On People and Language and Stuff

No, not the magazine.

Language is a funny thing. It seems like a small thing, which word you use sometimes, but ask any poet or writer, it's not. My particular beef this time is mostly with capitalism, mainly because Communism, whatever the word actually meant, is pretty much dead. At least mostly about capitalism, though it might just be a result of life in a world where you meet more people every day than even lived in most paleolithic tribes.

See, the thing about capitalism, and maybe more than that, is this. I was taking economics, and one of the things I realized that was bugging me was the way it kept treating people as just another resource, "Labor." People aren't the same thing as a rock, or a chunk of land, or even a robot. Yes, more than one person can do the same work, but they're still PEOPLE, not just resources. "Human resources" these days. Whatever happened to "Personel"? That at least had "person" in it. And people who buy things are "Consumers" now, not "customers" or anything else. What's really scary is when government reports talk about "consumers" instead of "people", or "citizens." I mean, fuck, we HIRE the bloody government, we're not just consumers.

That kind of thinking leads to abuses, when you stop thinking of other people as people, first. You end up with corporations whose first cuts come from customer service, who don't care as long as they've got your money. CEOs that fire people just to bump up the bottom line long enough to cash out their stock options. Generals who see casualty lists as just numbers, not the people who died. That's the mindset of aristocracy, and we've been there, done that, and I much prefer the world after the Enlightenment and democracy and all that stuff, thankyouverymuch.

But the thing is, to an extent, it can't be avoided. When you deal with somebody for maybe ten minutes, maximum, like when you're buying something, or riding the subway, or just walking past them, it's hard to make them more than just a face, a bundle of first impressions. To really see somebody as a person, you have to see more than just that, get them fleshed out as a person. But even so, even though you can't see it on the face, you should remember the person there is a person, just like you, at least by all evidence. They have wants, dreams, fears, desires, and that itch that's driving them crazy.

[meta: mindscribbles]

The Politics of Hope and Fear

Okay, I'll start by admitting up front that I'm an idealist and optimist, which is part of why I'm so bitter and cynical these days, the world should be better, but it's not, damnit, and the people who could easily do it don't. BUT!

The way I see it, there's no point in getting involved in politics, unless you're going to be the Good Guys. Well, okay, the acquisition of personal wealth or power, but that's not why I'd do it. The thing is, being the good guy doesn't mean you have to be an idiot. Nor does it mean you can't fight back just as hard, just means that you avoid certain tactics, like, y'know, outright lies about yourself or your opponent.

People seem to have gotten confused, many of the Democrats especially. They seem to think being a nice guy means you can't say mean things about your opponent, even if they're true. Means you won't attack them on perfectly reasonable grounds, and won't do to them what they plan to do to you. This is wrong. Being good doesn't mean being soft, even if you don't relish fighting. Being good doesn't mean you don't call your opponents malevolent lying bastards when they are, in fact, malevolent lying bastards. If your opponent's record consists of running several business into the ground and then becoming governor and running the state's budget into the ground, you are allowed to point these facts out. If your opponents are going to try and unseat your allies in every way they can, you do the same to their allies, just legitimately. A large part of politics is fighting and arguing, you have to be good at these.

When your opponents entire platform depends on frightening people, so they're scared and run for whoever promises to be "stronger", you don't let them have their story. Hope can beat fear, even if doing the right and smart thing doesn't always look "strong." When it's a dick-waving contest over being "stronger" the bullies who'll hit anybody will always look "stronger" at first than somebody who avoids fighting unless they have to. Until the bullies lose.

The story, the framing, is a key element. People respond to stories, even when they know the stories aren't real, it's how Hollywood and video games make their money. They'll respond to the story that first their experiences the best, whether or not the story is actually related to the facts or reality at all. And no, I'm not excluded from this myself. The key thing here is strategy, if you're fighting on the battlefield of the opponent's choosing, fighting inside their story, they already have the advantage. You have to fight on the same level, with a story of your own, that's as good or better than theirs. And that's one of the things the not-batshit side was lacking last election, a story to compete with Bush/Cheney/Rove's "Terrorists are going to blow up your kiddies, but Daddy Bush will keep them safe" (Well, aside from the "Holy SHIT, what are these people DOING to our country?" story, but that's reactive, and doesn't have the same traction with people who don't see the full extent of things).

So, what beats fear? Hope. Hope for a better world, for us and everyone else. Hope for a better future, not an endless, undefined war. I'm not sure exactly what needs to go into this, but I can think of several things. Honesty. Respect. Intelligence. Courage to face the real problems, not swagger around in a flight suit. That kind of thing. And yes, I think, despite all the "just folks" Bush BS, and his "street cred" as a C level student and so on, intelligence has to be part of things. When somebody does something stupid, that makes things worse, it should be called as such. And yes, this includes your own side.

Truth, Justice, and the American way sounds like a good start on values, doesn't it?

[meta: politics]

Religion and Politics (you may want to sit this one out)

Well, let me start out by surprising a number of you. I think there need to be more religious voices in politics.

Specifically, we need more not-batshit-insane religious voices in politics.

Yes, I know, there's quite a few religious folks involved with politics who aren't batshit insane. But look at the high profile religious folks involved in politics. Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Batshit insane. The Left Behind Guys? Rich, but still batshit. The neocons who think they need to support Israel so they can set things up so Jesus will come back and save them and throw all the Bad People into a pit of fire?
And, y'see, the batshit insane ones get all the publicity, which tars others with their insanity, especially when they claim to speak for all Christians, except, of course, they don't.

And, apparently, some of them are making a big deal lately out of... People saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". This is, evidently, more proof that there's a giant conspiracy to oppress Christians everywhere. Especially conservative evangelical ones.

Well, HELL. I wish I could be "oppressed" like them! Their tribe controls the entire government, has the press scared into docility, is pushing their religion into schools and state parks across the country. What's money say? "In Buddah we trust"? "In the general decency of fellow human beings we trust"? "In Krishna we trust"? "In Cthulhu we trust"? No. And yet, we get the "poor persecuted Christians by the big Evil Liberal Media And Such" meme trotted out again and again. FFS, most liberals are Christians of some sort too, the US is what, like 80%+ Chrisitian? Sheesh. I'm sick of the whole persecution complex.

And the other thing that's annoying me, currently? The people who preach "personal responsibility" and then use religion to avoid taking responsibility for what they do. Okay, great, you're saved. So, what, Jesus is going to be cool with you acting however you want, now? And it's all okay if you just apologize to Jesus? (Forget the people who you might've harmed, or doing anything to make it better, of course). "By their deeds you shall know them," IIRC. Being a decent human being isn't just a matter of trying to suck up to Jesus or whoever else, it requires, y'know, being a decent human being. And do they really think anybody would be able to take them seriously when they constantly come and apologize for doing something bad, then go do it again? Apologies don't mean anything unless they're backed up by actions. Religious or otherwise.

[meta: politics]

And done spamming

And with that last one, which will probably get some kind of reaction, even if it's just icy silences, I'm done spamming LJ for the night.

And I think this LJ has probably effectively burned any chances I might've had for ever holding elected office. Heh.

Well, except for this. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld

Bush defends Rumsfeld as a "caring man". That's... great, George. Caring. Right. Tell that to the people he "cared" about at Abu Ghraib. Or the soldiers going into battle without proper equipment. Or the parents of soldiers killed that he "cared" so much about he couldn't sign the actual "We regret to inform" letters himself. Or the country he "cared" so much about he lied to blatantly on TV.

And, y'know what? Honestly, it doesn't MATTER if he's a "caring man". Because he's an INCOMPETENT secretary of defense, and he's helped get tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, plus over a thousand American soldiers. It doesn't matter how caring he is when his screw-ups, incompetent planning, lies, and pipe dreams about being accepted as "liberators" have helped get so many people killed.

But only helped, of course. It's not all Rumsfeld's fault. Oh no, the buck stops at the top, George.

High School

Many people live their whole lives in high school. Not just the people whose lives peak there, and that's why they remember high school so fondly. High school happens during one of those big formative periods of life, and many people end up taking on habits, attitudes, thoughts, and reactions they'll keep their whole lives, living the rest of their life trapped in the person they were when they were sixteen.

Habits get harder to change the longer they last, and some times are easier to change than others, and as you get older, physical things like neurons settle into patterns of their own and things get harder to change. It can be done, but it's not easy. How long can the jock coast on past glories, and how long do the shy take to realize it's no longer high school, and they can be whatever they want?


[meta: mindscribbles]

The street finds its own uses for magic.

Maybe I missed it, but has anybody ever done anything even sorta like Cyberpunk, but in Fantasy? Magic can do the same kinds of things as tech, only even moreso, in some ways. And there's plenty of places to explore similar themes, and yes, I know about Steampunk, but it's not quite the same, much as I enjoy steampunk. Or is that all just rolled into Low Fantasy?

'cause, I was thinking, you know, we live in a world of magic, pretty much, these days. At least if you're reading this, you do. And what's one of the first uses most of the magic we've got has gotten put to use for? Sex. And power. But somehow I doubt the parts where Harry Potter finds the magically animated porn magazines the upperclassmen pass around is going to quite make it in any of the later books.

And I think that train of thought's completely gone off the rails, so enough for this entry.

[meta: mindscribbles]