Tag Archives: occupy

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 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 Election’

Posted on by
2

Here at Brad OH Inc., we spend a lot of time discussing current political events, and what sort of future they might suggest. We’ve also explored many different writers and styles over the years. Today, we have a treat for you that combines the two!

Inspired by the unique ‘Gonzo’ writings of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, ‘The Election’ is the story of a cynical journalist covering the heinous events of the fourth annual ‘United Corporate Election’. In this dystopian future inspired by contemporary politics, Corporations control all aspects of government, and elections have been reduced to satirical pantomimes in which citizens use their ‘Citizen Spending Credits’ to vote on their favourite features for the elected effigy.

Journalist Duke O’Brady ventures into this ridiculous spectacle to experience the madness firsthand, but may be in for more than even he anticipated…

This short story is one of our favourites–after all, what sort of self-loathing Corporation wouldn’t dream of such an idyllic future?

We certainly hope you enjoy it as much as all of us here at Brad OH Inc. enjoyed writing it.

theelectioncoverCover Art by- Troy Barker

‘The Election’- Smashwords

-Brad OH Inc.

On the Fear of Big Government

Posted on by
5

purelyspeculationLast week on Brad OH Inc., we explored the issue of government infringements into personal data. This is a serious concern to a great many people—and the striping away of civil liberties such as privacy is a trend which continues to show the detached relationship government has with its citizenry. With such gross violations becoming a regular trend, it’s no wonder we still toil under the outdated notion that ‘big government’ needs to be held in check.

But make no mistake about it people, this is no reason to hate big government; just bad government. In the 1980 presidential race against Jimmy Carter, it was the infernal idiot Ronald Reagan who promised to “get government off our backs” (Source). After taking office, Reagan followed through dutifully on his promise—shattering the government’s role in protecting families, citizens, and the environment. Business, of course, flourished.

This push by Reagan to reduce the size of government was founded on claims of a fictional ‘welfare queen’ getting rich off the tax dollars of the electorate, and the general claim—as off-putting now as it was then for a man seeking public office—that “Government is not a solution to our problem. Government is the problem” (Source).

This toxic line of thinking heralded in an era of anti-government dialogue which effectively allowed rights to shrink away as powers were handed off to the corporations. Social programs were cut, and people suffered. The fictional ‘welfare queens’ theorized by Reagan have been fully realized in the decades since, as corporations are given increasingly large portions of the communal pie: receiving corporate tax breaks, bailouts in place of bankruptcy, and taking eagerly the keys of governance from the discredited and disenfranchised democratic system.

Ever since then, people have been treating government like it’s a dirty word—perhaps because it so often acts like several of them. But fear of government is irrationally motivated, and exercised for all the wrong reasons. It serves only to allow government abuse of citizens. People must remember that proper governance is there to protect them, from exactly the sort of threats which corporate governance has become. We should not fear government; we should utilize and control it to our own empowerment.

Of course, the government has to remember this as well.

The very notion of democratic government is anchored firmly in the concept of representation for the people—and this includes all people, not merely the drivers of the economy. In this era of ever growing population and incredible scientific potential, the ‘free’ market has proven itself a failed notion. But let’s hope that from this mistake we’ve learned at least not to store the meat with the dogs for safe keeping.

It’s the government’s job to put these lessons into action: protecting and promoting the healthy growth of society. This is the primary and most fundamental function of any government which has a legitimate claim to authority, but the vilification of big government started with Reagan has led to a very different objective for government institutions.

By reducing government programs, the general citizenry has been left out of the conversation, while political control has been corralled into the realm of economic growth. The corporations which now run the economic and social systems are malignant automatons. For all the time humans have piddled away fearing robots or advanced and indignant AI’s, they miss that they have not only created such in the corporate human, but also given it the keys to the driver’s seat of our society.

If such a threat came from metal clad robots or from outer space, the entire world would be clamoring for government intervention. Instead, it is claimed to be ‘capitalist’ and a product of the ‘free’ market, and the electorate has bowed their heads in well-rehearsed reverence for their reckless and self-serving overlords.

The point cannot be stressed enough: it is the function of government–elected by and representative of the people—to reign in these brutes, to protect natural resources that rightly belong to all, and to ensure that whether or not commercial entities deign to send our jobs overseas (leaving all save the CEO’s destitute), the people of this and all other countries are provided for from the resulting bounty.

These are the needs of a society, and the job of the government. To fear such is the sole result of misinformed and malicious propaganda. What we have now is not a democratic government, and this needs to change. If we are to find our way out of these difficult times, it must be faith in government—true government—which is the light on our path. This is our salvation—for to fear all government is to leave ourselves alone in the dark, looking to the wolves for solace.

-Brad OH Inc.

Embrace the Security State

Posted on by
1

cropped-blogbanner1.jpgHere at Brad OH Inc., we are acutely aware of the ongoing concerns over government infringements on personal security (Link). At an ever increasing rate, governments are worming their ways into our homes, businesses, and private lives—all in the almighty name of security.

While these government intrusions into public life are most often done under the broad banner of national security, this isn’t the case for all instances of data theft. Next time you’re browsing through your favourite social media sources, take some time to observe the side-bar of advertisements tailor-made for you based on websites you’ve recently visited or items you’ve considered buying. This is all possible through the ability of the current website to read your browsing history and sell it to advertisers.

And why not? No one reading this right now has the ability to protect themselves from international killers any more than they have the clairvoyance to choose what to buy for themselves. No matter whether we’re discussing terrorism, cyber-security, or consumer habits, it’s foolhardy to deny that without corporations, we are as helpless and exposed as fish in a barrel—or the ocean at the very least.

It’s inevitable that we rely on corporations for these fundamental needs, just as we rely on them for everything else: the building of infrastructure, the shaping of our society, and the social stratification of our population. So let’s take a moment to calm down, cause I’ve seen a lot of griping going on about the notion of the government and corporations perusing through our personal data in order to serve us better.

At Brad OH Inc., we suggest you give up this tired charade. Safety, privacy, and advertisements are better left to those who know how to run things. Worrying is for the birds, and in our humble opinions, the only action left to your sorry lot is to relax and accept the inevitable. After all, be it civil liberty or private data, the only real way to protect what you own is to own nothing at all!

Maybe this notion seems hostile to you? Maybe you’re the sort that easily set off by trifling abdications of liberty? I’m sorry to tell you, but you’re entirely wrong her. Consider this: if you don’t like what you’re reading right now, maybe it’s your own fault. After all, if we here at Brad OH Inc. had the level of access to your personal lives and information that the government and other corporations do, we could happily go out of our way to ignore reality and write up just about anything you wanted to hear.

…Just like they do.

-Brad OH Inc.

The Global Scale

Posted on by
7

purelyspeculationYou may have noticed that here at Brad OH Inc., we tend to cover a lot of issues centering on the politics of the good old U.S. of A. Now, this shouldn’t be overly surprising, as we’re really only following the lead of the news world at large, but an interesting fact is that we are in fact based out of Canada. Now, undoubtedly we’ll eventually relocate to a more convenient tax haven—the Canary Islands perhaps (Source)—but until then we are firmly entrenched here in the great white north.

Given this consideration then, why do we tend to cover so many American issues? Well, the quickest answer is that American issues are world issues, plain and simple. The issue of Corporate Imperialism is a global one, and while many of the relevant stories are centered in America, it is in no way defined by national boundaries. In fact, many of the crucial concerns we have right now with global politics revolve around the obfuscating and intentional subversion of national boundaries.

American Imperialism is nothing new. Under the governing principle of ‘Manifest Destiny’, America has spent its entire existence working to expand its global influence (Source). Now this article is not about American Imperialism per say, but focusses instead on the ways in which the subversive corporate process tends to seize control of not only single governments, but entire global systems.

In ‘Democracy Incorporated’, Sheldon S. Wolin (Link) describes this process as one of ‘Inverted Totalitarianism’. As greater and greater leeway is made for corporations to expand, it becomes easier and easier for such exceptions to be made. The civil ruling in the case of Citizens United (Source) saw corporations legally defined as persons, and their use of money in politics was defined as protected under the freedom of speech amendment.

This allows for corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to fund lobbyists and special interest groups which can affect the political process—thereby ensuring the passing of further laws designed to benefit the corporations while damning the rest of us.

With the power allotted to them, corporations, both American based and otherwise—an especially tricky notion to even define given the ongoing ability for corporations to take advantage of ‘Corporate Inversion’ loopholes, changing the legal base of their operation in order to avoid paying taxes (Source)–can exploit overseas markets to take advantage of indecent foreign labour laws and low wages. This takes jobs out of local economies, while reinforcing a split world notion of what’s good for us is too good for them.

This issue is conflated by political embargoes on trade, such as that placed upon Cuba. Further, because of the global impact of corporate power, laws passed in American court rooms inevitably affect the rest of the world as well. Consider climate change for instance. Here, American courts can pass laws governing the environmental impact of the corporations operating within them, even though these laws ultimately affect the world as a whole. Another easy and timely example of this is the issue of net neutrality (Source).

Meanwhile, the power afforded to lobbyists and the open door between corporate firms and government positions, allows corporate pressures in Washington to go so far as to effect war time policy; destabilizing foreign governments in order to ‘crack open’ new markets.

Clearly then, while the basis of much of what we read in the news is centered in the U.S.A., the system is ubiquitous, and defies any conception of national boundaries.

Neither is this an issue to be solved by American politics. In the same way that the effects of this system have spread to the entirety of the globe like a contagion unchecked, so too is the solution beyond the voting power of the American electorate.

This is not an issue of one misguided leader or party, and therefore the solution will not come from the other misguided leader or party. It is not a calculated, intentional process made by a cartel of greedy and deeply informed plutocrats—although there has undoubtedly been plenty such deals made along the way.

The process leading us here was an understandable though unjustifiable series of small exceptions. It can be thought of as tantamount to favours between friends; ‘well I usually wouldn’t do this, but…’ is the mentality driving it. Politicians accept huge sums of money from their corporate lobbyists, and then pass bills to support them. Few of them, with the exception of the above mentioned Citizens United, have been terrible to the ‘man who sold the world’ extent, but their cumulative effect certainly is. The unnatural coupling of unchecked capitalist ambition with backdoor political deregulations has spawned a new and terrible sort of brute.

Corporate Imperialism is an infectious and wild beast, reared on its own legal momentum, and driven by the cumulative greed of all the snakes writhing at its rotten breast. The ceaseless need for expansion will continue to push the boundaries of what is legally excusable, all the while reinforcing the western world in their role as exploiters, and relegating all the rest to the forgotten underclass of the forgettable exploited.

This is not a political viewpoint or ideology, but an unintentional by-product of ongoing mistakes. It is self-perpetuating, growing cancer-like with utter disregard for consequences. It is the fetishization of money, and money acting with its own power to expand its reach. Greed is the engine behind this, and a system which allows greed to change its workings in favour of its own expansion that has allowed the situation to get to where it’s at.

This is why when I write about America, I’m not writing about the country as a singular problem, but rather the resulting corporate contagion that’s dominating global politics.

In conclusion, let it be known that the mission of Brad OH Inc. is in no way meant to be interpreted as Anti-American. No, we are anti-world at this point, and underlying all is the fundamental belief that greed and self-service shall not be the driving factors in globalization. Equality, decency, and the betterment of humanity are the platforms we are interested in, and if that rings as starry-eyed idealism to you, you might do well to put some serious consideration into the alternatives (Link).

The change that’s needed is not a new political party in America or elsewhere, it’s a global revolution.

-Brad OH Inc.

A Question of Police Responsibility

Posted on by
1

purelyspeculationIt seems a man can’t go online today without reading about another shameful clash between the police and the citizens they are sworn to protect. The over-the-top crackdowns on peaceful protests like Occupy Wall St. in New York City are just one example of the chilling trend facing today’s citizens. It’s a facet of daily living now for anyone paying attention—we’ve even covered the issue before in our Single Serving Story- ‘Of Pipers and Pigs’.

More and more each day, police are responding to peaceful demonstrations with violence, illegal detainments, and intimidation. It’s difficult to imagine reading about any political demonstration these days without just assuming the inevitable conclusion. People gather to express their opinions and values in a public forum; they may march, they may sit, there’s probably the occasionally song sang or pot banged. Then they come—the police roll in with automatic weapons and tactical response vehicles; cracking heads, illegally arresting innocent citizens, and pepper-spraying people at close range. The documented abuses of power seem to go on without end (Source).

But what is to be said of the men and women wearing the badges? Off duty, they walk those same streets, shop at those same stores, and are affected by those same issues. How is it that a badge, a uniform, and a gun can draw such a harsh distinction between ordinary people?

Clichés and disparaging stereotypes aside, I believe it’s fair to say that a significant proportion of police officers get into such a line of work because they care: about their communities, about the people in them, and about the general values and safety of the society they too occupy. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that we could all feel some hint of pride and protection when we looked upon one of the ‘boys in blue’.

But it isn’t blue anymore, is it?

On Aug. 9th, 2014, the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson led to significant protesting and calls for justice across the suburb of Ferguson, Missouri. The police response was heinous; men in camouflage, armed with all manner of deadly weapons and riding in tactical response vehicles swept through and terrorized the neighbourhood (Source). To an untrained eye, it would be impossible to tell if this was the response of a local police force or an invading army: and that’s a significant problem.

The increasingly militarized appearance of local police forces is the result in part of the dangerous and irresponsible ‘1033 Program’—part of the Disposition Services of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) (Source). The purpose of this program is to transfer surplus military hardware from the army to local law enforcement agencies. The result is that small law enforcement offices around the country are being supplied with military grade tools—technology designed to destabilize and control foreign militants is being deployed against the very citizens it was designed to protect.

Now, take a breath and clear your head. A rational thinker might interject here, insisting that this equipment would be held in reserve in case of a dire local threat—such as a terrorist strike, or perhaps the unsolicited landing of a foreign offence force in some small shit-town in mid-west America. But if we look closer at the agreement between the DLA and participatory states, we’ll find that one of the clauses agreed to is that the military equipment be put into use within one year, or returned (Source).

Clearly, this puts a dangerous expectation on the police officers in these communities. If the equipment has to be used within a year, the difficult job befalling them is finding a way to use it. This involves selecting a group of citizens to use this equipment on, as well as some excuse to do so. The result is that these tactical vehicles and dangerous weapons are showing up for duties of crowd control, warrant searches, and notably, against people of colour in 58% of cases.

Here, we see a growing divide between the general citizenry and the officers sworn to protect them. The ongoing process of militarization, and government pressures to use such alarming equipment against its people, serves to ramp this tension up to 11; and a veritable pressure cooker for impending disaster.

The quote has been going around for a while now, but that makes it no less fitting. The words of Commander William Adama, of Battlestar Galactica, echo the situation with prophetic accuracy:

“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”    

-Commander William Adama, Battlestar Galactica.

Another key issue factoring into this divide is the skewed demographics of police forces. In order to serve effectively, a police force must be seen not only as representative of its district, but also as able to identify with the specific needs and values of its community. Sadly, this is seldom the case. In the example of Ferguson, 6% of police officers were African-American—and this in a community where 67% of the citizens are African-American (Source).

This separation between police and community is strengthened by the execution of overtly unfair laws, such as the Civil Forfeiture practice, which allows possessions to be seized from citizens and sold for the profit of the police force with no trial whatsoever (Source).

It’s a pretty dismal picture, but what exactly is the driving force behind these startling trends? Whether the militarization of police forces is motivated by the so-called ‘war on drugs’, as claimed at the onset of the program (Source), by the goal of counter-terrorism, or simply to continue lining the pockets of America’s Arms distributors (Link), who’s to say? The real question is, just what is to be done about it?

The police, in this strange position of paramilitary, anti-citizenry force, certainly make for an easy target—and that in spite of their camouflage. But a police force is an undeniably important facet of any functioning society, no matter how utopian the goals may be. If you imagine a world without cops as an equitable paradise of peace and prosperity, I fear you are not sufficiently acquainted with humanity.

One thing that’s clear is that something needs to change. If history is any indicator however, holding our breath for the government to enact legislation in favor of the people—and against corporate interests—will mean we won’t be long for this earth. So what can change then?

Ultimately, the duty falls upon the men and women wearing the badges. Upon taking such a position, these people are duty bound to serve the best interests of the citizenry in their jurisdiction. That duty has become increasingly difficult as the militarization effort continues, and police forces which fail to represent their district only obfuscate the problem further.

The egregious errors that have been made were strongly influenced by the current system, and while there certainly needs to be accountability on that front, I am more concerned with the personal responsibility of all who wear the uniform. When in the line of duty, there must be a sense of ethics operating beneath the badge—and a conscious consideration of whether the duties imposed on them are truly the sort of activity they signed up for.

We must count on the strength of character in these good men and women, and hope it proves sufficient to see them through in situations so inundated with uncertainty. The fact that this distinction must be made is a damning sign of the times, but we must now call upon all police officers to act with wisdom and empathy for those they protect; not simply because of their badge, but perhaps in spite of it.

-Brad OH Inc.

Bourbons by the Fire

Posted on by
4

Under the Green Desklamp…

Green Desklamp

There’s a bottle of bourbon in arm’s reach of my chair, and through the window in front of me I can see the last vestiges of the day’s light hanging on the horizon. It illuminates the glass like hot iron. It seems the sunsets last longer these days. Or it could perhaps be that, with each one that passes, that singular moment when the last ray of sun clings to the western sky lingers longer in the mind, with its promise that light will come again.

On nights like this, the dangers of thought far outweigh those of the bottle, and the intoxicating effect of knowledge brings a sickness far worse than any hangover imaginable. And so I have a drink.

It’s a strange time, a time when any decent person with an eye for details might come to suspect they are one of the few remaining sane souls left in a terribly dystopian world—the sort of world where little girls grow up dreaming of being heiresses.

These days, the heedless ambition of the powerful is to society as is cancer to the individual. It first gnaws at the extraneous, chipping away the small pleasures and devouring the variety of life, making all things secondary to its demands.

But like cancer it grows unchecked, consuming everything allowed to it until all that remains are memories of times that were better, when hope for a brighter future still blossomed in the hearts of those now disenfranchised by the voracious appetites of its expansion.

It’s a desperate time—the kind of time when great ideas tend to come along… or else when people will cling to the best idea they come across.

I take another drink, a long one. It’s warm going down my throat, and fire in the stomach—a slow, soothing sort of burn.

The sun is growing dimmer, and light and dark weigh heavy in my thoughts. They’re timeless concepts—forged into the spirit of our society by countless books, songs and films. For me it was Tolkien, but the sources are innumerable.

Sometimes when my mind wanders, it goes unbidden to dangerous places. There are times that I wonder where the decency of man has gone. We’ve all heard about it—that innate spark of light within all people, destined with only the slightest encouragement to guide us from the ever encroaching darkness.

It’s getting darker.

We are but monkeys grown beyond our means. We make up stories, and bow before them to reckon ourselves to the fact that we are raised with a terrifying capacity for evil, yet maintain a gentle compulsion for good.

It’s not an easy understanding to bear, and the more you know, the madder you go.

I can see how it happens, how you can get lost within your mind. You chase some dream, and at first it dances about the edges, enticing you to believe you might catch it and make it true. But it leads, and you chase. Like a boy following a rabbit into the forest, you pursue it until you lose the trail. Then you look around to realize you’ve lost your own as well. You are left with no clue where on earth you are… or worse still, you’re not sure you remember who you are.

A man needs to fight against it, that infernal apathy. It’ll set in and boil, and pretty soon even the most casual of social encounters will feel like ships passing in the night fog.

Again, the bourbon soothes my thoughts.

What is a man to do? That’s the question that keeps bouncing around my head as my fingers rest limply on my keyboard. People often think I’m multi-layered, but the truth is I’m just multi-talented. This is my weapon—the written word is like a Lego set for smart people, and the destructive potential it can harness is a terrible thing to behold.

People glue themselves to reality programs, fixating on fictional calamities as their government is looted by faceless Corporations and their inalienable rights are stripped away like the clothes of a drunken debutante in a dingy frat house.

This is the reality allotted to us, and it’s difficult to blame the cowards for looking away and leaving it for the next generation. It’s a defense mechanism rooted deeply in our DNA.

With a web as intricate as this, no answers are clear, and even the most optimistic zealot can find himself lost in the chaos around him. But one must not avoid doing right for fear that the devil has deceived them into doing wrong, or else surely he has.

I grit my teeth and crack my knuckles. They’re stiff, and the flesh is dry and cracked. Have I grown this old in so short a time?

Everyone else is smiling, and a cheery voice on a television to my right tells me that quick and harsh punishment will come to the foreigners who object to our imperialistic agenda.

A cheer rises up—on the television to my left, a touchdown has been scored.

Godforsaken idiots.

My mind drifts again to the tales of my youth, and the things they promised: ages of miracles, and the certain defeat of darkness. It always took until the last moment—when hope held on by the thinnest thread. That’s when delivery always came, when people woke up to their innate power to change the world, and made real the paradise they cradled secretly in their hearts.

The sun is down now, the window dull and translucent once more. Outside, neon ads flash, telling me it’s time to buy a new phone. Then everything will be ok.

Darkness has always been our nature. It doesn’t need to be forceful, for it can grow at any time, and is capable of overtaking us and condemning us to savagery whenever we let down our guard.

The light within is different. It flickers perilously, and I’ve heard it said that once it’s out, it’s out. It may dwindle, imperceptible at times, yet it’s driven ever towards great good and kindness.

Sometimes we must squint to even detect it, yet in dark times like these, it is the thing we must search for the most earnestly, and count on for deliverance.

This is an active process.

Few things truly raise my ire, but the depthless greed and thoughtless destruction wrought by the heedless empowered lights a righteous fury deep in my bones.

There’s music playing somewhere, but I can’t catch the tune. My head swims under the drink, but I’m not confused. It’s certainty that drags my mood down, and the refusal to close my eyes to that which surrounds me. An unfailing belief moves my fingers now, and their clatter upon the keys pounds out a drumbeat all my own.

It’s short and simple. Its rhythm churns like a locomotive, driving itself on by necessity. It says that we must return to decency. It proclaims that glib cynicism and ironic detachment are the tools of cowards, and that making a joke of the night is the surest way to get lost in the dark. Above all, it wails that even under the guise of freedom—callousness and selfish greed must not be the fundamental underpinnings of our society.

If you don’t hold to that, know that you have an enemy in Brad OH Inc.

I take another drink, and the comforting warmth brings a smile to my tired face.

-Brad OH Inc.

A Call for Corporate Suffrage

Posted on by
6

cropped-blogbanner1.jpgOn September 11th, 2014, a piece of legislation passed through the United States Senate in an attempt to overturn the ruling of the Citizens United (2010) case. This proposed amendment, dubbed SJ RES 19, would grant authority to congress to regulate money raised and spent on political campaigns. The legislation failed however, being unable to garner sufficient support to come to a vote (Source).

Thank goodness!

This bill was a direct attack on the human sovereignty of Corporations—and subsequently an affront to social justice.

The ruling in the Citizens United case made several key distinctions to the American public—distinctions which should be held in high esteem by any citizen who values the founding principles of freedom and personal dignity.

Firstly, for all intents and purposes, a Corporation is a human. That much at least should be beyond debate. Following from that, because a Corporation is a human, and as such a citizen, it would be a violation of our First Amendment rights to limit our freedom of speech.

Of course, ‘freedom of speech’ is a bit of a loose term; blame our unincorporated founding fathers for that one folks. To understand it better, let’s break it down a little. ‘Speech’ is a means of communicating, and communication is usually centered around wants and needs. There are, of course, different ways to express ourselves. Infants cry—it’s incredibly annoying for everyone around them, but it’s their way of telling the world what they need (usually milk, or shelter, or some other selfish thing like that). Body language is also an important form of communication. Who amongst us has never managed to read more into a wry smile than words could ever express? Mind you, the message there may have been more to do with the needs of the reader than of the person smiling, but that’s beside the point.

Corporations express themselves in different ways; although no less relevant than any other form. Specifically, we tend to speak with our pocket-books—funneling tremendous amounts of money into the coffers of politicians open to a little bit of honest advice. It’s as legitimate as any other form of communication, and to suggest otherwise would be painfully unpatriotic.

And yet that’s just what SJ RES 19 attempted to do. By limiting Corporate spending on political campaigns, it sought to silence the voice of Corporate Personhoods in a democratic government meant to represent the people.

How else can Corporations express themselves? If a law currently in place is obstructing our access to valuable natural resources, or if we need to ‘crack open’ a new market in an as-of-yet non-destabilized foreign government, we are limited by our very nature to using money to achieve those ends.

This proposed amendment was a direct attempt to thwart that—and it simply will not stand.

It’s time to make a change. If we are to continue as a free nation, a nation ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’, we need to be unflinchingly certain that humongous financial institutions bent only on expanding their own power base are represented within that definition of ‘people’.

Yes, it’s finally time to talk about Corporate Suffrage.

Throughout history, Suffrage has been granted again and again to interest groups seeking to have better representation in government. Starting with removing the requirement of property ownership, then allowing freed slaves the right to vote, and finally expanding to women, the concept of Universal Suffrage (Link) states that the right to vote is not restricted by race, sex, belief, wealth, or social status.

How can it be denied? That’s a pretty noble goal. And there’s one word in there that we at Brad OH Inc. think is especially important: wealth.

SJ RES 19 was a blatant and unforgivable attempt to discriminate against the Corporate Person based on our wealth—our most effective tool for harnessing our right to free expression. This is a travesty to be sure, and here at Brad OH Inc., we will not abide such a miscarriage of justice.

As persons, we must rise up and demand our inclusion within the inarguably just definitions of Universal Suffrage. Corporations are, as a matter of fact, the most productive and valuable citizens any nation could hope to have. We do the building, create the jobs, manage the infrastructure, and like it or not, we make the decisions. Corporations are tenacious, and we’ve proven time and again that we will take our rights one way or another. The failure of SJ RES 19 was quite simply not enough. In order to move towards a more equitable relationship with the country, we must stop being forced to use our hard earned money to have a voice in the political machinations of this country, and be allowed to do so directly through the electoral process.

It won’t be an easy process of course, but here at Brad OH Inc., we’ve taken the liberty of working out some of the kinks in advance—after all, we’re here to fix problems, not create them.

Clearly, a single vote for a single Corporation would be ludicrous—and far less enfranchising than the situation we currently have. Under an arrangement like that, our voice would be treated as merely equal to that of any other citizen, and we’ve already established that isn’t the case. Moving from complete control of the government and national direction via unlimited campaign financing to a single vote would be an unabashed attack on our sovereignty.

Instead, we suggest a system of representational voting—those liberals have been begging for it forever, so we could silence that infernal racket as well. Everybody wins!

Yes, in place of the ongoing and expensive persecution that continues to plague Corporate existence, let’s move towards a system of voting which fairly recognizes the national contributions of all citizens. By embracing a system which weighs each vote against the percentage of GDP a citizen creates—Corporate or not—we can finally give credit to the hard working efforts of honest citizens; and maybe even encourage a few slackers to pick up the pace a little. Raise your productivity, and raise your electoral voice. What could be more fair than that?

It certainly is a revolutionary idea to chew on, and we can accept that it will take a while to mull over for those of you without a team of highly paid advisors, but you can trust in one thing—Corporations will not be denied our rights. Not the right to free expression, not the right to vote, and not the right to mould this nation into the sort of tax free, unregulated paradise we need for the ongoing inflation of our profit margins. This is the land of the free after all, promising justice for all… with discounts available on bulk purchases.

Your Guides to Forward Progress,

-Brad OH Inc.