WHO WE ARE
The Pacific Sentinel is a monthly student-run magazine at PSU. We seek to uplift student voices and advocate on behalf of the underrepresented. We analyze culture, politics, and daily life to continually take the dialogue further. We offer a space for writers and artists of all skill levels to hone their craft, gain professional experience, and express themselves. We are inspired by publications such as The New Yorker and The Atlantic. We advocate for the underrepresented and the marginalized.
We are always looking for new students to join our contributor team as we can’t do it without your help. If you’re interested in working with us, visit our website at pacsentinel.com or contact our Executive Editor at editor@pacsentinel.com
photo courtesy of adobe stock
by Ariana Espinoza by Rin Kane
by Rin Kane
by Steven Marquess
by Lillian Kennedy by AJ Adler
FEATURED THIS ISSUE
ariana espinoza is a graduate student in the book publishing program at portland state university. she is a lover of books, emo music, and hikes involving waterfalls.
will boechler is a writer and graduate student in the fiction strand of the mfa creative writing program at portland state university. horror movies and a good cup of earl grey are two of his favorite things.
rin kane is obsessed with her three cats and frequently has to be talked out of getting a fourth. she is also a graduate student in the book publishing program at psu and can be found at shows, stocking up on books about small-space gardening, talking endlessly about getting a criterion channel account without actually doing it, and thrifting throw pillows.
julie holland is in her final year of graduate school in the book publishing program at portland state university. when she isn’t off traveling and finding random adventures, she is found writing and reading. She is a lover of hockey, corn, bad puns, and potatoes.
darcy williams writes on tech, diversity, and disability. she will graduate from PSU soon. she is a helpless chocoholic and pretends to be a good upright bass player. she has enjoyed working with the last three editors for the sentinel and will miss submitting creative nonfiction and art to balance the stress of classes.
steven marquess hardly knows what do with himself. his brain is pressure-filled with near-perfectly trivial facts and rap lyrics. he has a dumbphone and swears it’s not his only personality trait (nor was jiu jitsu).
aj adler likes sleeping (lol), endlessly watching youtube and anime, and her cat (except when he tries to climb her legs /cry). she’s in her final year of graduate school in the book publishing program. she likes writing about art and culture. her comparative literature undergrad degree has to be useful for something, after all.
DEAR READERS
Hello Portland State University community and welcome to the first issue of The Pacific Sentinel for the 2024-2025 year!
I am so excited to bring you all the November issue. The team has been working incredibly hard to bring this to you amidst all the changes that come with fall. The changing leaves brought new editors and contributors to The Pacific Sentinel and I couldn’t be more excited!
This edition is very special as we introduce these new writers and editors and their voices. We have a variety of reviews, opinions, and news. The film review and show review are incredible and timely first impressions (but beware of spoilers!). Woven throughout are various opinion pieces that have taken a look into the news of the nation. With the election happening during our writing and production time, these pieces give unique insight into what these writers were feeling in these moments.
Our feature piece is extra special to me as Will Boechler, AJ Adler, and I attended the Portland Book Festival. Since this was my first time attending the event, I was so incredibly excited to cover the event and take as many pictures as possible (not pictured are the many books I bought).
The design of this magazine is also a special feature itself. Will Boechler’s photography is on the front cover, and the interior design has been done by myself. In the absence of a production editor, I used my InDesign skills to hopefully bring you all a cohesive and fun-to-read issue.
I look forward to connecting with you all through this issue and I thank you for picking up this issue. I hope you enjoy!
Onwards and upwards,
Ariana Espinoza
LETTER FROM THE EDITORS
Portland Book Fest Presented by Literary Arts
by Ariana Espinoza, Will Boechler, and AJ Adler
The 2024 Portland Book Fest, presented by Literary Arts, was a huge success with bookstores, authors, publishers, and book lovers.
Think Out Loud: In Too Deep
Andrew Child’s 29th installment in the Jack Reacher series, “In Too Deep,” was presented in the First Congregational United Church of Christ by moderator Dave Miller. The historic church, with its stained glass windows and wooden pews, seemed like the sort of place Jack Reacher would stake out like he did in “Without Fail,” book six of the series.
From the first installment in 1997, “Killing Floor,” Andrew Child took over the Jack Reacher series from his brother Lee Child and continues to bear the heroic torch as he throws the character into yet another adventure filled
with danger and turmoil. In the latest conflict, Child warns that readers “jump in with both feet in page one.”
From that point on, Andrew Child continually mixes things up to keep readers engaged and on their toes. When Dave Miller asked how Child keeps up with what he calls “villain inflation,” Child responded with his secret for this. Child says that in order to make the next conflict unique, but still in line with Reacher’s growing skills, is to create a villain with one element that is personally obnoxious. Child says that he wants there to be something about the villain that makes your skin crawl, almost in a bullying way.
The panel was followed by a Q&A, and then an author signing, where attendees got to meet Child and get their new books bought at the festival signed by the author himself.
photo courtesy of ariana espinoza
Good Night Thoughts
The Stage at The Judy was packed with parents, children, and “New Girl” fans alike as Max Greenfield took the stage to talk about his latest children’s book, “Good Night Thoughts.” Moderated by Steph Opitz and her adorable daughter, this panel reached the audience through Greenfield’s shared experiences of teaching his children through the pandemic.
In his new book “Good Night Thoughts,” Greenfield writes of how scary it can be to go to bed when big and scary thoughts like spiders and dentists pop up. Through his excellent storytelling abilities, though, Greenfield sympathizes and calms the mind, leaving the reader ready for sleep.
Greenfield, after his time as Schmidt in the hit show “New Girl” (2011), soon found himself as the teacher of his kids as the pandemic set in. His favorite thing to do with his kids was to read a picture book to his kids at night. He soon decided to write his own, which led to his first book, “I Don’t Want to Read This Book,” a book for kids who don’t like to read, but ultimately read a book by the end of it.
Greenfield talked about how his books combat the
various fears that kids face, especially when it comes to learning and reading. He doesn’t want to diminish the fear or say that it’s wrong, but rather, Greenfield says that “maybe we can put it down for now.”
This is exactly what he does in “Good Night Thoughts.” He closed out his panel with a reading, which was followed by a signing where attendees go to meet him.
American Horror Stories
Stephen Graham Jones,Mongrels and I Was A Teenage Slasher” and Brian Evenson “Good Night, Sleep Tight and Last Days” took to the stage at the First Congregational United Church of Christ joined by moderator Theodore C. Van Alst Jr., “Sacred Folks”. The trio of writers sat down in the historic location accompanied by classic Americana rock music, with all three remarking about how it was strange for them to be in a church given the type of content they write about.
Jones and Evenson began their discussion by talking about what aspects of their books they had in common, the horrible web search history that came with being a writer—Jones even remembering specifically that
the last thing he Googled was “How to cut off a toe”. Evenson talked about tone in his work and discussed how bleakness may have been a result of his upbringing with the utmost calmness and composure before they moved to talk about their new books and what they were about.
Jones’ “I Was A Teenage Slasher” is a slasher coming of age told from a memoir perspective, following Tolly Driver, a teenager living in a small west Texas town in 1989. Full of twists and turns, this book’s plot is best experienced blindly. Jones explained how going back to West Texas is almost like a meditative experience for his writing and how he finds himself coming back to that location multiple times, as he loves the aesthetic and stories waiting to be told in that area.
Meanwhile Evenson’s “Good Night, Sleep Tight” is a new collection of horror short stories discussing and meditating on the relationships between humans and artificial intelligence. For a moment, the two authors discussed AI, and although Jones admitted he was afraid of it, Evenson spoke about how he uses AI writing prompt generators in his classes to give his students something to start their own stories with if they’re stuck.
The two authors were cheerful and happy to talk about their craft and took questions in a Q&A. Afterward, they closed the panel by having a signing in the basement of the venue where attendees could meet both authors and even take a selfie!
What Haunts Humanity?
This is for all of you who like ghost stories.
At the Portland Book Festival this year, two authors presented their new books during the panel “Hauntings.”
Layla Martinez, author of “Woodworm,” spent her first time in America discussing “Woodworm,” a haunted house that takes revenge on the men who controlled their family for generations. The other author Alisa Alering presented her book, “Smothermoss,” a ghost story of two girls who have grown up isolated in a small town in the Appalachians and become tangled in a murder mystery. The authors discussed these haunting books and the real stories behind them.
Layla Martinez comes from a long line of maids in a small town in Spain, which has been run by the same oppressive family for generations. Her family, in particular, has experienced oppression from that family who runs the town throughout the entirety of their time. “Woodworm” is Martinez’ way of fighting back against the oppressors.
In the panel, Martinez discussed the classism and misogyny present in her home. The house in the story
that traps the main characters fictionally, is a metaphor for how, in reality, her ancestors were trapped. The cruelty the main characters experience in the story, is representative of the real cruelty that her ancestors have undergone. The difference, she notes, is that, in “Woodworm,” when even the law is against them, they are still able to take revenge.
Alisa Alering also took inspiration from her life growing up. From a small town in the Appalachians herself, she added bits of her life growing up. With no internet, she described how isolated from the outside it is. How a car on the verge of breaking down becomes a lifeline. Even the inciting incident of her book, the murder of two women, is based on a real story from her childhood of a man who murdered a female hiker and then disappeared into the woods for a week before the authorities caught him.
Similar to Martinez, the more enigmatic aspects of the book sometimes come from the desire to take power away from the oppressor. Throughout the book, the mountain has its own perspective. She explained that it started with her trying to find a way to describe the murder of the women without giving the man who murdered them power and control of the scene. In neither story are the mystical elements the true villains. Instead, the villains are the humans who believe they have the right to abuse others. If that’s not the most chilling narrative, I don’t know what is.
A Fair to Remember Ten Years of the Book Fair at Portland Book Fest
by Ariana Espinoza
Books, buyers, and browsers congregated in the Portland Art Museum to experience the tenth year of the Portland Book Festival’s book fair. Booths filled with authors, publishers, and booksellers lined the walkways as people crowded to see what their next literary purchase might be.
While the Portland Book Festival, brought to us by Literary Arts, has been a huge annual staple in the Portland proper area, the book fair has most definitely been a shining highlight. Found in the middle of various concert halls where authors are speaking and in between food carts where spectators are eating, the Portland Art Museum hosts the book fair in their ballrooms.
The first and third stories of the Mark Building hold the various vendors and attendees. The range of vendors required that each and every booth be visited. University presses such as Ooligan Press and Oregon State University Press were staffed by current students and faculty, ready to give information about their programs and opportunities. Independent book publishers such as University of Hell, Forest Avenue Press, and Barachou Press had their latest books on display. Editing and publishing services such as Indigo: Editing, Design and More and Luminare Press presented their services and resources for authors of all kinds. Bookstores such as Powell’s, Grand Gesture, and Books with Pictures promoted the speaking and events of many authors by selling their most popular books.
While many people spent more money than they had anticipated, at least many went home with new bookish tote bags in which to place their new books. I am sure that many will bring theirs back for the 2025 Book Fair and Portland Book Festival.
photos courtesy of ariana espinoza
photo courtesy of tmdb
ANORA
Directed
by: Sean Baker
REVIEW BY RIN KANE
Anora Review
Directed by: Sean Baker
Starring: Mikey Madison & Mark Eidelstein
Genre: Drama
Runtime: 2 hr 19 min
Rating: 8.5/10
by Rin Kane
Anora, the latest release from Neon, is a comedy/ drama/pseudo-romance written and directed by Sean Baker. The film introduces the titular character, twenty-three-year-old “Ani” Mikheeva (Mikey Madison), as a stripper and sometimes escort whose life changes one night when Ivan “Vanya” Zakharov (Mark Eidelstein) parties at the club she works at. Since Ani understands Russian, she’s sent to his table, where the massively wealthy twenty-one-year-old becomes infatuated with her. The two hit it off, and he offers her $15,000 to be his girlfriend for the week, kicking off a string of enjoyable debauchery that ends with them getting married in Vegas. However, it turns out Vanya is the son of powerful Russian oligarchs who crack down on the marriage and demand it be annulled. The film follows the two lovers--and the Russian henchmen sent to force the annulment--as they learn about each other’s true selves and motivations. If you haven’t seen it yet, watch the trailer on Neon’s YouTube channel, check out Poor Stuart’s Guide for a list of local, independent cinemas and showtimes, and DON’T keep reading because there are spoilers!!
Anora holds an impressive 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 4/4 from AP news, and an 8.5/10 on IMDb.
The film is split into two distinct movements. The first is a euphoric high; Baker gives us an extended montage of twenty-somethings living it up the way only twenty-somethings can but kicked up to the astronomical level made possible by access to unlimited amounts of money. The scenes dip from glittery neon to rooftop pools to private jets, all against the background of a nearly saccharine pop anthem and inane, amusing chatter. In between are moments of sweetness between Vanya and Ani, but it’s sweetness that rings hollow. She lies in his lap watching him absorbed in video games; he tells her he loves her when she teaches him that sex can be slow and sensual as opposed to his persistent
jack-hammering; she fully embraces the role of attentive house-wife even in the face of his ambivalence. There’s the feeling that she could be anyone and he would have the same glossy detachment, a sentiment confirmed in the second act when he, wasted, gets a lap dance from Ani’s work nemesis and professes love for the latter.
The second act begins abruptly when Vanya’s parents send henchmen Garnick (Vache Tovmasyan) and Igor (Yuriy Borosov) to force the two to annul the marriage and bring Vanya back to Russia. After a heated argument, Vanya ditches the entire group, leaving Ani to argue with and physically fight the two bodyguards while she insists that their love and marriage are real. The men finally offer Ani $10,000 to annul the marriage. She reluctantly agrees although something in her eyes suggests she believes that if they can only find Vanya, he’ll convince everyone of their legitimacy. The three of them, along with Toros (Karren Karagulian), Vanya’s godfather/local priest, set off to scour the city in search of him.
This second movement is gritty and grounded. As the characters slowly lose their stereotypes (with the notable exception of Vanya), we begin to see their depths. Rough edges are smoothed a bit, and Ani’s vulnerability and naivety become clearer, even as she is simultaneously a shrewd businesswoman and deal-maker. The pace works well, with dusky, frigid shots of Coney Island and close-ups of Ani’s striking features enough to keep the audience aesthetically engaged, the darkness and desperation of each character interrupted by punchy and believable humor. It’s a hangover from the champagne tower of the first half, but the kind of hangover that brings clarity in its sharpness and uncompromising rawness. The setting neatly matches Ani’s emotional journey as she navigates the knife wound of utter betrayal. Yet through it all, there are moments of sweetness and tenderness; in Ani’s uncompromising
self-embodiment, in Igor’s gentleness toward her, in the pockets of life they dip in and out of during their search.
There’s not one weak performance in the film, with the small exception of Ani’s rival, Diamond, whose bitter ire toward Ani feels somewhat unearned, and whose actress, Lindsey Normington, doesn’t carry off convincingly. Eidelstein’s performance is wonderfully frenetic and perfectly captures the immaturity and detachment of someone who’s never had to work for anything. His boyish, glib demeanor that initially seems so charming quickly turns grating as the movie progresses and we see he has no depth or integrity. And of course, Madison’s performance glows. She captures the rawness of a woman in her early twenties, at once as street-smart, tough, and self-protective as she is hopeful and here for a good time. There’s a wonderfully down-to-earth moment where Ani refuses to get on the plane to Vegas to annul the marriage and says she’s essentially going to sue the shit out of Vanya’s parents, only for the next cut to show her with them on the plane mid-air. Elements like these take the film from a one-dimensional story about generic empowerment to one that more intimately explores the nuance of class and gender. Realistically, Ani knows she doesn’t have the money or resources to go up against a family like Vanya’s and she either walks with $10k or nothing.
It’s easy to interpret the ending of Anora as a sort of indulgent Pretty Woman “captain-save-a-hoe” trope. But peel back the urge to jump to conventional framings and it’s possible to find a different interpretation, one that shows the immense amount of emotional stress and whiplash Ani has been through. From riding the highest of highs and developing real feelings toward someone she thought felt the same, to the crash of being abandoned by that person, slut-shamed, profiled, and threatened by his parents, and attacked by men she doesn’t know. She’s only twenty-three, and although society tends to view sex workers in a dichotomy—either scheming, money-grubbing temptresses or victims with no other avenue to turn to—it’s a helpful reminder that actually (shocker) sex workers are just people, navigating many of the same emotions, complexities, and challenges as the rest of us.
“Anora” is a deceptively simple film. At once a meditation on the Russian-speaking communities in New York, offering us intimate glimpses into a side of the city that’s not often on camera, and a show-don’t-tell masterpiece that illustrates what happens when people’s self-constructed facades crack and shift, “Anora” guides us along the path of navigating environments new and old, and asks us to take the time to glance into the corners of life and of people we don’t always choose to see.
“It’s a hangover from the champagne tower of the first half, but the kind of hangover that brings clarity in its sharpness and uncompromising rawness.”
photo courtesy of tmdb
It’s
not the
end of CRYPTO & SUGAR DONUTS #4
AKA: How to make America Safe Again... (Nevermind the Toupee) by lillian kennedy
Disclaimers:
This article is not advice on investment or political party affiliation. This article is solely meant as one students’ opinion about finance, politics, and technology. The main characters are fictional, yet, non-fictional political figures are present players in our reality, names changed with “Z”, mostly for humor.
Other connected articles:
This narrative is connected to three other stand alone articles.(#1 June 2023, #2 October 2023 (p. 10-11), #3 December 2023) The aim of the series is to inform the truth about crypto with a MacGuffin of a donut.
Gender Treatment:
This piece also challenges the mind to consider how gender neutral Literature mechanics are presently living within limitations of the English language.
[A chartreuse green ticker scrolls across the auditorium ceiling, Defiant style:]
“Bitcoin traded above $93,000 for the first time”... (11/16/24)
The conference ended an hour ago. The floor to ceiling headlining photo of Zhitney Zebb is flickering off as the A/V engineer switches to the main advertising screen for the Oregon Convention Center, scrolling various cute zoo photos.
In the chartreuse flicker of the stadium marquee the mass of plastic white chairs reflects emerald in Pipers’ eyes as they read the Zork Times. “ ‘Liberal America simmers into a more sobering green tea for brainstorming survival of the next 4 years after what seemed like the death of hope last month.’ Who writes this crap? Seemed like? They forgot to mention Zump could truly be the death of hope for a multicultural nation of choice makers, aka let freedom ring,” Piper slams their body on a front row chair, their black lace socks snagging on some part of the cheap design.
“The last 15 years have been saviorless in this country in the blockchain space too, now Zump is our Savior? We need democrats to invest in blockchain!” Jinx snags the last sugar donut as the caterers grab serving plates.
Piper jumps up and grabs the sugar donut and waves it in Jinx’ face.
“No, we need them to develop---and investing is optional. The mark of an honest politician is whether they tell the citizens this or not.”
Jinx juts forward and bites the donut Piper stole, sugar
rimming their mouth and one sole granule sticking to their nose ring.
Both stare at each other as Jinx swallows.
Piper flirt-sneers, handing Jinx another bite after tearing off one for themselves and then licking their fingers. “At the least, we need them to massively deep dive their brains on the truth of blockchain. No citizen who actually thinks after they deep dive will allow centralization without a fight. But we need seats in these chairs so they can begin thinking about why it’s important to be vigilant.”
Jinx meows as they grab the bite, “Yeah, but with Zump’s ‘adoption’, isn’t democratic America going to keep thinking blockchain is some kind of nationalist militant wanna-be tea party Jesus moment scam pill to distract from the conservative poison that citizens just drank to prohibit building a choice-based, multicultural society! I mean, decentralized blockchain IS the evolution of democratic choice!” Jinx wipes the lonely sugar granule from their nose ring.
“Hey, don’t forget, he is just using rhetoric, and yeah, likely as a misdirection but ‘US Stockpiling’ does not mean the network and ecosystem would lose decentralization capability or somehow stop once Bitcoins’ scarcity is reached, no matter who owns it! Citizens stop caring when they see the astronomical price of Bitcoin, thinking: 1. How can they afford that (as if supporting
blockchain ever has to have anything to do with buying a single SAT); and 2: That one can’t buy fractions of any coin, including Bitcoin (SAT’s). The separation of the tech of blockchain needs to be more distinguished from Bitcoin. Nothing can stop the network from operating. Look at your T-shirt, babe!”
Jinx does a tada motion emphasizing their T-shirt in acknowledgment.
“Relax Jinx, we are doing the class to water the right seeds. Let’s go to the store and get ready before they lock us in!” Piper grabs their laptop as they thumbs up to Vin, the security guard, across the geometric wannabe 80’s carpet. Vin is gesturing a slitting throat motion that Piper knows has got to mean, ‘it’s time to empty the auditorium.’
Jinx grabs their laptop, too.
Outside in the shimmer of the city, Piper looks into the dark sky.”We can be assured that if Zump ‘s administration does not adhere to Nakamoto’s ethos as it adopts blockchain, it is only playing everyone’s FOMO for some other reason... Remember Zhitney’s talk? Even though Zump wants to “stop control”, when has he ever actually NOT wanted control --in his life? How often has he been a liar? So under the guise of championing the goal and original intention of blockchain, for us to become sustainable executive custody holders, and our children and their children, we need to fight for decentralization together, and be very skeptical of Zump’s hot topic rhetoric borrowing.”
Jinx stops halfway down the metal stairs ahead of Piper, turning 180. “Zhitney made another point that I fear no one will remember tomorrow though, babe, ‘We need to direct resources for how to make it work for the people.’ But, I mean like, what if American nodes were brought down in the future by Ziz Zarren-like fear-mongering legislation? This would be a betrayal of all we hold dear with decentralization! The ZBI could press Zump into a new state sponsored surveillance era by using blockchain for centralized means and not adhering to Nakamoto’s ethos?”
Piper eases down the stairway past Jinx, kisses them in a brush on the cheek, eyes glimmering and smirks widely.
“That’s where we gain inspiration from Dr. Zood, Jinx! We are finding a way to get a 10,000% return for democratic citizens’ hard work and inspire developers, just like Dr. Wood is doing.”
Piper opens the car and they both climb in.
“Do you want to grab some ramen?” Piper pipes.
“No, I want another donut. With lots of sugar. I need to get some energy for class.”
“Ok, let’s grab both. We have 49 minutes ‘til the students show up. “
30 minutes later, a mechanical lock releases and lets Piper and Jinx into a storefront bookstore in Portland. The donut bag crumples against the doorframe. “Here”, Piper hands Jinx the bag. They start digging in. Piper walks around to turn on the lights. “15 minutes until class starts ... Let’s start with the headlines we read in the car! What do you think?”
“Can I read them?”
“Yes.” Piper gives another peck on the cheek to Jinx then scurries to set up their computer. People start trickling in.
Piper grabs the dry erase sandwich board and marker and sets it up front.
TALK TODAY:
WTF is crypto & How do I use it safely? with Piper Snap
It’s 7:00 pm.
“Welcome. Before we start, Jinx will read the headlines.”
Jinx stands up, avoiding knocking the donut bag onto the floor. “19 hours ago, the Defiant posted this: ‘The A16Z firm noted that Zump’s pro-crypto stance, coupled with
bipartisan progress from previous Congress sessions, lays a solid foundation for legislative advancements favoring the web3 industry.”The good news is that there is now a pathway for constructive engagement with regulatory agencies and legislation that can bring regulatory clarity,” a16z stated. However, the firm urged crypto founders to remain vigilant and strive to achieve decentralization wherever possible. “Where there is trust, there is regulation”, the post said. “You should continue to focus on removing centralized aspects or dependencies on trust within your projects...” ‘
Piper stood up, “Thanks Jinx. We need to watch these politicians and lawmakers as we tred in the blockchain space and hold them accountable for pushing for centralization. Some officials want to transform them from decentralized to centralized, which can happen so very easily by turning networks from public to private, requiring auth layers, adding dependencies, and sometimes this requires citizens to hand over their keys, which equates to requiring the government to be your financial custodian FOR YOU, deciding what you can and cannot make or spend. As we see with Zump, there’s at least an acknowledged conflict between the potential of innovation as yet unrealized in the United States, and the yet unclear new governance path that he will forge. Acknowledgement is good, but....
We, most of us democrats and democracy defenders, all hope that this new administration’s plans will actually align with the ethos of decentralization, as it claims. A struggle to understand blockchain is largely due to our dependence upon the media informing us what we should think and dissolving our interest in the heavy focus on rug pulls (ZTX) or ‘supposedly’ under-registered projects (Zether). We need to renew our investigative skills, and use and share the global information on decentralization, its origin, ethos, and safe path. As well, we need to get into the opposition levels to understand them to fight them and support developers. One big issue researchers are trying to solve is how to create a decentralized space where malicious actors do not take foothold without acquiescing to centralization. Everyone can play a huge historical part right now in learning and educating those around you on what blockchain is and how crucial it is to understand it so that we are not EVER forced by poorly debated or misunderstood support for legislation into: 1. giving away our keys, and 2. not defending democracy on a bi-partisan level when it comes to the issue of our constitutional right to property.”
Piper winked to Jinx who set down a sugar donut and winked back.
“Everyone has been invited here today to begin their web3 journey so that we can begin ensuring fair and safe adoption of blockchain in governance using democracy..and make America Safe Again! Since there has been very little organized and/or media covered debate, this starts at the community level and we must insist on transparency at the city, state, and national level as a democracy. So, Lets’ begin...
Let’s start with answering the question:
What do you know about blockchain?”
Series Mission:
The purpose of this light-hearted creative nonfiction articles on crypto are to attempt to elucidate the real and present importance of all United States citizens, especially democrats, to seriously consider the reality that the most powerful innovation in history should not be dominated by Conservatives, so please adopt so we can make America Safe Again.
all graphics by r31nv3nty0ur$3lf
PART 1
ARCANE SEASON 2
Piltover and Zaun: The Aftermath in HD
A (MOSTLY) SPOILER-FREE REVIEW BY AJ ADLER
I love the show “Arcane.” I was so excited when they announced the second season. However, years passed, and I may have forgotten to check up on it. I missed a ton that break. Then a leak happened that I did not expect!! I didn’t even know it was coming out this year! Despite how behind I have been, I caught up just in the nick of time to review it for you wonderful readers. And, boy, does it not disappoint.
First of all, disclaimer: As of writing this, only the first three episodes have been released since it seems to follow a similar three-arc structure as the last season. As of reading this, I think the entire season has been out, so don’t laugh if I say something absurd. I’m doing my best here.
I was genuinely surprised the show started right after the previous season. I thought there was going to be another time skip, and everything would be completely different. I like the choice they made, though. It continues the momentum from the end of the first season and is a visceral example of how things can change so quickly. The first episode only spans a few days, and already, the characters seem more worn and cynical from dealing with the aftermath of the last season, which is honestly kind of impressive. And the hits just keep on coming.
Instead of a release of tension, the aftermath continues to escalate both in action and emotion. It highlights how the end of the first season was really just the beginning of something much larger.
There were a couple of stand-out moments of storytelling for me. There are several points in both the recap and the episodes where the chronology has been spliced together to build tension in a truly masterful way. (I love the Victor and Jace scene at the beginning. It was almost haunting to me.) The timeline, in general, is a bit hard to pin down. Like in the first season, the scenes cut between Piltover and Zaun. However, there’s very little character crossover between the settings in these episodes, so it’s difficult to place what happened when. I think this is deliberate, as it obscures the motivations of some of the characters. It’s not always clear what the characters are reacting to, especially in the scenes set in Zaun. It was a little confusing, but the overall storyline was no more difficult to follow than in the first season. That is to say, crazy complicated, but in a way that ties everything together instead of leaving hanging threads.
Of course, I would be remiss not to talk about the art. The artists of this season decided that they really enjoy lowering the frames-per-second1 in the background with
photo courtesy of tmdb
important characters moving through them at higher frames-per-second. They did this twice. First with Vi and Caitlyn in a black and white sketch background to frame emotion. Next with Jinx to show what happened in Zaun after the end of last season. Both scenes were very cool, though they seemed a bit out of place.
These changes in art styles highlighted something to me. In certain ways, the artists are very limited in what they can do. (Hides behind the couch as rotten fruit gets thrown my way.) Don’t get me wrong. I love the style and visuals. However, there’s so much attention to detail in both the scenery and characters that there’s no room for exaggeration to display emotion or for backgrounds to fade away and focus on a character moment. No blush lines. No flower backgrounds. Jinx’s POV is the only real time that the viewer isn’t sure that what is happening is what’s happening. That’s why the two scenes struck me as odd. Even though one of them was Jinx’s POV, it wasn’t in her style, so I was confused if she had a new style or if something else was going on. The overall design choice, while done exceptionally well, seems really restrictive and monstrously difficult. It’s almost a shame because it ignores a lot of things that set cartoons and anime apart from live-action, that they can change focus and highlight emotions easily that even trained actors struggle with conveying.
photo courtesy of tmdb
1Frames-per-second, also known as fps, is how many still images, otherwise known as frames, are in a second of the episode, movie, etc. Changing this changes how smooth movement looks in animated videos.
Uhhhh… I didn’t mean for this to turn into an art critique, especially since I like the art of the show. Just so you don’t think I hate the show, I’m gonna leave some final notes. TL;DR, the show builds on themes of the first season and maintains its moral and emotional complexity. The pacing increases the tension in a way that has me on the edge of my seat. The artwork continues to be beautiful. I can’t wait for what happens next!
VOTER RANKING
A Survey of the Rank-Choice Voting (RCV)
BY RIN KANE
It will take a while to truly see the effects of electing twelve city councilors in Portland, and equally long to assess the new mayor, Keith Wilson, and his approach to the city. However, we can directly see the effect ranked-choice voting has had on the electoral process in Portland and extrapolate what it could mean for the state and country at large. In my opinion, ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a brilliant way to rid ourselves of the almost unbridgeable divides in the country and state and find a way out of the two-party system.
For anyone unfamiliar with ranked-choice voting, it’s a system in which voters can rank, in order of preference, the multiple candidates they’re interested in. It’s also the fastest-growing election reform in this country, according to Deb Otis’ 2022 article “Ranked-Choice Voting Results in More Democratic Outcomes.” Indeed, in 2022, ten million voters used RCV across 53 cities and counties in Maine and Alaska. Now, in 2024, RCV was used in 60 jurisdictions across 24 states. This system of voting shifts the public away from the binary win-or-lose political system we currently suffer under, and allows for the opportunity to have a greater number of people and concerns represented in office.
This was made clearer than ever to me when I discovered that my parents and I—who couldn’t be more different politically—both ranked Keith Wilson in our mayoral ballots. It was in different orders of preference, but even still the fact that we now have a mayor that both of us could see some value in, rather than their first pick, Gonzalez, (who I didn’t rank at all) or mine, Rubio, (who they didn’t rank ) is personal testament to the effectiveness of RCV. Had the election primarily come down to those two candidates, one of us would have been heavily disappointed.
The current voting system fosters a “winner-takes-all” mentality, which only serves to drive wedges between political parties and among people who feel as though either all or none of their concerns will be addressed by whatever candidate makes it into office. An obvious example of traditional voting gone awry was the
outcome of the 2016 presidential election. To me, a democracy is not a democracy when the majority is ignored in favor of an outdated and corrupt system built on slavery and voter suppression. This has happened a handful of times in US history, with another notable one being the 2000 election. Both elections resulted in massive, possibly seismic shifts in our country that some could argue we have not recovered from.
In his 2023 article, “Ranked choice is ‘the hot reform’ in democracy. Here’s what you should know about it”, Miles Parks asserts that “80% or more of Americans are concerned or feel there’s a threat to the U.S. democratic system.” RCV is a direct response to this concern, providing an incentive for politicians to appeal to broader voter bases since they now need more than simple plurality to win. Less extreme candidates mean less extreme policymaking means a happier, more democratic country. Parks also points out that RCV allows voters “to voice their true preferences, as opposed to settling.” Many, many people on the left feel that the last three elections have been run based on the lesser of two evils, rather than on a candidate they can wholeheartedly throw their support behind. Although I think the left tends to make the perfect the enemy of the good, I haven’t been thrilled by any of the candidates the DNC puts forth either and am frustrated with the corruption in the political system. RCV allows voters to support their preferred candidates without the fear that voting Green, Independent, Libertarian, etc., is essentially throwing away a vote and helping the opposing party win.
Further, according to Deb Otis’ article, RCV boosts voter turnout by eliminating the need for a run-off election, where voter turnout “typically declines by about 40%.” Thus more people’s votes and voices are taken into account initially, allowing for a more democratic princess from the get-go. Otis also quotes data that shows, “more women and candidates of color run in RCV elections compared to traditional ‘one choice’ elections.” Campaigns become more inclusive, diverse, and representative of greater swaths of the population.
This is not to say there aren’t valid criticisms of this system. Speaking anecdotally from conversations with friends and family, some have said that having so many choices could deter people from voting and that it’s confusing and time-consuming to sift through all those options on the ballot. This is a fair criticism; it took me close to three hours to research everyone in my district to make sure I was ranking the people I felt strongly about and not everyone has that time to spare. The percentages can get confusing, although I found this video circulated by The Oregonian which helpfully breaks down the process. Even in light of those difficulties, voters who use RCV have been repeatedly shown to strongly support it. A 2021 CBS News article, “Poll Finds New Yorkers ‘Overwhelmingly Support Ranked Choice Voting,” shows that more than 75% of those voters want to use ranked-choice voting again and 83% said the ballot was easy to fill out. A survey taken in 2004 after San Francisco first implemented RCV found that 86% of voters felt that the system was understandable, and, “a majority of respondents said they preferred it to the former system,” according to Adam Shanks’ 2024 article “How ranked-choice voting has played out in The City.” That’s a very old poll, but Shanks addresses this, writing, “San Francisco Department of Elections Director John Arntz said that while a study of voters’ confidence in the system in San Francisco has not been done in many years, The City has not seen any indication — such as an increase in ‘overvotes’ or abnormally high number of exhausted ballots — that voters have become increasingly baffled by ranked-choice voting.” Shanks goes on to cite a 2022 poll in Alaska, where “85% of voters reported finding ranked-choice voting to be ‘simple.’” Parks’ article addressed RCV in Alaska, saying, “Last year…the system worked. Voters there approved a move to a ranked-choice voting system in 2020, and the state used it in 2022 for its statewide races.” He quotes Deb Otis as saying, “’While similar Republicans — Republicans who maybe bucked their party or appeared bipartisan or moderate like Liz Cheney — were getting knocked out in primaries…[Alaska voters] also elected Mary Peltola to the House, who is considered one of the
most moderate Democrats in the House in a race that included a couple of real hardliners who would not be considered moderate by any definition.’”
I—like many others—am desperate for a shift away from our broken two-party system. I should not have had to choose between Trump and Biden in 2020; I should not have had to choose between a centrist America and a regressive one in this most recent election. I’m disappointed that Measure 117 was shot down since ranked-choice voting is truly the first meaningful step this country has taken away from the two-party system and toward a more genuine form of democracy, where there aren’t winners and losers, where the actual majority is represented, and where diversity of beliefs is more important than ideological dogmatism.
I encourage everyone to research further into the myriad resources available online about ranked-choice voting. Urge policymakers to consider implementing it to improve electoral representation and reduce the devastating polarization that wracks this country. Ranked-choice voting truly represents a step forward for democracy, which, in my opinion, is why attempts at large-scale voter reform have failed. It’s also why the Electoral College is still in full swing and has been largely unaddressed by policy-makers. In my opinion, both the DNC and GOP are worried by this movement, with good reason. (Republicans seem particularly threatened by it; they have led bans of RCV in Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Florida, more recently adding Kentucky, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to that list since April 2024.) With so much power concentrated among a few small groups and diverted away from citizens, this might be our only chance at meaningful change in America. So, consider this article next time RCV comes around on the ballot at a state level, and let’s show the people in power that power is truly in the hands of the people.
photo courtesy of adobe stock
A Conversation with Haven Wheelock
Decriminalization has been repealed. What comes next?
by Steven Marquess
In April this year, Oregon state legislators voted to repeal a portion of Measure 110 which decriminalized small possession of controlled substances. The changes took effect September 1st. I sat down with Haven Wheelock, a chief petitioner for Measure 110 and Harm Reduction Manager with Portland nonprofit Outside In, to discuss how global and national events contributed to and challenged her efforts and to ask her what challenges exist in the future and present for Oregon drug policy.
Me: Now that the decriminalization has been repealed, what do you expect to do next? Do you expect to be writing new legislation? And , what does Oregon need in this realm? It seems like the whole landscape has changed since 2020.
Haven: Those are big questions, right? Will I continue to fight for same drug policy that continues to move our state to a health-based approach to substance use? Always. I will keep pushing in that direction forever, because that’s the right thing to do for the people I am in service to. Do I think that is going to happen soon? Probably not. Right?
I think that our state took a big step back by
decriminalizing drugs. I think there was a lot of political pressure, a lot of fear, a lot of conflation of decriminalization with more societal issues that we’re experiencing here in Portland, and decriminalization got blamed and scapegoated for things like the housing crisis and the slow recovery from the pandemic. People wanted the easy, new thing to be the reason things are hard so that it could just go back to the way it was. People forget that it was bad before we decriminalized drugs, right? We were in an overdose crisis before decriminalization. We were in a housing crisis before decriminalization. It’s not like, magically, decriminalization happened and we were in a brand new crisis. I think because of that reactionary push, there was a lot of pressure for the legislature to recriminalize drugs. And I find it hard to think that there is going to be much political will to push progressive drug policy in Oregon for a while. Also, everything considered, if we would have left it to the legislature to decriminalize drugs rather than as a voter initiative, it wouldn’t have happened.
That said, I also don’t think decriminalization would have happened without the racial justice protests. I think that was really the first time a lot of white people, in particular, really evaluated the role of the criminal legal system and the war on drugs on the communities of color. And
photo courtesy of unsplash
unfortunately, because people are gross, some of that like thinking has reverted back to same old, status quo kind of thinking.
So, you know, I, while I remain hopeful and acknowledge that we’re playing a long game, not a short game with drug policy. I think it’s going to be a while before we see lawmakers be brave enough to try again for something like decriminalization.
Me: So would you say your focus is the work that you do with Outside In, or do you have-
Haven: Oh, no, I’m always scheming something. Yeah. I’m always scheming something, right?
But I’m also really realistic about moving policy and doing policy work. Being strategic about it is important. Reading the room, gauging interest, and judging what’s possible. I just don’t see people in a space where they’re willing to be brave and push back at this point in a way that- Just looking at how the vote went in the legislature, and the number of policymakers who I know and believe are brave and are savvy and are kind and progressive who voted to re-criminalize drugs. I find it really hard to think that in the next two or three years, they’re going to be in a place to try and do something different, right? And with what happened in the election on Tuesday, I think it’s going to be a hard four years to try and move progressive drug policy in the U.S.
Me: Timing seems to have played like a huge role, like you said, in like blaming one 110 for a lot of problems that were happening. I’m curious, at what were you committed – like, this is on the ballot? Would you have preferred to change the timing?
Haven: So, we started working on this early in 2019, pulling together coalitions, pulling together people, trying to see if it was even feasible, right? We got a bunch of us in a room talking about like, ‘What are the options?’ ‘Is Oregon the right place to do a decriminalization push?’ It was decided that we were.
So, we started figuring out what it would look like in 2020. We formally launched our campaign and started collecting signatures February 29th of 2020. That was also the same day as the first recorded case of COVID in Oregon. At that time, we knew that there was a respiratory pandemic that we were paying attention – that the nation should have been paying more attention to – but we held an event with about 250 people at it on February 29th to formally launch this campaign and then stay-athome orders went into effect the 14th of March.
We were collecting signatures, trying to collect signatures, trying to figure out how to collect signatures.
Me: How does it look during a pandemic? Were physical signatures required?
Haven: Yeah, you have to have signed signatures to submit to the Secretary of State. We did a lot of mail in forms. I’ll never forget the first day I showed up at my house and, like, signature forms started coming in the mail for me. I spent months with a signature form hung on the door of my house and doing social media like, ‘come to my house, sign the petition, it’s on my door, don’t knock, I’m not coming out.’
Those kind of things… it was pretty wild and pretty different than how campaigns historically would have been run and how we would have done that work. But would I change the timing? No, I wouldn’t.
In addition to like politically timed, like, putting people in cages isn’t working, hasn’t been working, won’t work in the future. And the harms that are happening to people in their lives because of criminalization, we knew had to try. I mean, working in harm reduction and overdose, people I care about are fucking dying.
And like I still believe that the work is so important that like, like I was going to keep pushing and we’ll continue to keep pushing, like indefinitely. Going to jail is not healthy for anyone and it definitely doesn’t end addiction. The idea of being like, ‘oh, we’ll put it off for another two years or another four years… Is that what happens? Absolutely. I’ve been talking about getting legislation for overdose prevention sites since 2016 and they keep pushing me back and what I hear back is, ‘oh, we’ll do it in two years.’ And okay, fine. As long as you acknowledge hundreds of people are going to die between now and then that might not have had to die.
photo courtesy of adobe stock
Me: What is the role of fentanyl in what has happened over the last few years?
Haven: Okay, so there’s a couple things to keep in mind with fentanyl, right? And the reason overdose deaths went up on the West Coast – not just in Oregon, the West Coast in total – was that, before 2020, we didn’t have a lot of fentanyl here. We did not see a lot of fentanyl on the West Coast until 2020, 2021. Which also coincides with all the mess that was 2020 and 2021.
There was just so there was so much turning in the world. So, I worked with some researchers from all over the country looking at how we do good research on decriminalization. How do we evaluate if it’s working? What metrics are important to be monitoring what’s not working? We did focus groups with drug users to see what their metrics were. We really put a lot of work into thinking about it and like, we also were thinking about, ‘what are the confounding factors that would make our data less reliable?’ At that time, the increase in fentanyl wasn’t as obvious yet. Instead, we were talking about the role of like detoxes shutting down in 2020 and limited capacity for folks to access treatment, the number of like support meetings that, anyone who was relying on like a 12 step community. The number of people I saw resuming use in 2020 was like, terrifying for me, to be honest, because people are home and they’re bored and they’re out of work. And all of that intermixes and makes measurement harder.
Fentanyl has been a game changer in how we do our work, how we do, like, it is, it is a different thing. A different beast. You know, because it’s true, but the reality is it’s just messy. And, watching like how drugs are used, how it’s impacting the community, I don’t think we could have foreseen that because it does look so much different on the west coast than it did on the east coast.
Me: I’m interested what models, if any, you were looking at when you were designing this bill. I know they’ve tried similar laws in Vancouver. And I think at the time I was reading about that, it looked like Vancouver was working. I think I’ve heard that Vancouver has not worked as well since then…
Haven: I think it depends on how you define working. Right? Like and I think that’s something that I like push back on. The question is, like, working for who? Working for what metric? Right? For me, the goal was always to keep people out of jail, right? Measure 110 worked well for that. Decriminalization was effective in keeping people out of jail, which was important. Are we reducing the number of people who are being incarcerated? That was my priority. And it worked great for that. It did that. Like, no one can argue that it didn’t.
Me: Yeah. Well, I wonder, with the pandemic confounding any data, you don’t have any of the normal baselines.
Haven: This is something we talked about. Enforcement completely changed in 2020 and 2021. We do actually have incarceration data that shows like pandemic drop in incarcerations, right? And then another drop after decriminalization. So, we actually do have some of that data.
Now, how much of that is related to the work stoppage by law enforcement?
Me: So, when you say work stoppage, is this a formal thing in any sense?
Haven: No, it’s just the appearance that law enforcement was less interested in enforcing some types of laws. I mean, they could have always been busting dealers. They could have always been busting people with large amounts of drugs and they really didn’t. They could have interrupted public use in ways that they chose not to.
Me: So, you said they could have interrupted public use. My conception was that public use would have still been illegal, but law enforcement seemed to be looking the other way.
Haven: It’s messier than that because technically, while public use of alcoholic and cannabis have their own specific laws, when we decriminalized drugs, we did take away some mobility for law enforcement to interrupt public use. Before decriminalization, they
photo courtesy of adobe stock
were going to charge you with possession if you were found using in public. When we lost that, there wasn’t a designated crime for public use the way that there is for alcohol and cannabis. So, like they’re not wrong that it’s like messier.
But, I also don’t believe were things that they could have changed. Instead of going to full recriminalization, we could have like created a rule around public use and criminalized public use.
Me: So, you had a magic wand, if you could have transformed Oregon to an already working state in this sense, what would you have included? Was access to clean drugs ever on the table?
Haven: I mean, you know, because it was a citizen’s petition, you can only do a small number of things.
Me: Is that a formal thing or is that about-
Haven: No, that’s like in the statute. You can’t change more than two things in any citizen’s petition.
Me: So for you, it was the money and decriminalization.
Haven: Yup. Yup. Money and decriminalization. Like, we couldn’t even change the thresholds for how much drugs you could have and have it be decriminalized. Right? It’s like, you can have one gram of heroin, two grams of cocaine, two grams of methamphetamines, 60 hits of acid, and you can have it all be decriminalized. And I was like, can we at least use some science to figure this out?
And we weren’t allowed to change. It was like, we can move this class of crime to a different class of crime. We can reallocate the money. But we can’t add anything in addition to that. So, if I had a magic wand and could have like all of the policies I want in place… that’s a long list, right?
I think housing – everyone would have a house, right? Because then people wouldn’t have to use in public, right? I would want universal healthcare. So that everyone has access to like high quality healthcare. Part of why we chose Oregon as the state to move forward with this legislation was not only because we’re progressive, but also because we’re 49th or 50th in the nation for access to addiction services.
Me: I saw that in the legislation. Has that changed since 2020, since 110 passed? I’ve seen that a lot of money made it to the BHRNs, but-
Haven: I mean, so there’s a ton of money out there but it was really slow to get out there. It took 18 months to get the funds disbursed and we’re still trying to build up that system. I’m still hopeful that it’s going to change and
that it’s going to get better, but it hasn’t yet. That seems like maybe the slowest process of all this. It takes a long time to spend $300 million.
Me: Especially effectively.
Haven: Yeah. Exactly. And with any level of accountability. It takes time. You wouldn’t want us to spend it all in the first year because then what we do the second and third year, you know? And I think that the general public just doesn’t understand how slow building anything really is, right? It takes time to like launch new programs, to build new things. And people got frustrated quickly that it wasn’t ‘magic wand’ fixed.
Me: Do you have a favorite model?
Haven: I mean, do I look to Portugal and want to learn from them? Absolutely, right? Do I look at like the harm reduction work that happens in Vancouver? Absolutely. But I think the U.S. context, is pretty unique, right? Because one, we don’t have access to health care. Two, we have access to guns. It’s like those are two big things that are very different than most of the European models. We as a country have decided that it’s okay for people to not have access to health care, but it is okay for them to have unlimited access to guns. It makes for a different dynamic. So, I think we do have to be creative in thinking through how we do these things in ways that are different.
But at the end of the day, I believe that having a substance use disorder or an addiction is a public health issue that deserves a public health response and that the criminal legal system, while they have tried for decades to fix this problem, have proven that they can’t. And, so, it’s time to start working on different approaches that are less centered in the criminal legal system because clearly, if they could have fixed it, we wouldn’t be in this mess. They’ve had plenty of time. If their approach was going to work, it would be working better than it is right now.
Me: I want to ask, who was the coalition that you mentioned?
Haven: So, Drug Policy Alliance [DPA] was one of the big funders in the initiative. They were also really instrumental writing the legalese. We don’t know how to write like that. I can write a lot of things, not that. But also, it was local drug policy activists. It was the recovery community locally that really was the backbone, the how’s and the why’s and the where’s. It wasn’t like DPA was like, here, do this thing, y’all.
The three chief petitioners were me, my friend Anthony Johnson, who did a lot of cannabis reform work and was really instrumental in the push to legalize cannabis, and then Janie Gullickson, who runs the Mental Health and
Addiction Association of Oregon. So, it was the peer recovery community who were doing the work on the ground. We were advising on what it needed to look like and what was feasible. Contrary to some of the media, that’s like, oh, it was an ‘out-of-state’-
Me: It’s interesting to hear that this was an accusation thrown at this.
Haven: I mean it yeah, it always will be In general. I think that in order to run a campaign like is really expensive. To find the revenue to do that here would be very difficult. We needed the money. We needed the expertise. But it also was a locally grown coalition. Our ability to generate as many endorsements as we did for the campaign and as early as we did really shows the importance of this to the community.
Me: What were the risks of the transition from criminalization to deep room that you foresaw? And what were the costs? What was the effort that the general public – everybody – needed to put into this to make it work? It’s not any small thing. And, so, how could people have been prepared?
Haven: I think with the state of the world then, like it was a much bigger lift than we thought it was going to be to get this passed. Like we knew it was going to be a big deal and it was big.
We were really relying on the Oregon Health Authority to get this money out, to move this revenue, we weren’t anticipating that Oregon Health Authority would also be dealing with a respiratory pandemic and trying to figure out how to deliver vaccines equitably across the state at the same time, right? We didn’t anticipate that, any of that.
And so, if I was sitting down with somebody working to decriminalize again today, there are lessons learned, right? There are things that we tried to, writing tickets, for example, that I would never suggest as an option again. It literally just didn’t work. So, why do that? Like, tickets for possession, it didn’t work. We have plenty of data to show that, one, cops didn’t write them, two, people that got them didn’t do anything with them. So why do that?
Also, there was a high emotional cost. That push to recriminalize drugs was really ugly, right? In the beginning, there was some fierce debate in the recovery community around whether decriminalization was the right thing to do or not. I personally believe it was, other people don’t think it was. People get to believe what
photo courtesy of adobe stock
they need to believe, or want to believe, I guess.
I still have hope that we will continue to push for providing people compassion and care and grace. You know, even though we did recriminalize drugs, we’re in a better place. I think we helped educate people about what addiction is, how it is treated. Before 110 passed, a lot of folks were, like, ‘just lock up the drug users, throw away the key.’ Today, even very conservative folks that were very pro-recriminalization, that isn’t how they were talking about it anymore in the legislature. Instead, it was, like, ‘we just need to force people into treatment. I don’t believe forced treatment is the way to do the thing, but it’s better than what they were saying before 110. I do think we we’ve changed the conversation and changed the narrative a bit, which, while not the best, is better.
Me: Would you say it’s a success overall? I mean, the money piece ...
Haven: The money piece is huge. The money piece is huge, and I think it’s going to be beautiful to see what happens over the next 10 years if we continue to invest in services for people who use drugs and people who want to stop using drugs.
I think it’s complicated. And there are a lot of we-don’tknows yet.
Me: Great. Awesome. Last thing, do you have a list of books or media that you would recommend on the topic?
Haven: “Fighting for Space” is a great one. Travis Lupick. That’s about the harm reduction efforts in Vancouver. It’s pretty damn dope. “The New Jim Crow.” That’s a good one. I mean, “Chasing the Scream” is like my basic like go to. It’s wonderful. I mean, Johann Hari is a complicated person and I don’t love him as a person, but it is very good like Drugs 101.
Me: The book reads so wonderfully. And the narrative of it is just beautiful.
Haven: I have another meeting.
Me: Awesome.
Haven: I’m kicking you out.
Me: Yes, please.
Haven: If you have follow-up questions, feel free to email me.
Me: Thanks so much.
Tree Lighting Ceremony
701 SW 6th Ave, Portland, OR 97204
November 29, 2024 at 5:30 PM
EVENT CALENDAR
Celebration of the Chrysanthemum
239 NW Everett St, Portland, OR 97209
November 1-27, 2024
Franz Ferdinand
at the Crystal Ballroom
1332 W Burnside St, Portland, OR 97209
December 15, 2024, 6:30 PM
Little Shop of Horrors
1785 NE Sandy Blvd., Portland OR 97232
November30, 2024 at 7:30 PM
Zoo Lights
4001 SW Canyon Rd, Portland, Oregon 97221
November 22, 2024 - January 5, 2025 4:30pm
WHAT WE’RE ENJOYING
ariana espinoza
I’m enjoying Kizuki Ramen & Izakaya on 2nd avenue in downtown. I crave it weekly, if not daily, especially considering that $14 for the Shoyu ramen is an absolute steal. The soft boiled eggs have so much flavor and the dried seaweed is the perfect addition. If you’re reading this right now, I’m most likely at Kizuki.
will boechler
I’m currently enjoying the remake of Silent Hill 2. I only got to play it recently but the atmosphere alone is everything I wanted the remake to be and more. The music in the remake, a huge highlight of the original, also brilliantly reminisces on the same melodies as the original in a way that I loved!
rin kane
I’m currently still obsessed with Roselit Bone’s album Ofrenda even a year after its release, and am enjoying revisiting books from my childhood like The Roar and Airborn.
julie holland
Currently, I am enjoying hockey season, completed with pizza and hot chocolate. Trust me, it isn’t a weird combo. However, I am also enjoying listening to folk music while jumping on my mini trampoline in my living room. It’s good for the soul.
photo courtesy of adobe stock
photo courtesy of adobe stock
photos courtesy of ariana espinoza
photo courtesy of unsplash
WHAT WE’RE ENJOYING
darcy williams
Enjoying listening to new music to play along with my bass for learning. This week, I’m challenging myself with psychedelic funk.
steven marquess
A book I’m loving currently is Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. Fascinating, very detailed, and somehow one of my funniest recent reads.
aj adler
I bought really nice pajamas at Komoricon. I am also looking forward to the next (and last?!) three episodes of Arcane. This segment was written after my article about Arcane, when six episodes were already released.
photo courtesy of adobe stock
photo courtesy of adobe stock
photo courtesy of adobe stock
