed went beyond a focus on the past and embraced future possibilities” (Held, 1980, p. 15). The focus Critical Theory lies in the application of proper technique informed by historical context and fueled by the need for change. Critical Theorists examine society “concerned both with interpretation and transformation” (Held, 1980, p. 15) of the social structure.

Critical thought, at its core, involves the “the application of principles or values in order to make judgments for the purpose of bringing about positive change” (Seiler, 2006). Critical Theory denotes theory that is “critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipations, ‘to liberate human beings from circumstances that enslave them’” (Bohman, 2005). Critical theories have emerged “in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies” (Bohman, 2005). The intent is to study the nature of change that led to human oppression, and then to seek out means of emancipation (Kellner, 1989). Carl Grunberg argued that any manifestation of social life is simply reflective of the nature of the existing economic system and that “the key to social theory can be found in the laws governing the social system” (Kellner, 1989, p. 13). According to Bohman (2005), a critical theory “must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation.” According to Kellner (1989), “Critical Theory is thus, among other things, a critique of the boundaries between disciplines and a theory of the mediation which connect and integrate various modes and dimensions of social reality into a social system or society” (p. 8).

Critical Theory Part 2: Capitalism

2012-10-04T12:00:00.000-05:00

This is the second post of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This series is the result of months of hard work and research. Cited sources can be found here. Enjoy!

Capitalism is an economic system in which “people are related, particularly those relations that are mediated by money and commodities, by prices and wages, by supply and demand” (Bacher, 2005, p. 2). The economic definition of capitalism is “an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market” (Landauer & Rowlands, 2001). A social definition in favor of capitalism states that capitalism is “a social system based on the principle of individual rights… [and] when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market” (Capitalism Magazine, 2011). According to Weber (1905), “Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life” (p.208). While proponents argue that this acquisition and retention of wealth is the natural inclination of man (Paul, 2011), Weber argues that the notion of capitalism is only natural to those who thrive on its excess, stating that capitalism is “foreign to all people not under capitalistic influence” (Weber, 1905, p. 208).

According to Bacher (2005), “The driving force of capitalism is the attainment of increasing rates of surplus value. This is inevitably exploitative and demeaning of the human condition” (p. 2). The focus of industry is to control the means of production for creation of goods and services. Combined with private ownership within the industry, capitalism “guarantees that the outcomes, out of the productive use of the property, is allocated to the owner of the resource” (Bacher, 2005, p. 2). The wealth amassed by this system is used “not as an end in itself, but as a means for gathering more wealth. While this amounts to a legalized form of greed, proponents of the system argue that “within the systematic realm of corporations that face competition, it is the logical result of capitalism” (Bacher, 2005, p. 4). To survive the demands of the market, corporations are required to accumulate substantial profit and reinvest those profits to accumulate even more profit and a larger market share (Bacher, 2005).

As industries amass more and more wealth amid fierce market competition, they strive to create a business model that is the most cost efficient when considering labor. To maximize efficiency, a division of labor is created (Marx, 1867). Manufacturers have found a way to divide complex labor tasks into simpler ones. By combining machinery with the simpler tasks, “this increases output and reduces costs simultaneously. Wages drop because simpler tasks can be done by lower skilled workers who reflect ‘cheaper’ labor” (Bacher, 2005, p. 4). Increased output can better meet market demands for the product, while labor remains at a constant low cost, thus improving the wealth of the owners of the industry (Held, 1980). Smith (1776) warned that competitive wage labor was vital to maintain a moral capitalistic state. He said, “A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more” (Smith, 1776, p. 1293) in order raise a family. This, as will be shown later, is not the case with modern capitalism. Instead the modern laborer is exploited and underpaid, bringing about a cycle of economic oppression for the lower classes (Paul, 2011). Capitalism and its free trade is “In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 35).

Critical Theory Part 1: An Introduction

2012-10-03T16:56:00.005-05:00

This is the first post of an extended series outlining capitalism, it's history, oppressive nature, and the fundamental problems with modern Western Christianity as its champion. This series is the result of months of hard work and research. Cited sources can be found here. Enjoy!

After the Enlightenment philosophers and scholars believed they were witness to a new era. One where rational thought gave way to moral reasoning, and mankind was released from the prejudices of predominant religious thinking. Immanuel Kant described the Enlightenment as “Mankind's final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error” (Rohlf, 2010). Bringing on its heels the American and French revolutions, the Enlightenment sought to bring about a new way of thinking that transcended willful ignorance and instead pushed individualistic thinking. However, several centuries later we find ourselves at a point where the Enlightenment is merely a nostalgic piece of forgotten lore. Today, particularly in America, the cultural capital of the world, we have reached a stage of regression to a point where public consciousness is perhaps more willfully ignorant than ever before of the oppression experienced by the masses. The American people remain blissfully unaware of the plight of the working class, and of the capital institutions put in place to maintain both the oppression and the illusion that it is nonexistent.

This series is an attempt to analyze the significance of capitalism in the United States and the effect that it has had on ways of thought throughout history as an oppressive structure. As a capitalist economy became the dominant force of American culture, other vital factors of American culture began to shape themselves around the facets of capitalism, even perhaps contradicting their own traditional and moral foundations in exchange for a more economically-minded precept. The purpose of this study is to examine the rationale behind the capitalism and the current capitalistic state that dominates American economics and culture. It is an attempt to highlight the conflicts that it creates in ethics and religion, particularly Christian doctrine.

In this study I will examine the function and methods of rational (modern) capitalism, particularly focusing on the Protestant and Calvinist adoption of early capitalism, and its expansion westward to America. This series will also discuss the benefits and the problems that Americans, corporations, and the state experience in a capitalist culture, particularly from the view of the working class. This study will then analyze Critical Theory and its analysis of modern thinking, particularly with an eye toward modern thinking in America in regards to capitalism and its oppressive and contradicting nature. I will examine several key members of the Frankfurt School: Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse, particularly, and European thinker Habermas. I will tie their theories to an ever-expanding sense of oppressive social conditions that pervades a capitalism-centric America. This study will also briefly examine current poverty and income inequality statistics to provide a background for discussion on oppression experienced by the working class.

This paper will briefly discuss the basic biblical teachings of Jesus and the moral doctrine of emergent Christianity. I will also use the theories of the members of the Frankfurt School and Habermas, along with the works of Marx and Weber, to reveal the intricate and subtle ways that capitalism has become a dominant cultural force in America. I will then apply Critical Theory and its response to the justification for capitalism in America, especially from a modern Christian perspective. I will also utilize Weber’s study on the Protestant Ethic and examine the modern conflict of capitalism and Christianity, focusing on how capitalism drives modern thought and ethics, and how that popular sentiment conflicts with traditional Christian morals, even in a country that largely identifies itself as Christian. I will identify this contradiction and also provide evidence of existing and continual oppression from the economically controlled state.

Chick-fil-A To Stop Funding Non-Profits With Political Agenda's... Well, Not Quite!

2012-09-20T16:05:00.000-05:00

Earlier this summer Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy brought about a swarm of angst against his corporation with his famous “guilty as charged” line referring to his monetary support of groups that fight to prevent LGBT equality; or put another way simple human equality. Like many Americans who believe universal human equality is paramount to the success of a free and democratic society, I elected to stop eating at Chick-fil-A. To be honest, it was a very tough thing for me to do because you see, I really like Chick-fil-A’s chicken. I mean REALLY like their chicken!

There is not a single instance in which I pass a Chick-fil-A that I don’t ask my wife-tears nearly welling up in my eye-why it couldn’t have been another fast food chain that I could more easily live without. Because of this, I cannot begin to explain the joy I felt seeing that Chick-fil-A had decided to cut off funding for non-profits that have political agendas. Finally, I thought, Chick-fil-A has had change of heart. Could it be that my personal boycott of their tasty, juicy chicken sandwiches could come to an end?

Apparently Chick-fil-A reached the agreement with an outspoken Chick-fil-A critic and Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno that would resolve the whole mess. Chick-fil-A wants to expand their operations into the Windy City but in order to do that they needed to stop the outspoken alderman from publicly opposing the expansion. Thus a deal was struck; or so it appeared. Chick-fil-A would cease funding anti-LBGT groups among other concessions and in turn Alderman Moreno would cease opposing their expansion into Chicago.

Just as my taste buds were getting geared up for an all night chicken binge I learned that both I and Alderman Moreno had been duped. You see, it appears that just days after Chick-fil-A had agreed to stop funding bigoted groups, Dan Cathy on September 18^th, tweeted a photo from a fund raiser for the anti-LBGT group Marriage and Family Foundation. The WinShape Foundation which Chick-fil-A operates was hosting a 200 mile couple’s motorcycle ride called “WinShape Ride for the Family” with an entry fee of $3,500 per couple with options to pledge $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 to Marriage and Family Foundation. In order not to appear to be donating to the group participants were asked to make checks payable to Marriage and Family Foundation and not the WinShape Foundation or Chick-fil-A. Sponsorship packages were reported to have displayed the Chick-fil-A logo as well as that of the WinShape Foundation.

While Dan Cathy and the folks at Chick-fil-A have claimed to stand for Christian principles, their actions have proven to be anything but Christian. In their actions against the LBGT community, they have proven themselves to be bigoted, aggressive, and intolerant. They clearly do not love their neighbors as they do themselves and now they have outright lied to elected officials and to the public for monetary gain.

At first I was willing to give them the benefit of doubt in believing that their bigotry was simply their misinterpretation of Jesus’ teachings. I was willing to simply boycott their stores until they changed their ways but now... Now I am through with Chick-fil-A for good!

-The Progressive Cop

Music and Memories

2012-08-29T21:13:00.000-05:00

The recent events in my life have made me a bit nostalgic. Yesterday, I decided to play the album released by my old band, Affectus. I realize this looks and sounds like a shameless plug, but as the last song played, tears began to well up inside of me. Titled Excommunicated, it fits so well with my current state. You can listen, if you want, or not. That's ok. If you don't want to, or can't, I'll attach the lyrics, so maybe you can understand why it provoked such emotion from me.

All these demons in cathedrals
Banished me without confession
For my passion
Now my eyes are open wide
I see the zealous stones they cast at me

It's not time to cry
For a life gone by
It's your time to fly
You were excommunicated from the sky

Moonlight shining through the window
Sleeping in a cradle lies my own reflection
When I look into the future
I can only pray he's just like me

It's not time to cry
For a life gone by
It's your time to fly
You were excommunicated from the sky

It's not time to cry
For a life gone by
It's your time to fly

It's not time to cry
For a life gone by
It's your time to fly
You were excommunicated from the sky

Bystanders Wounded By Police During the Empire State Building Shooting: A Police Officers Two Cents

2012-08-25T18:14:00.001-05:00

It's unfortunate that people are quickly rushing to judge the NYPD Officers involved in the Empire State Building shooting. I caution people to not rush to judgment. What anyone who has been in a high stress situation such as an active shooter/combat situation can tell you is that things never go as planned. Basic human physiology robs a person in such critical incidents, of the ability to calmly breath aim and shoot in the same manner as they would on a gun range. Add to that the fact that firing a shot in a heavily populated area is very dangerous and there is no amount of training that can alleviate that risk completely.

I can promise you, as a police officer, that these officers did not go to work planning to wound bystanders. Furthermore, I find it doubtful that they had no concern for the people in the immediate vicinity of the shooting. These officers were placed in a deadly force situation and did their job to the best of their ability. It is very unfortunate that in the real world there is often collateral damage in such encounters. The actions set in motion by the suspect will continue to inflict collateral damage as the wounded as well as the police officers involved will no doubt struggle with this both physically and emotionally for years to come.

I support, and I urge you to support these NYPD officers. I sincerely hope that people use restraint in judging these officers because it really does cause officers in similar future circumstances to hesitate in situations where hesitation will cost further loss of life. My heart goes out to the wounded and to the officers involved.

People are quickly rushing to judge the NYPD Officers involved in the Empire State Building shooting. I caution people to not rush to judgment. What anyone who has been in a high stress situation such as an active shooter/combat situation can tell you is that things never go as planned. Basic human physiology robs a person of the ability to calmly breath aim and shoot in the same manner as they

would on a gun range. Add to that the fact that firing a shot in a heavily populated area is very dangerous and there is no amount of training that can alleviate that risk completely.

I can promise you, as a police officer, that these officers whom I've never met, did not go to work planning to wound bystanders. These officers were placed in a deadly force situation and did their job to the best of their ability. It is very unfortunate that in the real world there is often collateral damage in any such encounter. The actions set in motion by the suspect will continue to inflict collateral damage as the wounded as well as the police officers involved will no doubt struggle with this both physically and emotionally for years to come.

Taking a Stand

2012-08-20T21:35:00.001-05:00

Several weeks ago, I decided I was done. Done writing, done fighting, done vocalizing. Considering the volatility of my past posts, this may be somewhat surprising. However, an unexpected event caused me to abruptly reconsider.

On my personal Facebook page, I posted a brief status challenging the modern definition of a "traditional" marriage. Now, before I continue, I would like to point out that I have no problem with a biblical, God-centered marriage, nor do I have any problem with using scripture as a basis for upholding a loving marriage. What I was merely attempting to point out was the problem with defining marriage "based on the bible" as traditional. As I have pointed out before, using vague parameters as definitive restrictions doesn't hold up.

So there you have it. That was my point. I specifically attempted to stray from a scriptural debate (but sadly it turned to that), and tried to focus on an argument that the legal definition itself has changed over the centuries. My argument was that defending a certain type of union as "traditional" actually flew in the face of the definition, since the makeup and structure of marriage has slowly evolve. "Tradition" requires an element of stasis, which I alleged there was little.

As soon as I announced my stance, I was immediately attacked. I attempted to stay away from a fight with scripture, but the argument eventually was led there. I made my case, solidified with scriptural references, and thought that was it. I made clear that I wasn't challenging the notion of a Godly marriage. That was never my intention. My only intention was to challenge the definition of "tradition."

Instead, I encountered something that stopped me cold.

Both of my parents, whom I love, sent me a text telling me they were ashamed of me.

Ashamed. For standing up for reason, for challenging a modern misperception, they were ashamed.

They told me I had abandoned my faith. They accused me of discarding the religion they raised me with. They declared that I was foolish and corrupt. All because I challenged their definition of a word.

I was angry (I still am), and I was upset. I shut down my Facebook, and turned my back on equality. However, today I had a thought: is this something of what homosexuals experience on a daily basis? How many have been shunned and abandoned by their families? How many have been thrown out and threatened?

But please. I am no martyr for a cause. My brief suffering cannot compare to what individuals experience every day in the face of inequality. This is why I fight: not because I got my feelings hurt, but because there is a great injustice. I fight for equality. I fight for right. I'm not going to cower behind pseudonyms anymore. I will no longer go quietly into the night.

I'm done.

I'm not hiding anymore. Right here, right now, it's time to fight.

I'm not going to be ashamed of who I am, no matter how many are ashamed of me. That's their choice. This is mine. If you want to hate me, start from the beginning. If you want to hate me to my face, here's my email. I would give you my phone number if I knew you wouldn't bother me at work.

I'm tired of living in fear. I'm sick of hiding my work because I'm afraid of who may see it. This is who I am. If you don't like it, there's the door.

It's about time people started standing for what's right.

Bigoted Michigan GOP Councilman Gets a Visit From Secret Service Over His Threatening Tea Party Rally Signs: Has The Right Wing Become Too Violent & Hate Filled To Be Taken Seriously?

2012-08-16T15:59:00.000-05:00

Just a few days ago I brought you a story of a burned dead cat being staked onto a tree next to an Obama campaign sign in Minneapolis. I found the story interesting because it was the second confirmed case of cat killing in the name of the conservative cause; the first being much earlier in the year in Russellville, Arkansas.

It seems the conservatives just keep on coming with the threats against progressives all across the U.S. When they are called on it they are quick to call claim they are an orderly crowd. They point out that Tea Party events don't have to be raided like Occupy events were. They seem to ignore the fact that many of the Tea Party events were made up of armed men who readily made references to the President as Hitler and called for violent resistance to what they perceived as the imposition of socialism upon the nation. On the other hand, Occupy rallies across the nation met violence at the hands of the authorities even though evidence now exist that President Obama urged municipal authorities to use restraint against the unarmed and largely peaceful gatherings.

Armed Tea Party Protester and veiled threats of anti-government violence by Teas Party Protesters

Now it seems another Republican has been caught making threats and spewing racially charged venom towards progressive leaders and it has led to an investigation by the U.S. Secret Service. Republican Councilman Paul Smith of Sterling Heights, Michigan has found himself in hot water after he was found to have held signs depicting Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi of California with bullet holes in her head and explicit and bigoted references to Hispanics and homosexuals. Councilman Smith is also seen holding a sign depicting President Obama's head on a stake with references to the President turning the United States into Uganda. I can only assume Mr. Smith knows little about government policy in the African nation but he sure knows its African which is par for the course given his blatant references to other minorities.

Councilman Paul Smith of Sterling Heights Michigan at a Tea Party Protest in 2009

Councilman Smith displayed the signs during a 2009 Tea Party Rally but the story first came to light after Sterling Heights Mayor Michael Taylor came across Youtube videos. In one Youtube video the video Councilman Smith is interviewed about his signs and he defends them by claiming President Obama is a communist who took over the auto manufacturers and banks. I find the assertion that President Obama took over the banks hilarious considering that so much of "Occupy" was about the problems caused by deregulation of banks and the wild west gambling hall tactics they subsequently used with our money.

The fact remains that such behavior by those on the right is far from the exception though I am not quite ready to call it the rule. Angst against President Obama has clearly had a racial aspect from the very beginning of his presidency. Main stream Republicans and Tea Party types alike, will till you that it's not about race yet time and time again we find they are carrying posters like this when they fell they are among their own.

As we move towards November, I predict we will begin to see those on the right "kick it up" a notch with the hate rhetoric. People such as Councilman Smith and the unknown party's that lynched the cats in Minnesota and Arkansas simply cannot stomach an America where everyone is equal and opportunities are available for all. They want to preserve the old white guy club that has ruled for far too long. As a white male who could easily pledge allegiance to that club, I insist that change must come. People like Councilman Smith should not be tolerated and should be exposed at every turn. As ordinary citizens spread across this land, it is our duty to be the eyes and ears of liberty, equality, and justice by exposing people like Councilman Smith every opportunity we get.

Is Cat Lynching Becoming A Standard Conservative Scare Tactic?

2012-08-14T16:51:00.001-05:00

Possibly the most famous "Progressive" cat, Socks the Clinton family cat

(Socks has not been harmed by radical conservatives)

In another twist of fanatical conservative strangeness, for at least the second time this year a cat has found itself the victim of anti-progressive violence. Law enforcement is investigating what appears to be a threat made against President Obama in Longfellow Park in Southern Minneapolis. Longfellow Park is commonly used as a polling place and primary elections are being held there today.

TheMinnesota cat was found burned and staked to a tree in Longfellow Park next to an Obama campaign sign. You may recall a similar incident earlier this year in Russellville, Arkansas in which then Democratic Congressional Candidate Ken Aden’s campaign manager Jake Burris arrived home to find his families cat dead on his doorstep with the word “liberal” written across the length of its body.

While I don’t believe that cat lynching is condoned by the Republican National Committee, it is becoming clear that certain behaviors within the far right community appear to be becoming a trend. In light of the many threats made against President Obama by individuals attending events such as Tea Party rallies and now with a tragic trend of animal cruelty on the verge of spreading, it is up to each of us as responsible citizens to report any threat against our political leaders, either veiled or literal, to the proper authorities. For threats or hate speech made against President Obama reports should be directed to your nearest US Secret Service field office. Other such threats against local progressives should be reported to your local law enforcement agency. You can locate your nearest US Secret Service field office at the following link: http://www.secretservice.gov/field_offices.shtml.