As some of you may know I am a pot smoking, small government, agnostic. I have my lifestyle and my socio-political beliefs that I frequently debate with others. Although I defend and honour my beliefs and lifestyle I do not push my beliefs on others. Nor do I demean people who have different beliefs on others. Unfortunately, very few people think that. They have their beliefs and lifestyles and they criticize people who do not support the same things they do, therefore they look down upon the people with contrasting viewpoints. And to me, that is complete, utter bullshit.
I left the church in high school. I used to hate all religious beliefs and I used to think that believers in religion were fools. Then I met people with religious beliefs who did not push their beliefs on others and were incredibly non judgemental. I posted a status on facebook condemning homophobes who don't believe in gay rights. One of the people who commented was the mother of a very close friend who is a strong Catholic. The Catholic church is strongly against homosexuality even though their priests like to touch little boys. But this woman is not like that. She made the argument that we are all god's children and that he loves us all. That made me gleam with hope that religios people could eventually get on the side of all human rights. This woman did not condemn homosexuals as sinners, she is a very loving person who accepts that we are all different in our own ways and that individuality is not a curse, but a virtue.
You can think homsexuality is gross. Hell, I do. I don't like seeing two dudes make out and I have never had the need or want to watch two guys fucking. But I respect the right for them to engage in any sexual act they chose to partake in as long as their partner is of age and consents to the act(s). Homosexuality does not attack my liberty, nor does it cause me any harm.
People against homosexuality are primarily those who use the bible as an excuse to hate. They use homophobic scripture as the basis of their acceptable discrimination. The fact that people can't think for themselves is a tragedy. And the fact that the bible contains instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery, yet slavery is illegal is a rarely mentioned hypocrisy. Those who use their religion as an instrument of hate are fools and they should be condemned for not believing in individual rights and for not using any sane reasoning as an excuse for their hate.
Instead of using those beliefs as a defense of bigotry, homophobes should simply let homosexuals be. I don't believe that homsexuality should neccessarily be accepted en masse by everyone. You could disagree with the lifestyle, but the fact that people want to ban gays from marrying or adopting is a tyrannical practice. You should not be forced to befriend homosexuals, but you should believe they have a right to live the life they want to live granted they don't harm a soul, just like you do.
I believe religion is stupid. I beleive that the existence of god is unproovable and that the stories in the bible are stories that are right out of a fantasy novel. I think the Noah's Ark story is pure b.s. But if you disagree with me, more power to you. I simply do not care. I do not care if you go to church every sunday, decorate your house with religious artifacts, say grace before supper, and your prayers before bed. Just don't push your beliefs or look down on me. I have religious friends who are great people inside and out. Sure I would like it if they weren't religious, but I do not view their religious beliefs as an example of poor character. If I can accept their beliefs and look at them as whole people with warm souls and big hearts. Why can't homophobes and fundamentals accept that people are different form them and respect that?
The founding fathers of America may have hated religion, but America is a Christian nation as those influential Christians are predominatelty ones who want to push America into a theocracy. They view Atheists who simply want fundamental rights as a plague placed on America that has to be cured.
I recently came upon a story on Alternet.org which detaied the ten worst states in the U.S to be an Atheist. This is a country with a dark and shameful history of discrimination. American's don't like to talk about the treatment of Black people during the Jim Crow era, or the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. Yet there still is acceptable discrimination in America. The Bible is used as a valid excuse for the discrimination of gays and Atheists. And in the article on Alternet you can see clearly that Atheists are condemned, dismissed and discrminated against. Yet no one discusess that and if you mention the discrimination you are mocked.
Just look at the case of Jessica Alqhuist who simply asked for her public school to take down a religious banner that obviously is a violation of the seperation between church and state. Her fellow students said she should be "smacked around" Comments on articles in her local Rhode Island newspapers questioned her mental stability. Christians want to push their beliefs in public schools that welcome people of all faiths and religions. They want to push Christianity onto other religious people. They do not care that kids in public school aren't exclusively Christian.
I remember watching a story on CNN that showed an Atheist couple who claimed that they were victims of discrimintion. They claimed neighbours criticized their religious beliefs and shunned them. Then they introduced a panel of two Black people and a Jew. None of them were atheists. You can watch the link below in which the panel disputes the claims that Atheists are whiners that have no business complaining about anything. I remember being incredibly pissed off and now I have no respect for the opinions of fools like Debbie Schlussel and Karen Hunter. You would think a Jew and an African American woman would take calls of discrimination seriously, and not mock it. But I was wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU&feature=related
Americans claim to be the epicenter of freedom. America was attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hated " America because of our freedoms", but when you are an Atheist or gay you have minimal rights. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in the U.S. If you are an Atheist in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee or both Carolina's you are banned from running for public office. What if Mississippi banned Black people from running for public office? There would be a huge controversy.
By disrespecting the fact that others do not have your beliefs or lifestyles you are stifling freedom. If you fight for your rights, but dispute the rights of others you do not believe in freedom.
If you have a neighbour who is a gay atheist why should you care? If your son's girlfriend is pro choice, deal with it. The true fighters of freedom don't fight for the rights that fit their own lives, they fight for the rights of others who are of different lifestyles or beliefs.
I don't like hunting, religion and I think P.E.T.A is run by a bunch of loons. However I do not think hunting should be banned, I don't think churches should be destroyed and I don't think P.E.T.A should be disbanded. What makes freedom beautiful is the fact that we can say what we want, do what we want and live the lives we want. However, if you live your life the way you want yet you condemn and fight the rights of a gay person to marry or for an atheist to object to the violation of the seperation of church and state you are condoning tyranny.
You don't have to accept the gay lifestyle or the actions of an Atheist. But if you believe in freedom of speech, you should respect their rights to live with the rights we all should share.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Pictures of a Weiner is Not a Cause for Resignation
American politics is rife with sex scandals. It seems that once a month some congressman or governor screws around with someone other than his wife and is when the story is revelaed that politician holds the press conference and apologizes to everyone under the sun.
A few weeks back we heard the revelation that a decade ago Arnold Schwartzeneggar fathered a child with another woman even thought he was married to a Kennedy. Now that has forgotton because Democratic congressman and unapologetic Liberal Anthony Weiner sent a bunch of random chicks pictures of his junk in his underwear. Of all the things that a politician can do Weiner's escapades on Twitter are far from the worse things a politician could do.
If you want an example take Ted Kennedy. When he died of brain cancer President Obama called Kennedy a "great leader" and was the " greatest United States Senator of our time". Liberals love Ted Kennedy and speak of him in glowing terms neglecting to even mention that he killed a woman. 0n July 18, 1969 after leaving a party in Martha's Vineyard with Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy drove off a bridge and after a few efforts to retrieve Kopechne he got out of the lake and left the scene of the crime. Their was an investigation and an inquiry, but Kennedy never spent a day in jail even though it was revelaed that more happened than he told the cops. And this guy never resigned, never lost a re election and is a legend amongst Liberals. Kennedy served until his death 40 years after this incident and the same people who dismiss the Chappaquiddick incident are the same people who are calling for the resignation of a dude who simply sent a bunch of stupid pictures to soem ladies.
Ted Kennedy should have resigned his seat after that woman drowned and he should have went to jail. The event in Chappaquiddick is a the type of thing that should cause a resignation. Using your family name to avoid prosecution after you committed a crime that caused the death of a woman should end your career, but in Kennedy's case it did not.
Of course in a case of pure hypocrisy Republicans are calling for the head of Anthony Weiner. The head of the RNC Reince Priebus has said Weiner should resign. House Reoublican Leaders and official House contradictor Eric Cantor was asked about the Weiner controversy and said on camera, "We've got a lot of serious challenges going on in this country and a lot of work for Congress to do. The last thing we need is to be immersed in discussion about Congressman Weiner and his Twitter activities," After saying that he called for Weiner's resignation. That is not surprising, but Cantor should watch what he says about sex scandals when in years past he has said the constituents of Mark Sanford and John Ensign should decide their fates.
Sanford of course "hiked the Appalachian trail" and Ensign cheated on his wife with his campaign aide's better half. Sanford and Ensign both lied. Ensign's discretion was a bit worse when you add that Ensign not only cheated on his wife he did so with the wife of a campaign aid and tried to throw money around to cover up the affair. Therefore any Republican outrage over the activities of Weiner's weiner should be dismissed.
Americans should not care about the personal lives or trangressions of their representitives. what should matter is the job they do. Saying that, I shall present to you a hypothetical. Let's say in 2012 California's economy is in the shitter, people are moving out in droves because government has grown, unemployment has skyrocketted and the entire state is a ghost of what it was. Brown loses re election to a business man. In two years the new governor decreases the size of government, unemployment is cut in half and the state budget is balanced. After all of that happens it is revealed that this governor has cheated on his wife several times with college students. They aren't given jobs in government, nor are they given money from campaign contributors. he is just a man whore who digs college girls. Would you demand his resignation? Would you use his trangressions as the reason to not re elect him? If you answered yes to any of those questions you are an idiot.
The personal lives of politicians should for the most part be kept seperate. Only in the case of a fundamental Christian talking about the state of the American family while he fucks the babysitter should a politicians personla acts be discussed. Weiner's acts were miniscule and far less severe than what politicians have done in the past. Americans should care whether their representitives serve over gains in the economy, employment amongst other things. They should not care if the guy treates his family like shit or fucks around on his wife. If your main issues are the economy and education and your governor or senator is tackling those issues in a way that pleases you that should be enough.
Many professional athletes have had shaddy lifestyles. They party, they speak to journalists with strong arrogance and thier attitudes suck. But if that athelete hits homeruns, catches footballs or scores goals all is forgotten. General managers ignore those transgressions if the player involved in the shaddy activities performs at a high level. Ben Roethlisberger was investigated on two rape charges, but he has also won two super bowls. because of that he is still a Pittsburgh Steelers.
This politicians have jobs to do that has very little to do with their personal lives. If a governor is working hard to get unionized workers back on the job, but picks up a chick at a bar after the negotiations he may be an asshole, but if those unionized workers get back to work he is good at his job.
You elect a mayor, congressman, senator or president based on certain issues and whether the candidate is best suited to tackle those issues. You shouldn't deny a politician a vote because he is a jerk, or he does not belong to a certain religion, or he cheated on his wife. The issues are far too important to worry about something as trivial as the personal transgressions of a stranger
A few weeks back we heard the revelation that a decade ago Arnold Schwartzeneggar fathered a child with another woman even thought he was married to a Kennedy. Now that has forgotton because Democratic congressman and unapologetic Liberal Anthony Weiner sent a bunch of random chicks pictures of his junk in his underwear. Of all the things that a politician can do Weiner's escapades on Twitter are far from the worse things a politician could do.
If you want an example take Ted Kennedy. When he died of brain cancer President Obama called Kennedy a "great leader" and was the " greatest United States Senator of our time". Liberals love Ted Kennedy and speak of him in glowing terms neglecting to even mention that he killed a woman. 0n July 18, 1969 after leaving a party in Martha's Vineyard with Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy drove off a bridge and after a few efforts to retrieve Kopechne he got out of the lake and left the scene of the crime. Their was an investigation and an inquiry, but Kennedy never spent a day in jail even though it was revelaed that more happened than he told the cops. And this guy never resigned, never lost a re election and is a legend amongst Liberals. Kennedy served until his death 40 years after this incident and the same people who dismiss the Chappaquiddick incident are the same people who are calling for the resignation of a dude who simply sent a bunch of stupid pictures to soem ladies.
Ted Kennedy should have resigned his seat after that woman drowned and he should have went to jail. The event in Chappaquiddick is a the type of thing that should cause a resignation. Using your family name to avoid prosecution after you committed a crime that caused the death of a woman should end your career, but in Kennedy's case it did not.
Of course in a case of pure hypocrisy Republicans are calling for the head of Anthony Weiner. The head of the RNC Reince Priebus has said Weiner should resign. House Reoublican Leaders and official House contradictor Eric Cantor was asked about the Weiner controversy and said on camera, "We've got a lot of serious challenges going on in this country and a lot of work for Congress to do. The last thing we need is to be immersed in discussion about Congressman Weiner and his Twitter activities," After saying that he called for Weiner's resignation. That is not surprising, but Cantor should watch what he says about sex scandals when in years past he has said the constituents of Mark Sanford and John Ensign should decide their fates.
Sanford of course "hiked the Appalachian trail" and Ensign cheated on his wife with his campaign aide's better half. Sanford and Ensign both lied. Ensign's discretion was a bit worse when you add that Ensign not only cheated on his wife he did so with the wife of a campaign aid and tried to throw money around to cover up the affair. Therefore any Republican outrage over the activities of Weiner's weiner should be dismissed.
Americans should not care about the personal lives or trangressions of their representitives. what should matter is the job they do. Saying that, I shall present to you a hypothetical. Let's say in 2012 California's economy is in the shitter, people are moving out in droves because government has grown, unemployment has skyrocketted and the entire state is a ghost of what it was. Brown loses re election to a business man. In two years the new governor decreases the size of government, unemployment is cut in half and the state budget is balanced. After all of that happens it is revealed that this governor has cheated on his wife several times with college students. They aren't given jobs in government, nor are they given money from campaign contributors. he is just a man whore who digs college girls. Would you demand his resignation? Would you use his trangressions as the reason to not re elect him? If you answered yes to any of those questions you are an idiot.
The personal lives of politicians should for the most part be kept seperate. Only in the case of a fundamental Christian talking about the state of the American family while he fucks the babysitter should a politicians personla acts be discussed. Weiner's acts were miniscule and far less severe than what politicians have done in the past. Americans should care whether their representitives serve over gains in the economy, employment amongst other things. They should not care if the guy treates his family like shit or fucks around on his wife. If your main issues are the economy and education and your governor or senator is tackling those issues in a way that pleases you that should be enough.
Many professional athletes have had shaddy lifestyles. They party, they speak to journalists with strong arrogance and thier attitudes suck. But if that athelete hits homeruns, catches footballs or scores goals all is forgotten. General managers ignore those transgressions if the player involved in the shaddy activities performs at a high level. Ben Roethlisberger was investigated on two rape charges, but he has also won two super bowls. because of that he is still a Pittsburgh Steelers.
This politicians have jobs to do that has very little to do with their personal lives. If a governor is working hard to get unionized workers back on the job, but picks up a chick at a bar after the negotiations he may be an asshole, but if those unionized workers get back to work he is good at his job.
You elect a mayor, congressman, senator or president based on certain issues and whether the candidate is best suited to tackle those issues. You shouldn't deny a politician a vote because he is a jerk, or he does not belong to a certain religion, or he cheated on his wife. The issues are far too important to worry about something as trivial as the personal transgressions of a stranger
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
You can't stop civil disobedience
We live amongst amongst law and order. No matter where you reside you are expected to obey the laws that we are told are in place to protect us. However, if you respect your individual liberty you resist the law that is painted in tyranny.
Throughout history all resistance movements ignored certain laws those leaders viewed as tyrannical. While sitting in his jail cell in Birmingham Alabama civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. had a newspaper slipped under his cell that included a story about eight religious leaders calling him an anarchist and ”law breaker”. In his famous response to such lunacy M.L.K wrote, “ One has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. It is that belief that drives revolution. It is the disregard for immoral laws that drives a person to fight back and challenge the strong arm of a government that preaches freedom, but practises tyranny.
I break an unjust law everyday when I consume marijuana. In my view and in the view of other pot smokers no one has the right to tell me what I can or can't put in my own body. I own my body, not the government. So what I decide to place inside my body is my choice, especially when the substance I take has not directly caused the death of one soul. The laws against marijuana consumption are tyrannical and based on racism, dishonesty and corruption. It is because of that I smoke marijuana with no shame or stutter and I do not feel the need to defend myself. I used to drink a lot of alcohol and did so to drown in my own sorrows. I was not an alcoholic, but I frequently took trips to the liquor store. Marijuana opened my eyes, calmed me down and changed my perspective on things. And unlike beer I don't get drunk and stab some guy outside a bar for looking at me funny. Marijuana prohibition is a front against liberty and it is a law that many people including myself see as an assault on our freedoms
In his new book Liberty Defined, Ron Paul brilliantly defines civil disobedience as an act of patriotism where we are “standing up to the government when the government is wrong”. The act of civil disobedience “is a process whereby the weak and defenseless can resist the violence perpetuated by the state”. That violence has invaded the sanctity of our homes and in one case that violence that has been forced onto us by our government and law enforcement killed a family's dog just because a man was ratted out for consuming marijuana.
Those who read that and think of me in an unsavoury light are those who base their lives on laws and not morals. They think you must obey every law, no matter how stupid the law is. They drive the exact speed limit on the highway, cross streets when the light is red and they walk their dogs on leashes. Those law abiding citizens may blame me for all the violence and death inside the drug trade, but it is not me who shall be blamed. The politicians, the lobbyists and the corporate media should get the flack.All you have to do is look in a history book and see how unjust laws drive industries into the black market where they thrive and spread blood.
Look at all the crazy violence that has spewed all across Mexico as drug cartels flex their muscles by killing innocent people in insane numbers. Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon took office in 2006 more than 37,000 people have been killed in drug war related violence. Calderon thought if he amped up military presence in Mexico he could fight fire with fire and defeat the cartels. He was wrong. Mass graves are being found in towns all over Mexico and its citizens are fed up with the violence.
The brutality of the drug war hit home for a famous Mexican author and poet named Javier Sicilia whose son Juan Francisco body was left in a car along with some of his friends. A drug cartel was responsible for the murder that enraged his father. In a public letter Javier condemned the war on drugs by writing, “ In this badly planned, badly executed and badly led war you (politicians) have put the country into a state of emergency”. That is true beyond a doubt. The escalating violence that has inflicted Mexico is the fault of the failed policy of the drug war.
When a popular product or service is banned the consumer doesn't simply give up. If people want drugs, or guns they will get them. This causes an inflated price for the product that is controlled by criminals who have no option but to settle disputes with bloodshed. If you are shorted or if someone is trying to sell a drug you want to sell in your area you don't view that has competition, it is an attack on your wealth which causes you to respond with violence. Cocaine, marijuana and all other illegal drugs aren't regulated, nor are they sold by outstanding business owners. They are controlled by gangs and that is the fault not of the drug consumer. The cause of all of this is the prohibition of drugs.
Law enforcement has not learned from history and they are doomed to repeat it. When alcohol prohibition hit the United States in 1920 you heard the same things about alcohol you hear about drugs today. Alcohol was blamed for every societal ill and purest Christians responded by going to Washington to ban alcohol and solve every single problem in one swoop. Thirteen years later politicians and the public came to their senses and abolished prohibition. If only today's politicians weren't so stubborn and cowardly.
The failure of prohibition was succinctly expressed by a Cato Institute policy analysis written by Mark Thornton in 1991. In the report he noted all of the familiar failures that are shown daily in today's prohibition of drugs; escalating law enforcement costs, drugs controlled by cartels and extraordinary violence.
Thornton notes that alcohol consumption dropped at the start of prohibition, but increased frequently until the stupid law was squashed. In 1921 just over 0.2 gallons of alcohol was consumed. By 1929 that number increased to 1.3 gallons per capita. Prohibition did not stop people from buying booze. They just went underground and drank liquor that was not made properly. They handed Al Capone their money and he spread violence throughout Chicago. Prohibition reared its ugly head in 1929 when Al Capone's gang executed members of the North Side Irish Gang which was led by Bugs Moran. Six members of the gang and one other were killed in the murders known today as The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. That event showcased the failure of prohibition and it should serve as an example to present day law enforcement.
If drugs were legal and sold in stores we would not have gangs controlling the market. We would not have blood staining our streets. When marijuana is legalized the product would be sold it stores, taxed and regulated and legal marijuana would hurt drug cartels. Before medicinal marijuana laws all marijuana came from Mexico and Columbia. Now with medicinal marijuana laws allowing people to legally cultivate marijuana the cartels have been hurt. More than 60% the cartels 13.8 billion dollar revenue in 2006 came from marijuana. Just imagine how much money would be lost to the cartels if marijuana was legalized.
Making possession of marijuana has not worked, just like the prohibition on alcohol didn't work. If you live in a state that does not allow you to carry a gun you will go to the black market to buy that gun. It all makes perfect sense, but sense is not what law enforcement and our politicians use to enact laws. They use laws to control our decisions and non violent actions.
Henry D Thoreau once wrote that “ All men recognize the right to revolution: that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable”. The Vietnam protestors who burned their draft cards and held anti war banners all over America in the 60's and 70's were not the “ anti-Americans” that the warmongers who supported the Vietnam war thought they were. They were more patriotic than the war supporters were. They new that the war in Vietnam was an unjust expansion of imperialism and they did not want to die for an empire who thought their lives were meaningless. The war protests have been remembered as a cultural bookmark of the 60's and is still thought of to this day.
With all of this talk about how Washington has failed America and how much power they wield civil disobedience must be practised by those who feel that the government has far outstretched its needs and powers. If government is “ of the people, by the people and for the people” it is about time that the people stand up and through civil disobedience the citizenry must act and hold the tyrants in government accountable.
It is the American government that has practised slow and precise tyranny which has made them incredibly inefficient. Their failure to stop drug use is a prime example of how laws against liberty are ignored and challenged. Politicians can use their objection to Obamacare as an example on how much they cherish liberty, but that is a blatant lie. We have come to expect that politicians decide which rights you can have and which liberties you can hold. It is not their choice to make those decisions. Those choices are to be made by us.
If politicians cared about our liberty like they claim they do the draconian drug laws would be abolished and they would allow us to consume what we want to consume. They must recognize that our bodies are ours and not theirs. We are adults who can make our own choices and as long as those choices don't harm another soul those choices are just. Whether it is health care, economics or business laws we the people have the right to make our own decisions and our government should be banished from policing us. It is time that policy makers drop the guns, and drop our pocket books and allow us to make our own individual decisions. If they don't the black market will continue to control the drug trade and the violence will increase to an insane level.
Throughout history all resistance movements ignored certain laws those leaders viewed as tyrannical. While sitting in his jail cell in Birmingham Alabama civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. had a newspaper slipped under his cell that included a story about eight religious leaders calling him an anarchist and ”law breaker”. In his famous response to such lunacy M.L.K wrote, “ One has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. It is that belief that drives revolution. It is the disregard for immoral laws that drives a person to fight back and challenge the strong arm of a government that preaches freedom, but practises tyranny.
I break an unjust law everyday when I consume marijuana. In my view and in the view of other pot smokers no one has the right to tell me what I can or can't put in my own body. I own my body, not the government. So what I decide to place inside my body is my choice, especially when the substance I take has not directly caused the death of one soul. The laws against marijuana consumption are tyrannical and based on racism, dishonesty and corruption. It is because of that I smoke marijuana with no shame or stutter and I do not feel the need to defend myself. I used to drink a lot of alcohol and did so to drown in my own sorrows. I was not an alcoholic, but I frequently took trips to the liquor store. Marijuana opened my eyes, calmed me down and changed my perspective on things. And unlike beer I don't get drunk and stab some guy outside a bar for looking at me funny. Marijuana prohibition is a front against liberty and it is a law that many people including myself see as an assault on our freedoms
In his new book Liberty Defined, Ron Paul brilliantly defines civil disobedience as an act of patriotism where we are “standing up to the government when the government is wrong”. The act of civil disobedience “is a process whereby the weak and defenseless can resist the violence perpetuated by the state”. That violence has invaded the sanctity of our homes and in one case that violence that has been forced onto us by our government and law enforcement killed a family's dog just because a man was ratted out for consuming marijuana.
Those who read that and think of me in an unsavoury light are those who base their lives on laws and not morals. They think you must obey every law, no matter how stupid the law is. They drive the exact speed limit on the highway, cross streets when the light is red and they walk their dogs on leashes. Those law abiding citizens may blame me for all the violence and death inside the drug trade, but it is not me who shall be blamed. The politicians, the lobbyists and the corporate media should get the flack.All you have to do is look in a history book and see how unjust laws drive industries into the black market where they thrive and spread blood.
Look at all the crazy violence that has spewed all across Mexico as drug cartels flex their muscles by killing innocent people in insane numbers. Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon took office in 2006 more than 37,000 people have been killed in drug war related violence. Calderon thought if he amped up military presence in Mexico he could fight fire with fire and defeat the cartels. He was wrong. Mass graves are being found in towns all over Mexico and its citizens are fed up with the violence.
The brutality of the drug war hit home for a famous Mexican author and poet named Javier Sicilia whose son Juan Francisco body was left in a car along with some of his friends. A drug cartel was responsible for the murder that enraged his father. In a public letter Javier condemned the war on drugs by writing, “ In this badly planned, badly executed and badly led war you (politicians) have put the country into a state of emergency”. That is true beyond a doubt. The escalating violence that has inflicted Mexico is the fault of the failed policy of the drug war.
When a popular product or service is banned the consumer doesn't simply give up. If people want drugs, or guns they will get them. This causes an inflated price for the product that is controlled by criminals who have no option but to settle disputes with bloodshed. If you are shorted or if someone is trying to sell a drug you want to sell in your area you don't view that has competition, it is an attack on your wealth which causes you to respond with violence. Cocaine, marijuana and all other illegal drugs aren't regulated, nor are they sold by outstanding business owners. They are controlled by gangs and that is the fault not of the drug consumer. The cause of all of this is the prohibition of drugs.
Law enforcement has not learned from history and they are doomed to repeat it. When alcohol prohibition hit the United States in 1920 you heard the same things about alcohol you hear about drugs today. Alcohol was blamed for every societal ill and purest Christians responded by going to Washington to ban alcohol and solve every single problem in one swoop. Thirteen years later politicians and the public came to their senses and abolished prohibition. If only today's politicians weren't so stubborn and cowardly.
The failure of prohibition was succinctly expressed by a Cato Institute policy analysis written by Mark Thornton in 1991. In the report he noted all of the familiar failures that are shown daily in today's prohibition of drugs; escalating law enforcement costs, drugs controlled by cartels and extraordinary violence.
Thornton notes that alcohol consumption dropped at the start of prohibition, but increased frequently until the stupid law was squashed. In 1921 just over 0.2 gallons of alcohol was consumed. By 1929 that number increased to 1.3 gallons per capita. Prohibition did not stop people from buying booze. They just went underground and drank liquor that was not made properly. They handed Al Capone their money and he spread violence throughout Chicago. Prohibition reared its ugly head in 1929 when Al Capone's gang executed members of the North Side Irish Gang which was led by Bugs Moran. Six members of the gang and one other were killed in the murders known today as The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. That event showcased the failure of prohibition and it should serve as an example to present day law enforcement.
If drugs were legal and sold in stores we would not have gangs controlling the market. We would not have blood staining our streets. When marijuana is legalized the product would be sold it stores, taxed and regulated and legal marijuana would hurt drug cartels. Before medicinal marijuana laws all marijuana came from Mexico and Columbia. Now with medicinal marijuana laws allowing people to legally cultivate marijuana the cartels have been hurt. More than 60% the cartels 13.8 billion dollar revenue in 2006 came from marijuana. Just imagine how much money would be lost to the cartels if marijuana was legalized.
Making possession of marijuana has not worked, just like the prohibition on alcohol didn't work. If you live in a state that does not allow you to carry a gun you will go to the black market to buy that gun. It all makes perfect sense, but sense is not what law enforcement and our politicians use to enact laws. They use laws to control our decisions and non violent actions.
Henry D Thoreau once wrote that “ All men recognize the right to revolution: that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable”. The Vietnam protestors who burned their draft cards and held anti war banners all over America in the 60's and 70's were not the “ anti-Americans” that the warmongers who supported the Vietnam war thought they were. They were more patriotic than the war supporters were. They new that the war in Vietnam was an unjust expansion of imperialism and they did not want to die for an empire who thought their lives were meaningless. The war protests have been remembered as a cultural bookmark of the 60's and is still thought of to this day.
With all of this talk about how Washington has failed America and how much power they wield civil disobedience must be practised by those who feel that the government has far outstretched its needs and powers. If government is “ of the people, by the people and for the people” it is about time that the people stand up and through civil disobedience the citizenry must act and hold the tyrants in government accountable.
It is the American government that has practised slow and precise tyranny which has made them incredibly inefficient. Their failure to stop drug use is a prime example of how laws against liberty are ignored and challenged. Politicians can use their objection to Obamacare as an example on how much they cherish liberty, but that is a blatant lie. We have come to expect that politicians decide which rights you can have and which liberties you can hold. It is not their choice to make those decisions. Those choices are to be made by us.
If politicians cared about our liberty like they claim they do the draconian drug laws would be abolished and they would allow us to consume what we want to consume. They must recognize that our bodies are ours and not theirs. We are adults who can make our own choices and as long as those choices don't harm another soul those choices are just. Whether it is health care, economics or business laws we the people have the right to make our own decisions and our government should be banished from policing us. It is time that policy makers drop the guns, and drop our pocket books and allow us to make our own individual decisions. If they don't the black market will continue to control the drug trade and the violence will increase to an insane level.
The Pro Life crowd is losing
Their are two sides to the contentious abortion debate. One side views abortion as the murder of a defenceless human. The other views abortion as the right of woman to do as she wishes to her body. One side wants the government and the courts to ban abortions, while the other side believes abortion should be the choice of the woman carrying the fetus. Pro lifers want the government to ban abortion while the pro choice crowd wants government to stay out of the bodies of women. That makes me wonder what pro choicers think about drug laws. But that is a discussion for another time.
I believe the pro choice argument that it is their body and their right to do whatever to their body is a misnomer. It is their body, but their body is acting as a vessel for another life. The act of an abortion troubles and disgusts me morally, however my beliefs about abortion do not align me with the religious extremism and indoctrination that is paramount in the pro life crowd. In terms of abortion and sex education related to the act, the pro life crowd has failed.
When you look at the teen pregnancy numbers in the United States you will see that failure is clear. 52.1 percent of each 1,000 fifteen to nineteen year old women in the United States get pregnant each year. That number is astronomical considering how much the religious right tries to force schools to teach abstinence only in schools. To the religious right the simple mentioning of contraceptives is a front to their doctrine and when you are trying to push your beliefs on the entire public education system you can't have an opposing view expressed.
The religious right believes that sex should solely be between man and wife. This is a strong belief they have pushed onto high school children in schools, church and in the public square. With the teen pregnancy rate in America that is far above the rates of other country their message has fallen on death ears through mis information, lies and the culture we live in which pushes sex onto our children.
A report published by the Texas Freedom Network pointed out the mass inaccuracies in abstinence only education in Texas public schools. According to the report 40% of school districts in the state spread false information about condoms which included outrageous failure rates and the lie that the A.I.D.S virus passes through latex. 10 % of those school districts imposed strong religious messages into their sex education which told students that their perfect partner was one whose first love was “ Jesus”. By pushing Christian beliefs on students and by falsifying information on condoms the religious right is lying to American children who are using the bad information to make bad decisions.
The fact of the matter is that since the sexual revolution we have learned that we like sex. That is proven by the study published by Lawrence B Finer. In his report titled “ Trends in Premarital Sex in America 954-2003” Finer concluded that 95% of those in the study had premarital sex. Those who didn't have sex for the first time until the 20's or later, 81% had sex by the time they reached their mid 40s. Marriage in our society is not needed for us to feel the need to have sex. We find a person we are attracted to and we strive to have sex with them. It is in our biology and those Christian purists try in vain to fight our biology. We do not think of God when we think of sex and that is why religious tyrants force their beliefs on us and our children in our schools.
The realities of our sexuality is what the Religious Right are fighting and their strategy in the fight is to play dirty. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo is one of the dirty players in the game of sexual health. As the Catholic church's spokesman on family affairs in 2003 he claimed that “Relying on condoms is like batting against your own death”. When the World Health Association responded with the fact that “ condoms provide a highly effective barrier against the transmission” of H.I.V and other sexually transmitted diseases and infections Trujillo called them liars.
The Catholic church has proven that they care more about the doctrine than they do about human life. More than 20 million people in the world have died from A.I.D.S yet they still preach abstinence which of course is 100% affective against unplanned pregnancy and disease, but is incredibly unrealistic. When Archbishops and other members of the Catholic hierarchy blame condom use for the spread of sexual diseases they are being incredibly dishonest and the rhetoric is having a detrimental affect on their followers who mistakenly believe in the words of the Catholic church when they say condoms do not curb the consequences of sex.
According to the CDC 71% of teenagers admitted to talking to their parents about condoms and when parents have those discussions with their children teenagers are 3 times more likely to use condoms when they engage in sexual acts which encourages safe sex practises in future sexual relations. That is noted in the report with teens who used condoms when they first had sex are 20 times more likely to use condoms in future sexual relations.
Honesty and frank discussions with children leads to safer sexual practises. By simply telling a child not to have sex until marriage and by saying condoms don't work they are leading their children to a life of misery. Promoting the use of condoms is promoting smart sexual decisions amongst our youths. The spreading of false information has led to bad sexual decisions amongst our children. Back in 2008 the Bradley Hasbro Children's Research Center noted that oral and anal sex is on the rise amongst teenagers and young adults who do not use condoms. A lot of the children who engaging in those sex acts believe that they can not get diseases from oral and anal sex so they use that false information when their hormones act. The lead author of the report claimed that the lack of honest sexual information presented to our children has driven this dangerous trend.
This false information leads back to abortion when children who were fed the lies and have parents who refuse to talk to them at all about sex. This leads to bad sexual decisions and unwanted pregnancy. The Christian purist will blame this on sexual perversion and the Liberal fascination with killing babies, but that is not the story. If children were told the truth from the start to the end how many abortions would happen yearly in the United States?
We still have teen pregnancies that are at a tragically high rate and the Christian Right is losing the battle. Between 2000 and 2003 abstinence only education funding rose to 120 million dollars which was only a small number compared to the spending of 176 million in 2006. In that time teen pregnancy rates in the U.S rose. In 2006 teen pregnancy rates rose by more than two percent than the previous year. That shows how much the Religious Rights pushed abstinence only education is a failure. These kids feel societal pressure of being labelled sluts and whores which drives them to the abortion clinic.
The abortion rate during this period rose by 1% according to that study. In another study 1.21 million abortions occurred in 2008 which was more than the rate in the last survey in 2005. What do the numbers tell you? We have failed in properly educating our children when it comes to sex and the Religious Right has failed in their mandate to restrict sexual freedom in cadence with “ God's Law”.
In their battle against the feminists and Liberals they have lost. Abortions have not ended and desperate women are not choosing adoption, they are choosing abortion. It is about time the religious zealots remove themselves from the pulpit and face the reality that we love sex and we must make the proper decisions no matter what we decided they should be. Abortion in my view is wrong, but I am not so ignorant to believe that religious fundamentalism is the key in reducing abortion. Proper sexual education is and if we don't want to end the life of a fetus we must tell our children the truth and install abstinence as well as safe sex education in their minds. Without honesty our children and young adults will continue to abort innocent children.
I believe the pro choice argument that it is their body and their right to do whatever to their body is a misnomer. It is their body, but their body is acting as a vessel for another life. The act of an abortion troubles and disgusts me morally, however my beliefs about abortion do not align me with the religious extremism and indoctrination that is paramount in the pro life crowd. In terms of abortion and sex education related to the act, the pro life crowd has failed.
When you look at the teen pregnancy numbers in the United States you will see that failure is clear. 52.1 percent of each 1,000 fifteen to nineteen year old women in the United States get pregnant each year. That number is astronomical considering how much the religious right tries to force schools to teach abstinence only in schools. To the religious right the simple mentioning of contraceptives is a front to their doctrine and when you are trying to push your beliefs on the entire public education system you can't have an opposing view expressed.
The religious right believes that sex should solely be between man and wife. This is a strong belief they have pushed onto high school children in schools, church and in the public square. With the teen pregnancy rate in America that is far above the rates of other country their message has fallen on death ears through mis information, lies and the culture we live in which pushes sex onto our children.
A report published by the Texas Freedom Network pointed out the mass inaccuracies in abstinence only education in Texas public schools. According to the report 40% of school districts in the state spread false information about condoms which included outrageous failure rates and the lie that the A.I.D.S virus passes through latex. 10 % of those school districts imposed strong religious messages into their sex education which told students that their perfect partner was one whose first love was “ Jesus”. By pushing Christian beliefs on students and by falsifying information on condoms the religious right is lying to American children who are using the bad information to make bad decisions.
The fact of the matter is that since the sexual revolution we have learned that we like sex. That is proven by the study published by Lawrence B Finer. In his report titled “ Trends in Premarital Sex in America 954-2003” Finer concluded that 95% of those in the study had premarital sex. Those who didn't have sex for the first time until the 20's or later, 81% had sex by the time they reached their mid 40s. Marriage in our society is not needed for us to feel the need to have sex. We find a person we are attracted to and we strive to have sex with them. It is in our biology and those Christian purists try in vain to fight our biology. We do not think of God when we think of sex and that is why religious tyrants force their beliefs on us and our children in our schools.
The realities of our sexuality is what the Religious Right are fighting and their strategy in the fight is to play dirty. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo is one of the dirty players in the game of sexual health. As the Catholic church's spokesman on family affairs in 2003 he claimed that “Relying on condoms is like batting against your own death”. When the World Health Association responded with the fact that “ condoms provide a highly effective barrier against the transmission” of H.I.V and other sexually transmitted diseases and infections Trujillo called them liars.
The Catholic church has proven that they care more about the doctrine than they do about human life. More than 20 million people in the world have died from A.I.D.S yet they still preach abstinence which of course is 100% affective against unplanned pregnancy and disease, but is incredibly unrealistic. When Archbishops and other members of the Catholic hierarchy blame condom use for the spread of sexual diseases they are being incredibly dishonest and the rhetoric is having a detrimental affect on their followers who mistakenly believe in the words of the Catholic church when they say condoms do not curb the consequences of sex.
According to the CDC 71% of teenagers admitted to talking to their parents about condoms and when parents have those discussions with their children teenagers are 3 times more likely to use condoms when they engage in sexual acts which encourages safe sex practises in future sexual relations. That is noted in the report with teens who used condoms when they first had sex are 20 times more likely to use condoms in future sexual relations.
Honesty and frank discussions with children leads to safer sexual practises. By simply telling a child not to have sex until marriage and by saying condoms don't work they are leading their children to a life of misery. Promoting the use of condoms is promoting smart sexual decisions amongst our youths. The spreading of false information has led to bad sexual decisions amongst our children. Back in 2008 the Bradley Hasbro Children's Research Center noted that oral and anal sex is on the rise amongst teenagers and young adults who do not use condoms. A lot of the children who engaging in those sex acts believe that they can not get diseases from oral and anal sex so they use that false information when their hormones act. The lead author of the report claimed that the lack of honest sexual information presented to our children has driven this dangerous trend.
This false information leads back to abortion when children who were fed the lies and have parents who refuse to talk to them at all about sex. This leads to bad sexual decisions and unwanted pregnancy. The Christian purist will blame this on sexual perversion and the Liberal fascination with killing babies, but that is not the story. If children were told the truth from the start to the end how many abortions would happen yearly in the United States?
We still have teen pregnancies that are at a tragically high rate and the Christian Right is losing the battle. Between 2000 and 2003 abstinence only education funding rose to 120 million dollars which was only a small number compared to the spending of 176 million in 2006. In that time teen pregnancy rates in the U.S rose. In 2006 teen pregnancy rates rose by more than two percent than the previous year. That shows how much the Religious Rights pushed abstinence only education is a failure. These kids feel societal pressure of being labelled sluts and whores which drives them to the abortion clinic.
The abortion rate during this period rose by 1% according to that study. In another study 1.21 million abortions occurred in 2008 which was more than the rate in the last survey in 2005. What do the numbers tell you? We have failed in properly educating our children when it comes to sex and the Religious Right has failed in their mandate to restrict sexual freedom in cadence with “ God's Law”.
In their battle against the feminists and Liberals they have lost. Abortions have not ended and desperate women are not choosing adoption, they are choosing abortion. It is about time the religious zealots remove themselves from the pulpit and face the reality that we love sex and we must make the proper decisions no matter what we decided they should be. Abortion in my view is wrong, but I am not so ignorant to believe that religious fundamentalism is the key in reducing abortion. Proper sexual education is and if we don't want to end the life of a fetus we must tell our children the truth and install abstinence as well as safe sex education in their minds. Without honesty our children and young adults will continue to abort innocent children.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The world would be better if we replaced alcohol with weed
Yup, I really believe that. If we replaced drunks with potheads this world would be a better place. I say this after I attended a wedding. It was a small, laid back ceremony until one guest got into the open bar. At the end of the night this particular dude and his woman got real drunk and bilegerent and started fighting. The dude then got in the face of another guy and all of the sudden I saw arms swinging. The two guys were seperated but the drama did not end. It must have taken 45 minutes to get this drunk and his woman out of the hall and on their way.
The drunk guy threatened to shoot the groom and a few other people, he screamed, he cried a bit and was overall a huge drunken asshole.
I am saying that weed is better than booze because of my expereince with intoxicants and because of the existence of evidence that back up my argument. According to a report by the Department of Justice in the U.S that was updated in August on an alcoholism site alcohol abuse contributes to 40% of all violent crime.
The link is here: http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/costs/a/aa980415.htm
That statistic is not surprising. How often do you watch the news and hear about an assault or a murder outside a bar? I have gone to bars and have seen cops arrive. I remember one incident where a girl threw a glass at another girl. I'm sure if anyone is reading this, they have a story of thier own about something they have seen a drunk do at a bar.
Alcohol is heavily involved in all crimes, especially violent ones. On the same site they report that two-thirds of all victims of domestic violence say that alcohol played a factor in the violence. Anyone who has been around alcohol knows this. We see it all the time, we know people who are violent or idiotic drunks. Yet alcohol is legal, bars are everywhere and alcohol is socially accepted. People swap stories of drunken escapades. They ask strangers if they are cracking open a brew when they get home. Alcohol is so acceptable in our society that people expect others like to drink. Yet marijuana use is frowned upon. We are told by lawmakers that marijuana is more dangerous which is complete bullshit. According to a stat published on drugwarfacts.org in 2006 22,073 people died from alcohol. That includes deaths from DUI's, homicides and poisoning. And not one recorded death in any medical journal in the world blames the direct usage of marijuana on any premature death.
I have been smoking pot for around 4 years. I have smoked pot with a certain circle of people as well as strangers. I have yet to hear any loud argument between people sharing a doobie, I have not seen one fight. So why is alcohol celebrated in advertisements, the media and in public? And why is pot illegal? I'll get into the latter question in a future blog, but I will stand by the argument that alcohol often causes people to act like idiots while according to my experiences marijuana use is chill, peaceful and non violent. If people at this wedding were smoking weed and not drinking their would be no problems.
I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal. Law enforcement and the government have no right to tell me what to put in my body. But we celebrate alcohol use, we accept it and we condone the violent aspects of alcoholism, but condemn marijuana use.
Everybody reacts to intoxicants differently, but marijuana is safer than alcohol. It does not rot your liver, it does not cause you to beat up your wife and it does not cause you to get in a fight outside a bar with a guy who gave you a dirty look.
We except all the evil alcohol brings and we lie about the "dangers" of marijuana. If we replaced weed with alcohol all crime rates would go down. If more people smoked weed instead of drinking beers we would live in a safer and chiller world.
I am sick of seeing the effect alcohol has on our society and how we accept it while condemning marijuana. I am sick of hearing about some guy getting killed by a violent drunk. I am tired of drunk idiots ruining weddings and I hope that one day marijuana will be legal because as I said in the title our world would be a better place if marijuana replaced alcohol.
The drunk guy threatened to shoot the groom and a few other people, he screamed, he cried a bit and was overall a huge drunken asshole.
I am saying that weed is better than booze because of my expereince with intoxicants and because of the existence of evidence that back up my argument. According to a report by the Department of Justice in the U.S that was updated in August on an alcoholism site alcohol abuse contributes to 40% of all violent crime.
The link is here: http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/costs/a/aa980415.htm
That statistic is not surprising. How often do you watch the news and hear about an assault or a murder outside a bar? I have gone to bars and have seen cops arrive. I remember one incident where a girl threw a glass at another girl. I'm sure if anyone is reading this, they have a story of thier own about something they have seen a drunk do at a bar.
Alcohol is heavily involved in all crimes, especially violent ones. On the same site they report that two-thirds of all victims of domestic violence say that alcohol played a factor in the violence. Anyone who has been around alcohol knows this. We see it all the time, we know people who are violent or idiotic drunks. Yet alcohol is legal, bars are everywhere and alcohol is socially accepted. People swap stories of drunken escapades. They ask strangers if they are cracking open a brew when they get home. Alcohol is so acceptable in our society that people expect others like to drink. Yet marijuana use is frowned upon. We are told by lawmakers that marijuana is more dangerous which is complete bullshit. According to a stat published on drugwarfacts.org in 2006 22,073 people died from alcohol. That includes deaths from DUI's, homicides and poisoning. And not one recorded death in any medical journal in the world blames the direct usage of marijuana on any premature death.
I have been smoking pot for around 4 years. I have smoked pot with a certain circle of people as well as strangers. I have yet to hear any loud argument between people sharing a doobie, I have not seen one fight. So why is alcohol celebrated in advertisements, the media and in public? And why is pot illegal? I'll get into the latter question in a future blog, but I will stand by the argument that alcohol often causes people to act like idiots while according to my experiences marijuana use is chill, peaceful and non violent. If people at this wedding were smoking weed and not drinking their would be no problems.
I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal. Law enforcement and the government have no right to tell me what to put in my body. But we celebrate alcohol use, we accept it and we condone the violent aspects of alcoholism, but condemn marijuana use.
Everybody reacts to intoxicants differently, but marijuana is safer than alcohol. It does not rot your liver, it does not cause you to beat up your wife and it does not cause you to get in a fight outside a bar with a guy who gave you a dirty look.
We except all the evil alcohol brings and we lie about the "dangers" of marijuana. If we replaced weed with alcohol all crime rates would go down. If more people smoked weed instead of drinking beers we would live in a safer and chiller world.
I am sick of seeing the effect alcohol has on our society and how we accept it while condemning marijuana. I am sick of hearing about some guy getting killed by a violent drunk. I am tired of drunk idiots ruining weddings and I hope that one day marijuana will be legal because as I said in the title our world would be a better place if marijuana replaced alcohol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)