My girlfriend made me watch like 30 minutes of the MTV Video Music Awards last night, including the Britney embarrassment and all I wanted to do was slit my wrists! When I was younger, MTV actually played videos and helped turn me on to groups like "The Fugees", "Superdrag", "Sublime", "Nirvana" and "Blind Melon", but now all we have are glorified strippers and heavily produced crap (See "Umbrella" sung by Rhianna, but not originally produced for her, it was shown to at least 4 other singers before she recorded it) that somehow wins "Monster Single of the Year". Not only that, but any actual performance of music is always cut off for some idiot's opinion (well, except for the Britney performance, go figure). If I had a daughter, I would NEVER let her watch MTV, not just for this horrific awards show that promotes alcoholism and sluttiness (the private room parties that MTV decided would make for a good awards show), but also for shows like "The Hills" "Newport Harbor" and other vapid and shallow displays of moronic rich people. I grew up just as rich as those kids in "The Hills", and I am not some vapid moron, I'm an educated person who does not take my situation for granted. Why not have a show about the kids at the elite private school who study on Saturday night and get into Stanford because of all of their hard work?
Kids today are really dumb, and it's mainly because of the fact that their parents just simply do not even try to raise proper kids. They let them watch MTV from a young age and give them cell phones at age 11 when a parent should never need to give their kid a cell phone until they are old enough to drive. I really think that the current state of MTV (and E! Entertainment Television) should accept a lot of the blame for making Paris Hilton, Those bitches from "The Hills" (the guys are bitches too), and Britney Spears into stars. Back in 1998 when those three pop starlets all came out at the same time (Spears, Aguilera and Simpson) I said that Britney was ugly, had no talent and would be a joke in a few years. I thought that Simpson wasn't a very good singer, but she had the movie-star looks and would have some kind of a career. Aguilera was so much more talented than the others and had the looks to match her talent, yet somehow she appears to be the least hyped of the three. Is it because this generation only likes those who make them feel smart or like they can be a star too?
Maybe it's just me, but I think that those who are more famous than me should be those who are more talented than me. I accept the fact that people know who Tom Glavine is instead of me because he's a vastly superior lefthanded pitcher than I am. I don't care that Ryan Phillippe is a bigger star than I am because when I tried to make it as an actor I realized that I couldn't act! Timberlake is a bigger star because while I can sing like him, I certainly cannot dance anything like him and it's his presence that makes him a star. I am not bitter, and I am not trying to make a name for myself on Youtube and Myspace as another Pop star. I saw a preview for a new show starring that Famous Myspace slut "Tila Tequila" where she has like 16 prostitutes competing against 16 frat boys to see who gets to hook up with her. Simply disgusting crap that should only be on Cinemax, Showtime or the Spice Channel. Why do we promote these values of vapidness and shallowness when intellect and empathy are such better values?
It's not all bad today. Some channels still have decent programming: NBC is enjoying a resurgence with its fantastic shows "Heroes", "30 Rock", "My Name is Earl", "Scrubs" and "The Office", HBO lost the "Sopranos" and "Entourage" seems to be fading quickly, but still has "Real Time with Bill Maher" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm". Showtime has come on recently with the amazing "Weeds", the brilliant "Dexter" and surprisingly good "Californication" as well as "Brotherhood". "American Dad" is better than it's brother show "Family Guy" but both are still decent. One of the smartest and funniest series ever, "FUTURAMA" IS COMING BACK IN NOVEMBER!!! There are a few other good series like "Digging for the Truth" on the History Channel, "The Daily Show", "The Colbert Report" and "South Park" on Comedy Central, and a few other series that I don't really watch but still hold the same values that I find to be necessary for something to be on TV: Clever writing, a unique view at a familiar topic, good acting and at least a little promotion of some beneficial values. That is all missing from "The Hills" and other "Reality" fare.
"Reality" is an interesting word these days, because it means anything but! I was on a "reality" show on MTV a couple years back and was convinced of that. On "Room Raiders" it's supposed to be a surprise kidnapping, but I was called 30 minutes beforehand, interviewed the day before and told to clear my schedule for the next day as well. A 30 minute reality show did three days of filming and at least 4 takes of everything...not to mention the 10 scripted lines all three of us guys had to read for the camera for canned reaction shots. How real is a life where you don't have any education, any experience or intelligence and you get a cushy job at a record company or some other industry where we have kids busting their backs in school and college only to lose their job to an MTV "Real World" cast member? Or how about anything with Paris Hilton? How do kids relate to these people when they can't even get a job at The Gap? When I was 12, we watched shows that were stupid at times, but also promoted a certain idea of how a person has to function to succeed in society. This youtube, myspace star generation will not function in the corporate environment, and there certainly wont be any money for 99.9999% of them.
I say that we BOYCOTT MTV until they return to their countercultural form of the late 1980s to the early 1990s before Cobain, Bradley Nowell, 2pac and Biggie died and MTV showed off talent, hard working musicians (not 19 year old models with a CD of 12 songs they never heard before the recording studio layed track over track to cover up their inability to carry a tune) who inspired people to look outside the box. Now it's all about conformity and being cool and having no regard or care for the art. Case in point: 50 Cent said "I didn't get into this business for the music, I got into it for the Business"...IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY FOR HIM. Why have Britney open when she's obviously through? She wasn't even good when "Hit Me Baby" came out, so why after she's over the hill should America and the world still be subjected to a girl who can't dance, can't sing, can't play an instrument, can't write a song, and finally, CAN'T STICK TO A WORKOUT AND DIET?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Monday, September 10, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Police allow cannabis smoking at football (soccer) match
Here's about more proof that weed is far safer than alcohol and that allowing (and selling) it at sporting events would increase profit margins immensly while neutralizing the 1 biggest problem at sporting events: Alcohol related violence, disobedience and lewd behavior.
Police allow cannabis smoking at football match
This is a story from 2004, but since it was conveniently ignored by the American press, it bears retelling...
The Euro Soccer Tournament has a long-held international reputation for major outbreaks of violence among the fans. So police in Lisbon, Portugal decided to take a more pragmatic approach to ensure public safety at the event. The cops called a press conference, and announced that if fans showed up to the front gates drunk, they would be turned away from the game, but if the fans showed up with cannabis, not only would they not be arrested, they would not have their cannabis confiscated.
For the first time in the history of the event, there was not a single fight or arrest. Mind you, Lisbon had hundreds of arrests that night, when officers were dispatched in riot gear to quell violence in the bar districts, where people who were turned away from the gates had dispersed to watch the match. The drunks threw bottles at police, damaged property, and committed other violent assaults. But the people smoking marijuana at the event were more interested in grabbing the attention of the snack vendors than they were in throwing fists because their teams lost.
Could allowing adult marijuana use as an alternative to alcohol use at large public events actually reduce violence? Considering the precedent set in Portugal, it seems to be a question worth considering.
Funny how these stories are seldom covered in the Land of the Free, no?
Police allow cannabis smoking at football match
This is a story from 2004, but since it was conveniently ignored by the American press, it bears retelling...
The Euro Soccer Tournament has a long-held international reputation for major outbreaks of violence among the fans. So police in Lisbon, Portugal decided to take a more pragmatic approach to ensure public safety at the event. The cops called a press conference, and announced that if fans showed up to the front gates drunk, they would be turned away from the game, but if the fans showed up with cannabis, not only would they not be arrested, they would not have their cannabis confiscated.
For the first time in the history of the event, there was not a single fight or arrest. Mind you, Lisbon had hundreds of arrests that night, when officers were dispatched in riot gear to quell violence in the bar districts, where people who were turned away from the gates had dispersed to watch the match. The drunks threw bottles at police, damaged property, and committed other violent assaults. But the people smoking marijuana at the event were more interested in grabbing the attention of the snack vendors than they were in throwing fists because their teams lost.
Could allowing adult marijuana use as an alternative to alcohol use at large public events actually reduce violence? Considering the precedent set in Portugal, it seems to be a question worth considering.
Funny how these stories are seldom covered in the Land of the Free, no?
As frivolous as they come
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-imus-lawsuit&prov=ap&type=lgns
So the whole Don Imus thing was a joke to begin with. As a shock jock, it's his duty to say things that may be offensive to some because otherwise it wouldn't be "shocking". How many times has Howard Stern said something much more offensive about women? On the flip-side, how about those conservative talk-show hosts who defame homosexuals, intellectuals, secularists and liberals? Does that mean that I can sue Pat Robertson because of the insulting things he says about people with my political beliefs? This lawsuit is about as frivolous as the McDonalds hot coffee suit. After all, nappy-headed isn't exactly a racist comment, it's a hairist comment. I'M WHITE AND I HAVE NAPPY HAIR!!!!!!! Therefore, a white man like Imus can't be racist simply by saying "Nappy headed" because there are also white people who can be classified as such.
I put it one step further by saying this: By filing this lawsuit, Kia Vaughn is officially a "Nappy Headed Ho" because she does have nappy hair (no denying that) and now that she is suing for something as frivolous as an indirect comment that she took as insulting only after hearing a media backlash, she's a HO. Because by definition, a Ho is someone who takes money for something that people do for free. I've heard plenty of offensive comments about people like me and have yet to sue. I don't sue because that is the fundamental basis on which this country was built: FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION and OPINION. Maybe I should hire a lawyer and sue Fox News!
So the whole Don Imus thing was a joke to begin with. As a shock jock, it's his duty to say things that may be offensive to some because otherwise it wouldn't be "shocking". How many times has Howard Stern said something much more offensive about women? On the flip-side, how about those conservative talk-show hosts who defame homosexuals, intellectuals, secularists and liberals? Does that mean that I can sue Pat Robertson because of the insulting things he says about people with my political beliefs? This lawsuit is about as frivolous as the McDonalds hot coffee suit. After all, nappy-headed isn't exactly a racist comment, it's a hairist comment. I'M WHITE AND I HAVE NAPPY HAIR!!!!!!! Therefore, a white man like Imus can't be racist simply by saying "Nappy headed" because there are also white people who can be classified as such.
I put it one step further by saying this: By filing this lawsuit, Kia Vaughn is officially a "Nappy Headed Ho" because she does have nappy hair (no denying that) and now that she is suing for something as frivolous as an indirect comment that she took as insulting only after hearing a media backlash, she's a HO. Because by definition, a Ho is someone who takes money for something that people do for free. I've heard plenty of offensive comments about people like me and have yet to sue. I don't sue because that is the fundamental basis on which this country was built: FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION and OPINION. Maybe I should hire a lawyer and sue Fox News!
Believe the conspiracy now?
Thanks Mercury Lobar sage advice Weed and The Duponts Erowid Cannabis Vault - Article by Peter The Truth About Marijuana The debate over the legalization of Cannabis Sativa, more commonly known as marijuana, has been one of the most heated controversies ever to occur in the Inited States. Its use as a medicine has existed for thousands of years in many countries world wide and "can be documented as far back as 2700 BC in ancient Chinese writings." When someone says bhanga, ganja, kinnub, cannabis, bung, chu ts-ao, asa, dope, grass, rasta, or weed, they are talking about the same subject: marijuana. Marijuana should be legalized because the government could earn money from taxes on its sale, its value to the medical world outweighs its abuse potential, and because of its importance to the paper and clothing industries. This action should be taken despite efforts made by groups which say marijuana is a harmful drug which will increase crime rates and lead users to other more dangerous substances.
The actual story behind the legislature passed against marijuana is quite surprising. According to Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and an expert on the "hemp conspiracy," the acts bringing about the demise of hemp were part of a large conspiracy involving DuPont, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and many other influential industrial leaders such as William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon. Herer notes that the Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. According to Popular Mechanics, "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average [forest] pulp land." William Hearst owned enormous timber acreage, land best suited for conventional pulp, so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'" (ibid).
DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell). It doesn't take much to draw a connection between DuPont, Anslinger, and Mellon, and it's obvious that all of these groups, including Hearst, had strong motivation to prevent the growth of the hemp industry.
The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't go bankrupt. In fact, the American Medical Association tried to argue for the medical benefits of hemp. Marijuana is actually less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, and even most over-the-counter medicines or prescriptions. According to Francis J. Young, the DEA's administrative judge, "nearly all medicines have toxicm, potentially letal affects, but marijuana is not such a substance...Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care" (DEA Docket No. 86-22, 57). It is illogical then, for marijuana to be illegal in the United States when "alcohol poisoning is a significant cause of death in this country" and "approximately 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to cigarettes annually." Dr. Roger Pertwee, SEcretary of the International Cannabis Research Society states that as a recreational drug, "Marijuana compares favourably to nicotine, alcohol, and even caffeine." Under extreme amounts of alcohol a person will experience an "inability to stand or walk without help, stupor and near unconsciousness, lack of comprehension of what is seen or heard, shock, and breathing and heartbeat may stop." Even though these effects occur only under insane amounts of alcohol consumption, (.2-.5 BAL) the fact is smoking extreme amounts of marijuana will do nothing more than put you to sleep, whereas drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will kill you.
The most profound activist for marijuana's use as a medicine is Dr. Lester Grinspoon, author of Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine. According to Grinspoon, "The only well-confirmed negative effect of marijuana is caused by the smoke, which contains three times more tars and five times more carbon monoxide than tobacco. But even the heaviest marijuana smokers rarely use as much as an average tobacco smoker. And, of course, many prefer to eat it." His book includes personal accounts of how prescribed marijuana alleviated epilepsy, weight loss of aids, nausea of chemotherapy, menstrual pains, and the severe effects of multiple sclerosis. The illness with the most documentation and harmony among doctors which marijuana has successfully treated is MS. Grinspoon believes for MS sufferers, "Cannabis is the drug of necessity." One patient of his, 51 year old Elizabeth MacRory, says "It has completely changed my life...It has helped with muscle spasms, allowed me to sleep properly, and helped control my bladder." Marijuana also proved to be effective in the treatment of glaucoma because its use lwoers pressure on the eye.
"In a recent survey at a leading teaching hospital, 'over 60 per cent of medical students were found to be marijuana users.' In the same survey, only 30 per cent admitted to smoking cigarettes" (Guardian). Brian Hilliard, editor of Police Review, says "Legalizing cannabis wouldn't do any harm to anybody. We should be concentrating on the serious business of heroin and amphetamines." "In the UK in 1991, 42,209 people were convicted of marijuana charges, clogging courts and overcrowding prisons...and almost 90 per cent of drug offences invlove cannabis...The British government spends 500 million pounds a year on "overall responses to drugs" but receives no tax revenue from the estimated 1.8 billion pound illicit drug market" (Guardian). Figures like this can be seen in the United States as well. The U.S. spends billions of dollars annually in its "war on drugs." If the government were to legalize marijuana, it could reasonably place high taxes on it because people are used to buying marijuana at inflated prices created by risks of selling illegally. It could be sold at a convenient store just like a pack of cigarettes for less than someone would pay now, but still yield a high profit because of easy growing requirements.
An entire industry could be created out of hemp based products. The oils extracted from seeds could be used for fuels and the hemp fiber, a fiber so valued for its strength that it is used to judge the quality of other fibers, could be manufactured into ropes, clothing, or paper. Most importantly, the money the government would make from taxes and the money which would be saved by not trying to prevent its use could be used for more important things, such as serious drugs or the national debt.
The recreational use of marijuana would not stimulate crime like some would argue. The crime rate in Amsterdam is lower than many major U.S. cities. Mario Lap, a key drug policy advisor in the Netherlands national government says "We've had a realistic drug policy for 30 years in the Netherlands, and we know what works. We distinguish between soft and hard drugs, between traffickers and users. We try not to make people into criminals" (Houston Chronicle). In 1989 the LAncet report states "The Dutch have shown that there is nothing inevitable about the drugs ladder in which soft drugs lead to heard drugs. The ladder does not exist in Holland because the dealers have been separated."
We can expect strong opposition from companies like DuPont and paper manufacturerss but the selfishness of these corporations should not prevent its use in our society like it did in the 1930's. Regardless of what these organizations will say about marijuana, the fact is it has the potential to become one of the most useful substances in the entire world. If we took action and our government legalized it today, we would immediately see benefits from this decision. People suffering from illnesses ranging from manic depression to multiple sclerosis would be able to experience relief, the government could make a fortune off of the taxes it could impose on its sale, and its implementation into the industrial world would create thousands of new jobs for the economy. Also, because of its role in paper making, the rain forests of South America could be saved from their current fate. No recorded deaths have ever occurred as a result of marijuana use, it is not physically addictive like alcohol or tobacco, and most doctors will agree it is safer to use.
The actual story behind the legislature passed against marijuana is quite surprising. According to Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and an expert on the "hemp conspiracy," the acts bringing about the demise of hemp were part of a large conspiracy involving DuPont, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and many other influential industrial leaders such as William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon. Herer notes that the Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. According to Popular Mechanics, "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average [forest] pulp land." William Hearst owned enormous timber acreage, land best suited for conventional pulp, so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'" (ibid).
DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell). It doesn't take much to draw a connection between DuPont, Anslinger, and Mellon, and it's obvious that all of these groups, including Hearst, had strong motivation to prevent the growth of the hemp industry.
The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't go bankrupt. In fact, the American Medical Association tried to argue for the medical benefits of hemp. Marijuana is actually less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, and even most over-the-counter medicines or prescriptions. According to Francis J. Young, the DEA's administrative judge, "nearly all medicines have toxicm, potentially letal affects, but marijuana is not such a substance...Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care" (DEA Docket No. 86-22, 57). It is illogical then, for marijuana to be illegal in the United States when "alcohol poisoning is a significant cause of death in this country" and "approximately 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to cigarettes annually." Dr. Roger Pertwee, SEcretary of the International Cannabis Research Society states that as a recreational drug, "Marijuana compares favourably to nicotine, alcohol, and even caffeine." Under extreme amounts of alcohol a person will experience an "inability to stand or walk without help, stupor and near unconsciousness, lack of comprehension of what is seen or heard, shock, and breathing and heartbeat may stop." Even though these effects occur only under insane amounts of alcohol consumption, (.2-.5 BAL) the fact is smoking extreme amounts of marijuana will do nothing more than put you to sleep, whereas drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will kill you.
The most profound activist for marijuana's use as a medicine is Dr. Lester Grinspoon, author of Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine. According to Grinspoon, "The only well-confirmed negative effect of marijuana is caused by the smoke, which contains three times more tars and five times more carbon monoxide than tobacco. But even the heaviest marijuana smokers rarely use as much as an average tobacco smoker. And, of course, many prefer to eat it." His book includes personal accounts of how prescribed marijuana alleviated epilepsy, weight loss of aids, nausea of chemotherapy, menstrual pains, and the severe effects of multiple sclerosis. The illness with the most documentation and harmony among doctors which marijuana has successfully treated is MS. Grinspoon believes for MS sufferers, "Cannabis is the drug of necessity." One patient of his, 51 year old Elizabeth MacRory, says "It has completely changed my life...It has helped with muscle spasms, allowed me to sleep properly, and helped control my bladder." Marijuana also proved to be effective in the treatment of glaucoma because its use lwoers pressure on the eye.
"In a recent survey at a leading teaching hospital, 'over 60 per cent of medical students were found to be marijuana users.' In the same survey, only 30 per cent admitted to smoking cigarettes" (Guardian). Brian Hilliard, editor of Police Review, says "Legalizing cannabis wouldn't do any harm to anybody. We should be concentrating on the serious business of heroin and amphetamines." "In the UK in 1991, 42,209 people were convicted of marijuana charges, clogging courts and overcrowding prisons...and almost 90 per cent of drug offences invlove cannabis...The British government spends 500 million pounds a year on "overall responses to drugs" but receives no tax revenue from the estimated 1.8 billion pound illicit drug market" (Guardian). Figures like this can be seen in the United States as well. The U.S. spends billions of dollars annually in its "war on drugs." If the government were to legalize marijuana, it could reasonably place high taxes on it because people are used to buying marijuana at inflated prices created by risks of selling illegally. It could be sold at a convenient store just like a pack of cigarettes for less than someone would pay now, but still yield a high profit because of easy growing requirements.
An entire industry could be created out of hemp based products. The oils extracted from seeds could be used for fuels and the hemp fiber, a fiber so valued for its strength that it is used to judge the quality of other fibers, could be manufactured into ropes, clothing, or paper. Most importantly, the money the government would make from taxes and the money which would be saved by not trying to prevent its use could be used for more important things, such as serious drugs or the national debt.
The recreational use of marijuana would not stimulate crime like some would argue. The crime rate in Amsterdam is lower than many major U.S. cities. Mario Lap, a key drug policy advisor in the Netherlands national government says "We've had a realistic drug policy for 30 years in the Netherlands, and we know what works. We distinguish between soft and hard drugs, between traffickers and users. We try not to make people into criminals" (Houston Chronicle). In 1989 the LAncet report states "The Dutch have shown that there is nothing inevitable about the drugs ladder in which soft drugs lead to heard drugs. The ladder does not exist in Holland because the dealers have been separated."
We can expect strong opposition from companies like DuPont and paper manufacturerss but the selfishness of these corporations should not prevent its use in our society like it did in the 1930's. Regardless of what these organizations will say about marijuana, the fact is it has the potential to become one of the most useful substances in the entire world. If we took action and our government legalized it today, we would immediately see benefits from this decision. People suffering from illnesses ranging from manic depression to multiple sclerosis would be able to experience relief, the government could make a fortune off of the taxes it could impose on its sale, and its implementation into the industrial world would create thousands of new jobs for the economy. Also, because of its role in paper making, the rain forests of South America could be saved from their current fate. No recorded deaths have ever occurred as a result of marijuana use, it is not physically addictive like alcohol or tobacco, and most doctors will agree it is safer to use.
How California could solve all budget problems
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 6, 2007
Contact: Clifford Schaffer, tel: 661-268-0442, e-mail: info@letuspaytaxes.com
Marijuana Dealers Offer Schwarzenegger One Billion Dollars
August 6 -- A coalition of California marijuana growers and dealers has offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger one billion dollars to solve the current state budget crisis. The group, calling itself Let Us Pay Taxes makes the offer through its web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. The offer comes at a time when the California legislature is deadlocked on a new budget and California has stopped issuing checks for vitally needed social services. Legislators are currently arguing over which programs will be cut in order to balance the budget.
"It is ridiculous that California can't pay its bills," said spokesman Clifford Schaffer. "It is a tragedy that they will cut badly needed services and programs such as medical care for the elderly and prison drug treatment when the money to fund all these programs and more is there and available. Everyone who is currently waiting for a check from the state should be enraged at this foolishness."
Regulation and taxation of marijuana could produce six billion dollars in additional tax revenue, according to economic studies linked from their web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. In addition, it could save up to ten billion dollars in enforcement costs. "That is a conservative estimate," said Schaffer. "By other estimates, the revenues could be five times that. The economists are with us all the way on this one. Marijuana prohibition is an economic disaster."
"Let's face reality," Schaffer says. "Marijuana legalization is inevitable. The situation is already beyond control in California. The state and local authorities have offered safe harbor for medical marijuana use and the Federal Government simply doesn't have the resources for effective control." More importantly, says Schaffer, the operators of the medical marijuana clubs are no longer afraid of the Federal Government. "If you talk to them, you will find that they know they are going to win this battle. They know that the DEA is vastly outnumbered and can't begin to prosecute all of them. The few that are prosecuted are accepting their fate as martyrs because they know that what they are doing is right. They are willing to sacrifice themselves to make the point that the Federal Government has just gone too far in interfering with very personal and private decisions. There is no way the DEA is going to win this battle. At this point, it is all over but the counting of the money – and the victims of the DEA."
Schaffer went on to say that the national market for marijuana has been estimated from a low of ten billion dollars per year to more than fifty billion dollars per year. "The first states to regulate and tax marijuana will receive an economic bonanza bigger than the original California Gold Rush," says Schaffer. "Some states will get rich like the Saudis." Schaffer predicts that it will not take long for some local areas to wake up to the economic possibilities. "We are talking potentially big bucks here," he said. "The Canadians are already starting to take note of a cannabis-fueled economic boom in some areas. Politicians can't resist fresh cash, especially when it is coming to their local community. There will be big winners and losers here. The winners will be the ones who recognize the foregone conclusion first."
The group also cites foreign terrorism as a reason to regulate and tax marijuana. "Drug Czar John Walters is being dishonest when he says that marijuana money goes to criminals and terrorists. The only reason any of that money goes to criminals or terrorists is because of the prohibition that Walters supports," said Schaffer. "Marijuana prohibition makes criminals rich just like alcohol prohibition did. The criminals are now so rich and powerful that they can challenge the legitimate governments of their own countries. There is no reason to send billions of dollars per year to foreign criminal gangs when patriotic Americans make the best products in the world. There is no reason to suffer such a huge foreign trade deficit when that money could be providing jobs and funding badly needed services right here in the USA."
Let Us Pay Taxes calls upon all US citizens to sign their petition at their web site http://LetUsPayTaxes.com and press the issue with their lawmakers. "Take the money, please," said Schaffer. "These people want to contribute. Now it is up to our politicians to tell us why they want to send those billions to foreign criminal gangs rather than to their own voters."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2007/aug/06/press_release_marijuana_dealers_1
Contact: Clifford Schaffer, tel: 661-268-0442, e-mail: info@letuspaytaxes.com
Marijuana Dealers Offer Schwarzenegger One Billion Dollars
August 6 -- A coalition of California marijuana growers and dealers has offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger one billion dollars to solve the current state budget crisis. The group, calling itself Let Us Pay Taxes makes the offer through its web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. The offer comes at a time when the California legislature is deadlocked on a new budget and California has stopped issuing checks for vitally needed social services. Legislators are currently arguing over which programs will be cut in order to balance the budget.
"It is ridiculous that California can't pay its bills," said spokesman Clifford Schaffer. "It is a tragedy that they will cut badly needed services and programs such as medical care for the elderly and prison drug treatment when the money to fund all these programs and more is there and available. Everyone who is currently waiting for a check from the state should be enraged at this foolishness."
Regulation and taxation of marijuana could produce six billion dollars in additional tax revenue, according to economic studies linked from their web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. In addition, it could save up to ten billion dollars in enforcement costs. "That is a conservative estimate," said Schaffer. "By other estimates, the revenues could be five times that. The economists are with us all the way on this one. Marijuana prohibition is an economic disaster."
"Let's face reality," Schaffer says. "Marijuana legalization is inevitable. The situation is already beyond control in California. The state and local authorities have offered safe harbor for medical marijuana use and the Federal Government simply doesn't have the resources for effective control." More importantly, says Schaffer, the operators of the medical marijuana clubs are no longer afraid of the Federal Government. "If you talk to them, you will find that they know they are going to win this battle. They know that the DEA is vastly outnumbered and can't begin to prosecute all of them. The few that are prosecuted are accepting their fate as martyrs because they know that what they are doing is right. They are willing to sacrifice themselves to make the point that the Federal Government has just gone too far in interfering with very personal and private decisions. There is no way the DEA is going to win this battle. At this point, it is all over but the counting of the money – and the victims of the DEA."
Schaffer went on to say that the national market for marijuana has been estimated from a low of ten billion dollars per year to more than fifty billion dollars per year. "The first states to regulate and tax marijuana will receive an economic bonanza bigger than the original California Gold Rush," says Schaffer. "Some states will get rich like the Saudis." Schaffer predicts that it will not take long for some local areas to wake up to the economic possibilities. "We are talking potentially big bucks here," he said. "The Canadians are already starting to take note of a cannabis-fueled economic boom in some areas. Politicians can't resist fresh cash, especially when it is coming to their local community. There will be big winners and losers here. The winners will be the ones who recognize the foregone conclusion first."
The group also cites foreign terrorism as a reason to regulate and tax marijuana. "Drug Czar John Walters is being dishonest when he says that marijuana money goes to criminals and terrorists. The only reason any of that money goes to criminals or terrorists is because of the prohibition that Walters supports," said Schaffer. "Marijuana prohibition makes criminals rich just like alcohol prohibition did. The criminals are now so rich and powerful that they can challenge the legitimate governments of their own countries. There is no reason to send billions of dollars per year to foreign criminal gangs when patriotic Americans make the best products in the world. There is no reason to suffer such a huge foreign trade deficit when that money could be providing jobs and funding badly needed services right here in the USA."
Let Us Pay Taxes calls upon all US citizens to sign their petition at their web site http://LetUsPayTaxes.com and press the issue with their lawmakers. "Take the money, please," said Schaffer. "These people want to contribute. Now it is up to our politicians to tell us why they want to send those billions to foreign criminal gangs rather than to their own voters."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2007/aug/06/press_release_marijuana_dealers_1
Kucinich for President and the impeachment of Dick Cheney
Below is from the wikipedia article on Dennis Kucinich, who as of the latest Zogby poll had just 2% of the support. While people are all going ga-ga over Obama (a good candidate too) and Clinton (why she's popular is beyond me), they should really be paying attention to Richardson, Paul, Kucinich and Gravel. The lesser knowns are the ones with the real ideas and are the only ones willing to make real noise. Clinton SUPPORTED the PATRIOT ACT, The Invasion of Iraq and many other controversial (and stupid) Bush policies. Paul and Kucinich have always been on the side that stands up against tyranny and lies. Just remember that at this time in the election period BILL Clinton had only 2%, Jimmy Carter was at less than 1% and same for Mike Dukakis. Be bold, don't just vote for who CNN and Yahoo covers, look at the candidates who are actually in politics for the betterment of America and not just fame like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
On April 17, 2007, Kucinich sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues saying that he planned to file impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, the vice president of the United States, without specifying the charges to be brought.[29] Kucinich planned to introduce the impeachment articles on April 24, 2007, but in light of Cheney's surprise doctor's visit to inspect a blood clot, Kucinich decided to postpone the scheduled press conference "until the vice president's condition is clarified."[30]
Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Cheney. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the United Nations charter.
During the first Democratic Presidential debate at South Carolina State University,[31] none of the other candidates' hands went up when the moderator, Brian Williams, asked if they would support Kucinich's plan to impeach Cheney. In response, Kucinich retrieved a "pocket-sized" copy of the U.S. Constitution from his coat and expressed the importance of protecting and defending Constitutional principles.[32]
This is a pocket copy of the Constitution which I carry with me, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. We've spent a lot of time talking about Iraq here tonight and America's role in the world. This country was taken into war based on lies. This country was taken into war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's role with respect to Iraq, which there wasn't one at the time we went in. I want to state that Mr. Cheney must be held accountable. He is already ginning up a cause for war against Iran. Now, we have to stand for this Constitution, we have to protect and defend this Constitution. And this vice president has violated this Constitution. So I think that while my friends on the stage may not be ready to take this stand, the American people should know that there's at least one person running for president who wants to reconnect America with its goodness, with its greatness, with its highest principles, which currently are not being reflected by those who are in the White House.
—Dennis Kucinich, [33]
As of July 16, 2007, thirteen other Congressional representatives have become co-sponsors.[34] Three of these are members of the House Judiciary Committee.
On April 17, 2007, Kucinich sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues saying that he planned to file impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, the vice president of the United States, without specifying the charges to be brought.[29] Kucinich planned to introduce the impeachment articles on April 24, 2007, but in light of Cheney's surprise doctor's visit to inspect a blood clot, Kucinich decided to postpone the scheduled press conference "until the vice president's condition is clarified."[30]
Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Cheney. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the United Nations charter.
During the first Democratic Presidential debate at South Carolina State University,[31] none of the other candidates' hands went up when the moderator, Brian Williams, asked if they would support Kucinich's plan to impeach Cheney. In response, Kucinich retrieved a "pocket-sized" copy of the U.S. Constitution from his coat and expressed the importance of protecting and defending Constitutional principles.[32]
This is a pocket copy of the Constitution which I carry with me, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. We've spent a lot of time talking about Iraq here tonight and America's role in the world. This country was taken into war based on lies. This country was taken into war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's role with respect to Iraq, which there wasn't one at the time we went in. I want to state that Mr. Cheney must be held accountable. He is already ginning up a cause for war against Iran. Now, we have to stand for this Constitution, we have to protect and defend this Constitution. And this vice president has violated this Constitution. So I think that while my friends on the stage may not be ready to take this stand, the American people should know that there's at least one person running for president who wants to reconnect America with its goodness, with its greatness, with its highest principles, which currently are not being reflected by those who are in the White House.
—Dennis Kucinich, [33]
As of July 16, 2007, thirteen other Congressional representatives have become co-sponsors.[34] Three of these are members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Kucinich for President and the impeachment of Dick Cheney
Below is from the wikipedia article on Dennis Kucinich, who as of the latest Zogby poll had just 2% of the support. While people are all going ga-ga over Obama (a good candidate too) and Clinton (why she's popular is beyond me), they should really be paying attention to Richardson, Paul, Kucinich and Gravel. The lesser knowns are the ones with the real ideas and are the only ones willing to make real noise. Clinton SUPPORTED the PATRIOT ACT, The Invasion of Iraq and many other controversial (and stupid) Bush policies. Paul and Kucinich have always been on the side that stands up against tyranny and lies. Just remember that at this time in the election period BILL Clinton had only 2%, Jimmy Carter was at less than 1% and same for Mike Dukakis. Be bold, don't just vote for who CNN and Yahoo covers, look at the candidates who are actually in politics for the betterment of America and not just fame like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
On April 17, 2007, Kucinich sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues saying that he planned to file impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, the vice president of the United States, without specifying the charges to be brought.[29] Kucinich planned to introduce the impeachment articles on April 24, 2007, but in light of Cheney's surprise doctor's visit to inspect a blood clot, Kucinich decided to postpone the scheduled press conference "until the vice president's condition is clarified."[30]
Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Cheney. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the United Nations charter.
During the first Democratic Presidential debate at South Carolina State University,[31] none of the other candidates' hands went up when the moderator, Brian Williams, asked if they would support Kucinich's plan to impeach Cheney. In response, Kucinich retrieved a "pocket-sized" copy of the U.S. Constitution from his coat and expressed the importance of protecting and defending Constitutional principles.[32]
This is a pocket copy of the Constitution which I carry with me, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. We've spent a lot of time talking about Iraq here tonight and America's role in the world. This country was taken into war based on lies. This country was taken into war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's role with respect to Iraq, which there wasn't one at the time we went in. I want to state that Mr. Cheney must be held accountable. He is already ginning up a cause for war against Iran. Now, we have to stand for this Constitution, we have to protect and defend this Constitution. And this vice president has violated this Constitution. So I think that while my friends on the stage may not be ready to take this stand, the American people should know that there's at least one person running for president who wants to reconnect America with its goodness, with its greatness, with its highest principles, which currently are not being reflected by those who are in the White House.
—Dennis Kucinich, [33]
As of July 16, 2007, thirteen other Congressional representatives have become co-sponsors.[34] Three of these are members of the House Judiciary Committee.
On April 17, 2007, Kucinich sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues saying that he planned to file impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, the vice president of the United States, without specifying the charges to be brought.[29] Kucinich planned to introduce the impeachment articles on April 24, 2007, but in light of Cheney's surprise doctor's visit to inspect a blood clot, Kucinich decided to postpone the scheduled press conference "until the vice president's condition is clarified."[30]
Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Cheney. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the United Nations charter.
During the first Democratic Presidential debate at South Carolina State University,[31] none of the other candidates' hands went up when the moderator, Brian Williams, asked if they would support Kucinich's plan to impeach Cheney. In response, Kucinich retrieved a "pocket-sized" copy of the U.S. Constitution from his coat and expressed the importance of protecting and defending Constitutional principles.[32]
This is a pocket copy of the Constitution which I carry with me, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. We've spent a lot of time talking about Iraq here tonight and America's role in the world. This country was taken into war based on lies. This country was taken into war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's role with respect to Iraq, which there wasn't one at the time we went in. I want to state that Mr. Cheney must be held accountable. He is already ginning up a cause for war against Iran. Now, we have to stand for this Constitution, we have to protect and defend this Constitution. And this vice president has violated this Constitution. So I think that while my friends on the stage may not be ready to take this stand, the American people should know that there's at least one person running for president who wants to reconnect America with its goodness, with its greatness, with its highest principles, which currently are not being reflected by those who are in the White House.
—Dennis Kucinich, [33]
As of July 16, 2007, thirteen other Congressional representatives have become co-sponsors.[34] Three of these are members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Why People in East County Shouldn't Vote
If REELECTING BUSH with 61% of the vote wasn't evidence enough, Representative Duncan Hunter, longtime rep for East and Imperial Counties (Been in office for 7 months longer than I've been alive) said in the Republican debate that to stop Iran from having nukes, we should NUKE THEM! Umm, with IDIOTS like him in office, we'll surely see a nuclear WWIII very soon. Since elections for congress are every 2 years, we should start a campaign to vote him out.
What kind of example does it set for the rest of the world when we say "You can't have nukes" and then we Nuke the people who we're telling that to? Talk about hypocrasy!
What is most amazing to me about the rural republicans is that they vote against their own self interests so much that it's a wonder that they are even able to figure out how to vote! Take this scenario: You're a poor farmer from El Centro and you fall ill with Leukemia. But unfortunately for you, there is no healthcare where you work because the owner of the farm doesn't provide it with your minimum wage employment. Since you elected a Republican in the last election, there is no health care or medicaid of any kind. But at least you can get a job at a meth lab since the war on drugs has sent most local San Diego drug manufacturing to the rural counties east of the city. That is why the rural drug culture has caught on: because prohibition makes it safer to manufacture products and broker large deals away from the big city police. So the people who can't afford health care and hate what drugs are doing to their society are voting in a way that takes away social services and pushes the black-market of drug production and sales while a 1% tax increase would take away $130 a year from a typical rural resident and in return could provide for health coverage.
What most people don't understand about taxes is that an increase in their personal tax rate contributes exponentially to services because those who can't afford the services are the ones who the taxes help. They may be losing $130 a year to taxes, but they would stand to gain 10 times that in health coverage. Instead, they elect people like Duncan Hunter or Brian Bilbray, who make it a point to take services away from poor people to support wars (not just Iraq, but Iran and anywhere else where there ISN'T a genocide...) and racist anti-immigration policies. That is why poor rural people should vote for Kucinich or Paul. Why should people in El Centro really care about Gay marriage or even abortion? It's not like there are a ton of gay people there...but yet they elect people who will focus their attention on that instead of failing schools, bad water or other problems that affect poor people.
With it feeling like there's a debate every night, it's amazing to me that people still only recognize the top 2 or 3 candidates on each side. There's Clinton, Obama and Edwards, Guiliani, Romney and McCain but there's also guys like Ron Paul, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. If people were smart, which they aren't, they would vote for the guys who don't have the big bucks behind them. But that will never happen. Cause like the great Kent Brockman (reporter on "The Simpsons") always said "When are people going to learn? Democracy doesn't Work!"
What kind of example does it set for the rest of the world when we say "You can't have nukes" and then we Nuke the people who we're telling that to? Talk about hypocrasy!
What is most amazing to me about the rural republicans is that they vote against their own self interests so much that it's a wonder that they are even able to figure out how to vote! Take this scenario: You're a poor farmer from El Centro and you fall ill with Leukemia. But unfortunately for you, there is no healthcare where you work because the owner of the farm doesn't provide it with your minimum wage employment. Since you elected a Republican in the last election, there is no health care or medicaid of any kind. But at least you can get a job at a meth lab since the war on drugs has sent most local San Diego drug manufacturing to the rural counties east of the city. That is why the rural drug culture has caught on: because prohibition makes it safer to manufacture products and broker large deals away from the big city police. So the people who can't afford health care and hate what drugs are doing to their society are voting in a way that takes away social services and pushes the black-market of drug production and sales while a 1% tax increase would take away $130 a year from a typical rural resident and in return could provide for health coverage.
What most people don't understand about taxes is that an increase in their personal tax rate contributes exponentially to services because those who can't afford the services are the ones who the taxes help. They may be losing $130 a year to taxes, but they would stand to gain 10 times that in health coverage. Instead, they elect people like Duncan Hunter or Brian Bilbray, who make it a point to take services away from poor people to support wars (not just Iraq, but Iran and anywhere else where there ISN'T a genocide...) and racist anti-immigration policies. That is why poor rural people should vote for Kucinich or Paul. Why should people in El Centro really care about Gay marriage or even abortion? It's not like there are a ton of gay people there...but yet they elect people who will focus their attention on that instead of failing schools, bad water or other problems that affect poor people.
With it feeling like there's a debate every night, it's amazing to me that people still only recognize the top 2 or 3 candidates on each side. There's Clinton, Obama and Edwards, Guiliani, Romney and McCain but there's also guys like Ron Paul, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. If people were smart, which they aren't, they would vote for the guys who don't have the big bucks behind them. But that will never happen. Cause like the great Kent Brockman (reporter on "The Simpsons") always said "When are people going to learn? Democracy doesn't Work!"
Election 2008, A preview and a wish list
Sorry if you miss my daily blogging, I'm just too busy these days...plus, my boss didn't like me writing when I should be working...With the 2008 presidential elections just around the corner (primaries come faster than most people realize) we're starting to see some possible leaders emerging from the pack. While most people assume that the Democrats will easily win (cause you'd have to be dumb to vote for anyone who supports Bush, right?), the Republican party has some strong candidates with the power to upstage or simply run over the Democratic challengers. McCain and Guiliani are the two most likely nominees, and Clinton, Edwards, Obama seem to be the democratic frontrunners. So which one will be elected, which one SHOULD be elected and who would be a better candidate? Those are the questions that plague my mind, and seem to be doing the same with the minds of TV analysts and political junkies like myself.
John Edwards will beat Hillary and Barack in the primaries...the White, Christian male will win out as usual even though TV people think that ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America is ready to elect something different from the norm. McCain and Guiliani will have a tough fight, but I think Rudy may win out. So it seems to be a Guiliani vs Edwards fight and Edwards doesn't have the bizarre relationship history of Guiliani and he is also experienced in the race for president because of his time as a VP candidate. But as we know from previous elections, someone will always come out of nowhere and shake things up like Dean did. But for now, I see that combination being two vanilla candidates that wont stand out in the big picture of American History
In case you didn't know, Guiliani was married to a woman for 14 years before having the marrage annuled because HIS WIFE WAS ACTUALLY HIS SECOND COUSIN! Then he got married and divorced and married again. Usually that kind of relationship past is too damaging to a candidate. McCain has made a lot of enemies being the centrist that he is, and will not be able to win over enough of his party even though he would definitely win over plenty of independents and even some Democrats and 3rd party people. Why wont Hillary win? She was very unpopular as a first lady even though she wielded a lot of power. She's polarizing and can be a little shady sometimes. Also, she supported the war longer than most and seems to just be jockeying for the top office by being fake. Obama is a special candidate, but his chances are slim because I know all about the racism in the South, so he wont win there, his name is different and that will hurt, he is inexperienced and has even admitted past drug use. As we all know from Kerry-Bush, the most likely candidates usually end up fitting that mold even if things look like they'll be different.
Well, if I had my way, I would have Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders fight it out. Any one of those three would be great for this nation because they are very progressive thinkers with ideas that would shake up this nation and bring us in to the new era. While the others would probably try to continue business as usual (continuing the drug war, the war on terror and other "wars" that the US government has started), those three would put an end to many of our frivilous military costs and would end the prohibition of growth and sales of drugs, instead using the tax collected to provide health care (all three believe in health care, ending the drug war, putting education ahead of military, states rights, etc.) and other things to benefit American citizens.
While Barack Obama would be a fantastic candidate and I'd be happy to see him run and win, I feel as though we're just going to see another election of two white men wearing navy blue suits with a red tie. Things don't change in Washington too often. Kucinich is my choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich#2008_Presidential_campaign His views all sound so logical and beneficial to the nation, it's hard to believe so few people will vote for him. Maybe we'll get lucky and see an Obama-Kucinich ticket, but that would probably lose to Guiliani-McCain or whoever runs for the republicans. Americans are more reluctant to change than most people, just look at the types of vehicles we drive here and then go to Europe and see theirs. We're closed minded as a nation and believe only what we've already heard, not the new stuff. It took 6 years before people realized that having a full Republican majority was a mistake, and the damage was already done to our Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito shifting the court to the right. But at least they eventually realized their mistake…maybe the same thing will happen with electing generic middle-aged white men in red ties. At least it will be fun to watch the "Daily Show" lampoon this race, it is going to be a good one.
John Edwards will beat Hillary and Barack in the primaries...the White, Christian male will win out as usual even though TV people think that ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America is ready to elect something different from the norm. McCain and Guiliani will have a tough fight, but I think Rudy may win out. So it seems to be a Guiliani vs Edwards fight and Edwards doesn't have the bizarre relationship history of Guiliani and he is also experienced in the race for president because of his time as a VP candidate. But as we know from previous elections, someone will always come out of nowhere and shake things up like Dean did. But for now, I see that combination being two vanilla candidates that wont stand out in the big picture of American History
In case you didn't know, Guiliani was married to a woman for 14 years before having the marrage annuled because HIS WIFE WAS ACTUALLY HIS SECOND COUSIN! Then he got married and divorced and married again. Usually that kind of relationship past is too damaging to a candidate. McCain has made a lot of enemies being the centrist that he is, and will not be able to win over enough of his party even though he would definitely win over plenty of independents and even some Democrats and 3rd party people. Why wont Hillary win? She was very unpopular as a first lady even though she wielded a lot of power. She's polarizing and can be a little shady sometimes. Also, she supported the war longer than most and seems to just be jockeying for the top office by being fake. Obama is a special candidate, but his chances are slim because I know all about the racism in the South, so he wont win there, his name is different and that will hurt, he is inexperienced and has even admitted past drug use. As we all know from Kerry-Bush, the most likely candidates usually end up fitting that mold even if things look like they'll be different.
Well, if I had my way, I would have Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders fight it out. Any one of those three would be great for this nation because they are very progressive thinkers with ideas that would shake up this nation and bring us in to the new era. While the others would probably try to continue business as usual (continuing the drug war, the war on terror and other "wars" that the US government has started), those three would put an end to many of our frivilous military costs and would end the prohibition of growth and sales of drugs, instead using the tax collected to provide health care (all three believe in health care, ending the drug war, putting education ahead of military, states rights, etc.) and other things to benefit American citizens.
While Barack Obama would be a fantastic candidate and I'd be happy to see him run and win, I feel as though we're just going to see another election of two white men wearing navy blue suits with a red tie. Things don't change in Washington too often. Kucinich is my choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich#2008_Presidential_campaign His views all sound so logical and beneficial to the nation, it's hard to believe so few people will vote for him. Maybe we'll get lucky and see an Obama-Kucinich ticket, but that would probably lose to Guiliani-McCain or whoever runs for the republicans. Americans are more reluctant to change than most people, just look at the types of vehicles we drive here and then go to Europe and see theirs. We're closed minded as a nation and believe only what we've already heard, not the new stuff. It took 6 years before people realized that having a full Republican majority was a mistake, and the damage was already done to our Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito shifting the court to the right. But at least they eventually realized their mistake…maybe the same thing will happen with electing generic middle-aged white men in red ties. At least it will be fun to watch the "Daily Show" lampoon this race, it is going to be a good one.
Apocalypse Now?
So this is my first blog in a long time...been very busy lately and have less time to write these things. Lately it seems like disutopian films about post-apocalyptic and apocalyptic worlds are ringing more and more true. I think about "Total Recall" and am reminded of how we as people are using electronics and video games to escape reality with increasing emphasis put on making the game feel as real as possible. I think about "Demolition Man" and see a world of paternalistic governments designed to protect people from themselves. I think about "Apocalypto" and its look at the fall of the Central American empires and am reminded by the opening line: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it destroys itself from within" and am reminded of how the United States has been gradually destroying itself since we were at our global peak. I think about "Children of Men" and see that we're quite possibly on a path towards destroying ourselves through war, pollution, disease, and the hopelessness many people face every day. Will we go down the path that Aldous Huxley or HG Wells drew out for us? Will we destroy ourselves as so many have predicted before? Will the people continue to push for harsh, controlling governments that do not act in the interest of the people? I'm not a "precog" like Isaac from the NBC show "Heroes", but I can see some visions of the future, and most of them scare me.
Total Recall takes place in a futuristic world where Mars has been colonized and people can take week long vacations (or longer) through virtual reality. This premise was repeated in an episode of the British Sci-Fi show "Red Dwarf" where the characters learn that they have just been playing a video game to escape the realities of their lives. One character became a stylish, suave and shallow catman in the simulation when he was a goofy and styleless in real life. One became a slacker in the simulation because he was the head of a fascist organization and couldn't live with the things he had done, so he became someone who did nothing. Total Recall shows the dangers of being too immersed in the game and losing touch with reality. Even Dave Chappelle commented on this in a skit on his hilarious TV show, showing how when playing Grand Theft Auto and starts to feel as if he's in the game even when done. With real-life simulators like "The Sims" or "Second Life", we may yet see a day where people never leave the comfort of their computer chair.
The Demolition Man example is becoming very prevalent these days, with cough medicines being held behind the counter and trans fats being outlawed. Instead of people being mature and strong enough to resist causing themselves harm, we ask the government to protect us. In California there is a campaign that the taxpayers are supporting called "click-it or ticket", where the cops are on patrol to fine people for not wearing seatbelts. To me this is a travesty of policy. Seatbelts should be mandatory in cars being manufactured, but people should be able to make their own choice whether or not they want to be safe without worrying about police. It ends up not really accomplishing anything except for making people waste their hard-earned money for neglecting their own safety. Shouldn't we just let natural selection work things out? If people want to continue killing themselves by smoking marlboros and eating McDonalds every day, LET THEM. As we become more and more irrational in our fears about everything we do and eat, things will only get less enjoyable. And for what? A few extra years when you're already ancient and unable to do all the things you wanted to do anyway. In fact, it's bad for our economy to promote healthy living, as Tobacco, Alcohol, Sugar and other unhealthy items have driven our economy over the years. What next, will they outlaw cars because driving makes us pollute the air, causes us to walk less and therefore become fatter?
Apocalypto was a cool movie, though historically inaccurate and more of a chase film than anything, it brought up some interesting points. Great civilizations have fallen every time they have risen in history, just as we will. And the greatest ones do not get destroyed by an outside force until they have begun to decline. Greece, Rome, Persia and many others have all gone through periods of decline and splintering amongst the people before falling apart and being overtaken by another power. Even though the world is different now and it's highly unlikely that a military force will conquer the US, but the world revolves around business and economics anyways. A steel company in India has already purchased a large company in England, completing the cycle of slave to slaveowner. We'll continue to see more and more of our interests controlled by nations from abroad (our ports have been controlled by an outside power for years, but Dubai has Muslims and THAT scared people) as we continue our collapse. The only way to stop it is to acknowledge it and to fight it.
So disutopian science fiction can serve a purpose, it gives us visions of what might happen if we let ourselves go down the wrong path. History shows us that whatever happens, someone has been there before...even if the technology and circumstances have changed. "Children of Men" just came out, and since I think EVERYONE should see this film, I wont say much about it. It takes place in a world where women have been infertile for 18 years and the people of the world have been destroying each other in a last ditch effort for prosperity and to settle old scores. All hope for the future is lost and the world is in Chaos. England remains as the only functioning nation in the world and it has made all immigrants criminals and deports and executes all who remain in the country. People think this is far-fetched to think we're on that path, but in WWII we did put Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps, meaning it's not unprecendented for us to go down that path in times of crisis. What happens when the Oil runs out or when the oceans rise? Will society break down?
Sorry for the long delay in blogs if anyone missed them. I've been really busy and have less time at work to write them.
Total Recall takes place in a futuristic world where Mars has been colonized and people can take week long vacations (or longer) through virtual reality. This premise was repeated in an episode of the British Sci-Fi show "Red Dwarf" where the characters learn that they have just been playing a video game to escape the realities of their lives. One character became a stylish, suave and shallow catman in the simulation when he was a goofy and styleless in real life. One became a slacker in the simulation because he was the head of a fascist organization and couldn't live with the things he had done, so he became someone who did nothing. Total Recall shows the dangers of being too immersed in the game and losing touch with reality. Even Dave Chappelle commented on this in a skit on his hilarious TV show, showing how when playing Grand Theft Auto and starts to feel as if he's in the game even when done. With real-life simulators like "The Sims" or "Second Life", we may yet see a day where people never leave the comfort of their computer chair.
The Demolition Man example is becoming very prevalent these days, with cough medicines being held behind the counter and trans fats being outlawed. Instead of people being mature and strong enough to resist causing themselves harm, we ask the government to protect us. In California there is a campaign that the taxpayers are supporting called "click-it or ticket", where the cops are on patrol to fine people for not wearing seatbelts. To me this is a travesty of policy. Seatbelts should be mandatory in cars being manufactured, but people should be able to make their own choice whether or not they want to be safe without worrying about police. It ends up not really accomplishing anything except for making people waste their hard-earned money for neglecting their own safety. Shouldn't we just let natural selection work things out? If people want to continue killing themselves by smoking marlboros and eating McDonalds every day, LET THEM. As we become more and more irrational in our fears about everything we do and eat, things will only get less enjoyable. And for what? A few extra years when you're already ancient and unable to do all the things you wanted to do anyway. In fact, it's bad for our economy to promote healthy living, as Tobacco, Alcohol, Sugar and other unhealthy items have driven our economy over the years. What next, will they outlaw cars because driving makes us pollute the air, causes us to walk less and therefore become fatter?
Apocalypto was a cool movie, though historically inaccurate and more of a chase film than anything, it brought up some interesting points. Great civilizations have fallen every time they have risen in history, just as we will. And the greatest ones do not get destroyed by an outside force until they have begun to decline. Greece, Rome, Persia and many others have all gone through periods of decline and splintering amongst the people before falling apart and being overtaken by another power. Even though the world is different now and it's highly unlikely that a military force will conquer the US, but the world revolves around business and economics anyways. A steel company in India has already purchased a large company in England, completing the cycle of slave to slaveowner. We'll continue to see more and more of our interests controlled by nations from abroad (our ports have been controlled by an outside power for years, but Dubai has Muslims and THAT scared people) as we continue our collapse. The only way to stop it is to acknowledge it and to fight it.
So disutopian science fiction can serve a purpose, it gives us visions of what might happen if we let ourselves go down the wrong path. History shows us that whatever happens, someone has been there before...even if the technology and circumstances have changed. "Children of Men" just came out, and since I think EVERYONE should see this film, I wont say much about it. It takes place in a world where women have been infertile for 18 years and the people of the world have been destroying each other in a last ditch effort for prosperity and to settle old scores. All hope for the future is lost and the world is in Chaos. England remains as the only functioning nation in the world and it has made all immigrants criminals and deports and executes all who remain in the country. People think this is far-fetched to think we're on that path, but in WWII we did put Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps, meaning it's not unprecendented for us to go down that path in times of crisis. What happens when the Oil runs out or when the oceans rise? Will society break down?
Sorry for the long delay in blogs if anyone missed them. I've been really busy and have less time at work to write them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)