Transactional Relationships

Words are wonderful tools for understanding concepts and discussing them with others. This particular phrase has shown up frequently in recent days, for better and worse. First, let us be clear about what it means, and then we can see where it is impacting the culture.

"Transactional relationship" simply refers to having an interaction (either one-off or longer, on-going relationship) with someone which is based around providing a benefit to both parties as the basis for said interaction. Simple, yes; deceptively so. It may be self-evident that a purchase from the market is a transaction. What about the waitstaff at a restaurant? Or the 'crew' of a fast-food joint? In traffic, does my waving another driver through the intersection count? How about two co-workers who plan a social activity outside work? Finally, what about intimate relationships such as marriage? Truly, there are aspects to this concept which muddy that simple idea we started with.

The above examples are provided because they can certainly be transactional. Even though many cultures have moved away from dowries or bride-prices, marriage for love is still a recent convention, dating back only a few hundred years. However, money being directly involved is also not a determinant in this concept. Being "the beard" is a transactional relationship, but can be of social value to the parties rather than being a cash- or housing-based arrangement. Also, this introduces the aspect that one party can be ignorant of the true nature of their interactions because of assumed or undisclosed intentions. Similarly, if two co-workers seek to commiserate, it could simply be a trade; "give-and-take" or "quid pro quo" are other terms for transactional relationships. However, if one coworker is spying for the company or has romantic intentions, then it becomes a different dynamic. In driving, I could get something out of an interaction with another driver, but it could also simply be enforcing, or reminding them of, the 'rules of the road'. Causing others to adhere to accepted norms is part of social convention, and is less individual choice and more collective conformity. Both "waitstaff" and "crew" above are understood to be "servants" and the customers, "masters" (not the words typically used, but a replication of that traditional dynamic). Both provide customer service, are employed by the establishment, would not interact with those patrons except for the venue, and are limited by their role—but only one gets gratuities. This power differential only further complicates the issue, but neither determines nor precludes a transactional relationship existing. Anytime staff are providing customer service, however, it interferes with any other type of relationship; in other words, there is a transactional relationship as long as at least one party is acting in a professional, business capacity. All this demonstrates the complexity of our interactions and that a solely transactional relationship is rare. Especially if there is the possibility of multiple encounters, people tend to introduce kindness or other social aspects to the process. Think about if you witnessed a person purchase a drink and all they did was state the order, make the payment, and take the beverage—no eye contact or speech beyond "give me a [drink]". It would seem odd, rude, or downright antisocial for not engaging in the niceties we expect—to not even respond to a greeting, nor acknowledge the other individual's person-hood.

Now that we have this basic understanding of a transactional relationship, let us turn to the impact on our experiences. What is happening in the culture that makes this a noteworthy concept? Firstly, we can consider the reduction of social interactions into tools of profit. Secondly, how the culture encourages this approach and who benefits from the tendency. Finally, whether this is something which requires correction, and is that possible? Without going into an exhaustive—and tedious—list of examples and trends over decades, this is certainly a problem. Wave after wave of induced social phobia (things like "stranger danger" the 1980's, the "super-predators" of the 1990's, and the fallout from September 2001—again, from a perspective in the U.S.) caused many to increasingly think of the world as so dangerous that it would be better to just not risk interacting. This constant anxiety and withdrawal has become a self-reinforcing tendency; the more people lack in social connection, the more uncomfortable any interaction seems. Just as vitamin deficiency can easily be treated by adding the required nutritional sources, so can many issues be addressed by increasing socialization. As people double-down on their sickness, by giving even more hours to work (or other isolating tactics) and retreating from shared spaces (and other social adventures), it worsens the symptoms. In typical fashion, rather than acknowledge and address this issue, we are sold any number of remedies. This is akin to ignoring the vitamin deficiency and insisting that surgery is needed to treat the symptoms. One such idea is better living through accumulation: that acquisition can soothe the ache of longing. All this denial leads to the idea that we can buy our way out of any problem, which lends itself to settling for transactional relationships. As the idea that the only things which matter are those that "provide 'value'" becomes paramount, the very things that give meaning to our lives fade and wither. In part, this is because treating symptoms is more profitable than curing illness. Additionally, the tendency to invest in the system which makes the rich even more rich incentivizes them to maintain such a system.

In conclusion, I will answer in the positive: this must change and that change is achievable. Such changes are often as difficult as they are necessary, and begin with acceptance that our ideas have been wrong. Suffragettes, abolitionists, and various other civil rights movements throughout history have attacked oppressive systems, in part by alerting people to injustices perpetuated by the underlying assumptions of those systems. The lasting changes we need are only made when people come to understand the structure itself is the problem, and we must address both the symptoms and the cause.

The First Rule of Power

This is quite a simple one, almost deceptively so. There is a truth which determines the nature of actions taken by individuals of all types, in any arena, and whether the goal is subjugation or community. The foundation is this: the first rule of power is to keep that power. Before rewarding loyalty, before enjoying the conquest, even before resting after an exhausting battle, this must be done. The first actions upon obtaining power must be to hang onto that power, or else all the effort will have been for naught. This can be seen in any number of fields, with numerous examples. It is the reason dictators eliminate potential rivals, sometimes the very moment their coup succeeds. It is the impetus for monopoly companies working to get laws in place to prevent competition or solidify their place in the market. It is also why the first to establish a new profession set criteria for admissions to the profession. It does not seem to matter whether the intention is beneficent or malignant, because even the most magnanimous king has to maintain rule in order to do good works. Any threat to the king's rule must be eliminated, lest a harmful king gain the throne. This is true, and must be true, as long as power is concentrated. This rule only becomes unnecessary when power is distributed among all. Once the "king" cannot be replaced, because it is every person, there is no threat of being overthrown. This applies to ideas as well, I contend. It is not just the person who is king, but the very idea of "king"; the notion that there is-or needs to be-such a thing. As long as the idea of "supreme ruler" is dominant, any other idea about how government can be done must be quashed in order to protect that idea. If this were not done, and continually renewed, then other ideas could creep in to subvert the hold that ruler has on the citizenry.

Servant's Industry

There is an acknowledgement of the shift from a previous economic base of manufacture and innovation to one of services and personal attention. This has been going on for decades, and is a byproduct of the globalization of trade and business. What it essentially means here in the United States is that workers no longer have a solid employment future at a company that makes goods because of the need for those goods. People are instead increasingly at jobs which perform services for others. These jobs regularly place individuals into lower-status and lower-power positions related to those they service or serve. The categories are huge, from hospitality, caring, and leisure, to financial, education, and sales. These include numerous specific titles: clerk, teller, waitstaff, nurse, consultant, cook, painter, instructor, manager, sitter, mechanic, driver, therapist, technician, and on ad astra. Included are food service, personal assistant/shopper, driver (chauffeur or taxi), host, and performer. Here "performer" includes not only actor, artist, athlete/competitor, or musician, but also buskers, content creators (YouTube or otherwise), and sex workers. This last group is no longer restricted to in-person services or pre-recorded videos, but nowadays includes "camera models" who can interact with online audiences through chat features. It is also this last group which I think best illustrates the issues I find with this trend. It is not about the commonplace argument about loss of talent, as I think many individuals could be incentivized into a manufacture trade if that were necessary. After all, all the folks in these jobs are skilled, often talented, and intelligent workers. It is actually about status and power, the ability of professionals to maintain autonomy and pursue advancement, and an overall stability for the economy.

In many ways, the move to "independent contractors" was not driven by employees seeking to expand their freedom and escape the confines of employers, but was a move on the part of employers to escape the confines of legal requirements around employment. Rather than pay one full-time person a guaranteed wage and minimum hours, providing benefits like holidays (or other paid time off) and medical insurance, it turns out to be cheaper to pay just a wage more workers to do the same work in a part-time capacity without all the other requirements. This has lead to not only a decrease in the number of individuals who can afford to live, but an increase in the costs to communities as those workers must find public services to offset the lost benefits. Similarly, the supposed "disruptive technologies" around sharing apps are advertised as an 'opportunity' for workers; they end up being just another way for the few to exploit the many. Much of this is what has been called the "gig economy", where a worker will not have a single job but cobbles together a living out of multiple "gigs".

Supposedly individuals more directly 'own' their work (or effort and skills) and are empowered to sell it to business owners in the 'free market'. Claiming that 'independent contractors' are in a better position than an employee, I think misses a few points. These workers are not subject to the protections employees are, and are desperate enough to jump into something-even if it's as risky as a pyramid scheme (Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM). Being ignorant of the practices and standards of a profession they are only in as a "side hustle", they don't know the history of folks who have worked in the field which led to the protections these self-proclaimed "disruptors" are side-stepping. Not that taxi driving is glamorous-nor is it the road to riches-but it is an established profession with understood guidelines and protections. Those are all the results of years of struggle by drivers to obtain the bare minimum of legal recognition and safety regulation. This cycle is played out in various fields in diverse ways, all summed up in the same manner: eliminate security for workers and increase benefit to owners.

First Impressions

How quickly things have changed. It was just a few weeks ago that I had no idea what a pandemic was like. How confusing, chaotic, strange, scary, lonely, and relentlessly overwhelming it is. How I would fear for my life, and those of friends and family. How out of control it all seems. I don't know what anything means, and days are eternal as it seems like I am a moment away from panic.

I have, on the other hand, to stay calm and keep moving; to maintain my composure for someone else. It is because I am taking care of another human, and totally responsible for their life and psychological well-being, that I can focus. All the uncertainty and potential threats are less important than the duty I have to care for someone other than just myself. How we get through this will be as important as if we get through this. I believe this because I heard the stories of those who came after the economic depression of 1928, and those raised by the survivors of the 'dustbowl years'. The mental toll of that experience was so heavy that it weighed down the generations that followed for decades.

 Of course, we will do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Just as important, we will not live in dread or in a way that prevents us from having joy in our lives. I will keep up our spirits and find ways to enjoy what is left to us, always maintaining the sense that this will end and we will emerge with our love intact.

What Keeps Us Safe

I propose that it is business that is the best defense. Guns and bombs aren't "making the world safer," and "a strong military is the best deterrent," is false. Instead, what keeps people from attacking and destroying a place is that place having what those people need. It is very difficult to destroy the only source of food or clothing, and it is a tremendous waste of effort to occupy a country just to insure they continue to produce them. Instead, establishing a mutual business relationship is securing the interests of all involved to maintain the status quo. People will go to great lengths to eliminate a bully, and nations are no different.

Self-Castration is Not Safety

First, I have elected to present this argument initially as a sex issue. This is drawn from the dominant culture arguments on the topic, however, since it is inaccurate I shall strive to bring it back to reality after the initial exploration. Second, and for clarity, I do not support violence in any form. There is no way in which I mean any of the following as blaming or as excusing retaliation. All human issues are complex and complicated, as are we humans. Finally, I can only urge and implore readers to accept discomfort in reading difficult writing; it is by challenging ourselves that we open the opportunity for learning.

 

Men have not taken women's power, and have never given it back. Women do not take men's power, men give up their power-most often in order to see seem less threatening to women. Because the things men are can be seen as negative, men pack away assertiveness, assurance, and audacity. There have been years of overt and covert labeling and shaming of men in order to "make women safe" and "make men less violent". Ironically, taking away a man's ability to defend himself is more likely to result in an act of violence. As a man is rendered defenseless, he feels more vulnerable. This leads to increased likelihood of feeling attacked, as he fears that any attack will be successful (since he can no longer defend himself). There is also the increased risk that an undefended attack will do more damage, even more than the attacker intended. So, this man will be more wary and guarded, which will lead those around him to judge that something is amiss, and suspecting him of being "on edge". This means they treat him differently, he becomes more wary, and the cycle builds until it fulfills itself. This is all backwards, as persons need to reclaim their own power instead of demanding others lose their power. This is where we begin to move away from the "female/male" expression of the issue, as the players can be any groups. Sex, gender, religion, culture, or geographic groups all play out these dynamics.

 

Additionally, there is a tendency for the oppressed to become the oppressors; essentially, for retaliation. This is a cycle of violence wherein each oppressed group fights to get out of oppression and, stuck in the mindset of loss and violation, they seek to victimize/violate their former tormentors in order to demonstrate to themselves and others that they are no longer victims. However, if each group who takes power is prone to this violence, then there is no end to the cycle. Each previously oppressed group goes on to oppress others, creating a future wherein the now-oppressed must fight out of oppression and then goes on to oppress their oppressors. Some group has to be the one to relent and allow for their own victimhood to teach how bad it is, and advocate instead for the elimination for all oppression.

The answer to insecurity is never about tearing down, but rather to build up and raise all to a healthy minimum of self-esteem and power so that the abilities of others poses little threat. When all are secure in their own abilities is when true freedom begins.

I Take Responsibility for Trump

I did not take seriously the possibility of someone so obviously unfit, unqualified, and unbelievable. I dismissed out of hand, denied with disdain, and scoffed with self-satisfaction. I did not consider for a moment that a great number of people could be swayed by their own disaffected frustration with the way things are. I was as lulled into complacency as so many privileged citizens have been. It is still unthinkable to me that this terrible individual had a chance of being given such a position. He is so demonstrably incapable of the dignity, restraint, and consideration required to be a leader. I look at him still and see the opposite of nearly all attributes that make a person fit for an elected office, let alone one at such a level. I put his chances of success on par with the possibility of Mickey Mouse being elected.

To be clear, these are not excuses. I am not asking for mercy for my error, and I fully recognize that I will be paying a price for my pride. No, this is to explicate my own responsibility and demonstrate how I missed all the opportunities to prevent this travesty. Instead, I should have been making efforts to talk with those individuals who were accepting and supporting the messages that Trump-the-candidate was spouting. It is not in my power to change DNC/RNC policies, I cannot lobby or buy media time, nor can I influence large number of people at rallies. However, I can reach out and build relationships with those who believe differently than I do.

In this way, most of all, is how I failed. I believe it is because we don't have good relations and strong, mutual respect for "others" that people like Trump succeed. Those "divisions" allow us to be steered like cattle by persuasive personalities. I use scare quotes because those words are artificial constructs and the emphasis denotes how they don't fit in reality. Lately, and with tremendous effort, I have begun looking for positive outcomes. In this case I have hopes that there may be some yet.

I cannot ignore this situation, and hope that no one else is able to, as well. I have been shaken from my complacency, and I hope that everyone else is also. I realize that things can truly be worse, and believe that others want that not to happen. We can come together, and need to more than ever.

Frivolous Nation (or How Pointless Consumerism Kills Self-Image)

The downfall of quality goods made by skilled craftspeople, along with the rise of the cheaply made disposable product, has long been lamented by those nostalgic for a 'more wholesome' age. While increased production capacity has allowed for a market saturation of products, it has undermined the ability to rapidly change or recover from disruption, both in the workforce and the production line. In the U.S., what was once labor-saving and a boon to business (automation or mechanization) has become a cyclic trap of lost living-wage jobs, shortened product life-cycle, consumer-based economy (as opposed to production-based), and frenzied pursuit of 'The Good Life'. These issues are troubling enough, but I believe there is even more to it.

To begin with, 'The Good Life' is more conceptual than practical. The notion of 'The Good Life' has been reduced to the sum of possessions and ability to purchase (a.k.a. income) because that is the observable part. Those without see what prominent people have and equate those items with success; having the trappings of success becomes success. The illusion of wealth and prosperity is more valuable than the actuality of hard work, planning, and saving. Partly because that approach takes time, and partly because nobody can wear a bank account balance. This means that as long as I have those signs of being successful, I will be seen as such and therefore I am living 'The Good Life'. In popular culture it seems that the more useless and ridiculous something is, the more valuable it becomes as a demonstration of wealth (and disregard for reality). I convey that I do not need to worry about paying my bills when I can wear this name-brand handbag/wristwatch. Beyond this, the illusion of not having to work becomes valued as a status symbol unto itself. Here we have the idea of leisure time, out of which arise Arts and similar activities. For example, fashion arose from people using free time to focus on the embellishment and enjoyment of clothes. These leisure activities and products quickly became part of 'The Good Life'.

It has been the promise of capitalist economic theory that more citizens would be able to access these leisure activities due to upward mobility and "labor-saving devices". When the promised rewards were not forthcoming, credit stepped in to fill that perceived gap. The promise of getting today and paying tomorrow may have started a boom in borrowing, but it also signaled the end of patience. Having the option to borrow soon became the first choice - so as to not miss out - which then became the default, as "Why go without?" was adopted as the reason to buy anything. Many families live 'beyond their means' and pay more than an interest rate by way of perpetual debt, item repossession, home forfeiture, bankruptcy, etc. Returning to the subject of fashion, it is important to stay "in fashion" since fashion changes, otherwise it is a sign that one does not truly have the leisure time or wealth. This means that the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is never-ending, since it requires constant maintenance. In this, we also encounter the conundrum of value: as soon as something can have value, it can also lose its assigned value and become worthless. Additionally, the amount of time and work it requires to obtain an item determines the perceived value of it. This can mean that buying an item on credit imparts no intrinsic worth because it is simply purchased and lumped in with all other items purchased with credit . If this is the case, then things bought with credit are valuable only to the extent that they support the illusion of success.

Commodification is the process of taking what is rare, unique, scarce, or precious and making it available to all. Again, the claim has been that this process equalizes availability and thereby reduces inequality. However, given the points made above, that is not all that occurs. Once the queer becomes expected, it loses much of its appeal and value. What was once a treat from exotic locales becomes the rotting detritus of everyday life. This is the way of Capitalism: the quest for the next new thing or market. Another way to look at this would be to call it profaning: bringing objects, practices, or beliefs out of context and making them a possession...common, base, ordinary, pedestrian. No longer is tobacco a rare religious symbol, for instance, instead it is a commodity that is ground underfoot after a 5 minute break from work.

The final component is the tendency to equate my self with possessions. Once 'The Good Life' depends on the continued accrual and maintenance of possessions, then my value to others and myself depends on those same possessions. If I lose them or they fall out of fashion, then my self-image is imperiled. I can only feel positively about myself (or my self) as long as my possessions support that positive self-image. This is the central contradiction: possessions hold all our value, yet simultaneously hold no inherent value.

The Presumption of Safety

I believe others would agree that the illusion of safety is not actual safety. The things that we do every day are dangerous, but there is an inherent difference between accepting danger as reasonable and necessary and ignoring danger as though it were nonexistent or negligible. I think we typically operate somewhere between 'there is a possibility of a meteorite landing on me' and 'let's have a pushing contest at the edge of this very high cliff'. This brings up a question of what is truly safe, and how it is different from what we only think or presume is safe.

I like the example of speeding because it is ubiquitous in developed areas, and common to think "it does not hurt anyone to go faster than a sign says." However, ignoring a posted and legal sign is a distraction from the actual issue. I do believe that humans make rational decisions that support the common good; the possibility exists to go faster or slower than a speed limit dictates. However, is this decision made rationally or out of frustration, because "I'm running late," or "my passenger will die from blood loss if I don't drive fast enough"? Not paying attention to the speed I drive has an effect, and it is different than when I choose consciously to drive faster because I checked and it is still safe. The point is to recognize, understand, evaluate, and accept the inherent danger instead of ignoring it simply because it has not resulted in death and/or injury yet.

Why? This goes to the 'right' fear preparing us for what we should actually be wary of. For example, if I am a woman, I am most at risk of violence from an intimate partner-not a stranger. If I am a child, the most likely person who kidnaps or murders me is a parent-again, not a stranger. It is important to dispel the illusions we carry regarding our safety. It is vital to become aware of actual dangers. By guarding against illusory threats, I'm ignoring or don't have the energy to watch for real ones. When I don't pay attention to real danger, I put myself-and potentially others!-at greater risk.

I believe the privileged have the illusion of safety, where we assume that we are safe whatever we do. This may come out of a history of not experiencing everyday violence or imminent danger. This does not preclude responsibility to become aware or maintain vigilance of possible threats. Complacency is not safety, rather it is an invitation to harm.

An Exploration of Nonviolence

There are a few points I want to make here, but they all lead up to what is the main idea I had for this post. I will work to be brief with the preliminary items in order to get to the point.

First, I find it cumbersome to define or describe something by what it is not. This may be better labeled peacefulness or "peace-able-ness", but the traditional term Ahimsa may be best.

Next, this works with human nature, not despite it. Not to get into another discussion, but there are a number of incorrect assumptions built up around what constitutes "Human Nature". I will leave that for another time, as I want to get to the point.

Finally, as social beings we are inclined not just to relate, but also will respond to the suffering and needs of others.

Nonviolence requires the development of an effective means of self-defense. The peaceful practitioner must not only engage in not harming others, but also in preventing the violence of others. I'm not advocating some sort of pseudo-nonviolent militarism. If we accept that all life is precious and deserving of preservation, then we consider the 'victim' as well as the perpetrator and surrounding community. It is precisely because we feel the pain of others that we must prevent the perpetrator from committing their violent act. It is because our own injury or death at the hands of another human would continue to hurt those who care about us that we must prevent the violent act of the perpetrator. We cannot always do this with kind words and calm requests. There is not always time to relate, especially when the other is out-of-control (meaning not rational in the moment). Most perpetrators regret or repent their acts, given time, incentive, and opportunity to examine them. It is imperative that we avert the calamity and the near-perpetrator progress towards repentance. To accomplish this goal, we must have a way of incapacitating the perpetrator that is effective, but does not inflict undue violence (as this would make us a perpetrator in turn).

This also stipulates that the prevention of violence is always the 'highest good', and it would not serve a 'higher' cause to suffer or die instead.

Proclamation

I have to start sometime, and it might as well be now. I am often right, but I keep my mouth shut and let others run the show. I don't speak up or tell people what I know and think because I'm afraid. I see the answers all the time, and can't keep silent anymore.

I have to start somewhere, and it might as well be here. There may not be many who agree with me, but the number who do seems to be growing. I don't reach out to them and say what I feel because I'm afraid. I see the need everywhere I turn, and can't stay silent anymore.

People are in pain. It needs to end. There are things we can do. It is time to start.

An Armed Society is A Violent Society

I have often heard the maxim that, "an armed society is a polite society." Most often I have heard this stated within a conversation about "solving the problem of crime" or lamenting the loss of "good, old-fashioned values". The reasoning goes something like this: more people having firearms means that those with ill intent would not feel they could get away with crimes. To me, this is reminiscent of the "Wild West" era in the United States; a time when firearms were readily available, poorly regulated (if at all), and, most importantly, worn openly. The image of the rough-and-ready "cowboy"/gunslinger, leather holster on hip, willing to draw on another man at any provocation is well known through movies and TV shows. Dramatised, certainly, but grounded in a reality of insecurity and competition. At that time people were actually defending their homes and lives from the threats of outlaw bandits, claim jumpers, and the Native peoples (who were still defending their own rights to the land, which is a tale for another time). These were real threats that no one else could defend these homesteaders and settlers from, they had to do it themselves. The conditions of the "Wild West" no longer obtain, however, and even then they were artificially heightened. Further, we now have trained and armed public servants policing our nation, investigating and preventing crimes. Just turn on your television and you're bound to come across a show involving one or more of these agencies. Their job is not as easy or glamorous as it's shown, but it still gets done. Most property battles are waged in courts now and death most often comes from greasy burgers and automobiles. This discussion is aside from the notion of "Justice". There is no claim by this author that the court system in the United States (or elsewhere) actually administers just and objective outcomes to citizens. This argument is oxymoronic (mostly moronic) in that what is being said is that the constant and pervasive threat of citizens carrying firearms and being responsible to use them to good ends is preferable. This is not an either/or, in that "either we have more guns for people or we will have more crime". This is because there is no correlation between prevalence of guns and crime deterrence.

This does, however, speak to the underlying belief as to the cause and motivation of crimes and those who perpetrate. It is a childish fantasy that their are "good people" and "bad people", and further that the "bad" ones can be deterred by something as silly as threat of violent retaliation. Thanks to researchers like Philip Zimbardo, we can understand better what actually instigates asocial behaviours and drives any individual to "criminal" intent. You really want to give every violently jealous lover, every self-righteous religious believer, and every minimally-competent, "freedom-loving" militia-wannabe-member access to firearms? Because I don't hear the N.R.A. placing any restrictions or competencies for ownership and those are the sorts that are most likely to want a gun in a hurry or "just in case". In my opinion, except for handguns being used by women against their abusive partners (the gun owners, most times) to end their cycle of violence, they have no business being in the hands of private citizens. Even then, there should be better solutions; certainly ones where victims need not go to jail.

In closing, if we take this argument to extremes it could go something like this: we decide on what is a punishable offence, and when that happens, all the nukes go off. Instead of having a gun, everyone can get "The Button", allowing them to stop any crime at any time with a simple press of the finger. The threat is so extreme that no one would dare hurt another individual, right? At least, it's true according to the theory expounded by "gun rights activists" that external control over people can alter their behaviour in all circumstances. In reality, more nuclear warheads have not a safer planet made. The threat of destruction by thermonuclear war is not healthy and has not lead to peace, just an ever-increasing level of posturing. Neither could the threat of bystanders holding "The Button" (or a gun) be a real deterrent. No threat of retaliation can bring reason back into an unreasonable situation.

An Expanded Letter To Gun Sellers

My father, uncles, brothers, and myself have all served in the armed forces. Outside of combat, there is no need or use for most guns. Even then only highly-trained and supervised individuals should be using these dangerous tools. Having assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips available to anyone else is irresponsible profiteering at best and could be considered aiding terrorists in many ways. The moral thing is to stop all sales of anything other than single-shot, manual-action-bolt rifles used for hunting and legal sports. Simply hiding behind excuses of "there's no law against it" is cowardice and doesn't make a bit of difference to those shot and killed. What would be meaningful is to lead the way by demonstrating that human lives mean more than profits.

That is a message sent to legislative representatives, gun stores, and other retailers. Since I have a bit more space and leeway here, I thought I would expand on it. First, I trust that you know "assault weapon" here refers to automatic and semiautomatic firearms. These fire multiple rounds per second and, in order to maximise their potential damage, call for large "clips" of ammunition. The specification made above for a "manual-action-bolt" would force users to eject the shell and reload the chamber themselves for each shot. I recognise this goes beyond the calls for gun licensing and mandatory background checks, which seem to be the most strenuous and abundant of late. However, I acknowledge that all of these are just precautions to slow things down which offer the illusion of protection. I'm far more interested in solutions that address actual problems than messing about with superficial glossing-over or with appearing to do something. I'd much rather just do what needs done. I am going farther because I feel the only real protection is not having a threat at all.

Guns are a danger that we manufacture. Literally.

If we stop making them and destroy the ones that exist, that actually eliminates the threat. Yes, that is "extreme" and I'm comfortable with the notion. My point really is that all firearms are obsolete, the notion that we would need to shoot each other is a barbaric relic of our past. Of course, facing this requires that we address many other facets of our society such as socioeconomic inequality, ecologically-sustainable and equitable resource management, and the prison-industrial complex. Not popular this, as it's far too comfortable not to even acknowledge them. However, there is no single answer that will eliminate our societal ills. If we are going to make a difference, we need to get serious about how we take on these subjects and accept the hard work that making improvements entails. It's high time we did so.

I Would Do Anything for....

I feel a strong need to dedicate this post to Meatloaf, that is the rocking recording artist/actor.
Not the food product.

At any rate, my purpose is to discuss an interesting topic: the meaning of this claim about doing anything for some cause, person, or object. Oftentimes we hear someone claim that they would do anything for love or their family, I will call these individuals "claimants".  What is understood from this is that they would accomplish heroic feats or go to the ultimate limit to safeguard that object/ideal.  Mainly, it has been used to announce that the claimant doesn't mind death or serious injury in protecting said item.  I propose that claimants are being a bit grandiose in these statements.  Most of us are never called upon to do anything so drastic as putting our lives or bodies in harms way to protect another.  There are many documented cases of uninvolved individuals doing just that, in fact.  It doesn't really take a great attachment or forethought to act in extreme cases, just an openness to justice or relation to other humans.  These claimants can rest assured that they can, and will, still make the ultimate sacrifice if called upon.  This is still, however, worth examining because of the alternative I propose.  Rather than these improbable promises, I would support claimants instead to actually do something necessary: work on their own shortcomings.  Instead of holding out for that extreme and unlikely event (while not preparing for it in any way, I will add), I would suggest practical and meaningful personal improvement.  I propose that this active course is actually the more necessary and beneficial one.  This is because it accomplishes something immediately, it is rewarding for the claimant, and it demonstrates more concretely their intention and motivation.  It is also the more difficult choice.  It proves that the claimant means business and isn't "all talk".

The Gift of Giving

There are very few valid reasons for anyone to have an excess of a commodity, basically only two: in order to give it to others or to save it in the short-term for a known or unknown need. This is true of any commodity, whether it be food a farmer grows or money a "philanthropist" has accumulated. Why do I say only these reasons? This is because any other rationale is an excuse for self-serving and unnecessary hoarding. What could be the broad, human benefit of holding on to things one does not need?  Whatever you just thought or actually said out loud, those are the selfish and short-sighted excuses I mean.  The system of capitalism encourages artificial scarcity and hoarding because it thrives on insecurity.  This has to do with the desire of business owners to have a workforce they can control and is another topic altogether.  There is no rational, valid reason for any to suffer when there are so many resources available; it is just that those who are able-and allowed-to keep more than their share want to leverage more power and status.  All this leads not just to suffering of those who do without those missing resources.  It is also that those hoarding the resources are doing without the joy of giving and providing to others, they are lacking that basic connection to those around them. 

Today I called my senator, here's what I said.

I'm calling to urge my senator to stop this healthcare travesty. We need real reform, not more compromise. I know that it's people like myself who end up dying and suffering over proposals like this one. For too long, necessary steps have been blocked by the vested interests who have grown rich off the labor of common, hard-working folks. At the same time these same individuals continuously promise us more than they ever deliver: in workplace safety, in food safety, in living wages, affordable housing-any housing!-yes, healthcare, or automobile safety, and on and on. More compromise in this case means more illness, more unnecessary pain and anguish, more death for people like myself. Our only offense is that we are forced by this system to work more than is needed to get less than is deserved. How can you honestly tell someone with two or three jobs that we don't deserve to have healthcare? That we are unworthy, just because we weren't born with a certain skin color or the "right background"? This, as with so many other things in our country, is a problem we are too long in finding an ethical, decent solution for. Instead we are forced to listen to more talk and excuses about "economic interests", about how "businesses can't survive", or "it's unfair to insurance companies". These entities are not alive, they don't matter when measured against the death of a mother or father whose disease was not treated in time, of one more child who goes hungry to pay the insurance, or one more brother or sister who slides into poverty under mounting medical bills. It's time to stop this insane practice of "we can't", it's time to say not only "we should", or even, "we can". It's time to say, "we will."

Choice and Consequence

Capitalism is not a system that allows people to exercise free will, even though it is supposedly based on choice. We are told that we are free, that because we can pay for what we want and because the capitalist system provides so many options, that we have real choices.  However, all the choices boil down to the same one: pay or die.  If you can't afford food, you starve; if you don't have the cash for health care, you'll get or stay sick; when you need a vacation, you'd better have plenty of cash.  The problems of capitalism are ameliorated by factors like insurance, subsidies, and donations, but these are not solutions.  Also, the illusion of choice is exposed by having only those select "approved" choices. In this I mean not that we should be able to break laws or do without them altogether, those are collective decisions and necessary for societal well being.  I mean simply that true innovation and free thought is stifled.  We are caught up in the system and have to work within its confines.  This is due to spending so much energy just to meet our "cash needs" (food, clothing, shelter, recreation) there isn't much left over for exploration.  There is only funding for research that "those in charge" allow for, and they only want to pay for things that will get them more money and power. If we want to do something, we have to get their permission and support.  If we want to operate outside of their purview, we still have to work inside the system and have those same  "choices".  It is a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating cycle whereby the more one plays the game, the more the game controls the player.

Owned!

Capitalism is predicated on the idea of ownership; that something, indeed everything, can be owned. Ownership indicates the ability to control. This means that if you own something, you determine what is done with it. This applies to a tool, an animal (even another human animal), territory, and-in recent times-an idea or words. Without this control things are subject to discussion, we have to agree with others about what happens, and be able to trust others. This is seemingly intolerable to many people, possibly from fear one may not get everything one wants. Leaving aside how great an insecurity with the world this concept reveals, let's examine what it means for us in a more concrete manner.

First we have to accept that we are able to own/control things outside of our individual selves. We then set about making sure that everyone knows we control these things, that no one else controls them, and that we can get control of other things in exchange for those we already control. This is the essence of capitalism, the bare-bones explanation. With all that activity, it seems like we ought to have something to show for it; that at the end of titling, registering, trademarking, copyrighting, and suing over rights to something, we must have a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. Look at those who do own, then those who own more, and then see how relaxed and fulfilled the majority of these people are. Ownership, in truth, leads to anxiety and insecurity; it means the constant worry about what is owned being taken from us. In the words of Chuck Palahniuk, "The things you own end up owning you."

Is This Thing Working?

This will be the first in a series of posts about capitalism; something which is on everyone's mind, no doubt. I mean that with everything that has happened recently in the U.S. economy and elsewhere, there are few more pressing issues in the minds of most. There isn't a grand outline although I do have a few ideas and, of course, they have been bumping around in my head for a while, so I'm hoping for something akin to coherence.

The question asked of any system or device is whether or not it works, the same must hold true for capitalism. We must remember first what capitalism is and is not. It is simply an economic system; that is, a way for everyone to make a living and have what they need. It is not the basis for freedom, does not create equality and harmony, nor does it act as a creative force-those are all the responsibility and province of humanity itself. When something has been around for as long as something like capitalism has, it's like water for fish-you simply stop recognising its existence. The problem with that analogy is that fish need water; they have adapted to that environment and cannot live outside of it. Can the same be said of humans and capitalism? Hardly. At best, we can say that it fills the need to be able to produce and distribute goods and services at a barely-tolerable, minimally-acceptable level. I describe it in this way because by its own standards, there are gross inadequacies and rampant misallocation. The claim capitalists make about this system is that it will produce goods at levels people need without outside intervention. They claim that surplus will be minimised and efficiency maximised. The problems with these claims are widespread and obvious when looked for. One may not recognise these as it is common practice to blame such problems on individuals, "human nature", and artificial manipulation of the economy. It becomes clear that the system itself results in these conditions, so I don't feel the need to repeat the arguments from others here. This means that shortages and concentration of goods are inherent, stemming from the guidelines of capitalism. Thus, returning to our original question, we must conclude that it is not effective for those who cannot get what they need within this system.

Show Me the Trust

There is a basic question everyone needs to answer for themselves, whether they are aware of it or not: is the world a basically good or bad place? In other words, "can I trust others?" The answer to this determines what sort of individual you are and how you interact with everyone around you. If you are constantly on-guard or scared of being exploited then you won't be the same person as if you were confident that you are safe and secure. If every situation is seen as another possibility to be humiliated, hurt, bested or broken then everyone around is a source of one of these possibilities. When you worry everyone is against you, it means you are using energy for that-not looking for the opportunities to cooperate-as you feel you need to outdo the other person before they do you in. This is not alleviated by being rich or powerful, it is pervasive and can only be dealt with in terms of the question presented at the start of this post. The stakes only rise the higher one climbs; it means those same enemies who would throw you only a few meters before can now send you plummeting kilometers. One will not find that suddenly-upon completing a marathon, receiving an award or standing ovation, having the person of your dreams agree to wed, or getting a dream job-that this problem resolves itself. These things can all be undercut by the feeling that your accomplishments can be stolen by a competitor, or that someone else could do the same or better.