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

Republican vs. Republican

Seems to me there are two main types of Republicans which are fundamentally at odds.

There is the fake fiscal conservative type who claims to want to keep government small and lean, but really wants the government to minimize involvement with people (no social entitlements) while maintaining corporate welfare (subsidies/tax-incentives and special legal benefits or allowances) and an oversize military budget (much of that tied into corporate welfare, a la weapons manufacturers and “contractor” mercenaries).  There is also a much smaller genuine fiscal conservative group (libertarian-leaning) who legitimately want to stop corporate welfare as well as minimizing social welfare.   Both of these groups rally around the idea of keeping government out of our lives.

Then there are is the social conservative type, who wants more government involvement with certain Christian sects (e.g. prayer in schools, teaching alternatives to evolution) and they want their religious values to translate into legal restrictions (e.g., preventing all of the following: gay marriage/relationships, abortions, contraceptions, sex education and premarital sex).  What these social conservatives really want is more government involvement in people’s lives.

One group wants the government to do the bare minimum for citizens (and supposedly minimize spending), while the other group wants government to babysit people (with more spending in regulation and law-enforcement).  And yet, somehow, the Republican party is a blend of these two ideologies.  I don’t really get it.

G.O.P.  S.O.P.

corporate pleasure
legislate against sinners
find your own treasure

Posted on

Technological Advantage (why suicide bombers are obsolete)

Suicide Bombers are scary.  Terrifying even.

But why?

It’s because they are humans that have been turned into weapons.  They can’t be reasoned with; there’s no chance to defeat them.  They might be stopped by destroying the mechanics (their body), but there’s no other way, mere injury or impossible odds won’t stop them. And they’re willing to kill regular people (non-soldiers) to achieve their goal.

That sounds great, but let’s do one better – how about we use robots instead? Continue reading “Technological Advantage (why suicide bombers are obsolete)”

Posted on

Ppl VS Prft

In part sparked by a recent book I read (American Subversive, which I bought at an independent bookstore, but I linked to Amazon for convenience), I’ve been pondering the morass that is our political climate and the tangents we fixate on.  It’s not that abortion, gay marriage or other such things are completely unimportant, but they are not “the” important things and they’re divisive rather than unitive.  I can’t help but think that the constant spotlight on such things is intended to divide us.

If we ask ourselves what is truly important, it’s fairly obvious and I think we all could agree.  People are important. How do I get enough food to eat?  How can I live a long, healthy and productive life?  How can I have good relationships with neighbors and loved ones? How can I take care of my family (or enable them to take care of me)?  Survival, health, social life, that’s it.  Maybe a little freedom thrown in (i.e., freedom to have one’s own faith and thoughts).

Profit is not necessarily compatible with that.  It’s cheaper to lay waste – to the environment, to our health, to our lives (to our foreign neighbor’s lives), in the pursuit of easy money. Politicians know this – that’s why they focus on fringe and relatively money-neutral issues like abortion (whether it’s legal or not has very little impact on industry, on the economy).

If I had to come up with a political slogan, to drive us out of this mess, I’d say:

People Over Profit

Continue reading “Ppl VS Prft”

Posted on

The Simon Says of Journalism

Mainstream journalism has gotten weak in this country (USA).  Maybe it always was, but I recall stories from way back about things like the Watergate scandal, the Pentagon Papers, the atrocities in Vietnam, the Muckrakers of the turn of the 20th century.  Lately, it all seems like a game of Simon Says.

Simon Says we must give more control to government and especially the executive branch after 9.11 (sure, it’s fine to imprison people without charges or evidence).  Simon Says Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (even though it was fairly obvious to a casual observer like me that there was no evidence) so we must invade.   Simon Says product A has helpful properties X, Y, Z (a “news” story written by an advertising person at a for-profit company and used directly, uncritically by news organizations).  Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of State in 2002) famously said, in relation to WMDs, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” and the press just let that stand – as if that were sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

What gets to me is the lack of challenge or skepticism.  Journalists should be well-informed on the subject of an interview and they should challenge the interviewee on any statements they make not backed up by logic or evidence (or, worse, seeming contrary to the evidence, like the WMDs myth).  Yet they do not – they just seem to accept all that is said by the so-called expert and then regurgitate that to the public. Continue reading “The Simon Says of Journalism”

Posted on

National Public/Private Radio

Dear NPR (National “Public” Radio),

I used to enjoy our long walks on the beach, intimate conversation between us, with only a brief mention of the sponsor at the top of each hour, but lately things have changed.  The sponsor mentions have gotten longer and more numerous.  No less than 6 per each half-hour and sometimes in the middle of the program.  Each sponsor mention includes a byline which sounds suspiciously like an advertisement.  Even the website only appears ad-free at first, when delving into a specific story reveals at least one “sponsor panel” (or ad prior to playback).   It seems almost as though there’s someone else always following us around, begging for our attention (and $$).

What’s that you say?   Corporations are people too?  Private is part of Public?  The Supreme Court confirms it?

Oh.   Well, can you at least rename yourself to NP/PR so I don’t get confused?

Thanks ever so much,
The (non-Private) Public

Posted on

the faux-moral corporation

There seems to be a newish trend among big corporations (new in the last decade) – the moral value product.  The problem is that these large companies are playing both ends of the field.  Toyota brags endlessly about their high-efficiency hybrid cars (and lately other car companies have joined in) while still hocking plenty of gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs.  Morningstar Farms specializes in vegetarian foods, but is owned by Dean Foods, who is one of the largest meat-producing companies.  Dairy-free soy milks and soy yogurts are now produced by dairy farms.

Diversification is the word of the day and this time, it’s not a good thing.  What kind of a world is it, when using moral values to determine which product to purchase ends up putting money into the pockets of companies which are doing precisely the opposite of your desired moral purpose (with many/most of their other product lines)?  Which is not to say that we shouldn’t still purchase morally (on the contrary, I think we should always and only buy products whose manufacture and purpose we can stand behind), but it’s troubling that these two-faced companies really would do anything to make a buck.

The truth is, no matter how pretty they talk, if they don’t walk the walk with their whole company and all product lines, then they’re just slick-talking  salesmen with divergent marketing.  Toyota doesn’t care about helping the environment – their Land Cruiser gets 13 miles per gallon (city), but they’d really like some money from those environmental zealots too.  Dean Foods (Morningstar) doesn’t care about slaughtering animals for food.  Stonyfield Farms doesn’t care about your lactose-intolerance or veganism.   They’re just doing what it takes to maximize profit.  And maybe it’s time for those of us who really care to start making more of our own things (starting small companies if need be)…

peddling progress
amoral snakeoil salesmen
whilst dealing distress

Posted on

lesser of two evils

Last night, I watched the documentary, “Ralph  Nader: An Unreasonable Man.”  It was interesting, about various parts of his life, but a good portion was devoted to his 2000 and 2004 campaigns for presidency.  There were interviews covering various perspectives on his “spoiler” reputation and this reminded me of all the hullabaloo around that time.

Some individuals interviewed  spoke vehemently about Nader’s “irresponsibility” and I recall many Democratic leaning folks (including Dan Savage) saying similar dismissive things around that time.  This line of argument strikes me as illogical. No one candidate or party ought to feel “entitled” to any one’s votes – no one can “steal” the election by simply campaigning and inspiring people to vote for them.

And yet, we have an entrenched two-party system, where the presidential debates are controlled by corporations (who are significant donors to both Democrats and Republicans) and third parties are shut out, both literally (disallowed from debates and most advertising) and figuratively by a quite successful propaganda campaign that there are only two parties which have a chance of success.  And yet only about 50% of eligible people actually bother to vote.  I wonder why that is. Continue reading “lesser of two evils”

Posted on

the virtue of selfishness

Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness"“Selfish” is a pejorative not dissimilar from “bitch” – sometimes, it’s actually kind of a compliment, indicating a kind of self-respecting independence that doesn’t cater to other people’s whims.

I had several girlfriends who accused me of being selfish when I didn’t want to go along with a particular plan, and in retrospect, I realized that they were mad that I wasn’t being selfless and accepting their own desires as priorities.

I love collaboration and sharing, but for me, that doesn’t involve capitulation; instead, it’s about dialog and negotiation.  Yes, my own feelings and desires are important.  I don’t see how this is a bad thing.

Moreover, we’re all “selfish” in that we care primarily about ourselves.  Some people may take it to the extreme (of caring very little about anyone else), but we all prioritize ourselves.  Even what we call altruism is not entirely selfless, some people really like helping others or some cause – it may benefit people/forces outside themselves, but it makes them feel good inside.

p.s. I’m no Ayn Rand acolyte, but the title earns it a place of prominence on my bookshelf.

Posted on

No good deed goes unpunished

At the beginning of 2010, there was a horrible earthquake in Haiti.  For various reasons, I decided to donate some money and ended up choosing Habitat for Humanity as a recipient. And then began a solicitation campaign that bordered on harassment: emails at least once a week, paper mailings multiple times a month (almost every week).  In time, I began getting solicitations from other non-profits that I hadn’t yet heard of – so I can only imagine Habitat for Humanity had sold/shared my info with their partners.

I care deeply about the environment and I abhor waste.  When organizations that I’m not interested in use valuable resources printing out materials and mailing it to me, it bothers me. A lot.  It wastes my time and wastes resources (in a world where we’re using resources much faster than they’re being renewed and where everyone’s attention is under near-constant bombardment by the advertising industry).

I also get a lot of emails, most of which I care about.  I didn’t immediately unsubscribe to the Habitat for Humanity emails because they were giving updates about Haiti in addition to soliciting more money, but once I realized how frequently they were sending them, I used the automatic unsubscribe feature.  Next week, another email solicitation from them. I deleted that and figured maybe it was a glitch in their system, but the next week, I got another.  So I used the automatic unsubscribe feature again.  That time, it worked.

Then came time to deal with the paper mails, which I’d been dutifully recycling for a few months. Continue reading “No good deed goes unpunished”