Monday, September 8, 2008
Glee! Elections!
For basically the past year I've been feeling very left-out, because the Americans have been having their whole electoral process going on for about half of their current President's latest term in office. And since I'm exposed to a whole lot of American culture, I can't help but absorb the issues and opinions of all those people working passionately south of the border to get their candidates elected. As a result, ever since the American campaign started, I've been feeling bummed that I won't be able to vote in the American election. I've often found myself saying "if I was an American, I'd vote for [Obama, McCain, H. Clinton, etc.]" depending on the issue of the day.
A couple of the shows I watch include: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart/The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher, Penn and Teller's Bullshit, The MSNBC Nightly News, The Tonight Show/The Late Show/Late Nite/The Late Late Show.
Anyways, as my own way of participating, I did manage to make a small financial contribution to the campaign of Senator Barack Obama. So at least I felt like I was sort of a part of the electoral process. US$15 is probably worth more than 1 vote to him anyways, at least right now. [Is it technically illegal for a Canadian to contribute to an American political candidate? It's probably not illegal on my end, just illegal for Barack Obama to accept my donation. Well, he did, and he keeps sending me email asking for more, which I might yet do as November draws near.]
But despite feeling like I at least have a small measure of influence (about as much as voting, to be honest) in the US election, I still feel disappointed because I know that Obama and McCain aren't going to act for me overtly. In other words, they're not going to give me the same platitudes that they give to the citizens of the USA. And I want those platitudes. Oh, they'll act in my interest. Obama can't not know that some of his campaign funding is coming from Canada, and McCain is perfectly aware of the Canada-USA close relationship in matters of trade, defence, etc, etc. So it's not like they're working against my interests as a Canadian. But the fact is that their policy decisions have no way to affect me directly.
Which is why I'm so excited about the upcoming Canadian election. We're going to beat the Americans to the punch! We're going to have an election in a matter of 40 days, while theirs takes 2 years. We're going to finally have a chance to vent all that pent-up Canadian civic tension. And it'll be quick and painless.
Of course, we're not going to make any history. We've already had our first female Prime Minister. In fact, I see this election largely as just a jump-start to a broken parliament. It just needs to be put back on the rails. I don't think anything is going to change. The Conservatives will simply win another minority.
Anways though, what is great about this Canadian election is that it is kind of like piggy-backing on the US election. In the US, they're making all these arguments, putting political ideas out there, discussing them in the news, and analyzing various trends. And all of this stuff is leaking over the border into Canada: essentially for free. On American networks that are broadcast into Canada (along with American newspapers and other media), the candidates are paying advertising dollars to allow Canadians to see the pros and cons of themselves and their opponents. True, not all of it applies directly to Canada, but many of the principles and issues are shared between our countries, and we are essentially getting free analysis. Our own networks will have to do some work converting some of it into Canadianese, but the ideological heavy lifting is done.
All that remains is to get to know the candidates personally. But unlike the US, we know our candidates pretty well already. We don't need multi-million dollar campaigns to introduce them to us. At most, Harper and Dion will swap jobs. That'll be fun; kind of like Christmas in the UK.
A couple of the shows I watch include: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart/The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher, Penn and Teller's Bullshit, The MSNBC Nightly News, The Tonight Show/The Late Show/Late Nite/The Late Late Show.
Anyways, as my own way of participating, I did manage to make a small financial contribution to the campaign of Senator Barack Obama. So at least I felt like I was sort of a part of the electoral process. US$15 is probably worth more than 1 vote to him anyways, at least right now. [Is it technically illegal for a Canadian to contribute to an American political candidate? It's probably not illegal on my end, just illegal for Barack Obama to accept my donation. Well, he did, and he keeps sending me email asking for more, which I might yet do as November draws near.]
But despite feeling like I at least have a small measure of influence (about as much as voting, to be honest) in the US election, I still feel disappointed because I know that Obama and McCain aren't going to act for me overtly. In other words, they're not going to give me the same platitudes that they give to the citizens of the USA. And I want those platitudes. Oh, they'll act in my interest. Obama can't not know that some of his campaign funding is coming from Canada, and McCain is perfectly aware of the Canada-USA close relationship in matters of trade, defence, etc, etc. So it's not like they're working against my interests as a Canadian. But the fact is that their policy decisions have no way to affect me directly.
Which is why I'm so excited about the upcoming Canadian election. We're going to beat the Americans to the punch! We're going to have an election in a matter of 40 days, while theirs takes 2 years. We're going to finally have a chance to vent all that pent-up Canadian civic tension. And it'll be quick and painless.
Of course, we're not going to make any history. We've already had our first female Prime Minister. In fact, I see this election largely as just a jump-start to a broken parliament. It just needs to be put back on the rails. I don't think anything is going to change. The Conservatives will simply win another minority.
Anways though, what is great about this Canadian election is that it is kind of like piggy-backing on the US election. In the US, they're making all these arguments, putting political ideas out there, discussing them in the news, and analyzing various trends. And all of this stuff is leaking over the border into Canada: essentially for free. On American networks that are broadcast into Canada (along with American newspapers and other media), the candidates are paying advertising dollars to allow Canadians to see the pros and cons of themselves and their opponents. True, not all of it applies directly to Canada, but many of the principles and issues are shared between our countries, and we are essentially getting free analysis. Our own networks will have to do some work converting some of it into Canadianese, but the ideological heavy lifting is done.
All that remains is to get to know the candidates personally. But unlike the US, we know our candidates pretty well already. We don't need multi-million dollar campaigns to introduce them to us. At most, Harper and Dion will swap jobs. That'll be fun; kind of like Christmas in the UK.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Addictions Are Bullshit
I remember hearing the following quote from a co-worker (at the Casino, where I am a Count), and I'm pretty sure I heard it before from a fairly reputable source, probably someone having something to do with law enforcement or social work.
"Some drugs are so addictive that 1 in 10 people who take it once are permanently addicted from that moment on."
Anyways, there are variations in which drug is mentioned by name, usually heroin, but may include other drugs like crack, ecstacy, and meth. Sometimes it is said 1 in 10, sometimes 9 in 10, and sometimes it is claimed that 10 in 10, or 100% become addicted after one taste.
What?
Even the most legitimately scientific and factual instance of this quotation is still utter bullshit, and I'll tell you why:
People have free will.
You'd think that being addicted to something was a life sentence. You know what, I'm addicted to food. I can't live without it. I'm addicted to sleep. I'm addicted to the internet. (I also happen to be "mildly" addicted to caffein, but as a recovering anything-a-holic might tell you, there is no such thing as being mildly addicted.) And this is in the clinical sense. I'm not just using "addicted" in its rhetorical sense, like the tongue-in-cheek so-called "work-a-holic." I'm really addicted to the stuff that I feel compelled to do and partake of on a daily basis. That's the definition of addiction. It is a compulsion.
Now, the compulsion of addiction is not voluntary. In a word, it is involuntary. In two words, it is a physiological phenomenon. I don't feel hungry because I choose to. But what I can do is choose to eat. Well, I couldn't choose not to eat, or else I'd starve, but what I can choose is where, when, and what to eat.
This is how it is with addictions. You can't choose whether or not you want a cigarette, or another hit of heroin. You can only choose your response to the signal your body gives you.
A lot of people see addiction as dictating behavior. An addict can't help wanting, desiring, craving, therefore, the popular logic goes, they are not in control of their own responses. And some addicts like this line of reasoning. They even explain their feelings in terms of powerlessness and helplessness against the internal demon of addiction. This is a convenient line of reasoning for the addict, because it allows them to justify bad choices. Ultimately though, this line of reasoning is counterproductive to the addict, because it results in a cycle of believing that they are indeed powerless.
An addiction is a bad excuse for a poor choice of behavior.
The problem with our conception of addictions is that they are not real. They are a fabrication. Addictions do not exist, not in the popular sense. In the clinical sense, anything can be an addiction, and the definition ceases to be useful to someone fighting wrong behavior. You might just as well call them demons, because addictions are exactly as real as demons.
The reality of what is commonly called addictions is that it is a conflict of interest within the human body. It's a more extreme version of the conflicts we encounter every day, like when the alarm clock rings in the morning, and we feel compelled to sleep an extra half-hour, but we also feel compelled to get up and fix ourselves some breakfast (on account of being hungry).
The physical compulsions felt due to addictive substances, like nicotine, can seem powerful, especially when the means to satisfy them is so close to our grasp on the kitchen table. But the long-term desires that we have, like to avoid developing cancer, seem far away when it comes down to the moment. Despite the latter desire, the fact of the matter is that our body wants a cigarette now. But we can still refuse.
However, what I'm trying to say about addictions is that we are not slaves to our compulsions. Perhaps it would help to remind ourselves of this in our "moments of weakness". An addiction is never irresistable. An addiction can never get ahold of us completely, leaving us without free will.
Having an addiction is never a good excuse for any act. A reasonable excuse for smoking a cigarette might be that it makes you feel good, that you wanted to smoke it. However, in the bigger picture, a reasonable person could conclude that smoking cigarettes is not in their best interest, and therefore make the rational choice. It is, of course, equally rational to decide that one values the pleasure of the present moment over the lengthening of future moments. However, over time, and over the course of a series of present moments, it would seem that the pleasure added to each of these moments would never weigh up against the pleasure of a longer, healthier, happier life.
What I had hoped to do with this post was to at least begin to question the idea of the addict as a hopeless case. Of course, once you've tried a highly addictive drug, you are automatically addicted. But what it means to be addicted to a drug is a very different thing from automatically becoming a slave to it. To be addicted merely means that you will, from now on, have a physiological compulsion to acquire it again. But there is nothing supernatural about it. You are not condemned to a life in the gutter.
"Some drugs are so addictive that 1 in 10 people who take it once are permanently addicted from that moment on."
Anyways, there are variations in which drug is mentioned by name, usually heroin, but may include other drugs like crack, ecstacy, and meth. Sometimes it is said 1 in 10, sometimes 9 in 10, and sometimes it is claimed that 10 in 10, or 100% become addicted after one taste.
What?
Even the most legitimately scientific and factual instance of this quotation is still utter bullshit, and I'll tell you why:
People have free will.
You'd think that being addicted to something was a life sentence. You know what, I'm addicted to food. I can't live without it. I'm addicted to sleep. I'm addicted to the internet. (I also happen to be "mildly" addicted to caffein, but as a recovering anything-a-holic might tell you, there is no such thing as being mildly addicted.) And this is in the clinical sense. I'm not just using "addicted" in its rhetorical sense, like the tongue-in-cheek so-called "work-a-holic." I'm really addicted to the stuff that I feel compelled to do and partake of on a daily basis. That's the definition of addiction. It is a compulsion.
Now, the compulsion of addiction is not voluntary. In a word, it is involuntary. In two words, it is a physiological phenomenon. I don't feel hungry because I choose to. But what I can do is choose to eat. Well, I couldn't choose not to eat, or else I'd starve, but what I can choose is where, when, and what to eat.
This is how it is with addictions. You can't choose whether or not you want a cigarette, or another hit of heroin. You can only choose your response to the signal your body gives you.
A lot of people see addiction as dictating behavior. An addict can't help wanting, desiring, craving, therefore, the popular logic goes, they are not in control of their own responses. And some addicts like this line of reasoning. They even explain their feelings in terms of powerlessness and helplessness against the internal demon of addiction. This is a convenient line of reasoning for the addict, because it allows them to justify bad choices. Ultimately though, this line of reasoning is counterproductive to the addict, because it results in a cycle of believing that they are indeed powerless.
An addiction is a bad excuse for a poor choice of behavior.
The problem with our conception of addictions is that they are not real. They are a fabrication. Addictions do not exist, not in the popular sense. In the clinical sense, anything can be an addiction, and the definition ceases to be useful to someone fighting wrong behavior. You might just as well call them demons, because addictions are exactly as real as demons.
The reality of what is commonly called addictions is that it is a conflict of interest within the human body. It's a more extreme version of the conflicts we encounter every day, like when the alarm clock rings in the morning, and we feel compelled to sleep an extra half-hour, but we also feel compelled to get up and fix ourselves some breakfast (on account of being hungry).
The physical compulsions felt due to addictive substances, like nicotine, can seem powerful, especially when the means to satisfy them is so close to our grasp on the kitchen table. But the long-term desires that we have, like to avoid developing cancer, seem far away when it comes down to the moment. Despite the latter desire, the fact of the matter is that our body wants a cigarette now. But we can still refuse.
However, what I'm trying to say about addictions is that we are not slaves to our compulsions. Perhaps it would help to remind ourselves of this in our "moments of weakness". An addiction is never irresistable. An addiction can never get ahold of us completely, leaving us without free will.
Having an addiction is never a good excuse for any act. A reasonable excuse for smoking a cigarette might be that it makes you feel good, that you wanted to smoke it. However, in the bigger picture, a reasonable person could conclude that smoking cigarettes is not in their best interest, and therefore make the rational choice. It is, of course, equally rational to decide that one values the pleasure of the present moment over the lengthening of future moments. However, over time, and over the course of a series of present moments, it would seem that the pleasure added to each of these moments would never weigh up against the pleasure of a longer, healthier, happier life.
What I had hoped to do with this post was to at least begin to question the idea of the addict as a hopeless case. Of course, once you've tried a highly addictive drug, you are automatically addicted. But what it means to be addicted to a drug is a very different thing from automatically becoming a slave to it. To be addicted merely means that you will, from now on, have a physiological compulsion to acquire it again. But there is nothing supernatural about it. You are not condemned to a life in the gutter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
