Is this what Jesus would do?

Here's another article I published in the Free Press.
A public craving for revenge in the wake of the murder of University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin was satisfied last week when a jury of 12 decided to impose the death penalty on Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr.

Although the jury unanimously agreed that Mr. Rodriguez suffered from a “mental disorder or impairment” and that a sentence of death would devastate his immediate family they ruled in the end that he was still capable of making “good decisions” and therefore deserved to lose his life for the horrific rape and murder of the attractive young woman. They made this decision despite the fact that Mr. Rodriguez, who feared he may continue to pose a danger to society, had asked to remain in prison following his mandatory release.

The American right to commute a sentence of death upon those who commit murder is an anomaly in the Western world, where among the nations of North America and Europe only Belarus, Guatemala, Belize and a handful of Caribbean countries actively retain the practice. Among countries considered to be “fully developed democracies” only the U.S., Japan and South Korea impose the death penalty. It has not been shown to act as a significant deterrent in states where it is practiced, and its purpose must therefore be seen primarily as an act of vengeance.

In the case of Mr. Rodriguez, according to jury foreman Terry Heuer, "There was some feeling, 'What mercy was shown for Dru?' Life in prison wasn’t punishing him because he got along fine in prison." It is astonishing enough that a group of 12 people could agree to execute an individual they regarded as mentally impaired, but to do so because prison was not deemed enough of a punishment is appalling.

In the wake of this decision there has been talk in North Dakota and Minnesota of re-instating capital punishment, where it has been suspended since the early part of the last century (Mr. Rodriguez was convicted on a federal statute and therefore eligible for the death penalty.) The reversal would be a tragic result, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Rodriguez should never have been allowed to re-enter society unsupervised in the first place.

There will no doubt be an appeal in this case, and it may be years before Mr. Rodriguez faces lethal injection (a practice which is currently facing challenges in some U.S. jurisdictions as being counter to the eighth amendment abolishing “cruel and unusual punishment”). But the question of how a randomly selected group of people, most if not all of whom would identify themselves as Christians, could reach the unanimous decision to execute another human remains puzzling to say the least.

More than any other county in the democratic world the United States identifies itself as a nation under God, and yet they continue to practice, quite publicly, the most reprehensible form of retribution, short of torture, known to man. To paraphrase a currently popular American sentiment: Is this what Jesus would do?

Peg City Panorama

This is an image I made with my camera's panorama feature and a few Photoshop filters.

Video Games and Violence

This is an opinion piece I wrote after having read a report on video games and violence. It was politely rejected, but I'm interested if anyone has any further opinions on it, since I'm not much of a gamer myself, just someone who believes that games don't make killers.

In the wake of the most recent school shooting in Montreal I read a report seeking a connection between violent video games and the actions of the assailant. In my opinion asking if video games cause violent behavior is a bit like asking if drinking alcohol causes car crashes.

The vast majority of people who play video games do not go on shooting sprees, just as most people who drink copiously do not attempt to drive themselves home afterwards. Nonetheless there will always be a portion of society who is at risk to engage in potentially deadly or murderous behavior, albeit for vastly different reasons.

In the case of one who chooses to drink and drive society typically deems the driver fully responsible for his actions, but in the case of killers who play video games—which millions enjoy daily without serious thoughts of actual murder—we tend to seek a cause in the form of entertainment. When someone is killed senselessly as a result of a drunken driver the media seldom digs for mitigating circumstances, yet in the case of random homicide(s) we are never satisfied by the possibility that this was just a sick person who could not find the help they needed; or worse that there was nothing anyone could have done to prevent tragedy.

Perhaps our helplessness and disbelief in the face of an irrational murder obliges us to seek a deeper motive, but I think we do ourselves a great disservice by blaming TV and videogames for real violence.

The tendency to see violent entertainment as a predicate for acts of violence is disingenuous. Violent rampages have happened and will continue to occur with or without the aid of a Playstation or a library of Schwarzenegger films. Senseless violence was with us before every case of it resulted in a media circus, a Hollywood movie and a bestselling book.

Indiscriminate acts of violence are committed by people with disturbed minds, whether the result of an abusive past, family problems, a mental handicap, substance abuse, a sociopathic personality or a combination of these. This is not to say that murderers do not gather influence and enthusiasm from violent forms of entertainment, but I don’t believe that an unquenchable yearning to act violently is visited in healthy people who partake in such diversions.

As for the question of whether these games promote a desensitization in the minds of youth—which may or may not lead to a potential to act out violently—I think it’s pretty clear that where and how one is raised is a far more critical factor than the games one plays. Before videogames children played war, wrestled with one another and engaged in violent sports like hockey and football. For most these games were and remain a healthy outlet for the aggressive phase of childhood and early adulthood that is experienced by many. Videogames are no different; despite the gore since most players are capable of realizing the blood and guts for what it is: a fantasy.


The real question should not be “Do videogames cause violence,” but rather how we as a society treat those who are vulnerable to acting out violent fantasies. Are we sensitive enough to the calls for help they often make before acting? Are we listening to what they are expressing and recognizing the signs? Are we offering treatment and ensuring that they are housed in a safe, nurturing environment?

To blame videogames for an act of murder is to abdicate our responsibility for what we could have, and should have, done to prevent it. Censoring games and violent programs will not do much in the end to stem the violence. What really needs to be done is to provide the proper care for those in our society whose mental and/or spiritual states lead them to believe that killing others is an answer to their problems.

Thinking in Happy Thoughts: A Poem

In the middle of this downpour
a whole bus load of
small children appear
wearing a rainbow
of bright coats and
rubber boots.

Girls carry Hello Kitty umbrellas
boys jump high in the air
and come splashing down
on every puddle they meet
all one can hear
is laughter.

Open the sky, let it rain
they will find imagination
in the shimmering streets
a rivulet of storm water
draining away becomes
the mighty Amazon.

Wet and windy days
foretell the end of summer
but for these explorers
it is something new
and wondrous
to discover.

A Nasty Letter I Object Strongly To

Here's a short, nasty letter that appeared in today's Free Press and my response:

Disgusting article

Re: A tearful plea for son's life (Sept. 13).

I found the article about this crazed, animal-like man (Alfonso Rodriguez) to be very disgusting. I do not know why any members of this family should be allowed any time or space in any media to claim his actions were in any way not his own fault.

ROBERT S. PORTER

Winnipeg

Robert S. Porter’s venomous letter regarding “crazed, animal-like man” Alfonso Rodriguez displayed a surprisingly uninformed and unjustifiable opinion in light of what is known about Rodriguez’s mental health, and the fact that Mr. Rodriguez himself asked not to be released from prison. Not only does Mr. Rodriguez’s mother have every right to plea for mercy on his behalf, but given the facts of the case there should be no question as to whether the death penalty is warranted. Mr. Rodriguez and his victim were let down by the prison system that set him free; he does not deserve a state sanctioned death, nor the condemnation of ignoramuses like Mr. Porter.

Return of the ASCL

As a rainy day project I decided I'd continue on with some more of the ASCL logos I originally created as a sports-graphics-obsessesed, nerdy youngster. These ones are probably two of my all time vaves. I liked the names of the teams, and the fact that they were just pictures with no letters. Here is a link to the original ACSL post, in case you don't know, or don't remember, the the background of this post. The second post of logos is here.

here/now

>sinewy
legs pushing pedals
nowhere is here
rutted gravel road
hands on handlebar
eyes ahead
riding hard
Nowhere in mind

>sky
gusty twisting wind
now is with
now against
sun bursts through
stubble prairie
autumn brown yellow
shadow and relief

>freedom
no banshee bankers
chasing after
commission-free
off the clock
only clouds
sailing by
like hulls of cumulous ships

>>here
a park bench
far enough away
from the workaday city
old Ukrainian man laughs
when his rheumy black dog
snuffles the sandwich
“better watch your lunch”

>>now
is forever
an opening in time-space
late summer breathes
nowhere to be
but here
damn glad
to be alive Today

Reflections on 9/11

Today is a horrible anniversary. The events of five years ago plunged the United States and its allies into a nationless “war on terror” against an invisible enemy. At that time the world was sympathetic and vengeance was swift. The terrorists’ Taliban harbourers were smart-bombed into hiding, while anyone carrying a suspicious passport was unceremoniously incarcerated in foreign jails that precluded the possibility of American style justice.

All of a sudden it was no longer possible to afford the prisoners of war the same rights America had demanded for its P.O.W. populations during previous conflicts. This war, we were told, was different. As much as America knew that torture was an ineffective method of gathering useful intelligence, as much as its citizens were horrified to think that Americans kidnapped by jihadists were suffering from similarly inhumane treatment, the American government was unrepentant in its use of such tactics.

The media glossed over all but the goriest and most obvious reports of mass misconduct and focused instead on how much the world had changed since that fateful day when four commercial jets were repurposed as deadly missiles. No perspective was ever offered on the loss of life compared to the staggering cost of the wars fought as a result. No one seemed too concerned about the amount of freedom that would be sacrificed in order to protect against unverifiable threats at every turn. That summer thousands more Americans died behind the wheel of an automobile, were murdered in gang violence, killed themselves for want of affordable psychiatric help. But America's government and its blood thirsty, lap-dog media saw only the need to feed the citizenry newsworthy threats of imminent terrorism, much as an arsonist might continue to douse an inferno with gasoline.

Our own media began to call us cowards and ostriches because we refused to recognize this new threat to our peace and security. They chided us for our anti-American sentiments, believing that we had let a hatred for Bush blind us to the virtues of his imperialistic assault on Baghdad. They urged us to act before a terrorist took out a Tim Horton’s in Oakville and really opened our eyes.

But I remain convinced that there is no practical way for these terrorists to destroy us. At most they can continue to develop plots that may kill several hundred, or if they are lucky, several thousand in a single shot. The more complex and ambitious the plot, the more likely it is to be discovered and foiled. They can never wage a conventional war against us, never take the soil from under our feet. Our best response isn’t to pretend nothing has happened, but nor is it to take up arms against unseen threats.

If we allow fear to guide the way we live, if we squander liberty for the occasional dramatic instance of violence, rather than maintaining our stoicism at the cost of a few innocent lives, then we are lost. What we must do is stand tall and face fear, not with vengeance in our hearts, not with the idea that we can rout out evil with enough weaponry, but with the belief that life goes on despite tragedy and despicable acts of hate. How can one possibly hope to stop a tide of suicide bombers with a show of force? Antagonizing terror only spurs terror. It is only in re-evaluating our actions, in showing that we are not afraid, that we can truly conquer the beast.

A war is what the billionaire industrialists want, for it reinforces the entitlement they feel to be lords of us all. A war is what the pockets of extremists in far away lands want, for it justifies their right to exist and to claim that their god is threatened by Western values. But a war doesn’t do much good for the average Canadian. It does not reverse the sentiment of a disenfranchised lot who may be plotting to blow-up Parlaiment; it does not give us hope that the valiant efforts of our Armed Forces will result in the victory of good over evil. It only serves to divide us and weaken our resolve.

The media and government can reprimand us for mistrusting our American allies, but they are wrong to attribute our wariness to some abstract concept of “us and them.” The point of anti-American sentiment is not that they are richer, more conservative or simply different from us. It is that their government and its power hungry supporters use their sense of moral superiority, their continuing belief in Manifest Destiny and the power of their arms and economy to dictate their terms to everyone else. Must we subscribe to a skewed world view in the name of trade and good business? Must we bow to bad ideas because it is the diplomatic thing to do? Need we let a misbegotten and highly politicized concept about what terrorism can achieve transform us into a nation of cowering sheep?

On this, the fifth anniversary of 9/11 what we need to do is to continue to voice our discontent, to say this "war" is not helping, that these ideas about terrorism do not present a useful and workable solution to the problem. Yes it is terrible that thousands of innocents have died, and it is terrible to contemplate the loss of thousands more. But what is even sadder is the idea of giving up our freedom and human rights to a ruling class that shows almost as little respect for its own citizens as it does for its enemies.

Word Fight

Last weekend on the ALFA Blog we had a discussion about the power of words, specifically as they relate to the extreme right-wing opinions of Sun columnist Michael Coren, and others of his ilk (the specific post is here). While there were some that dismissed the power of Mr. Coren’s words because they were based on ignorance and prejudice, I argued that his voice needs to be shouted back at because there are many dumb and hateful people who use his bigotry to fuel their own misguided beliefs.

This same reasoning is what led me to attack last weekend’s editorial by Dallas Hansen (my rebuttal is published with some amendments to the original--posted below--in today’s Free Press.) Whereas I will not accuse Mr. Hansen of being a right-wing extremist idiot on the level of Mr. Coren, he did, in his most recent editorial, make some very wrong-headed generalizations about a marginalized population.

Although I cannot claim to be an expert on the plight of the poor I do understand that their problems are not based primarily on laziness or the existence of welfare, and I could not stand by and let Mr. Hansen, a young and reasonably intelligent man like myself, be the only voice on the matter. He certainly is entitled to his opinion, but when he tries to convince the rest of Winnipeg, via the Free Press, he needs to be countered. His words had too much potential for damage in a city that already ignores its poor, lest it be to make bigoted remarks about them.

Currently the mayor is on a re-election campaign, and with no real brand-name competition he seems to be a lock. His much publicized solution to poverty and the crime it engenders is to increase the police presence on the streets of Winnipeg. This will mask the problem by incarcerating the under-privileged’s most obvious sub-group: the joy-riding car thieves and other petty criminals, but will do little to change the root causes.

Mayor Katz seems to be taking a page out of the book of Bush’s Republican re-election campaign whose unofficial slogan is: “Win ‘em over with Fear.” Like Bush Katz has no real interest in the poor, despite today’s publicity shot of him handing some coins to a panhandler. He is for big business and SUV driving soccer-moms; he represents, with no apologies, the suburban population of this city, the people who don’t come downtown because they fear muggings and vehicle break-ins. And in a sense that’s fine because the suburbs is where most of our population lives, but the truly sad thing is that Sam has no vision. He’s a respected business man with enough of a name that he is electable, and little more. Too bad for Winnipeg, especially those who could benefit from a more compassionate and dedicated mayor with some real ideas on how to improve this city for everyone's benefit, including the least among us.

**(The photo of Katz and Winnipeg citizen Danny Spence was taken by Mike Aporius and published in the Free Press)

Response to an Idiotic Editorial

This is a rebuttal I wrote in response to a horribly prejudiced and idiotic editorial in Saturdays Free Press. The original editorial can be referenced by clicking the linked title of this post

In Saturday’s editorial in the Free Press “Willpower the best weapon against poverty” Dallas Hansen insists that eliminating welfare for “able-bodied workers” is the key to getting poor people to realize the value of their time and efforts through employment. Though his ideas are valid to a certain extent much of Mr. Hansen’s argument is grossly unfair, extremely arrogant and terribly naive.

Mr. Hansen seems to believe that every “able-bodied” person is born with the same amount of will, the same ability to conform, and the same capability to overcome mental and physical illness in pursuit of an honourable, workaday living. He mentions the time he went to a temp agency on a lark and did eight hours of day-labour. It was easy, he claims, and “fun”, to get hired on to do a day of hauling trash. He is certain that, had he chosen to, he could have come back the next day and found an equally amusing job to do for minimal wages.

Sadly there are many who’s circumstances prevent them from enjoying the benefits of our glorious Capitalist system, even with a physically capable body and an abundance of low paying jobs.

For one thing mental illness is a gigantic and often unrecognized barrier to attaining the benefits our society can bestow. This illness may not manifest itself as something we recognize and/or sympathize with. Whereas I doubt Mr. Hansen could reasonably object to a schizophrenic or severely mentally handicapped individual receiving aid from the state I wonder if he realizes that chronic depression and a myriad of other undiagnosed problems are often to blame for an inability to thrive in our miracle economy. Hard work and pride in a job well done can be a tonic for some people suffering these maladies, but they do little in the long run to alleviate the root causes of mental illness.

As for the ever-present evils of substance abuse Mr. Hansen states that the solution is to simply stop drinking and doing drugs. This is a startlingly ignorant position, given that even the wealthiest and most educated people in our society can become entrapped in addiction and ruin their lives as a result. Among those who suffer from drug and alcohol dependence are many whose own families have disowned them, who will never be considered reliable or capable of holding down a job, who cannot afford the uninsured medical and/or psychiatric help they need to get clean. They are caught in a downward spiral with no rope to hold on to.

Mr. Hansen also makes the point that those receiving welfare waste their cheques on pre-packaged low-nutrition food. As savvy as he is he does not perceive the lure of convenience food, and does not seem to realize that an undereducated member of society is much more vulnerable to the manipulation of those who offer bad choices (tobacco companies, fast-food establishments, etc.) than someone who has had the advantages. Furthermore, he does not stop to consider the very real possibility that the welfare mother who feeds her child Pizza Pops may not have the basic cooking skills required to prepare a more economical and healthy meal.

Finally, and perhaps most objectionably, Mr. Hansen implies that it is in the best interest of social workers and agencies who support the impoverished to maintain the welfare rolls. This is patently absurd. Those who work in social services do not do so because it is a comfortable living. They take on highly emotionally draining work and visit desolation daily. How dare Mr. Hansen accuse them of cashing in on pity. I am betting that there are far more social servants of all stripes who would prefer a lighter case load, and more happy endings to a fatter cheque as a result of growing despondency.

There can be no doubt that a certain number of welfare cases would be better served by doing as Mr. Hansen suggests, which is finding pride and accomplishment through daily labour. But his overly-simplistic notions on the matter are discriminatory, insulting, and ultimately do a great disservice to our nation’s poor and those who wish to help them in their struggle to escape destitution and despair.

Travelling Riverside Blues

Last weekend my friend Mike (a frequent vistor to this blog) and I had a discussion about Led Zeppelin lyrics. Mike was surprized to find out that some great lines he had always attributed to the pen of Robert Plant actually belonged to old bluesmen. In fact, I told him, Robert Plant is probably the single greatest rip-off artist of all time. Come to think of it, perhaps "single greatest rip-off artist" is a bit strong--in this day of mashing and sampling it's quite possible that the title might be disputed by Puff Daddy, or any of a dozen or so other artists who have built a whole career on reusing previously recorded material. Anyway I can't think of anyone else who borrowed lyrics so unabashedly, and with such great success (although to be fair most of this borrowing took place on the first three Zep albums. I don't suppose any bluesman ever wrote anything like "The Battle of Evermore" or "Kashmir.")

Anyway, Mike and I were talking specifically about "The Lemon Song" Zep's famous, sexually charged, opus. For his benefit and yours I copied the lyrics from what is--as far as I know--the original source, or at least the originally recorded and preserved source of these infamous lyrics. They come from the Robert Johnson song "Travelling Riverside Blues" originally recorded (according to one web source) in November of 1936 in San Antonio, Texas. Here is the pertainent bit:

Now you can squeeze my lemon 'til the juice run down my...
(spoken) 'til the juice rune down my leg, baby, you know what I'm talkin' about
You can squeeze my lemon 'til the juice run down my leg
(spoken) That's what I'm talkin' 'bout, now
But I'm goin' back to Friars Point, if I be rockin'to my head

Zeppelin also had a tune called "Travelling Riverside Blues" which was a minor hit for them when they released it as the single for the big box set they put out in the early '90's. There are dozens of more examples I'm sure but I won't bore you with them. If you're interested you can look up "The Hunter" by Albert King for another blatant example from the same record (Zep II).