sitakali

Two of the most dangerous things in our society are individualism and apathy. They go hand in hand. After all, how can you be apathetic if you have a sense of empathy and community with others?

The mantra of today’s culture…

I live in my world. You live in yours. If I happen upon a situation that I deem morally reprehensible, I do not have to think further about it. It doesn’t affect me. You don’t affect me. If you hurt someone, it’s their fault for not taking proper actions to prevent the situation, or not stopping it from perpetuating.

Poor people must pull themselves up from deep within the fissures of society, without anyone’s aid.

No, I am not a witness to your pain; your pain is your own. I am not a witness at all. I am blind. I am numb. I do not pretend to be a compassionate human being; I do not believe in altruism.

I refuse to see. Wrap me up in your blanket of denial. I am only one person, so what harm could that do?

I’ve noticed that a lot of poetry feels meaningless to me, like the poet has tried so hard to be profound without putting their heart into it. Every once in a while, however, I come across a poem that I can really feel came from the heart, and sometimes one that I can relate to.

Here are a few excerpts from said poems, and you’ll probably be able to figure out the important factor they have in common. They also have the same running themes as all poetry:

Love

All my instincts, they return
And the grand facade so soon will burn
Without a noise, without my pride
I reach out from the inside

Life

Into this night I wander, its morning that I dread
Another day of knowing of the path I fear to tread
Into this sea of waking dreams, I follow without pride
Nothing stands between us here, and I won’t be denied

Friendship

If your hopes scatter like the dust across your track
I’ll be the moon that shines on your path
The sun may blind our eyes, I’ll pray the skies above
For snow to fall on the Sahara
If that’s the only place where you can leave your doubts
I’ll hold you up and be your way out
And if we burn away, I’ll pray the skies above
For snow to fall on the Sahara

Wealth

A figure dressed in the finest attire
That money can buy
Laiden with assets to make an impression
On a stranger’s eye

And he lives in a palace
Surrounded by roses in a perfect picture
He’s in deep with the shallow
He’s fading cause he can’t see the sky

Trust

You are subtle as a window pane, standing in my view
But I will wait for it to rain so that I can see you
You call me up at night when there’s no light passing through
And you think that I don’t understand, but I do

We don’t say everything that we could
So that we can say later, “oh, you misunderstood”
I hold my cards up close to my chest
I say what I have to and I hold back the rest

Cause someone you don’t know is someone you don’t know
Get a firm grip girl, before you let go
For every hand extended, another lies in wait
Keep your eye on that one—anticipate.

Life and Love

Walking, stumbling, on these shadow-feet
Toward home, a land that I’ve never seen
I am changing: less and less asleep
Made of different stuff than when I began
And I have sensed it all along
Fast approaching is the day

When the world has fallen out from under me
I’ll be found in you, still standing
When the sky rolls up and mountains fall on their knees
When time and space are through
I’ll be found in you

Regrets

I wear this crown of thorns upon my liar’s chair
Full of broken thoughts I cannot repair
Beneath the stains of time, the feelings disappear
You are someone else…
I am still right here

All of these poems have something important in common. Love? No. Life? No. Rhyming schemes? No, stop guessing, sheesh!

They are all lyrics to songs. Perhaps it’s the fact that lyrics don’t have to be good for people to like the song. Or maybe it’s that songwriters have to focus on lyrics and music at the same time. But for whatever reason, I see great humility in song lyrics that I don’t see nearly as often in stand-alone poems. People write from the heart, and say what they want to say. If they’re good writers, that’s great. If they’re not, I can still feel it. For example, an über-pop princess has this to say about her childhood:

Bruises fade father, but the pain remains the same
And I still remember how you kept me so afraid
Strength is my mother for all the love she gave
Every morning that I wake I look back to yesterday
And I’m OK

Perhaps some people would say that isn’t the most well-written poetry. It’s still powerful, and it still gives me chills. When somebody writes what they are truly feeling at that moment in time, even without beautiful adjectives and clever stanzas, it still works.

So stop trying so damn hard! I most likely won’t understand what the hell you’re talking about, and won’t be able to relate to you.

In order, songs are:
In Your Eyes, by Peter Gabriel
Possession, by Sarah McLachlan
Snow on the Sahara, by Anggun C. Sasmi
Kidding, by Imogen Heap
Anticipate, by Ani DiFranco
Shadowfeet, by Brooke Fraser
Hurt, by Trent Reznor (lyrics altered slightly by Johnny Cash)
I’m Okay, by Christina Aguilera

So you think you want to be a veterinarian? You sure about that? Well, take my test to see if you should try pre-selection Vet School.

A. How do you feel about competition?

1. I’m more a fan of collaboration and cooperation.
2. I love being “in the game,” trying to be better than other players!
3. Me big quarterback like sports and tripping people.

B. How do you like to learn?

1. I like to really understand my material and be able to put it to practical use.
2. I luurve cramming craploads of information into my brain that I couldn’t possibly retain for more than a couple months.

C. How do you feel about your fellow classmates/colleagues?

1. Communication is essential, and I like to have a good relationship with my colleagues.
2. I love screwing people over and then kicking them while they’re down!

D. What’s your maturity level?

1. After careful thought, I have decided that this is what I want to do with my life, and I will work hard to build a future for myself.
2. I, like, totally love your shoes! omg have to study now. Laaame!

E. Did you just get out of high school?

1. No, I have taken time to think about my career path.
2. Yes, and now it’s time for university, cause that’s what people do!
3. Yes, but I have wanted to be a vet all my life.

F. How do you feel about being a vet?

1. I’m so passionate about caring for animals, and I feel like this job would complete me!
2. My parents said I have to be a doctor, lawyer, or vet, and animals are kinda cool or whatever. Plus, you make a nice salary.

G. What’s the most important thing about pre-vet?

1. Learning as much as I can to prepare myself for Vet School.
2. Getting good grades so I can make selection!

How a vet shouldn't behave

How to score your test:

For each time you chose #1, give yourself 1 point.
For each time you chose #2, give yourself 0 points.
If you chose #3 for question A, give yourself 0 points.
If you chose #3 for question E, give yourself 1 point.

0-4 Points:
Congratulations! You are perfect material for pre-Vet school! You would make an absolutely terrible vet, but that’s not what our universities care about! Well done! Please go here to learn more about yourself.

5-7 Points:
Haha, loser. You would hate pre-Vet school. Ironically, you would make an outstanding vet. But that’s life, and life isn’t fair.

I am afraid.

I’m afraid to walk down the street at night. If I do, I could get in trouble. I could be punished.

I’m afraid to wear sexy clothing. If I do, I could get in trouble. I could be punished.

I’m afraid to get drunk and dance. If I do, I could get in trouble. I could be punished.

These may sound like the fears of a woman living in a system under Sharia law, or in a dictatorship, but surely not of a woman in a “free,” democratic Western country! Right?

Most people in the United States—even the most misogynistic, disgusting creeps—are all about the “freedom” that the country stands for. Free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion (you know, the freedom to accept Jesus however way you wish), and freedom of expression. If you suggested a law that made it illegal to wear revealing clothes or to walk down the street at night, most Americans and other Westerners would be outraged.

Yet most Westerners blame women when they are raped.

“She shouldn’t have worn those clothes,” say some. “She shouldn’t have been drinking,” say others. Still others insist that “she shouldn’t have been walking around at that time of night.” None of these people who blame rape victims would ever consider rape as a punishment for freedom of expression. But if you blame the woman for her rape, punishment is exactly what it is.

We are not free to walk where we wish, when we wish. We are not free to have fun when we wish, kiss who we wish without going further.

The freedom to choose

Most people love the idea of free will. The idea that you can do whatever you choose to do. People should not be able to force you into situations that could hurt you. But that’s exactly what rape is.

If a woman is getting physical with a man, and she tells him she wants to stop (even if she had wanted to go all the way before and now changed her mind), it is 100% his responsibility to not force himself on her. It is both partners’ responsibilities to read signals clearly; if one is pushing the other away: Stop. If one is saying, “no”: Stop. If one is acting strange: Stop and ask what’s wrong. The responsibility is on the initiator; the one who’s acting. Not the one who’s hesitating.

It boggles my mind, to this day, that somebody could actually be aroused while forcing themselves on someone else. Hurting somebody against their will isn’t sexy. Taking advantage of a person’s intoxicated state isn’t sexy. If you find these things arousing:

You are to blame.
You are responsible.
You need help.
You are not normal.
You are not “just being a guy.”

We, as a society, are so willing to blame the victims, but not the perpetrators. We blame the powerless, but not the powerful. Perhaps it’s because we are cowards. We know that the root of our problem is also the foundation on which our current society was built. So we let people suffer unnecessarily.

So that we don’t have to address our biggest fears.

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.

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.

Words in bold italics are defined in the glossary.

I sent the following in a mass email to all my friends, including my Facebook friends:

Dear friends,

As you all know, I do not send out personally written mass-emails often. In
fact, I can`t remember the last time I did. But this is about life or death,
literally.

The Copenhagan climate talks are our chance to get the world to really act
on climate change. Every scientific report out there is worse: Glaciers are
melting faster than previously thought; the positive feedback loop is worse
than predicted; the ocean is acidifying; droughts and floods are getting
worse (see sources below).

Please sign the petition that *11 million people* have already signed to get
our world leaders to create real change to combat climate change:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_copenhagen_now/97.php?cl_tta_sign=8e0fe5a3dd7dd368db4824cb34355246

I don`t care if you think capitalism or communism or anarchism is the best
system–right now we`re at a point of desperation where simply getting
countries to make a single effort to combat climate change is a struggle in
itself. This is like Hitler taking over the world–but worse. Because there
will be no survivors, no matter how crazy your ideology. If you want to know
the likely scenarios if we don`t succeed at Copenhagen, go here:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-impacts-interactive.html

Rich countries like the United States are refusing to take essential steps
to protect the entirety of humanity, simply because they don`t feel it`s
“fair” for them to take responsibility. That is literally like a
hissy-fit-throwing toddler being in charge of the whole world. This is no
longer about what`s “fair” or who does more work…it is about preventing
global catastrophe.

I`m angry. I am so furious I want to wage all-out war on anybody stopping
essential progress.

Please join me in signing the following petition: It already has 11 million
signatures – let`s make it the *largest petition in human history!*
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_copenhagen_now/97.php?cl_tta_sign=8e0fe5a3dd7dd368db4824cb34355246

Here are some resources:

Glaciers melting faster: 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55L1UP20090622
2007:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070216-glaciers-melting.html

Ocean acidification: 2009:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33257&Cr=emission&Cr1=
2006: http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060221_acidfrm.htm
2008: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm

Tropical diseases: 2003:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-9.html
2007:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/16/nation/16898359&sec=nation
1995: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/310/6986/1027/a

Famine: 1998: http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/122env2.htm
2005: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1378213.htm
2008:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081001-peru-potato-climate.html

Drought: 2003:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-4.html
2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html
2005: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/drought_research.shtml
2006: http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html

Flooding, extreme weather: General information:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons/fcons1.asp
http://challengeeurope.britishcouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=1405
2009 – Floods:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/palin-global-warming-flood/
2007 – Floods: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/30/2019828.htm
2007 – Floods:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3301670/Floods-show-global-warming-is-here.html
2005 – Hurricanes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html
Hurricanes:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-Warming-Dictates-Hurricane-Peaks-119110.shtml

The following is an excerpt from The Barefoot Bum:

Anarchism is a curious topic. Its linguistic roots mean literally “no rule”. But by these roots no self-described anarchist can impose a definition of anarchism…

Taken to the logical extreme of its roots in a non-vacuous sense, anarchism would entail absolutely no coercion whatsoever…

Locking your front door or physically hanging onto your wallet is coercive: you are using physical force to prevent a person from doing what he wants to do.

(Bold emphasis mine)

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

1. “No rule” means “no imposition/coercion.” The Barefoot Bum concludes that “no rule” means “no imposition.” This step in his argument is already false. “No rule” means exactly that—no rulers. Generally, most anarchists are more specific in saying that anarchism means “no government” or “no state.” Most, including me, will stop at that.

No government doesn’t even mean no governance; governance is the act of administering policy and decisions. If an anarchist society were divided up into syndicates (as it probably would be, since this is the most practical application of anarchism), each syndicate might elect a representative who would then speak to the representatives of other syndicates. The leadership could be rotational, the decision-making could be through consensus, but whoever carries out a decision, even if it is agreed upon by all, is practicing governance.

2. “No coercion” means you cannot lock your doors or keep your wallet/shirt. As I have already demonstrated that the “no imposition/coersion” assumption is false, I don’t really need to go on, but I will anyway. Even if “no rule” did mean “no coercion,” it wouldn’t necessarily be logical to push the argument even further down the slippery slope to “no locked doors/ no personal belongings.”

The Barefoot Bum uses the argument that someone (George) cannot hang on to his own shirt*, because if someone else (Sue) wants the shirt, George would have to use physical force to keep Sue from taking it. But by that same logic, Sue would be using physical force to take George’s shirt, if he doesn’t want her to. By The Barefoot Bum’s own arguments, both parties are using coercion. This logic essentially cancels itself out, once again rendering The Barefoot Bum’s argument moot.

In the real world, including the anarchist world, the desires of the person who wears the shirt are more important than the desires of the person who wants to take the shirt (assuming everyone has enough clothing, which they would in a libertarian socialist society). Anarchism does not prohibit possession (not to be confused with private property), nor should it, even if there were no form of governance in that society. Forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do, which would have an adverse affect on them physiologically/psychologically, is very different from e.g. forcing a toddler to share his toy. Yet both are technically forms of coercion. One form of coercion (the form The Barefoot Bum was talking about) cancels itself out easily using simple logic. The other doesn’t.

What I hate about these slippery-slope arguments is that they are so abstract and philosophical, they have no bearing on the real world except that they distract people from it, and convince people with poor reasoning skills that the argument made is actually valid. As I explained to The Barefoot Bum, a similar argument could be made about socialism:

Socialism is about equality. Therefore, it’s about 100% equality. Therefore, nobody can have or do anything that anybody else can’t have or do. If anybody is in a wheelchair, everybody has to be in a wheelchair. If anybody is blind, all have to cover their eyes. And if there are any women in a socialist society, all men have to make themselves bleed for five days out of the month.

I have seen that argument made seriously by right-Libertarians, and I can tell you, it’s a poor argument. Simply the fact that it’s made by right-Libertarians should point to that obvious fact.

Here’s another one:

Monarchy means “rule of one.” Therefore, only one person can rule. Therefore, if anybody but the monarch has any influence whatsoever on a policy, that policy must be scrapped. If the monarch chooses to change a policy based on his/her popularity or what the populace thinks about him/her in general, that policy cannot be changed. But then it has to be changed, because it was indirectly influenced by the populace.

etc.

Perhaps this is why I hate philosophy, in the “I have a degree in Philosophy” sense. Don’t get me wrong, my closest friends in college were philosophy majors. But a lot of it is plain intellectual masturbation (sorry, guys).

One (especially a philosopher) can take any idea or even political philosophy and render it useless if one has enough wanking time. I’m personally surprised that The Barefoot Bum didn’t just say something to the tune of:

Anarchism literally means ‘no rule.’ But what does ‘rule’ mean? And what does ‘no’ mean? Isn’t ‘no’ the ultimate negative statement? Should any system based on such a negative exist? Could it? And what does ‘it’ mean? I don’t know. Who am ‘I?’ What am ‘I?’ Who am I to claim to know what ‘I’ am…perhaps somebody else know more what it is like to be ‘me’ than ‘I’ do…?

…And so forth. I used to have these existential debates inside my head when I was eight.

* I chose to use a shirt instead of a wallet in the example so as not to bring money into the equation.

Words written in bold italics are defined in the glossary.

That’s what we tell our precious children. For, it is more important to us that they grow a tough skin than that we become aware of who is being bullying and abusive. And if you can catch a bully at a young age, you are much more likely to prevent them from becoming worse and worse.

But the wounds go deeper. This isn’t just about children in school. Many siblings may remember their older siblings being cruel and sadistic towards them, then telling them not to “tattle,” so their parents never know what’s wrong. What’s worse, some parents punish the younger sibling if they do “tattle,” instead of the older one for being a brat.

Yet even deeper. Truly abusive children and adults alike use this logic because it permeates our society, and any child can be forced to obey it. I am very close to many people who were abused and told not to “tell.” One was molested by their twelve-year-old babysitter, then told not to be a tattle tale. Another by their teacher. Yet another was sexually abused by their grandparents. But it’s a secret. “Our little secret.”

This is a culture of silence. Silence infests our ghettos and Third World countries; silence imprisons the weak and the helpless; silence saturates every crevice, every corner of our society. If you are attacked on a street in broad daylight, chances are nobody will come to your aid. We are the innocent bystanders. Feeling sick yet? If you’re not, perhaps you’re not paying attention.

As a child, I was ridiculed in school. I was treated horribly from age 6 to 13. I had several physical threats during that time. Yet I was never hit or attacked. Why? Because my mother taught me to tell. “If someone is hurting you, either your feelings or your body, tell someone.” I was trained that if one adult wouldn’t listen, to keep telling until somebody did. This helped perpetuate the ridicule to an extent, but really it was my insecure attitude more than anything else. And nobody touched me.

This video was sent to the police, and the bully was arrested. All the more reason to “tattle.”

Language can be used for control through fear, inspiration, anger, and pain. You can hurt somebody with words, even if you’re not looking at them. You can do it through the internet. Most people, however, believe that if you are hurt by somebody’s written verbal abuse, you should DEAL WITH IT. I put that in capitals, because that’s how they’ve said it to me. I’m not talking about someone saying, “you’re an asshole.” That’s just silly. I’m talking about persistent, cruel, sadistic attacks.

Many are unaware of the psychological damage that verbal/written abuse can cause. They should learn a little about sociology, anthropology, and the fact that above all else, humans are social beings. Language is our foundation, and it affects us as profoundly as anything else. It can be used to begin movements, start revolutions, and strike fear into people.