One need not search the internet, television, or literature media very long before finding a very contradictory attitude concerning totalitarianism among conservatives. The contradiction is rooted in the idea that socialism, (or anything left of center, really) is equal to, or inevitably leads to, totalitarianism, whereby big government will violate every vestige of personal freedom currently enjoyed by most Americans. Conservative pundits (Fox News' Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly among the most prominent) often conjure Orwellian imagery, or remind the public of the atrocities of Stalin or the repression by Castro and say, "See, look at those socialists and how much they hate freedom." While this assumption (socialism = totalitarianism) is fundamentally untrue and essentially a straw man argument, it would be acceptalbe to make this appeal if that was the end of it. However, this is only part of the picture. If one is to criticize or question core conservative values or ideology, (such as blind nationalism, right wing authoritarianism, military intervention in sovereign nations, income disparities created by capitalism, etc.), then the old "love it or leave it" argument often emerges. In this argument, conservatives embody what is meant by "blind nationalism" and tell opponents that "if they don't love this country, they should just leave." Glenn Beck recently took this philosophy to it's natural conclusion when he suggested that all progressives be eradicated . Love it or leave it, literally.
This is just one of the many contradictions that exist within the modern conservative philosophy, but it also seems to be going relatively unnoticed. On one hand, totalitarianism is used to scare those who don't know the difference between that and socialism. Proponents will say it's either all freedom, or all government, both a false dichotomy and a slippery slope argument (if we regulate corporations emissions, then Obama is going to have the "Green Police" knocking on your door for polluting too much). But in the same breath it is suggested that opponents of conservatism need not be heard or considered, just "eradicated", sent away, silenced. Orwell's pigs in Animal Farm insisted that some were more equal than others, and true students of the author know that he was a democratic socialist to the end, (it is both tragic and ironic that his works have been used to defend what he most despised).
This illuminates the core of conservative argument. Logic, reason, facts, all are of no concern. Say or do whatever to win. The combination of this political ideology with an often radical, fundamentalist Christian viewpoint creates a dangerous population. If the answer to criticism is the extreme negative, no dialog, no debate, no conversation, just negate the opponent, then when push comes to shove, violence is not far from inevitable (The Oath Keepers are just one example of how this could play out). Actors in the current political game need to be aware of this threat, which seems to grow stronger each day that it is not in power.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Obama is no progressive
Newsweek reported at the opening of the financial crisis that Barrack Obama was charged with the task of "saving capitalism", just as Franklin D. Roosevelt was. This should be kept in mind when considering all of the President's actions, and it's precisely what makes the criticisms coming from the right so outrageous. Some of these pundits have played on the Red Scare residue still left over from McCarthyism in attempt to stir up some sort of revolt. However the notion that Obama is anything but a capitalist has yet to be evidenced. The plague of privatization that swept over the federal government during the Bush administration has yet to be remedied, so there are still contract killers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no socialized safety net in welfare or health care has been seriously considered or pushed by the current administration. Obama, by any measure, has proven to be exceedingly moderate. He has appointed several neoliberals to his administration, failed to push any progressive legislation or action, and avoided alienating big business as much or more than his supposed electorate. Politically, this is a dangerous game. Obama is never going to convince the right of anything, they're immovable, so pandering to that crowd brings no gains. The left has been criticizing him since his early appointments, and has continued through his impotence on the public option in health care and his push for war in the Middle East. Many of his promises have gone unfulfilled, and opinion polls show that the public is quickly dropping their support. By shooting for the middle, Obama is pleasing no one and risks being defeated 2012 by whoever the Republicans can prop up to save their party. Congress isn't helping the democrats either, as the same old partisan games are only interrupted by favors for big business and industry. Good policy for the working middle and lower class is still missing, and history has shown if Democrats do not produce results in these areas, elections go to Republicans.
Despite his lack of public support, Obama is succeeding in his one task of saving capitalism. Most signs have been showing a slow but evident rebound since his taking office. Yet no one is happy (except Wall St.). This appears to be a sign that what people want right now is either a return to the Bush years of extreme privatization in all areas (and a drift towards corporate totalitarianism), or a more community based system with a bigger safety net which hasn't been provided since the New Deal, if at all. Unfortunately, no politician offering the latter is given a chance in the current system of campaign finance, whereby the elite give the population a choice between the proverbial Coke and Pepsi. Juice, with real sugar and no preservatives, is never offered.
Our current president, despite his promises, gives us little to hope for. One year post inauguration it is clear that if change is going to come to this system, it is not going to come via the approved avenues. The system is purposely resistant to change, and it is built to serve the upper class and big business. The structure must be torn down, and begun anew before real justice can be served. A new generation of trusted servants must be ushered in who are accountable to those with dignity at stake, not earnings, profit margins, and stock options. We have been abused by those corporate powers long enough, and our numbers are larger than theirs. It is time to take control of this ship, which was steered asunder long ago.
Despite his lack of public support, Obama is succeeding in his one task of saving capitalism. Most signs have been showing a slow but evident rebound since his taking office. Yet no one is happy (except Wall St.). This appears to be a sign that what people want right now is either a return to the Bush years of extreme privatization in all areas (and a drift towards corporate totalitarianism), or a more community based system with a bigger safety net which hasn't been provided since the New Deal, if at all. Unfortunately, no politician offering the latter is given a chance in the current system of campaign finance, whereby the elite give the population a choice between the proverbial Coke and Pepsi. Juice, with real sugar and no preservatives, is never offered.
Our current president, despite his promises, gives us little to hope for. One year post inauguration it is clear that if change is going to come to this system, it is not going to come via the approved avenues. The system is purposely resistant to change, and it is built to serve the upper class and big business. The structure must be torn down, and begun anew before real justice can be served. A new generation of trusted servants must be ushered in who are accountable to those with dignity at stake, not earnings, profit margins, and stock options. We have been abused by those corporate powers long enough, and our numbers are larger than theirs. It is time to take control of this ship, which was steered asunder long ago.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Health Care 2009
Health Care 2009
Everyone’s talking about it at this point. I’m going to weigh in. Before you let out a deep sigh of indignant boredom, let me say that I have yet to hear anyone share my initial view on this subject before moving on to my ultimate conclusion (which is not entirely unique).
Health care is undoubtedly contributing to our ultimate problem which will lead to our demise as a species: over population. The only sure, tested and true route to a sustainable existence is living in accord with nature’s path. No industry, no agriculture, no control over the environment (and no health care). As long as we do everything we can to prevent our own death, as long as we try to ‘beat nature’ at it’s own game and ‘cheat death’ we will actually be contributing to our own downfall in the long run. This planet simply cannot sustain the number of humans we’re creating. Health care has become an industry, part of the machine. It’s no longer community members selflessly sacrificing they’re own wellbeing to make others well. Health care is now the repair ward where we patch folks up so they can go back to work pushing the economy forward one sweaty inch at a time. If that isn’t bad enough, the sick have to pay out of the ear just to be reintegrated into the society which didn’t take care of them in the first place (of course some employers will contribute to have their workers repaired). Health care is big business which plays on our primal desire to stay alive. Every organism on Earth, down to green organic slime mold, a single celled organism, fights to stay alive at all costs. We will stop at nothing to stay alive for as along as possible (it’s how we got this far). Survival, to the extent that it leads to reproduction, is our primary purpose. Everything else is peripheral in the life of an organism. In that light, health insurers, pharmaceutical corporations, hospitals, and many health care ‘professionals’ pray on our most basic need. They exploit us to their excessive gain.
So in all these ways I am against the concept of health care. I admit that there are many good people in the industry (mainly nurses) who simply seek to improve the lives of others, and I commend them. However, to the extent to which health care providers exploit people and hurt the species as a whole I do not support them.
Practically speaking, in modern society (which is far from utopian) we require universal health care. The current system in the United States, where the rich are provided better service than the poor, essentially a class based system, is bigoted and unacceptable by every professional and ethical standard. It is more clear today than in decades that the vast majority of the poor in the world are not to blame for their circumstances. If one can acknowledge this then the answer is clear: universal health care is a social obligation of the governing body. Everyone has to be on the same playing field, whether that coverage is good or not is not so much of a concern as its equality across social lines. It has to be all or none for everyone. Certainly any system we can create will be flawed and contain the prejudices of those administering it; however if we are to aim for a just society, then we must create one from our image of what is just. The status quo is not just. If by nothing else, this is evidenced by a simple comparison of our health statistics to those of similar nations. Our extremely over inflated ego and pride has us believing, once again, that we are the best; but, once again, the facts tell a very different story. If we make a fair comparison, the United States is doing the worst with what it’s got. We waste the most. We leave the most suffering people unhealed, forgotten. We charge the most for our half-baked, inefficient service. And in the end, as always, we blame the poor and the sick for what we did not give them.
One can only have faith in a flawed system that things will turn out better. Our votes, phone calls, emails and letters will do little to sway the congressmen and women who are soaked in industry dollars, lobbyist cash to keep certain interests protected (not yours and mine). So one can hope, pray to whatever god may listen or show interest or mercy, that there will be a change for the better on a massive scale. I’m not sure that I posses this faith. I do hope, but do I believe it will happen? Not really. Maybe your prayers will be heard.
Everyone’s talking about it at this point. I’m going to weigh in. Before you let out a deep sigh of indignant boredom, let me say that I have yet to hear anyone share my initial view on this subject before moving on to my ultimate conclusion (which is not entirely unique).
Health care is undoubtedly contributing to our ultimate problem which will lead to our demise as a species: over population. The only sure, tested and true route to a sustainable existence is living in accord with nature’s path. No industry, no agriculture, no control over the environment (and no health care). As long as we do everything we can to prevent our own death, as long as we try to ‘beat nature’ at it’s own game and ‘cheat death’ we will actually be contributing to our own downfall in the long run. This planet simply cannot sustain the number of humans we’re creating. Health care has become an industry, part of the machine. It’s no longer community members selflessly sacrificing they’re own wellbeing to make others well. Health care is now the repair ward where we patch folks up so they can go back to work pushing the economy forward one sweaty inch at a time. If that isn’t bad enough, the sick have to pay out of the ear just to be reintegrated into the society which didn’t take care of them in the first place (of course some employers will contribute to have their workers repaired). Health care is big business which plays on our primal desire to stay alive. Every organism on Earth, down to green organic slime mold, a single celled organism, fights to stay alive at all costs. We will stop at nothing to stay alive for as along as possible (it’s how we got this far). Survival, to the extent that it leads to reproduction, is our primary purpose. Everything else is peripheral in the life of an organism. In that light, health insurers, pharmaceutical corporations, hospitals, and many health care ‘professionals’ pray on our most basic need. They exploit us to their excessive gain.
So in all these ways I am against the concept of health care. I admit that there are many good people in the industry (mainly nurses) who simply seek to improve the lives of others, and I commend them. However, to the extent to which health care providers exploit people and hurt the species as a whole I do not support them.
Practically speaking, in modern society (which is far from utopian) we require universal health care. The current system in the United States, where the rich are provided better service than the poor, essentially a class based system, is bigoted and unacceptable by every professional and ethical standard. It is more clear today than in decades that the vast majority of the poor in the world are not to blame for their circumstances. If one can acknowledge this then the answer is clear: universal health care is a social obligation of the governing body. Everyone has to be on the same playing field, whether that coverage is good or not is not so much of a concern as its equality across social lines. It has to be all or none for everyone. Certainly any system we can create will be flawed and contain the prejudices of those administering it; however if we are to aim for a just society, then we must create one from our image of what is just. The status quo is not just. If by nothing else, this is evidenced by a simple comparison of our health statistics to those of similar nations. Our extremely over inflated ego and pride has us believing, once again, that we are the best; but, once again, the facts tell a very different story. If we make a fair comparison, the United States is doing the worst with what it’s got. We waste the most. We leave the most suffering people unhealed, forgotten. We charge the most for our half-baked, inefficient service. And in the end, as always, we blame the poor and the sick for what we did not give them.
One can only have faith in a flawed system that things will turn out better. Our votes, phone calls, emails and letters will do little to sway the congressmen and women who are soaked in industry dollars, lobbyist cash to keep certain interests protected (not yours and mine). So one can hope, pray to whatever god may listen or show interest or mercy, that there will be a change for the better on a massive scale. I’m not sure that I posses this faith. I do hope, but do I believe it will happen? Not really. Maybe your prayers will be heard.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Redistribution of Wealth Analogy Debunked
It’s been said:
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed. Then every one is poor.
and…
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing? She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Audrey who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.
'The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'
HERE IS WHY THESE AND OTHER SIMILAR ANALOGIES ARE FALSE
First: It's bad math. Because in any school or class, there's a maximum efficiency. Meaning, you can max out and get a 4.0, an A, no better, that's the best. Economics and finances are not like that. There is no maximum amount of money one can earn; the sky is the limit. This alone proves that $ ≠ GPA.
Also, in a classroom, there is no reason why everyone cannot get an A. There is no limit to the number of A’s that a professor can hand out. Everyone can, if they try and are capable, succeed. This is not true in a capitalist system (despite whatever lies we may have been fed as children). There are a finite number of resources (including money) in a given nation, country, or state. Thus it follows that for one to be rich, another must be poor. For one to have, another must have-not. Everyone cannot be rich. To break it down, here is a digestible comparison: All the people in the country (or world) are symbolized by five people in a room. All the resources in the world are equal to ten widgets. Now, equally distributed, each person gets two widgets. Two’s not a lot, but in this case it happens to be enough to get by (yes, if we equally distributed all the worlds resources everyone would have enough to get by). But, if we change the game to reward those who are greedy, so they get three or four widgets, than inevitably some will be left with one or none (not enough to get by). Once that happens, no matter how hard those without widgets try, they can never get more widgets without the people with them giving theirs away. It is not possible, and it is not because the people without are not “trying hard enough”, it is because our system rewards those who are greedy (or with low melanin and external genitalia) and those who are not are then left without.
In this system some individuals will gain more than they need, more than anyone would ever need. Many of these individuals (again, mostly white men) will do nothing to deserve this wealth other than be in the right place, at the right time. There will also be those, in this same system, who through no fault of their own will not be able to make what they need. This is not because they are lazy or don't want to make it (please, show me one person of any race or nation who wants to starve), but because the system is rigged against them. Which is the second major problem with these comparisons, they perpetuate the myth that the poor are poor because they are lazy.
This myth stems from people’s belief in the just world (psychologists have shown this to true). Basically, some people believe the world is fair or just, other people think it is sometimes, and other people think the world is cruel and unfair (they’re actually not separated into three categories, they fall on a high/low continuum). What scientists have shown is that the more one believes the world is just, the more likely they are to blame the victim, despite any wrongdoing on his/her part. This is so the “just world believer” can maintain their view of the world as such (Changing the way we see the world is a difficult thing to do, especially when our beliefs are strong. It is, in fact, easier for us to distort our view of things so they appear the way we want them to. This is very well documented). If the world is fair, then those at the bottom must be there because they did something to deserve it, not because the system is rigged or because some people are just born on bottom and not allowed the resources to climb up (that would be unfair). Thus it follows that rich people are much higher in just world belief than are poor people, and those rich people firmly believe that they are where they are because they deserve it. Another fun fact about the character variable trait which scientists have come to call JWB: just world believers are more likely to hold rape victims (or anyone who has been hurt, injured, assaulted in anyway) accountable for the crimes committed against them. What’s fair is fair, right?
In our current system, the only moral (and truly just) solution is to redistribute the wealth. Economics is like GPA only if you need a high GPA to in order to eat, and all the teachers, principals, and even janitors in the school are racists, and the students with low GPAs are forced to participate in more after school activities as punishment, filling up all their spare time (i.e., 2nd and 3rd jobs). In which case, it would also make sense to redistribute GPA, just like it makes sence to redistribute wealth.
Lastly, the first terrible GPA/economics comparison leaves out the very likely possibility that everyone would work together so everyone got As. A system, such as capitalism, which is based on greed and selfishness, will never work for everyone, only the select few who are most devious and proficient at being greedy and selfish. A system based on sharing and community is the only way to foster a healthy and prosperous way of life for everyone. And in this way of life, we all work together. We all win.
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed. Then every one is poor.
and…
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing? She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Audrey who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.
'The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'
HERE IS WHY THESE AND OTHER SIMILAR ANALOGIES ARE FALSE
First: It's bad math. Because in any school or class, there's a maximum efficiency. Meaning, you can max out and get a 4.0, an A, no better, that's the best. Economics and finances are not like that. There is no maximum amount of money one can earn; the sky is the limit. This alone proves that $ ≠ GPA.
Also, in a classroom, there is no reason why everyone cannot get an A. There is no limit to the number of A’s that a professor can hand out. Everyone can, if they try and are capable, succeed. This is not true in a capitalist system (despite whatever lies we may have been fed as children). There are a finite number of resources (including money) in a given nation, country, or state. Thus it follows that for one to be rich, another must be poor. For one to have, another must have-not. Everyone cannot be rich. To break it down, here is a digestible comparison: All the people in the country (or world) are symbolized by five people in a room. All the resources in the world are equal to ten widgets. Now, equally distributed, each person gets two widgets. Two’s not a lot, but in this case it happens to be enough to get by (yes, if we equally distributed all the worlds resources everyone would have enough to get by). But, if we change the game to reward those who are greedy, so they get three or four widgets, than inevitably some will be left with one or none (not enough to get by). Once that happens, no matter how hard those without widgets try, they can never get more widgets without the people with them giving theirs away. It is not possible, and it is not because the people without are not “trying hard enough”, it is because our system rewards those who are greedy (or with low melanin and external genitalia) and those who are not are then left without.
In this system some individuals will gain more than they need, more than anyone would ever need. Many of these individuals (again, mostly white men) will do nothing to deserve this wealth other than be in the right place, at the right time. There will also be those, in this same system, who through no fault of their own will not be able to make what they need. This is not because they are lazy or don't want to make it (please, show me one person of any race or nation who wants to starve), but because the system is rigged against them. Which is the second major problem with these comparisons, they perpetuate the myth that the poor are poor because they are lazy.
This myth stems from people’s belief in the just world (psychologists have shown this to true). Basically, some people believe the world is fair or just, other people think it is sometimes, and other people think the world is cruel and unfair (they’re actually not separated into three categories, they fall on a high/low continuum). What scientists have shown is that the more one believes the world is just, the more likely they are to blame the victim, despite any wrongdoing on his/her part. This is so the “just world believer” can maintain their view of the world as such (Changing the way we see the world is a difficult thing to do, especially when our beliefs are strong. It is, in fact, easier for us to distort our view of things so they appear the way we want them to. This is very well documented). If the world is fair, then those at the bottom must be there because they did something to deserve it, not because the system is rigged or because some people are just born on bottom and not allowed the resources to climb up (that would be unfair). Thus it follows that rich people are much higher in just world belief than are poor people, and those rich people firmly believe that they are where they are because they deserve it. Another fun fact about the character variable trait which scientists have come to call JWB: just world believers are more likely to hold rape victims (or anyone who has been hurt, injured, assaulted in anyway) accountable for the crimes committed against them. What’s fair is fair, right?
In our current system, the only moral (and truly just) solution is to redistribute the wealth. Economics is like GPA only if you need a high GPA to in order to eat, and all the teachers, principals, and even janitors in the school are racists, and the students with low GPAs are forced to participate in more after school activities as punishment, filling up all their spare time (i.e., 2nd and 3rd jobs). In which case, it would also make sense to redistribute GPA, just like it makes sence to redistribute wealth.
Lastly, the first terrible GPA/economics comparison leaves out the very likely possibility that everyone would work together so everyone got As. A system, such as capitalism, which is based on greed and selfishness, will never work for everyone, only the select few who are most devious and proficient at being greedy and selfish. A system based on sharing and community is the only way to foster a healthy and prosperous way of life for everyone. And in this way of life, we all work together. We all win.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
it's just a (game)
in my view, life is often like the video game "Astroids."
In both life and astroids, it is wise not to concern yourself with the large undertakings until you're sure you can handle the smaller responsibilities it will break up into. It is also adventagous to attack one boulder at a time, as not to get too overwhelmed with tiny rocks. Large astroids are easier to see and shoot than smaller ones... but that might just apply to the game.
Inevitably, right when you think you have everything under control, there's bound to be a UFO who comes along seemingly with the sole purpose of making your adventures more difficult. Yet UFO's hold high point values, and we are stronger after defeating them. These people (or aliens) seem to have no problem navigating through our troubles just to piss us off (while emitting the most annoying sound ever conceived).
Finally, it doesn't end until you die. The struggle of irritating UFO's and wavering death rocks continue throughout life. At no point do you "get there," or "beat the game." One can only hope to achieve a high score, which could be translated into living a good life, whatever that means for you. We're all better off once we accept that one day, we too will die. At least in "Astroids" you get a second (and third) chance.
now, for a more insightful and enlightening view on life and humanity: the late (and great) bill hicks
"The world is like a ride at an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it, you think it's real, because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round and it has thrills and chills and it's very brightly colored and it's very loud. And it's fun, for a while.
Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: 'Is this real? Or is this just a ride?' And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and they say 'Hey! Don't worry, don't be afraid - ever - because... this is just a ride.' And we kill those people.
'Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride! Shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry; look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real.'
It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that - ever notice that? - and we let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter, because... it's just a ride, and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort. No worry. No job. No savings and money. Just a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy bigger guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one.
Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, into a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and, instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over - not one human being excluded - and we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever. In peace."
the concept
white digital:
an expression of loneliness in an electronic, technology rich world.
the combination of our cognitive abilities and opposable thumbs have created the world you see around you now. this was not always the way the world looked, and it does not look this way in all places (but since you're on a computer linked to the internet, surely this world surrounds you now). in many ways, this technology has been created in response to our desire for individuality. we're not collectivists, for the most part anyway. we build robots not as friends, but as coworkers. we automate to make a process more "efficient" and "productive", which means less requirement for people. one case in point, sign painters. that used to be a real occupation.
now we have people alone with machines doing all their "work". work at home. work at work. with a computer. an electronic machine does everything we need. date on the machine. fuck on the machine. love on the machine. buy from the machine. read from it. do business on it. never leave the machine.
white digital is an expression of loneliness in an electronic, technology rich world. me and my machine, alone. what effect has the machine had on your emotions? does it comfort you? do you feel good after a night of browsing the internet to accomplish no real goal or objective? does reading this now make you feel good about your decisions as a person? you may feel more integrated into society, more informed (hell, you're reading a blog, right?). but what society are you integrated into? what compelled you to ever read a blog in the first place? why is this blog being written?
examination of our society and our lives is critical. we are currently on an unsustainable path. irregardless of your personal beliefs, attitudes, and so on, this fact is undeniable, just as much as the fact that we are human and we drink water and breath air, so is this fact of unsustainability. many modernizationalists compare contemporary (free market) society with a jet plane, flying high (they then posture that we ought to give other, "third world" countries the push they need to fly like us). we are a jet plane, indeed, en route to a destination which we do not have enough fuel to reach. some would say the plane is already on a crash course, spiraling downward (too bad that hudson bay pilot isn't in the cockpit). our current leadership insists that we can make it, we can do it, and that there is no real threat or danger. capitalism is flying high.
we who think critically about society, life, and/or politics know different. we either need a drastic, conscious change in course (a "landing pad", if you will) or we need to prepare for impact.
white digital, (literally speaking, the pixels on the screen), will not teach you this. white digital lies. any comfort found here is false. know that the tv has become the tool of the machine. the internet still remains somewhat free, but that is scheduled to change (see: net nutrality). though it may itself be "free", it cannot free you. you are not free. you come here to white digital because you are a slave, because i am. we are comforted by this tool only to be let down by it in the next breath. therefore the goal here, like all worth pursuing, is to be realized and thus self eliminate. in other words, if this blog completes it's agenda (or i complete mine) than the blog itself will no longer be necessary.
that being the primary purpose, surely much less focused and meaningful sentiments will occasionally surface. i reserve my right be lighthearted, addicted to the meaningless, and make possibly unsuccessful attempts at humor. everyone deserves a break sometimes.
an expression of loneliness in an electronic, technology rich world.
the combination of our cognitive abilities and opposable thumbs have created the world you see around you now. this was not always the way the world looked, and it does not look this way in all places (but since you're on a computer linked to the internet, surely this world surrounds you now). in many ways, this technology has been created in response to our desire for individuality. we're not collectivists, for the most part anyway. we build robots not as friends, but as coworkers. we automate to make a process more "efficient" and "productive", which means less requirement for people. one case in point, sign painters. that used to be a real occupation.
now we have people alone with machines doing all their "work". work at home. work at work. with a computer. an electronic machine does everything we need. date on the machine. fuck on the machine. love on the machine. buy from the machine. read from it. do business on it. never leave the machine.
white digital is an expression of loneliness in an electronic, technology rich world. me and my machine, alone. what effect has the machine had on your emotions? does it comfort you? do you feel good after a night of browsing the internet to accomplish no real goal or objective? does reading this now make you feel good about your decisions as a person? you may feel more integrated into society, more informed (hell, you're reading a blog, right?). but what society are you integrated into? what compelled you to ever read a blog in the first place? why is this blog being written?
examination of our society and our lives is critical. we are currently on an unsustainable path. irregardless of your personal beliefs, attitudes, and so on, this fact is undeniable, just as much as the fact that we are human and we drink water and breath air, so is this fact of unsustainability. many modernizationalists compare contemporary (free market) society with a jet plane, flying high (they then posture that we ought to give other, "third world" countries the push they need to fly like us). we are a jet plane, indeed, en route to a destination which we do not have enough fuel to reach. some would say the plane is already on a crash course, spiraling downward (too bad that hudson bay pilot isn't in the cockpit). our current leadership insists that we can make it, we can do it, and that there is no real threat or danger. capitalism is flying high.
we who think critically about society, life, and/or politics know different. we either need a drastic, conscious change in course (a "landing pad", if you will) or we need to prepare for impact.
white digital, (literally speaking, the pixels on the screen), will not teach you this. white digital lies. any comfort found here is false. know that the tv has become the tool of the machine. the internet still remains somewhat free, but that is scheduled to change (see: net nutrality). though it may itself be "free", it cannot free you. you are not free. you come here to white digital because you are a slave, because i am. we are comforted by this tool only to be let down by it in the next breath. therefore the goal here, like all worth pursuing, is to be realized and thus self eliminate. in other words, if this blog completes it's agenda (or i complete mine) than the blog itself will no longer be necessary.
that being the primary purpose, surely much less focused and meaningful sentiments will occasionally surface. i reserve my right be lighthearted, addicted to the meaningless, and make possibly unsuccessful attempts at humor. everyone deserves a break sometimes.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
first: the problem
here's the problem:
in a natural, say, "tribal" society, one would farm, for example. the person would farm food for his/her family. this might happen 9 months out of the year. the summer would be time for rest. as long as the weather cooperated, there was always enough food. there were no ipods. but everyone was taught how to farm, therefore, everyone ate. everyone was fulfilled and happy. there was no depression, no substance abuse, no real social problems. there was no poverty.
then capitalism came. capitalism said to the farmer, "we have dammed the river and created chemicals, so now you can farm all year and grow greater yields. you can sell these. you can buy food and with any extra, an ipod. if you do not, we will kill you and farm where you once stood." so things changed. the farmer now worked all year, and bad weather couldn't stop that. there was no "famine" per se (as long as the farmer never quit), but there was also no time for rest. because now, with the new system which required more work (and destroyed the soil in the land), no more yield was produced for the farmer. the yield now went to the capitalist. the farmer no longer kept the product of his labor. now the farmer worked more (and maybe his family had to work now too) but received less. however the capitalist, he did not have to farm or work at all. his work was threatening the farmer. now that that was done, the farmer farmed for the capitalist. this went on.
now there are two ways to get rich. one gets you rich, and the other gets you super-rich. if you just want to get rich, all you have to do is please a capitalist (see musicians, athletes, entertainers of all kinds, and all those 'second in charge', right-hand-man types you don't remember the names of). if you want to get super-rich, you have to be the capitalist. that's the only way. and the only way to be a capitalist is to exploit the worker, the farmer, the proletariat (note that the names of the richest people in the world are not the entertainers and celebrities, they're the capitalists, like gates and trump and turner and the wall mart guys and so on). so basically, you can be a bastard or a whore. or you can starve, there's always that option. because if you don't suck a capitalists dick every once in a while (or try to compete with one by exploiting all the other whores and workers) than he won't give you any food. because, if you remember, they control all the food. that's how this whole thing started. oh, and you can't get rich by just working. the workers must always be kept wanting just a little bit more. that's how you keep them working. give them just enough to live, but no more. if a worker gets rich, he/she will not work anymore.
when i was a child, about 4, i was curious about money. where did it come from and what did we use it for, i wondered. and after i got a grip on it i said to my mom, "but we don't have to pay for food, right? food should be free." she let out a gentle laugh and said, "oh no, we have to pay for food." i was so puzzled. why would anyone allow such a thing to happen? how did it come this far?
now, i know what you are thinking (if you've even made it this far), "oh silly liberal, you just think everyone should get a free ride and not have to work for anything, don't you?" actually, no i don't. i do think you should have to work for food. of course. however, i also believe that if you make something, if you work to create something, you should get to keep it and everything it generates. why the trickle up? why should a capitalist get to keep the money made from a crop grown by a farmer? why should the capitalist get a dime? they like to sit back and call the unemployed lazy, however i find that sadly and bitterly ironic. the kings calling the servants lazy.
so now we've been going on like this for some time. we've wiped out an entire nation of natural, tribal farmers to create the "land of the free". again, ironic. and in this "free society" we are lush with social problems. alcoholism, depression, anxiety, OCD, ADD, HPV, AIDS, cancer, theft, abuse, and so on. not only did those "savage" farmers that we wiped out not have our social problems, they also didn't have disease. now look at us, with our ipods, we're so happy.
friends, this cannot go on. this capitalist system is destroying the world and everyone in it, and those in control have absolutely no reason, no incentive to do a damn thing about it. it HAS TO BE us. no one else is going to step up. god will not save us. we have got to save ourselves before this machine swallows itself. it's already starting to happen, right underneath our feet. take the time to look down and you might just see your life, and the lives of the farmers who we've walked over to get here, crumble away.
in a natural, say, "tribal" society, one would farm, for example. the person would farm food for his/her family. this might happen 9 months out of the year. the summer would be time for rest. as long as the weather cooperated, there was always enough food. there were no ipods. but everyone was taught how to farm, therefore, everyone ate. everyone was fulfilled and happy. there was no depression, no substance abuse, no real social problems. there was no poverty.
then capitalism came. capitalism said to the farmer, "we have dammed the river and created chemicals, so now you can farm all year and grow greater yields. you can sell these. you can buy food and with any extra, an ipod. if you do not, we will kill you and farm where you once stood." so things changed. the farmer now worked all year, and bad weather couldn't stop that. there was no "famine" per se (as long as the farmer never quit), but there was also no time for rest. because now, with the new system which required more work (and destroyed the soil in the land), no more yield was produced for the farmer. the yield now went to the capitalist. the farmer no longer kept the product of his labor. now the farmer worked more (and maybe his family had to work now too) but received less. however the capitalist, he did not have to farm or work at all. his work was threatening the farmer. now that that was done, the farmer farmed for the capitalist. this went on.
now there are two ways to get rich. one gets you rich, and the other gets you super-rich. if you just want to get rich, all you have to do is please a capitalist (see musicians, athletes, entertainers of all kinds, and all those 'second in charge', right-hand-man types you don't remember the names of). if you want to get super-rich, you have to be the capitalist. that's the only way. and the only way to be a capitalist is to exploit the worker, the farmer, the proletariat (note that the names of the richest people in the world are not the entertainers and celebrities, they're the capitalists, like gates and trump and turner and the wall mart guys and so on). so basically, you can be a bastard or a whore. or you can starve, there's always that option. because if you don't suck a capitalists dick every once in a while (or try to compete with one by exploiting all the other whores and workers) than he won't give you any food. because, if you remember, they control all the food. that's how this whole thing started. oh, and you can't get rich by just working. the workers must always be kept wanting just a little bit more. that's how you keep them working. give them just enough to live, but no more. if a worker gets rich, he/she will not work anymore.
when i was a child, about 4, i was curious about money. where did it come from and what did we use it for, i wondered. and after i got a grip on it i said to my mom, "but we don't have to pay for food, right? food should be free." she let out a gentle laugh and said, "oh no, we have to pay for food." i was so puzzled. why would anyone allow such a thing to happen? how did it come this far?
now, i know what you are thinking (if you've even made it this far), "oh silly liberal, you just think everyone should get a free ride and not have to work for anything, don't you?" actually, no i don't. i do think you should have to work for food. of course. however, i also believe that if you make something, if you work to create something, you should get to keep it and everything it generates. why the trickle up? why should a capitalist get to keep the money made from a crop grown by a farmer? why should the capitalist get a dime? they like to sit back and call the unemployed lazy, however i find that sadly and bitterly ironic. the kings calling the servants lazy.
so now we've been going on like this for some time. we've wiped out an entire nation of natural, tribal farmers to create the "land of the free". again, ironic. and in this "free society" we are lush with social problems. alcoholism, depression, anxiety, OCD, ADD, HPV, AIDS, cancer, theft, abuse, and so on. not only did those "savage" farmers that we wiped out not have our social problems, they also didn't have disease. now look at us, with our ipods, we're so happy.
friends, this cannot go on. this capitalist system is destroying the world and everyone in it, and those in control have absolutely no reason, no incentive to do a damn thing about it. it HAS TO BE us. no one else is going to step up. god will not save us. we have got to save ourselves before this machine swallows itself. it's already starting to happen, right underneath our feet. take the time to look down and you might just see your life, and the lives of the farmers who we've walked over to get here, crumble away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)