photos journal links contact

  © 2004-2014    SuzeQue

   August, 2009 -    I finally made it to Italy this summer. The last picture posted is a picture of me in the city of Cuma near Naples. Southern Italy was not really my cup of tea but the Amalfi coastline and the Isle of Capri was beautiful. I had a stop in Munich and that looked like a very clean and beautiful city. I did meet some very wonderful people along the way. To me, that is what traveling is all about.

   January, 2009 -    Potential for a great future. New government, new life, new ideas. My heart may have been broken but not something that can't be repaired.

   August, 2008 -    Lots of great changes happening. My heart is open but still protected. I'm looking forward to the future.

   September, 2007 -    I finished my advanced paralegal certificate in December 2006 and worked a bit in the field but I'm not sure this is my calling. I love research and got excellent grades and evaluations but I'm not sure this is what I want to do. I'm getting back to my first love, art and painting.

   September, 2006 -    I am currently finishing my advanced paralegal certificate and am looking forward to a new future! Although it's a bit scary not knowing what the future holds, it is kind of exhilarating at the same time. I love research and learning about law and I'm looking forward to a new career. Hopefully, turning 50 won't be so bad after all!

   The following are two short papers I wrote while finishing my Bachelor's degree in Sociology at UCSC in 1997:

   Objects of Early Chinese Art as Vehicles of Meaning -    April 29, 1997

   "The eastward conquest of the Zhou tribes, moving from Shaanxi in 1027 B.C., overthrew Shang rule in Henan, created a new feudal order and established in all central China artistic styles previously nurtured in the northwest. Some of these styles introduce slight but characteristic modification of the Shang equivalent, others depart more emphatically from the Shang standard."    - William Watson

   Clearly, objects of early Chinese Art are vehicles of meaning as revealed by the objects themselves. William Watson's approach to early Chinese Art helps us to understand the presented objects in a historical and political context. Upon examining these objects, we learn there are a myriad of meanings revealed with some meanings unrevealed, left to individual interpretation. Like Watson, many historians have defined the nature of these objects to match an historical/political context as to their uses and/or symbolic relevance.

   What we have learned thus far is that many vessels were used in a ceremonial type manner, ritualistic in nature. The symbols etched into the vessels have been interpreted to have significant meanings. Although there always remains room for speculation, we can be fairly certain of their accuracy.

   It has been revealed that certain axes made out of jade are obviously too brittle to be used as a tools, therefore they must have been used in a ritual or ceremonial type fashion only to symbolize the idea of war or worship. Early discoveries have showed us there is a stratification and division of labor that existed within these Neolithic or "new stone age" tribes. The Banpocun and packed soil (loess) remains show us the unique and elaborate technology provided along the Wei River communities. In order to produce the type of pottery found, one would have to know how to build a kiln, never mind knowing the proper temperature at which to fire these remarkable pieces. The intricate and detailed markings on these pieces revealed more knowledge about the spiritual practices of these early settlers. In terms of evolution and by definition, the term Neolithic strictly means a culture that does not possess any writing. In order to understand the culture of the Neolithic era, we must analyze and interpret the shape of the objects found along with the symbols represented on these objects to fit the meaning of our time.

   Were these Neolithic tribes producing art? Probably not. This is only a recent term contemporary scientists have labeled in order to understand. A term used to put meaning to something we may not quite understand. Were these pieces just vessels for drinking and eating? Again, probably not. Many vessels were commonly used for storing goods and drinking liquid but upon studying the symbols and the structure of these vessels we learn another story.

   Kwang-chih Chang insists that burial grounds are one of the most important aspects in learning about the ancestral practices of China. The burial practices help us to understand Chinese Art as vehicles of meaning. Gunter Andersson, the Swedish mining engineer, was one such individual who found burial sites in the Yangshao village of China. His observations helped teach us about the meanings of these particular burial practices by the way in which the objects were strewn in the grave sites. Historically speaking and by the many vessels found in these burial sites, we can interpret the importance these objects had to their owners. For instance, many Shang oracles had script writing on them bearing meaning in a textural manner. There are frequent references to the names of rulers of the late Shang period onwards on these bone oracles. Clan names were often inscribed making reference to several communities living amongst each other.

   The Erlitou, Zhengzhou, and Panlongcheng (site along the Yangzi River) are some of the earliest sites found with ritual vessels from funeral rites. Many of the early bronze objects were discovered here with much of the technology reminiscent of the Neolithic period, complicated in nature. The language of the shapes of the objects is more important than the function of the objects. The implication is one of ritualism used by the higher-ups or top dogs of that particular society or culture. Although, three-legged vessels and steamers used for cooking were uncovered from the Neolithic Age, similarly shaped vessels found from the Bronze Age appear to be ritualistic in nature rather than provide a function. The function they provided was one of symbolism. Robert L. Thorp goes into great detail about these burial practices of Bronze Age China.

   Lady Fu Hao's tomb is a great example of helping to understand history through artifacts. Although female, Fu Hao was a great military leader with impressive spiritual power. These fascinating facts can be established by the many vessels, jade, carvings, stones, cowries, and sacrificial victims accompanying Fu Hao in her tomb. Jade zoomorphic forms including dragons, birds, elephants, tigers, and shamanistic figures, as well as axes, bronze vessels, and mirrors can all be found in the tomb. Each has meaning and most, if not all, are ritualistic in nature. Human remains provide the biggest clue to the idea of ritualism and sacrificial practice during this Shang period.

   Although, William Watson does not give us the exact meaning of these objects of early Chinese Art based on speculation, he does inform us of the brilliant mastery and skill these Ancient Chinese tribes produced through a political and historical context thereby rendering the representation that these objects clearly are vehicles of meaning.

   Drugs 101: America's Dilemma

   In a perfect world, America would probably have no problem at all with drugs; they would be either non-existent or at the very least socially accepted and tolerated. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. So we have to make use of what we do have—that is, our brains. Education should be first and foremost in understanding the American drug culture. Drugs are here to stay, so we might as well understand them. We need to teach and learn about the good effects as well as the bad effects that go along with taking drugs—licit and illicit alike. We can use advertisement and the media to teach about the harmful effects of dangerous drugs (Nadelman, p. 331). We need to understand that economics, the consumption of commodities, racial inequality, and politics play crucial roles in the current drug problem (Reinarman, 3/13/97). We need to put public health over law enforcement (Waldorf, et al.).

   We need to take a look at what our objectives are and the consequences of our current drug policy. Our current punitive drug policy is based on the assumption that drugs cause problems. Drugs don't cause the problem. It is the individuals behind the drugs that pose the greatest threat. And the interpretation of the drug problem publicized by the moral majority and the powerful few that pose a huge problem. We need to learn about the consequences of leaving it up to the individual to choose what s/he wants to inject or ingest into her/his body. We don't need to build more prisons. Punitive prohibition just isn't working. Look at our prisons and the way the judicial system is [not] working and one might get a clue. Is it really helping society and best serving individuals to put them away for a few years for simple possession? Punitive prohibition serves only those with power and draws upon deep cultural fears which are racist and classist in origin (Reinarman, 3/11/97).

   The majority of human beings genuinely want to be good—to each other and to themselves. This has nothing to do with what one wants to put in his/her own body. I share the belief of the Apollonian view of human nature—informed, intelligent groups of people making sound choices when given the proper information regarding the consequences of ingesting certain drugs. Just as we make the decision to take the recommended dosage of aspirin to reduce pain, so too do we make the decision not to overdose. We don't need laws to govern our behavior. The Dionysian view of human nature is that people are basically hedonistic. And left unrestricted humans will do anything to their bodies, including dangerous and violent acts (Goode, p. 359 & 379). Many Americans share this view in which the whole premise of the drug policy rests—simply, that people are not safe from themselves. I won't argue that this type of personality doesn't exist, it exists in each and every one of us. But no law is ever going to stop this kind of behavior and the media and advertisers know this. The media, advertisers, and law enforcement use peoples' fear of themselves to their advantage.

   What if we were to achieve a drug free society, then what? Would we then dictate who we can have sex with? What would the punishment be then— life in prison, death? There are those who would like to impose sanctions on homosexuals right now. This is moralistic, all-the-way-to-the-right, kind of thinking and it simply doesn't work in this multi-culture society.

   The plain and simple truth is punitive prohibition is not a deterrent. People are still going to find drugs and will continue using them—illegal or not. Why not make drugs available at more reasonable costs with less risks to the individuals? Drugs and its users could be more visible if they were not forced underground as they currently are. Many users tend to "mature out" after the age of 37 anyway (Waldorf, et al.). Those that don't are in small numbers. If the age group of those most prone to drug use is between twelve and thirty-seven, then we are looking at a window of twenty-five years. What do we actually offer this group of people? Are there really any choices? Let's see—dead-end jobs with no future or pay incentives, boring jobs, no jobs at all, little or no education for those without money—the list goes on. As Reinarman queries, "Why not ask this group of people what they want? Now there is a bright idea!"

   If it were up to to me, I would sanction the least possible laws regarding drug discrimination. In other words, every drug would be decriminalized with the possibility of legalization, including: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and foremost of all, prescription drugs. The information regarding these drugs would be available to every citizen and there would be warning labels on all drugs including possible side-effects—long-term effects as well as short-term effects. It would be up to the individual to monitor their own behavior. Unfortunately this is not a reasonable or viable option. If this type of policy were decreed tomorrow, without any education to the general public, we would have complete and utter chaos for an entire nation. In other words, we would be in big trouble. This would never happen, nor would I want it to. So we need to start with a less drastic approach that will take a little more time then just overnight.

   First of all let's look at marijuana—one of the "softer" illicit drugs. At the very least, marijuana should be decriminalized. At the most, altogether legalized. Legalization would not be a sound option at this time because our society is not ready for it and it would not likely get approved. Our society can handle decriminalization. It is already in effect here in nine states and in the Netherlands (Goode, p. 382). "The [Dutch] coffeeshops illustrate that a democratic society is able to handle a drug problem in a less prohibitionistic, more cost effective, and less harmful way" (Korf, p. 99). The Dutch have proven that decriminalization does not lead to increased drug use and it is reasonable to assume the same would happen in the U.S.

   Individuals, especially medically challenged individuals, should have the right to grow pot in their homes for personal use. The problem starts when people start growing plantations of marijuana for profit. I don't believe plantation growers should be sent to jail but, if caught, they should serve community time and donate the majority of their crop for medical use. I don't believe marijuana should be taxed, but I do believe the government should be allowed to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.

   Heroin, cocaine, LSD, and other illicit "hard" drugs should be decriminalized, but not necessarily legalized. Our prisons are too crowded with the wrong kind of "criminals". Again, some sort of community service could be set up for big-time dealers who get caught. Methadone maintenance should, without a doubt, be an option for all heroin addicts who wish to quit. This should be state funded and available immediately. Complete legalization of heroin and cocaine could pose a problem to society at present. Platzspitz (or " Needle Park") in Zurich, Switzerland presents a good example of de facto criminalization gone bad (Goode, p. 368). We can learn from this and design a better situation, like drug treatment centers and controlled environments. We need to promote safe drug use to lessen HIV/AIDS transmission among IV drug users, and legalize needle exchange programs including AIDS education, counseling, drug treatment, social services, job training, and other related needs for IVDU (Singer, et al.).

   We need to remind ourselves what the drug war is really about. Let us not forget Reinarman's lecture on the seven ingredients to drug scares (1/23/97). Drug scares are never about drugs because they are inanimate objects, the real threat are the individuals who use drugs. Drug scares are merely scare tactics to eliminate behaviors and the individuals behind those behaviors. Drug scares are motivated by racial and class bias.

   If we continue to focus our attention on supply reduction as well as demand reduction we lose sight of our main objective, harm reduction (Reinarman, 3/4/97). As Edith Springer insists, "We need more compassionate drug treatment." Any reduction in harm is a step in the right direction. Punitive prohibition does nothing but impose and inflict more harm to addicts and society (Reinarman, 3/13/97).

   Harm reduction seems the likely solution to many of today's drug problems. Needle exchange is one possible solution as well as methadone maintenance, 12-step programs, and therapeutic communities (Goode, DeLeon, McElrath). Drug addiction is an underlying symptom of other life problems (DeLeon). So what if we have one heroin junkie? With the needle exchange program in place we can have ten less HIV infected junkies along with their partners. Why not bring back the free methadone clinics of the sixties and seventies? If it costs society $28,000 a year to keep a junkie on the streets, or $20,000 to put him/her in prison for a year, and it costs only $1,000 to maintain that same person on methadone for a year (Reinarman, 3/6/97), then what do you think is more cost-effective? If methadone allows just one person to live a "normal" and productive life, isn't that proof enough for a cost-effective solution to heroin addiction (Dole & Nyswander)? At what cost is it to society to wean someone off heroin in a more safe, controlled, and potentially life-saving manner? Other solutions like provide safe shooting galleries for those that can't or won't stop shooting heroin seem unlikely in the near future.

   We need to understand that addiction is a disease, not a psychological disorder. Anti-social behavior is the result not the cause of drug addiction. The emphasis should be placed on the individual's ability to function as a "normal" member of society, not continue spending money on programs that put higher value on total abstinence (Dole & Nyswander, p. 312). "Three Strikes, You're Out", "Just Say No", "Zero Tolerance", "Drug-Free America", and "March on Drugs"—these are just catchy phrases that do nothing but instill more fear in the American public.

   Countless lives won't be destroyed if we decriminalize heroin as James Q. Wilson would like us to believe (p. 344). We might invite a few more users, but then again we might not. The way it is now we are not making much progress. It is so easy to acquire drugs in an illegal black market which leads me to believe it won't be any different if heroin were decriminalized. If people want drugs, they will get them. The difference with decriminalization is that users won't be thrown in jail for minor drug possession. They won't die alone in some dark alley because of a tainted substance used to cut the heroin. Addicts will get the help they need with less risk involved, resulting in less crime. And isn't less crime something we should be striving for, not more prison cells?

   We need to weigh the problems with the consequences. Moral entrepreneurs need to wake up. Is our problem really with drugs or is it with the way we regard these drugs? Why do we have such a problem with someone wanting to get high? Is that such a threat to our civilization called America? If so, why? These are the questions that need to be examined. We don't need to keep spending billions of dollars on this so-called drug war. Why not put that money into saving lives, not wrecking lives? We are fighting a problem that is taking us in the wrong direction. We need to learn from our mistakes and try something new. Drug testing in the workplace isn't the solution. There is no need to randomly test individuals for illicit drug use (and who knows what else) except maybe in health and safety occupations where thousands of lives are at risk (i.e.: airline pilots, physicians, police officers). There is no need for this invasion of privacy and promoting of conformity. This is a violation of our 4th and 5th amendments as stated in the Bill of Rights (Reinarman, 3/6/97).

   A common proclivity in western thinking is the need to reduce problems into one common denominator—known as reductionism. Americans commonly believe when given a problem it can merely be reduced to a simple solution. The problem with thinking in these terms is that it doesn't work. We need to look to the individual and the problems surrounding each and every individual to find the answer. There is no simple answer and it is surely not going to change overnight. To reduce all our problems to that of drugs and its user culture is absurd and a step in the wrong direction. When people have motive and incentive for better lives, when there are better wages for all individuals, when there is reason to have a stake in conventional life, then the need to sell and take drugs will become less glamorous. Before we blame all of society's problems on the power of drugs we need to look at the socioeconomic status of each individual, the role media plays in perpetuating drug use, and the politics involved in order to better understand and come to any possible solution.