Unkie Herb

Watch zeitgeist.

Take a deep breath. Open your mind. And watch.

It may seem difficult. It may seem like it goes against everything you’ve lived your life for. Against everything you’ve been taught.

But ask yourself this: does it feel right?

Share This

I’m a little torn over this whole thing. What began as a break over the holidays has extended nearly to February. Why?

The most direct answer is: I don’t know. I’m not sure why I’ve stopped contributing on here. I have a few ideas, though they are unsurprisingly theoretical.

I’ve experienced some fairly encouraging growth in readership in the past four or five months. In August ‘07, I had 873 unique visitors and about 1900 visits, averaging out to about 60 visits per day. In October, thanks in part to the sudden public interest in Burmese issues, this bounced up to over 2000 unique visitors and well over 4100 visits, or about 130 visits a day. (A visit, FYI, is when an actual person behind an actual computer checks the site - robotic internet scanning programs, which exist to aid search engines, mostly, don’t figure in to the numbers.)

Needless to say this was encouraging. The growth in visits had increased slightly since then, though the unique visitor numbers, the number of individual computers who visit during the month, has since sagged. Now, to those outside the blogosphere these numbers might seem impressive. They aren’t, not really, especially considering the sheer volume of traffic that exists online. Technorati, a site that doubles as a search engine and community for bloggers, ranks my site 871,446th.

But wouldn’t it be incredibly vain and selfish of me to stop writing just because I’m not satisfied with my readership? Was I ever expecting to make money off this anyway? Was I really hoping to change the world?

Good questions, all.

I’ve given considerable thought to my life and career, and I still hope that, at least for a time, I can succeed as a freelance journalist/photojournalist traveling the world. Despite my inherent idealism, I understand that this is the dream of many of my contemporaries and, even without the competition, it will take a considerable amount of skill, luck, and perseverance.

As far as I see it, I have these things.

So the plan, loosely, is as follows. Set up a site, probably called evanherbert.xxx (my name, after all) and break it into three parts. One will contain my more professional stuff. Perhaps articles, interviews, news analysis, and so forth. Another will contain professional-ish photography; much of it will be geared toward the articles I write but some will be artistic, landscape-y sort of stuff. The third and final part will resemble what unkieherb.com should have been - a place for me to rant and tell stories and laugh and argue and generally get shit off my chest.

Alas this hasn’t been the case. Nevertheless I am undaunted. The aforementioned perseverance shines through.

This page will not disappear. I have it until next fall which is probably when I’ll begin to set up the newer site. I hope to throw some material up on here every so often, but much more infrequently than before. The months of five day a week writing (inspired by an excellent blogger named david) are over.

If you are reading this… thanks. Feedback is appreciated, as always, but it is enough for me if you smile and believe me when I say that the world will be a better place because you and I have made it so, not because you and I wished it so.

The time for shaking our heads at negative news is passed. The time to appreciate the massive impact, for good or ill, we all have on this planet and the life upon it is at hand.

In the immortal words of Bob Marley:

‘Give a little, take a little, give a little,

One more time, yeah, yeah. ‘

See ya around.

Share This

Some brilliantly simple stuff from an organization that has taken activism to a new level.

Avaaz means voice or song in several different languages, including Hindi, Turkish, Bosnian and Persian. The word was appropriated by the organization to imply not only global harmony, but also the expression of that inclusiveness.

What’s so different about Avaaz.org versus other activist groups?

Firstly, they have moved beyond the notion that each cause deserves its own collective. By defining themselves broadly as “a community of global citizens who take action on the major issues facing the world today,” they are able to mobilize on multiple fronts even on short notice. The sort of people concerned about climate change are also concerned with Musharaff’s state of emergency in Pakistan, the Burmese regime’s continuing violent suppression of freedom and other causes. By maintaining one membership and mailing list, they are able to connect and educate across issues.

As well, they have begun with wide yet simple ambitions. Avaaz.org aims “to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people — and not just political elites and unaccountable corporations — shape global decisions.” The idea here is to give voice to citizens. They involve people around the globe through the internet, organizing petitions on a variety of topics.

Finally, they make their presence felt. On October 15th a delegation from Avaaz.org, including Burmese monks, delivered a petition signed by over 750,000 people to Prime Minister Gordon Brown calling for him to take the issue to the UN and China. Just last weekend, they staged a virtual march within the Bali Climate Change compound. They were the only activist group given permission to stage a rally within the compound, and they managed over 500,000 signatures from over 190 countries.

Avaaz.org is one group that seems to be bridging the gap between general apathy and the growing concern that human rights, the environment, and poverty are not being dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

Engagement, awareness and discussion are essential to change. Kudos.

On a similar topic: Canada, the US and Japan continue to sabotage the talks in Bali. Sign the petition here to voice your disgust.

Share This

Yesterday by buddy Damien brought over some excellent vegan propaganda. He’d been talking it up as some pretty righteous stuff and, if you know the guy, that generally means pretty outrageous.

So I prepared myself for some heavy handed stuff. Graphic shots of cows getting branded in the face or their horns cut off with bolt cutters. Pigs getting boiled alive and chickens having their beaks and toes snipped off with pruning shears. You know, the usual shit.

Boy was I pleasantly surprised when he showed up with this pamphlet from Vegan Outreach (American version here). The banner headline read: Even if you like meat you can help end this cruelty.

That’s much better than something like Every time you eat meat God kills an angel.

The first half was pretty predictable stuff - raising awareness about factory farming and such. The second, however, was upbeat and encouraged people to cut down on their consumption, rather than arguing for full-on vegetarianism. It suggested some alternatives to meat in your diet and presented the health related argument. Very positive.

It made me review the last few posts I’ve thrown up here and, somewhat disappointed with myself, I realized how unabashedly negative they were. Summarizing my previous four posts, I’ve written about:

1. How the national police force in Canada is corrupt, brutal and untrustworthy.
2. How Vladimir Putin could be the next major obstacle for global stability.
3. How the US intelligence agencies reported that Iran is not seeking nukes.
4. How fundamental issues in Western societies are the cause of addictions.

With the possible exception of #3, there isn’t much to cheer about. My post yesterday (#4) was downright depressing.

So here’s what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna talk change. I promise that for every OOOOOHHHH Look out the sky is falling!!! post I write, I’ll follow it up with something a little more inspirational or, at least, balanced. I hate fear mongering in the media and can’t help but feel like I’m contributing.

What I really want this site to be is representational of my hope for tangible, lasting change in the world. I truly believe that idealism is not fundamentally misguided. I truly believe that we all as individuals have the power to direct this idealism into reality.

Think about it: We - consumers in rich, western democracies - are the most powerful people in the world.

If our money goes to ethically viable business, the competition will be forced to catch up.

If our votes go to leaders who believe in justice, human rights and the environment, our policies will reflect that.

If our attention is on people and things that are making a difference, we’ll inspire more change.

Conversely, we also have the power to cut off attention, votes and money. Once cut off, there is no means to hold any power over anyone. There will only be impotence.

When we make decisions in our daily lives to think about what we buy, eat, read, watch, and talk about, we are exercising that power. Read a news magazine instead of People. Grow vegetables in your backyard. Talk about what you read on CitizenPowered instead of PerezHilton.

We ARE the power. YOU are the power. Use it.

Share This

Our Conservative government has recently announced several changes to Canada’s drug laws. Boiled down, these changes will more closely align Canadian law with the Draconian American version. As with the War on Drugs south of the border, punishment and enforcement are highlighted.

To be fair, the changes do allow for some portion of the new cash to be spent on harm-reducing measures such as rehabilitation, treatment and education. But punishment is being ramped up, despite overwhelming evidence (the entire US system as an example) that these tactics simply don’t work.

What continues to trouble many activists (including this one), however, is how readily we seem to ignore the societal issues behind drug addiction and abuse.

In the 1970’s, the general public was discussing the Skinner box. Part of of a series of experiments using this apparatus placed a lab animal in a tiny cage with a lever that, when pressed, injected the animal with a drug. Trials showed that animals willingly enslaved themselves to recreational drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

Presented with this evidence, Dr. Bruce Alexander and his team of scientists ran a different set of tests: the Rat Park. This new attempt involved rats living in more natural settings: colonies instead of isolation; large enclosures instead of cages; nesting materials and toys instead of electrified floors and glass walls. They were fed well and for water were offered a choice between a normal water bottle and one filled laced with morphine.

The rats quickly learned the difference and avoided the morphine entirely. When the morphine water was sweetened they continued to ignore it. When the unlaced batch was removed for two months, they became chemically dependent upon the drug, only to have the clean water re-introduced. The rats willingly went through withdrawal symptoms and switched back to the unlaced water.

A remarkable aversion to drug addiction by a simple creature. This aligns with evidence of human addicts who, when their life circumstances change, will give up something they had previously depended upon. While American soldiers used heroin rampantly during the Vietnam War, usage and addiction rates plummeted when they returned home. Hospital patients who became addicted to morphine due to chronic pain issues have shown almost universal willingness and ability to quit as soon as they are better.

These examples (along with others) hint toward a conclusion that, when considered seriously, seems logical: drug addiction is a result of environmental pressures. It is not, as our drug policy reflects, a result of simple exposure to a drug.

War, poverty, boredom, stress - all things people would love to escape. Escape - the very thing drugs provide. Does it not follow that by alleviating these societal pressures the dependency on drugs will be lifted?

Unfortunately this line of thinking runs up against a seemingly impenetrable wall: the entirety of our anti-drug propaganda and capitalist society as a whole. The massive majority of research on addiction is examined as if it is a medical or chemical issue. Dr. Alexander describes it as such:

“There’s a mainstream that has all the money, sponsored primarily by the American government. Those researchers truly believe that they’re dealing with a brain disease, and that they will discover the pill that will solve the problem.” - From the Walrus, here.

Furthermore, our society is built around stress and makes money off people’s need to escape. We hate our jobs so we drink, shop, or smoke (all legal) like crazy to forget about it. We even become addicted to work to avoid the home life, or lack thereof, we’ve created for ourselves. We grow addicted to our religious beliefs to dodge feelings of emptiness, uselessness and meaninglessness. We gamble because we’re bored and poor, hoping to be the one miracle case that wins the lottery or beats the casino.

We’re all addicts of some kind, but our governments have chosen for us which drugs are good and which aren’t. Prohibition simply romanticizes another outlet, another means of escape. People who aren’t willing to break the law find other drugs to alleviate their dissatisfaction with their lives.

Ultimately we need to address the fact that our civilization makes a large portion of the population miserable. People can’t stop shopping and don’t know why, despite studies that show the pleasure of a new purchase mimics the brain’s response to drugs and alcohol. It is their drug, and they become addicted for the same reason as any alcoholic.

It’s time we asked ourselves some tough questions:

What can we change about the way our societies work that will eliminate this unhappiness and the addictions it creates? How different are our lives from the rats in the Skinner box? Aren’t we all just pushing levers for treats?

There is something fundamentally wrong with Western civilization. First one to figure it out gets a candy.

Share This

A brief one here today.

Sometimes I think about writing a manifesto. I think about codifying all the brilliant and revolutionary (peaceful) ideas I have to change this country and this planet. I might start writing them here. Maybe.

I sort of already have, now that I think about it. I wrote about how labeling meat with the farming practices will raise awareness. People will be able to easily discern between ethically produced meat and factory torture. It isn’t right that the only option I have to avoid supporting the heinous treatment of living things is to become a vegetarian.

There, first policy announcement after I’m elected Prime Minister.

What about some other things?

I have some ideas on how to completely reinvigorate our education system. As I see it, the institution of public education has a major purpose: the leveling of the playing field.

By granting universal access to public education we are attempting to uphold a key democratic tenet. Equality of opportunity is essential to a strong democracy and fairness in the free market system. The problem arises when our education system fails to provide the balance.

Clearly, this has happened.

The hereditary nature of wealth is especially troubling because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The poor would benefit most from improvements to the system but have the least amount of power to create change. The rich feel no pressure to revamp the programs and so nothing gets done.

Politicians, instead of being leaders, are followers. They suck up to public opinion and let the media help them frame the issues. They do not set the agenda or choose which battles to fight. They don’t make decisions that are the in the best interest of the people, they make decisions that are in the best interest of getting their party elected.

Self-preservation is the name of the game for most citizens and the politicians they elect. Making serious changes to a struggling system is beyond both these groups.

Maybe I’ll write another manifesto entry on that…

Share This

I recently watched one of those unbearably graphic animal rights documentaries. It was called Earthlings, and was somewhat different from others I have seen. (It is very good, but very difficult to watch, so be warned. Unfortunately, like most efforts on the topic, it doesn’t present counter arguments which makes it imbalanced and therefore easier for people to dismiss.)

Whereas some similar videos attempt only to appeal to your emotions, this one (also) makes a concentrated effort to appeal to your ethics. The first portion of the film is pleasingly devoid of gruesome footage, instead setting up the moral framework for what you are about to see. Essentially, it makes the argument that ignoring the rights of animals is an “ism” as heinous as racism, sexism, etc. Speciesism is not a new idea, but their argument was better than most.

I’m not going to go any further into the animal ethics debate. I studied it at university with Dr. Michael Allen Fox, and have been considering changing my lifestyle. While I’m not going to knee-jerk into a vegetarian, the idea of not contributing to the unnecessary torture of animals is something that appeals to me. The problem, as I see it, is there is no real alternative - either you eat meat and support the suffering or you never touch it again.

We all realize the issues involved in the disassociation between the products we use and the animals exploited during the production. From leather and fur to meat to cosmetics, animals are a huge part of our consumer culture. By successfully ignoring the suffering that occurs to feed and clothe us - yet all the while knowing it happens - we are creating a societal hypocrisy that is alarming.

I understand that it is very, very difficult for people to watch the footage captured by these filmmakers. We’ve all heard someone say “I can’t watch those things because if I did I’d never eat meat again.” They aren’t saying this because they have a weak stomach (though that’s part of it), they’re saying it because they know their ethics wouldn’t allow them to participate in such terrible acts. They wouldn’t see the meat at the deli the same way.

The solution, then, is for the government to step in.

I’m not proposing beating people over the head, forcing them watch the films. I’m not talking about banning meat or fur or leather or animal testing. I’m talking about setting up a program of regulation and education, similar to the ones that force food producers to list the nutritional information on the packaging.

Here are a few ideas that wouldn’t infringe on people’s individual right to make their own decisions:

• Start doing a better job of visiting farms and slaughterhouses to make sure they meet some minimum standard of care (and raise the standard, please).
• Force companies to list their farming standards on the packaging. Just like the ground beef says lean or extra lean, it can say no branding, no dehorning, and so forth. Farms and slaughterhouses can make decisions on how they’ll treat the animals, maintained by inspection, and the packaging will reflect the treatment.
• Eggs and other animal products can be the same - have markings like no debeaking, free range and whatever else. Cheese can list the hours in a day a cow spends chained to it’s mechanical milking machine. This gives consumers the awareness they need and want without restricting people’s behaviour.

Running these operations will cost the government money and probably also raise the cost of the product (the cost would rise with the more ethical treatment). Perhaps a tax on animal products would raise the cash to fund the inspection and standardization program. I really don’t see a huge negative from raising the cost of meat, as we’d all be healthier if we ate less.

The genius of my plan is that we balance ethics with individuality. People like me who want animals to be treated better but still think people can consume meat ethically have more options than the black or white of full on vegetarianism. I can go to the supermarket and pick up the cheese and chicken breasts without knowing that animals suffered terribly to make it for me.

I really believe that governments can be effective instruments in helping people live better lives. It’s important for us not to lose our individuality, but industry should be forced to let us know what is going into the products they are trying to sell us.

Share This

An immensely popular British band that has exploded right past the mainstream also maintains a firm political stance - even if it’s hidden behind three weeping guitars and a falsetto virtuoso.

Musically they are impossible to ignore. Stretching for influences from the Beatles and Miles Davis to DJ Shadow and Autechre, each album possesses its own manic depth, texture and pacing. Beyond their talents as musicians, however, lies a semi-exposed counter culture. They are known to be outspoken and controversial, but what exactly do they stand for?

I think we’re entering a very dangerous time. The West has set itself up, decided it’s in charge, not for good intentions, not for the benefit of mankind. - Thom York (lead vocals)

There was little to be called “political” as the band moved through their earlier work. Their music - especially between their albums The Bends (second) and Kid A (fourth) - was largely about personal feelings of alienation and detachment. In Let Down, Thom sings:

Transport, motorways and tram lines
Starting and then stopping
Taking off and landing
The emptiest of feelings
Disappointed people clinging on to bottles
And when it comes it’s so so disappointing

Let down and hanging around
Crushed like a bug in the ground

While many harp on Radiohead for being depressing, I look at their lyrics as social commentary, rather than personal expression of pain. They aren’t telling us to give up, they’re simply recognizing the symptoms of a social illness they’ve observed. Much of their music reflects their cynical view of modern society.

I grew up under Thatcher. I grew up believing that I was fundamentally powerless. Then gradually over the years it occurred to me that this was actually a very convenient myth for the state. - Thom Yorke

Radiohead also has political leanings, which are clearly in response to the imbalance of power that pervades the world. The band entitled their sixth album Hail to the Thief, an obvious (though denied) reference to the incongruous US presidential election in 2000. The first song on this album, 2+2=5, ridicules Bush and Blair for their narrow minded, xenophobic, ’save the world’ mentality:

Are you such a dreamer
To put the world to rights
I’ll stay home forever
Where two and two always makes a five

In another song from the same album, A Punchup at a Wedding, Yorke poignantly analogizes recent war-mongering:

Hypocrite opportunist
Don’t infect me with your poison
A bully in a china shop
When I turn ’round you stay frozen to the spot
You had the pointless snide remarks
Of hammerheaded sharks
The pot will call the kettle black
It’s a drunken punch-up at a wedding yeah

Radiohead has also lent its presence to various concerts for political causes, such as the Tibetan Freedom Concert, Band Aid, and others. They’ve also contributed songs to several benefit albums, such as War Child.

Clearly a band with a conscience, they seem to have successfully walked a fine line between being politcally minded and being a political band. When political motivation takes over a band’s creative process, they often lose touch with artistic inspiration. Not so with Radiohead. Thom says that his band has never intended to make an outright protest album, that it “would have been too shallow. As usual, it was simply a case of absorbing what’s going on around us.” Thom figures that a lot of political art is inferior as art. Yet this doesn’t stop the band from having strong opinions and using its spotlit position to voice them:

The people in charge, globally, are maniacs. They are maniacs, and unless we do something about it these people are going to deprive us of a future. - Thom Yorke

Share This