Author: slithers

This blog is a creative writing outlet for me, intended for explaining different ideas I have or telling [non-fiction] stories. Generally speaking, I wish to talk about my ideas on politics (especially how I would run the world if/when I rule it), art/absurdity, gender diversity and compassion/vegan-ism.
Posted on

capital revolution

In the USA, money runs the gears. From the industrial era to the information era, it’s all about having things (buying them) and there’s many, many years of psychological studies behind the advertising industries to make sure we keep doing what they want us to do – spending. We have extensive debt-management systems in place (in addition to regular loans from banks, we have credit cards everywhere and sometimes you can even get loans when you can’t possibly pay them back [sub-prime mortgage crisis]) to make sure the money keeps flowing, even when you don’t have any to spend.

Although corporations don’t actually run our government, they have very close ties to people in power (look at VP Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton, or the many department heads who oversee corporations that they used to serve on the board of), in addition to quite powerful lobbies that manage to help block many unfavorable laws and pass favorable ones.

You aren’t powerless, however, because as long as you’re making money (or acquiring it somehow), you get to choose how to spend it. And whether you think about it or not, those spending choices do make a difference. Want the cheapest, toxic chemical cleaner (bleach)? Ccongratulations, you are helping to pollute. Want the latest fragile plastic toys imported from China? You are contributing to poor labor conditions, at the cost of local American jobs and as a bonus the child you give it to might get lead poisoning. Want cheap hamburgers that come from giant factory farms? Mad cow disease is just the start of problems there (check out Fast Food Nation). You may not agree with my morals, but surely you have some morals of your own. Don’t you care about what the companies you buy things from are doing to the world? Don’t you care about the chemicals and other materials that go into your clothes, your nice things and most importantly the food you eat?

This is not to say that you should boycott everything and hoard your money, nor that you should sacrifice every creature comfort. On the contrary, I think it’s sometimes worth spending more to get something that you can appreciate for itself and stand fully behind the processing and company that made it. It’s worth investigating and making decisions that are good for your long-term view, rather than just getting whatever is most convenient at the moment. Good things are often worth a little more effort. Make your money count and purchase goods and services that you can feel good about. In other words, put your ethics into practice financially.

“You must spend the change you wish to see in the world.” — LuQ/Gandhi

Posted on

lost in the border

I’ve always felt a bit… transparent. Ever since I was a kid. Never quite one thing or the other, I slid between the lines. People often told me I was one thing or another (white, child, boy), but it never quite felt like me.

People don’t call me a child anymore, but they’re still always throwing labels on me. It’s hardest and most interesting these days with children – they often wonder, “is that a boy or a girl?” I want to stop and tell them “neither,” but that’s too much explaining. Much as children live their imagination, they also live in a world of rigid boundaries – they don’t [generally] understand the grey areas.

A few years back, a little girl of about 3 (my cousin) got extremely offended and started hitting and yelling at me after I “tricked” her by not talking for our first hour of knowing each other. I tried to be tolerant, but it’s not fun to have someone screaming in your face. But at least she wasn’t hiding anything (sometimes it feels like adults are silently screaming in my face, when they’re not pretending I don’t exist). Some children playing on the street the other week demanded to know if I was a boy or a girl. I just smiled and didn’t answer that question, slightly delighted as I walked away that they were still wondering aloud. Continue reading “lost in the border”

Posted on

lies, damn lies & statistics

50% of all women are lesbians and 75% of all women are Caucasian. Is that true? Not exactly, it’s a projected statistic based on a sample group of 4 of my friends. Statistics aren’t precisely lies, but they can be extremely misleading when presented as if they were absolutes.

Statistics are estimates, not facts. It is disingenuous to use “is” or “are” with any statement that is not an absolute measurement. 50% of my my rollerskate wheels are purple (8 are purple, 8 are blue); from that, I could estimate that 50% of all rollerskate wheels will be purple, but I can’t rightly say that “50% of all wheels are purple” without any caveat.

There are two main ways that statistics can be skewed: one is to use a too-small sample group to represent a large population (for example, 1000 people may seem like a lot to you personally, but compared to the population of this country [about 304 million], it’s a drop in the bucket – only about 0.0003%), another is to use a non-representative population (for example, if you’re trying to gauge support of a Republican president for the entire country using a sample group from only Democrat-leaning cities like New York and San Francisco, you’ll get results skewed further against that president than you would if your sample group was more diverse and representative of the population as a whole).

These two facets allow for mistakes (bad statistics) and for intentional misrepresentation (manipulative statistics), especially when coupled with statements as “fact.” Continue reading “lies, damn lies & statistics”

Posted on

Kundera’s Kitsch

Milan Kundera describes kitsch (within his 1984 novel “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”), in what he claims is the original definition, as “the absolute denial of shit, in both the literal and figurative senses of the word; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which is essentially unacceptable in human existence.” He goes on to link this idea of kitsch with both nationalism and revolutionary movements, with communism and anti-communism (note: he’s writing about Czechloslovakia during the Soviet occupation). He also links it with romanticism and religiosity.

While I’d only recently read this novel, I have long been familiar with his idea of kitsch, except as a teenager, I’d called it “disneyfication” in the sense that my world (whitebread middleclass existence in a private Catholic high school) was assaulting me with ridiculous fantasies and expectations, like the saccharine movies of that copywrite-crazy corporation. We were all supposed to grow up and get good jobs, make money, (be white & heterosexual,) get married, have kids and play house in a happy utopia of America=#1! and white-picket fences. Continue reading “Kundera’s Kitsch”

Posted on

the bitter bean

In the end, it all comes down to the bitter bean. All I remember of my childhood is a swirl of disappointments. I know there must’ve been wonder and exploration, but my earliest non-memory is tripping over the carseat in the concrete garage and my teeth slicing through my bottom lip – you can still see the scar (see?). Mostly, I remember resenting the adults who held me back (most all of them) and hiding out (in video games, fantasy novels, bad poetry). My favorite thing was Halloween, where I got to be the monster (roar!).

I never thought my parents to be similar; in fact, I only remember them in isolation – certain interactions with my Dad (watching movies together, fights about church) and certain interactions with my mom (crying and comforting, being chased around yelled at), not really anything as a couple, though of course we did many family activities together. Perhaps the oddest, most frustrating thing was the completeness of their restriction – my mom was more of the disciplinarian (very strict in many ways, no MTV, etc.), but in the few ways she wasn’t strict (church, for example), my dad was – very. On the flip side, they were each very tolerant in nearly every way that the other was strict.

My parents weren’t responsible for my miserablist childhood, unless maybe you want to blame them for passing on their genes & a regimented society hostile to my complexities. But their complementary restrictiveness added to the considerable frustrations of an unusually adventurous, precocious and sensitive child. Continue reading “the bitter bean”

Posted on

the F-word: bitches got a bad rap

Feminism (the “F-word”) has nothing to do with man-hating. Forget the rumors and hype, feminism is simply about equal rights and opportunities for women. Sound crazy? Do you think it’s fair that a woman would get paid less for doing the same job that a man would do or that her entire value as a human being might be judged solely on her appearance? If no, then, like it or not, you’ve got a little feminism. Own it, ya F-eminist.

Gender stereotyping has gotten way out of hand, even in light of progress made towards women’s rights (or perhaps it’s the same, but only seems so egregious because it’s now more obviously ill-founded). Very few people are stupid enough to think that no woman anywhere is physically strong or that no man anywhere is emotionally expressive. Yet almost everyone makes sweeping generalizations about men and women as if their statements are absolute: all women like gossip and shopping while all men like sports and cars. It’s just not true, some do, some don’t. Get over it, already.

Who cares if men and women are generally different in some ways (i.e., you believe a stereotype is “mostly true”), these aren’t absolutes and they cannot be applied universally. If a woman is a good mathematician or if a man is a good caregiver, just respect it. Let the actions determine the value, not the gender. Move on.

Some might call a tough, no-nonsense woman a “bitch” and if so, I’ll consider it a worthy aspiration. Continue reading “the F-word: bitches got a bad rap”

Posted on

a word on patriotism

The thing to keep in mind about patriotism is that this country was founded by rebels (in one sense, you could call the founding fathers “traitors” – to Great Britain), so it’s very natural that we may squabble and disagree with people, even our leaders. United we may stand, in the face of an imperial enemy country violently trying to take away our rights, but that doesn’t mean we blindly follow authority (not even into expansionist or punitive wars) – that’s never been the American way. In America, dissent is patriotic, following your own sense of fairness and morality is intrinsic to our culture and foundation. Go ahead and question your leaders, loudly disagree, just don’t be mean.

Posted on

abortion law is about women’s rights

It really doesn’t matter if you’re personally pro- or anti-abortion (or entirely neutral); if you believe women are valuable individuals and deserve equal rights, then you need to support the legality of abortion. When abortion is illegal, it makes women into second-class citizens, walking wombs. Men simply don’t have the physical responsibility of a pregnancy (especially if they flee). And before someone jumps on me with the “it’s biology” argument, just ask yourself how “biological” it is for people to use computers, eat chemically-flavored foods or, better yet, for women to shave their legs and wear makeup. Humans are not limited to their animal attributes and where we can make our lives better than biology (i.e., eyeglasses / contact lenses, artificial limbs, birth control), we should provide the option to people who want it.

Speaking of “wanting it,” is there really some secret advantage to forcing people to have unwanted children – I mean, are the children really better off when the parent(s) can’t really afford to support them (either emotionally or financially)? I’m not necessarily pro-abortion (I think all life is valuable, even germinating seeds), but I don’t think pressuring people into unwanted parentage is good for society at large. No, if you’re personally opposed to abortion, then you should be pushing for better education and access to earlier forms of birth control (personally, I long for a society where everyone is infertile by default and only those who decide to have kids can impregnate or get pregnant, after having their fertility instated).

On a side note, something like 20-30% (that’s one in four or five) pregnancies end in miscarriage. I have no idea why people don’t talk about this, but I feel it’s fairly central to the abortion legality argument – if your body can decide to abort the fetus on it’s own, why can’t your mind? Here’s one article on the miscarriage rate (from 1988, no less): NY Times: Study Finds 31% Rate of Miscarriage

Posted on

news to veg: compassion is not one-sided

Of course I support my vegetarian brethren in their dietary and compassionate endeavors, but I sometimes get sick of seeing pictures and viewpoints of a very limited veg demographic. VegNews is a magazine I really like, but the pictures remind me of an L.L. Bean catalog – mildly-liberal white middle-class people in lots of khaki or neat denim and the occasional t-shirt. Where are the people of color? Where are the articles with perspectives from non-white ethnicities or countries? I realize it’s a vegan-focused magazine and most Indians are addicted to dairy, but roughly 50% of the population of India is [lacto-ovo] vegetarian and to me that’s phenomenal. I can hardly believe that VegNews doesn’t have articles or features with/about Indians/India all the time (I’ve never seen one yet).

Perhaps more surprising (given the high visibility within vegan restaurants and “scenes” in USA) is the complete lack of subculture representation. Maybe I have a skewed perspective, living near Allston, MA, but tons of the vegans I’ve met or seen are punk rock or emo or indie (even a few goths) and I don’t recall ever seeing even a tattoo or piercing in VegNews (nor in most vegetarian catalogs). It almost feels like they’re saying, yes, we care about animals, but we’re totally normal in every other regard, so come on mainstream, accept us. Whereas, they should be saying, we have broad compassion and welcome vegetarians of all stripes, mainstream should follow our example.

A recent issue of VegNews (April 2008) made a valiant effort to showcase some diversity, featuring a person of color on the cover and an article called “Privilege or Necessity?” dealing with the class issue (and argument that being vegan is too expensive for some), which was incidentally very good. That article featured another picture of people of color, but aside from that, the magazine still feels very white and privileged overall (making this feel like a one-off, rather than a new direction), but at least there’s an inkling of diversity (even an article by someone queer). Still, I’d love to see a broader perspective in general and even some articles addressing how vegetarianism fits into other cultures or movements (feminism, environmentalism, etc.) or even how it could or should fit in. Continue reading “news to veg: compassion is not one-sided”

Posted on

musings on the po-lice

In the sense of “peacekeeper” (i.e., protecting people from violence), I have the utmost respect for the police – I think it’s a tough and very necessary role to play. In terms of monitoring traffic, I also approve as it appeals to my sense of order and I think most traffic laws are quite sensible (I won’t oppose the eventual GPS/robot monitoring and fining of vehicular misbehavior). In those senses, I’m willing to yield to and support their authority. [Incidentally, by “police,” I mean to refer to all branches of law enforcement, from local sheriffs to the FedBurInv (but, not, obviously, the law-averse CentIntAg)]

However, in the sense of enforcing hundreds of thousands of laws, many of them outdated or nonsensical, I think it’s a ridiculous endeavor (see my posts law is not your friend and expiry for laws), both in terms of being impractical and in terms of being unreasonable. How can anyone blindly support and enforce the myriad of moral edicts issued by flawed humans in power? I can only imagine that policepersons engage in a very powerful form of disengagement, or game of pretend (imaging that these laws come from an almighty god). Of course, I know that some of the more outlandish laws simply don’t get enforced, but still – even consenting to enforce “all law” seems pretty outlandish to me.

All of that presupposes an ideal police institution, free of corruption and politics and prejudice, which if you add into the mix, you end up with a much more problematic situation. Now you have the police enforcing disenfranchisement of the poor, people of color, immigrants and sex workers. You have police enforcing political games, like the wildly inconsistent so-called “War on drugs” and perpetrating violence on peaceful demonstrations (WTO protests, etc.). You have police kidnapping nonviolent people, tearing them away from their families and all they know and imprisoning them in a highly prejudicial institution, perhaps to await a cursory trial by “peers” (usually from a completely different social caste) or perhaps to be kicked out of the country. The prison industrial complex does not address any of the social issues intertwined with most “criminal” activities, but it does create an oppressive environment that exacerbates inequalities and poisonous social norms (such as machismo).

A great article addressing some of these issues is: On Prisons, Borders, Safety, and Privilege: An Open Letter to White Feminists (somewhat tangential, but well worth reading).