Tag Archives: choice

The Heights Flags Dare Not Fly

Posted on by
1

purelyspeculationAside from writing, a significant portion of my week is comprised of driving to and from schools. As a result, I’ve recently made a disturbing observation. It seems to me there is seldom a day which goes by that the school flags are not set at half-mast.

I’ve noticed it far too often to chalk it all up to an observer or expectation-bias, and ever since noting the strange trend, the evidence has only mounted. Truthfully, I can quite accurately make the call as I head out in the morning—I can go through my entire day, and I won’t see a single flag flying at its full height.

For a while, I would try to play recent newsfeeds through my mind, sifting through the long lists of tragedies to try and pinpoint the precise reason why the flags might be lowered. Another bombing in a far off country? A videotaped execution becoming a number one hit on YouTube? Missing indigenous women? A recent school shooting? It’s hard to keep track—and that’s likely one of the most cold-hearted thoughts that’s ever crossed my mind.

Sadly, the fact is there can hardly be a day that goes by when it would be appropriate to fly the flag high. Tragedy is abounding at every turn, and we need never look too far to find some reason to keep the flag at half-mast, and our hearts shrouded in mourning. Indeed, even the briefest purview of recent events will surely be enough to convince any feeling human that to hoist the flags to their full height would be an act of callous audacity.

It made me wonder; has it always been like this? It seems that no matter how far back we look, the world has been mired in a constant string of atrocities and calamity. Are they more common now? Is our instant access to world-wide media making the situation seem more dire than it is, or could we truly be approaching the so-called ‘brink’?

For years uncounted, people have felt that society is falling apart and the world as we know it is coming to an end. Plato famously criticized the youth of his day (~340BC) by lamenting that “The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.” It remains a familiar feeling to this day. Every generation grows to worry about the future, and fear that the youth set to inherit this fragile little ship of ours will not be up to the task. Doomsday prophecies, threats of revolution or decay, and predictions of cataclysmic environmental disasters have maintained a place beside weather and work as some of the most ubiquitous topics for daily conversation.

But if the flags these days are any indicator, such anxieties don’t seem far off the mark. Our environment grows worse by the day, and those working to save it are embattled from all sides by those who seek only profit. So too with human rights, fights for equality, and pleas for representation. Gun violence runs rampant—challenged for the crown of ubiquity only by poverty and the failing light of hope in the hearts of the needy. Explosions rock the world hourly, cold-blooded death-cults call for our heads, and here in the ‘free-world’ the echoes of long-forgotten jack-booted feet and beer-hall bravado once again eke their way into our political conscience.

Those naïve few who proclaimed that the age of racism and hatred were behind us now hang their heads in shame, and once again the shadow of ignorance spreads across the map of our future. Standing as we are on the brink of such chaos, sky-lining against the half-lowered flags, one can’t help but wonder how close we are to that brink, and what it would take to finally shove us over?

Will it be like the most recent financial crisis? One panicked businessman making a knee-jerk move over night? A chain-reaction of self-serving backroom deals that sell the rest of us down the river? Will it come like daggers in the night, or will it come, as the old adage goes, wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross? Will there be martial law? Riots in the streets? Baffled TV-reporters mumbling through static-filled screens? Smoke and strife, or stony silence?

That I cannot say. It may be all, or more likely none. It may well go unnoticed, as it has for so long already. One small change, then another, all wrapped in the propaganda and misinterpretation so definitive of our times. But none of that concerns me. The road ahead is already laid, and I look not to how its course runs, but rather to who will travel it.

Again, my thoughts turn to Plato, and the defiant children he so sorely lamented. They are still around, and indeed it is them who we should be watching most intently. But perhaps that’s another issue entirely, and one we’ll cover in greater depth next week.

-Brad OH Inc.

A Fool Not Just in April

Posted on by
Reply

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green Desklamp

There’s a funny thing that happens right around this time of year. On the first of April each year, we observe a weird little day called ‘April Fools’’. This glorious day is a long-time favourite for pranksters and mischief-makers the world over—as jokes are played, tricks enacted, and terrible deceptions perpetrated by one friend upon another all in the righteous pursuit of naming another as a fool.

The possibilities are endless! Saran-wrap over the toilet seat? Check! Sardine Paste in the toothpaste tube? Check! Brutal lies about the health or general well-being of distant loved-ones? Yeah, even that might pass. But recently, one phenomenon has illustrated an especially troublesome habit of humanity—and shown us perhaps that the day of fools is a boon for the few wise people among us.

See, one irresistible opportunity for news pundits and bloggers alike is to post semi-believable yet entirely unreal stories for public consumption on April Fools’ Day. The writer will let the speculation and doubts run roughshod until noon, then coolly—and doubtless with an air of overplayed coyness—reveal the truth: namely, that it was all a ruse.

This all seems harmless enough. The thing is, it’s been going on for a significant enough stretch of time that anyone with half a clue and access to the internet for more than a year knows just what to expect, and rises each April 1st donning the armour of suspicion, and brandishing their sword of rational-inquiry. Each article they see is taken in with a discerning eye. Facts are weighed against probabilities, and anything doubtful is cross-referenced against other articles.

Dates are checked, names researched, local obituaries are pored over for accuracy, and for one day, all sources of information are taken in with a critical eye, hell-bent on sussing out the truth from the trash.

All things considered, it’s a pretty wonderful day!

But then something unfortunate happens. The sun rises on the second of April, the bathroom floors are disinfected, toothpaste tubes replaced, and loved ones are given a brief check-in call with a pre-arranged excuse to hang up after a few minutes small-talk. Then, everything returns to normal. People eat their breakfast, kiss their spouses and children, go to their jobs, and then sit slack-jawed and dumb-founded at the torrents of bullshit flashing across their screens in the name of ‘news’.

‘You won’t believe what…’

‘What happened next will leave you speechless…’

‘Local mom makes $900,000,000 in one hour, when you learn how you’ll…’

‘THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!’

They sit with eyes glazed over as they work their fingers along their mouse, taking it all in, following the currents of their newsfeed like Job waiting on fairer winds. It’s all accepted, all welcome, and none of it is ever second-guessed.

It’s a sorry fact that when not actively warned by our calendars that the news just might not be as accurate as it’s purported to be, people forget the concept entirely. But rational thought is not a novelty to be toyed with once a year, only to be dusted off and returned in mint-condition to its little glass case marked ‘Open April 1st’. Rather, it is a tool to utilize daily, to ward off the perils of misinformation—deliberate or not—and exercise the full potential of our humanity. As rational creatures living in an often irrational world, the onus of critical consideration of news media is on us as consumers. It is a matter of education, of self-protection, and more importantly, of intellectual integrity.

So let us not forget, good people, that there may be but one day a year where we are free to name each other as fools, but that leaves 364 days each year where the names do not fly so readily, and we are left simply with an opportunity to prove the fact for ourselves.

-Brad OH Inc.

A Shameless Plea for Virtue

Posted on by
Reply

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green Desklamp

I work and hone and search and seek,

To find those things which I would keep,

Within my heart for times ahead,

When I make good the things I’ve said,

I’ve heard the call to love and grace,

But still I train to take my place,

For charm and fun I have my knack,

But my true calling I still lack,

Good Captain help me set my sails,

And teach where my own lessons failed,

To raise with wisdom, strength and heart,

To tend the light that now grows dark,

For what is strength and decency,

When shorn from faith and purity,

For pride and lust and greed and wrath,

All tempt me from my given path,

And when lost deep in the forest,

One path seems as good as the rest,

But still to make it right I know,

There are yet saplings that must grow,

And bring to blossom charity,

And set within me clarity,

That I may hold to what is right,

And cower not at fall of night,

So at the closing of the day,

This one and final thing I pray,

Of vices I have had my fill,

And wait with baited breath until,

Good lady take me by the hand,

And guide me to that Promised Land.

-Brad OH Inc.

On Political Participation

Posted on by
1

purelyspeculationWhat does it really mean to be politically involved? As the fortunate (if primarily happenstance) citizens of one of the most free and democratic nations on earth, some level of informed political involvement seems like a given. No argument can be made that our hard-fought right to vote is an inalienable extension of our citizenship—and one that should undoubtedly be utilized in a well-considered and informed matter.

Sadly, in a world where so much is secure, people are often far less passionate about what they have. If voting were to be taken away, there would surely be riots in the street, and a full-scale political revolution to follow as people realized the worth of the vote when faced with its absence.

Yet all too often, the simple act of voting feels like a chore. In a world so blessed, it can seem that one choice is as good as another, and there seldom exists any true fear that the rights and freedoms we don’t even know we enjoy might ever be taken away.

And so voting becomes an apathetic duty—inspired all too often by a simple knee-jerk reaction. Vote for your party, or your dad’s party, or the politician with the nicest hair, brightest smile, or genitals which match your own. At any rate, for the vast majority of people, the simple act of dropping their card into the box will suffice to add a patriotic swagger to their step as they exit the polling station and turn their feet towards the nearest fast-food outlet.

But in this time of failing systems and warring factions, it may be that simply casting a ballot every few years is not enough. The political environment these days is a much more confusing and twisted affair than most people are even capable of considering, as we have covered in depth in previous articles such as ‘The Global Scale’ (Link).

Entire political parties are bought and paid for by nefarious and self-serving Corporate interests, and politicians are willing to pull off whatever sort of unthinkable atrocities it takes to keep them in office and pleasing their financial benefactors. It’s a heinous affront to the notion of elected representation, and renders the artful marking of a ballot about as effective a tool of political expression as your common soap-box evangelist’s wailing into the wind.

So the question becomes—what does it take these days to be politically involved? Based on the quagmire of modern politics, voting simply isn’t enough. The sheep has little concern for which wolf eats it in the end, and choosing the flag of the political party which will strip away your rights and sell them to the highest bidder is far from the lofty ambitions of universal-suffrage.

Similarly, loving your country blindly is also quite a stretch from any true means of involvement. It is the sort of affection a child has for a babysitter who gives them late-night candy. Affections can be easily won and are defended passionately, even when everything about the relationship is harmful. Just ask any divorce counsellor.

So voting will not suffice, and patriotism is only turning a blind eye. This is turning out to be a bigger question than we may have anticipated. So, as always, we must do what we always do when met with a difficult question—and that is, dear readers, to ensure that we fully understand the question, and can define the its terms.

True political involvement, for the purposes and intentions of this discussion, must mean to have an active role in defining the state and outlook of your nation (or perhaps more fittingly, your society in general). It means taking an active role in creating the sort of society we want to live in, rather than simply doing what we’re told and keeping our flags clean.

If this is an acceptable definition, then perhaps we can make a bit more headway towards our answer. If we want to actively shape our society, the first step at the very least must be to fully understand how it works. It thus behooves any politically involved adult (and burgeoning adults for that matter) to learn the system. We must understand the relationship between economic and social systems, between campaign donations and party values, and between our own actions and laws. This last, more than any perhaps, may hold the crux of the issue.

All too often, the process of political involvement is sickeningly circular. If you’re too young to have watched it go round a few times, or simply too ignorant, I’ll be happy to break down the basic cycle.

  1. The active political party seems to be serving the interests of only themselves and their benefactors.
  2. A movement is started to create a positive change.
  3. The movement gains traction by outlining the specific changes they would make to fix the system. It sounds great. Some people are upset—but there lingers some small hope that things could actually turn around.
  4. The party is elected, and begin to enact their promises. However, these attempts are met with opposition, and compromises are created.
  5. The finalized results don’t seem to quite work for anyone, and everyone begins to take a different approach to meeting their needs. Most of these approaches involve finding some savvy way to con the system, cheat the neighbour, and benefit—despite those shyster politico types!—off the backs of those around them.
  6. The system changes to meet these unexpected results, while maintaining a close eye on the intentions of their sponsors as the next election cycle draws near.
  7. Finally, the citizens take a serious look around them, and realize that the active political party seems to be serving the interests of only themselves and their benefactors.

No doubt about it, the situation is dire. Still, people in the scenario above have taken active efforts to change things. This may be done through grassroots awareness campaigns, in-depth political discourse (an approach facilitated greatly by our access to the internet), selective consumption (don’t like a product, don’t buy it) and many other means of political involvement which lie somewhat outside the standard ‘mark a ballot and drop it in’ mindset.

Yet despite this, things seem to fall apart. Now…why might this be? To the savvy reader (the majority here, I trust) the answer may be obvious indeed. The missing element in the cycle described above is common decency, or personal accountability. The world may never be entirely perfect for everyone—this is a certainty—but even more certain is the fact that no law, or set of laws, can ever be written so soundly as to create positive change in spite of being enacted on a mass of liars, cheats, and cowards. No growth can happen if the citizenry harbour suspicions of their government, and feel thus justified to act in the same manner.

One of the greatest dints in our system at present are large scale Corporations cheating taxes—taking money out of social systems and leaving the public as a whole far poorer for the benefit of a small and select few.

It’s brutality—a gang of thieves running roughshod over the very fabric of society. Nothing can justify such selfishness and deceit—but it can be fought. For it is lies that breed lies, and fear which begets fear.

This isn’t a new idea by any stretch. In fact, we’ve covered this same notion in our somewhat more humorous article ‘In Defense of the Villain’ (Link). Here, we explained how the assumption that everyone else was out to hurt you (and in this discussion certainly, the government itself is the chief example) creates a sense of diffused responsibility. If you cannot trust your neighbor to be honest after all, there is little sense in being honest yourself.

But decency is not a zero-sum game, and if there is still honesty and courage in the world, then so too is there hope. Simply put, if everyone could show even the most basic commitment to living their own lives with righteousness and integrity, there would scarcely be any need for laws at all.

Now certainly, this is a high-minded, starry-eyed sort of claim. Any hair-brained child could tell you that being good makes good things happen, but what most adults forget is that the wisdom of a child is often the truest.

It has been claimed that for a political movement to succeed, it needs only 3.5% of the population supporting it (Source). If that’s true, it stands to reason that if only a small group of people committed themselves to the precepts of right-action and honesty, the world really could change for the better. Should this fall on one political party or another? Should it fall on a specific religious creed, or cultural identity? No. No, no, no, you damnable fool. It should fall on you alone.

In the end, the truest means of political participation is to be the best person you possibly can—and to call out any lack of decency or integrity with a furious and justified rage. Never forget it: We are better, we are capable of more—and we need to start acting like it.

-Brad OH Inc.

On Laughing Too Much

Posted on by
1

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green Desklamp

I’ve often been accused of laughing too much. It’s a charge I can scarcely deny. No matter what situation I find myself in, laughter tends to be my most ubiquitous means of communication. Sometimes, it may even be my own jokes I’m laughing at, which I’ve been told is especially distasteful. I’ve always argued that it’s just a matter of having good taste in comedy, but I’m not sure that’s really it.

The fact is, laughter is my favourite thing to do with pretty much anyone. To be fair, I may often claim that my favourite activity is drinking with good friends, or more simply enjoying a lively conversation, but the real crux of it is the laughter. Many of my closest friends and I will often exchange very few full words in the course of a long shared laugh. That’s bliss to me, that’s a connection, and I believe that it’s worth celebrating.

Sure, it can be construed as insincere. When the length of a conversation is marked by incessant joking and laughter—or sarcasm, most dreaded of deceptions—there are many who consider this to be a lack of honesty. ‘Why can’t you ever be serious,’ may come the cry from a pleading compatriot who feels that anything honest must be a solemn and stoic exchange.

But what could possibly be more honest than laughter?

You see, when a good joke lands, and your eyes meet to recognize the subtle meanings as they light up with laughter, there is a fulfilling moment of meta-communication similar to emotional intimacies like love. It’s a shortcut to bonding—an innate reliance on subtle body language to confirm even subtler understandings. More often than not, these understandings rely on past experiences and shared double meanings understood only by those involved. It’s a secret—and the laughter which arises from it is the sweetest of payoffs.

It’s communication and connection in its purest form!

Whenever people share a hearty laugh, their eyes open up to show a brief yet transcendent glimpse into the soul. This is a large part of why I always try to find the humour in everything; that, and the fact that life is just funnier that way.

Ultimately, I expect it’s a flaw I will always maintain—if it is a flaw indeed. To the chagrin of many, I will continue to laugh my way through conversations ranging from the frivolous to the solemn. I will hunt down the double meanings, call back to the shared experiences, and twist words in wonderful and weird ways—in constant pursuit of that glorious moment when the lips crack apart and the eyes shine like stars—confirming that some understanding beyond mere words has occurred, and that two minds have been momentarily linked in the thrill of this shared knowledge.

So I confess it, I am not likely to ever ‘grow up’ as so many call it. I will grow old, but if I have it my way, I’ll laugh right to the grave. A morbidly humorous epitaph would be ideal now that I think about it—preferably heavy on alliteration and innuendo.

Some may never understand this odd compulsion, but for that I offer no apologies. For those that find laughter an inherent roadblock to clear communication, I offer my condolences. For myself, I can only pray to someday be 100 years old, sitting in a wheel chair, hopefully next to a little old lady—laughing boisterously to ourselves. They’ll probably call us crazy. But who would I be to argue?

-Brad OH Inc.

The Bushido of Bogney

Posted on by
7

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green DesklampBushido: (武士道) literally meaning “the way of the warrior”, is a Japanese word for the way of the samurai life, loosely analogous to the concept of chivalry in Europe. (Source)

Bogney: A tiny dog, wise for his years.

BogsToday, we combine the old and the new for a fresh new perspective on life through the eyes of our classy canine friend. This is the daily living of a small dog. This is the extrapolated wisdom of the ages…This is the Bushido of Bogney.

Lesson #1:

In seeking to train Bogney to do his tricks, he will often show less and less attention to details as the acts are repeated over many weeks. If I do not pay heed to this, his tricks will grow sloppy, and he will do the bare minimum version of his tricks so that he may get his treat. If, however, I draw the line and deny him his treat for such a lazy attempt, the next time he tries his tricks he will perform them flawlessly. This teaches us about the importance of having high expectations, and how to strive tirelessly towards perfecting a craft.

Lesson #2:

Walking Bogney on his leash, two dogs came running at us from behind a bush. Bogney panicked, and looking to me for help, began to run away from the dogs—in circles around me. He thought that to put me between him and his assailants would be safest, yet by wrapping my legs he made me less able to help him. If he’d only surrendered to my protection, he would have been far better off. We can learn much about faith and trust from this observation.

Lesson #3:

When Bogney is around people, he behaves with directness, confidence, and with complete comfort in himself. His tiny brain may recognize there are some differences between us and him, but with no other option he feels a part of all things. When other dogs approach, the illusion is shattered, and seeing the reality of his separateness, he panics. Many people feel this same panic when others interrupt their inner reflections. Within our own minds, there is a great division between the real world and our perceptions. This is easily broken.

After imparting these gems of knowledge, we regret to inform our readers that Bogney became distracted by a sunbeam, and promptly fell asleep in it, effectively ending our insights into life and time. However he is a tenacious little dog, and we can be certain that following a quick nap and inglorious plea for a treat, he will soon be back to share more timeless wisdom with us.

-Brad OH Inc.

What is Democratic Socialism?

Posted on by
1

purelyspeculationBernie Sanders has been making a lot of headlines lately. With his recent surge of popularity in both the Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic Primaries, Sander’s unique vision for the future of America seems to have struck alight in the tinder of the American youth.

Unique to Sander’s campaign is a fresh dedication to revitalizing the American political and economic structures alike. While other candidates from the DNC and RNC offer the same tired promises and non-committal platitudes that have been reiterated for decades uncounted, Sander’s is addressing issues relevant to the people: poverty, equality, fair electoral changes, equality and justice. Not only doe he hit these hot-button issues, but he does so in a way few other candidates have dared to do in the past—and none so brazenly.

Bernie Sanders is not playing by the rules. Rather, he is attempting to rewrite them. Bernie’s campaign promises a political revolution that will return the American democracy to its rightful owners—the citizenry of the country—from the hands of the wealthy corporations which currently hold it enthralled.

Most disconcertingly however, is that Sander’s promises all of this change under the banner of what he boldly calls ‘Democratic Socialism’ (Link). That’s where the alarms are set off for a great majority of the voting public.

A seemingly oxymoronic term, ‘Democratic Socialism’ inspires both the comfort and equity of our beloved democratic system, while adding a twist of the dreaded red-scare socialism so reviled in the western world. How can these two seemingly opposite systems be reconciled? How can a candidate in a democratic race so brazenly call themselves a socialist and harbour any chance of receiving the favour of voters?

More to the point…just what is ‘Democratic Socialism’?

To understand this question, we must first distinguish between the two faces of government: Political and Economic. As covered in our article ‘Saving the World 101’ (Link), the Political system is meant to address systems of voting and voter representation—essentially it is the process by which elected representatives are meant to conduct the will of the people. In contrast, the Economic system governs the exchange of wealth, property, resources, etc.

The current condition of the government is what could loosely be described as a ‘Democratic Capitalism’. The implication here should be clear enough. There is a Democratic system for politics, and a Capitalist system for economics. With ‘Democratic Socialism’, the political system would remain a Democratic one, while the political system would be shifted towards a more Socialist focus.

As a point of clarification, this primarily differs from the typically more palatable ‘Social-Democracy’ because Democratic Socialism is more actively committed to the systemic transformation of the economy (Link).

This isn’t an entirely new concept in America. In fact, Sanders himself references the laudable FDR as a pioneer Democratic Socialist due to his economic reforms. Nor are socialist institutions a particularly foreign notion, despite the ingrained fear of the word still harboured by many as a relic of the Cold War. Defense spending, highways, public libraries, Police, Fire Departments, postal services, infrastructure, healthcare, farm subsidies, public schools, social security and more are all socialist institutions. True, they do not cart you off to internment camps after taking all you’ve ever earned—but that, despite the rhetoric, isn’t really what socialism is about.

As established in our article ‘On Bernie Sanders and Changing Economic Systems’ (Link), the focus of socialist institutions is the betterment of society. This stands in stark contrast to the focus of capitalism, which—as the name surely implies—is relegated strictly to the creation of capital. This means private wealth.

Social programs use the productivity of society to keep that society going in a way that is accessible and fair to everyone involved. And why not? After all, society is the product of history—and the bounty of society cannot ever be tied solely to its current operators, but rather to the cumulative work of generations of people. For more on this key distinction, see our article ‘On the Concept of Society’ (Link).

Here we can see that the main driving force of Democratic Socialism is a transition in the motives of the economic system. This shift will take it from a self-motivated and arguably rigged system—in which the rich get richer and the poor get squat—to a system which works for the betterment of society as a whole. A socialist economy would actively promote education, access to services, fair minimum wages, and far more. The intended result would be that every member of the citizenry would truly have an equal opportunity to contribute and thrive. By improving wages, education, healthcare and more, no longer would such a large subsection of society be left to the despair of sickness and poverty as the established powers use their political influence to buy votes and change laws to fit their needs alone.

These are the changes to the economic system. A shift from a focus on capital to a focus on society. As for the political system, this would remain largely the same—at least on paper. While the democratic element remains the driving political focus of Democratic Socialism, the economic changes—most specifically the removal of Corporate money from politics—would render the democratic system far more responsive the needs to the citizenry en masse, thus vastly improving the intended function of the political sphere.

This, I believe, offers us a more clear view on what exactly is meant by the occasionally scary-sounding brand of revolution that Sander’s offers. Democratic Socialism is not a surreptitious villain come to rob you of your earnings in the dead of night, but rather a series of reforms protecting your God-given right to participate equally in, and benefit equally from, the society of which you are a part.

To wrap up, let us examine Senator Sander’s own definition of Democratic Socialism:

“So let me define for you, simply and straightforwardly, what democratic socialism means to me,” Sanders told the auditorium full of students, who’d spent hours waiting in the rain to see the presidential hopeful speak. “It means what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when he fought for guaranteed economic rights for all Americans. And it builds on what Martin Luther King, Jr. said in 1968 when he stated that ‘this country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.’

“My view of democratic socialism builds on the success of many other countries around the world that have done a far better job than we have in protecting the needs of their working families, their elderly citizens, the children, the sick and the poor. Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system that is corrupt, that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.” (Source).

Finally, we can see clearly that despite the dread reserved for anything with a Socialist focus, the revolution of Democratic Socialism is one rooted firmly in the interests of the citizens—not corporate interests or the desires of the Super PACS which have for too long held the politics of the nation in thrall. Democratic Socialism is an attempt to return the freedom and privilege of a free society to the people to whom it rightfully belongs.

It is up to those people, if they so choose, to ensure this opportunity for deliverance comes to pass. A word of warning from your friends at Brad OH Inc.*—you may not get another chance at this.

-Brad OH Inc.

*This in no way reflects the official Corporate interests of Brad OH Inc. We happily encourage one and all to sit at home on Election Day and assume the best results will happen without you. Place your faith in the system—and reserve none for yourself.

On Commitment

Posted on by
Reply

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green Desklamp

‘Commitment’ can be a pretty heavy word. To ‘Commit’ means to give in trust or charge, or to pledge oneself (Source). If we consider some of the most common uses of the phrase however, we see that all too often, it bears some life-altering implications. People may commit a crime, or they may commit suicide. They may attempt to commit suicide, and then be committed to the hospital. We might commit to one another, and then we might break that commitment by committing adultery.

Of course, we also commit sin, as duly evidenced in plenty of the examples above.

The connotations of the word are often pretty negative, and all harbour the element of causing a permanent change in the life of those doing the committing (or having it done to them).

Of course, of all the different uses of ‘commit’, perhaps the most dreaded is the interpersonal commitment of loving relationships. Many a man will balk for as long as possible when the notion of serious commitment comes up. So will plenty of women. Evidently, committing to another person holds a special place among the most terrifying committals imaginable.

Understandably so…just as our previous examples illustrate that the act of committing can have life altering implications on a person’s identity or character, so too can the commitment of a relationship—for good or for ill. In this case especially, to commit is an act of faith: not only in ourselves and the permanency of our intentions, but-all the more terrifying to many—in the consistency of our beloved other.

It’s a gamble of sorts—a bid for potential value at the cost of immediate sacrifice or compromise. No doubt, the payoff can be far greater than the cost, but it remains an uncertainty, and hence presents a terrifying loss if the gamble does not work out.

Committing to another person is an act of giving with no guarantee of receiving. Indeed, the committer may end up bereft of pay-off, exposed and humiliated by their misplaced faith, and left to crawl back jaded and bitter to lick their wounds in dismal solitude.

For a time, they may commit only to themselves. But this isn’t such a bad thing either. All the forms of commitment we’ve discussed require some element of change—whether permanent and uncompromising, or merely a change in our priorities, values, or beliefs. Sometimes, it is merely the change from safety and comfort to risk and chance. But then, this is the case with all things worthwhile in this world. Sure, commitment in all its forms entails change and risk, but we must remember that the only thing worse than changing is the alternative.

The final form of commitment is commitment to self—and this is perhaps the most undervalued of them all. It may take the most sacrifice, and force one to endure the greatest amount of suffering—be that from working physically to change one’s lifestyle or environment, or simply from facing with an honest eye the unpleasant realities of one’s life, and committing to changing them one at a time.

Commitment to self can range from changing your lifestyle or diet in a healthy way, working to further your career, changing your circle of friends, or any other means of improving yourself: physically, mentally, or spiritually. It’s such a broad topic, you can find countless blogs on this very subject, such as that of our good friends over at the venerable ‘Fitness: Fact and Fiction’ (Link).

When it comes to commitment of any sort, more often than not, it’s simply easier not to bother. There is great safety in security after all, and to remain stagnant assures that no greater harm may come. When a child is lost, they’re typically taught to stay where they are—for if they wander about looking for rescue, they are apt to find themselves even more lost. But this isn’t about children, and true commitment requires a more mature mind than all that. There come times in all lives that a person will feel lost, and it may seem that all around them is nothing but open ocean and despair. Each way presents the risk of drifting further from the invisible shore. But if one does not commit to some course or the other, they will remain trapped in the doldrums of inadequacy and isolation. To commit to ourselves, or to another, is to seek the change we need. Damn the risks, damn the sacrifice! In the end, life is change, and it behooves us all to plot our course with confidence and hold true onto the rudder. There are a million ways to go, and countless treasures to be found. First though, one must take their leap of faith, set their eyes bravely on the horizon, and commit themselves to reaching it.

-Brad OH Inc.

Everything is Everything

Posted on by
Reply

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green Desklamp

Yeah, it’s a Bruce Springsteen lyric (Link), but that’s not what this article is about. Well, I guess if ‘everything is everything’, then it must perforce be at least partially about that, but really, now you’re just being pedantic, and should be ashamed of yourself for such childish behaviour. Still, it’s a line you hear often enough—usually eliciting a stoic nod or an enlightened shrug, and little true thought is every really put into it. So, what do we mean when we say ‘everything is everything’? Well, just that in a way, yet not quite….

Certainly, everything is connected. From societal values, to child-rearing theories, to tax levels, to individual self-esteem, to war, to faith…one thing affects another in an unending and unwieldly domino effect. With clear vision and an open mind, it is all but impossible not to see the interconnected nature of all things. We’re not trying to go full ‘Butterfly Effect’ here, because we all know that butterflies affect nothing but children, but it must certainly be acknowledged that to have a serious and insightful discussion about any one topic, we must necessarily call upon and consider infinitesimal other issues.

Let’s start with an example. A popular issue these days is gun control. The argument in its shortest form is whether allowing easy access to guns creates a safer or a less safe society. Proponents of easy access to firearms, when not ranting about the constitution, focus on the old adage that ‘if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns.’ Well, that’s a tautological truth to be sure, but does it get to the heart of the issue?

Opponents of easy firearm access take a different route—claiming rather that by increasing access to guns, we allow for a more violent and reactive culture. That, combined with the ease of access, leads to greater gun violence.

Both sides have some relevant points, but to focus on the limited standards of these political movements alone is to miss the nuance and depth of the issue—and this is the case with most anything that is debated towards a specific, pragmatic end while lacking due reverence to the holistic ‘big picture’.

This article is not about gun-control per say, but rather the ways which we currently discuss the hot-button issues of our times. By keeping on the blinders and considering major topics within the narrow confines currently prescribed to them, it is easy to entirely miss how our decisions affect the world around us—and conversely—how they are affected by the very same.

In our recent article ‘The Key to Improving Our Collective Future’ (Link), we discussed why we consider education to be among the key factors in improving the world for all its sorry inhabitants. This notion remains a prescient topic in our current considerations. We’ve now established how everything is affected by everything else, but perhaps the single most impactful factor of any era is the reigning attitude of its people.

Humanity is a malleable lot—able to adapt not only physically over the long term, but also mentally, emotionally, and intellectually in the much shorter term. This is why our decisions must be more universally informed. From education, to taxes, poverty, war, governance, media and more—it is all connected, all around the world. The way we fashion our society is the way we raise our people. So what do we want humanity to be in the long run, and what is sustainable for us? Greed and envy and violence? Likely not, but this is what our present society breeds.

To have a culture predicated on the pervasive tenets of fear and greed, and then act appalled when its citizens turn feral and succumb to vice is disingenuous. People are the product of their environments, and we must arrange for a society which fosters the sort of people and values we claim to hold dear. Everything is everything, after all, and it’s imperative we take this idea wholly to heart.

It is a broad picture to consider, and certainly no easy solution will present itself. It is therefore beholden upon us to engage in open dialogue—and not just among our own familiar peer-groups. We must consider the worldwide implications of our values, and reflect honestly on how the standards we set, and the systems we create, work to shape the masses of humanity around us. It is, like it or not, entirely on us to make these decisions, for fate is an unreliable guide, and apathy the surest source of misdirection.

The considerations are vast, but not insurmountable if our will is harnessed in common cause. From improving our economic and fiscal balance (Link), to fully accounting for the vast potential of our nature (Link), we must give due consideration to what sort of culture we truly want to be, and then explore the most effective holistic steps to achieving it.

For in the end, the goal of a society must be finding and realizing the best way to raise the human animal in its masses. How we are raised is what we become, after all. What must humans be to thrive and to live in harmony with the planet? It’s a lot to weigh, but tell me what sort of people you wish to be surrounded by, and I will tell you what sort of world we must devise.

-Brad OH Inc.

On Bernie Sanders and Changing Economic Systems

Posted on by
4

purelyspeculation

These days, ‘Socialism’ is a word bandied about like a knife in the dark. Even as society yearns for sustainable solutions to its present malaise, the red dread of Socialism lingers from years long past, and hearts are turned away from any consideration that is not entirely beholden to the dominant theory of Capitalism.

Capitalism alone has long been held as the only acceptable means of governing fiscal policy. With its general ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality, it has often proven over the years to stimulate the growth of businesses big and small, acting for the benefit of all consumers.

But it must also be noted that Capitalism is strictly a consideration of economic affairs. More specifically, it is not concerned with managing social affairs. Rather, it is (as the name implies) concerned strictly with the managing of Capital. This system made perfect sense when there was so much building and work to be done that there was enough work for all—work and be paid, take part!

But such is no longer strictly the case. In a world of ever increasing automation of labour, combined with scarcities of non-renewable resources, the system of Capitalism works only to strangle out the ‘excess’ in humanity, not to foster anything new. This is why it behooves us to consider changing to a system which more accurately reflects our present situation.

It’s not an easy thing to consider however. As discussed in our article ‘The Constitution is America’s Bible’ (Link), society harbours a terrible reticence to ever change what has worked for it in the past—even if it clearly no longer functions as intended. In a world where more and more people are falling below the poverty line—where infrastructure is failing, and where the rich take an ever growing portion of domestic product, it may well be that the aims of Capitalism are as outdated and ineffectual as many of the clauses in the constitution itself.

As established, the domain of Capitalism is relegated to Capital alone—money, and the making thereof. But when the woes of the world are increasingly tied to the misappropriation of wealth—a policy fully enabled by Capitalism in its present form—it shouldn’t be such a stretch to see the inherent value in the notion of Socialism, which places its value rather on society and social balance. That is, of course, if you can take off your red-tinted glasses long enough to consider our need.

True, Communism doesn’t make sense in a system with countless jobs, but nobody motivated to do them. Conversely, Capitalism once made sense in a system where jobs needed to be created for the expansion of a nation. There were bridges and roads to build, cities to design, etc. So it made sense that the opportunities should be open to all, and that the hardest working and most innovative and industrious should be justly rewarded. This was a situation of natural opportunity and abounding incentive.

Now, with populations swelling worldwide and the increase of technology reducing available jobs, this system simply no longer seems quite so pragmatic. Our society must be retooled to allow for anyone working a job—be it CEO of a Corporation or shoveling snow off the streets—to be provided for sufficiently to raise a family with another stay-at-home partner. This would allow for true growth in society: smarter, healthier, better behaved children, less crime, better/ happier citizens, and far greater hope for the future than the current approach of shovelling all of societies spoils into the coffers of the elites—as set up through the dated Capitalist system—and allowing the rest to starve or rot.

If Capitalism, and the assumptions it entails, no longer fit, then there is a clear and pressing need for a radical paradigm shift not only in politics, but in our fundamental assumptions about society in a global world. This notion has already been discussed in some detail in our article, ‘On Saving the World 101’ (Link).

But this is not a new idea by any stretch, and an attentive viewer can already see the desire for change growing in the disenfranchised masses the world over. At the head of this charge is one man who stands out from all other politicians…the justifiably lauded Bernie Sanders (Link).

Risking the wrath of the socially-entrenched, Bernie pulls no punches…openly labelling himself a ‘Democratic Socialist’—a term which to many seems a contradiction at best, and often something more akin to a full on assault of social-normative values.

But Bernie sets himself apart from so many others wailing atop their soapboxes about change and hope (this writer notwithstanding). First of all, among politicians he is a rarity by the sole virtue of his sterling voting record (Link), which shows a long history of voting in favour of his constituents on issues ranging from access to Healthcare, to promoting peaceful resolutions of conflict, to increasing social supports for society’s most disadvantaged. Further still, Bernie raises his money from the independent contributions of actual voters—taking little to no money from banks, lobbyists, ‘think-tanks’, or others of their ilk.

On top of this, Bernie’s platform (Link) reveals the truth of his definition of ‘Democratic Socialism’. The focus here is on improving access to resources for all, on creating greater equity in our world, and preventing the powerful from emptying the pockets of society through market manipulation and lobbying for changes which benefit only themselves. Bernie seeks to put an end to the bastardized system which Capitalism has slowly morphed into, and design instead a system which represents the current needs of our waning culture.

Everyone talks about change and hope—such words are little more than devalued political currency to be cast about to the naive masses in exchange for votes. But among all of the traits which make Bernie an exemplar among political figures is not only the evidence of his true character, but his unyielding belief that the world can truly be a better place if we only work together.

Still, no measure of earnest intention can quell the fears so closely associated with Socialism, and more specifically, Communism. The media is quick to paint Bernie as a devilish red commie—determined to strip us of all we own and hold dear. He’ll take our money, take our Gods, and take our self-worth, spreading it all so thin as to somehow leave everyone worse off than they started. It’s a twisted view of his platform (and math) to be sure, and even a cursory consideration of facts would reveal the falsity of these fears (Link). In fact, Bernie’s ideas are not wholly unique, and many countries in the world have already found great reprieve by turning their own values away from Capital, and towards Society.

But we would be remiss to ignore the entirely justified fear of Socialism. Collectivist paradigms in the past have certainly proven to be a dangerous precipice to cross over. But no matter the danger of the journey, when we are pressed by dire need, more dangerous still is the risk of inaction.

The most common attack on Communism is that if a comfortable life is provided for all citizens, then no one would ever be motivated to do anything. This is a fallacy. People are naturally, biologically driven to produce and achieve. To provide not just for their children, but for their community. This is an evolutionary trait, which is not switched off based on societal circumstances.

The drive is natural and insatiable, like our biological drive towards sugars and fats which are now counterproductive yet ongoing even in this unnatural environment. If the basics of life were assured, and none were prevented from contributing according to their talents and proclivities, the benefit would surely be to society and civilization as a whole. Arts and the humanities would flourish, and the human spirit, unbounded to the threats of poverty and death, would finally be able to realize its highest potential.

To clarify, what I am talking about here—and what Bernie proposes—is far from the Communism of old. Money would still be earned, and not all wages would be entirely equal. Jobs would not be done away with entirely, but rather revalued regarding their need and impact. Rather than a CEO seeing unlimited riches from selling an increasingly insufficient and potentially hazardous product (such as evidenced in the fast food or tobacco industries), we would find a wealth of jobs created in areas of healthcare, infrastructure, education, arts and myriad other opportunities to better society.

There is, even now, no shortage of work to be done or of people willing to do it. What exists instead is a devaluation of any work which does not benefit a table of shareholders—no matter what the social impact of their product is. This is because current priorities for labour are not aimed at satisfying the needs of the many, but rather the pocketbooks of the few.

This is modern Capitalism—and that is precisely what needs to change. It is a shift in values, not in ambition. For despite the tired times we find ourselves in, we must hold to the promise of morning, when light shall come again and illuminate a world better than any we have before imagined.

With all the present hype and cynical gusto around the reality TV show called ‘politics’—Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who rises above the din. He has passion, honesty…and most importantly, an actual plan for saving the world. While candidates such as the infernal Donald Trump bellow hollow promises about making America great again to boisterous applause, Bernie alone offers the actual tools to do so. And if we were smart, we would take them happily, and work with his momentum to achieve what we must all surely hold to be our ultimate goal—the betterment of society, of culture and of our shared lives on this Earth.

-Brad OH Inc.