Psychic Ills - Dins
1 hour ago
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Dylan tapes reveal heroin addiction
A previously unheard interview with Bob Dylan has revealed that the singer was once addicted to heroin.
After a concert late one Saturday night in March 1966 Bob Dylan, while on tour in the US, boarded his private plane in Lincoln, Nebraska bound for Denver with his friend Robert Shelton.
Over the next two hours Shelton taped an interview with Dylan which he later described as a "kaleidoscopic monologue".
At one point, the singer, who turns 70 this week, admits he had been addicted to heroin in the early 1960s.
"I kicked a heroin habit in New York City," he confesses. "I got very, very strung out for a while, I mean really, very strung out. And I kicked the habit. I had about a $25-a-day habit and I kicked it."
READ MORE
After a concert late one Saturday night in March 1966 Bob Dylan, while on tour in the US, boarded his private plane in Lincoln, Nebraska bound for Denver with his friend Robert Shelton.
Over the next two hours Shelton taped an interview with Dylan which he later described as a "kaleidoscopic monologue".At one point, the singer, who turns 70 this week, admits he had been addicted to heroin in the early 1960s.
"I kicked a heroin habit in New York City," he confesses. "I got very, very strung out for a while, I mean really, very strung out. And I kicked the habit. I had about a $25-a-day habit and I kicked it."
READ MORE
Monday, 23 May 2011
The Israeli reality that Obama doesn't understand
You can't blame him: It really is impossible to understand this reality. It's impossible to understand why a country and a people continue to refuse to do the right thing, something that could have been done a long while back, and prefer to continue to bang their heads against the wall until blood flows, with absolutely no logic, literally amok, like someone who has gone insane. It's hard to understand a reality in which a prime minister sits and, contrary to all logic and every code of conduct, arrogantly lectures his host, the president of the United States. It's hard to understand a reality in which a day before their scheduled meeting, a prime minister responds to the speech of the U.S. president, who is about to host him, with an announcement that is as good as spitting in his face.
So President Obama, here is the reality: The reality is that in the prime minister's own reality show, he is "the leader of a persecuted people" and he likes being "the leader of a persecuted people." That is why no reality in the world has ever convinced our leaders to stop being a persecuted nation. Even Abe Foxman, the chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, who can't be accused of being a leftist, says that Obama's speech is not against Israel and is not bad for Israel and that it includes many things that are good for Israel, but that doesn't make any impression on Bibi Netanyahu and his friends.
But it's not only you, Mr. President. Nine years ago, the 22 Arab League countries submitted a proposal for ending the conflict with the Palestinians and for full normalization with them. The leaders of the people that insist on being persecuted chose not to confuse themselves with the fact that 22 Arab countries were recognizing Israel and accepting its right to exist in peace alongside them. That is why our leaders simply ignored it. To the point where barely 15 percent of the Israeli public is even aware of the existence of the Arab initiative. That is why on Thursday, when we, members of the Israeli peace initiative delegation, presented the Egyptian foreign minister with the initiative that for the first time responds to the Arab peace initiative, he rightly said: For nine years the initiative has been on the table. Now you remembered?
The reality, Mr. President, is that change - thanks to which you were elected, and in which you believe - is the thing that Israel in general and Netanyahu in particular fear most. The reality is that the State of Israel has become accustomed to the present situation and does not recognize itself without it. Israel has existed longer with the occupation than without it; it has existed for most of its years with no border and is deathly afraid of change.
The reality is that Netanyahu never wanted or thought to initiate change. When he was elected two years ago, he understood that in order not to initiate change, he would have to play at negotiations that lead nowhere. But alas, there was nobody in the White House who would play this nice little game with him, and his true colors were exposed: He wants settlements, he wants occupation, he wants the situation as it is and sees no problem with it. And now, Netanyahu prefers confrontation. Confrontation with you, confrontation with the Palestinians, confrontation with anyone he sees as coming out against the persecuted people. The reality is simply that confrontation we already know, Mr. President, but peace we do not know at all.
Merav Michaeli @'Haaretz'
Ai Weiwei - I think just walking in the other direction is a smart choice
Ai Weiwei: The Numbers Project
Each candle commemorates one victim of the Sichuan earthquake in 2007 and was added to Ai Weiwei's blog when publishing their names as part of his research project.
Ai Weiwei grew up under horrible conditions, living literally underground in a burrow in the Chinese regions of Manchuria and Xinjiang. Born in 1957 in Beijing, Ai Weiwei was the son of Ai Qing, a renowned poet denounced by the Chinese Communist Party and during the Cultural Revolution forced into exile in a labour camp. Under strong political control, his father had to clean public toilets. In 1976, after Mao’s death, Ai Qing was rehabilitated and, two years later, Ai Weiwei enrolled in the Beijing Film Academy and became active as a member of the famous group ‘Stars’. These few self-taught artists made history in 1979 by displaying provocative and subversive works of art right on the steps of the National Gallery in Beijing. Soon after, they were an international sensation.
In order to become ‘another Picasso’, he set out in 1981 for the United States. But once in New York City, he wasn’t producing a particular body of art. He studied at the Parsons School of Design for a short period, lived next to Allen Ginsberg and was working as a card dealer besides other odd jobs. During his 12 years in the US, he documented his life there with thousands of photos.
Ai Weiwei returned to Beijing in 1993, to the bedside of his dying father. Upon his arrival, he became a vital contributor to the new art scene in China. He published a series of books about the up-and-coming generation of artists in China and even co-curated with Feng Boyi the exhibition Fuck Off in Shanghai in 2000, showing his and others’ contemporary works of art within the country. Besides his photography, Ai Weiwei’s work during this period involved experimenting with traditional objects and handcraft. One result of his experimentation with that subject matter was his famous piece Dropping of a Han Dynasty Vase.
In 1999, he completed his house and studio in the suburbs of Beijing without having any prior training in architecture. Weiwei could not have known then that the project would mark the starting point for almost 60 different architectural projects for his office, Fake Design, in the upcoming years, culminating in his collaboration with Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron in designing the Olympic Stadium in Beijing. Shortly after this accomplishment, he refused all architectural work and became instrumental in curating architecture. He curated Ordos 100, a project of 100 villas to be built in the Mongolian desert by 100 chosen architects.
For the Documenta 12 in Kassel, Fake Design selected 1,001 Chinese citizens and invited them to come to Germany for a week. The whole process, from the selection to organization of the project, called Fairytale, was a huge undertaking: For almost every participant, it was the first trip outside of China, and the story behind each visitor was recorded in photos, film and interviews.
Parallel to this first social sculpture and maybe reinforced by what he had learned from it, Ai Weiwei’s role as a cultural and social commentator, as a political activist and critic of the government has only intensified ever since. His blog is his platform for spreading social criticism, discussing ideas and initiating investigations. His constant criticism of the repressive system in China has put him under police observation and led to his arrest on several occasions, but these intimidation tactics seem only to amplify his importance as a spokesman for a new generation.
Mathieu Wellner @'mono.kultur'
Lived next door to Allen Ginsberg? That means that Richard Hell was a neighbour too!
(Thanx Ian!)
Firing Line - The Hippies: William F. Buckley w/ Jack Kerouac, Ed Sanders & Lewis Yablonsky
Taped on Sept 3, 1968
BONUS
Ginsberg on 'Firing Line' after the jump
(The Zone) Getting it right - Nick Crofts says criminalising the use of certain drugs is doing more harm than good and a new approach to regulation is needed
It is tempting to feel sympathy for the people we elect to make enlightened laws. We demand they be morally and intellectually unimpeachable, yet we simultaneously demand they embrace our ''collective wisdom'', virtually ensuring the triumph of populism over courage.
We shackle our political leaders with the views revealed weekly by polling organisations. Opinion polls tell us what is popular, not what might be right or good.
Legislators know this, and even as they espouse conviction politics, they know they are going to buckle as the ballot looms. This perennial tension, and the knowledge they will mostly opt for pragmatism over principle, must be dispiriting for those seeking to make the world a better place through parliamentary politics.
The cost of this shortcoming of our democratic system is high and not limited to wasting scarce financial and other resources. In the case of drugs policy, it is costing lives. The politicians know it. And drug policy experts know the politicians know it. It is said that those at the highest levels of politics understand the so-called war on drugs has failed, that prohibition does not achieve its stated aims and that we ought to be experimenting with better regulation. But political leadership has been lacking, so the people who should be commissioning the experiments refuse even to publicly acknowledge the need for change.
Professor Nick Crofts of The Nossal Institute for Global Health and Melbourne University's Centre for International Mental Health is one of the world's leaders in drug policy. He is here in The Zone to help people understand why prohibition does not work, and how we might minimise harm caused by drug use. In so doing he is not here to encourage the use of illicit drugs. He is driven by harm minimisation - and human rights.
When Jeff Kennett was premier and Victoria was one of the world's heroin capitals, he commissioned Crofts to examine the relationship between various ethnic groups and the heroin market. The real aim was to look at the link between the Vietnamese community and the trade in drugs. The report was handed to the new government that replaced Kennett, and was buried, Crofts says.
''One part of the research was that we interviewed something like 50 senior police, senior magistrates, senior politicians, senior public servants. Every one of them, unanimously, said, 'You are absolutely right and we totally agree with you, we need to move away from prohibition, we need another social policy, and you will never catch me saying that in public'.'' Another world leader on drug policy reform is former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso. In a recent opinion article in The Age, he said: ''Prohibition has failed and we must redirect our efforts to the harm caused by drugs, and to reducing consumption. The war on drugs is a lost war, and 2011 is the time to move away from a punitive approach in order to pursue a new set of policies based on public health, human rights and commonsense.''
Drugs, legal and illicit, are widely used and effectively regulated in many cases. Crofts and many researchers the world over advocate moving the regulation of currently illicit drugs from the criminal justice system to the health system.
Portugal has just done this, and here in Australia we have moved some of the way by introducing a system where people can be diverted from the justice system into the health system.
''The longer I look at drugs, the more I see people. Show me somebody who has problematic drug use and I'll show you somebody with underlying problems in their lives. That is not to say there is no place for regulation.
''We're extremely skilled at regulating a whole range of different substances, from the ones that are available off the shelf at the convenience store, through to ones that are purchasable only in certain locations by certain people, in which I would include alcohol, and then through to another form of regulation, a very common form of regulation, which is prescription.''
Croft's concern about prohibition is not only does it not work, it actually makes things worse.
''Where there is demand [for a substance], prohibition is an excellent way of creating a blackmarket and all the things that go along with it, including corruption, lack of quality control, high prices. It is not a successful public policy mechanism in decreasing harm to individuals or society. In fact, if you look at where the heroin epidemic came from in the United States, it traces back to alcohol prohibition.
''As in many of these things, the irony is that the attempt at a social policy to decrease harm has actually instigated the social policy that increased harm.''
One of the greatest harms associated with failed, misguided drug policies is the relationship between injecting drugs and the AIDS epidemic. It is something Crofts has encountered through his work all over the world. ''Criminalising opium has led to the rise of heroin. The rise in heroin has led to a rise in injecting. The rise of injecting has led to a rise in HIV. And that's a big part of my work, dealing with epidemics of HIV driven by injecting drug use, driven by criminalisation of these drugs, driven by foreign policy imperatives from, particularly, the United States.''
Crofts believes injecting drug users are among the most marginalised people in the world. The full transcript of our interview is available at theage.com.au/opinion/the-zone. In it, Crofts sets out his views in great detail.
''My issue is about people. I am a public health practitioner with an aspiration to understand human rights. And if a person's drug use is causing harm to themselves and/or to other people, then, yes, there's a problem there.
''And it behoves us to offer what assistance we can to those people. But if an individual chooses to use a drug, fully knowledgeable and in control of their faculties and all those things, I actually don't think it's our place to interfere with that … I'm not pushing, advocating, condoning anything in relation to drugs. I'm saying what we're currently doing with some drugs is creating an enormous amount of harm that is not associated with the drugs themselves, but is associated with the way we try to regulate them.''
Alcohol is a far greater danger to young people than ecstasy, evidence suggests. The people who make laws, though, like alcohol - and the taxes they place on its consumption.
Evidently, a key question is what we ought to be doing with drug policy. Crofts does not have a pat answer, because what's needed is data and experimentation.
When he was prime minister, John Howard killed a heroin prescription trial of great promise that had been scoped by Australian National University's Gabriele Bammer. After two attempts, it had cleared ministerial hurdles. But the prime minister killed it on live radio when Sydney entertainer John Laws scorned the project. Perhaps a good place to move next would be for our politicians to have the courage and decency to do the trial.
''My heart goes out to the people who have lost kids to heroin. When the heroin flood was going on in the late '90s, there was a group that used to meet up at the Brosnan Centre, parents who lost kids to heroin. I met with them and talked with them and listened to their stories …
''My compassion is 100 per cent for people in that circumstance. I also know that if heroin had been available, in a regulated environment, the chances are the majority of those kids would not have died.''
It is to these families and those who will join them if change does not come that we owe the most care and sympathy, not politicians who fail to grasp the difference between being right and being popular.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
