In Defense of the Villain

Under the Green Desk Lamp..

Green Desklamp

There is a great deal of credit to be given to the pivotal villains in our lives. They are the flavour—the spices to the bland and basic nutrients of daily experience. Without the villains, there is no story, and without villains, it’s pretty damn hard to have a hero. Without the Joker, Batman is just some crazy asshole in tights; without Scar, Simba just an entitled burgeoning monarch.

Whether we look to the great novels of our time, or fine films—in daily life and even in professional wrestling, it’s inevitably the villains that make the story matter. They create the conflict, and more often than not, provide the personality so lacking in a world without them.

At Brad OH Inc., it’s a role we are often more than happy to play, and why not? Villains walk the less familiar path, and the great ones do so for reasons worthy to make us question what might otherwise be a simple matter of rote knowledge. They are the equation before the solution, the seduction preceding the climax.

In contrast, the hero is an easy role, and one driven merely by the most basic values and expectations which everyone should know. They’re accessible, simple, and fundamentally uninteresting. Ultimately, the hero can by nature do little more than reaffirm that which we already know, and while this can for a certainty be a great comfort at times, it lacks the potential to teach us anything new. Practice makes perfect—but mistakes are where the fun comes in.

Yet if you ask any given person, at any random time, you will with little variance hear them claim that they are a ‘good guy/ girl’, that they do what is right, and condemn its antithesis. It’s not a hard claim to make, and it shouldn’t be a difficult line to walk. The right choices are—or at the very least certainly should be—incredibly easy to make. Decency is a concept confined to no language, limited by no culture. It’s the same in most any society, and is the basis of every religion. Be honest, treat others well, consider the effects of your actions—Christ, I’m getting bored just typing it. Reiterating such basic concepts ad nauseum is like selling a math book with only the answers—it tells you everything, but teaches you nothing. It’s the job of the villain to provide the questions, and that is by far the more compelling role.

But while the villain may be the more fun and interesting role, it’s no earth-shaking thesis to say that decency remains the logical choice as far as actual action goes. After all, if everyone were to simply follow even the most basic principles of decency, we would be living in a veritable utopia of equity and compassion. A quick and informed look around however should tell even the most simple-minded observer that that is far from the case.

So what’s going wrong? Is it that the majority, or even a highly impactful minority, is choosing to play the villain role out of passion for its inherent interest? No, I don’t think so.

If we accept the basic assumption that the world would be paradise if everyone were to follow simple precepts of decency, and further that this is such a self-evident truth that awareness of it can never be far from any one person’s worldview, then the current state of the world presents us with a significant conundrum.

The problem as I see it is that for such a system of basic decency to have any success whatsoever, it must be a tenet to which everyone holds dear. Not a few, not even the majority. It’s a platitude to be sure, but in this case it’s true that even a few bad apples will spoil the barrel. If your neighbour is likely to rob you blind and leave you for dead, showing trust and decency is a quick ticket to being a victim.

For decency to work, it must be ubiquitous. To this end, the impetus to act morally is a shared responsibility of all; unfortunately, this tends to translate in the minds of the simple majority as tantamount to and inseparable from diffused responsibility.

Herein lies the problem. The perception of diffused responsibility is erroneous from the start, as it functions to break down faith in others, and provides excuses for the self. ‘It’s up to everyone, not just me’, is an easy call to arms for the ethically impaired, and could act as an effective summary of society at large. Ultimately, diffused responsibility serves as a lessened sense of purpose for everyone involved.

The fact that a successful society is the shared responsibility of so very many people makes the idea of personal responsibility seem like a distant pipe dream, whereas in truth it should serve to increase the motivation. In place of diffused responsibility, I would submit that it should be felt as a sense of compounded responsibility. The more people share in a responsibility—and the more significant the good that stands to be gained—the greater should be the personal impetus to adhere to it.

Obviously, that expectation is a fruitless hope, but there have been respectable approaches to creating this sense in the past. For starters, an obvious attempt is rule of law. This applies consequences to anyone who strays too far from the path of decency, as defined by the courts. Law certainly succeeds in maintaining a status quo, but the threat of punishment is insufficient to snuff out ill-will in those who see no future in honesty.

Another historical attempt to keep people adhering strictly to the righteous path has been religion. Religion has—to an extent—managed to help overcome the notion of diffused responsibility and settle on the greater ideal of compounded responsibility to be decent—at the threat of eternal fire. But with the rate of active practitioners dropping steadily (Source), and the very notion of faith being bastardized by legislation such as the Right to Corporate Religion (Source), there is again little in the way of keeping the average person from shirking this fundamental personal responsibility.

The death of god is one thing, the death of the human spirit is another entirely—and a far more regrettable one at that.

So what solutions remain? If the threat of punishment by measures such as laws only motivates cooperation as long as the benefit of compliance outweighs the motivation for misdeeds, and religion is increasingly ineffective at providing internal motivation to respect the compounded responsibility to decency, what options are we left with?

I think the key question here is, beyond the delectable irony of playing the villain role, why do so many people choose to break public trust—diffused responsibility notwithstanding?

Above, we established that the world would be a utopia if everyone simply made the right choices, and acted with dignity and respect. There would be no need for dishonesty or competition. However the problem that arises is distrust—if you cannot count on other people acting this way, then you will be ripped off and fooled. Thus, very few people bother to act correctly.

The problem here is that society is presently functioning as a zero-sum game: the gains of one are the losses of another. This is increasingly true in a world where Corporations are bleeding money out of the economy, hoarding it in non-taxable offshore accounts and leaving the population as a whole to struggle on with exponentially limited resources.

If our goal is a society where people will willingly make choices that benefit society as a whole, the solution is not singularly in punishing those who break this social contract, but rather in fostering a nation in which there exists the option for all people to safely make this choice.

With effectively balanced social supports: healthcare, welfare, affordable education and housing, etc., we could strive towards a society where living in a moral way will never leave a person wanting or starving. If citizens were not forced into unbearable debt, they could realistically get by simply living a just life. If people had that faith in their society, it would make true the false promises of all past religions.

Despite the fun of playing the villain, I firmly believe that people would choose to be good if it were a realistically safe path free of treachery and betrayal. If we want people to act morally, they must be provided with the option to do so unburdened by the threat of a neglected family life or crippling debt.

It is possible, but first we must move past the selfish machinery of Corporate profit-motivated nihilism which continues to keep the citizenry shackled to a lifestyle of simple survival without positive growth.

It’s just an idea mind you. It’s a complex issue, and there can be no doubt the obstacles in the way are unthinkably vast. In the meantime, there’s no sense in not enjoying ourselves. If we can’t have perfection, at least we can have fun! Here at Brad OH Inc., we’re happy to continue to play the villain, at least until a better role comes along.

-Brad OH Inc.

The New Corporate Religion of Brad OH Inc.

cropped-blogbanner1.jpgHere at Brad OH Inc, we cherish the indelible right to Freedom of Religion for all people, and this is especially important when that person happens to be a Corporation. Corporations clearly have a right to religion, just as any citizen of this marvelous country must if we are to continue to earnestly support the timeless and indelibly pertinent values of our ancient forefathers.

But it’s important that we not be unreasonable with the application of such essential considerations. While there can be no coherent argument made against the notion that humongous, international monetary entities are entirely interchangeable with living, breathing individuals, certainly there must be some concession made in regards to how those rights are enforced.

While an individual person must be allowed the right to choose and practice their religion in their own way (so long as that practice does not affect any other person in a manner otherwise illegal…especially a Corporate one!), the Corporate right to Freedom of Religion must be exercised in a somewhat different manner. Specifically, if we are to respect the Religious Sovereignty of a Corporation such as ours, it is essential that the given Corporate Religion and its implied doctrines be extended to anyone working for or affected by (or even in distant contact with) said Corporation.

This may seem like a stretch, but the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the U.S of A. confirms that these aspirations are entirely within our reach (Source). Call it a Brad OH’men!

Given this new precedent, we here at Brad OH Inc. feel it would be utterly obtuse of us—disrespectful to the constitution even—to not take full advantage of this god given right. Therefore, it is with careful consideration and great anticipation that we announce the new Corporate Religion of Brad OH Inc.

Now, the religions of old share a variety of key traits: a unified mythology, a concept of good and evil, a calling to a higher purpose, the promise of salvation. But to be honest, it’s pretty hard to deny these things are utterly boring, to say nothing of having been covered ad nauseum by other religions. So if that’s what you’re looking for, pick a church and take a seat, you’ll find plenty of stories there.

Here at Brad OH Inc., we are far more concerned with practicality, after all, pragmatism is one of the core tenets of Brad OH Inc.

Therefore, without further ado, we are pleased to present the 5 Central Commandments of the Corporate Religion of Brad OH Inc.:

  1. Thou Shalt Share: This one should be easy people. Sharing is nice, plain and simple. It’s so nice in fact, that we hold it to be sacrosanct. Therefore, henceforth, all patrons of Brad OH Inc. should consider themselves divinely mandated to share all content created here. To do otherwise would be a sin.
  1. Divine Duty of Discourse: If there is one key ingredient to any good society, it’s the free flow of public discourse. Don’t bother arguing—any contrary thought is wrong, plain and simple. To read an article here at Brad OH Inc. and fail to express yourself in the comments section is not only inconsiderate, henceforth it shall be considered an infringement on the Freedom of Religion of Brad OH Inc.
  1. Fundamental Freedom of Expression: We don’t think anyone can argue that the right to free expression is a fundamentally good concept. So good in fact, that we here at Brad OH Inc. consider it a moral imperative. That’s why we are so entirely dedicated to expounding erratically extreme philosophic tenets. Don’t believe us? Just check our banner! Therefore, if at any point you feel that some idea expressed on the site is contradictory to the nature of our Corporation, please remember that any such thought is a blatant violation of our religious right to free expression. If you have any further problem with it, kindly refer to Commandment #2.
  1. Functional Faithfulness and Loyalty: What can be said of any person who doesn’t hold dear the invaluable trait of loyalty? ‘False Hearted’, ‘Fly by Night’, ‘Insidious’, ‘Recreant’, ‘Craven’… and that’s just to name a few. Without loyalty, people just flit around all willy-nilly, doing what they will and going where they please. It’s certainly no way to run an empire. Therefore, Brad OH Inc. considers loyalty to be one of the most essential values a Corporation could ever hope for in a religion. So don’t forget about us, or you can expect a civil-suit for violation of our right to Freedom of Religion.
  1. Sacramental Self-Determination: Beyond the shadow of a doubt, self-determination is one of the most important traits any Corporation can have. After all, if left to the vile volitions of the common people, we’d be out there paying taxes, showing restraint in our environmental impact, and feigning sympathy for issues of social justice. Clearly, that’s no way to operate. So if at any point you find that the hearts and minds of us here at Brad OH Inc. have shifted, or that we’ve decided to go in a direction that doesn’t suit your selfish personal agenda, please remind yourself that we are simply following our Constitutionally Protected right to Freedom of Religion.

There you have it, the 5 Central Commandments of the Corporate Religion of Brad OH Inc. It is with a great sense of relief that we are able to share this with you today, and we know that you’ll surreptitiously revel in our joy as we celebrate our devotion to Freedom of Religion. After all, if a Corporation can’t profit off the liberties of the people who populate them, then what’s the point?

Your Sincere Friends and Mentors of Freedom,

-Brad OH Inc.

The Religious Rights of Corporate America

purelyspeculation

Here at Brad OH Inc., we are firmly and indelibly entrenched in the minutiae of Corporate politics; or at least that’s what they’d have you believe. Given recent developments therefore, it would seem natural that we address the issue of Corporate Religion.

Recently, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers may opt out of the Affordable Health Care Act’s (AHCA) provision of comprehensive birth control coverage based on grounds of religious freedom. The decision came as a result of the Supreme Court’s claim that ‘American families do not give up their constitutional right to religious freedom just because they open a family business.’ (Source)

The first point to clarify is that of Religious Freedom. Religious Freedom is an absolute necessity for any decent society, this I feel goes virtually without saying. The fundamental right to Religious Freedom is essential to allowing citizens of a diverse yet ultimately secular society to practice their faith in their own way without persecution.

Another core right in this society of ours is that to own and operate a business. In a society allegedly driven by free market enterprise and initiative, all citizens must have equal opportunity to join and function in the market place freely.

However, I believe that this issue represents a conflation of these two rights, and ultimately results in significant sacrifices to individual freedoms.

Religious freedom is fundamentally an individual right. Any citizen must be allowed to practice whatever faith they see fit, so long as in so doing they are not breaking any other laws, including bringing harm to other citizens.

However, the concept that a business too has the ability to practice religion is a deeply flawed notion, and serves moreover to allow the imposition of one person’s faith onto another; namely, that of the employer onto the employee.

In this particular case, businesses such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are being given explicit permission to deny to their employees important health care provisions as a result of the owner’s religion. This strikes me not as an example of religious freedom being protected for the owners of these businesses, but rather an example of their religious values being legally imposed on their employees, much to their detriment.

Let’s examine the initial quote. The court claimed, as noted above, that ‘American families do not give up their constitutional right to religious freedom just because they open a family business’. I believe this to be true beyond debate. No law could or should be passed requiring business owners in America to have abortions, or eat pork, or to do anything else which violates their personal liberties. However, that’s not what’s happening here.

Rather, the ruling dictates that anyone working for them must conform to their particular religious beliefs—if you work for hobby lobby, your right to have contraceptives and other forms of birth control covered by the AHCA are forfeit. The natural extension would be for these businesses to say that no employee will be allowed to eat pork in their private lives. An absurdity to be sure—but healthcare and family planning choices are certainly just as much an aspect of private life as are dietary decisions.

Now, the business owners would claim that making them pay for these provisions is a violation of their individual right to Religious Freedom—not so. While they are free to practice their religion in any way they choose (within the confines of the law), they must be expected to operate their business in a way that respects all given laws of the nation they operate in—and healthcare can be no exception. By ruling otherwise, the Supreme Court is disrespecting the right to Religious Freedom for all employees, while falsely claiming the moral victory of defending it for the owners.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t clarify one important aspect of the equation at this point. In a respectable move, Congress assures that women affected by this ruling will be subsidized by the government rather than their employers. While that is a commendable step by the government, it is still skirting the issue, and opens the door for myriad other violations of personal freedoms grounded under such trite and non-consequential claims as Religious Freedom.

This approach opens a veritable Pandora’s Box. Inevitably challenges to Corporate Religious Freedom such as do-not-resuscitate orders and vaccine coverage will ultimately be laid on the government as well; another example of Corporations bastardizing the legal structure of our society to save costs, and allowing the government to foot the bill.

It comes down to a key issue we’ve covered before here at Brad OH Inc., namely the concept of Corporations being treated as people. It’s a dangerous and foolhardy idea to be sure, and it leads invariably to socially damning decisions such as these. When a business or Corporation is viewed as being fundamentally equal to an individual human being, the rights of the individual will unequivocally be trampled underfoot. That’s what’s happened here, and that’s what will continue to happen until this absurd notion is dismissed as the mad miscarriage of social justice that it is.

-Brad OH Inc.

On Corporate Utility

cropped-blogbanner1.jpg

With all the radical ideas posted on this blog lately—and to be sure, we don’t mean ‘radical’ in the surfer sense—we here at Brad OH Inc. thought it necessary to provide to you, the dear customers of Brad OH Inc., with a quick statement of purpose.

At the heart of things, we’re a Utility Corporation… but not like that.

Corporations are often seen as cold, cruel, or callous conglomerations; caring little for their customers. This couldn’t be further from the truth!

In reality, we are utilitarian to the bone. Like Corporations everywhere, our goal here at Brad OH Inc. is to maximize customer satisfaction–because we care. We’ve come to find that the most effective way of maximizing net customer satisfaction is by focussing our energies entirely on increasing the total number of customers. We market simply to sell, and thus serve to increase the greater good… of our customers.

Because the customer is clearly such an integral factor in the success of Brad OH Inc., we feel it’s important to acknowledge this resource. We know that we’re part of a vibrant and functioning community—one from which we both reap benefits, and are obliged to provide great returns as well.

That’s why we feel it’s so very important to provide a regular stream of content—varied in all ways, to appeal to the greatest user base possible. Sometimes, you may come across an article you don’t agree with, or even one that offends you deeply. Don’t worry, that’s all part of the plan. Before you lament the callous ideals of this ‘heartless Corporation’, remember that one simply concept—utility.

It is the very process of providing the world with inconsistent messages and contradictory values that enables us to reach so very many people. Just think of it: if we were to focus on one single idea, we would only be effective in reaching people who support that idea, and the fan base of Brad OH Inc. would stagnate. Nobody wants that—least of all our shareholders!

Only by opening ourselves up to all avenues of thought can we truly capture the full market potential.

So before complaining about something you read, remember that although it may not be your cup of tea, there is surely some demented ideologue out there that supports it with all their heart. Clearly, that’s the sub-sect of the market we were going for that day, so kindly set aside your conceited self-interest.

At Brad OH Inc., we firmly believe that only through free ideas and open dialogue can we improve upon the foundations of our shared society. And only by ensuring that we cover all possible avenues of interest can we guarantee that the Brad OH Inc. fan base is everything it could possibly be. So don’t worry if something spits in the face of your deepest held moral convictions, just turn your other cheek and remind yourself that at the end of the day, we do it for you—the customer.

…Because we care.

Yours Sincerely,

Brad OH Inc.

On the Concept of Society

purelyspeculation

I often hear it said that society is in rough shape. Loss of public faith in government, failing standards of education, a quickly vanishing middle class…it can hardly be denied that times are turbulent.

Of course, there are two sides to every coin, and for everyone bemoaning the ever increasing corporate dominion over society, there are others waving the flags of liberty and personal responsibility—claiming those who do without have only themselves to blame. They’ll tell you that the soaring corporate profit margins are a true testament to the success of the free market and inevitable payoff of personal initiative. The rest? Just rabble-rousers—lazy people clamoring for more than they deserve.

It’s a complex issue, to be sure. It seems that everyone agrees there are problems with modern society, but no one can quite agree on what those problems are. As for myself, I don’t recall ever hearing it said that the true wealth of a nation is measured in corporate dividends—but that’s just me.

To focus the issue, I’ve always been of the point of view that the first step in a debate—the only step if meaningful progress is to be made—is to define our terms.

A society, in simplest terms, is a collection of people. This collection may be organized in a number of ways, based on such grounds as spiritual belief, cultural, political, or scientific concerns.

This doesn’t help a lot, but it gives us a good place to start. At the least, we know what a society is made of: People. Now, what exactly is a person?

Notwithstanding the clear albeit dubious exception of ‘Corporate Personhood’ (Source), there is a clear and undeniable case to be made that humans, at the root of it, are nothing more than animals.

A single person, at any rate, cannot be anything more than a shuffling, confused and naked creature without dependence on his peers. Unless a man (or woman) can be dropped naked and alone into a natural environment and survive, he cannot claim to be wholly independent. This at least is beyond refute.

In order for humanity to achieve anything beyond the most base of animal lives, there is a clear need for people to work together, to build on the knowledge of previous generations and combine their efforts into a greater whole; a society.

Consider it in terms of the basic things we own and take for granted. What would it take for a single, unsupported human being to make themselves even the simplest of modern homes?

Well, they would at any rate need to chop down a significant number of trees—a gargantuan task, considering they would have only the biggest, sharpest rocks they could find to accomplish the task. The metal in the house? Good luck mining for that.

For a more practical example, refer to this interesting site breaking down the international efforts in the creation of a single I-Pod: (Link).

The important take-away here is that everything we benefit from as a society is the direct result of that society itself; the cumulative effort of countless people over thousands of years, slowly building towards the smorgasbord of goods we all benefit from today. There’s no question—people need each other.

The reverse is true as well of course; a society needs its people.

Because humanity as a whole is an organism which must work together perforce, it is certainly unreasonable to exclude some, or design any society to favor some while excluding others. If this is done, then we cannot blame the lone, cast aside people who lash out and act in animal-like ways. For by facilitating their isolation, we have ourselves reduced them to this state.

If we wish to avoid this unpleasant turn of events, then society must be designed in a way to include all people in meaningful relationships and allow them to engage in mutual, non-zero sum exchanges (Link).

And yet this is where we find ourselves; in a world where the pay-cheques of the few are inherently valued over the welfare, even the basic human rights, of the many.

This unfortunate situation is illustrated at the moment nowhere as clearly as in Detroit, where the bankruptcy of the city by ineffective governance has led to the potential cut-off of public water supplies for upwards of 150,000 people (Source).

It’s convenient to claim these people should simply pay their bills if they want water, but the situation is far more nuanced than all that. The poverty of the people is the partial result of a litany of complex changes in the city, including the moving of former jobs out of the country—an effort by corporations to take advantage of lower overseas pay grades and increase their own profits, leaving countless formerly contributing citizens out of work.

The issue is further muddled by the consideration of society outlined above: the owners of the water companies certainly did not build their facilities alone, nor do they have any defensible rights to the natural and public sources of water that are the Great Lakes.

The pumps, purification plants, and pipelines are the results of the cumulative efforts of countless generations of people—many of whom are now being denied access to that very water.

Human beings which are naturally and inevitably a part of a society are now being excluded, or pressured to buy their way in. In a situation such as this, it is natural and even ethically justified for these isolated people to take in any way possible that which they have been denied.

And this is happening, sort of. All over the city, groups such as the ‘Detroit Water Brigade’ are working collectively to defend (and at times actively protect) their communal rights to safe drinking water in spite of the protests of officials.

Stockpiling of water, collection of rainwater, distribution hubs and countless other methods of support are being offered to the maligned citizens of Detroit as people pull together to survive these austere times.

Of course, this trend isn’t limited to Detroit. All over the world, we are seeing an increase in social movements as people come together to subvert the actions of corporate plutocrats, slowly raising awareness while taking direct action to protect their basic human rights.

This brings us back around to our initial quandary—the one about society. Society is by definition a series of interconnections and mutual help. It is imperative therefore that society fight to maintain individual liberties regarding independence, while also learning to consider itself as a whole. It must gain a form of self-awareness if it is to survive, just as men once did in ancestral times.

And we are seeing this. The Detroit Water Brigade, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Sandy, and myriad community gardening programs are just some examples of the valiant efforts which are ongoing. With all these examples in evidence, maybe society is not in such bad shape after all. It seems to thrive in fact, in defiance of a corporate state which would endeavour to suppress it.

In the end, it may be the corporate idealists who are left out. But it’s assuring to know that society in its truest sense is doing just fine… You’ve just got to know where to look for it.

Note: As part of the society discussed in today’s article, it’s important to help out in any way you’re able. To help in Detroit, visit the homepage of the Detroit Water Brigade: http://detroitwaterbrigade.org/

-Brad OH Inc.

A Clarification from Brad OH Inc.

cropped-blogbanner1.jpg

Well, this little slice of paradise has been pretty active lately. ‘Under the Green Desk Lamp’ is a new series we are presenting here at Brad OH Inc. It’s an opportunity for any of the myriad Brad OH Inc. contributors to have their anonymous moment in the spotlight—sounding off about whatever might be on their mind. ‘Purely Speculation’ meanwhile, is a series dedicated to the political ramblings of Brad OH Inc. employees—regardless of how varied and inconsistent their opinions may be.

While that’s all lovely and entirely in line with our beloved rights to freedom of speech, we here at Brad OH Inc. believe it’s time for a few pedantic clarifications. Speculative fiction and philosophy are wonderful subjects for armchair philosophers and failed visionaries, but it is imperative to note that the views and opinions expressed by these reactionary zealots are not necessarily the views and opinions of Brad OH Inc. as a corporate entity. In fact, it would seem they are often at loggerheads.

Therefore, this post is to assure you that despite the pseudo-intellectual musings of our less enlightened contributors, we remain entirely dedicated to the Corporate values you’ve come to embrace from us here at Brad OH Inc., and struggle incessantly towards the day when Corporate Suffrage will finally bring justice to our maligned name.

Your Friends,

-Brad OH Inc.