Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/rean8569/public_html/blog/wp-includes/cache.php on line 103

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/rean8569/public_html/blog/wp-includes/query.php on line 61

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/rean8569/public_html/blog/wp-includes/theme.php on line 1109
PHONETOGRAPHY » Street Art

Disenfranchised

August 8th, 2009

Instructions

Instructions

“Our dreams don’t fit on your ballots” is a common rallying cry amongst anarchists, anti-globalisation activists, and a whole slew of other lefty-type “radicals.”  Despite its provenance, I’m starting to think that it applies readily to just about anybody.

As a white male aged 18-36, I suppose I should feel almost as empowered as the people who actually hold the reigns: the old white boomers.  But I don’t, not in the least bit.  In what has been a steady slide since I came of age to vote, I have felt less and less involved in Canadian politics.  The last year has been especially harsh.  To say the least, the system is broken.

Though we have more than two functional federal parties with in this country, there are only two that stand a chance at holding power - and I despise both of them.  Despite myself, I voted for the Federal Liberals in the most recent election, because Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift represented the best chance Canada had at getting any sort of climate change policy to speak of.  (More on this in another post, perhaps, but suffice to say - I have basically become a single-issue voter.  Climate change is the single most important challenge facing the whole of humanity right now.  If we don’t act very strongly, and very soon, then we are all well-and-truly Fucked.  Period.)

As everyone in Canada knows, the “Green Shaft” (sometimes I hate puns) and its sadly uncharismatic but intelligent architect failed in the polls, sending a bleak wave through Canadian politics.  The defeat of Dion’s heavily environmental policy has left all major parties afraid of environmentalism, bolstering Canada’s willing participation in the Global Doom.

This shockwave also passed through provincial politics, an area in which some (very) small inroads have been made for environmentalism and climate policy.  The result is that BC’s Provincial NDP party (who correlate more closely to the Federal Liberals) based their major platform plank on an “Axe the Tax” policy.  This referred to a miniscule carbon tax put into place last year by the Provincial Liberals (who correlate more closely to the Federal Conservatives… the provincial Conservatives correlate most closely with whichever Federal party is the most batshit insane) and could only be described as political pandering at its worst.  This is especially noteworthy since the NDP did actually have a Carbon policy of their own — but they refused to even list it on the bulleted policy list on their website.  After writing a letter telling the NDP why I would not be voting for them, I wound up voting Green.  (I almost voted for the Liberals in a symbolic single-issue gesture, but I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself.)

The fact is, of course, that it doesn’t matter one lick who I voted for.  The NDP were safe in my riding, and won easily.  The main reason I bothered to vote at all in the provincial election was because of the referendum on a proposed voting system called Single-Transferrable Vote.  A form of proportional representation, this system would have returned a semblance of franchise to disaffected extremists such as myself.  I was hopeful that the system would win, given that it got 58% of the vote the last time a referendum was held (it needed 60% to pass).  Instead, STV faced a massive scare campaign organized by various vested interests (BC Liberals and BC NDPs included) since STV would have done away with “safe” seats, and would have ensured that representatives would actually have to listen to their constituents or risk getting turfed.  As I whined the next day, BC was offered democracy and turned it down.

The only thing that has left me with a glimmer of hope is that Vancouver’s Municipal election in 2008 saw almost entirely “progressive” representatives get elected.  The lion’s share went to Vision Vancouver, a liberal/centrist type party.  Most of the rest went to COPE and the Municipal Greens.  The ruling right-wing NPA was left with a single member on the city council.  Good riddance.

What have been the results of this progressive turn in Vancouver?  Well, the Burrard Street Bridge now has a dedicated bicycle lane, for one thing.  That’s nice.  Unfortunately I can’t find a reference at the moment, but sometime over the past couple months I read that Vancouver’s Mayor requested that the Provincial Housing Minister put new rent control laws into place, in order to prevent “renovictions” (kicking tenants out for renovations, and then raising the rent to unaffordable levels) and other kinds of rent increases in the lead up to the Olympics.  The result?  The Housing Minister refused, claiming that rent-control laws would be “unfair” to landlords.  Puke.  (If anyone has a reference or can correct any mistakes I might have just made, please comment.)

If the Mayor of Vancouver can’t affect change on something as simple and common sense as rent control, what hope has a lowly animator?  Even our political figures are disenfranched.  The system is broken, and since nobody in this country (except for a small group of persistent protestors to whom I occasionally add my voice) is willing to make any noise about it, all I can really do is wait for the next political cycle and hope people smarten up a little.

I love my country.

PS. Sorry for the many months of silence.  It’s been a hectic summer.  Hopefully this rambly mess represents a return to a semblance of consistent posting.

Where’s My Biodegradable Shoe?!

April 17th, 2009

“Where’s my flying car?  Where’s my fucking jetpack?  Where’s my alien dancing girls?”  -From Doktor Sleepless, an ongoing masterpiece by Warren Ellis.

WE NEED NEW IDEAS

WE NEED NEW IDEAS (THERE ARE NONE)

For well over a year, I have been wearing worn-out shabby shoes.  I have been wearing these unwearables because I have been searching for shoes that are biodegradable, recyclable, or both (that is, they can be dismantled into their component parts, some being composted and others recycled).  With the possible exception of “Simple,” which is nearly impossible to find in Vancouver (and I will not buy something online that I haven’t tried on first) such shoes do not exist.

Now that my feet (and legs, and body) have started to complain loudly about the rotten scraps of fabric, rubber, and plastic that I wear on them, I am going to buy new shoes.  Dirty ones.  Non-biodegradable ones.  Because that’s all there is.

The world is built in a very stupid way.  Obviously I’m speaking in terms beyond shoes alone: nearly every product we can buy is still based on that nonsensical cradle-to-grave model.  Why the hell aren’t there more closed loops, already?  The book “Cradle to Cradle” explored that idea in 2001, and the concept of the closed loop has been around since long before then.

And yet, we still have the same old crap squelching through the same old rotting system, only to be left stinking in a landfill, never to biodegrade.  When will manufacturers account for the disposal of their products?  Amongst individuals, if a person makes a mess, they are expected to clean it up.  Why is it different for the companies that make the garbage we eventually have to throw away?  (Note: there is no “away,” there is only a country-sized maelstrom of plastic swirling in the Pacific Ocean.) Why can’t I return my worn out goods to the people who made them to dispose of?

I want to write more, but I’m literally inarticulate with rage.  We’re sitting here at the twilight of an era; night is coming.  Whether that night dawns on a green world or a scorched one will depend in no small part on what we finally decide to do with our waste.  This is bigger than shoes, of course, but wouldn’t it be nicely poetic if we began by moving forward, shod with sustainability itself?

Beach-Ready

April 5th, 2009

Acceptance

Acceptance

Say it with me: I am always already “beach-ready.”

‘Tis the Season of the Bootcamp.  A poster at an intersection near my house touts the miracle of the “Booty Bootcamp” - for the ladies, according to the sign.  My workplace is partnering with a local gym for a “Beach Ready Bootcamp.”  Bootcamp, bootcamp, bootcamp, everywhere you look.

The notion that one’s body is unacceptable for public display after six months of winter’s indoor huddling is patently ludicrous.  In this day of supposedly liberated ideals, it should be painfully unnecessary to say that it doesn’t matter what you look like.  And yet, we have the bootcamp.  A four-week (or so) intensive set of workout sessions, designed to whip our flabby sedentary bodies into a semblance of attactiveness, that we might once again attain a form suitable for scanty swimwear.  As if we aren’t always already suitable to wear whatever we damn-well please.

Naturally, these bootcamps are largely just a symptom of entrenched unattainable ideals, but it’s hard to see language like “beach ready ” or “booty bootcamp” and not see them as a perpetuating engine of the Myth of the Perfect Physique.  Mind, the notion of an intensive workout is not in itself an offensive thing.  Exercise is healthy, and if the bootcamp gets an otherwise inactive person doing something physical, so much the better.  But please don’t say it’s for the sake of beauty: it’s the wrong motivator, one that can only lead to dissatisfaction for all but the most dedicated, disciplined, and genetically lucky (not to mention the large role class plays in being able to “work out” at all).

Why do I even need to say this?  Why are we still so cowed by society’s expectations that so many of us still believe ourselves to be ugly, when we are not?  Why stress and strain to be beach-ready?  We always already are.

In a later post, I will explore the linguistic implications of “working out” in one’s spare time, and the philosophical difficulties of repeatedly lifting the same heavy objects for hours on end.

Freedom of (Hate) Speech

January 29th, 2009

“You’re not wrong, Walter.  You’re just an asshole.”
-The Dude, from The Big Lebowski

YOUR TIME IS NOW.

YOUR TIME IS NOW.

Freedom of speech is one of those issues that gets me tied up in so many mental knots that I need a couple hours to unwind after thinking about it.  I think part of the problem is that it’s one of a very few issues that the very progressive and the very hateful both agree on.  I have yet to find a fully satisfying answer, but at this point I’ve decided that a neat solution is unattainable.  Life is hard.

In theory, I am of course in favour of freedom of speech across the board.  It protects people with critical/unpopular views of the dominant order, allows for some cutting humour, and for music with swear words.  In practice, I get really confused when it comes to things like KKK rallies (to use an easy example), or more contemporarily, some of the extreme anti-Islamic trash coming out of people’s mouths and pens worldwide.  That’s the kind of stuff that need to stop, and right now.

But literally stopping it (through legal means or otherwise) won’t erase the ideology that gives birth to it.  The best answer I’ve been able to find to all this is to meet the speech in question with a whole lot of positive dialogue that counters it.  Meet a hate rally with a bigger anti-hate rally.  It’s certainly not a quick fix, but it can help stop the spread of violent ideas, and is better than the alternatives.

For some more concrete examples, I’ll talk about the kinds of things that have been happening in Europe, lately.  In Holland, the supreme court has decided to put Geert Wilders in jail [The article I linked is pretty one-sided, and I disagree with some of the editorializing, but it's where I heard the news], in part due to a film he made called “Fitna” - which, from what I hear, is highly “problematic” to say the least.  He has also called for the Quran to be banned.  Not a particularly tolerant guy, from the sounds of it.  Still, putting him in jail for it doesn’t set a good precedent.  All this is related to the “Danish Cartoons” nonsense that blew up a couple years ago, and is part of a long-string of anti-Islamic speech coming from government officials, editorialists, and right-wing groups across Europe.  Or North America, for that matter, but that’s not my focus here.

Now, I’m not going to blame the victim and say Theo Van Gogh “had it coming” (nobody does), and I’m not going to suggest that the rioting in Muslim countries was anything but a very bad response to the Danish cartoons [update: please see this reply in the comments for a bit of context].  Those are just two of the poor “alternatives” to positive dialogue that I mentioned above, Wilders’ jail term being a third.  I’m also going to admit that there are things about Islam - or any religion - that warrant a great deal of critique.  But deliberately stirring up hatred (which is what much of the ham-fisted European “critique” is really doing) is the wrong way of going about it.  The bulk of it is little more than thinly-veiled xenophobia without any real substance.

When the Danish cartoons fiasco really got going, cartoonists and journalists worldwide ranted and raved about what an outrage it was that the cartoons were banned.  Muslims were told to “grow a thicker skin” and that nobody’s got a right “not to be offended.”  Fair enough.  To an extent, that’s certainly true.  But there’s a very big difference between speaking truth to power and mocking an already marginalized group.  It’s easy to talk from a position of privilege (ie. the dominant race/religion/class) and tell the downtrodden to “buck up,” but not so easy to deal with what is essentially institutionalized prejudice.  After all, Christianity is almost never spoken about in the kinds of terms that Islam is, despite the fact that the bible has just as many inflammatory passages.

All this meandering blabbering (sorry about that - like I said, this topic ties my brain in knots) can be summed up by that Big Lebowski quote above.  All too often, “freedom of speech” is a wall that racists hide behind, tossing slurs at whatever minority is within range.  Still, the only way to ensure that valid, useful critique is fully protected is to protect everything - even the most bile-filled garbage.  Let the rest of it become social taboo.  Mr. Wilders should be allowed to say whatever he wants to say, if only because censoring him will serve only to bring more people to his side - and it won’t change his mind.  He’s not strictly wrong about freedom of speech, but he’s definitely an asshole.

On the photo: I saw this paste-up on the side of a “Metro” daily newspaper box.  While it’s likely that some poor employee was just trying to clean up, I wonder if someone tried to tear if off because they didn’t like the message (which, I am guessing, is “Your Time Is Now.”)  At any rate, I’m glad someone is going around Vancouver sticking up positive (if trite) messages.  It’s something that I myself had been planning to do a couple years back, but never got around to doing.  Maybe one of these days I’ll join the party.