Samara
Canada recently opened its Everyday Political Citizen contest. If you know someone deserving of a nomination for what they give back to their
political community, nominate them!
In
a move that baffles the mind, there is a move to name a stadium after deceased
former Mayor Rob Ford.
Chantal
Hebert writes on the proposed tax changes by the federal government.
Martin
Regg Cohn writes about the connection between the provincial government and
precarious employment.
There
is a subject that has been troubling me. I won't pretend the 21st century is
unique in facing illiberal political movements, but I live in this historic
moment and feel compelled to note the links between a harder line left and the
new right and the difficulty liberal democracies may be facing moving into the
future. This post is partially spurred on the German election results, where
the AfD gained significantly in the parliament. There have been moments in
modern history where polarization in between extremes fractures the polity and
wrecks the centre.
In
the face of this how do liberal societies defend themselves from those who
would use their principles to undermine them?
Today
I want to narrow today's topic to the freedom of speech. A liberal, at core,
would not like to limit people's speech.
The liberal position says that we need strong justification to curtail anyone's
right. Libel laws or harmful speech (fire in the theatre) are obvious
restrictions. For classical liberals restrictions are difficult decisions and
they prefer to err on the side of speech.
Speech
works if we can rely on some basic ground rules. However, the evidence abounds
that lies and mischaracterizations spread like wild fire while the truth plods
along. Liberal ideals are undone by the most basic human instincts, instincts
which are all the easier to embrace in the digital sphere. Enter the era of
"fake news." Even beyond the political, lies or misleading headlines
stand at equal heights of fact. People are increasingly unable to filter
information meaningfully. Look no further than the misinformation on vaccines
to see how muddled and mired we are.
As
a liberal-minded person I have to concede my discomfort with these sources of "information"
or confirmation bias, but I'm not at all comfortable with interfering with
these forms of speech.
Then
there is hate speech. Here two sides of my thinking war with one another.
Speech matters. It shapes thinking and attitudes. Calls for violence are
illegal, and I think most can agree are reasonable restrictions for public
speech. However, calls for violence are common on the internet and this speech
is not curtailed in any substantial way. The debate then goes to what
constitutes hate speech. Most people are canny enough to mask their racist
rhetoric, or cloak it in policy language. Distrust of Muslims is cloaked in
anti-refugee, terrorism, and geopolitics. Anti-black racism is buried in
conversations on crime, poverty, and urban culture broadly. the coarse dialog
(or rants) of the internet now infect our real world life. Things not uttered
in 'polite society' are now bellowed proudly.
Liberalism
is a modernist idea and relies on reason, rationalism, and truth. How does it
operate in a world where half-truths and lies rule, or at least easily remain
on par?
The
current debate of free speech is rather odious, in my opinion. Progressive
voices seek to silence certain forms of speech deemed inappropriate. It has a
streak I find deeply troubling. Protest to disrupt speakers, regulating the use
of language, and the bevy of terms to police language seem to belittle real
oppression for the sake of bourgeoisie sensitivities of the intelligentsia. To
be clear, I am not joining the ranks complaining about all silly university
antics.
The
right has corrupted free speech as a notion to its own purposes. In reaction to
the left they now claim free speech. However, free speech is increasingly used
as coded language for expressing racist, bigoted opinions free of consequences.
the
last few years has helped to demonstrate to me the power of language. Leaving
some to routine abuse by those trying to assert historic dominance makes me
uneasy. That said I'm not sure I'd comfortable regulating speech. But speech
can be used to undermine a liberal society. Critics may answer the solution is
more speech, but I fear there are growing indications that those that seek to
distort our polities are fighting with guns while liberals only have knives.
This thought is one that worries me.
Sincere
apologies for missing last week's Worth Reading. I got bogged down in family
business and didn't have time to put it together. I should be fine for this
Thursday.
This
week I was requested to write about Netflix's original series Ozark. given how
rare a request is I feel compelled to follow-up and talk about a show that I
found very enjoyable.
I
have heard a few comparisons between Ozark and Breaking Bad. I think the point
of comparison might be instructive given my response to both. I'll return to
this idea later.
Ozark
has a simple premise (sort of). Chicago-based financial advisors who double as
money launderers for the second largest cartel in Mexico. Their liaison, Del,
in the pilot arrives at their office to accuse them of theft. The volume of
cash involved is difficult to fathom, transported in bundles in oil drums. even
a light skim would be an incredible amount of wealth.
Our
protagonist, Marty Byrde (played by Jason Bateman), seems like an honest
criminal. His partner has been stealing without Marty's knowledge. Marty seems
detached, disinterested and the boring one compared to his flashy, fast-talking
partner. Del wipes out the whole company except for Marty who, in a desperate
moment, promises to launder the entire cartel's money - an incredible sum -
through new opportunities in Missouri. The Ozarks offers a massive amount of
waterfront property, ripe for investment and development. The show repeats the
factoid that the Ozarks have more shoreline than California.
One
of the things I like best about Ozark is that it shows a fascinating set of
intersections in a part of America that is rarely depicted except in a comedic
instance. Ozark is rural, poor, and "Southern", but many of the same
themes from the scenes in Chicago carry over: greed, crime, graft, and
corruption. Ozark is, in many ways, about crime and how class and geography
shape the form crime takes. the trailer park petty criminals exist alongside
the high-end cartels, but exist at very different standings.
Marty
is a high-end white collar criminal. One interesting aspect to the show is that
Marty Byrde avoids violence as much as he can. He has no taste for it. Like
many white collar criminals he's in it for the money and perhaps the thrill,
but he's not a monster. The show toys with the morality of his and his family's
position. How responsible is the money launderer for the suffering and violence
of the cartel?
On
that note, the show is a simple fish out of water story which features a strong
cast of local characters. Marty, his
wife (Laura Linney), his fifteen-year-old daughter and young son do not belong,
nor particularly like the Ozarks, but are forced to live double lives in order
to avoid utter destruction. The three eldest in particular to adapt to the
local culture, which in their eyes are backwards rednecks. Marty must navigate
the capitalist and financial realities of the region in order to clean enough
money to save his family.
Now
let's turn to the comparisons to Breaking Bad and why I think this show could
be superior in my estimation. Ozark is chopped full of interesting, fun
characters. Jason Bateman as Marty Byrde is perfect in his fast-talking
scheming ways. There is hardly a finer moment in the show than when Marty is
launching into a monologue trying to bully someone or manipulate them. I found
Bateman's haggard, desperate performance leavened with just the right amount of
humour. While I never warmed to Laura Linney's character, Wendy, I appreciated
her character's motivations and struggles as an interesting aspect to the plot.
Even the two children have arcs that reveal more about the family and their new
setting. The Langmore family, and in particular Ruth (played by Julia Garner)
add grit and consequence to the story of the Byrde's disruption of the Ozarks.
One
of the reasons I like this television series better than Breaking Bad is
because I enjoy the characters. I can understand Marty Byrde in a way I never
could with Walter White. I disliked every character on that show and took
little pleasure in their triumphs or failures. Early on I was totally sold on
the Byrde family and the people they pull into their orbits. I want to see
their journeys and how they end up. Ozark feels grounded in a sort of troubling
reality while Breaking Bad felt like it had chemistry and little else to lend
it credibility.
I
am eager to see what the future of this series is and would highly recommend it
to those who think the themes discussed above in a crime drama would appeal to
them.
As
much as I wish it was not the case I have found this blog more difficult to
maintain over the last few months. Some of it, I have no doubt, is personal. My
life now is far less conducive than it once was to reading and writing
regularly. It was easier in some ways to write the blog three years ago when I
was working full-time and had lots of demands on me than now when I am
tragically, painfully underemployed. But this post isn't about my personal
life, I think I'd like to talk more explicitly about my willingness to engage
and debate politics in the current era.
Let's
get the orange elephant out of the way. Donald Trump's disruptive effect on the
body politic is often stomach-turning. I have heard political theorists state
that creating a sense of crisis or constant disorder keeps the public off
balance and gives governments a freer hand in the exercise of power. I in no
way can credit the Trump administration with that level of foresight. What I
can say is that the way the America (and sometimes the world) stumbles and
falls into crisis after crisis is draining. It is exhausting.
A
human being only has so much bandwidth. Even for the most engaged there is only
so much a person can pay attention and care
about. As a person who tries to get people to care about incredibly dry
subjects I understand this innately. I wish I could say that this was a simple
process of eliminating the irrelevant, but it's not. I have not poked my head
into the North Korea news in the last month because I don't think my brain
could process it at present.
I
went through a similar phenomenon actually about eight years ago. Before 2009/2010
I used to follow American politic extremely closely. However, in the wake of
Obama's election the healthcare broke my ability to stomach more news. Despite
its importance and the fact that I supported health care reform watching the
drama unfold literally over months left me burned out.
As
much as I'd like to blame the Yankees alone in this I must say our own politics
has left me feeling downtrodden as well. I really dislike our Prime Minister. I
dislike him because like many New Democrats I feared precisely the current
state of affairs. Elected on a long list of promises he appears to have become
the vanguard of the status quo on a number of important files. The sabotage of
electoral reform was a major blow. Trudeau and the Liberals have left a long
string of bad decisions and broken promises that seem to be plunging back into
the same, repeating cycle of bad policies.
Ontario
is not much better. A tired Liberal government grinds forward. Its chronic
mismanagement and politicking means that its good policy babies are going to
get tossed out with its scandal-riddled bathwater in the near future.
Municipally
hasn't been much better. Brampton's City Council continues to disappoint. New,
bizarre problems with the city administration seem to constantly pop up, and it
feels as though the political leaders are waiting for the 2018 elections to
sort out their differences. Toronto likewise has continued a series of bad
policies as the City Council there and Mayor Tory have tried to find the
centrist middle consensus and stomach bad policies continuing.
Twitter
was my go to home for political engagement, but now it is a din of
disappointment and frustration and anger. I am a person who has constantly
encouraged people to engage in the political sphere. I think engagement is a
public good in and of itself, but it comes at a cost. It costs us time, and
energy, and intellect and it costs us our will.
This
isn't a final post before some hiatus. I just wished to share why sitting at my
keyboard and typing for this blog is harder sometimes than others, and not just
because I have no idea what the hell to write. Keep on staying engaged friends,
but it's okay to unplug.
Hot
Girls Wanted was a 2015 documentary that Netflix produced into a six episode
documentary series. In advance I will warn the reader that the series deals
with explicit sexual content so those who may be offended should likely avoid
it. The series was the work of Rashida Jones, Jill Bauer and Ronna Gradus.
If
I had to describe the series I could say it displays the gritty intersection
between modern sexuality and technology (especially the internet and smart
phones). From my perspective the documentary is tasteful and explores topics
like pornography and sex without showing excessive nudity.
I
think the way human sexuality has been filtered through technology over the
last 20 years is fascinating. Moreover, I think the reciprocal effects this has
had on our culture is fairly disturbing. The documentarians go out of their way
to highlight relevant statistics that illustrate the content they are sharing.
For example, the prevalence and widespread use of porn, the accessibility to
and interest minors have with pornography, and the cultural implications of pornography.
I
figure at this stage it would probably be best to give you an idea of what each
episode deals with. In the first episode they discuss feminist porn/porn
produced by women and how the changing business model of pornography is making
it more difficult. Episode two looks at casual dating apps like Tindr and its
impact upon relationships. Episode three looks at the world of 'talent'
recruitment in pornography and the way the industry chews up young women. The
fourth takes a look at male talent in the pornography business, but also the
disturbing depictions of race and women within mainstream porn. The fifth looks
at camgirls and the relationships that form between models and their big
donors. It does this by looking at one pair in particular who meet in person.
Finally, the last episode examines the court case of a young woman who recorded
a rape and streamed it on the internet.
I
can easily see how some readers of my blog will be repulsed by these topics.
It's not exactly the regular fare of this blog, certainly. One point that the
documentarians return to again and again is the ubiquity of porn. If it isn't a
part of your life than it is part of most of those close to you and it is
shaping the society you live in. Episode two is probably the most accessible
for those who wish to avoid graphic content.
The show is at times ugly and unpleasant, but also contains within it genuine emotion beyond pity and sadness and shame. Pornography and sex is still deeply rooted in shame. Despite the social acceptance of it, to a certain degree, those who participate in it, profit from it, produce and feature in it will be tarred. Given its widespread appeal I think the documentary challenges our inherent hypocrisy on that.
I
find monitoring and observing our changing attitudes about sex, sexuality,
romance, and love to be perhaps one of the most compelling topics that one
could explore at present. I would love to see Turned On do many more seasons. I
highly recommend it to those interested in these topics and with a constitution
to match the content. Give this provocative series a watch and hope that they
can continue to dig into these ideas.
