You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Culture’ category.
Why are drugs still illegal? I wrote a while ago about the success of Portugal, where all drugs were legalized, and the money previously used to enforce drug laws were instead used to fund social programs to help those with drug problems. Not only was Portugal’s drug abuse problem significantly reduced, but HIV and crime rates plummeted as well. It has been almost 15 years since Portugal started their non-prohibition experiment, with revolutionary results, and yet other countries still refuse to let go of their self-defeating War on Drugs.
I have recently read a fantastic interview with Johann Hari, on Sam Harris’ blog. Hari is a highly experienced and accredited journalist who has travelled the globe researching and writing a book on the War on Drugs, its history, and it’s effects on societies. While a good portion of the interview elaborated many of the points I was already familiar with, there was a massive amount of information that I had no previous notion of. For instance, while it is quite apparent that racism plays a big role in drugs issues today, I had no idea that racism played such a huge part in the War on Drugs’ inception. There are further insights that extend far beyond drug addiction as well. Hari also focuses quite a bit on individual stories, bringing a painfully absent human element to the discussion. It certainly provides a lot to think about. Here are a few excerpts, but I highly recommend reading the entire interview.
“Harry Anslinger was probably the most influential person that no one’s ever heard of. He took over the Department of Prohibition just as alcohol prohibition was ending … he was driven by two intense hatreds: One was a hatred of addicts, and the other was a hatred of African Americans…He was regarded as an extreme racist by the racists of the 1930s. This is a guy who used the “N” word in official memos so often that his own senator said he should have to resign.”
“But if you had said to me four years ago, “What causes, say, heroin addiction?” I would have looked at you as if you were a bit simpleminded, and I would have said, “Heroin causes heroin addiction.”
For 100 years we’ve been told a story about addiction that’s just become part of our common sense. It’s obvious to us. We think that if you, I, and the first 20 people to read this on your site all used heroin together for 20 days, on day 21 we would be heroin addicts, because there are chemical hooks in heroin that our bodies would start to physically need, and that’s what addiction is.
The first thing that alerted me to what’s not right about this story is when I learned that if you step out onto the street and are hit by a car and break your hip, you’ll be taken to a hospital where it’s quite likely that you’ll be given a lot of diamorphine. Diamorphine is heroin. It’s much more potent than what you get on the street, because it’s medically pure, not f***ed up by dealers. You’ll be given that diamorphine for quite a long period of time. Anywhere in the developed world, people near you are being giving loads of heroin in hospitals now.
If what we think about addiction is right, what will happen? Some of those people will leave the hospital as heroin addicts. That doesn’t happen.”
“You and I have probably got enough money in the bank that we could spend the next year drinking vodka and never stop. We could just be drunk all the time. But we don’t. And the reason we don’t is not because someone’s stopping us but because we want to be present in our lives. We’ve got relationships. We’ve got friends. We’ve got people we love. We’ve got books we want to read. We’ve got books we want to write. We’ve got things we want to do. Most of addiction is about not wanting to be present in your life.
And by the way, that’s true not just of drug addiction. If you’ve ever known a gambling addict, you see that the pleasure he’s getting is not the pleasure of the specific bet. It’s the pleasure of not being present in his own life. It’s the pleasure of being taken out of himself, even to what I regard as a very squalid and depressing world. It’s the same with sex addiction. There’s a continuity between drug addictions and other addictions that I think tells you something fundamental.”
“We need to create a society where people are less isolated and distressed. There are places in the world where that exists: Addiction is very low in Sweden, because it’s a very connected society with very low levels of insecurity. We can learn from that.”
The War on Drugs is society shooting itself in the foot. The U.S has escalated the war to shooting itself in the kneecaps and Canada is looking to follow suit. We need to stop this before we end up aiming even higher.
Well it had to happen sooner or later, the viciously anti-woman contingent of local forced birth brigade came to campus with their misleading fetus porn and all the lovely related argument for women to be incubators first and people second.
Thankfully the feminist and queer communities counter demonstrated to help push back some of the nonsense being spread.
Life-Site News has a sad. Too bad fetus-fetishists.
Helpful hints for the local forced birth advocates.
Sometimes we need a reminder that the world isn’t the news, that mostly(sometimes?), we are good people who do kind things for each other.
I’m always impressed with La Belle Province and her ability to serve up controversy. Recently a judge in Quebec decided that a hijab was considered not to be suitable attire for her courtroom and dismissed a case when the litigant refused to comply with her request. The judge’s words courtesy of the CBC:
“Hats and sunglasses for example, are not allowed. And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo says in the recording.
“The same rules need to be applied to everyone. I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head, or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”
The stage is set and the result:
“When El-Alloul first appeared before Marengo, the judge asked her why she had a scarf on her head. El-Alloul replied that it was because she is a Muslim. The judge then said she would take a 30-minute recess.
When Marengo returned, she told El-Alloul she had a choice: remove her headscarf immediately or apply for a postponement in order to consult a lawyer. El-Alloul replied that she couldn’t afford a lawyer and that she didn’t want to postpone the case. Marengo then adjourned the case indefinitely.”
Boom. Tinder meet match. Religious freedom versus the institutional values of a secular court.
There are a multitude of ways to look at what transpired in the courtroom but here are two that I think represent both sides of the argument.
A. In a secular court of law, the secular values and rules of a society must be followed. If a judge rules that what you’re wearing to be inappropriate for the proceedings it behooves you to follow the same standards that everyone else must follow.
B. Canada is a multicultural society and we respect and treasure the cultural practices that every Canadian brings to the table and, if secular protocol can be reinterpreted to allow for the diversity of cultural expression within secular institutions we should do so.
Before we go into further discussion we should note the reaction from El-Alloul, it was one of shock and dismay:
“[…] But what happened in court made me feel afraid. I felt that I’m not Canadian anymore.”
“El-Alloul said she’s speaking out because she doesn’t want what happened to her to happen to any other Muslim woman. When she insisted I should remove my hijab, really I felt like she was talking with me as … not a human being. I don’t want this thing to happen to any other lady. This is not the work of a judge. She doesn’t deserve to be a judge.”
El-Alloul is rightly quite upset at the outcome of her hearing (or lack thereof). There should be a more amenable solution available to the parties involved – a transfer to a different judge that has a more liberal interpretation of ‘suitably dressed’ might have saved a lot of ink and electrons as this story blossomed across Canadian news networks.
This seemingly simple case of what “suitably dressed” means and how it is enforced speaks to how intersectional an issue multiculturalism is. Institutional power in Canada remains largely white and male and thus reflects the normative values of what is considered ‘normal’ culture here in Canada. From this orthodoxy we get the notions such as:
1. Why should our Canadian institutions cater to every whim of the minorities?
2. If it is good enough for everyone else, what is the problem here?
3. Why aren’t secular Canadian values being learned by new Canadians?
Under the assumption that we are a multicultural society, clearly, point 1 is out to lunch. The very point of having a tolerant open society is that we appreciate and try to accommodate the everyone and their preferences within the state structure of Canada.
Point 2 is problematic because the words “everyone else” usually uses the dominant culture as a touchstone thus, by play of words, avoids the obvious racism associated with similar statements.
Point 3 has the most merit as new Canadians do adopt Canadian values and standards, but the process of acculturation takes a great deal of time, often generations before the values of the dominant culture are ingrained. It is unrealistic however to expect that somehow Canadians of all types have a switch that can be flipped instantaneously that would guarantee cultural assimilation.
The Hijab should be allowed in Canadian courtrooms as it does not interfere with workings of the court or the dispensing of justice.
However, as an open and tolerant secular society we should also have the ability to rightly name and not adopt cultural practices that would be corrosive to our society. For instance, honour killings and female genital mutilation, have no place in Canadian or any other civilized society and I can assert this claim with a good deal of confidence because we need only to discuss the negative impacts these practices have on those societies who still practice these modalities (cultural relativism be damned).
I usually don’t pay attention to the Oscars and other such award shoes. Playing League of Legends, tweezing my eyebrows, cleaning the tiles in the bathroom all are significantly higher on my to do list that giving a frack about the Oscars. This story caught my attention though, provocatively titled “Academy Responds to Diversity Firestorm“.
Unaware that diversity comes in firestorms and how mega-rad that would be, I read on.
“Responding for the first time to the firestorm of criticism over the lack of diversity in this year’s Oscar nominations, film academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs says the all-white acting slate inspires her to accelerate the academy’s push to be more inclusive. She also hopes the film industry as a whole will continue to strive for greater diversity.”
Inspires the push to be more inclusive in for the striving of greater diversity… *bleh* I need to strive toward the chamber pot to cleanse my system of the above-mentioned overtly-florid way of saying nothing at all.
All 20 of this year’s acting contenders are white and there are no women in the directing or writing categories. After the nominations were announced Thursday morning, the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite started trending on Twitter.
Now there is an oopsie. But we need to hear some more doublespeak about the situation first.
“Yet Boone Isaacs insisted the academy is “committed to seeking out diversity of voice and opinion” and that outreach to women and artists of colour is a major focus.
“In the last two years, we’ve made greater strides than we ever have in the past toward becoming a more diverse and inclusive organization through admitting new members and more inclusive classes of members,” Boone Isaacs said. “And, personally, I would love to see and look forward to see a greater cultural diversity among all our nominees in all of our categories.”
I’m not sure what is worse, outright lying or the baffle them with bullshit tactic that Boone Isaacs has clearly perfected. Before you rush me with market theology lets look a bit further…
“A 2012 survey by the Los Angeles Times found the academy was 94 per cent white, overwhelmingly male and with a median age of 62. A more recent survey determined the percentage of older white males had dropped by one point, the Times said. But with nearly 7,000 members and no requirement to retire, diversity is going to take some time.”
Oh damn. Certainly looks like the market deciding in a free and unfettered environment. The sample bias is juuuust about right considering that 94 percent of the US population is comprised of middle aged white dudes.
And here…here is the crux of every fucking debate about thinning out white hegemony in our society. The people who are the movers and shakers – the culture elite – the people that make things happen are predominantly dude and white. Their preferences are translated, projected and ensconced into what gets attention and what doesn’t. The orthodox market argument naively contends that if a good product is made that the people like it will sell well and therefore be popular.
Bullshite. The market is always, always, always, skewed and that bias happens not to favour your particular entry – no matter how qualitviely good your product is, it will fail – too fucking bad for you chum.
I get this argument about the “market deciding” when it comes to video games as well. If women just make video games than weren’t andro-centric testosterone fuelled killing sprees and get them to market then the market would “decide” whether or not the product was good.
Bullshite. This argument is bollocks precisely in the same way the Oscar argument for more inclusiveness is bollocks with its 94% white dude voting pool. The preexisting structural conditions dictate what gets out the public and what is ignored. No frakking market involved in that. You may have the bestest game evar!!! (movie to be produced) just waiting to be published, but if it goes against the status-quo (racism,sexism etc.) you’ll need a lot more than “the market” to see chance of success.
This is what feminists struggle with all the damn time. The standards and norms that implicitly and explicitly favour one sort of discourse/behaviour over another that are almost always conveniently ignored, and instead, “merit” is discussed vis-a-vis the free and open market place of ideas, and if non-status-quo game/movie is actually good, it like creme will rise to the top.
They never-ever mention the 12 filters that the creme has to pass through before even seeing the light of day.
Feminist rants aside, back to Boone and her not particularly pauciloquent way of obfuscating the issue:
“It behooves Hollywood — as an economic imperative, if not a moral one — to begin more closely reflecting the changing face of America,” the statement said.
Boone Isaacs agrees, saying that as the academy “continues to make strides toward becoming a more diverse and inclusive organization, we hope the film industry will also make strides toward becoming more diverse and inclusive.”
Though she repeatedly stressed the Oscars are a competitive process and that she’s proud of the year’s nominees, Boone Isaacs acknowledged that diversity needs to be mandatory in both story and storyteller.”
If you need to see an example of apologia in action, you need not look further that Boone Isaacs and her statement about the great white wave that is the Oscars in 2015.
P.S. I would categorize “The Birdman” as something one would fling over the wall, along with diseased corpses and flaming pitch to scare, horrify and bewilder one’s enemies. Watch it at your own risk.
I know what you’re thinking. “Fascinating subject Arb, do tell us more!”
Okay, perhaps not as gripping the other newsy bits we we have around here but none the less a subject that shouldn’t be casually swept aside. Living in Alberta means that for three to five months of the year, snow will be on the ground. The lovely first fall of snow marks the official end of mosquito season and the transition to having ‘exposed flesh stick uncomfortably to metal season’. Some might balk at all the freezing rain, sleet and snow – but really – it isn’t that bad.
One of the civic expectations of snowy Edmontonian existence is keeping the public sidewalk in front of your place of residence clear of snow and ice. Our civic authorities mandate that from the time of the last snow event forty-eight hours are given in which to clear your walks in order to make them safe for people to walk on.
Sound reasonable?
Seems workable to me and thus after each snow I make my rounds with my trusty shovel and ice-scraper. My goal is to get down to the concrete to ensure a safe and solid footing for all those who would come to see me, or merely have to sojourn past my property. For my work to be done, my walks need to pass the inappropriate winter footwear test. If I can confidently make my way in my sandals –
Then, and only then, my job is done. :)
It takes some time and work, let me assure you. Many factors are working against you in the valiant quest for clean sidewalks it is here my arch nemesis must be named.
Freezing Rain.
A glossy, slippery, unchippable horror that can only be bested by the most potent weapon in my winter arsenal.
Glorious sidewalk-salt. That being said, one must consider the bitter-salty implications of using this dread weapon on icy sidewalks. Salt is not conducive to the growing and maintenance of grass or anything else organic for that matter.
Observe.
The battle for clean sidewalks is necessarily a delicate balance. A fateful alchemy of dedication, perseverance, and Na Cl. It is a fine line that must be walked during snow-season in Alberta.
The so called war on drugs contains so much irony, we’ll need a new solar system to keep it in check.
“As long as demand and prices remain at current levels in wealthy drug-consuming nations, traders will enter almost any potential production area with wads of currency to elicit supply that can meet this demand. Over the past thirty years, the U.S. and UN prohibition has simply served to push production and processing, and smuggling of illicit drugs back and forth across the globe’s three critical trafficking areas – between Turkey and Laos within the Asian opium zone, from Bolivia to Columbia in the Andes coca belt, and from south Florida to northern Mexico along the U.S. border. At each turn and twist in this futile war on drugs, production has ratcheted upward.
Since opium can be grown in any temperate or highland area, crop suppression shifts cultivation elsewhere within the vastness of the Eurasian landmass or to the other continents, such as South America. And since the human brain’s chemistry makes all of humanity potential addicts, repression merely forces traffickers to seek new markets in another neighbourhood, nation, or continent. With such flexible market constraints, the blunt baton of repression has become the wand of stimulus, pushing consumption and production into ever-widening spheres and thereby compounding the drug problem.
[…]
In the last half of the 20th century, drug prohibition thus fostered a global illicit economy that funds criminal syndicates, highland warlords, ethnic liberation movements, terrorist networks and covert operations. Failing to understand the character of these commodities, the United Nations and the United States have attempted suppression with a range of ineffective, ultimately counterproductive, policies that include arresting consumers, pursuing dealers, and harassing growers.
Looking back on this sordid past gives little cause for optimism or celebration. To ordinary Americans who witness the dismal spectacle of the drug traffic at street level, it may seem inconceivable that the U.S. Government could somehow be implicated, directly or indirectly, in the international narcotics trade. During the cold war, American diplomats and CIA agents were involved at three levels: (1) a coincidental complicity through their covert alliances with major drug traffickers; (2) support for known traffickers by condoning their involvement and concealing their criminality from investigation; and on occasion, (3) active involvement in the actual transport of opium. More broadly, Washington has remained wedded to its prohibition policy and refuses to recognize that its attempts at eradication, from Turkey in the 1970’s to Columbia today, have actualy stimulated production and increased the global supply or illicit drugs.
It is ironic, to say the least, that America’s drug problem is of its own making.”
-from The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. Alfred W. McCoy. p.22-23
This should be basis for an argument for legalization of all illicit drugs. We should make them available and tax the crap out of them putting the revenue into treatment programs and rehabilitation, rather than incarceration trajectories. I think it would work like gangbusters.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…