Tag Archives: society

The Constitution is America’s Bible

Posted on by
4

purelyspeculationI’ve heard it said that the Constitution is America’s Bible. I have to admit it has a nice ring to it. Certainly, it can’t be argued that the founding document of the USA is held in high regard—revered even, in the same way that devout Christians look to the Bible.

Further, the constitution is often cited as an absolute, just like the Bible. “That’s my constitutional right…” you might hear someone declare, with the same self-righteous cadence one might declare that “it’s the word of God”. The speakers in both examples inevitably mean the same thing: There’s no use debating it.

I’ve come to suspect however that the colloquial turn of phrase doesn’t mean quite what I might’ve assumed. When people say that the Constitution is America’s Bible, they’re often referring to perceptions similar to those mentioned above. It may be that they see the Constitution as irrefutable, absolute, or beyond reproach. Further, there are some who use the phrase to expound on the Biblical inspirations for the Constitution (Source)—which serves of course only to solidify the former perception.

But those aren’t the sort of notions that brought the phrase to my mind the other day, and they’re certainly not the ideas that have followed from that initial reflection—terribly far from it in fact.

It’s not that I disagree with the comparison. To the contrary—the quote occurred to me quite independently, a natural extension of a concern I’ve been harbouring for a while, and which comes to light again and again whenever I read a news article in which the Constitution is invoked to cease all further debate.

The Constitution, it’s true, is America’s Bible—but not in the way they mean.

The Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified in 1788, lays out the fundamental principles of the USA as envisaged by the founding fathers—and is the de facto final source of relevance when it comes to all things Americana.

The Bible is similar. Of course, that depends on what we’re talking about exactly, but for the purposes of this article, any Holy Book will do really. If we’re talking about the Christian Bible, the New Testament was written around 2000 years ago, and the Old Testament approximately 3500 years ago. The Quran is estimated to be around 1358 years old. Still, much like the constitution, each serve their own role as the final word—the irrefutable truth in all related matters.

Absolutism is dangerous in even the most light-hearted issues, and especially so when the stakes involve the governing of a country or ruling of a faith. Countless wars have started on grounds justifiable, and even necessary, according to the laws of holy books, and no less so for those in the constitution.

But that’s not all they have in common. Whether 3500 years old like the Old Testament (also called the Pentateuch or the Torah), or a mere 226 years old like the constitution of America (successfully amended only 27 times—of which the first 10 compose the Bill of Rights, and were written only a year after the original document), these are, at best, historical documents.

When considering the merits of any historical document, and especially in evaluating its relevance for modern understanding, we must consider a number of key factors. Firstly, being historical documents, context is an important consideration when making any attempt to apply their instructions in a contemporary setting.

Meanings change, as do the circumstances which might at one time necessitate a law, and at others render it counterproductive. In the case of the Bible or other Holy Books, one key problem is translation. Over the long stretch of time it’s existed, countless translations have occurred to bring it to its current state. What depth of meaning might have been lost in these translations is hard to say—especially when weighed alongside the vastly different political and social environment of its original writing.

It’s a difficult knot to untie, but whether it’s a matter of translation or social context, there exists a slew of Biblical rules which we can surely agree fail to fit our expectations of divine leadership in the present age. The Bible forbids the crossbreeding of cattle, requires death to both partners in an adulterous relationship, suggests the burning of prostitutes and stoning of unchaste daughters, forbids the eating of pork, of mixing fabrics, and even calls for death to children who disrespect their parents. A harsh set of rules—but arguably conceived of and considered sensible in such entirely different times.

But times change, and so too should our reverence for works which are so inseparably tied to their own era.

The constitution is little different. In terms of language and context, one of the most obvious examples is the infamous second amendment. This key piece of the bill of rights (Ratified in 1791) protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. Specifically, it’s intended as a protection of citizens against their government, in order to allow for the raising of a people’s militia. However that legislation is now 223 years old, and at the very least, the meaning of a word like ‘arms’ has changed along with the technology which it describes.

Currently, debate is waged constantly over the intentions and effective modern interpretations of this amendment, as school shootings and death by gunfire run rampant in the USA.

But these documents present another dangerous precedent unrelated to historical context or accidental mistranslation. When any creed is treated as absolute, it becomes an indefatigable trump card against any set of actions acting contrary to the interpreter’s agenda. The very nature of interpretation is malleable, and thus any issue may easily be shoe-horned into its speculated intentions. This is intentional misinterpretation, and is an especially prominent issue right now with the American Constitution.

The passing of Citizens United (Link), a case of constitutional law which used an intentionally flawed interpretation of the Constitution, ultimately made two incredibly damning determinations. Firstly, in the eyes of the law, a Corporation is considered to be interchangeable with a human being. Secondly, the spending of money in a political campaign is protected as a form of free speech (the protection of which is guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution).

This legislation has directly led to the seizure of the American Government by Corporate interest groups and labour unions, as they buy up politicians and usher through laws intended to benefit only their profit margins.

Once again we run into the confounding quagmire of interpretation. The Bible, for instance, fully encourages the owning of slaves—so long as they are from foreign nations (Leviticus 25:44). This is a point which is happily ignored by most religious practitioners. Yet if Wall St. and the Stock Exchange in general are meant to allow people to buy and sell shares in Corporations, and Corporations are legally defined as human beings, then Wall St. and the American Stock Exchange must be little more than a glorified slave market.

It’s a difficult circle to square, but considering that the Constitution begins with the famous preamble of “We the people…”, the fact that meaning and sense have all but left the building should come as no surprise to any observer of the current political scene. The document has been bastardized for agendas entirely removed from the interests of the people—one need look no further than the establishment of ‘Free Speech Zones’ (Link) for evidence of that.

Presently, we continue to look to holy books for advice: on family planning, attitudes towards love, and more. The constitution as well is the be-all-end-all source for issues which had no contextually-relevant counterpart in the time of its conception. Issues such as gun control in modern times, managing political dissent, the definition of marriage and more will not be solved by looking to the uninformed past, but rather by looking ahead, with the clairvoyance and empathy which can be garnered from hundreds of years of crucial experience.

Ultimately, whether you’re looking to one of the Holy Books for inspiration, or to the Constitution for guidance, it’s worth considering that you might be doing a fire-dance to fix your empty lighter. While there is undoubtedly great wisdom and sense to be had in both documents, at the end of the day, to live by laws set out for different times rather than relying on the common sense and decency inherent to us all is a misguided effort. Here at Brad OH Inc., we look forward to the day when such archaic attitudes are as outdated as the source material upon which they rely.

-Brad OH Inc.

In Defense of the Villain

Posted on by
1

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.

Posted on by
4

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.

On the Concept of Society

Posted on by
5

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.

Bullying in the Supermarket

Posted on by
3

Under the Green Desk Lamp…

Green Desklamp

‘If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.’ It’s an adage we’ve all heard. Whether from animated rabbits, or our own dear parents, the majority of children are taught explicitly that being unkind is not the way to act in our society.

I was at a conference a while back discussing bullying in middle school, with a particular focus on cyber-bullying. The attendees were often shocked at the examples of childhood cruelty being perpetrated by and against youth these days.

Photos—often explicit—are shared around, and entire websites are dedicated to insulting one another, spreading rumours, and generally making life miserable. There’s no doubt about it, it’s a hard world for a child to grow up in.

This is especially true when we are constantly telling them that the expectations of life are otherwise—that adult society functions on the basis of good social graces, of respecting your fellow man and avoiding hurtful language. If this is how people are expected to act, it comes as a special shock to find that your peers are so steadfastly determined to undermine such ideals.

It was these thoughts which weighed on my mind as I stood in line at the supermarket after the conference ended. How can children be so cruel, and how can we teach them to act better?

The question didn’t linger very long. It was rather rudely chased from my tired brain by the glossy magazine covers flanking me on both sides as I worked my way slowly toward the register.

‘Guess whose cellulite this is’, a headline would read, and a zoomed in box drawn from a woman on the beach would reveal the unsightly lumps on her bikini-clad ass. Some celebrity had the audacity to appear in public, without the assistance of airbrushes and digital photo editing to help her. The nerve!

A man was accused of cheating. A context free photo of him hand in hand with a woman rested above a headline bemoaning his lack of values, and lamenting the inevitable ruin of his marriage.

The headlines were legion, each one attacking some vice or speculating on some perceived flaw. Entire front page spreads were dedicated to the attempted outing of supposedly gay singers, surgeries gone awry, and teens who could not afford to have yet another child.

It’s no wonder, I thought, placing my items on the scarred rubber conveyor belt. How can we tell children to be nice to each other when the clear and undeniable truth is that we cannot manage it ourselves?

It’s a savage hypocrisy. A society so feral and filled with hatred that even political debates eschew all relevant discourse in favor of painting one another as sexual deviants and money-grubbing lechers.

So what are we left to glean from the broad disconnect between expectations and practice? Do we assume that our children are stupid? That they will somehow fail to notice the overt double standard? Will they just ignore that swindling and deceit are the clear pathways to success in the job market, and that even our leaders have no qualms about saying mean things if their PR managers tell them it will get their ratings up?

Perhaps it’s not the kids who are to blame. In a society that worships the rich, adores the callous, fetishizes fallen idols and encourages its people to hack their way through friends and neighbours to climb a rung higher on the ladder, maybe such horrid indecency in children isn’t the aberration we treat it as. If these are the values we truly hold, perhaps such kids are just proto-types of the new age.

It’s a necessary survival strategy—a natural evolution.

But if our hope is for such cruelty to cease—for kids to go to school and enjoy the company of their peers, to feel safe and supported by those around them—we may consider starting the change with ourselves.

-Brad OH Inc.