Damn it feels good to be the cop that knows a gangsta…or the mayor, or the gov, or the President (an encore post)

Originally posted on My Space March 16, 2008. As just stated in the post prior to this you will receive a shiny brand new something or other, original for Blogger tomorrow or later in the week. Thanks for your patience in the interim. This will be new for some peeps anyway.

Okay so I know that I said my next blog would be on healthcare, and trust me it’s coming. Right now it’s hitting a little too close to home, and I just don’t have it in me. Additionally, I promise sometime I’ll blog during the day when my thoughts are more cohesive, and I can write with clarity. Sorry, you’re just going to have to deal with another mess for now.

Tonight, I finally watched American Gangster. You know the one with the unfortunate-looking Denzel Washington portraying the real-life character of drug lord Frank Lucas. It was a long but entertaining movie that has inspired me to indulge in a little War on Drugs complaining tonight, and I hope it will help to tire me out soon as I have a 4:30a.m. wake up call tomorrow (blerg!)

Now, let’s see what was I thinking as the credits rolled…mmm, Denzel is a good-looking man…um, the War on Drugs is as backwards now as it was then…

Not only does the "War" on Drugs undermine our fundamental civil liberties, but there are very few public policies that have negatively impacted public or societal health to such a degree as this so called war. Were Foucalt alive to see this mess he’d probably say it was a biopolitical war. The War on Drugs is a war started by the Government against its own people.

The War on Drugs is the botch job of countless politicians and an utter waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Public health problems like Hepatitis C and HIV are only escalated by laws that restrict access to clean needles. US-backed aerial fumigation of drug-growing operations in third world countries is causing the deterioration of an already fragile environment, not to mention the direct negative health impact the fumigation has on the inhabitants of those areas.

Social concerns include the costs associated with funding a War on Drugs. Like any actual war it is pricey. It was estimated that in 2005 after factoring in incarcerating drug law offenders, police protection, legal adjudication, etc. that $45.5 billion was spent on the War on Drugs. Drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal or harm to support their high priced habits. Additionally the War on Drugs plays a negative role in society with its seeming promulgation of racial inequities in a country where minorities still face discrimination. How so? African American and Latino groups are stereotyped as the big drug lords when let’s be realistic: the big drug lords are oft the White House backed corporations that supplied Central American countries with the materials necessary for manufacturing narcotics, not the 14 year old slinging crack (he’s small potatoes.) This War is yet another means for the government to further separate people from each other and from their liberties. Shamefully, the War is causing a vicious cycle that will only be perpetuated in the children of inmates; inmates serving time for distributing marijuana, cocaine, non-prescribed pharmaceuticals, etc. Those children are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency.

You would think that we had learned our lesson with alcohol prohibition, but no; here we sit idly by while the government forces a non-Constitutional prohibition of drugs. I’m not saying that I promote all drug use. Admittedly drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse. Illegal drugs foster speciously high profits that fund groups such as the Taliban and other similar groups involved in civil warfare across the globe. Despite its opium sales funding their war against the U.S. we still offered somewhat of a reward to the Taliban to abate some of its poppy fields. What is wrong with that scenario? Puhleeze, I only have so much time here before I must attempt slumber.

So what was I saying? Oh yeah, drug prohibition is a Constitutional no no, and since its start has only succeeded in an increase of drug use in all categories. Just for fun though let’s look at marijuana. Once thought in the U.S. as a drug used only by Mexican immigrants and a handful of musicians, since the first hindrance of its availability and use in 1937, it is noted in some places to be used by up to 50% of our nation’s youth at least once. (1937 is when the government passed the Marijuana Tax Act to curb distribution / use of marijuana.) Again, this is a misuse of government. Specifically though, I am concerned with the federal government regulating medical marijuana. Legalization of medical marijuana is a states’ rights issue. The federal government doesn’t have a constitutional foot to stand on when it comes to this issue.

I would like to see us venture away from the War on Drugs and into a world of Harm Reduction. Harm Reduction is rooted in the following tenets: 1. people should not be punished for what they put into their bodies and 2. people should only be punished for crimes committed against others. It acknowledges that no society will ever be free of drugs. It holds that drug policies should seek to reduce the negative consequences (principally death, disease, crime and suffering) of both drug use and the policies themselves.

Okay, seriously I am tired, but there is so much more to say. I didn’t even get to start on the benefits of medical marijuana...another time perhaps. Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth it anyway. I love you people, but why do I waste my time sharing my thoughts to only have 29 of you read them? Then again, I guess none of you asked so really I can’t complain. Thanks to those that venture into my late night jumbles.

More info (not that it's all perfect either):
War on Drugs Basics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Money Spent http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
Harm Reduction http://www.harmreduction.org/

Pieces of another restless night for me (an encore posting)

Recent My Space blog archival move (you're getting two today, and then something brand new tomorrow or later this week...on texting maybe...) For now, it's a bit of some recent prose, poetry, whatever you wish to call it; I don't care as it's just what shows up on my screen sometimes.

Originally posted on My Space May 20, 2008

A haunting shadow draws across my room.
This evening's remedy has yet to kick in.
I'm losing the bookshelf wars.
Not to a teacher, but to a dream horizon
dotted with cumbersome pillow sacks
of arrogance, longing and more gloom-filled nights.
I wanted more. There it is.
I wanted so much more to issue forth.
Wrong or right, I wanted to walk under a bridge
wearing a skirt made of words
and recite Yeats, Morejón, Alexie, you name it.
I wanted to be fire, water, air, idea…
forget earth for a bit.
I wanted it yesterday. I want it now.
My soul drank enough to know how thirsty it was.
Parched and starving, I could drink passion felt
and eat the breeze right off the curtains.

Implicitly explicit....think about things with me ;-)

So if you know me at all, then you know that I sincerely relish that which I went to school to learn more about: religions, philosophies, cultures, people, etc. If you ever stop by here then you also know that I've been thinking a lot about that first topic lately, specifically with reference to my own beliefs. Because of my musings here as well as some back and forth emails with a few friends and the occasional comments that tell me too often people assume that Religious Studies are simply the study of Christianity or some other major religion, I find it necessary to point out that often the study is specific to gaining a better understanding of what religion itself is and what it is and/or means in contemporary society. To me this is just as interesting and worthy of a pursuit as that of studying a specific religion.

So, religion is defined in many different ways, but this is my blog so we're going to look at it in a way that works for me and that will hopefully, at the very least, give you something to think about. If nothing else, I pose some questions at the end that will perhaps get the metaphoric wheels turning. I am apologizing in advance as I'm aware (after a quick skim status post writing) that what you're about to read is often lacking segue or may contain parts that seem rather incongruent. I suppose I implore you to read each part as if it were its own and to proffer me some empathy for trying to express such vast ideals in a simple blog on a Sunday afternoon. Perhaps, if my haphazard head will permit it, I will return for better assembly of the puzzle that is my thoughts in the future. To me, religion is neither confined to churches, or similar places, nor restricted to the activities that go on in these places of worship: praying, meditating, singing, reading sacred texts, rituals, etc. These places and activities are without argument a big part of religion for many people but are not definitive of it.

What defines religion for me is our fundamental human need for order / structure and direction. While a significant amount of order and direction are provided by our instinctual repertoire, it is not sufficient for our surviving or thriving as individuals or as a species. Human beings depend upon visions of real life (of what reality in its various manifestations is like and of what is the best life for which we can strive and hope), of the power or powers upon which real life depends and of the practices required in order to be in creative relationship with life-giving power. With these basic human needs in mind I define religion as a vision of real life, the power or powers upon which real life depends and the practices required in order to be in creative relationship with life-giving power. Because everyone has such a vision and participates in such practices (even if not everyone has self-awareness of this) and because human life is unimaginable apart from them I claim that religion can be viewed as a human universal. (This is why you will note that while I do not align myself with an organized religion, I do not claim to be completely void of "religion", nor do I claim to be completely void of belief.) Everyone is religious and has at least one religion, and I believe that there is a religious dimension to every individual or social issue.

For me religious pluralism doesn't refer simply to the different major religions of the world such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Religious pluralism entails recognizing both the explicit religions such as the major world traditions just listed as well as the implicit religions that are found everywhere and include but are not limited to business and entertainment (let's face it those Trekkies, definitely have a religion going on.) Implicit religions seek to satisfy the same fundamental human needs for order and direction that explicit religions seek to satisfy. Recognizing that both explicit and implicit religions are present in our lives is just a piece of what I've been pondering lately. I can't believe that I ever veered away from these topics that truly entertain me.

Alas, I have reverted back to thinking about religion the way that I did when I first became interested in studying it. I have to think about it almost in response to the theory of secularization. According to this theory, religion is an optional human activity that should be differentiated from other human activities, confined to the private sphere and regarded as trivial or harmful. In contrast to this perspective, I propose we think of religion as something that can be differentiated for purposes of understanding but can not be differentiated as something optional. Religion is an integral part of our being; it is significantly involved in everything we do, especially everything we do that involves evaluation, decision or choice. Religion pertains just as much to our public lives as it does to our private lives; it can not be consigned or confined to the private sphere. It informs and directs what people do in the public realm as well as the private.

While various religious perspectives can be regarded as trivial or harmful, they can only be so judged from another religious perspective (another vision of real life, power and requisite practices) that is regarded as profound and helpful. For some people the moral integrity of Christianity is highly suspect. Considering all of the evil that has been done in Christ's name, how can anyone with moral integrity be a Christian? While it is true that much has been done in Christ's name, it is also true that much good has been done as well. You would be hard-pressed to actually find Scripture to support these unjust actions, and even if you were not it bears mentioning that while evil has been done in the name of Christ, it has been done in other "names" as well. Let's look at some examples: dropping nuclear bombs (monuments to the name of Reason) on Japanese cities was done in the name of Making Peace, and rendering the earth's capacity to sustain life problematic continues to be done in the name of Prosperity. Among the things that make Christianity (the dominant explicit religion in the United States) interesting is that, in its better moments, it has a remarkable capacity for self-criticism and encourages not the elimination but the love of enemies. Also, this tradition offers an interesting perspective on the meaning of power, according to which power does not refer to the ability to make others do what one wants but to the capacity to retain one's integrity regardless of what others are doing and to suffer with and for others no matter how great their suffering is.

Speaking of power, when we are looking at life in a pluralistic context, one that contains many explicit and implicit religions competing for human devotion, there is one form of power that is especially important; that is of course, the power of discernment. Given the multiplicity of religious options how is one to know which one(s) to believe, follow or trust? Who or what does one turn to or accept as authoritative, as the author of one's story?

Within the U.S., the traditional source of authority for answering religious questions has been the Bible; however, in contemporary America there are several different views of what the Bible means and what it is: is it the word of God, word of humans, a combined divine and human effort? So if these questions are already posed then by default we ask: what does it mean to say the Bible is authoritative in a context where there are plural understandings of what it means and what it is? It is possible to state that in our contemporary, pluralistic society, the Bible might actually function to create or accentuate differences rather than act as an authority to resolve or heal them.

A pluralistic context makes a lot of things rather tricky. The many perspectives other than one's own make it commonplace to view others as either: ignorant, inferior, evil or just other. We then relate to them in terms of education, destruction, competition or cooperation. For me, within contemporary higher education the emphasis was on cooperating, but what if the other does not want to cooperate with you? Does that mean they are ignorant, evil or inferior and need to be educated, destroyed or defeated? These ways of looking at people that do not share the same belief system as oneself result in a social issue of objectification, in which we treat subjects as if they were objects. Subjects need to be heard, not herded. I'd like to see us all work toward more thoughtful conversations that resist objectifications. Wanting to share what you believe and practice can be a respectable thing when it is done in a propositional vs. dogmatic manner, and on that note, lest I begin to sound too dogmatic myself, I can see from my window that the sun is sufficiently shining so I am off to don my bikini and to read Mudslingers: The Twenty-Five Dirtiest Political Campaigns of All Time on my deck.

Also, heads up on Yves Klein Blue as being one of my favorite new groups to listen to. Enjoy days 2 and 3 of this holiday weekend. :-)

No mas complaints from the non-My Space crowd

So, I'm not saying that anything that I put out into the blog world is so fantastic that everyone should be able to read it; however, I have several friends that are sans, and dare I say, anti- My Space, and these people harass me about not being able to read my blog. So Mikey, et al. in an effort to appease you I am going to post here as well. In fact, because two of you were so adamant about wanting to read a couple of past posts I am actually going to spend some time relocating some of them here (plus then it won't be so naked here to start out with.) I will begin with transplanting my most recent post on religion, and I will continue from there. I hope you're happy...