Posts Tagged ‘politics’

The Wrath of Dying Empires

October 6th, 2009

Although I write speculative fiction, I look for interesting stories in the modern world. I have no choice but to do so. When I was a young writer, I didn’t have the life experience to write novels—I could write short stories but I couldn’t sustain anything longer. I needed to look outward and see more of the world, and I also needed to experience more.

Without being self-congratulatory, as a not-so-young writer, I feel much better equipped for the task. Having experienced many more highs and lows and seen systems from inside and outside, I have a better idea how they work, and thus a better idea of how to describe them. And observing what I see around me is a never-ending source for new story scenarios.

For instance, working for a large games publisher gave me many insights into the power games, corruption, backstabbing, etc. that one might see in a royal court or government. I’m sure many other writers have job experiences they turn into good fodder for fiction, and I’m no different.

Taking a macro view, the current death throes of the American empire—you may read about them in the mainstream press as ‘recession’ or ‘weak recovery’ or ‘military setback’—provide many interesting lessons for fictional settings in all eras. Consider some of the possible storylines:

  • A hated despot is replaced with a charismatic, younger leader. However, the new leader is no less beholden to the Powers that Be than the old rule. In fact, he gives them a new lease on life by providing window dressing ‘change’ that makes younger citizens feel like they have truly changed the system. We could look at the situation from the eyes of the young leader or one of his staff as they feel frustrated in their ability to change things. Or perhaps the leader is corrupt himself and sees nothing wrong with profiting from the current system. Or an opposition group, battling against odds, finds themselves pitted against a corrupt leader who is perceived as being a good man or woman, making their task even more difficult.
  • The citizen class who most benefited from the empire starts to feel—if not see—the end of the empire. Enraged at their loss of station, they lash out at those who are different from them, blaming them for the changing balance of power. The change is structural and the disadvantaged classes suffering the backlash have nothing to do with the change, but that’s of little solace as they are marginalized. We could view the action from a bigoted person who learns the error of his/her ways, or from the point of view of a person affected by the discrimination.
  • Rather than suffering from the failing economy, members of the oligarchy become ever more corrupt, siphoning off an even greater share of the empire’s wealth. They see this behavior not as negative or predatory but as their birthright. A boy raised to decadent wealth is forced to reevaluate his beliefs when confronted by the abject poverty that makes his lifestyle possible.
    Alternately, a girl who lives in a shantytown in view of the skyscraper towers of the wealthy struggles to understand why she has so little when they have so much. But her values come into conflict when she has an opportunity to join the clique of the wealthy, pitting her against her family and the friends she has known her whole life.
  • As the economic power of the empire declines, it increasingly focuses on its military might to try to move the balance of power into its favor once again. It attacks weaker countries all over the globe (or star system), seeking to reinforce the myth of its superiority over other cultures/races/belief systems. Despite the fact its wars are unwinnable, with little local support for its invasions and occupations, a steady stream of propaganda is fed to its citizens to convince them the empire is winning glorious victories week after week. A soldier in the armed forces of the empire gets the dirty job of fighting with locals, a task s/he at first relishes then views with increasing disgust as s/he realizes what s/he is fighting for.
  • The clerics of the empire start to see subversion in free thought and free action, putting forth ever harsher edicts that try to mandate how people are supposed to think. For surely the decline of the empire is a function of heresy in its population. A loyal child encounters difficulty when s/he starts asking why certain things as they are. The harsh treatment s/he gets radicalizes him/her—or makes him or her become a rabid conservative in the state church, inflicting suffering on anyone who dares question the status quo a s/he did (minus the declining empire bit, I used this as a backstory for an antagonist in my current book project).
  • With more and more of the wealth of the empire diverted into the hands of a select few, the infrastructure of the empire decays and education/transportation/utilities become unreliable. (Isaac Asimov portrayed this brilliantly in his Foundation series.) Not the most exciting of premises, but it could be made interesting through a strong character who only wants to his or her job properly but the empire’s disinterest in providing basic services to its people turns him or her into a dangerous rebel of the empire who rallies the people to fight for their rights and make the world better.

It’s fairly easy to see where my sympathies lie in these examples, but no matter what your core beliefs, if you open your eyes and look around you can see thousands of story possibilities. Every city in America—or other countries—has interesting stories that can inform your fiction. You don’t have to follow reality word for word, of course—but starting with situational premises that ring true with the experiences of people around you can inform your work with greater depth and believability, no matter what the setting, magic system, etc. that adorns it.

There has never been an empire that someone or other—usually with good reason—didn’t consider to be ‘evil’. Take that idea and run with it. Even if it doesn’t end up in a story, you may find yourself a better person for examining the world around you with the keen eye of a journalist observer.

Healthcare Not Warfare?

September 4th, 2009

The healthcare system in America is a mess. Profit has taken what used to be a system based on General Practitioners (GPs; remember a time when there was such a thing as a family doctor?) and turned it into a bloated conglomeration of for-profit health insurers who have every motive to charge you high fees to enter their program and zero incentive to actually pay for your care, specialist doctors who can make more money by performing expensive procedures than they can actually keeping you healthy, pharmaceutical giants who take government money to perform research and then sell overpriced, heavily advertised pills to a brainwashed public, and revolving door government watchdog agencies who are fully in the pocket of the industries they are supposed to be regulating. It’s not pretty.

Now President Obama’s watered down, corporate-friendly ‘health insurance reform’ (remember when it started as healthcare reform?) won’t do anything to fix this. In fact, it will most likely create more profit for insurers by mandating that everyone must buy health insurance, thus increasing the pool of suckers, er, customers for their overpriced products. And yet, a sizable minority is up in arms over the so-called Obamacare plan, goaded on by what appears to be a coordinated campaign and talking points coming from right wing think tanks. But in the absence of clear information and logical thinking, any shouting can fill the vacuum of public debate. To get one’s point across, simply shout louder.

There is no more clear evidence than the following video clip:

When you peel back the facade of the protesters’ arguments (aside from the lovely street theatre of the Billionaires for Wealthcare folks who are the true heroes of this clip) it seems they are constructed from talking points fed to a populace fired by thinly veiled racism, which is in itself fed by poor economic conditions that cause people to want to lash out against someone, anyone as the cause of their problems. Americans know something is very wrong with our country; most of us just have no idea why things went wrong. (Here’s a hint: deregulating the finance industry and giving corporations more rights than people had something to do it.)

The answers the healthcare problems are actually fairly simple. A properly administered single payer plan is proven to be the most efficient solution to controlling medical costs. Our current system is burdened with both the need for profit (as opposed to effective medical treatment) and high administrative costs. As of 2003, the overhead for medical care was estimated at 31% of all costs.

DemocracyNow! has been doing a good job of covering this issue. Here’s Doctor Michael Rachlis speaking on DN!

That is, that if you have a single-payer system, like Canada has—and virtually every other wealthy country, as well, has some variation of either a national health system like the UK or, more commonly, a national health insurance program like France and the Nordic countries, etc.—that if you have a single-payer system, when you don’t have to have thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers in your country to deny care, there’s huge savings on administration, both within the insurance system but also in doctors’ offices.

A recent report in the US said over six percent of all doctors’ revenues are spent on billing and reconciliation. The Massachusetts General Hospital has more people working in their billings and reconciliation department than we have at the Ontario Health Insurance Plan head office to administer health insurance for 13 million people. So, all through the system, there is increased administration.

And so, Canada spends ten percent of its gross domestic product of our national economy now on healthcare. You folks are spending 16 percent. Half of the difference is due to the increased administration of insurance, and the other half is due to the fact that a single-payer system can negotiate much lower prices than multiple payers in your system. And so, about half of the rest of the difference is due to higher prices.

In fact, Canadians get more of some services than Americans. We get fewer of some high-tech services, but even in the high-tech end, like for lung transplants, Toronto is an international center. We do more lung transplant surgery per capita than the US.

So, the first couple of lessons would be that single payer or a national health insurance program is going to be cheaper, because it will have lower administrative overhead and, secondly, because we’ll have lower prices. And then, that, too, that a national health insurance program, or single payer, also means that everybody is covered.

Seems fairly clear, no? And I haven’t even gotten into the ridiculous nature of spending hundreds of billions (we are into the trillions now) on unprovoked foreign wars that are causing misery while only putting the US in greater danger by giving millions of people greater reason to dislike the policies of the US. I’ll take love over war any day, and good medical care counts as a form of love to me.