SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Wired has a recent article about author Octavia Butler and how her work presaged the "Make America Great" again campaign.
Octavia Butler, who died in 2006, was the author of such visionary science fiction novels as Kindred, The Parable of the Sower, and Dawn. Gerry Canavan, who just published a book-length study of Butler, describes her as one of the greatest writers of her era.
"I think you'd put her up there with Philip K. Dick and Le Guin and Delany and these other people who really made an impact on the way that science fiction circulates," Canavan says in Episode 234 of the Geek's Guide to the Galaxy podcast. "Especially that mode of literary science fiction that's somewhere in the middle between genre fiction and prize-winning novels, she has to be top two, top three in that list."
Butler made headlines this year when fans noted that her 1998 novel The Parable of the Talents features a fascist politician who rises to power by promising to "make America great again." The comparisons to Donald Trump are obvious, but Canavan says the character was actually inspired by Ronald Reagan.
[...] Butler had a singularly dark imagination, and often had to do multiple rewrites in order to tell her stories in a way that readers would find palatable. But Canavan says that in the current political climate, Butler's dim view of humanity is starting to seem ever more relevant.
"She often thought about how easy it would be for everything to just kind of go back to the way it was," he says. "That the things that seemed like they were permanent progress were really just a kind of epiphenomenon of the wealth of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century, and that when that fell apart, all the bad days would come back again."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Sunday December 18 2016, @03:33PM
It would seem that elephants are in the room.
For all the conspiracies and "national security advice", and "Trump tells lies" - it may all be true.
But let's not forget the opposing party (the one whose candidate LOST), was *caught* red-handed trying (and succeeding) to derail Bernie's populist support, by cheating.
I voted. Did you? Then we did what we could as part of the process.
Please chase down the millions of those that *didn't* vote, before we have more hand wringing out alternate histories...
And on that note, Amazon just released "The Man in the High Tower" season 2...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:41PM
I voted. Did you?
No, because it wasn't worth wasting my time. The voting system in place prevents my vote from being represented at the state level.
My individual vote would have no substantial effect on the election. If I was given the power of 900000 votes, I still would not have been able to change the presidential election results and I would've needed an additional 1000000 votes to actually get my preferred candidate.
A candidate received ~34% of the state's popular vote, but received 0% of the state's electoral votes. If that candidate were to receive 49% of the vote, then the electoral results would still be unchanged. Those voters are not represented.
In my state, presidential voting is a placebo button and enough people are already pressing it that I won't bother waiting for my turn.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 18 2016, @05:03PM
You didn't vote? Then STFU you dick. You fucked up, along with about a hundred million other fucked up Americans who can't be bothered. Just STFU. You have the right to remain silent - use it. Doing so will help to hide the fact that you're an idiot.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Sunday December 18 2016, @05:42PM
The only time i haven't voted was one time i didn't vote early and was sick as a dog on election day: i thought "well, whoever is elected can't be that bad".
Then the NDP got elected into Ontario (Canada).
I'd go to work everyday and have maybe a 6 pack of beer for the weekend.
The welfare people across the road got case after case of beer and drank all weekend because the NDP raised what they got for 'allowance'.
My taxes went up to support THEIR drinking.
The next election, i voted and Mike Harris got elected because he made good promises: AND HE KEPT THEM!
The people across the street were made to work for their welfare (workfare): the drinking slowed considerably because they actually had to get up and go to work!!!! (IMAGINE THAT... HAVING TO WORK FOR YOUR CHEQUE!!!)
But because he did what he promised, people voted him out. Now the politicians in Canada (and it seems in the U.S. too) have learned "promise EVERYTHING, do NOTHING!!".
I have always voted since then, usually at the early polling.
Mostly i vote for parties other than the big 2/3, to try to institute change, but never, ever will i miss another chance to vote...
Trying hard to reform the electoral system (which the newly elected Liberals promised to do, but are now pulling back from): trying to push every vote ACTUALLY mattering.
I miss Preston Manning: the last politician i actually trusted.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 18 2016, @06:39PM
Never say never, my friend. I was sick for this election day, but I did make it. Had the election been about three days later, I would have missed it when they hauled my butt to the hospital. Close call on that one.
But, like you, I don't intend to miss an election for any reason less than a genuine emergency.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @09:38PM
Do you support early voting? If you had genuinely missed it due to your hospital visit, would you support early voting?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 19 2016, @12:38AM
Support it? Well, yeah, I do. But, I've never bothered to sign up for it, or check into it, or whatever. Maybe I should . . . .
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:15AM
Early polling is great: most of the time, I've walked in, voted and left. No waiting.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Touché) by turgid on Sunday December 18 2016, @09:13PM
That's all very tough sounding and stiff-upper-lip, and that's great if the people in receipt of the welfare are able to work. It's also great if the people on welfare aren't being exploited as a source of cheap labour for wealthy companies that would rather not pay a fair wage.
It's not great when the people are too ill, old, young or disabled to actually work for a living.
But you knew that anyway, and you were just angry because of that one family that you saw on your street, right?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Monday December 19 2016, @03:45AM
Wow
Get a real life.
That's the best you got?
Yeah, I'm all for fucking with everyone. SHEEIT.
If you CAN go to the beer store, lift a few two-fours of beer and spend your weekend drinking and ignoring your house, property AND kids, then yes.... Yes you can fecking well work for that fecking cheque.
If there is a problem, then no. But no, I don't believe you should get a free run because your on welfare AND able to work.
I knew a guy in Toronto who worked at a group home for multi-handicapped kids: he had nothing below his elbows and nothing below the knees because he was a phlobidimide baby.
He had no hands, no legs and found prosthetic arm and hands to be awful. He did use prosthetic legs. And he worked alongside us in the group home.
And he worked hard for his paycheck as a salary worker full-time, not workfare.
There is a lot of work most people could do: we're going to be training our son to do work of some kind, so that he isn't just sitting around bored, for one thing.
Get off it: there are a lot of people who were raised on welfare by parents raised on welfare and are raising their own kids to be on welfare.....
If you can work, get out and work. If you legitimately can't, or are elderly (especially if you worked your life through), then no.
But you knew that anyway, and you were just angry because of that one family that you saw on your street, right?
Don't be an ass.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @06:58PM
Call me all the names you like, but there is a problem with the voting system when "about a hundred million Americans" do not believe it is worth their time to vote.
The last time I voted, I left most of the ballot blank because I refuse to vote for candidates that I do not like. I periodically contact my representatives and let them know why I will not vote for them or tell them I will not vote for them if they sponsor "Bill X", but I've only received (at most) copy-pasted responses so far.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Sunday December 18 2016, @08:37PM
Hey now, be nice to those people. They're my friends. Fewer votes cast increases the power of my vote.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday December 18 2016, @07:37PM
Do you roll over and play dead when someone wrongs you? What do you do when you discover someone broke into your car and stole a few things? Maybe report it to the police, file a claim with insurance? Or do you do nothing because there's no chance your items will be recovered, so what's the point?
You don't vote because your 1 vote might decide an election. You vote because it makes life harder for all the powerful people who don't want others to vote. Voting reduces their power. They don't like that. Even if your vote is wrongly discarded, they still had to hoke up some crap reason why your vote shouldn't be counted. It gives voting rights activists material to work with.
Have you not noticed that the people complaining the loudest about rigged elections are the same ones rigging the elections as much as they can? Why would you play right into their hands by not voting?
I hope you fight tyranny and oppression somehow. Voting isn't the only way, but it sure is an easy one, much easier than marching in front of the capitol carrying signs, risking tear gas, beatings, and arrest. Much easier than suing. Much, much easier and safer than joining (or starting) an armed rebellion. The boycott is fairly easy to do. Signing a petition is another easy move.
If you don't fight back, then why shouldn't predators pick on you every time they see something of yours they want to take?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:49PM
That's sort of the point. The Democrats have a history of ignoring what the common people want and a lot of the support the GOP gets comes from people that are voting against the arrogance and elitism of the Democratic party. They're folks that are OK, even if they don't really like, the anti-abortion rhethoric and warmongering. But, let's be fair, Obama and Clinton are just as warmongering as Trump is, the media just glosses over that.
Trump likely would have lost if Bernie had been allowed to win the primary. He was up double digits against trump in most states at the time and he had a message that was clearly resonating with people. Not to mention that if Bernie had been the candidate, he wouldn't have been cozying up to neoconservatives in order to pursue right wing voters that would never vote for him. He also wouldn't have left the campaign trail for weeks on end or shut the press out of regular conferences like Clinton did.
The Dems got what they deserve, unfortunately, it's the rest of us that are going to suffer. I've largely held back on worrying, but look at the cabinet picks, those are extremely disturbing picks and people should be concerned for what happens next. Most of the nominees are not qualified for their positions. For example, his pick for Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos' only qualification is giving him a ton of money and spending time and effort trying to dismantle our school system. She's not a teacher, she's not an administrator, she has no degrees relevant to the subject area.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Sunday December 18 2016, @07:04PM
agreed. Though I'm sort of waiting to see how Trump's picks work out. On the face of it I no longer trust the media as there is simply no objective analysis, just loads of opinion re-enforced by constant bickering.
I must say I was impressed by his State pick - though curious why he didn't go to Energy....I saw an interview with him back in 2011 (C.Rose) and he articulated some very logical and pragmatic opinions about energy futures.
In short, oil will run out , renewables are unreliable, we should build nuclear.
I think we should be reminded that all his picks can be fired - and they still need to be confirmed.
Perhaps if we learnt one thing from this election, is that dogmatic party boundaries are insufficient in the 21st century.
If your local representative doesn't think he/she can be voted out, they'll do what the hell they like...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 18 2016, @07:23PM
The Democrats have a history of ignoring what the common people want and a lot of the support the GOP gets comes from people that are voting against the arrogance and elitism of the Democratic party.
I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'd qualify this to say that politicians in general "have a history of ignoring what the common people want." Or, rather, they find ways to placate some portion of the masses, while ignoring the rest of the demands and going their own way on their private agendas. After all, the vast majority of politicians are upper-class, powerful folks to begin with. Should it surprise anyone that they're "elitist"?
Sure, I'll happily criticize the Democrats for their elitism. But the Republicans are just as elite and just as well-known for disguising their agendas that benefit the powerful in a thin veneer of populism. Fleeing from one party to another simply for that reason is silly. It's all a bunch of rich folks trying to pretend they're somebody you'd like to have a beer with. The Republicans are just slightly better at that sort of act. Or maybe Republican supporters are just more happy to live with inequality, whereas Democrats often make inequality an explicit target in their platform but then maintain the status quo.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday December 19 2016, @01:40AM
The Democrats have a history of ignoring what the common people want
Like ... welfare? Medicare? I guess the common people need social programs, but what they _want_ ... ?
First thing that springs to mind is 'Bread and Circuses'. Mostly circuses. Also military might, I guess?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @07:20PM
But let's not forget the opposing party (the one whose candidate LOST), was *caught* red-handed trying (and succeeding) to derail Bernie's populist support, by cheating.
Get a sense of perspective. This "cheating" amounted to no more than (1) some DNC staffers talking shit about sanders in email and (2) a friend at cnn sending her campaign a debate question which was never asked during the debate.
That's absurdly minor stuff. The only reason you think its a big deal is because the campaign was so clean that a spec of dirt looks like a ton of manure.
Sanders didn't let that spec of dirt stop him from whole heartedly endorsing Clinton. If he thought she wasn't legitimate he could have just done dark and said nothing. He wasn't a democrat before his presidential campaign, he didn't have to stick around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @02:29AM
Sanders didn't let that spec of dirt stop him from whole heartedly endorsing Clinton. If he thought she wasn't legitimate he could have just done dark and said nothing.
That doesn't mean he thought she wasn't legitimate, it means he thought there was more benefit to the country from doing what he still could to defeat Trump than from pointing out any illegitimacy he may have privately imputed to Hillary.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @03:20AM
That's a stretch. You are arguing that sanders believes clinton to be illegitimate but not illegitimate enough to be disqualified.
Well. Even if that's true, then for all practical purposes he believes her to be legitimate.
If a utilitarian argument is good enough for Sanders himself then its good enough for anyone criticizing clinton's actions toward Sanders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @10:17AM
You are arguing that sanders believes clinton to be illegitimate but not illegitimate enough to be disqualified.
No, he's arguing that the opposite is not proven by the known facts.
The world isn't binary. People can disagree with one option without agreeing with the opposite.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday December 19 2016, @04:35AM
I watched Sanders "endorse" Clinton. Never have I seen anyone look so much like someone had a gun to his head.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:48AM
Projection, its easy to do.
Or are you one of those fuckwits who believes that the clintons are a crime family who go around murdering people?
Either way your beyond wrong. Sanders was everywhere endorsing clinton. Talk shows, convention, rallies. Everywhere. It wasn't at all half-assed or reluctant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @10:20AM
Or are you one of those fuckwits who believes that the clintons are a crime family who go around murdering people?
Does that only include doing the actual murdering themselves, or does it include being a part of groups that send other people to do their dirty work?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/03/article-1383279-0BE4C7EF00000578-154_964x771.jpg [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @06:12PM
I first thought you were going to retort with some fake news bullshit, so you can understand my obvious relief when I saw that you pointed to The Daily Mail.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday December 18 2016, @08:44PM
And on that note, Amazon just released "The Man in the High Tower" season 2...
So should we give it about a week before the first comparrison articles between AH and Trump and how america is turning into the greater german reich.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday December 19 2016, @01:44AM
I guess I'll get my questions ready about comparing the level of organization in the Reich to the Trump administration. I could start with this [dailymail.co.uk].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @09:50PM
I voted. Did you? Then we did what we could as part of the process
I did. However I almost did not. Lets face it both candidates were very 'meh'. At best I could vote against the other guy.
The actual majority of voters spoke. They were the largest group. They basically said 'meh whatever' and didn't bother to show up.
Do I feel like my vote was 'stolen' or 'not heard'? Not really. As I was very 'meh' about the whole thing.
Then watching the temper tantrum the media and protesters had does not make me think 'hmm maybe I should vote again'. No it makes me think the whole process is a waste of my time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @03:57PM
Surprise! Person who thinks voting isn't important is annoyed by people who think he's wrong.