"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.

Look inward, and nowhere else

Years ago, I stopped referring to myself as a liberal. This was because I started to see what the term really meant—not according to conservatives—but according to radicals, and according to me. I won't go into detail about all of the qualities that liberals have that I don't, because that's not what this post is about. This post is about a specific liberal quality that drives me absolutely up the wall.

Do not play the blame game. As a recent post articulated on the liberal site that I belong to, Care2:

...We want to fix something that we perceive as terribly wrong. When this happens we look immediately to find someone to blame. But in doing so, we sidestep taking responsibility.

Really? As I stay up-to-date with the current events of this world, I see people in power, politicians and corporate executives, fucking over people and communities. I do not see it because I am attempting to put blame on someone besides myself. I see their actions first, and realise that those actions have an effect. And that effect is bigger than the effect my actions would have, simply because I am not as powerful an individual as a politician, and my community isn't as powerful as an entire government or corporation.

This isn't the first time I have heard this type bullshit from liberals. Liberals are not as individualistic as conservatives, but they still have some very individualistic beliefs. The view about blame is very similar to another view that I despise, which is far more "spiritual" in nature: You must fix yourself before you can help anybody else in the world. As if the two aren't connected. As if helping others doesn't also help fix you as well.

Everybody, especially everybody who has been born into privilege, does have a certain amount of responsibility. But a lot of our responsibilities lie in the fact that we allow a corrupt system to continue. That is not the same as making a system even more corrupt.

If activists are trying to stop an organisation from polluting the air, it is because they are blaming that corporation for polluting the air. Should the activists instead leave that organisation alone and allow it to continue polluting, all because they don't want to place any blame on anybody but themselves?

Basically, my point is that it is possible to blame more than one person or group of people for a problem. But it is a good idea to put things into perspective, and understand who is most responsible for causing what problem. In other words, in order to find a solution to anything, it is important to understand cause and effect. If you refuse to blame anyone for causing the problems of this world, regardless of whether or not they actually did, you are ignoring a crucial step towards remedying those problems.

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.

The Joy of Sweatshops

A historically-challenged anarcho-capitalist (okay, that should go without saying) decided to take some of his precious time trying to educate me about the real world and why unregulated capitalism is soooo wonderful. I would like you to especially take note of this "Libertarian's" laughably insincere concern for the poor sweatshop-less people of Cambodia.

Okay--now that you've had your say, will you listen to a staunch anarcho-capitalist? If yes, I would like to start you off with a great article from (of all places) Nick Kristof at the New York Times, entitled "Where Sweatshops Are a Dream." Watch the video attached, read the article, and ask me questions if you wish.

But just remember a few maxims underpinning libertarian thought: 1) Poverty cannot be cured through force of arms or government decree--only by independent business. 2) Wealth is the foundation for all businesses except multinational conglomerates with sweet government contracts. Redistribution hurts everyone _except_ the Monsantos and Halliburtons. 3) The only power governments have military, and the only money they have is other people's money. 4) Subsidizing an enterprise with 'government' money is no different than when identity thieves buy jet-skis with your credit card--it's theft, pure and simple.

Next time you want to talk about capitalism being about "controlling and hurting other people," remember that capitalism is the only thing keeping you from living a terribly harsh subsistence-agrarian lifestyle, such as the vast majority of humans on this planet must endure. Perhaps if the mother of that article had been in a more capitalist country, her son wouldn't have been backed over by a garbage truck looking for scrap plastic. It's rather hypocritical to mock the very thing that allows you and I to maintain such an expensive and comfortable existence, isn't it?

This is my response.

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to educate me on the harsh reality (which apparently you inhabit 24/7) outside of my little utopian fairytale. I have a few humble comments about your enlightening and historically-accurate interpretation of how the world works. First, I'll start with your list:

1) Poverty cannot be cured through force of arms or business—which continue to exacerbate it—or government decree, though that can make a huge difference. Poverty can only be cured by local communities taking responsibility for their people's welfare.

2) Wealth is the foundation of all businesses. Period. Multinational conglomerates may have sweet government contracts, but that is still wealth. The problem with our system isn't whether or not businesses are founded on wealth; it is that wealth in this economy is based on wage labour and the exploitation of the poor. Redistribution doesn't "hurt" anyone. If I tell a child to share a toy with their friend, is that hurting them?

3) The only power that Objectivists want governments to have are through the military and criminal law. These are the two reasons why governments are so dangerous in the first place. Take away the military and criminal law, and all they can do is serve the people. You essentially have an anarchist society.

4) Subsidizing an already enormous enterprise through government money is completely unnecessary, but that's what gets subsidies. Subsidizing a small business gives them the leverage they need in a competitive environment. Otherwise, the most ruthless competitors (AKA the ones that exploit humans and the environment the most) would have the upper hand…as they do today. So wouldn't taking subsidies away from large corporations even the playing field? Yes, in the same way that cutting my hair would me closer to the height of an infant.

Aww yes, those poor people living in landfills. That must be because they aren't working in wonderful sweatshops! Please learn a little history. Have those people been living in landfills for hundreds of years? Are they the People of the Landfill, whose simple culture has been waiting forever for a chance to work sixteen hours a day absorbing toxins through the air and passing out from exhaustion? Or is it perhaps related to the industrial revolution, or Western countries ravaging Third-World nations' resources at the expense of the majority of the people on Earth? Such a simplistic view of labour is reserved only for the economist (who is taught from a young age to have tunnel-vision and accept economics as a "hard science"), and the Objectivist (who agrees with Rand that Native Americans deserved to be destroyed due to their primitive economic systems). That's exactly how this mess started: Westerners destroyed the land that other societies lived on, and massacred indigenous people, so now they cannot hunt and gather or develop small farms; instead they must become intentional slaves.

Perhaps if you wish to understand the real reason why Cambodians are in such a bad way they're willing to work in sweat shops, you will read this.

And now for my favourite: Capitalism is keeping us from living a "terribly harsh" subsistence-agrarian lifestyle. Let's look at that for a second, shall we? People who live subsistence lives tend to be the happiest, most fulfilled people in the world. If African nations still used subsistence agriculture, they wouldn't have any of the problems they have today (as a result of their subsistence lifestyles being forcefully transformed into cash-cropping and exports-based agriculture). No, the harsh existence that most people on this planet endure is directly caused by capitalism and imperialism, and is due to the fact that subsistence living has been all but destroyed globally. I hope that one day everyone will realize that the only way to combat poverty and environmental destruction is to grow your own food.

By the way, I live in an ecovillage community. We grow our own food here. We look after each other. And—whaddaya know!—we like it.

A pricelessly arrogant picture

I found this picture at http://savagemike.tumblr.com/post/176870564/evolution.

As you might imagine, I have found a couple problems with this picture:

• It shows a visual manifestation of humans getting better and more upright, connecting changes in our physiology with “advances” in our belief systems.


• Monotheism is depicted as a necessary step towards atheism


• Tribal animism is depicted as the least “evolved”


• All four creatures in the picture have penises (unless those are supposed to be our vestigial tails?) *I know that's the "M" but seriously, I'm sure this artist is capable of better.

What this tells me:

• The person who drew the picture was a man


• He connects his sex with the generic depiction of a human being


• He also connects the creation of Western civilisation with “evolution”


• He considers a category of religion that is responsible for millions of deaths, oppression, imperialism, and violence, to be more evolved than a category of spirituality that is grounded in respect for human and all other life

Let me be more specific. He quotes Dawkins, whom I respect a great deal, along with a man named Ibn Warraq, a secularist and active critic of Islam. Though I assume Dawkins would acknowledge that "evolution" does not by any means equal progress, Dawkins specifically refers to a progression from animism, to polytheism, to monotheism, and then onto atheism.

This is an obnoxiously presumptuous attitude that I have to say I'm a bit surprised by. Our global culture may have moved in that specific direction, but I would argue that our evolution towards monotheism was quite a regression. We started with a universal spirituality that respected all living beings, and saw symbolic spirits in observable natural phenomena (e.g. wind, water, trees...). We then "progressed" to a category of cults and superstitions completely devoid of any reason and separated from the physical world. Monotheistic deities even made a point to no longer be on this earth, but rather to be in some intangible place in the sky; in other words, we dissociated ourselves from our world and went off into la-la land. And at the same time, we—surprise!—separated ourselves from each other. We began dominating the earth, and each other. We oppressed other humans from other cultures that we regarded as weak or inferior and we treated women and children differently from men.

Now for Warraq. He has the unimpressive and simplistic idea that “monotheism is in its turn doomed to subtract one more God and become atheism.” It is just as difficult to subtract one god from a monotheistic religion as it is to subtract millions from a polytheistic one. Actually, I would argue it's more difficult. And it is a million times simpler to move from animism to atheism. I would consider myself an animist, a pantheist, and an atheist. Animism is the belief that everything living (or even everything in existence) has a "spirit." This does not have to be superstitious, unlike with polytheism and monotheism. It is rather like pantheism, the belief in god or gods as nature itself. We do not attribute supernatural abilities to nature; we simply revere it as it is; an amazing thing with awesome power. The relationship between both biotic and abiotic elements of an ecosystem is fluid, lifelike, changing, and worthy of reverence; yet none of it goes beyond the scope of the scientific method.

As for polytheism: gods in polytheistic religions and spiritualities are much more down-to-earth than the Judeo-Christian God could ever hope to be. In most polytheistic religions, gods represent certain aspects of nature itself, though usually with a supernatural slant. In Hinduism, Brahma is the god of creation, Shiva the god of destruction, and Vishnu the god of preservation; together they balance each other out. They each come to earth regularly and interact with the physical world. In Greek mythology, Gaia is the goddess of the earth itself. You do not need to look up into the sky and speak to a God whose whereabouts are never actually known; if you wish to speak to Gaia, she is right there beneath your feet.

Then came the monotheists. A group of people wandered the desert and became weary from their lack of resources. Everything seemed cruel to them; life seemed cruel. So they changed their gods to fit the cruelty they saw. They developed a philosophy of cruelty that involved more self-involvement and survival instinct and less interest in the good of all creation. They pushed their gods away from the earth and their minds left as well. They became disoriented and dissociated from reality, soon their gods formed a mass of one omniscient, omnipotent, abstract God beyond human comprehension. That is the culture that created our highly-evolved monotheistic culture today; a random group of unlucky people who succumbed to the cruelties of an arid climate. Now we must all pass on the abuse of this culture: their feelings of futility—that things are the way things are because God wants it that way; their fear—that God is judgmental and cruel and you must walk on eggshells around Him; and their self-hatred—that God loves and forgives you despite the fact that you were born into sin beyond your control. And don't forget their hatred of others—that God does not forgive those who do not believe the same things, or act the same way that his followers do.

Yes, I can see why that God—the one that has always been at odds with science, reason, and empiricism—that God was a necessary step towards atheism: a lack of superstition, lack of futility, lack of fear, and lack of hatred.

Just because a culture is powerful does not mean it is best. Just because a culture dominates and destroys all others does not mean it is part of progress in any sense.

Small Schools Benefit All Involved

The East Bay Express published an extremely long, rambling article about small schools claiming that they create more problems than they solve, and the writer used obnoxious conservative fears (not using mainstream history texts, teaching children about social justice and equality, and other horrible things) to illustrate her point.

This is my response:

Reading Rachel Swan’s contemptuous article about Berkeley High School’s small schools really broke my heart. The article reminded me of the partisan hackery used by big-network news anchors in order to create controversy out of thin air when they’re running low on newsworthy stories. Swan referred to “progressive, politically correct Berkeley” just before she gave us liberals a slap in the face with the hard truth; a trick used only by the finest journalists. I have some hard truths of my own I’d like to share.

As a student who sometimes hid within the anonymity of large classrooms, I found my voice in a small school at Berkeley High School. I went through grade- and middle-school with a complete distaste for social studies, but within my first year in the Communication Arts and Sciences (CAS) small school, I discovered a strong interest in history, politics, and social justice. Some of my most inspiring mentors were teachers in that small school.

Our highly diverse class of sixty students graduated with powerful friendships, robust critical thinking skills, and a passion for social justice forged by a combination of group learning and independent inquiry. The teachers in that small school helped us find our paths and were with us every step of the way.

On top of all that, I am the daughter of the co-founder of a new small school, the School for Social Justice and Ecology. I watched my father work day and night on a large project that he hoped would changed the lives of those involved. His passion wasn’t about helping kids fake success so they could pass high school; it was about helping his students think for themselves. Unlike most mainstream schooling, the small schools prepare children for the real world outside of academia, outside of grades and completely abstract learning.

I am aware that anecdotal evidence is not the strongest form of evidence. But compared to Ms. Swan’s insulting collection of bogus facts and skewed information, my experiences are solid proof of a small school’s success. Perhaps Ms. Swan would like to try taking her work to Faux News, where I’m sure she’ll find her career would really take off.

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.