An Introduction

Hello, and many thanks to all of you who are visiting here.

My name is Karuna. I’m a writer, an idealist, a great lover of music and many things esoteric. While I’m detected as an introvert, a hushed dreamer, my mind is incessantly poking and prodding at the verities of society, life, and the workings of this frenzy of a world of which we live in.

Freedom of thought has always been something I have taken for granted. An abundance of the worldly concerns we have in our society are beyond the control of ordinary individuals, and so taking action on such pressing issues can be extremely daunting—sometimes, downright impossible.

For those who wish to be the change they wish to see in the world, the fact of the reality can be disheartening. Through the daily chaos and demand of our modern way of life, the chances of finding the time or commitment to a cause are slim to none. And so, where our actions may lack in implementation, the ability to share our thoughts and creativity may recompense.

Here, my hope is to inspire others to discover their individual cause through sharing of thought, literary arts, and music. I will be posting my own writing as well as interesting factoids, some philosophic tidbits, and links to songs which I hope will spark some inspiration.

This being my first attempt at crafting a blog, I am very excited to meet all newcomers, and open to any suggestions and critique you may have.

New Site

Hello, all! I’ve been absent for a while, but I suppose that I should make this announcement anyways, at least for new people who stumble upon this place and wonder where I’ve gone.

I’m no longer writing for FIMV. Instead, I have started a new website specifically for my writing, where I will be posting more politics-related stuff as well as creative pieces. Thank you so much to those who read and followed my work here! I had so much fun using my site, and exploring others’ blogs.

Here is the domain for my new website: karunasavoieauthor.com

Hope everyone’s having a good, genuine day, or night.

 

 

What Do We Do With It? — Solving The Plastic Problem

Plastic.

The shape-shifting miracle product. It can take the form of nearly anything from a bag to a blow-up castle to a microchip implanted in a puppy. More than eight million tons of it are dumped into our oceans as a yearly regimen, and it is notoriously responsible for the one hundred thousand animals deaths year-round. Boasting a biodegradation period of four hundred years, it’s expected that it we start seeing plastic spurting out of gutters and washing up onto our beaches—tenfold. It’s something that can’t disappear overnight, or over centuries, for that matter.

So the question looms.

What do we do with it?

Plastic debris is seen as waste. Recycling certain plastics is one method to keep it from heading straight into the landfill. But the Plastic Bank, an environmental and people-oriented organization, takes the recycling one step further.

The Plastic Bank, founded by David Katz and Shaun Frankson, strengthens recycling, halts the flow of plastic into marine ecosystems, and provides aid to people who live in poverty. Their organization revolves around the idea of Social Plastic, which means giving plastic so much value that it is no longer considered waste—and monetizing it.

Converting plastic into a currency is an idea that has been toyed with, even before the emergence of the Plastic Bank. TerraCycle, an organization founded in 2001, collects plastic from individuals in exchange for ‘points,’ which are then put towards the individual’s charity of choice. There are also many recycling centers that pay individuals for the materials they bring (in Michigan, for example, a plastic bottle is worth ten cents).

The Plastic Bank’s aim is to make a direct impact on impoverished people through their recycling. Their system begins by encouraging locals to collect plastic debris and bring it to a Bank center nearby, where it is then exchanged for goods, or money. The Bank then sells the collected plastic to companies who want to use it. The money received from these companies is, in turn, the currency that is distributed to the people.

The Plastic Bank does not get rid of plastic. But by adding value to it, it acts as the moderator of a healthy recycling movement that connects both the community and outer enterprises.

But there’s a catch. As the Plastic Bank developed, they turned to something called Blockchain to keep track of their financial transactions, as well as a new method of paying their plastic collectors.

Blockchain is currently the most secure form of digital financial recording, and storage, available. Since many of the communities the Plastic Bank works with have access to mobile devices that are able to handle transactions, Blockchain became the safer option of exchange. Those who hold physical cash are likely to become targets. Blockchain currency is not physical, and so the money received is more secure, as is the recyclers’ safety. Blockchain is the irony of the Plastic Bank.

The combination of progressive technology with the venerable action of recycling is what makes the Bank’s approach to the plastic problem so unique. In caring for the environment, it is essential to empower people on an individual level, as well. Focusing on a balance is what makes the Bank’s process a true solution.

While the Plastic Bank has been a success for some communities, their process has not been expanded throughout any nationwide economy. No matter how much our financial systems progress, the plastic problem will remain. Recycling is the best solution we possess, and since it is already in practice, the future of world depends on its growth.

If the issue is to be solved, plastic production will have to come to an end. For Social Plastic to be expanded globally, it will be up to governments, if not individuals, to advocate for recycled plastic while discouraging further production. The Plastic Pollution Coalition states that every piece of plastic ever made exists today, and will be in existence for at least five hundred years, whether it’s in the form of toxins in the soil to being burned into the clouds. Ending plastic production does not mean the end of plastic. Rather, recycling offers plastic the opportunity to continue to be in existence, and to do so with meaning, and good use.

Plastic will never disappear. But its use is a double-edged sword, providing much good in our way of life while degrading life itself—and never something to take for granted. Before communities, or even nations, take the first step in establishing more plastic banks, individuals as well as corporations must learn to see, and experience, the great value that plastic has to offer. Purchasing recycled materials, recycling plastic, or repurposing it oneself are all impactful ways of breaking the notion that plastic is a one-time use, futile material.

Returning to the original question, what is the solution to the plastic problem? What do we do with it?

The Plastic Bank has taught us a few things. One is that recycling is the answer.

How communities choose to recycle will be determined with time. But it is certain that the more recycling occurs, the better for the environment. Better for the environment means better for communities. Two is that all plastic, whether in use or as debris, must be given value. Without it being in demand, recycling becomes a fruitless endeavor. Three is that corporations and individuals must work together at ground level to ensure that recycling uplifts both ends, in mutual means. This may occur through systems like Blockchain, where individuals would be securely paid specifically for the recycling they do. Solving the plastic problem is about helping all, including our own species, from the individual level, to the state, to the corporate. While we created the problem, we are the only ones who can solve it. Saving the oceans saves us.

Fourth is that through working together—communities with companies, people with the planet—there is hope.

 

Habits And Harmony

People will never completely change their daily habits and mindsets for the good of the environment, because we are all dependent on one another’s ill habits. If one individual changes their habits, it will cause inconvenience for others, as these new actions will not be in harmony with others’ actions.

Until solid communication and common agreement is achieved between all individuals concerning their actions, very little will change.

We have a long way to go. But we can start by communicating with those closest to us, as well as establishing something within ourselves:

How dedicated am I to changing my ways for the sake of the world around me?

“No Cars Go,” by Arcade Fire

 

This is a reminder.

“We know a place where no planes go / We know a place where no ships go . . . ”

Arcade Fire urges all of us, “Let’s go,” only to say, “Don’t know where we’re going.”

We all are given things, objects, that we do not necessarily desire, deserve, or need. The opposite is true for others, as well. But we all come face-to-face with problems brewing deep in our subconscious, sooner or later—and then sooner or later, we must all go on.

Imagination is where we free ourselves from the turmoil and confusion of reality, of physical things. Dreams are how we escape.

Destination is of little importance. Our dreams, in the end, are the only reasons why we are inexorable. And no object, plane, train, car, or submarine can take us to them.

Only us.

Gerrymandering — A Perspective On The Virus Of America’s Democracy

Gerrymandering: the manipulation of electoral boundaries so as to favor one political party or class. In other words, no matter where you live in the U.S., or who you vote for, it is likely that your opinion is not only unimportant, but predestined, when it comes to elections.

The term “gerrymander” is a practice that had been coined nearly two hundred years ago in the election of 1812, though redistricting has been in use since 1788. Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts created a redistricting plan designed to benefit his political party. The result? A newly-drawn district in Essex county that resembled the shape of a salamander; hence, gerrymandering was born.

Gerrymandering, like the electoral college, is one example of how practices founded to benefit those centuries before our time continue to govern us today, but with far less success. What was put in place to prevent mob-rule is now politicians’ addictive cheat-tool, being used with the excuses that there are simply “no other alternatives,” and that, “it has been this way for centuries.”

The second claim is the problem, but is the first really true? To answer this, one must know the basics of districting, and how gerrymandering manipulates its functions.

A congressional district is an area of a country drawn based on the population. Each district elects one member to the U.S. House of Representatives. The intended purpose of districting is to ensure political parties an equal chance of being represented in the House; to attain this, each of these districts are supposed to be equal enough in terms of party population. Hypothetically, if there are six Republicans and six Democrats in one district, then there is predicted to be an equal chance for the preferred representative of either party to be elected. In terms of fairness, this would be quite the ideal districting situation.

Unfortunately, we do not live in the ideal world—so that situation is unlikely to occur. In reality, party populations would be more unbalanced. There may be six Republicans in a state to counter ten Democrats. Since the Democrats have a larger population, they have a better chance of their preferred candidate being elected.

Districting was put in place to prevent that sort of unbalance, providing each party a fair voting advantage during elections. If the district drawer sees uneven party populations, they can redraw the district lines to even them out.

For instance; say a curtain divides a room with five blue-shirted people on one side and five green-shirted people on the other. We can shift the curtain so that there is a mix of blue- and green-shirted people on both sides. While each side does not have an even mix of colored shirts, it is less concentrated than having all of one color on either side. This is how districting is meant to function.

Gerrymandering, on the other hand, is the manipulation of redistricting. If Democrats are in control of the government, they can use gerrymandering to draw more districts that contain mostly Democratic voters, instead of drawing districts with a more even mix of parties. This is essentially what Elbridge Gerry did to benefit his political party.

So, how did he do this?

A major idea of districting is that the more districts your party has, the more votes you have—as each district receives one vote. The more votes your party has, the more likely your candidates will win seats in the House. The more your candidates win seats, the more power your party has in Congress.

Power—an obvious incentive for politicians to exploit redistricting for their own benefit, instead of using it to preserve honest elections.

There are two methods of redistricting; “packing” districts, and “cracking” districts. When packing, district lines are drawn so as to make more districts for one’s own party, and less for the opponent’s. This is done by surrounding a certain party’s district with those of the opposing political party. This is meant to concentrate those voters into a single district, thereby reducing their influence in the surrounding, different-party districts.

Cracking a district means exactly how it sounds. Cracking occurs when lines are drawn through a large district, filled with lots of people supporting the same party, to crack it into multiple districts; thus, increasing that party’s chance of gaining more votes.

These redistricting methods are supposed to help maintain even party populations. However, since Governor Elbridge’s endeavor to manipulate their uses for personal gain, we have since ended up with more salamander-esque districts than proportional ones.

Some could argue that there is a justification to gerrymandering, in that it allows candidates who would not otherwise be elected, get elected. While this is great news for the candidate, the people end up with a ruler in office whom they did not vote for.

One example of extreme gerrymandering occurred after the 2000 census, in Pennsylvania. Democrat Frank Mascara was running for a seat in the House against Republican State Senator Tim Murphy. Mascara was running in Pennsylvania’s 18th district, along with Murphy, while Democrat John Murtha was running in Pennsylvania’s 12th district. Mascara had recalled that, before the election, his district has been “more or less the same for about a hundred years.” This is was not to be for much longer; during the election, the state legislature consisted of a Republican majority, which decided to play around with Mascara’s 18th district. What ended up happening was extreme gerrymandering; Mascara’s district was redrawn so that it was split between two different districts—the 12th and 18th. The line was so meticulously drawn so that on one side of Mascara’s street belonged to the 12th district, while his house, on the same street, belonged to the 18th. The purpose of doing this was to force Mascara into competition with Murtha in the 12th district. Both Democrats now running in the same district meant that Murphy was able to easily take over the 18th district without competition from the opposing party.

Could these sorts of incidents have been avoided? While some politicians claim that there are no alternatives to this centuries-old practice, it turns out that there have been fresh ideas in the wake towards making change. Following 2011, Virginia had held a line-drawing exercise once a survey voiced that a strong majority of Virginians wanted a nonpartisan district-drawing authority. Despite the effort in holding hearings and the writing of a report of this exercise, the idea had gained little interest, as lawmakers ignored those efforts. Iowa, on the other hand, is one of America’s rarities in terms of the redistricting process—to Iowa’s mapmakers, the process is not political. The three district drawers are not allowed to consider voter registration, past election results, or even the addresses of the current members of Congress. These restrictions help keep the redistricting process impartial to opposing party candidates. Unlike Frank Mascara’s gerrymandering incident, Iowa’s elections generally result in far more competitive races due to its strict regulations on redistricting.

Evidently, there are ways to curb gerrymandering, while not abolishing redistricting completely. Independent boards would be more effective as opposed to the state legislature having control over drawing the lines. Though, this is easier said than done; voters themselves must demand change if any is to be made. A first step forward is to question the motives of gerrymandering itself: Shall we let a decision made for an election centuries ago continue to cause turmoil during elections affecting us today? Or, shall we prepare to release ourselves from being ruled by the dead?

We Are Only Human, After All

A friend of mine asked me this:

“Do you think that people who deny climate change are happier than people who don’t?”

I thought about this for a moment, and responded with a very confident, “Yes.”

I didn’t think long enough. Of course, happiness does not discriminate based upon one’s environmental notions—at least, not wholly. Man-made climate change may sound like quite a reality to an individual struggling with happiness, just as it would for someone who couldn’t be living it any better.

I’ve mulled over my response, and decided that ‘happiness’ was not the right word for this question.

Granted, not all Creationists or hyper-conservatives are happy, but possessing the ability to disregard something that threatens the existence of life on Earth as we know it must alleviate some inherent distress.

I wonder if this is a possible reason for why one might be a denier; they are afraid of being responsible for the fate of the world.

While I lament the choices they make in regards to this denial, I don’t blame them. No matter how many statistics bombard screens, books, and magazines, the fear remains. The confusion remains. And the comfort of choosing denial—not too far off—remains. Some will recede into this pocket of denial, because fear is all-consuming.

We are only human, after all. Fear and fate combined will daunt, twist, challenge our intuitions. The size of the catastrophe is irrelevant. There will always be deniers, because there will always be a flicker of happiness, of comfort, to retreat to—no matter how small.

“Savages,” by Marina and The Diamonds

 

Some people declare this as “humanity’s anthem,” as can be seen by scrolling through Youtube’s comment section for this song.

I somewhat agree.

Marina belts out cuttingly-honest lyrics that could describe today’s world down to a T. Of course, saying it is “humanity’s anthem” would be quite the pessimistic approach, but the truth can be ugly. One of her most compelling lyrics is, “Underneath it all, we’re just savages / Hidden behind shirts, ties and marriages.”

Savages, we are.

Marina has no intention towards euphemism, and so her message gets across quite clearly: Humanity sucks. Why?

“Were we born to abuse, shoot a gun and run
Or has something deep inside of us come undone?”

It seems as if Marina is still figuring that out.

In the meantime, let us chill out to the misanthropic vibes this song has to offer, and contemplate existence from a nihilistic standpoint—and maybe, just maybe, we’ll stumble across the answer.

Fun Fact #3: Poverty In 8’s

The place I live in is a bubble.

Meaning, you can walk down the street gazing upon verdurous lawns and red-painted shutters, instead of crumbling rooftops and lots filled with those scantily curled up onto weathered curbsides.

Though I am fortunate to be living in a place where my and my neighbors’ basic needs are sufficiently met, I realize that living in a bubble does make us disconnected with reality. Witnessing cruelty through the television screen can hurt our emotions, but it does nothing to prepare us for the actual conditions of the world.

We know that people are starving, that homes are collapsing, that our world harbors more deficiencies than we’d like to admit. But do we really know?

Let’s look at the facts.

First up, grain.

Did you know…

…if all the grain currently fed to livestock in the U.S. were consumed directly by people, the number of people being fed would be 800 million? Not advocating veganism, here—but grass-feeding our cows was always an option. (from Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma).

Not to mention; according to David Pimentel, professor in Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, if those grains were exported (to, say, a region where people are indeed suffering greatly from starvation), doing so would increase the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year.

Based on these statistics, I don’t see why our government hasn’t yet jumped at the chance to carry out this world-saving masterplan. I mean, it’s not like there’s anything stopping them besides their corn subsidies, the tendency to partner up with corporations relying on cheap labor, the rules of hypercapitalism, mega-military funding, the current hell-spitting party feuds enrapturing every American’s conscience, and—

I’ll go back to all that another day, perhaps.

Next up—nutrition!

Did you know…

In the year 2000, the U.N. reported that the number of people suffering from over-nutrition—a billion—had surpassed the number of people suffering from malnutrition—800 million.

Evidently, our system is flawed. But who’s to blame? Where did the crazed industrialized ethics escalate, when did the national greed spawn, where did calorie-obsession spike and our impoverished comrades die?

Whether your hourly pay is $24 or $2.50, it is crucial to wonder why. It is crucial to understand that the numbers are climbing. The 8’s will shift to 9’s, and the 9’s to 10’s. What we can do about this is spread awareness, and remain conscious of our own mindsets and actions.

Poverty is real. It is okay to step outside of our bubbles every once and a while to be disturbed, to be afraid, to recoil at the facts and wish to escape. But turn your sorrow into motivation, and speak up instead. The numbers are already there. Now, it is our turn to keep them in mind, to use them, with one word, one action, at a time.

 

Random Act Of Kindness: Write Letters to Loved-Ones And Strangers

These recent years have been years of woe; it is more preferred to punch a one-lined spiel into an IM rather than ring up your friend’s phone, and the thrill of receiving an envelope addressed to you in your sibling’s convoluted script happens twice or thrice a decade, maybe less.

Snail-mail is a rarity unless you have a faithful pen-pal or solicitor. Most of us have difficulty remembering how to properly format an address. I cannot recall the last time I received a hand-written letter from someone. To be honest, the random copies of Boy’s Life I find amidst the non-profit forms and catalogs every few weeks or so only lead me into a state of scalp-wrenching perplexity (last I checked, I was never subscribed). These are troubled times, indeed.

Since the letters stuffed into our mailboxes now-a-days have long-worn out of the use of catching up with old companions, why not give it a new purpose? Writing letters are perfect for Random Acts of Kindness. What’s more, the best part about sending a message via postal service is that your words can reach anybody—all that’s needed is an address. No phone number required.

 

Third Random Act: Write And Send Letters To Family Members, Friends, Or Strangers

Why write a letter to a stranger, first of all?

You know that feeling when you find a wad of coupons to CVS in your mailbox, or unexpectedly received a Valentine in high school? Granted, neither have happened to me, but I can safely assume that finding a personal letter in your mailbox comes with just as beautiful a sensation as getting chocolates on V-Day.

This is what I’d hope a stranger would feel if I were to send them a personalized letter. Writing to them is a way to contribute a little light into someone’s mundane routine, and writing about a feeling or conflict you’re experiencing may help you to feel heard, or less alone in your situation. Odds are, the person you’re writing to are, or will be, experiencing something very similar, and be thankful that there is someone else out there who understands.

It is true—it’s a small, but rare thing to receive a letter. This makes it all the more meaningful. I consider this to be a Random Act of Kindness knowing that these days, writing a letter means expressing appreciation and love towards the recipient.

Anyone could shoot me an email or text, but if I get a letter in the mail, I know that the writer has taken a decent amount of consideration before dropping the envelope down into that metal void. If I receive a letter, I feel that someone out there, stranger or loved-one, sincerely cares about me, and loves me.

Loving and caring—two things we need more of in this world. So, start using the power of the pen, and spread some more around!

 

Random Act Of Kindness: Leave A Note For A Stranger

Not too long ago in my youth, I used to be in the wonderful habit of leaving these kinds of sticky notes around public places in the attempt assuage my boredom:

Mind you, this was to my own great amusement, and no one else’s. Now, I’d like to think I’ve moved on to some more mature hobbies, such as:

And…

Anyways. Upon recently coming across a few stacks of old Post-It notes, I had the idea to bring my inconspicuous note-writing to the next level. This time, I vowed to put my creativity to use, and came up with something that would leave a stranger feeling special instead of, well—targeted.

Speaking of which, before we commence, I’d like to ask one question:

What is the Illuminati, anyway?

 

Second Random Act: Write And Leave A Note For A Stranger

This can be done in any way you’d like. I chose to pack a bunch of my favorite quotes onto a sheet of paper with a brief introduction. It wasn’t a traditional letter, meaning, I hadn’t intended to write about myself, or to a subjective stranger (it is certainly up to you whether you do, or don’t). Quite simply, I thought that stumbling across a list of quotes would be one way that could brighten a stranger’s day, or at least, make it a little more interesting.

That is the only guideline: Write (or draw) something that you feel someone would be pleased to find. Save the rumors and government conspiracies for yourself, please. Make these notes as positive additions to the universe.

Next—where to leave the note? I walked on over to a park near where I live, sat on a bench,  stuck the note under the armrest, and walked away. Generally, as long as you don’t stuff it into someone’s wallet or lamppost, anywhere should be good.

Happy writing!