"Life isn't fair." But it can be.

Possibly the most infuriating phrase I've ever heard—the most ridiculously stupid, dismissive argument in the world—is "life isn't fair." I've heard it all my life, from when I was a four-year-old wanting a Barbie doll, to now, when I suggest a fairer socioeconomic system. No, life is not fair; but there is absolutely no point whatsoever in saying that phrase. In fact, I don't believe I've ever said it seriously to another person since I was a child, reiterating my parents' poor excuse for wisdom.*

Of course I'm not suggesting that wanting a Barbie is in any way similar to wanting a fairer socioeconomic system. My point is simply that the phrase gets nowhere. You see, I think life should be fair, and can be much fairer than it is today.

If I wanted a Barbie, and my parents said no, I would say "that's not fair." The question in their minds, at that point, should not have been "does it matter if it's fair?" because it does matter if it's fair; but rather, "is she correct...is it really not fair to deprive her of a Barbie?" Given the situation—the fact that my parents couldn't afford to keep buying me Barbies, and the fact that they didn't want me to be influenced by such a disgustingly misogynistic toy in the first place—I would say that it was entirely fair to deprive me of a Barbie. In suggesting that they were being unfair, I was posing an ethical question about what fairness was. By saying that life was not fair (instead of saying that my request wasn't fair), they were suggesting that my need for a Barbie was legitimate, and that in a perfectly fair world I would receive such a toy.

Now, to be serious. Regardless of whether wanting a Barbie is fair, being deprived of a Barbie is not something that could have a severe negative impact on my life. But because we grow up hearing, "life isn't fair" from our parents, and we legitimise the phrase by repeating it over and over again until we feel we own it, we start to apply the philosophy to some very serious situations. For example, people who work three full-time jobs and barely have enough money for food. Apparently, some time in our lives, we decided that starvation is the equivalent to being deprived of a toy. Or at least, it is the equivalent as far as we care. Nowhere did we question the evolution of this phrase from simple childhood banter to politics; from plastic merchandise to food and shelter.

I remember arguing (online, of course) with a conservative person about welfare and socialism. He whined about people taking away (and I quote): "...MY hard-earned money, that I deserve every penny of..." (emphasis his). When I suggested that there may be people who need some of his money more than he, he said, "life isn't fair." Ignoring (hard though it may be) his insane hypocrisy, and simply focusing on his last statement, we see that he was entirely okay with allowing things to continue the way they were, where people starved. Yes, he thought that somehow, the people who were starving weren't working as hard as he was, or didn't deserve every penny that he did. But in addition, he thought that it was okay for people to starve. Regardless. And this is the problem we have to deal with to create a fair society.

We must get rid of the idea that some people aren't deserving of life and the basic things that would sustain their life, regardless of whether they're working or not. By simply being a living, breathing human being, they deserve to live and to survive.

I have written other times, and will write again, about how actually when a human is faced with starvation, they are incapable of being lazy. But that is not my point at this time. My point is that even if people can be lazy, we cannot be psychopaths and let them die. If it is within our power to keep them alive, then we cannot claim that it's all up to them, it's their "choice."

Yes, life can be much fairer. But we must be willing to make it fairer, instead of leaving it the way it is now, with a dismissive shrug and a stupid cliché. Because that is true, dangerous laziness.

*I love my parents dearly, and I think they'll agree nowadays that the "life's not fair" cliché is really unhelpful.

No conspiracy needed

People these days are obsessed with conspiracy theories. From the global warming "hoax" and 9/11, to UFOs, the New World Order and the "socialist agenda," loud people on the internet love to get their panties in a knot about whether or not some ginormous cover-up is happening. It's as if a conspiracy is the most terrifying and disturbing thing that anyone can imagine.



Well, I've got news for you. The real world is seriously fucked up, and massive conspiracies are (at least mostly) not to blame. Who needs secrecy when our entire global socio-economic system is set up to benefit those in power already? What I am appalled by is how blatantly obvious some governments and organisations are about all the horrific shit they're up to. Murdering over one hundred thousand people in Iraq wasn't a cover-up. It was just labeled "war," and was therefore justified in our sick, twisted minds.

There's no cover-up involving world hunger; it is well-documented that empires raped and pillaged the land and the people of the Third World long ago, and forced them to focus on cash cropping (now called "exports-based agriculture") instead of feeding themselves. The IMF and World Bank proudly boast their monstrous policies as "aiding" poor countries, by offering them loans that they couldn't possibly pay back on conditions (such as the privatisation of public sectors) that destroy entire economies.

Some of this pride is also passed on to the public. The cries against "socialism," the hatred of those less fortunate, and the reverence of individualistic greed (disguised as "personal responsibility" and "rational self-interest") are all endorsed by the masses, most of whom would benefit greatly from socialist, pro-poor policies. We have been taught very well how to hate ourselves.

More terrifying than any conspiracy, more devastating than any government cover-up, is the fact that we are aware of the horrors that those in power create, and we passively perpetuate that status quo.

Perhaps we should focus on promoting public awareness of things that are already technically known.

A Socialist Explains the "Socialist Agenda"

Now that we have a man that actually cares about democracy in the White House, I can't get away from the obnoxious term that right-wingers use as their only reactionary weapon against him: his "Socialist Agenda." Sort of like the Gay Agenda--you know, gay people are really really powerful and are trying to turn your children gay, by pushing their way into every part of our society's infrastructure. Similarly, apparently socialism is so popular among very powerful politicians, including our President, that they might succeed in overriding our wonderful capitalist system.

As a socialist who would readily applaud an actual Socialist Agenda, I laugh. I laugh mostly because I'm tired of crying. And I'm tired of fantasising about taking out my very much internalised aggression and anger on anything in my way, which usually in practice ends up being cushy chairs and bathroom stall doors. But I'm still unmistakably laughing. Because I see this ridiculous rhetoric for what it really is. Creating a monster that threatens the very foundation of many Americans' ways of life: taking away unnecessary, excessive possessions; "depriving" wealthy people of their "hard-earned" millions. Obstructing Americans' "freedom" to do whatever the fuck we want to others and get away with it, as long as it doesn't threaten those in power. This obstruction of this false "freedom" is far more terrifying than the real dangers out there: global warming, global hunger, massive depletion of resources, and the inevitable collapse of an unsustainable economic system.

What is society coming to, getting worked up about the concept of equitable distribution? This "socialism" monster is truly a ghost. Socialists do not have power (except in a couple Latin American countries. And no, I don't think Americans should be afraid of VENEZUELA unless they're unaware of our excessive military strength). When I admit to people that I'm a socialist, it's like I'm "coming out." People have commended me for my bravery. That's not because socialism is taking over the world. It's because socialism is a dirty word.

As for Obama, he's just as terrified of socialism as any other mainstream American. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been voted into the White House. Otherwise, the vast majority of the country and the world wouldn't love him as much as they do. He wouldn't have given massive hand-outs to—no, not poor black women with five children living in shacks*—but our country's most massive financial institutions. (I have my own ideas about a very different category of socialism that the bailouts fall into; corporate socialism, which has existed for a while in the US already.) Notice how those who accuse Obama of socialism are not against hand-outs to rich corporations. But give the hand-outs to people who are actually starving or living on the streets, and they throw an infantile hissy-fit. Socialism is about re-distributing the wealth, and that doesn't actually mean distributing it to the same people who already had it.

So "Obama-Is-A-Socialist" people, stop making up ridiculous conspiracy theories and consider this: You want to be terrified of something? In our culture, we don't need conspiracies in order for masses of people to commit horrific deeds. All we need is complacency. You don't have to do anything at all! And that is the most terrifying thing in the world.



*For the easily offended: This is referring to the image that a lot of conservatives see representing welfare: poor black women who keep having kids.

Our Gorgeous President-Elect

I would like to congratulate the United States for finally making a sane fucking decision in creating a landslide victory for Barack Obama. Showing the highest voter turnout since the early 1960s, this country finally said "genug" to the lovely George W. Bush Administration. It is really too bad that it had to come to this to get a black man in the White House.

On a bus on election day, I rode past a restaurant that had three blackboards next to each other; in sequential order, they read: "Obama! Obama! Obama!" This is in Auckland, New Zealand, where I live. On television, I saw celebrations all over the world. The most amazing one was in Kenya. I'm not used to seeing any of Africa's reaction to anything the US does, which is really too bad, considering that of all the continents in the world, they may be the most strongly affected by the US's decisions.

The whole world's reaction to this election's results bring a tear to my eye. And, upon seeing this picture of Obama and his family, I cried once again. A truly beautiful family, with a truly sincere, kind, intelligent father, who also happens to be the most poweful politician in the world. Who'da thunk it!

Anyway, thank you Obama, for bringing hope back to this dying world. I really hope you live up to our extremely high expectations ;)

Love to all!

Sandy


P.S. I would like to make it clear to those idiot buttfu....silly people who think Obama is a "socialist." No, unfortunately he is not. As a socialist, I would like to see a far more radical person in the White House. But making social change takes time, and socialism is about equality. Seeing a black person in the White House who happens to be a compassionate individual certainly brings my hopes up.

The Infinite Ramblings of a Self-Righteous Do-Gooder

I believe an introduction is in order.

Apologies: Blogspot is a mess, and when I alter the html to do what I want it to do, it doesn't respond. Hence the missing links.

After posting infinite ramblings on politics and environmentalism, I thought perhaps it's time I reveal a little about myself personally, and in doing so, ramble on infinitely more.

I am an agnostic, eclectic pagan who hopes to do as much as possible to help the people and creatures of this Earth in one lifetime.

I believe that there are several ways of going about this, but they must be related to social, economic, and environmental justice. This justice would be brought about by equitable power and resource distribution, as well as emotional and psychological well-being.

First, I will give an overview of some practical ways in which we can go about this change:

Permaculture: For a more environmentally sustainable world. The best idea I've found so far that can create self-sustaining systems, communities, and economies within both industrialized and "Lesser-Developed" countries.

Microcredit or microlending: A tactic to create independent, small, self-sufficient economies in "lesser-developed" countries. Made famous by the Nobel Peace Prize winning Grameen Bank. Criticisms are valid, however, and must be considered. Microcredit is a solution we can use while working within the capitalist, and even Neo-Liberal world. It is a means to get to a better end.

The Just Transition Movement: An innovative way to keep workers from suffering from environmental regulations. Put a Just Transition policy in place, and people can no longer argue that environmental regulation "hurts workers," "destroys jobs," or "hurts the economy." Also read about the organization called the Just Transition Alliance.

Politically, I label myself as an anarcho-socialist, which I feel is more accurate than saying "very liberal." The term "liberal" has been used for so long to mean "tolerant" and "open-minded," and I don't believe that necessarily applies to me. As the title of this post denotes, I am not a very tolerant person. I am generally either accepting or strongly morally opposed and self-righteous. I am aware that this may not be the most effective or healthy state of mind, and I try to change where I can, but I also acknowledge where I am today.

Some people argue that anarchism and socialism cannot go hand-in-hand, and I both agree and disagree. As it stands now, if we were to suddenly try to change into an anarchistic society overnight, then there would be chaos. We would see an even more extreme version of what we see now: huge gaps between the rich and poor, powerful and powerless, with nothing to regulate that power or wealth. Then again, that's not very anarchistic at all, is it? Anarchism is about getting rid of power hierarchies and authority. Even if we got rid of what most people call "government," we would still have imbalances of power that lead to authoritarian, governing bodies.

So instead, what we need is a quick reform, which involves equitable redistribution of power and wealth, and a lot of therapy. Once everyone is on equal footing again (I say "again," because this used to be the case about ten thousand years ago), we will have no need for governing bodies. In this sense, socialism and anarchism do go hand in hand. If there is a lack of equality in wealth and resources, then there is a lack of equality in power, and therefore a lack of anarchism.

Just so you know, I have several blogs, so I don't post everything here. Most of my stuff is on my main website: this includes a combination of personal, spiritual, political, and creative writing.

Other blogs include:

VampireOwlCat: my spiritual blog

Sitakali: my creative writing and excerpts from my novels

Voice of Change: a blog about the current changes in our world in response to crises

Bullshit Review: a blog about all the BS that gets spouted everywhere, with well-researched myth-busting.

I use the screenname Sitakali on virtually every website I belong to.

The Great Progressive Divide

Listen as the wind blows, from across the great progressive divide....
Sarah McLachlan (with a little tweaking)

It is hard for people and organizations alike to find some common ground; an idea they can work together on--even when those people and organizations have relatively similar perspectives. The "anarchists" scoff at socialists, because the socialists believe in giving the government more economic regulation "control", and the socialists scoff at the "anarchists", because in their view, the "anarchist" model tends to have little to no structure.

But they are both aiming for the same end result, and they have very similar beliefs as to what "social justice" is--social freedom without enforced "morals" (i.e. abortion or gay marriage bans), and a classless system that does not have any unchecked powers or authorities. The end goal of socialism is anarchism! Their means to those ends are just different.

The "Progressive Movement", as I like to call it, is so busy tearing itself apart, arguing over petty differences, that it cannot hold itself together to be strong enough to fight against anything but itself. Conservative Christians from the middle all the way to the far right of the political spectrum come together for the common causes of abolishing abortion, criminalizing gays, making prayer in the classroom mandatory, and forcing creationism into biology classrooms. Meanwhile, we "progressives" spit acid and labels at each other, such as "tree-huggers," "feminazis," and "New-Age hippies", thus not earning our title of "progressive".

Governments that seek more power and the corporations that fund them work together, out of greed, despite petty differences, to gain the highest profits. Why can't we work together, out of altruism, and sort out our petty differences? Is greed really a stronger motivator?

A perfect example of the divide in progressive politics is environmentalism and class.

Once Again: Environmentalism is a Class Issue

The environmentalist movement tends to be composed mainly of middle-class people who do not fully understand the plight and mindset of a blue-collar worker. In fact, there are many environmentalists who are so embarrassed by this, that they do not consider themselves part of the environmentalist movement--instead, they call themselves part of the "environmental justice" movement. This split within the environmental movement is very sad.

When environmentalists demand that people stop logging old-growth tress, but then fail to offer an alternative to the working-class lumberjacks, that is the environmentalist movement. When an organization preserves land in the Amazon rainforest and kicks the native people off that land, that's the environmentalist movement. On the other hand, when environmental lobbyists got together with the steelworkers union to sue the CEO of a steel factory (because of his dessomation of the environment, and because of poor labor conditions), that was the environmental justice movement.

Environmentalists, above everyone else, are supposed to understand how everything and everyone is interconnected to everything and everyone else. Therefore, we cannot dismiss the consequences of "environmental protection" when the consequences fall on human beings, because part of environmental protection is helping those human beings.

Why is Environmentalism a Class Issue?

When you are working two to three full-time jobs to pay for food for your children, the health of the environment is the last thing that's on your mind. Some environmentalists may say that this is selfish behavior, and "can't that working-class person see that we are all connected to the earth, and therefore, environmental health means his/her own health?" The simple, and quite obvious answer, is no. And why should you, when you have been offered no environmentally sustainable alternative to your job as a lumberjack, or buying clothes at Wal-Mart, or buying the cheapest car you can (regardless of how much gas it guzzles)? Can I really expect you to buy organic food and cotton and fair-trade coffe, when I know full well how much that shit costs? Can I expect you to become an activist with me when you barely have time to sleep?

That is another thing that environmentalists, of all people, should understand: the human survival instinct. Regardless of how inefficient or impractical a solution is in the long run, as long as it gets food on your table, you'll take it.

Of course, another problem in this country is that people in general are poorly-educated about various issues and current events, including environmental issues. We've been brainwashed to put our "economy" ahead of the environment, creating a completely false dichotomy. Like everyone else, on top of the above mentioned problems, the lower-classes generally have virtually no education regarding environmental issues.

The other problem is that the lower classes are the first ones affected by our destructive behavior toward the environment. a) Where do nuclear power plants and chemical plants and factories set up shop, where they can dump all their toxic chemicals into the neighbor's lawn? b) Which countries are having the worst environmental records (due to the outsourcing of jobs and environmental regulations)? c) Who wasn't able to escape the worst destruction of hurricane Katrina, and d) why were the hurrican's effects so severe? The answer, in case you didn't figure it out, is a) poor neighborhoods; b) the poorest countries; c) the poor and d) the city was too poor (and so was the infrastructure). Seeing a pattern?

An experiment for vegetarians and organic-product buyers (although I have to figure out the right numbers): Go on a food-and-grocery budget of about $50 (?)/month, and see how long it takes you--not only to stop buying organic food--but to start buying meat. Meat is cheap, and it fills you up. Regardless of your more abstract philosophies, when you're not sure when your next meal is, all your long-term goals and ideals go out the window, and only your short-term goals remain. This is one of the ways that the cycles of social and environmental injustice continue: keep enough of the people desperate enough, and they won't look at, let alone care about, ecological destruction, even if it directly effects them.

However, that is slowly beginning to change. The environmental justice movement sprung out of the early 1990s as an anti-toxics revolution: people from poor areas were fed up with how they were being treated. For more information on environmental justice, please visit the website Environmental Justice Resources on the World Wide Web