Proletblog

In my last post I noted that mainstream society's attitude about drugs are largely ruling class ideas brought to the public in a hegemonic way, part of the way this happens is through the media. Media 7 have recently examined the reporting of drugs in the media and the discussion is quite interesting.

I'll start this entry by reminding readers that views expressed on this blog are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of organisations I belong to etc etc.
I'm going to make a controversial statement, and then explain my reasoning: I support the decriminalisation of cannabis. I was prompted to write this post after reading this article in the Otago Daily Times, New Zealand has the second highest rate of cannabis use in the Western world, with 41.9% of New Zealanders having used the drug. An adherent of Durkheim may argue that such a high rate of cannabis use reflects the changing values of society, and that the law should be brought into line with those values. I think its a fair comment to say the cannabis laws are outdated, however I don't see the law as a reflection of society's values, but as a function of class power (see my introduction to this series of posts).

( read on )

Some light entertainment, or something more meaningful...

Recently TVNZ reported this:

A Tauranga jury has acquitted four policemen of assault charges.
Sergeant Keith Parsons, Sergeant Erle Busby, Senior Constable Bruce Laing and Constable John Millpolice were accused of using pepper spray and batons on Rawiri Falwasser in a police cell on Labour Day, October 2006.
They argued they believed Falwasser was high on drugs and needed to be subdued.
The not guilty verdicts were greeted by gasps and angry comments from relatives of Falwasser, his family is said to be stunned by the decision.

'gasps and angry comments' is a relatively mild response, after a strikingly similar case in the US in 1992, this was the public response:




The police force, as part of the 'armed wing of the state' are able to commit violence that the ordinary citizen can't. The state has a monopoly on legitimate violence, which can be used to enforce the laws. (see this post for more on the theory) In instances like this, where the police go that little bit too far, another branch of the state, the judicial system, is there to legitimise that violence.

I'll let a little secret out tonight and say that I'm a fan of night time radio, I've recently began listening to Radio New Zealand Nights, though I switch my little clock radio off when they get to 'country life.'
Something I discovered a while ago was a show from a community station in Missouri (of all places). Mike Hagan's Radio Orbit brought out a three hour long show every Monday, featuring some independent music- usually a whole album spread out though the show, segments like 'space weather' lettings listeners know whats happening in space, and guests brought on to discuss a huge range of topics. Some of the guests were profoundly interesting, others, well, kinda flaky. Radio Orbit brought me ideas; ideas that I agreed with, ideas that I disagreed with, and ideas that I'm still not sure what to think of.

This week Mike put out the final episode of the show, giving a farewell to his fans. The program archives will provide me with something to listen too this winter as a plow through a backlog of work thats going to require a lot time inside on my computer. Mike stated that anyone can do anything they want with the episodes, so I may do a tribute in an episode of my podcast. But for sure, I'll miss having new episodes.

Thanks for the show Mike.

I always groan when I read articles like this;

"Parental concerns about children using cellphones at school has prompted at least one proposal for a total ban... As well as cellphones distracting from learning, there are also worries that common use of text language can lead to a deterioration of literacy and writing skills."

Its just that I wish the administrators of these schools read more Mark Pesce;

"These “hyperconnected” and ever-more wacky kids get up in the morning, put on their uniforms and go to school. When they get there, they’ve got to turn off their mobiles, put away their iPods, close the chat windows, unplug themselves from the webs of co-presence which shape their social experiences, sit still and listen to teacher.
And they’ve got to do this inside of an environment – the classroom – which is so thoroughly disconnected from the rest of life as they have always known it...it looks – to them – like a completely unrealistic pain in the ass, one which is out of step with the world beyond the classroom walls. It’s as if, every morning, these kids are marched into a time machine which transports them back to 1955.

He goes on to say that "the hidden curriculum of our schools implicitly denies the value of this experience –the greater part of life experience for those wacky kids."
The banning of cellphone use in schools is a totally reactionary way to deal with the changing world that this generation of children are growing up in.

Its equally irritating to read things like this "Teenagers are getting better at being separated from their beloved cellphones during NCEA examinations, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority says." (emphasis mine) comments like this appear like some sort of bizarre form of commodity fetishism, or perhaps a form of fetishism in its original meaning ascribing an object with supernatural powers.
A cellphone is just a tool, it is a very useful tool, but the reason young people are so attached to them is because of what that tool allows them to remain connected to the 'human network'.

I would highly recommend reading Pesce's article in its entirety, I'm tempted to quote the whole thing.

Some time about a year ago I was waiting for a pizza and reading Hell Pizza's promotional magazine, the editors/marketers had decided to do a 'state of the nation' feature and picked model Nicky Watson as the person to interview about the state of New Zealand, she had little to say and admitted not knowing who John Key was (claiming she didn't watch the news or read newspapers) while a little surprised that someone couldn't even accidentally find out who the leader of the opposition was, I figured its not a huge loss to New Zealand if a popular model has never heard of John Key.

It quite a different thing however, when John Key is ignorant about New Zealand, in particular New Zealand history. this is what I'm talking about: "Just hours after the signing of the country's largest ever treaty settlement, the National leader said that New Zealand's a country that has come together peacefully." I don't really think nearly three decades of civil war is 'coming together peacefully.' I don't expect Key to have an analysis of what the wars were fought over or the nature of British colonialism, but I would expect him to at least know the war happened.

Normally I would leave the commentary on Key to The Standard, but this really irks me, I study New Zealand history in large part because I'm a political activist, and I think those of us involved in politics in New Zealand should have at least a basic understanding of this country's history. I'm not saying Key and every other politician should take a history class, but surely Key could find some James Belich in the Wellington library and have a flick though?

I have been offered the opportunity to write as a "Citizen Journalist" for instablogs. I will be writing two or three articles a week so probably won't be linking to them from here, but you can read my articles on my page in Instablogs and via an RSS feed.

I will of course continue to update this blog with my informal ramblings.

Property crime is an interesting one. the ideas of property and ownership of property are entirely social concepts, (just like the notion of morality). Property ownership is a human creation, not something natural. From a relativistic perspective no one has a right to anything, the notion of a right is an expression of interest. To enforce that right you need power, therefore power and property are interdependent.

A factory (in which all the goods are produced by workers) is the property of the owner, who exerts that ownership through the power that comes with having capital. Organised workers are a power in themselves, and could achieve ownership of the factory through expropriation of it. Were this to happen in New Zealand, the police would be called in, and the workers forcibly removed and tresspassed. Yet in Venezuela, where the workers, in a sense, have more political power that in New Zealand factory expropriations are seen in a different light.

( read on )