The language paradox

Language can either work for you, or against you. Because it’s not just some “words”, it’s the mental and cultural architecture that frames the way we think and the way we are able to express ourselves. And it’s not necessarily all about the grammar and the punctuation, it’s also about the meaning and the effect we let words have over us.

For example, when a military power accidentally slaughters innocent bystanders, it’s not military incompetence resulting in the senseless death of innocent civilians anymore. No, it’s, as the media calls it, just “collateral damage”. The last time I checked, “collateral” is a type of payment somebody puts down when applying for a loan or a similar service. And I don’t think that there’s any  dead civilians out there who ever  agreed to have their lives put up as an insurance for a morally questionable military intervention. But that’s just an example of one party using  the power of language and making it work for them.

With the english language, all numbers between 12 and 20 have a “teen” suffix added to them. So as a result, anyone that’s under 20  can be referred to as being a “teenager”, which in my opinion can explain the higher age of majority in certain anglophone jurisdictions. As far as the law, and as far as anyone else  is concerned, any 18 year-old in Quebec is an adult, not a teenager. Because there’s no ” teen” related suffix for numerals in french. But all the other 18 to 19 year olds in all the other anglophone provinces of Canada will always be referred to as being quite up to the level of an adult, because they’re still “teenagers”. That’s what happens when language works against you.

As some of you might have noticed, I keep  going back to my  point that  “a representative democracy” isn’t the same as “a democracy”. That’s because I refuse to let the politico media establishment hijack the way we think just like that. Information is power. And propaganda has always been less effective on an educated populace.

Ideally, everyone should be vigilant and skeptical about everything that’s being said by politicians and the mainstream media, and about the way they say it. But the reality is that we live in the age of infotainment, objectivity flew out the window a long time ago…

[n]

TEST

— TIME CHECK TEST —

The war against the web

The internet we know today was originally created as a means of protecting vital information in the case of an invasion. It involved the U.S. department of defense and some American universities, and it was known as Darpanet.

Darpanet eventually became the Internet as we know it today. The internet is a vital world resource, but since it was originally created within the U.S., it’s mostly all regulated within the U.S. as well.

US laws have repercussions all over the world. Which is why law projects like SOPA ( the Stop-Online-Piracy-Act ) which threaten the neutrality of the internet, is a concern to everybody. At least everybody that’s online. And now-a-days, that’s a lot of people.

And the good news is that this article is more of a eulogy than anything, since as we all know, SOPA, that no good piece of law, was defeated.  An unprecedented amount of people contacted their government to complain, web organizations like Google and Wikipedia had blackouts and similar actions. Basically the internet got together to defeat a bill that would have amputated the internet. Basic survival instinct. That’s powerful stuff.

And sure, I’m against copyright infringement, but it should be up to the copyright owner to enforce it. It should not become the responsibility of search engines and internet service providers to police such content.

And who’s asking for such draconian measures? It’s mostly the RIAA ( Record-Industry-Association-of-America ) and MPAA ( Motion-Picture-Association-of-America ).And to this day, depending on the jurisdiction, some people are still being given massive fines and even sent to jail for ripping or distributing some movie, or some piece of music. And yet any public library will have a photocopier available to photocopy any written copyrighted work right there on the premises. They even get a cut of the profits. And that’s legal.

So my questions is: Why do we allow municipal institutions, such as public libraries, to profit from facilitating  copyright infringement of the written word and of visual arts, while we prosecute criminally people who distribute music and music type arts for the only crime of wanting to share their love of that art?

It’s possible that our culture and our governments are telling us that anything visual is of no value, but that, oh wait! IF it’s got soundtrack to it, IT IS A CRIME TO COPY IT!!!

The reality is that the feds are too cowardly to start going after those evil municipal governments and their evil public libraries. That would be one level of government taking on another level of government, and that would require courage. Feds don’t like working that hard.But, when it comes to creating a legal framework that allows music industry related enforcement pit-bulls to pounce on single moms and their kids for sharing a song, well in those cases, the feds are glad to help.

But maybe I’m getting worked up about this, so I therefore conclude expediently, not wanting to become another person who ends up M.I.A. because of the R.I.A.A.   …

Conclusion: So, in a supreme display of irony, the internet, a system that was created to protect vital information from foreign invaders, ended up getting attacked by a home-grown threat to liberty and freedom of speech: unchecked corporate greed.

[n]

*NATNOTE: And for those who think the art for this particular post is rather weak, well, that’s precisely the point. I create original art that I own for this blog. So if SOPA  would have gone thru, it would not have affected me that much. But If SOPA had gone thru, the blogs of most people who post material they do not own, would have ended up looking like the visuals for this blog: [ NO ART INCLUDED ] !

                                                                                   

DOG-EAT-DOG CAPITALISM

I would define DOG-EAT-DOG capitalism as a system in which one profits using the capital and efforts of another while not being held accountable in the event things don’t work out. Bankers and politicians are very similar in that sense, since both are praised when things go right,  and both are usually not held responsible when the decisions they make lead to disaster.

The 2008 financial crisis and its subsequent  multi-national and multi-billion bailouts of the banks responsible for that very mess, resulted in the creation of a system where the profits are privatized, and risks are socialized. The worst of Capitalism and Communism combined.

Sure, since then, some governments have tried their hand at legislation to regulate the banking industry. But when the banking lobby is involved in the drafting of that said legislation,  it starts to lose its potency. It’s funny how virtual corporate citizens are intimately involved in the legislative process, while flesh-and-blood actual citizens are never allowed to have a word in it.

If, for example, the delicatessen industry was to be caught blatantly lying about the content of their product, there would sure to be some serious legal consequences. A company selling chicken breast that turned out to be mostly pig ears and pig tails, would most certainly be held accountable for it.

So why are companies operating in the financial industry, that get caught blatantly lying , not being held accountable against those very same high standards? Bankers get bonuses for selling predatory sub-prime mortgages to people who they know won’t be able to repay them. Then investment firms trick pension funds into buying into those bad loans, even though themselves are buying derivatives designed to profit when those very loans get defaulted. But that’s just business as usual, no one should be held accountable. No one  except the taxpayer.

And when a politician gets caught blatantly lying or screwing us, there’s usually no real serious consequences as well.  They usually get off pretty easy. Diplomatic immunity I guess.

So my question is: Why is it that the rules of accountability apply to the delicatessen industry, and pretty much everyone else, but not to the banking industry and the political industry?

The answer is that we expect at least some people out there to be able to swallow what comes out of the delicatessen  industry,  but nobody is expected to be able to swallow anything that comes out of the political industry.

And as far as the banking industry goes, they’re just accountants who  bought their way into not being accountable…

[n]

The days of interchangeable belief systems

They say a democrat is a republican who never got robbed. And if they’re implying that one’s political outlook is generally directly related to one’s environment and life experience, I think they might be right.

I’ve seen people switch back and forth from being anti-conformists to being pro-establishment, from being federalists to being separatists, from being left-wingers to being right-wingers, from being fiercely atheist to being religious. Belief systems are like jackets. Some people dress the same way their whole lives, other like to play dress-up.

So, the good news is: Even thought there might be a lot of people right now that are against the idea of switching to a digital democracy, that doesn’t mean that this cannot be easily changed. You just need the right context for it, whether it’s a string of political scandals, or it’s the influence or  a neighboring country that’s running a governmental system with a little more legitimacy than ours.

*NATNOTE: That illustration is a sketch I made some 15 years ago or so…    And back then I had a hard time convincing my friends that one day technology might allow us to have a real online democracy, instead of the old rotary system of deciding who decides for us.  People said I was crazy. But some 15 years later, when we live in an era where internet technologies have infiltrated almost all aspects of our lives, it’s not so crazy anymore.

[n]

My representative democracy metaphor

In a representative democracy we’re able to go vote on who’s gonna be deciding for us. That’s like,  if you went to the grocery store, and you were able to decide who’s gonna do the shopping for you, but you’re not allowed to walk in and make the purchases yourself. Even though it’s your money! Basically you’re given the choice between a guy in a plaid shirt who says he’s a good shopper, and some dude in a polka dot shirt who says he’s good at spotting items that are on sale.

So, you try to explain to them your family’s dietary needs. But the best you get out of them is a shrug. So you take a leap of faith,  and decide to hand over your wallet, with all your food budget for the week inside it, to the guy in the plaid shirt.

And, an hour later, the guy in the plaid shirt comes out with a shopping cart full of candy, soda pop, and sugary treats. You explain to him that someone in your family has diabetes and you ask him to go back in and follow your grocery list. But the only answer you get is: ” If you don’t like my choices, go ahead and choose somebody else to do your shopping for you!”

So a week goes by, and without any other alternatives, you end up going back to the only grocery store  available in your area. You think about it for a long time, and you decide to give your wallet, with all your food budget for the week, to the dude in the polka dot shirt. But this time, you make sure he sees the grocery list in your wallet.  All you get is a shrug. But you have hope. You’re hoping it’s an affirmative shrug.

And an hour later,  the dude with the polka dot shirt comes out with a shopping cart full of beer, bacon and beef jerky. You explain to him why that’s unacceptable, considering the dietary needs of your family. But you end with the same reply: “If you don’t like my choices, go ahead and choose somebody else to do your shopping for you!”

So you ask for the manager. He comes out wearing clothing with no distinctive pattern, pretending to be neutral.  You explain your situation, and ask if you could go in and do the shopping yourself, like they used to do in the olden days. To that, the manager replies: ” Sure, in ancient Greece people used to be able to walk into their grocery stores and do the shopping themselves. But that was a long time ago. Now-a-days, people are too lazy to care or get involved. So they eat whatever we decide they should eat. If you don’t like it, feel free to try and start your own grocery store. That is if you can get the required permits!” and with that, the manager walks off,  laughing.

So yeah! Basically,  I think we should all be out there, trying to start our own metaphorical grocery stores, where we’re able to decide how our money is spent. In ancient Greece, they used to have real democracies where all the citizens of one town would get together once a week, and vote, debate and legislate all through the day. Unlike us, they were able to vote for themselves on actual law projects. They didn’t have to decide on who’s gonna be doing the voting for them.

I think one day, eventually, a new modern  system of governance will arise. One that will actually give the electorate the option to speak for itself, instead of being required to put up with people pretending to be speaking on our behalf.

But maybe that’s just me. I could be wrong. I got a feeling that there’s also a lot of people out there that are completely happy to be consuming bacon, beer and sugary treats, week after week, without having any choice in the matter.

[n]

technology4democracy statement of principles

Nov 5th, 2011

-We believe in the right to self-determination of the electorate. If we’re paying for it, we should be able to have a say in it.

-We refuse to recognize representative democracies as being real democracies. In a representative democracy you get to decide who’s gonna be deciding for you. In a real democracy, you get to decide for yourself.

-We’re going to make a point about calling out the media and politicians who don’t seem to understand the difference between a democracy, and a representative democracy, and give them an education about it.

-We believe in promoting digital democracies and direct democracies over the outdated representative democracy model.

-We reject all forms of physical violence as being anti-democratic. We believe that current tools of communication, used properly, can have more of an impact than a bomb in a building.

[n]