Category Archives: Purely Speculation

‘Purely Speculation’ is a series dedicated to facilitating conversation on key political issues. It’s an open forum for Brad OH Inc. contributors to voice their opinions on any matter associated with political direction–ranging from economic systems to globalization. Each article is meant to stand separately, and it’s the hope of everyone at Brad OH Inc. that these myriad opinions lead to some productive debate among the readers here at Brad OH Inc.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles of ‘Purely Speculation’ are not necessarily the views and opinions of Brad OH Inc.

The Second Most Important Step to Improving the United States

Posted on December 6, 2015 by Brad Oates

Here at Brad OH Inc., we have on several occasions (Link) covered an issue which is indisputably the most important step to improving the United States. That is the complete overturning of Citizens United (Link). This change stands at the foremost of all sorely needed improvements, solely for the reason that this ruling acts as the lynchpin to all the other changes the country—and moreover the world—so dearly needs. So long as laws are decided by the vote of Corporate dollars rather than the will of the citizenry, all other problems shall remain immutably entrenched in the quagmires of Corporate bureaucracy.

As this has been covered in depth elsewhere, however, today we will be focussing on what seems to be the second most important step to repairing the dismal affair that is the United States of America. Specifically, we’re talking about the significant reduction and reallocation of military expenditures. As discussed in our article ‘The Global Scale’ (Link), the current approach to foreign policy taken by the American government—the driving force here being the Military Industrial Complex (Link)—acts in actuality as the source of many of their current greatest woes.

As more and more effort is exerted to bring ‘freedom’ to the rest of the world, so grow the enemies of America—understandably bitter about the ‘foreign aid’ that comes in the form of drone strikes, trade embargoes, and unnumbered civilian casualties. This creates a dangerous cycle, in which the American populace—goaded by the bought-and-paid-for media—feels more terrified by the day, and are comforted only by the knowledge that their dear country is capable at any point of destroying the world in the name of saving it.

“But if you strip military spending, you’ll expose us to terrorists,” cry the feint-hearted American media-stooges. Well, let’s consider the facts for a moment—if that doesn’t seem too tall an order.

Based on presently reported statistics (Source), the United States spends approximately $577 Billion on its military each year. This is significantly more than the TOTAL of the next 10 highest spending countries combined.

I’ll allow a second for that to sink in.

With spending like this, America is rather like the kid who shows up to a water pistol fight armed with a firetruck. It’s Rambo intruding on a friendly game of cops and robbers—PTSD flashbacks and all. Simply put: It’s madness.

Meanwhile, infrastructure is crumbling (Source), the homeless population is ballooning (Source), veterans are left without care (Source), and funding for public education is being gutted (Source).

Looking at the numbers above, let’s consider the relationships here with a quick bit of theorizing. If—and this is a naivety to be sure—the US were to slash their military expenditures in half, they would be left with a yearly military budget of around $288.5 Billion. Now, while only half of what is deemed currently necessary, this would still leave the US with a military budget higher than the combined budgets of the next 3 highest spenders. That doesn’t seem like an especially dangerous situation to be in, especially considering that half of the top ten spenders are allies of America.

Further to this consideration, we’ve seen through manifold examples in the past, and as an ongoing theme of the present (Link), that military escalation is a losing game. Investment in war tends primarily to breed more war—with the only safety-net being found in mutual destruction.

If however, this budget change was made, America would remain far and away the greatest military power the world has ever known, and yet would have a sudden windfall of $288.5 Billion to spend on social services like Veteran Affairs, Welfare Programs, Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure, (real) Foreign Aid, Home Care Services, Senior Care, and so much more.

With such a change, America could begin to be the utopian saviour it so desperately wants to be, rather than the school-yard bully who beats on people until they praise him. By setting an example for the world of the sort of peaceful and genuine neighbour they could be, they would likely reduce their enemies greatly, improve many foreign relationships, and, if funds were allocated appropriately, perhaps solve global terrorism at its root, rather than merely spreading the fire.

The end-goal here should not be hard to see—by addressing this ridiculous budgeting fiasco, the US could be the beacon of hope it has always claimed to be, rather than just another blind threat uttered in the darkness of irrational fear.

-Brad OH Inc.

On American Exceptionalism

Posted on October 11, 2015 by Brad Oates

In our recent article on ‘On Combatting Jihad’ (Link), we explained that if the ‘Western World’ was to successfully combat the tides of Jihad, their best breakwater would be not in armaments, but in exceptional and inspiring ideas. Well don’t take it from us—this sentiment was recently echoed by President Obama himself (Source).

But the main problem with this goal is that by a great majority, it is already deemed accomplished.

You hear it all the time: America is exceptional. Hell, it’s so ubiquitous as to merit its own definition on Wikipedia (Link). It’s right at the head of the article: “American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is inherently different from other nations.”

Well, this at least may be true.

As the first ‘new nation’, it has long been assumed that America represented an opportunity to redefine what a country could be: Both within its borders, and as a beacon to the world without.

Again, it can hardly be argued that this opportunity has long been afforded to, and occasionally even seized by America. But the problem here is the built in assumption of positive affect. ‘America is exceptional’ is virtually always taken to mean ‘America is Great’, or ‘America is better’. It’s repeated ad nauseum, and finally taken to be axiomatic fact—that is to say, it’s taken as true by its very nature, and no longer are facts needed to support the notion.

There is nothing inherently exceptional about America. Not in the happy-go-lucky, ‘liberty, freedom ra ra ra’ way it’s so often portrayed to be at least. Of course, the key word there is ‘inherently’. Certainly, America has the potential to be exceptional. They are no different in that respect from any other country in the world. But to be exceptional, one must act in an exceptional way–that is, to take actions and make decisions which are above and beyond the standard. This, America is failing to do, and has been for a long time.

We’ve discussed in several articles, most notably ‘The Global Scale’ (Link) how American Imperialism has a devastating impact on the world at large. Politics driven by the greedy impulses of corporations have shifted this potentially great nation into something far more dark and sinister than was ever envisioned.

Yet it remains common rhetoric to use ‘American Exceptionalism’ as the justification for poor decisions. The assumption is that anything America does is exceptional by definition–because America is exceptional. This is misled, and serves only to justify the continuing trend of poor–and potentially disastrous–decisions.

Here, we see the axiom of American Exceptionalism become tautological, and thus it not only loses its meaning, but becomes a means of bolstering against any positive change. As global politics continue to heat up, and the dream of a future resplendent with peace and prosperity grows ever dimmer, exceptionalism is used as a pacifier, and the placated citizens are endlessly assured that not only are they alright (Link)…but even more damning, that they are, simply, right.

But it is not enough for a nation to claim it’s exceptional because it was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom, as this only allows it to rest on its withering laurels. Rather, one must accept that the country is in decline, and actively work to re-establish that once proud tradition.

America claims to be exceptional, yet falls ever short of being so. What would it take to live up to these claims? There are myriad areas to improve for sure. Rather than the strong focus on overwhelming might, or the ongoing bludgeoning of American Exceptionalism, perhaps it could be shown through greater commitments to issues such as education, infrastructure, debt relief, third world aid, equal rights, etc. If these priorities are seized upon internally, and a greater effort established at promoting them worldwide, then America could again be the beacon of hope it so desperately wishes to be. For these are the hallmarks of a truly great nation, which no flag, slogan, or axiomatic battle-call can ever replace.

-Brad OH Inc.

Regarding Religious Freedom

Posted on September 20, 2015 by Brad Oates

Over the past several months, Religious Freedom has been one of the most prescient topics in the minds of many. People nationwide are having full-fledged meltdowns at the idea of baking a cake for a couple who view things differently than they do (Link), and a pea-brained Kentucky clerk has managed to convince a bunch of hysterical nitwits that she’s some kind of martyr (Link). At the same time, we observe mass hysteria at the entirely misguided notion that Sharia Law is coming to the West (Link).

Happily, much of this uncertainty is being put to rest even as we speak. With the passing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (Link), the Western World has done much to define how we will soon interact with the very populations we claim to fear the most.

The RFRA was passed in part to ‘protect’ Christians from being forced into such heinous and sinful behaviours as baking cakes for loving couples in a public bakery, or issuing a marriage-license at the county registry. See, to be expected to do your job for any member of the public interested in utilizing your services has of late been perceived as religious-persecution. If this is true, then the only thing we can glean of the religious convictions held here is that they demand first-refusal rights for persecution itself.

Yet the ploy has been working. While there can be no argument made that people in any civil society must be free to worship in any way they see fit (assuming no harm to others), we must be careful about the extremes we go to in protecting these rights, and more especially, the ways in which we define them.

Over the next few years or decades, we will inevitably see a great influx of Muslim immigrants—and understandably so (Link). Just as we must for any influx of people, we will need to learn how to coexist with these folks; setting up fair and equitable boundaries which allow for their comfort and ours alike.

Much as we see in ‘China Towns’ and other such cultural hubs, some level of independence must be afforded to any emerging population. Yet many in the west are understandably paranoid about the active assertion of ‘Sharia Law’ on our soil.

Now at the present, I consider this a hysterical over-reaction, but the current machinations of the right wing are actually doing much to strengthen the possibility.

As the religious right defines its adherence to age old biases as a ‘fight for religious freedom’, and asserts new laws protecting this notion, they are laying the groundwork for similar legal enforcements of other religions—one expression of which could conceivably be Sharia law.

Protection to practice religion is a fundamental right in any decent country, but it must be clear that this will not be limited to the most popular religion—nor should it. Everyone must be afforded the right to practice as they choose—so long as it does not affect another. Passing laws that allow Christians to refuse the sale of a product on an open counter to a gay person sets a terrible precedent: one that the courts could (and by rule of precedent doubtless should) use to justify the banning of ‘infidels’ from Muslim operated stores, and other such seemingly inconceivable rulings. If this is not the precedent we want to set for our growing minority populations, then it mustn’t be what we practice for ourselves. Any public storefront should be available to all—just as a non-Asian citizen is not barred from entering a restaurant in Chinatown.

As we go forth defining the ways in which we legislate behaviour and respect, we would do well to bear in mind the broader implications of our attempts. Currently, debate rages over the display of the Confederate Flag (Link), and this is another example of how our rulings on local issues will do much to define our interactions with foreign influences. Ultimately, the Muslim community may have an entirely legitimate claim that depicting the prophet Mohammed constitutes a hate crime under the same sort of laws which prevent Nazi sympathizing and holocaust denial in much of Europe. This is a slippery slope to be sure, but one we must navigate nonetheless.

The question is—where does it end? Common paranoia paints a picture of an America destitute of pork products, while strict public dress codes are enforced by threat of corporal punishment. This certainly may seem absurd to anyone who is not a strict adherent to Islam. Equally absurd to the non-Christian population is the notion of getting up-in-arms over a rainbow on a cake.

If it bothers you, consider simply looking away when you see men kissing (or women kissing…or anything else you may see). Alternatively, consider simply choosing not to order the pork option on a menu if it is against your religion. Such concessions as these are ones we have to make for the simple fact that we live in a society. And that moreover, is the essential point here.

The most effective place for Religion is to help us in coping with society, not in controlling it. As long as we continue to insist otherwise, it is imperative to remember that the way we define our relationship between the law and our currently-dominant religion will ultimately define how we interact with every other religion as well.

So for the sake of us all, let’s keep an open mind here people.

-Brad OH Inc.

On Combating Jihad

Posted on August 9, 2015 by Brad Oates

Among the myriad fears and apprehensions inherent to life in these chaotic times, the threat of ‘Jihad’ reins omnipresent. It is beamed into our consciousness daily, reminding us that we may at any moment be wiped out by hateful and demented foreigners who seek only our blood.

It’s not an encouraging thought.

Defined according to my loose understanding (and if anyone has a greater skill for this, please share in the comments), ‘Jihad’ refers to the duty of Muslims to maintain their religion. This can be represented in many forms, and by the Islamic Extremists represented under the ISIS banners and others—this is seen in a Holy War against the ‘Western World’.

This notion of Jihad, and especially the extreme form it takes under ISIS is a new kind of war. It’s a war of ideas. And at present, they are winning it. Each day we hear of more citizens packing up and leaving to throw their lot in with these ‘dangerous radicals’—giving up life and liberty in order to risk life and limb.

What drives this madness?

Jihad is a story of reactive hatred—of fear for what is perceived as a threat to one’s lifestyle. But it’s a story, a metaphor like any other belief system a human can settle upon. As we’ve discussed (Link), people need stories to find meaning in life, and while this can be a wonderful thing under the right circumstances, we also showed in the article ‘The Popular Misappropriation of Blame’ (Link) that belief systems are a reflection of circumstances, and in dire straits can easily turn to this sort of vengeful bloodlust.

Forming upon such considerations amidst the harsh climate and unforgiving politics of the middle-east, it’s understandable how such an angry ideology would serve. But one story interacts with another, and what exactly do these individuals see when they look upon the so-called ‘Western World’? The world of ‘Freedom’, ‘Democracy’, and ‘Capitalism’?

We claim to be democratic and free in the political sense, but there is no doubt our economic system overrides our political one (Link) . We are driven by corporations—greed and dominance. Growth through desolation. We spread like locusts, sapping the world of its resources to live in luxury while we send those beyond us spiralling into chaos. Meanwhile, our ideals are hung up in the impotent stories of political parties with little true control over our nation’s direction.

Pantomimes and parodies.

In the waning days of religion in the West, we have no Gods to look to for guidance. Yet we continually claim we can act morally without such ‘frivolities’. This is true of the individual to a certainty, but we are yet to prove that a nation without a great idea to stand behind can ever act righteously on the global scale. The freedom we boast of is a lie. And so are we.

Jihad is an idea, and ideas are only fought with better ideas. As we continue to drop bombs and glorify our struggle against terror with arms alone, we succeed only in strengthening the resolve of our enemy—doing nothing to increase the power of our own ideals. Like the Lernaean Hydra (Link) we cut one head off, and two more grow back.

No, the only way to win a war of ideas is with the very same. Rather than contenting ourselves with the dissemination of false ideals, we must begin to truly model them as well, and show what the freedom we boast about really means.

Right now, the realities of our society are witnessed all the more astutely by those without, and what a dismal image it strikes. To win the war against global extremism—be that ISIS or any other expression of it—we must combat it with our own, superior idea. We need to talk it, walk it, and live it in every sense.

But before we do that, we’d damn well better settle on exactly what that idea is…

-Brad OH Inc.

Why the United States is Not Morally Justified to Limit Immigration

Posted on July 26, 2015 by Brad Oates

If there’s one topic permeating public discourse above all others these days, it’s immigration. How to control it, what amnesty programs should be in order, and how it will affect the future of the western world are discussed daily—politicians all sounding off with their own theories, interpretations, and biases.

But the issue is simpler than it’s made out to be. Today, we’re here to discuss why the United States (and the rest of the ‘1^st World’ for that matter) has no moral justification to limit immigration whatsoever.

Popular hysteria would find this claim entirely daft no doubt. As Donald Trump elucidated so profoundly in his recent Presidential bid (Link), common perception of immigrants paints a picture of a hoard of locusts come to devastate our pristine and peaceful land. He saw some backlash to be sure (Link), but make no mistake that his sentiments are shared by entirely too large a portion of the population.

So let’s examine the issue a bit more critically.

First off, it must be noted that the North American continent as it is now was built entirely by immigrants. Steel workers, factory workers, road builders and ditch diggers all came from abroad to find the freedom still sought by immigrants today. So there’s an undeniable element of hypocrisy in any claim that immigration is inherently harmful to this or any other nation.

Speaking of past immigration, even if the hotly debated Mexican border were to be shorn open completely, the resulting influx of immigration would be far less destructive to our culture than was our initial immigration to the Native population at the time. But let us not dwell on the past; this is about the present. History continues on by the day, and we must reckon ourselves to the fact that the machinations of the Western World are among the key forces driving the influx of aspiring immigrants around the world. If necessary, their concern for the laws of immigration will be no greater than we once showed.

And justly so. At present, all nations outside of the alleged ‘1^st World’ are treated as low-cost production facilities, mining operations, or to put it flatly, as simple, legal sources of modern slave labour. This system produces the vast majority of luxury commodities we benefit from in our daily lives as those doing the building are left to linger in abject poverty.

Once again, Trump makes for a depressingly potent example. While decrying the potential dangers immigrants may bring, he rests high among the contributors to the need for such Freedom-bent exodus. Even as he stands at his pulpit and casts down his vitriol and hatred, he has operations going word wide paying slave-wages to potential immigrants desperate for a chance at something better (Link).

Trump isn’t an isolated example. The ‘Western World’ has a long history of supporting dictators they know will keep this system of indentured servitude in place, while reaping the benefits from the comfort of their own state-side villas.

Ignorance incarnate, this attitude is due for a rude awakening. It’s coming sooner than they think, and these entitled sycophants will shortly learn that you can’t piss in the pool, and then complain when people scramble onto the deck.

Like it or not, we are connected in this world (Link). For every ounce of unearned comfort we see, there are others who suffer a pound. To expect these benefits—at the cost of such despair—and yet expect to close the doors to any who seek only for themselves what we can barely appreciate is the height of arrogance.

If the current luxury we take for granted is to be preserved, it must be made available to all. One way or another (Link) people will find their happiness. If we find ours at the expense of others, we can only expect the same in turn. So let us invest rather in the future of all—for only by building a better world for all its inhabitants can we find justification in enjoying our own spoils.

-Brad OH Inc.

Saving the World: 101

Posted on July 12, 2015 by Brad Oates

Supply and demand is the driving force behind any effective economy. Since the Industrial Revolution (Link) however, the face of the ‘supply’ end has been changing. As reliance on machines began to increase in the production of goods, the number of workers required has reduced correspondingly. Materials and goods are now produced more efficiently, and at lower costs to the producers.

Of course, like all things technologically driven, this process only tends to speed up exponentially over time. With the dawn of automation in factories, and technologies like 3D-Printing reinvigorating the revolutionary process begun in the 1800’s, the balance between supply and demand may never have seen such a radical shift. In fact, it’s entirely plausible that within a decade or two, we could produce the vast majority of our goods with little to no human investment.

As discussed in our article ‘On the Concept of Society’, the advancements of society are a cumulative process, and their rewards must therefore be shared equally amongst its constituents. Sadly, this is seldom the case.

While the supply end of the market grows ever easier, demand remains moreover the same, and the essential balance between the two becomes very different from what was initially intended. Rather than setting a price based on the amount of a good available contrasted against the demand for that good, we see a more methodical approach: With an unlimited quantity of a given commodity available to be produced at extremely low cost, what is the greatest amount that can be charged for that product without alienating consumers?

Therefore, the maximum amount is charged for all goods and services, while the financial gains resulting from improved means of production tend to filter only into the pockets of the business owners.

The final result is that the vast majority of the citizenry continues to struggle to meet their basic needs. Clearly, this system is no longer an acceptable form of management, but where do we go from here?

Let us consider the original need for economic systems such as the ‘free-market’ and its inherent reliance on ‘supply and demand’. The world—and moreover society—has always been in need of guidance, of a helping hand to direct us in the choices we need to make. In its historical absence, humans have spent the greater part of our existence inventing our own, then fighting over the results.

Usually, the established political system is intended to reign in the ambitions of the market place, but here too we have found ourselves struggling. Voters find themselves muzzled by corporate control of government, false-choice party politics, and the impossibility of getting any legitimate populist issue to the table past the corporate watchdogs.

So the economic systems can no longer function, and the political system won’t. There’s good news however. We may finally be at a point technologically where there is no longer any excuse not to begin work on a real solution to these co-morbid failings. A ‘God Program’, if you will. Its basis is already established in the internet, and certainly the tools are there to build towards an effort at human consensus through the ability to share ideas uncensored worldwide. This would benefit all people: both in the economic forum, and the political one.

Currently, the internet—with examples such as Reddit, Anonymous, Occupy Wall St. etc.—represents the incredible brilliance and diversity of our population. However, this brilliant spread of people have next to no representation in electoral politics. The political view is dominated by the opinions of crusty old business men who care only for their own profit margins.

Tapping into the full potential of the internet represents an incredible shift in our conceptions of democracy and political participation. In a return to something closer to Athenian Democracy (Link),this program would give the power of voice back to the electorate.

By fundamentally altering the existing architecture of the internet to handle these lofty ambitions, we could establish not only international, uninhibited communication on key political topics, but also a database of all fact and knowledge—with Wikipedia likely acting as a fine foundation for that concept.

The program would not only increase the political voice of all people, but fully manage the economic considerations outlined in our discussion of supply and demand. Its considerations would need to include population size and the balances therein, crop yield, required sources of work and how such might be distributed. Essentially, with a computer program evaluating all available supply and existing demand, society would largely be engineered rather than controlled—with science, math, and humanity acting as the fundamental drives, rather than money or power.

To be sure, this isn’t a new idea by any stretch—as far back as the founding of Technoracy Inc. (Link) in 1931, the notion of a society driven by logic and engineered from the ground up to meet the needs of all has been floating around. It just hasn’t gained much traction.

Why is that?

The society we have in mind would be ideal for everyone alive. With a perfect balance of resources, a deep understanding of social needs, and a computer program capable of predicting these needs and social shifts well in advance, we could hone our efficiency, while creating a Golden Age in regards to leisure time and cultural advancement.

Balancing all needs and efforts, and focussing a calculated portion of all proceeds towards scientific research that is not limited by the profit margins of corporate priorities, our overflow of resources could be harnessed to solve any new problem which might spring up—certainly not excluding the ultimate and near-inevitable need to begin mining and colonizing beyond Earth.

There would be room for businesses to thrive and continue to both produce and profit from innovative consumer goods in a truly free-market (un-manipulated by large-scale corporate interests), while government institutions and human resources would focus clearly on the benefit of all mankind.

With an extremely small and efficient active workforce, and the needs of all met by this program, opportunities would be available for anyone to pursue their passions, and these would directly benefit all. The idea of job shortages leading to poverty or starvation would be unheard of. Mothers or Fathers would stay home to take care of their children rather than greeting people at Walmart, and all people would be free to choose a pursuit which serves them the best.

The program would allow for balance and bounty, while increasing our leisure time and guiding us into a new era of economic and cultural prosperity.

So then, what might be standing in the way of such an idyllic solution? I suppose you’d have to ask yourself another question. Specifically—when we consider utilizing the internet as a salvation for society: controlling profits, balancing production, lowering costs, increasing personal freedom and social supports, improving unilateral political participation, and using excess profits for the betterment of all—exactly who could possibly stand to lose?

If you can answer that question, you’ll see the reason that society has not yet begun to take these easily available steps towards a more utopian ideal. But in the end, it’s not their hearts or minds upon which real change depends, but our own.

-Brad OH Inc.

Dry Rot and a Consideration of Our Terrestrial Prospects

Posted on June 7, 2015 by Brad Oates

“Your house has dry rot.”

There is no phrase more dreadful to a home-owner. It’s a terrible verdict—an indictment which carries a sentence of severe financial and emotional penalties.

‘Dry Rot’, also known as ‘Brown Rot Decay’ (Link), is a fungal infection of wood which eats away at the parts which give the wood its strength and stability. It starts as a simple spore. But exposed to sufficient moisture, the spores grow and spread, infesting the wood and eventually flowering to produce new spores. The infection only grows from there—compromising the integrity of the wood and causing significant problems for the longevity of even the best built houses.

The funny things about Dry Rot, and that which it shares with so many other potentially catastrophic conditions, is that for the most part it’s pretty easy to ignore. When it’s merely a collection of spores, it can appear as a collection of fine orange dust. Sweep it away, and go about your day.

As the spores grow, they will take on the appearance of fine white strands, stretching over the surface as they continue to spread the infection. But this too can be passed off—rationalized as spider webs, dust, or a litany of other excuses which don’t require significant financial investment to address.

It’s no different from a chest pain passed off as gas, or an engine rattle excused as debris.

…Or overwhelming scientific evidence of ‘Global Climate Change’ passed off as liberal hysteria.

The thing is, it’s an easy urge to understand; among the easiest. When faced with something too big to comprehend or too threatening to deal with, our first and most natural inclination is denial. After all, why stress over some distant potentiality when it can as easily be brushed off with a flippant ‘it’ll be ok’.

With Dry Rot, this can be a fatal mistake.

Often considered a cancer to buildings, if left untreated, Dry Rot spreads rapidly through timber, eating it away until it is deteriorated to the point of crumbling between the fingers. For a building, this clearly can cause significant problems. With sufficient warning and proper treatment, the infection can be isolated and cured. But if the Dry Rot makes its way to structurally integral wood, the entire building may be lost.

The prognosis then is simple—act fast to fix the problem, or risk having nowhere to live.

For any informed decision-making adult, the choice is abundantly clear. It seems almost self-evident that when faced with a choice between an untimely demise (or in this case, homelessness), or an admittedly costly investment, there should be little choice remaining—take the hit, but save the whole.

But even in the case of illness, humans have a way of rationalizing away what’s important in defense of what’s comfortable. We ignore the complaints of an ailing body, but lament when we learn our neglect has caused greater harm.

We see the same thing with our world. As technology has grown and society has evolved, so too have the conditions to which we’ve exposed this planet of ours. Just like a home-owner ignoring the damp, dark places of his house, we’ve gone on our merry way, oblivious to the potential effects as our lifestyles have caused sky-rocketing atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels.

Now, the evidence is irrefutable (Source). The climate is changing. The ice caps are melting (Source). Even if most of us have not yet detected the rust-like dust of its impending arrival, the inevitable decree of an environment neglected for too long is slowly making itself known. The rot has set in!

Yet still, denial is omnipresent. Even when we’re rational enough to admit something is wrong, we eschew any responsibility, choosing instead to bury our heads in the sand. In a disturbing instance of this ‘Wait and See’ mentality, the US Senate recently acknowledged that the climate is changing, but fell short of acknowledging that humans are responsible. (Source). In doing so, they served also to rule out the logical conclusion that humans must start working on a solution.

But this is still among the better reactions. Far more depressing, there are countless sources (most of them supported by big oil, or other environmentally destructive enterprise—Source) clamouring to attribute the rumbling of disaster to mere myth. With a glib grin they point to a snowy field, overwhelming proof in their simple minds of the misguided nature of such ‘sci-fi’ notions.

But this is tantamount to the homeowner wrapping a fist against his kitchen counter to prove that Dry Rot has not infested his foundation. It’s an ignorant knee-jerk reaction at best. At worst, it is an intentional misdirection motivated strictly by greed. In the case of climate change, I’m inclined to suspect the latter.

In truth, we’ve waited far too long already. The rot has set in, and the question is no longer whether this might be a threat, but rather how bad it is, and more importantly, what our prospects are from here.

Ultimately, we don’t know. A good guess would be: ‘bad’, but guesses aren’t worth much in a scenario like this. Action is what counts. The first action—as with any well-implemented endeavour—is to understand fully the extent and prognosis of the problem itself. To this end we must turn to science. Instead of trying to shirk responsibility for this impending travesty—although there is certainly much blame to be placed—we should be investing research dollars into finding real solutions.

It’s time to take a good look at this home of ours, and start a discussion about how to salvage it. This will require immediate and likely extreme changes—not limited to the consideration of seeking resources elsewhere in the universe. It is an expensive notion, no doubt, but the alternative is to let the foundation crumble to the rot; which would mean finding ourselves homeless in a universe that is exceptionally inhospitable to such arrangements.

-Brad OH Inc.

The ‘Jenga’ Analogy

Posted on May 17, 2015 by Brad Oates

Earlier this week, I found myself playing a friendly game of Jenga. Well, not entirely friendly perhaps—it was naturally filled with all the taunting and tension so common to the game.

With each log I drew from the base with tremulous fingers, I breathed a sigh of relief as I watched the tower teeter and totter back and forth. But when it finally found its balance once more, the work was only halfway done.

After a brief period of respite marred only by a victorious sneer at my young opponent, it was time for me to finish my task. With the newly liberated block held delicately between my fingers, I raised it up and let it hover a moment above the top of the now lopsided and treacherous monstrosity we’d created.

Finally, I took a deep breath in and held it. The careful extraction was not my victory, for now I had to place the block on top—hoping against hope that the imbalance I had done to the tower’s base would not prove fatal.

Sadly, my hopes were dashed, and the tower came crumbling down. Wooden blocks scattered across the tabletop, and a squeal of unrestrained joy was loosed from the grandstanding lips of my tactless opponent.

‘If only I hadn’t had to put it on top’, I lamented. But that’s just the point here. It’s easy to cause imbalance. It’s far more difficult to deal with the consequences. When I’d slid the block out, I had created tension—specifically between the increasingly poor engineering of the tower, and the immutable force of gravity.

If it hadn’t been expressly forbidden by the sacrosanct rules of Jenga, I could have tossed the block lackadaisically over my shoulder and passed the buck onto the unaware child before me—forcing them to deal with the repercussions of my block choice.

“Again!” he cried, encouraged by his victory and likely reeling with a distinct sense of invulnerability.

But my mind was elsewhere, and time was not on my side. As I gathered up the blocks and began to replace them in the box, I turned to the clock on the wall to gauge my schedule. 11:00am—just enough time to get one last visit in before lunch.

Oh lunch: the vaunted reprieve from workday responsibilities. With a half-hour of stress-free liberty, my only significant choice would be where to eat. And if that’s the only conflict to resolve, things are pretty good in my books.

But as the last of the Jenga blocks was returned to its rightful place, my hunger-laden mind recalled suddenly the ongoing string of strikes and demonstrations against fast food operations around the world (Link).

Workers had taken to the streets, demanding delivery from the poverty level wages they had been faced with for far too long. The demonstrations were primarily peaceful shows of unity and hope—asking only a fair wage for a fair days work. But as is the leitmotif of any political discourse these days, the demand was mired in controversy and misgivings.

Among the myriad complaints aimed at the workers was the age-old notion of fiscal strain. The argument goes that if restaurants (and it should be noted here that the vast majority of those affected are multinational Corporations) were ‘forced’ to increase their minimum wage, the resultant loss of capital would have to come from somewhere else.

It’s a logical notion to be sure—money is finite after all, and if moved to one place, it must have come from another. The natural remedies, in the Corporate mind at least, are to lay off workers, increase prices, or decrease quality.

Of course, these options lead to long line-ups, inflated meal prices, and dangerously cheap ingredients. As images of soggy lettuce, smeared condiments, and dry, grey ‘all-beef patties’ danced before my eyes, my lunch options seemed somehow less appealing.

There is a problem with this key assumption however, and as so many problems are these days, it is tied to the fundamental structure of the Corporation. Guided by the anti-social leaning philosophies laid out in the ‘Friedman Doctrine’ (Link), a Corporation is structured with only one true responsibility—the shareholder. This means that with every decision a Corporation makes, it is obligated to ensure that the bottom line of share value is being increased.

In essence: no matter what the problem or potential solutions, the goal should be greater profit for the Corporation. Of course, this has historically led to a litany of grave injustices (Link), but just at this moment, it was my impending meal I was most concerned about.

And herein lies the problem. While it’s difficult to argue that workers aren’t entitled to a living wage—particularly in a world where an ever growing number of jobs are being pushed into the minimum wage bracket by increased automation and other factors—I still want a good meal.

But these desires are incompatible in the Corporate mind. You can’t have fair pay, good food, AND reasonable prices…at least not if stock prices are to continue rising.

And so it goes: as each year passes, Corporations continue to take money away from the bottom, while ensuring it also stays at the top. Increase the wages—lay off employees. Respect environmental regulations—decrease the quality of the product. Comply with fair tax regulations—jack up the prices.

You take a block from the bottom, and you put it on top.

The easy answer of course, is that Corporations should, and must, accept that as society changes and technology grows, sometimes they may see a decrease in overall profits. But this should be felt at the top—the shareholders and the CEO’s who are in dire need of learning that just as they claim that ‘a person doing a minimum-skill job deserves only a minimum salary’, so too must the directors of a decreasingly relevant franchise ultimately see a stall in their (still exorbitant) profit margins.

Of course, this isn’t what happens. While many of these fast-food franchises likely started out as very solid businesses offering a decent meal at a competitive price, they have long since grown unwieldy. As the towers of their Corporate offices rose higher into the skyline, their bases grew increasingly unsteady. And we’ve all seen the end result many times before. Eventually, the whole operation comes crumbling down. After all, no one wants to pay $14 for a shitty burger just so the CEO can afford to take a private jet to his island resort.

And this, better than anything else, illustrates the fundamental failing which has occurred in our conception of capitalism. Namely, the transfer of implicit company responsibility away from its customers—who rely on a strong and reliable base—to its shareholders—who care only for how high it can reach before they sell their shares and watch it all crumble from the vantage point of the next opportunity they make ready to despoil.

It’s a depressing thought to say the least. And so, as I slid the Jenga box into my bag and made off to my next visit, I made a decision. Today, maybe I could pass on lunch. I was hungry no doubt, but as I thought about the implications behind which barely-edible meal I’d buy, I found that my appetite was gone.

Fuck it, I’d just go hungry. After all, if the Corporations had it their way, that would be the fate of the lot of us.

-Brad OH Inc.

The Popular Misappropriation of Blame

Posted on April 26, 2015 by Brad Oates

Of all the grand facets of humanity worthy of daily expression, we seem to have found ourselves ubiquitously occupied by one of the most base and depraved of the lot: blame. ‘Blame the cops’, ‘blame the rich’, ‘blame the Jews’, and ‘blame the Liberals’. But mostly, blame the Muslims.

Blame is an easy slope to slip down—it’s sheer as all hell, and treacherous by nature. When we feel threatened, the most natural reaction is to find the source and strike back. This is a wise and adaptive trait. It once kept us wary of lions, a good quality to be certain, because those mangy bastards will tear you to bloody shreds without a second thought.

But as we’ve made our way out of the savannah and into a more complex society, we have accordingly found our threats growing broader—more difficult to define. The threats are similar enough in nature, and the fear is certainly no different, but the struggle becomes, in such an interconnected and nuanced world; where to place the blame.

It’s an issue that touches most every other—blame, and the need for it, permeates our society as deeply as hunger, equality, freedom…terror.

But of all the fears and all the culprits, none are as commonplace these days as the fear of and blame of Islam. Herein lays an important distinction. There can be no doubt whatsoever that some Muslim people have committed horrendous acts. This by necessity makes them potential objects of fear, and hence, blame.

The mistake here, and the especially slippery nature of this particular slope, is the inherent risk of conflating trait with cause. Certain Muslims have committed atrocities. But is Islam to blame?

A growing consensus among even the intellectual elite seems to support this notion. Recently—and as an ongoing tenet—the otherwise venerable Bill Maher has thrown his hat into the ring, landing unequivocally in the ‘Islam is an inherent evil’ corner (Link).

To my mind, this is an abhorrent mistake. More fundamentally—if you’ll excuse the term—it’s a misunderstanding of both human nature, and the true root of the problem here.

Just as fear leads to a drive for blame, so frustration leads to a compulsion towards anger. As humans, it is our natural inclination to construct narratives which provide meaning—or more pertinent to the case at hand—to latch onto narratives which fit our circumstances and needs.

When we are driven to find context in the wide and mysterious world around us, we construct belief systems. When we feel lost or uncertain, we take comfort in platitudes and homilies. When we are driven mad with fear of explosions and beheadings, we latch onto narratives of ‘the other’—the turban wearing madman with a mad lust for blood and unquenchable thirst to desecrate all we hold dear.

But the pendulum swings both ways, and when humans find themselves desperate, or afraid, so too do they grasp for and hold tightly to whatever narrative may give justification to their feelings.

At present, for a small portion of disenfranchised and rueful Muslims, this narrative need is met in the form of Islam. It is unfortunate, but it is reality. This is not to say there is anything inherent to Islam which makes it a violent or reactive belief system—at least any more than so many other belief systems—only that it may suffice as such in time of need.

The role has been filled by many other narratives before it. As President Obama pointed out (Link)—much to the chagrin of his electorate—Christianity filled this vile role during the crusades, and in many other periods of history.

Looking back to more recent events, we can find a fine parallel in the tragic shootings at Columbine High School. When these disenfranchised and deranged youth decided to commit a massacre at their school, many media outlets were quick to jump on their favourite artists as the ultimate culprit—primary among them the singer Marilyn Manson (Link).

Looking back on this farce, it’s clear to all but the most troglodytic amongst us that Marilyn Manson was no more responsible for this travesty than you or I. But his was, perhaps, the soundtrack playing in the maligned brains of the killers. His may have been the narrative they latched on to in their rage, but this is hardly a sufficient link to establish any sort of causal relation between the two.

The same is true, of course, with Islam. Even though we are witness now to a group of misled Muslims (some of whom may or may not have justifiable cause for anger) who use Islam as the marching banner of their holy war, there is little doubt their actions would be no less reprehensible under a different narrative. Their anger and their actions are products of their environment and their ability to process it. If we can imagine for a moment—as farcical as it seems—a world with no Islam, but in which all other social and economic factors in the middle-east were entirely comparable, I believe there is little doubt these militants would quickly find some other name to pin their hatred upon.

All action and belief needs a narrative. In this instance, the religion of Islam is being used to fill a terribly dark void—one that has arisen and been filled in people by different means throughout the sad duration of our existence. Still, that very same religion is followed by countless virtuous and just men and women the world over. It is a fallacy therefore to assign blame to the narrative. It belongs rather with the actors, and moreover, the circumstances which drive a nation to such desperate straits (Link). It is not the nature of the narrative which must give us cause for concern and rebuttal, but rather the source of need which this narrative is used to fill.

Fear is a rational reaction to a threatening stimulus. Not so blame. Blame is an atavistic and base reaction; one that provides comfort and perhaps unity among the maligned, but does nothing to move towards resolution. If we want to solve the problems afflicting our society, we must address the social and political situations from which they arise. Otherwise, we are doing scarce better than our detractors—joyfully burning the effigies of our fear while suffocating on the fumes of its intolerance.

-Brad OH Inc.

The Uncomfortable Issue of Population Control

Posted on November 23, 2014 by Brad Oates

Last week on Brad OH Inc., we discussed the old and misconstrued ‘Fear of Big Government’. In that article, we explored the common revulsion toward the notion of government intervention in the lives of its citizens, and the ubiquitous but erroneous assumption founded by the repugnant Ronald Reagan that we need to get government ‘off our backs’.

The core thesis we developed in that article was that while the actions of many governments have been less than desirable in both past and present, the true purpose of government is the protection and promotion of its citizens—a function which should not be feared but rather revered. To these ends, there are certain central domains in which government control must undoubtedly be focussed, primarily: healthcare, education, infrastructure, stable wages/ living conditions, scientific research, promotion of environmental concerns, and access to food and water.

This is admittedly a very basic list, but it does provide a functional framework for government interventions. All efforts in these areas must—in any democratic government meant to represent the people—be aimed not at increasing profits for corporations and special interest groups which line the pockets of government officials, but rather at solving problems and promoting the general welfare of the electorate.

A quick peruse of these topics will, however, reveal one common and absolutely key concept for any government hoping to moderate over a well-functioning society; the uncomfortable and cringe inducing issue of population control. While money must never be the dominant issue guiding government practice, it certainly is an important concern when discussing support of citizens balanced against fair taxation, and as such the population size of a country is a crucial consideration.

Perhaps ‘population control’ isn’t the right term. Depending on where we are going with these notions, a better term might really be ‘population management’. If a government is to promote equity and access amongst its citizens, then central to its task will be the ability to understand the size and growth rates of its populace, and design an intelligent and functioning society to accommodate this.

At present, the ongoing fear of big government is serving its role well, rallying citizens to follow the lead of the unscrupulous political right in decrying government involvement in anything that might possibly help the general welfare and direction of the nation, while allowing it only in promotion of economic gain for involved parties. The results are clear as day; it’s a strange and subversive sign of the times, that it’s our poor who grow fat as our rich stay healthy.

Corporate needs dominate the political spectrum, poisoning our citizens and environment alike as record profits are posted and the ‘free-market’ is heralded as a success.

Naïve fools the lot.

So if turning the reigns over to profit-driven corporations and entrusting them to care for the people of the nation isn’t the right approach—and it most certainly is not—then what is?

The key issue here is not whether we must change the current system, but what system will fill its stead. An issue like population management is a heavy one to discuss beyond doubt, but it must be addressed directly and with honesty intention if we are to avoid it’s becoming a taboo issue discussed only behind closed doors by parties of questionable motives.

It is a driving issue, and must be discussed by the whole of the population to be managed. For even if we deny the issue, it will be a key factor in how we manage our economy, food stores, treat the poor, provide education and healthcare, etc.

Clearly, the more people exist, the more demand for resources, and in an unideal world, hence more scarcity. Even if we learn to plan our resources around population, and ever increasing population would lead to heavy sacrifices rather quickly. Ultimately, when it comes to the effective management of a population, there are, as I see it, essentially three basic approaches.

The first approach would be to simply accept that some people are less entitled to the productivity of mankind than others. This is most similar to our current approach. In this scenario, resource access would be determined by factors such as social standing, property/ business ownership, socio-economic status, and more broadly, location of birth.

Taking a stand such as this one, resources would be divvied up by priority, with some people gleaning great wealth and prosperity from our system, while an ever-increasing number receives very little.

A second approach—and the one which makes this such a delicate issue—is the more conventional definition of ‘population control’. A policy like this would demand a clear account of extant resources, and a broad understanding of what sort of lifestyle citizens are entitled to. From there, it would be a simple matter of division to determine the ideal size of the population, and steps—ranging from sterilization, birth limits, eugenics, or population culling—would be taken to make the numbers match.

This scenario has been enacted several times in the past, and represents some of the darkest and most horrifying eras in human history.

Neither of these approaches to population management result in the sort of society that I—and I should hope any of my readers—would hope for. So then we are left with the question, if not these failed methods, then what?

Given the incredible state society has managed to reach in spite of our past missteps, and the unspeakable potential promised by a commercially freed and unleashed scientific community, I believe we are entirely capable of creating a third, more ideal solution. I have little doubt that the combined power of modern computing, science, and human vision is able to design a system to monitor and anticipate both changes in population size and need, as well as existing resources. Such information would allow for a more dynamic and responsive means of addressing scarcity.

Further, in order for such a system to be created and maintained, increased government funding would be necessitated towards science, education, and healthcare—the lot of which would perforce be universal human rights if we are to expect any positive shift in the direction of our society.

A streamlined scientific community, coupled with an economy dedicated to the positive growth of culture and equity, would be fully empowered to find creative solutions to production, provision, and other means of positive population management through a system motivated not by profit, but by simply improving the general human condition.

Furthermore, one key long-term goal would be that of interplanetary exploration. This would provide for both an alternate source of resources, and ultimately alternate planets to inhabit and build upon. But this might be better discussed in a… future article.

The roots of these convictions have already taken hold. Examples range from innovative solutions to solving urban food scarcity (Link), to active attempts at subverting the mounting energy crisis (Link), to community based food-sharing programs (Link). It is by examples such as these that we will work actively towards solutions, rather than merely using obfuscated politics to justify corporate-manufactured deficits.

The end-goal here is to plan for the world we want to live in, rather than cope with the one we’ve created through greed and ignorance. But first, we need to change our priorities. A culture which focusses solely on profit, and defines freedom strictly in market terms, is forever doomed to the scarcity and inequality inherent to such ideals. It is science, not business, which must be unleashed; that, and the passion of earth’s good people—determined to build a better world. On this front at least, I remain convinced that scarcity is not an issue.

-Brad OH Inc.