Recently in Rant Category

Cory Doctorow has an excellent meditation on what a friend of his has called "cognitive liberty".

"...the freedom to choose your state of mind. The cognitive liberty cause encompasses the movements to legalize "recreational" drugs and to limit the power of the state to subject "mentally ill" people to involuntary pharmaceutical therapy (and, when it is still practiced, involuntary physical therapies such as lobotomies and electroshock).

Cognitive liberty resonates strongly for me. Like other forms of personal liberty, it is not without its perils -- when friends of mine were involuntarily medicated during acute incidents of schizophrenia, mania or depression, the interventions seemed like a good trade-off at the time (rampaging, irrational, out of control friends who are treated with meds that make them capable of reasoning with those around them are good poster children for "cognitive coercion"), and friends who've fallen down the well of addiction and ended up with ruined lives or even lives cut short are a strong warning against unbridled cognitive liberty.

But then there are friends whose touch of madness sends them on flights of brilliance, friends whose casual glass of wine, joint or hallucinogen use have made them happier, better adjusted, and more creative and fulfilled. What's more, my friends who've ODed, been committed, or who live with addiction haven't been helped by prohibition -- far from it. Some are in jail, some are medicated insensible, some are living lives of dangerous poverty.

The idea of cognitive liberty is very tempting, but I have an instinct that there's an approach to it that is grounded not in libertarianism, but in Canadian/European-style social democracy. "

Having had friends who have been addicted to various substances for the majority of their adult lives has made me feel almost exactly the same way, with the possible exception that the problems they have had with their addictions are in direct proportion with the legal status of those drugs and/or education about how drugs should be used or administered. A friend who died in the last couple of years had used drugs off and on for several years. In the 1960's she had been at art school in the UK and did what most people in their 20's who attended a European Art School in the 1960's did: go to a lot of gigs, party with your friends and experiment. She managed to unfortunately contract Hepatitis, which of course created all kinds of pathogenic hell. The effects of this on her liver was what finally killed her.

Or one of my old flatmates who is now in his late 40's and has been addicted for 30 years. The self-described 'Man with a Golden Arm' still manages to have something approximating what most would call a normal daytime existence, but might be swallowing 30mg of Diazepam to stave off withdrawal and get him through it. I once saw him pay $400 dollars for 40mls of Methadone from a friend because his withdrawal was so bad he was almost at the point where he was ready to punch his fist through a window. On that day, if someone had said drinking a litre of anti-freeze will stop the withdrawal, he would have.

The fact is that the economies of purchasing drugs would never remain the same after decriminalisation. Or the very obvious dangers of buying drugs off complete strangers on the street would in all likelihood be ameliorated if support and access were replaced with the current ignorance. It would be stupid and illogical of me to say that everyone should be trying X, Y and Z, but I would say exactly the same thing about anything that alters state of mind. I know many, many people who should never drink alcohol again, but culturally where I live it is so socially ingrained that to not drink is still on a par of substandard social behaviour as vegetarianism or not enjoying the national sport.

The question of Cognitive Liberty in my mind is similar to abortion rights, or even assisted suicide: Who owns your body, you or the state? It's a question that needs to be asked more. I'm being a little facetious, but for years now i've been trying to teach my students that you are what you eat: If that means you're rearing yourself on a steady diet of Baywatch, _insert_latest_blockbuster_here, 50 Cent etc, and you have an aversion to text or ideas - well, quite frankly, you're more dangerous than you thought.

Well, aside from Chirac giving Spielberg the Legion of Honour. France has had the temerity and intelligence to decide to introduce cellphone blocking into its cinemas, but the UK seems to need legislation to help it out. i'm applauding France and hoping New Zealand will follow suit so i can watch that 20 stone Gorilla with 3/4's of an inch of brain try and figure why he can't phone his friend to meet up after the movie.

"Mobile phone signals will be jammed in French cinemas and theatres to prevent the devices disturbing the audience.

The French government has backed a move to install equipment to block signals in cinemas, concert halls and theatres.Emergency phone calls and calls outside the performance area will still be permitted, however. Jean Labbe, president of the National Federation of French Cinemas, said the measure followed "a long-standing request" by cinemas. French industry minister Patrick Devedjian backed the move, supporting a decision by France's Telecommunications Regulation Authority. Mr Labbe told France Info radio that cinemas had invested heavily to improve comfort and "the authorisation of jammers is the cherry on the cake".

Jules and I went to Blow and had this idiot decide to have a 15 minute conversation with his mate in a 50 person theatre in the middle of the movie. My skinny boy 5'9" stature was no match for 6'3" and 20 stone, 'natch. Pacifist in everything but movies, i was pleased to see i'm not alone in this.

"Marketing manager Andrew Woodyatt said: "There's nothing more annoying or likely to cause a fight than someone talking on a phone, and it's amazing how widespread it is.

Last month, actor Kevin Spacey declared London's Old Vic theatre a "phone-free zone" during his tenure as its artistic director. "We certainly don't want them ringing and people ignoring them pretending that it's not theirs," he said. "My feeling is if people don't know how to behave they shouldn't come."

Well said, and by the way, thanks for Swimming with Sharks

How on earth does Steven Spielberg manage to get awarded the Legion of Honour and Jean-Luc Godard, a director who has made enormous contributions to French and to world cinema for 50 years, not get one? How does a director who hasn't even (as far as I know) included a French-speaking character in his films (OK, aside from that walk-on by Truffaut in Close Encounters) manage to get France's highest accolade? Especially when he's on a junket peddling the latest edition of Tom Hanks as the 'everyman' with Zeta-Jones as the 'heart of gold' love interest. I want answers.

Spielberg awarded Légion d'Honneur

Staff and agencies
Monday September 6, 2004

Jacques Chirac and Steven Spielberg
Speaking out against intolerance: Jacques Chirac (left) and Steven Spielberg

Steven Spielberg has been awarded France's highest civil honour, the Légion d'Honneur.

Spielberg is in Paris to promote his new film The Terminal and to receive the award from the French president Jacques Chirac, who praised him as a "great director". Mr Chirac also saluted his hard work in fighting hatred and intolerance, saying that films such as Schindler's List help the world to remember dark times in history.

In his speech, Mr Chirac made reference to recent attacks on Jewish cemeteries and buildings in France. "At this difficult time when intolerance, racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and fanaticism are on the rise again, it is essential that cinema, which touches each one of us deep inside, recalls the horror of what is unutterable," he said. "It is essential that this form of eminently popular expression and creativity reminds everyone of the disastrous effects of hatred, intolerance, and the rejection of others."

Spielberg, too, called for understanding and tolerance. "We have to work very, very hard to make people understand that we have to celebrate people's differences and not condemn them" he said.