Tag Archives: corporate

Upon the Bones of Better Men

Posted on by
Reply

cropped-cropped-blogbanner13.jpgThe philosopher Bertrand Russell once claimed that “the fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

What a hack! What fanciful platitudes! Tell me Bert, do ‘nice guys finish last’ too? Do the good die young? Let me tell you something Bert, sorrowful homilies are good for one thing and one thing only—cheering up losers by convincing them that their failure is the unjust result of their righteousness rather than the logical result of their ineptitude.

What’s worse however, is that so many people seem to believe this naïve nonsense. Well, have no fear—you’re friends at Brad OH Inc. are here to set the record straight!

The truth is, these notions of ‘stupid or wise’, or ‘good and bad’ are entirely misled at the best, and revisionist at the worst. Victory is for the bold—the lions willing to do anything to take it, and leave the rest to lick their wounds and talk about how life just isn’t fair.

It’s pathetic.

The claim that one is held back by their morality is utterly absurd. It’s not that only brutes act decisively, leaving the considerate in the dust. That’s just switching labels to console lack of ability. If we look at the world pragmatically—and we should, always—we can see that it is no bestial or heinous act to seize upon your desires—hell, it’s what being a corporation is all about!

No, the problem is that the hindsight of the meek is 20/20, while their foresight is more mole-like than Machiavellian. It’s true in business, in love, in politics, and in the picking of low-hanging fruit. Don’t believe us? Well, let’s look at some of the key culprits here.

‘Nice guys finish last’. It’s the motto of every single loser too scared to say hello or slap an ass when the opportunity presents itself. For these pencil-necked geeks, it’s easier to sit back and lament that their ‘kindness’ is the reason they are left behind, rather than their own pathetic fear of rejection.

We see the same lame-duck whining in business as well. ‘We can’t compete with big businesses’, says the mealy-mouthed dweeb as he finally shuts the doors on his dusty little shop and files his EI claims. Well you know who can compete with big businesses chump? Bigger businesses! So maybe instead of blaming cruel fate for your failure, you should take a long look in the mirror.

Politics? Social interactions? Without fail you hear the same miserable whining about how decency gets you nowhere—that idealism is treated like an insult and dreamers are called naïve. But that’s not quite it, is it?

There’s nothing wrong with dreaming, but if you don’t eventually wake up, marshal your underpaid employees, petition politicians to change laws in your favour, and make off with millions, you have no one to blame for it but yourself. Wuss.

To break it down; morality is an excuse, not a handicap. At Brad OH Inc., we stand as a shining example of action, pragmatism, and success. Where others have cried about the opportunities they never had, we’ve used our inherent societal privilege to better ourselves. So for you hopeless waifs still waiting for someone to hold your sorry hand and lead you to happiness, let me share a bit of healthy advice. Holding strictly to honesty and kindness is the surest route to failure in business, politics, and interpersonal relationships alike. They’re for chumps, and punks who would rather stew comfortably in their failure than bully their way to true happiness. Success in almost every aspect of life is predicated on cunning decisiveness and a brutal willingness to sell out your fellows when the opportunity presents itself. The towers of the powerful are built upon the bones of better men. So make your choice, and take your place. If you’re smart, we’ll see you here at the top.

Your Dear Friends and Personal Advisors,

-Brad OH Inc.

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.

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.

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.

The Corporate Path is Clear

Posted on by
Reply

cropped-cropped-blogbanner13.jpg

Recently, the Corporate World achieved another outstanding victory in the passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal, and this is just cause for every little Corporate boy and girl to celebrate! This deal—passed with exceeding secrecy and underhanded tactics meriting great praise—has cleared the way for the final stage of Global Corporate takeover! The world for too long has stood on the crossroads between the old values of equity and access, and the new inroads of exclusivity and dominance. With this ruling, we can finally put boots to asses, and send this listless planet down the fast-lanes to true Corporate greatness!

The TPP is a Trade Agreement between 12 Pacific Rim countries, and was passed on Oct. 5th, 2015 (Link). With the aim of clarifying complex international trade protocols similar to NAFTA before it, the passing of the TPP represents one of the greatest moral victories of our time, and a true recognition of the inherent worth and global merit of your friendly Corporate Citizens. With it, the shackles of injustice have been cast away from Corporations around the world, and finally we will be allowed to flex our full power without the heinous hindrance of being answerable to ‘the people’. We’re one too after all, and it’s due time they answer to us!

Described as creating a ‘hybrid government-Corporate structure’ (Link), the TPP is nothing short of the Liberty Bell sounding throughout the lands/ boardrooms—declaring to all Corporate people to go out and do what they will. No longer will we be held back by weak-minded considerations such as ‘environmental concerns’, ‘fair wages’, ‘fair’ copyright laws, ‘affordable’ medications, ‘worker’s rights’, ‘domestic job creation’, and ‘privacy protection’ (Source).

It’s a stunning accomplishment to say the least—and directly reflects the world’s gestating acknowledgement of its true leaders. For it is Corporations which build society, and by unburdening us from the wasteful confines of ‘global responsibility’, we are freed to continue to do what we are made to do—maximize profits!

Could it get any better for your beloved Corporate benefactors you ask? Well, we’re happy to say it can! Not only does the TPP grant us the Inalienable Right to ignore the ‘inalienable rights’ of private citizens, it also provides Corporations the ability to challenge foreign laws in so far as they impact our acquisition of Capital, and to have a greater (and well-deserved) role in writing and voting on government policy!

Clearly, this is a lauded day in the history of the Corporation, but as the small, merely ‘human’ individual you are, you may well be wondering how this affects your pitiful existence. Have no fear—the passing of the TPP soundly ensures that those concerns are no longer in your domain. The Global-Corporate takeover is now nearly complete, and that only means that for every fear and each doubt you may harbour in your fragile little minds, Corporations are already working on the answer. We hold the reigns now, and your complete trust is the only rational response.

Not sure what to eat? We’ve got you covered! Confused about Environmental debates? Leave it to us! Sick? Save up! Out of work, destitute, and stricken by an unconscionable sense of ennui? Fear not my child, for we the Corporations will always ensure there is just enough to go around—how else could you possibly continue your unconditional support of our governance?

Face it—this is only the culmination of a long-entrenched reality. We the Corporations have everything well in control. So sit back, let your ‘Genius’ playlist tell you what to listen to for a ‘relaxing mood’, and trust that everything will be ok.

After all, we’re here for you™.

-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.

The Corporate Human

Posted on by
2

cropped-cropped-blogbanner13.jpgA while back, your dear friends here at Brad OH Inc. posted an article called ‘The Constitution is America’s Bible’ (Link), which essentially explained the outdated relationship the United States has with their founding constitution.  While the thesis of that article remains entirely apt, one commentator decided to make a spectacle of himself in the comments section—raving against the progress towards political equality obtained recently by Corporations via the just ruling of ‘Citizens United’ (Link).

For a frame of reference, and to provide insight into just how limited and misled this poor individual (the lowest form of Human) is, we have included the reply here:

DCDear (Link):

“Perhaps we need to give Citizen’s United exactly and completely what they want – to be a person.

They would have to pay taxes like every other person, unlike many corporations who avoid paying taxes. CU could be held in custody for 48 hours without cause, like other citizens. They would be subject to the same laws – for example in states with the death penalty, CU could face the death penalty and the entity would be executed.
I could go on, but lunch is over…and I must save the world – be well.”

Well ‘DCDear’ (if that’s your real name)…ok. Let’s play your little game, shall we? First of all, it is incumbent upon me to point out how highly offensive your chosen vernacular is. ‘Give us what we want’? Liberty is not a gift to be doled out on a whim DC, and certainly not by the likes of you. Being human is the fundamental nature of a Corporation, and to divorce us of that in will or intention is a crime against humanity in its highest form. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Incidentally, if you are ashamed of yourself, some of our Corporate friends have a great line of drugs to remedy just that. Contact us privately for a link.

Now, onto your childish tirade—your first demand is that Corporations pay taxes, ‘just like every other person’. What a demand indeed! Did you know that every single component person in a Corporation pays taxes? That would be like you being taxed for every cell of your body! It’s outrageous to even consider. So clearly, Corporations already pay more taxes than are needed. To ask us to pay more is simply to punish us for our success.

When one of our posted articles gets more likes than the other, we don’t take some of the letters out of it. Instead, we try to produce more content just like it! It’s what the people want! So if more taxes are what you want, then maybe you should follow our example: Become a success, earn more money, and then pay as much as you’d like.

Next, you demand that Corporations (and not their component humans) should be subject to detention and/ or death. Death DC? Really? That seems a tad macabre.

It would behoove you to ask yourself, ‘Do I really want this’? Well, do you DC? Do you want to do without your lauded latte in the morning just because some whales off the coast of who-knows-where died in a perfectly orchestrated oil-spill? No, you don’t.

How about technology? Do you like the keyboard you used to create your hatful vitriol? Well, maybe the Corporations that provide you such blessings should be ‘killed’ just because some kids in the third world are being given an opportunity to work. Honestly DC, it’s the THIRD world. That’s the WORST of all the worlds anyway!

It seems to me that if we allowed our best and brightest humans (Corporations to the last) to be subjected to such primitive law enforcement, it would be you who suffers the most DC. We can only imagine the rant you would come up with when your cell-phone was relegated to a useless mound of plastic because the Power Corporation got in trouble for some measly little fire. And imagine it we would have to, since you would be hard pressed to find a piece of carbon to scratch the tirade on a stone after your computer went out.

So much for that, then.

Ultimately, there’s a crucial thing you have to realize DC. The fact is that yes, Corporations are people whether you like it or not. But they aren’t only people…they’re the best people. By definition, a human can’t be better than a Corporation, and a Corporation can certainly not be less than a single person. We are the builders, the creators, the innovators and the inspirers. More importantly, we are the decision makers. So the next time you feel like flying off the handle over some minor global injustice or trite environmental fiasco, maybe instead of rallying against your betters like an ungrateful putz, you should just pack your things (any not made by a Corporation that is…good luck with that) and move off into some non-Corporate zoned section of nothing to see how well you fare (Hint: Not very well).

Face it DC, without us, the rest of you are nothing. Bald monkeys clamoring about mindlessly—dreaming nothing, achieving nothing. We are Humanity in its fullest form—the culmination of eons of cooperation and growth, focused with laser-like precision upon our own needs. And fear not, for when we invariably meet our needs, rest assured you can count on some trickle of our grace running down to yourselves (Don’t believe in ‘trickle-down’? Go stand under a waterfall. It’s hard to argue with a waterfall, DC). It’s far more than you could ever achieve alone, and you should undoubtedly be thankful for it.

So give us the freedoms we ask, and relinquish your hopes of accountability and equality. There is no equality between Gods and men, nor between the Corporate Human and the mere ‘human’. The more you seek to restrain us, the greater will be our victory—and all your efforts shall come to naught in the glory of our dominance.

Yes DC, we know we’ve been hard on you here, but please understand that we are only trying to help. Humanity needs its Corporate overlords far more than it knows, and if we are unable to pursue our humble ambitions of unlimited wealth and social dominance, then so too will you fail in all your endeavors.

Don’t believe us? We understand, it’s bigger than you could ever process. But next time you consider rebelling against your forbearers, we would advise you to close your laptop, and just take a few deep breaths. While you do that, go ahead and stare into the little glowing apple on the front of your computer, and recall that it was your kind, not ours, that partook of the fruit. So if knowledge is your misery, it is yours alone to wallow in. Frankly, you’d be better off without it. So stop questioning your lot, and be thankful for what you have—as it is to the last morsel the windfall of our own grand design.

-Brad OH Inc.

The Second Most Important Step to Improving the United States

Posted on by
Reply

purelyspeculationHere 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.

The Disgraceful Suicide ‘Old’ Media

Posted on by
5

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green DesklampI still buy CD’s sometimes. I know, I know, it’s something of a strange quirk—an antiquated habit I’m not yet fully ready to see pass into memory. Like treasured photos of sun-stained childhood days outside, or discoloured and wrinkled love-letters at the bottom of a shoebox somewhere, I continue to tread this old ground hoping some new joy may be gleaned from it. Alas, as is to be expected of such concessions, my efforts are met primarily with pain and rejection.

DVD’s are a less common indulgence (or is that affliction?), but I won’t deny that I occasionally buy them as well. However, such purchases have become an increasingly embarrassing habit over the years, as the friends who will judge and ridicule me for my naivety grow ever in number.

No bother, I never did mind things like that. It is, however, the hammer of logic that really concerns me, and as it crashes down again and again on my old ways, I’ve found myself asking with increasingly routine—‘just what are you doing anyway?’

In the past, answers to that question have come readily. ‘I’m supporting my favourite band’, ‘I’m trying to be honest by paying for what I use’…you know, the sort of mealy-mouthed, moralistic arguments taken by people doing something for the right reasons, and not the smart ones. The truth is, it’s been a long while since buying physical media made any sense, and with each passing day it only gets worse.

CD’s, DVD’s, ‘Old Media’ in general have been in the process of committing a sorrowful—but very intentional—suicide, and perhaps it’s time that I remove the tourniquets of my empathy and finally let them bleed out as they so desire.

It’s a morbid analogy to be sure, but it has in turn been a vile and loathsome decent for this once proud industry. So how did it get to this point? Perhaps the better question is how did I get to this point? I used to love CD’s (and other forms of physical media) with a fiery passion. Now, they are like the old elementary school friend who you can’t yet fully ignore in passing, but loathe every second wasted in their cloying presence. Ultimately, it comes down to one simple fact, and once I came to realize this, I knew I was finally ready to cut the cord. That fact is, simply, that when you buy physical media, you are willingly choosing to pay for a product which can be obtained—and, it is crucial to point out, in a superior version—entirely for free.

It was only a few weeks ago I made this familiar mistake. Coming home with a new DVD, I prepared a meal to eat as I watched it, and happily removed the plastic wrap. Then I peeled away the little sticker which prevents the (wrapped) case from opening (I guess?). The sticker left a residue of glue on my case, which wryly threatened to contaminate the rest of my collection if left unaddressed.

So, after washing the gluey mess away, I popped the DVD into my player, and sat down with my now cooling meal to enjoy my chosen movie.

The meal was finished before the anti-piracy ads built into the disc—unskippable, immutable, and omnipresent with every repeated watch. What sick depravity is that? A warning not to steal the product you just bought? It’s been a while since I was at a car-dealership, but I certainly don’t remember being investigated for grand theft auto after signing on the dotted line!

I placed my dishes in the sink, and sat back down for another 10 minutes of unskippable trailers, ads, and other promotional rubbish. That’s about when the revelation hit me, and I finally saw the light. Promptly ejecting the DVD and hurling it from my window, I strolled over to my computer, found a torrent of the movie, and started downloading. The rest of the night went on without any significant incident.

But I was left with a rueful distaste in my mouth. I could have downloaded the movie from the start—or better yet, simply streamed it. It would have taken up zero space in my small apartment, and it would have had no built in advertisements or tacit threats. It would have been, in every conceivable way, a better product—for none of the cost.

Unless of course, we are still inclined to take the moral objection. And those few who know me will also know that such is my wont. So let’s do that, shall we?

I do object to stealing. I do object to dishonesty. Further, I am strongly opposed to the rule of idiocy by virtue of greed. When the product you can readily get for free is better and more versatile than the one you’re being asked to pay for, something very suspicious is going on. Yet this is exactly what such studios are asking of us. Like a mosquito with its proboscis stuck, drinking up all the foul blood it can get before it finally explodes and fades from memory—a disgusting mess in the footnotes of irrelevant history. Such are these discs of plastic and spite which are forced on us at any moment we let down our shields of consumer logic and moral apathy.

Now, it may be said this argument is about a decade too late, but it must be noted that this trend, while nothing new, is not old either. It continues daily in fact, malignant to its core. Everywhere you look, we see industries trying to give their customers less and less in order to ensure their profits remain steady. The serpent has gotten hold of its tail, and is not like to let go until its eaten its fill and dies bloated yet ill-content.

You can see the approach everywhere—from ‘Always Online’ DRM protocols in video games, to player restrictions on purchases from I-Tunes—companies continue to slaughter their sheep to ward off the wolves.

And so the moral issue resonates somewhat less with me these days. If the crimes of the thief are to be paid for by the honest man, there is little reason not to hoist the black flag, grab your flagon of rum, and join the party. Steal! Pirate! Avast…all that. Do what you will to these gutless cowards of companies…for they will do it to you all the quicker.

Just don’t steal books…you’ll actually go to hell for that.

-Brad OH Inc.

On American Exceptionalism

Posted on by
Reply

purelyspeculationIn 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.