I just came across this article which is all kinds of amazing. I've seen "Eat, Pray, Love" in bookstores and while it was obviously really popular, I found the "pray" bit off-putting so I never bothered to buy it, or read it. Now that I've read the article titled "Eat, Pray, Spend, Priv-lit and the new, enlightened American dream", I'm really glad I didn't.
The premise of the book is a woman who leaves her un-fulfilling life behind to travel, find herself, find inner peace, etc. etc. etc. What most people don't know is the trip was actually paid for by her publisher, Viking, and she embarked on her (sponsored) journey with the intent to write a book about it. The "lesson" that this book (and others also mentioned in the article) is if you want a big spiritual payoff, you have to make big sacrifices. A little disingenuous when you consider that the author sacrificed very little.
For those seeking enlightenment, inner-peace, and contentment (and I count myself among them) we're supposed to want badly enough to give up everything - homes, jobs, families - to go on a journey to find them. As someone who lives paycheque to paycheque I can barely afford a vacation. The article also cautions that there is an implied message that there's something inherently wrong with women that needs to be fixed, thus necessitating the costly pursuit of a solution.
In today's economy, very few women can actually afford to leave their jobs and drop tens of thousands of dollars on a literal journey that's supposed to be spiritual, and why should we be expected to? An abundance of life lessons is available at little or no cost - friends, books, the internet, and of course, life itself.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
jailing more people = epic fail
Blogger Impudent Strumpet asked "What is the political motivation behind jailing more people?"
Oh boy. There's political motivation, ideological motivation, and greed motivation.
The political motivation is to appeal to people who think "tough on crime" policies will bring crime rates down and keep them safe. There's also the "fear factor", that if people are afraid of crime and believe the government will keep them safe they'll give the government a longer leash, perhaps even letting the government infringe on its citizens civil rights (ie. Patriot Act).
We have become a throwaway society. I see it every day. If animals or people have problems, or are inconvenient, our society is more likely to put them down or away - out of sight, out of mind. Never mind that the factors that cause animal overpopulation, or criminal behaviour (poverty, disenfranchisement, racism), can be addressed but are not, so the cycle begins again.
Therein lies the ideological rub. People with conservative ideologies generally don't acknowledge that social factors contribute to criminal activity, whereas people with progressive ideologies are more likely to address these problems.
Then there's the profit motive. There's big money to be made in locking people up - if the institution housing them is privately or corporately owned. This was touched upon in Michael Moore's "Capitalism, a Love Story" but it is happening in Canada too. The secure detention/treatment facility I volunteer at is part of the private sector, not public sector, but all of the youths are there by court order.
The US model of "supermax" prisons is an epic fail. It doesn't work. Locking people up for 23 hours a day is sure to contribute to mental/emotional disorders, and increase anxiety and aggression. I consider myself a fairly level, compassionate person but if I had to spend 23 hours a day in a cage for years on end I might become a completely different person.
Supermax prisons are inhumane. I believe that most people are good. Most people in the justice system are good, but have made really bad decisions. I've made really bad decisions. Who hasn't? As a society are we prepared to say that people who make bad decisions are no longer human? No longer thinking, feeling people and no longer entitled to dignity? A decent quality of life? An opportunity to overcome whatever social, mental, or emotional impediments led them to commit crimes? I wouldn't keep a dog in a cage 23 hours a day. I wouldn't do that to a human being either.
By contrast, there are some models in the US in which inmates with serious convictions, including murder, are detained in lower security facilities. They have the freedom to come and go from their cells, to interact with other inmates, to participate in programs. These are dangerous people. So why aren't they shanking each other and rioting and attacking guards? Because they know they have a good thing and they don't want to blow it. These inmates are easier to manage than inmates in so-called "supermax" prisons.
It's time to re-think the way we view people who commit crimes, and the way they live while incarcerated.
My two cents.
Oh boy. There's political motivation, ideological motivation, and greed motivation.
The political motivation is to appeal to people who think "tough on crime" policies will bring crime rates down and keep them safe. There's also the "fear factor", that if people are afraid of crime and believe the government will keep them safe they'll give the government a longer leash, perhaps even letting the government infringe on its citizens civil rights (ie. Patriot Act).
We have become a throwaway society. I see it every day. If animals or people have problems, or are inconvenient, our society is more likely to put them down or away - out of sight, out of mind. Never mind that the factors that cause animal overpopulation, or criminal behaviour (poverty, disenfranchisement, racism), can be addressed but are not, so the cycle begins again.
Therein lies the ideological rub. People with conservative ideologies generally don't acknowledge that social factors contribute to criminal activity, whereas people with progressive ideologies are more likely to address these problems.
Then there's the profit motive. There's big money to be made in locking people up - if the institution housing them is privately or corporately owned. This was touched upon in Michael Moore's "Capitalism, a Love Story" but it is happening in Canada too. The secure detention/treatment facility I volunteer at is part of the private sector, not public sector, but all of the youths are there by court order.
The US model of "supermax" prisons is an epic fail. It doesn't work. Locking people up for 23 hours a day is sure to contribute to mental/emotional disorders, and increase anxiety and aggression. I consider myself a fairly level, compassionate person but if I had to spend 23 hours a day in a cage for years on end I might become a completely different person.
Supermax prisons are inhumane. I believe that most people are good. Most people in the justice system are good, but have made really bad decisions. I've made really bad decisions. Who hasn't? As a society are we prepared to say that people who make bad decisions are no longer human? No longer thinking, feeling people and no longer entitled to dignity? A decent quality of life? An opportunity to overcome whatever social, mental, or emotional impediments led them to commit crimes? I wouldn't keep a dog in a cage 23 hours a day. I wouldn't do that to a human being either.
By contrast, there are some models in the US in which inmates with serious convictions, including murder, are detained in lower security facilities. They have the freedom to come and go from their cells, to interact with other inmates, to participate in programs. These are dangerous people. So why aren't they shanking each other and rioting and attacking guards? Because they know they have a good thing and they don't want to blow it. These inmates are easier to manage than inmates in so-called "supermax" prisons.
It's time to re-think the way we view people who commit crimes, and the way they live while incarcerated.
My two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
