I'm not sure how big a story this is nationally, but here in San Diego it's the biggest story in months. About 100 people were busted in a drug sting that had undercover officers posing as SDSU students to infiltrate the party culture and "eliminate" drugs from the campus. The media is portraying it as a major bust of a sophisticated ring of drug dealers, but they aren't really aware of how it really works. There is no pyramid, the dealers only exist because of the demand. On a college campus, there are certain needs, and one of the most common needs throughout the country is the use of mind-altering substances to have a good time. SDSU is no different from Tulane, Oregon or U-Penn, there are kids who do drugs and there are the ones who supply them. Most of the suppliers are actually the harder-working and more entrepeneurial kids who realize that they can support their lifestyle without having to put in much effort. The so-called "kingpin", the kid who has had his name dragged through the mud in a way where people might confuse his operation with that of Tony Montana's...is merely a kid, a frat boy who watched Scarface or Goodfellas and saw the kind of luxury and fun that can come from the profits associated with selling drugs. The bust will do nothing but hurt the economy in the long term because instead of 100 independent businessmen making money, spending it and providing a service, we will now have 100 criminals to pay for. The bust was a failure because it was initiated for the wrong reason, it was a futile method to stop drug use on campus, and it will actually increase crime and danger in the long run.
First of all, the only reason why the bust even began was because some dumb sorostitute (sorry for the term here, my sister was the president of a good sorority, but just like there are FRAT BOYS and guys who were in fraternities, there are SOROSTITUTES and girls who were in a sorority) named Shirley 'Jenny' Poliakoff snorted some coke while she was getting drunk at a party. She died because she snorted cocaine while drinking alcohol, hmm, we all learned that could happen back in health class, so that was nothing new. But for some reason, her parents were able to bully the police department and SDSU to allow this wasteful sting operation to take place. Instead of taking blame for their own failure to raise a daughter who could say "NO" (imagine how much she said "YES" to drunken frat boys offers if a rich, pretty girl like her was willing to do some blow), they tried to blame her stupidity on other students "pushing" drugs on her. Just like MADD and other stupid parents groups that try to bring back their dead child through fascist laws, the Poliakoffs have contributed to the ruin of dozens of lives, if not hundreds. Simply put, the stupidity of Jenny Poliakoff has caused 100 fellow students to have their lives ruined. Good job ho.
Anyone who thinks that drug busts like this one actually curb usage or sales of the drugs is just a fool. The only thing that happens in a bust like this is the increase in prices, which leads to higher profits, which leads to more sales again soon. Only 20 of the 100 arrests were actually for dealing, the rest were possession, meaning that out of 34,000 or so students, they nabbed 100 of the drug users (assuming only 5% of the campus uses drugs, a CONSERVATIVE estimate, that means there are still at least 1,600 more users, and I would assume at least a few dozen dealers...) and left the rest alone. So basically those kids will be gone, but what about the other users/dealers? They stay and now have less competition. Drugs have been illegal for decades, they have been doing busts for decades, where have they gotten us? NOWHERE!
Anyone who follows the Mexican drug cartels knows that when the Arrellano-Felix cartel was brought down, the DEA called it a major victory and a step in the direction of eradication of drugs and drug-related violence on the border. Instead, the Mexican frontier has become a warzone, dozens of people are being murdered each week in battles for turf, supplies, and simple kidnappings and murders for cash. If you go back in history and look at every major bust of drug kingpins, you will see years of lawlessness and rampant murder until someone else emerges as a strong leader. There was no murder involved in the SDSU case, so why was this a target of such a major operation when there are drug-related murders every day in other parts of the city/state? But even so, now that the main dealers in that group are gone, the kids will have to find new dealers because they obviously wont just stop because they lost a connection. Sending these kids to find a new dealer, whether it be one of the dishwasher's friends at work or some shady gang-banger on a street corner, is much more dangerous than allowing them to continue going to the frat house for an eight-ball. Or even worse, the 20 dealers will just be replaced by other students, causing twice as many kids to get involved in drug dealing than would have been without the bust.
The story brings attention to college campuses as drug dens, where shady dealers gain experience to take over the drug game and dominate on the streets, but that's not really how it works. First of all, they aren't pushing the drugs to people who don't want them, the drugs are selling themselves and the dealers are just smart enough to profit from the demand. My old roommate was in a fraternity at UCSD, a top-50 university where every student has a legitimate future, and his brothers had a drug selling operation that helped them live the life in college and now they all work full-time, some as scientists. A family friend helped support his medical school bills by selling weed and now he's an incredibly successful doctor who has saved many people. Even Dr. Dre started his empire on funds from drug money. Simply put, selling drugs is one of the few ways someone without any resources can make significant money. Busting the good dealers (you know, the ones who don't have hitmen on speed-dial or the ones who are getting a MASTERS DEGREE) is only hurting society. If this bust isn't a sign of how dumb our drug laws are, I don't know what is.
The next day after the SDSU Drug bust a story came out about my alma-matter involving fraternity hazing. Just based on my experience at Tulane, I knew it was the PIKEs before I even read the story. The Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity was suspended my first two or three years at Tulane due to some date rape issues, so they were obviously a group of good guys. The FRAT still recruited guys, but basically only guys who they had seen in a fight or hooking up with a hot chick. My friend Whitney and I were both recruited by this idiot in my Drama class who had picked a fight with Whitney and gotten his ass kicked. I tell this story because the guys in the frat were the type of guys who give frat boys a bad name. They always start fights, usually with strangers, and take advantage of girls any chance they get. Anyone who is in PIKE is guilty of being an asshole. Even if you weren't involved in the hazing incident, the reputation of Pike was bad enough that anyone with respect for others would simply not consider an invitation from Pike. All Pike members should be expelled from Tulane and the Pike house burned to the ground. No Pi Kappa Alpha chapter should ever be allowed on Tulane's campus ever again.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Austrailia bans the bong (and a rant on parenting)
The news came out that Austrailia has recently passed a law that will basically force all head shops to close down. They made it illegal to possess a bong, punishable by up to 2 years in jail or a fine of $50,000. If that's not rediculous enough, the woman who supported the bill (and somehow got elected to the government) couldn't even keep her own daughter off of heroin. Heroin is illegal in Austrailia, but this legislator still lost her own child to the drug because she was a bad mother. I'm saying this without any hesitation: if your child dies of a heroin overdose, then you are a bad parent. If you're a bad parent who had a child die of a drug OD, then you have no right to tell me how to live my life. It would be one thing if she had saved her child, but she didn't and is still trying to tell everyone in the country that she knows best. The most amazing thing about the death of her daughter is that she had founded the drug rehabilation center BEFORE her daughter died, so even her treatment was useless. So what was her reaction to losing a child to Heroin? The logical one of course, to make it illegal to have a bong, water-pipe or any other pot-smoking accesories. Now obviously my pro-marijuana opinions come into play here, but it's also about the same kind of reactionary thing we do here in the states. They (especially American voters) see a tragic event and say "what can we do to prevent this?" but there's no way to prevent something that already happened, and the solution is almost always something that wouldn't have prevented the tragic event in the first place. These knee-jerk reactions never solve anything and tend to be something that wouldn't prevent the original tragedy anyways.
I am against these kinds of reactions to tragic events because they never actually help. After 9-11, they made these rediculous laws saying we couldn't bring a 2" Swiss Army Knife or a pair of nail clippers on the plane, but they completely ignored the fact that the hijackers didn't take their weapons through security, or the fact that I couldn't hijack a plane with my Swiss Army Knife any more than I could with a plastic knife or a broken CD. Even professional baseball has done things like this in reaction to tragedy. Last year a base coach in the minor leagues was hit in the NECK by a foul ball and it killed him instantly right there on the field. It was an incredibly tragic event to happen to a great guy, Mike Coolbaugh, but the reaction by the league didn't make sense. The man was struck in an artery in his neck, so what was Major League Baseball's reaction? To make it mandatory for base coaches to wear a helmet! Had Mike Coolbaugh been wearing a helmet when he was killed, all it would have done is made him look protected while he lay dying in foul territory. If this same thing happens again, another man will die because his helmet wont protect him...in fact, it's more likely to kill him by hitting his neck than it is if it hits his head even without the helmet.
Not only do I find these knee-jerk reactions to be stupid, but they are usually more trouble than they are worth. In ice hockey there was a girl killed by a puck flying up from the ice in Columbus a few years back, so the NHL made the teams put up these annoying screens to protect us from the puck. Maybe it's just me, but when only one event happens in 50+ years (That's 10,000s of games) that means it's an anomaly and not something that needs to be protected against. So millions of people have to be subjected to these new rules (which in this case would have actually saved the girl) that get in the way of their experience. What ever happened to "at your own risk"? I know that when I am at a baseball game, there's a chance a ball will be hit at me and I wont be able to avoid it, but it's a risk I take for the glory and love of baseball. What happens if one day a player or umpire collapses on the field because of sunstroke, will they make it against the rules to play on sunny days? If something happens once every 50 years, just let it happen and have a tribute to that person instead of making a huge deal out of it and instituting some kind of rule that forces people to protect themselves from something that is less likely to kill them than their own driving.
So I'll get back to the parenting rant now...if your kid dies of something as a result of their own choices, YOU ARE TO BLAME, not what killed them. If your kid commits suicide because of their depression, you are to blame because you didn't step in and help them when you had a chance. If they die in a car driven by a drunk friend, it's your fault because you didn't teach them to never get in a car with a drunk driver. Simply put, if your kid dies of anything other than a freak disease like cancer or a drive-by, it's probably your fault and you should just accept that instead of going on some pointless crusade. It's people like those mothers who will make us live in a police state with everything monitored and basically everything illegal simply because they are bad mothers and didn't raise their kid up right. This all may sound heartless, but if your daughter is doing enough heroin to OD, you failed in there somewhere and it's your fault that she died.
If history has taught us anything (and it always does, but most people don't learn from it) it's that more laws does not equal more order. In fact, the more laws there are, the more anarchy spreads. People need to be free to make mistakes, if you have a kid and you raised them right, you really don't need to worry about a head shop in Sydney or the prostitution service recruiters turning them to a life of drugs and performing degrading acts for money. Just like with candy, it should be there for us to have and if we have too much, we'll pay for our mistakes with our life. Making more things illegal never makes them go away, it just makes their use more dangerous. Illegal alcohol led to dangerous moonshine being sold on the black market, illegal drugs leads to unregulated ingredients creating a dangerous mixture in the heroin purchased from a street dealer, illegal prostitution leads to un-tested girls walking the street and spreading STDs, illegal bongs leads to kids making pipes out of 20 oz bottles, glass sculptures, vases, a 2 litre bottle and a pitcher of water...etc., because there is ALWAYS a way to circumvent the rule.
I am against these kinds of reactions to tragic events because they never actually help. After 9-11, they made these rediculous laws saying we couldn't bring a 2" Swiss Army Knife or a pair of nail clippers on the plane, but they completely ignored the fact that the hijackers didn't take their weapons through security, or the fact that I couldn't hijack a plane with my Swiss Army Knife any more than I could with a plastic knife or a broken CD. Even professional baseball has done things like this in reaction to tragedy. Last year a base coach in the minor leagues was hit in the NECK by a foul ball and it killed him instantly right there on the field. It was an incredibly tragic event to happen to a great guy, Mike Coolbaugh, but the reaction by the league didn't make sense. The man was struck in an artery in his neck, so what was Major League Baseball's reaction? To make it mandatory for base coaches to wear a helmet! Had Mike Coolbaugh been wearing a helmet when he was killed, all it would have done is made him look protected while he lay dying in foul territory. If this same thing happens again, another man will die because his helmet wont protect him...in fact, it's more likely to kill him by hitting his neck than it is if it hits his head even without the helmet.
Not only do I find these knee-jerk reactions to be stupid, but they are usually more trouble than they are worth. In ice hockey there was a girl killed by a puck flying up from the ice in Columbus a few years back, so the NHL made the teams put up these annoying screens to protect us from the puck. Maybe it's just me, but when only one event happens in 50+ years (That's 10,000s of games) that means it's an anomaly and not something that needs to be protected against. So millions of people have to be subjected to these new rules (which in this case would have actually saved the girl) that get in the way of their experience. What ever happened to "at your own risk"? I know that when I am at a baseball game, there's a chance a ball will be hit at me and I wont be able to avoid it, but it's a risk I take for the glory and love of baseball. What happens if one day a player or umpire collapses on the field because of sunstroke, will they make it against the rules to play on sunny days? If something happens once every 50 years, just let it happen and have a tribute to that person instead of making a huge deal out of it and instituting some kind of rule that forces people to protect themselves from something that is less likely to kill them than their own driving.
So I'll get back to the parenting rant now...if your kid dies of something as a result of their own choices, YOU ARE TO BLAME, not what killed them. If your kid commits suicide because of their depression, you are to blame because you didn't step in and help them when you had a chance. If they die in a car driven by a drunk friend, it's your fault because you didn't teach them to never get in a car with a drunk driver. Simply put, if your kid dies of anything other than a freak disease like cancer or a drive-by, it's probably your fault and you should just accept that instead of going on some pointless crusade. It's people like those mothers who will make us live in a police state with everything monitored and basically everything illegal simply because they are bad mothers and didn't raise their kid up right. This all may sound heartless, but if your daughter is doing enough heroin to OD, you failed in there somewhere and it's your fault that she died.
If history has taught us anything (and it always does, but most people don't learn from it) it's that more laws does not equal more order. In fact, the more laws there are, the more anarchy spreads. People need to be free to make mistakes, if you have a kid and you raised them right, you really don't need to worry about a head shop in Sydney or the prostitution service recruiters turning them to a life of drugs and performing degrading acts for money. Just like with candy, it should be there for us to have and if we have too much, we'll pay for our mistakes with our life. Making more things illegal never makes them go away, it just makes their use more dangerous. Illegal alcohol led to dangerous moonshine being sold on the black market, illegal drugs leads to unregulated ingredients creating a dangerous mixture in the heroin purchased from a street dealer, illegal prostitution leads to un-tested girls walking the street and spreading STDs, illegal bongs leads to kids making pipes out of 20 oz bottles, glass sculptures, vases, a 2 litre bottle and a pitcher of water...etc., because there is ALWAYS a way to circumvent the rule.
The Ultimate BS Holiday
This article will help explain some of what I write below:
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/83/the-cost-of-showing-you-care
Now for my text:
As Americans, we are subject to a lot of marketing and advertising, but all pale in comparison to the marketing extravaganza that is Valentine's Day. I am generally not a fan of any of these Hallmark holidays, but at least with Mother's and Father's day I only really need to make a phone call, have lunch (usually paid for by the person whose day it is) or send an email. But on Valentine's day, people are expected to spend about $100 just to appease their significant other. To me, the biggest hypocrisy of it all lies in the fact that Valentine's day is supposed to be about love and affection, and ends up just being Christmas in February. I've never been a fan of any of the Hallmark holidays, but this one has always annoyed me because it can sometimes lead to the exact opposite that it's supposed to: fights, misleading feelings and disappointment. But it's worse than that. Valentine's day has to become part of the monthly budget, and in today's expensive world, that extra $100 CAN make a difference to most people my age. So I think that we should boycott Valentine's day, and for three good reasons: it's false, it's damaging to bank accounts and it's playing into the hands of major corporations.
First and foremost, Valentine's Day is supposed to be about love. But how much can you really love someone if you need your calendar to tell you the day to express it? It's an arbitrary date in February that is supposed to mean something to us, but it's original purpose was to mark the martyr of St. Valentine, not to express love for another. If you really love your partner, you will express it every day and Valentine's day shouldn't even cross your mind because you wouldn't do anything different. If you don't love your partner, Valentine's day forces you to feign feelings with someone that you only date somewhat casually. Like in the TV show "The Office", one character made the mistake of having a drunken hookup with an annoying co-worker on February 13th, and then had to deal with the Valentine problem, he takes her out and ends up getting himself into a relationship with someone he really has no feelings for. Sometimes it has the other effect; a person is expecting to be given a valentine and instead finds himself sitting alone at home without any love. Sure, sometimes it works and both people end up happy and all, but if you need a calendar to remind you when you should show your lover some love, you really don't love them.
Secondly, if you read that article above, you will already know about the damage this holiday does to bank accounts. The average person will spend $123 this year for Valentine's day and the total outlay for the US is $17,000,000,000! That money could be used for some much more useful stuff, like healthcare, education, infrastructure...anything really except for a box of chocolates with 25% being ones that nobody would buy unless they were in a variety box, or some flowers that'll die in a couple days, or spending money to hire a singing telegram, etc. Even worse is that's it's not really a day for couples to express love for one another, but for MEN to spend money on their WOMEN! The average man spends $163 while the average woman spends basically half ($84) that. Women bait men into playing into the game and wasting that money when they could be saving it for their future together. Let's do some math here: $163 put into an investment increasing at 1.5% more than inflation would make that same money worth $233 in Today's dollars in 25 years. If you put that money aside every year for 25 years, then you'd have $5,136.78 to spend at the end on a much nicer gift for the one you love (and if you really love them, you'll still be together in 25 years) like a cruise to Alaska or a week-long stay at an exclusive health spa. Get it? Valentine's day is basically a way to sacrifice a lot of future pleasure for a minor present day one.
Third, why do we have to do what Hallmark and Hershey's tells us to do? I like Valentine's day candy, but why do I have to buy it on 2-13 when it's 50% off on 2-15? We play into their hands by adhering to their signs and advertisements that say "show her you love her by getting her fat and buying her a stupid card that was written without any knowledge of who it was going to" or even worse "buy a piece of compressed coal for thousands of dollars to prove that you really love her". Are we really that weaK? Do we really have to do everything they tell us to just because there's a couple of words under the date on 2-14? NO! We do not! But, we kinda do because for every person who doesn't believe that these holidays should be celebrated, there is a significant other who does. And you do not want to be the guy who didn't get his girl anything for Valentine's day and have her get mad at you.
In conclusion, why do we celebrate this holiday? Is it to make single people feel bad? Is it to make men buy their girlfriend gifts in that long period between Christmas and her birthday (assuming she doesn't have a bday in those months...)? Is it to keep the Hallmark card company alive? Is it to stimulate the economy? Or is it simply to keep your significant other from getting mad at you for being the only significant other in your group of friends and acquaintances to not get a Valentine's gift? Honestly, it's basically the last one for most men, who generally show that they love their girlfriend/wife in their own way and not by gifts and cheesy poems. I think the fact that I still open my girlfriend's door every time we go anywhere, even if we're in a hurry, after 2.5 years is a much more significant sign of love than a $40 box of Chocolates that'll most likely go to waste. If your lover is worth loving, it is shown every day. If your father is a good father, you don't need a holiday to tell you to thank him. So what next? August doesn't really have a holiday, maybe they will come up with "Friend's Day" where you have to buy a card for every one of your friends. It sounds stupid, but so does Valentine's day to someone with a critical mind or who didn't grow up with it.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/83/the-cost-of-showing-you-care
Now for my text:
As Americans, we are subject to a lot of marketing and advertising, but all pale in comparison to the marketing extravaganza that is Valentine's Day. I am generally not a fan of any of these Hallmark holidays, but at least with Mother's and Father's day I only really need to make a phone call, have lunch (usually paid for by the person whose day it is) or send an email. But on Valentine's day, people are expected to spend about $100 just to appease their significant other. To me, the biggest hypocrisy of it all lies in the fact that Valentine's day is supposed to be about love and affection, and ends up just being Christmas in February. I've never been a fan of any of the Hallmark holidays, but this one has always annoyed me because it can sometimes lead to the exact opposite that it's supposed to: fights, misleading feelings and disappointment. But it's worse than that. Valentine's day has to become part of the monthly budget, and in today's expensive world, that extra $100 CAN make a difference to most people my age. So I think that we should boycott Valentine's day, and for three good reasons: it's false, it's damaging to bank accounts and it's playing into the hands of major corporations.
First and foremost, Valentine's Day is supposed to be about love. But how much can you really love someone if you need your calendar to tell you the day to express it? It's an arbitrary date in February that is supposed to mean something to us, but it's original purpose was to mark the martyr of St. Valentine, not to express love for another. If you really love your partner, you will express it every day and Valentine's day shouldn't even cross your mind because you wouldn't do anything different. If you don't love your partner, Valentine's day forces you to feign feelings with someone that you only date somewhat casually. Like in the TV show "The Office", one character made the mistake of having a drunken hookup with an annoying co-worker on February 13th, and then had to deal with the Valentine problem, he takes her out and ends up getting himself into a relationship with someone he really has no feelings for. Sometimes it has the other effect; a person is expecting to be given a valentine and instead finds himself sitting alone at home without any love. Sure, sometimes it works and both people end up happy and all, but if you need a calendar to remind you when you should show your lover some love, you really don't love them.
Secondly, if you read that article above, you will already know about the damage this holiday does to bank accounts. The average person will spend $123 this year for Valentine's day and the total outlay for the US is $17,000,000,000! That money could be used for some much more useful stuff, like healthcare, education, infrastructure...anything really except for a box of chocolates with 25% being ones that nobody would buy unless they were in a variety box, or some flowers that'll die in a couple days, or spending money to hire a singing telegram, etc. Even worse is that's it's not really a day for couples to express love for one another, but for MEN to spend money on their WOMEN! The average man spends $163 while the average woman spends basically half ($84) that. Women bait men into playing into the game and wasting that money when they could be saving it for their future together. Let's do some math here: $163 put into an investment increasing at 1.5% more than inflation would make that same money worth $233 in Today's dollars in 25 years. If you put that money aside every year for 25 years, then you'd have $5,136.78 to spend at the end on a much nicer gift for the one you love (and if you really love them, you'll still be together in 25 years) like a cruise to Alaska or a week-long stay at an exclusive health spa. Get it? Valentine's day is basically a way to sacrifice a lot of future pleasure for a minor present day one.
Third, why do we have to do what Hallmark and Hershey's tells us to do? I like Valentine's day candy, but why do I have to buy it on 2-13 when it's 50% off on 2-15? We play into their hands by adhering to their signs and advertisements that say "show her you love her by getting her fat and buying her a stupid card that was written without any knowledge of who it was going to" or even worse "buy a piece of compressed coal for thousands of dollars to prove that you really love her". Are we really that weaK? Do we really have to do everything they tell us to just because there's a couple of words under the date on 2-14? NO! We do not! But, we kinda do because for every person who doesn't believe that these holidays should be celebrated, there is a significant other who does. And you do not want to be the guy who didn't get his girl anything for Valentine's day and have her get mad at you.
In conclusion, why do we celebrate this holiday? Is it to make single people feel bad? Is it to make men buy their girlfriend gifts in that long period between Christmas and her birthday (assuming she doesn't have a bday in those months...)? Is it to keep the Hallmark card company alive? Is it to stimulate the economy? Or is it simply to keep your significant other from getting mad at you for being the only significant other in your group of friends and acquaintances to not get a Valentine's gift? Honestly, it's basically the last one for most men, who generally show that they love their girlfriend/wife in their own way and not by gifts and cheesy poems. I think the fact that I still open my girlfriend's door every time we go anywhere, even if we're in a hurry, after 2.5 years is a much more significant sign of love than a $40 box of Chocolates that'll most likely go to waste. If your lover is worth loving, it is shown every day. If your father is a good father, you don't need a holiday to tell you to thank him. So what next? August doesn't really have a holiday, maybe they will come up with "Friend's Day" where you have to buy a card for every one of your friends. It sounds stupid, but so does Valentine's day to someone with a critical mind or who didn't grow up with it.
The cure for financial cancer - Suggestions to The US Government during the Bail-Out Crisis
Right now the country has a case of Economic Colon Cancer, it is rotting from the inside and we're trying to cure it with ointment. The $700,000,000,000 bail out does little to cure the crisis without a fundamental change in our economic policy, of which I have seen little evidence. The past 8 years have seen the Dow Jones Industrial Average fall over 10%, or an average of over 125 points a year. Under Clinton, the DJIA went up 220+%, and increased an average of over 900 points a year! The difference is shocking, but not surprising. It sends a jolt through my system to see how the economy has contracted after such prosperity in the 1990s. So what got us into this mess? Well, poor oversight of the financial markets was one part, but out-of-control spending was the real reason for our peril. We spend on defense, spying, fighting in multiple countries and an incredibly costly war on drugs and ideals not in line with our own. So now that we're in this mess, what can be done to get us out? Simple, a change in the habits of our government would be the most important thing. To cure the crisis, the following actions must be taken: Opening trade with Cuba and all other "enemy" nations, Ending the war in Iraq and the "War on terror", and legalizing and taxing ALL drugs.
First of all, what better to facilitate economic activity than to open trade with our closest neighbor not called Canada or Mexico? For the past 50 years we have tried to force Cuba to conform to our own ideals and we have failed. Is the only reason the embargo continues is because the politicians don't want to admit their mistake? I've been to Cuba, felt safer there than in the US and saw many signs that it is a great, yet flawed, country. Castro isn't the best man in the world, but he's done a lot of great things for the country, including the improvement of education, health care and the elimination of ABJECT (homelessness) poverty. A lot of Cuba's problems are simply because of America's interference with Cuba's economy. If the embargo were to be lifted tomorrow, Castro would invest in the US and we'd invest there. Tourism in Miami would skyrocket, and the Cuban economy would flourish. Instead of having a remnant of the cold war 90 miles from our border, we'd have a Caribbean Norway, but with more beautiful women and better weather. Not only would trade help the economy, but it would help relations as well. After all, you don't want to get into a fight with someone who controls a significant portion of your economy, right? More trade means more economic activity, which means more jobs, which means a shorter depression. But it is not just about trade, economic activity between two nations creates a better motivation for positivie relations than an embargo. Cuban (and the others') leaders would be more receptive to American suggestions on how to bridge the gap between our ideals and theirs, and the enhanced wealth from the trade would give the Cuban government incentive to cooperate and compromise.
Name one major piece of the budget that has yet to accomplish anything. You guessed it, the "War on Terror". Terror is not a country, it is a tactic, a way of making yourself heard when the masses are not listening. Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on sarcasm. No matter how many sarcastic people you arrest and take out, new ones will develop in random places around the world. We could have declared war on Al-Qaeda and I would be in full support of that, but we just said that "we are going to hunt down all terrorists" like it was something that was possible. Many people we consider "Terrorists" are actually considered "Freedom Fighters" by millions of people, and that only serves to create more enemies. It has been over 7 years since 3000+ people were killed on 9-11, still we wait for the person who orchestrated the whole thing to be captured. When I left the Navy on 9-10-01 (yeah, the day before 9-11) I told my Captain that the reason I did not want to stay in the Navy was that "something is going to happen that will cause me to spend the next 10 years of my life in Iraq". I made the right decision, but many of my friends did not and are still stuck in Iraq. One thing Obama-Biden keep repeating is that we're spending $10,000,000,000 a month in Iraq when they have a $78,000,000,000 surplus. Why spend our money when they have it? Simply put, Iraq costs us so much money and brings us so little in return. Pulling out immediately would free up billions to stabilize markets and invest in new technology.
Where is one area of our economy that generates billions in economic activity without a penny paid in taxes? The black market for RX and "illegal" drugs and other "vices". If the Government came out tomorrow and said that all drugs can be purchased from a pharmacy, without a prescription, by anyone over the age of 18 and that it would be taxed at 25% if not prescribed by a doctor, the government would see billions in increased tax revenue. I do not spend any money on my health care because it is a hassle and it is not cheap. If I come home from my baseball game on Sunday and my back and shoulder are killing me (a weekly occurrence), my only legal option is Tylenol and that simply does not work. I have a high tolerance for medicine and require about 1,500 MGs (500 MGs is a typical dosage) of Vicodin just to have a minor effect. But even then, I cannot get the medicine unless I go to a doctor who is under my useless HMO insurance plan, pay $45 as a copay for him to tell me what I already know and then go to the pharmacy. Since most doctors keep very short hours (9-4, M-F), I have to take off of work. I am an adult who has been in my own body my entire life, I know it better than a doctor I have never met and know what kind of medication I need for pain. So why do I have to rely on a stranger to tell me what medicine I need? I live near Tijuana, so I can go over the border to get my medicine, but I can also find a crooked Dr. to write me prescriptions for Oxycontin or Vicodin. But what I cannot do is drive to Longs after my game, go to the counter and ask for the medicine I clearly need. So instead of going through all that trouble, I just medicate myself using illegal methods. Going through these illegal channels is not only dangerous for me (being arrested, not the danger of medicating myself), but dangerous for the economy. If I buy an ounce of pot or a bottle of pills, I may pay about $300 to my dealer. That $300 is then put into the hands of a criminal who does not pay taxes on his earnings. If all drugs were taxed at 10%, the economic windfall would be massive. But the legalization and regulation of all drugs would do more than just increase tax revenue, it would create legitimate jobs. Instead of the Mexican cartels, the drugs would be controlled by American companies who have oversight and who adhere to the laws set forth by the people. The sales of pharmaceuticals would also increase because of this plan. After all, I have not purchased a single Vicodin pill in years, but if it were sold over the counter tomorrow, I'd buy a small bottle for the house. Simply put, when something is illegal it does not vanish, it just eliminates the potential tax revenue and keeps people from being truly free. The same goes for Prostitution, legalize it and you take it out of the hands of shady pimps. Imagine if The Hilton had "staff prostitutes" on call at their hotels, think they wouldn't generate income? Prostitution is far more dangerous when illegal, simply because there is no testing or regulation and the prostitutes are in danger because they cannot go to the cops if something happens. If you take it off the black market and tax it, that can only help the economy. It's not like I couldn't find a hooker anytime, anywhere simply by using the internet. So why hurt the American economy because of some BS Puritan opinion?
So what have we learned from this? That our government is responsible for the global economic meltdown? Certainly, but the most important thing to remember is that it can be easily corrected through some minor changes in our policies and behaviours. As citizens we should realize that the low prices in the stock market represent a great opportunity to buy a lot more shares than you could in years. Instead of limiting your 401(k) contributions, you should increase them to help the economy recover. The increased contributions will put more money in the market and when it eventually rebounds you will stand to gain a lot more money. Any extra cash you have should immediately be sent directly into a stock or mutual fund (or many if you have more money). Unless you plan to retire in 2 years or less, your increased investment will pay off big in the end. The market will eventually rebound, even if it takes a decade, and anyone under 55 should not worry at all. In fact, young people should be excited because this is a chance to buy low. $50 would not have bought you much a few months ago, but today you can find some decent penny stocks (Sirius and Implant Sciences Corporation (IMX) come to mind) for $.50 or less that will clearly rebound at some point. Even if they don't, you can have 100 shares (like lottery tickets, but with a better chance to win) of Sirius for around $60 with commission, which is the same price as a PS3 game and the outside chance that it will go up. Even if it just makes it to $1.00, you've still made enough money to sell it, buy a PS3 game and have enough money left over for a pizza. Or you can just sit on your ass and watch our economy go down the drain.
First of all, what better to facilitate economic activity than to open trade with our closest neighbor not called Canada or Mexico? For the past 50 years we have tried to force Cuba to conform to our own ideals and we have failed. Is the only reason the embargo continues is because the politicians don't want to admit their mistake? I've been to Cuba, felt safer there than in the US and saw many signs that it is a great, yet flawed, country. Castro isn't the best man in the world, but he's done a lot of great things for the country, including the improvement of education, health care and the elimination of ABJECT (homelessness) poverty. A lot of Cuba's problems are simply because of America's interference with Cuba's economy. If the embargo were to be lifted tomorrow, Castro would invest in the US and we'd invest there. Tourism in Miami would skyrocket, and the Cuban economy would flourish. Instead of having a remnant of the cold war 90 miles from our border, we'd have a Caribbean Norway, but with more beautiful women and better weather. Not only would trade help the economy, but it would help relations as well. After all, you don't want to get into a fight with someone who controls a significant portion of your economy, right? More trade means more economic activity, which means more jobs, which means a shorter depression. But it is not just about trade, economic activity between two nations creates a better motivation for positivie relations than an embargo. Cuban (and the others') leaders would be more receptive to American suggestions on how to bridge the gap between our ideals and theirs, and the enhanced wealth from the trade would give the Cuban government incentive to cooperate and compromise.
Name one major piece of the budget that has yet to accomplish anything. You guessed it, the "War on Terror". Terror is not a country, it is a tactic, a way of making yourself heard when the masses are not listening. Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on sarcasm. No matter how many sarcastic people you arrest and take out, new ones will develop in random places around the world. We could have declared war on Al-Qaeda and I would be in full support of that, but we just said that "we are going to hunt down all terrorists" like it was something that was possible. Many people we consider "Terrorists" are actually considered "Freedom Fighters" by millions of people, and that only serves to create more enemies. It has been over 7 years since 3000+ people were killed on 9-11, still we wait for the person who orchestrated the whole thing to be captured. When I left the Navy on 9-10-01 (yeah, the day before 9-11) I told my Captain that the reason I did not want to stay in the Navy was that "something is going to happen that will cause me to spend the next 10 years of my life in Iraq". I made the right decision, but many of my friends did not and are still stuck in Iraq. One thing Obama-Biden keep repeating is that we're spending $10,000,000,000 a month in Iraq when they have a $78,000,000,000 surplus. Why spend our money when they have it? Simply put, Iraq costs us so much money and brings us so little in return. Pulling out immediately would free up billions to stabilize markets and invest in new technology.
Where is one area of our economy that generates billions in economic activity without a penny paid in taxes? The black market for RX and "illegal" drugs and other "vices". If the Government came out tomorrow and said that all drugs can be purchased from a pharmacy, without a prescription, by anyone over the age of 18 and that it would be taxed at 25% if not prescribed by a doctor, the government would see billions in increased tax revenue. I do not spend any money on my health care because it is a hassle and it is not cheap. If I come home from my baseball game on Sunday and my back and shoulder are killing me (a weekly occurrence), my only legal option is Tylenol and that simply does not work. I have a high tolerance for medicine and require about 1,500 MGs (500 MGs is a typical dosage) of Vicodin just to have a minor effect. But even then, I cannot get the medicine unless I go to a doctor who is under my useless HMO insurance plan, pay $45 as a copay for him to tell me what I already know and then go to the pharmacy. Since most doctors keep very short hours (9-4, M-F), I have to take off of work. I am an adult who has been in my own body my entire life, I know it better than a doctor I have never met and know what kind of medication I need for pain. So why do I have to rely on a stranger to tell me what medicine I need? I live near Tijuana, so I can go over the border to get my medicine, but I can also find a crooked Dr. to write me prescriptions for Oxycontin or Vicodin. But what I cannot do is drive to Longs after my game, go to the counter and ask for the medicine I clearly need. So instead of going through all that trouble, I just medicate myself using illegal methods. Going through these illegal channels is not only dangerous for me (being arrested, not the danger of medicating myself), but dangerous for the economy. If I buy an ounce of pot or a bottle of pills, I may pay about $300 to my dealer. That $300 is then put into the hands of a criminal who does not pay taxes on his earnings. If all drugs were taxed at 10%, the economic windfall would be massive. But the legalization and regulation of all drugs would do more than just increase tax revenue, it would create legitimate jobs. Instead of the Mexican cartels, the drugs would be controlled by American companies who have oversight and who adhere to the laws set forth by the people. The sales of pharmaceuticals would also increase because of this plan. After all, I have not purchased a single Vicodin pill in years, but if it were sold over the counter tomorrow, I'd buy a small bottle for the house. Simply put, when something is illegal it does not vanish, it just eliminates the potential tax revenue and keeps people from being truly free. The same goes for Prostitution, legalize it and you take it out of the hands of shady pimps. Imagine if The Hilton had "staff prostitutes" on call at their hotels, think they wouldn't generate income? Prostitution is far more dangerous when illegal, simply because there is no testing or regulation and the prostitutes are in danger because they cannot go to the cops if something happens. If you take it off the black market and tax it, that can only help the economy. It's not like I couldn't find a hooker anytime, anywhere simply by using the internet. So why hurt the American economy because of some BS Puritan opinion?
So what have we learned from this? That our government is responsible for the global economic meltdown? Certainly, but the most important thing to remember is that it can be easily corrected through some minor changes in our policies and behaviours. As citizens we should realize that the low prices in the stock market represent a great opportunity to buy a lot more shares than you could in years. Instead of limiting your 401(k) contributions, you should increase them to help the economy recover. The increased contributions will put more money in the market and when it eventually rebounds you will stand to gain a lot more money. Any extra cash you have should immediately be sent directly into a stock or mutual fund (or many if you have more money). Unless you plan to retire in 2 years or less, your increased investment will pay off big in the end. The market will eventually rebound, even if it takes a decade, and anyone under 55 should not worry at all. In fact, young people should be excited because this is a chance to buy low. $50 would not have bought you much a few months ago, but today you can find some decent penny stocks (Sirius and Implant Sciences Corporation (IMX) come to mind) for $.50 or less that will clearly rebound at some point. Even if they don't, you can have 100 shares (like lottery tickets, but with a better chance to win) of Sirius for around $60 with commission, which is the same price as a PS3 game and the outside chance that it will go up. Even if it just makes it to $1.00, you've still made enough money to sell it, buy a PS3 game and have enough money left over for a pizza. Or you can just sit on your ass and watch our economy go down the drain.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The myth of electability
So I am annoyed about how Americans only think about voting for someone who is "electable". What makes a candidate electable? Is it the lack of new ideas? Is it the homogenous look of a politician? How about the inability to stick to one opinion? Or maybe it's just the ability to completely avoid any answering any questions with a definitive answer. Regardless, the "electable" label means that the candidate is someone who shouldn't be elected. Romney is considered "electable", but what about him is worth electing? If actually looking at policy and experience, there is no way that Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, Clinton, Obama or Edwards would be considered front runners. Instead it would be the guys like Richardson, Paul, Kucinich, Biden, McCain or Dodd.
I am not a Republican, but I am also not a Democrat. I believe that both parties are horrible and only those who depart from the centrist (or better known as spineless) policies of the major campaigns. I used to really like Obama, but his campaign has dropped the ball by not being strong enough on change, especially in Iraq. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (The CEO) all say that they will not pull troops out from Iraq until after 2013, making the war in Iraq the longest in America's history (beating the Vietnam war) and bankrupting the nation in the process. With a war that costs $8,000+ PER PERSON, it would seem foolish to remain in Iraq, yet The CEO wont commit to ANYTHING. The war was a disaster from day one, as it was a distraction from an already pointless war: the "War on Terror", but now it has become more than just a military problem, it is affecting the global economy as a whole. If you look at the CEO, they really have no differences in policy, the only difference is whether you want a feminist, a black lawyer or a white lawyer.
I believe that electability should come from the three most important aspects of a presidential candidate: Ideas, Intellect, Experience. Looking at the Republican debates, there are really only two men who fulfill those three parameters and they are Ron Paul and John McCain. On the democratic side, it's Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd and Biden. Funny how those are the ones who are considered less electable. I can understand Biden being looked over because he puts his foot in his mouth all the time, and Richardson is just not good in front of camera, but the others are all eloquent and right on the ball. In the election, the most ideas come from fringe candidates, and Ron Paul is the only one who has been able to shift attention to himself because he dominates every debate. It doesn't matter that he only gets half the time of Romney or Guiliani, he says a lot more and doesn't spend his whole time with pre-written statements and buzzwords. Kucinich is the Democratic idea candidate. His ideas are intelligent and logical. He has always supported peace and freedom and those are the core beliefs of this country, aren't they?
Peace and Freedom, isn't that what the Quakers and Pilgrims wanted? How come we don't seem to be pushing for those ideas here in the country today? We are moving in the exact opposite direction, pushing for more war and more restrictions on personal rights. The country has become a police state, with more laws and rules keeping people from being truly free than ever before. Instead of "Communist" being the dirty word, it has become "Terrorist", and that word seems to automatically mean "Muslim" to 99.999% of Americans. The funny thing is that most terrorism in the world is home grown. Terrorist attacks happen in Muslim countries, but they also happen in Christian countries as well. England became a police state a long time ago (to an extent, it's like Vegas with the cameras, but they do have some personal freedoms too) because of WHITE CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS. The Oklahoma City bombing was done by a white Christian man from the heartland of America. Terrorism is not about religion or politics in reality, because there are billions of people who are religious or highly political, but the only ones who are terrorists are the fanatics.
So what does it all mean? Will we elect someone who has ideas and plans? Obviously not, since the top candidates on both sides are people who are clearly in politics for personal gain. Clinton had no need to become a senator, just like Guiliani has no need to be President. They both had positions of power and were both known nationwide, but when they were no longer in their position, they felt the need to grab for power and both ran for NY senate. Obviously anyone running for president has to have a certain amount of ego, but those two got into the race simply for egotistical reasons and not to spur major change. If the two of them really wanted to make a difference, they would have been able to without being in the race, but they never tried anything except being on TV. Guiliani is somehow considered a "hero" because he let his city get attacked and then spent a bunch of hours in front of TV cameras. Clinton is respected because her husband was a great president, but her time in politics shows that she is nothing more than a political gainster who will say anything as long as it helps her career. Are these really people who are qualified for the presidency? Name one idea that either has and compare it to the boldest members of each party (Kucinich, Gravel and Paul), you will find that the top candidates are truly spineless.
In the months to come, ask yourself the question: What's really important to me? If it's the constitution and individual rights, you have to vote for Ron Paul. If it's peace and freedom, you have to vote for Dennis Kucinich. If it's international respect, you have to vote for John McCain, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. Obama is his own breed, I just think he's 4 years too early and would probably make a better VP or Senate Majority Leader. But if you want to elect another George Bush, just feel free to elect Fred Thompson, Rudy Guiliani, Hilary Clinton or Mitt Romney because they are the candidates who don't belong. Just because you have a famous spouse doesn't mean that you are qualified to be president. Just because you have lots of money doesn't mean you are qualified to be president. Just because you were on TV a lot (whether as an actor like Thompson or as a headline grabber like Guiliani) doesn't mean you are at all qualified for president. If those are the things that qualify one for president, we may soon see Maria Shriver running against Bill Gates. Or Homer Simpson against Richie Rich, they're just as qualified. So before you put yourself behind a candidate, try to take the time to look at the others, you'll be surprised how much more you agree with a second tier candidate than the mainstream one. That's how I discovered Chuck Bednarik and Dennis Kucinich in '04, and how I found Paul this year. If you look too, maybe we'll be choosing the better of two greats instead of the lesser of two evils.
I am not a Republican, but I am also not a Democrat. I believe that both parties are horrible and only those who depart from the centrist (or better known as spineless) policies of the major campaigns. I used to really like Obama, but his campaign has dropped the ball by not being strong enough on change, especially in Iraq. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (The CEO) all say that they will not pull troops out from Iraq until after 2013, making the war in Iraq the longest in America's history (beating the Vietnam war) and bankrupting the nation in the process. With a war that costs $8,000+ PER PERSON, it would seem foolish to remain in Iraq, yet The CEO wont commit to ANYTHING. The war was a disaster from day one, as it was a distraction from an already pointless war: the "War on Terror", but now it has become more than just a military problem, it is affecting the global economy as a whole. If you look at the CEO, they really have no differences in policy, the only difference is whether you want a feminist, a black lawyer or a white lawyer.
I believe that electability should come from the three most important aspects of a presidential candidate: Ideas, Intellect, Experience. Looking at the Republican debates, there are really only two men who fulfill those three parameters and they are Ron Paul and John McCain. On the democratic side, it's Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd and Biden. Funny how those are the ones who are considered less electable. I can understand Biden being looked over because he puts his foot in his mouth all the time, and Richardson is just not good in front of camera, but the others are all eloquent and right on the ball. In the election, the most ideas come from fringe candidates, and Ron Paul is the only one who has been able to shift attention to himself because he dominates every debate. It doesn't matter that he only gets half the time of Romney or Guiliani, he says a lot more and doesn't spend his whole time with pre-written statements and buzzwords. Kucinich is the Democratic idea candidate. His ideas are intelligent and logical. He has always supported peace and freedom and those are the core beliefs of this country, aren't they?
Peace and Freedom, isn't that what the Quakers and Pilgrims wanted? How come we don't seem to be pushing for those ideas here in the country today? We are moving in the exact opposite direction, pushing for more war and more restrictions on personal rights. The country has become a police state, with more laws and rules keeping people from being truly free than ever before. Instead of "Communist" being the dirty word, it has become "Terrorist", and that word seems to automatically mean "Muslim" to 99.999% of Americans. The funny thing is that most terrorism in the world is home grown. Terrorist attacks happen in Muslim countries, but they also happen in Christian countries as well. England became a police state a long time ago (to an extent, it's like Vegas with the cameras, but they do have some personal freedoms too) because of WHITE CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS. The Oklahoma City bombing was done by a white Christian man from the heartland of America. Terrorism is not about religion or politics in reality, because there are billions of people who are religious or highly political, but the only ones who are terrorists are the fanatics.
So what does it all mean? Will we elect someone who has ideas and plans? Obviously not, since the top candidates on both sides are people who are clearly in politics for personal gain. Clinton had no need to become a senator, just like Guiliani has no need to be President. They both had positions of power and were both known nationwide, but when they were no longer in their position, they felt the need to grab for power and both ran for NY senate. Obviously anyone running for president has to have a certain amount of ego, but those two got into the race simply for egotistical reasons and not to spur major change. If the two of them really wanted to make a difference, they would have been able to without being in the race, but they never tried anything except being on TV. Guiliani is somehow considered a "hero" because he let his city get attacked and then spent a bunch of hours in front of TV cameras. Clinton is respected because her husband was a great president, but her time in politics shows that she is nothing more than a political gainster who will say anything as long as it helps her career. Are these really people who are qualified for the presidency? Name one idea that either has and compare it to the boldest members of each party (Kucinich, Gravel and Paul), you will find that the top candidates are truly spineless.
In the months to come, ask yourself the question: What's really important to me? If it's the constitution and individual rights, you have to vote for Ron Paul. If it's peace and freedom, you have to vote for Dennis Kucinich. If it's international respect, you have to vote for John McCain, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. Obama is his own breed, I just think he's 4 years too early and would probably make a better VP or Senate Majority Leader. But if you want to elect another George Bush, just feel free to elect Fred Thompson, Rudy Guiliani, Hilary Clinton or Mitt Romney because they are the candidates who don't belong. Just because you have a famous spouse doesn't mean that you are qualified to be president. Just because you have lots of money doesn't mean you are qualified to be president. Just because you were on TV a lot (whether as an actor like Thompson or as a headline grabber like Guiliani) doesn't mean you are at all qualified for president. If those are the things that qualify one for president, we may soon see Maria Shriver running against Bill Gates. Or Homer Simpson against Richie Rich, they're just as qualified. So before you put yourself behind a candidate, try to take the time to look at the others, you'll be surprised how much more you agree with a second tier candidate than the mainstream one. That's how I discovered Chuck Bednarik and Dennis Kucinich in '04, and how I found Paul this year. If you look too, maybe we'll be choosing the better of two greats instead of the lesser of two evils.
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Sad State of Television Today
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?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
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?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)