+
Cannabis Culture Forums : The Cannabis Cafe > Socializing Lounge
.
To: Lynda Steele (Global newsanchor) / [email protected]
.
Re: Values have vanished / Edmonton Journal, 3Nov06, p.I1
.
Who the Real Villains Are
.
Dear Lynda, I was much interested to read your column on 'Teen
cynicism and violence disturbing'. You speak about many important
issues and social problems that deeply affect modern society.
.
You mention ultra-violent video games as contributing to the
mind-set of today's teenagers. If anything, you don't lay enough
emphasis on this factor. I'm a devoted gamer myself, and I've played
games like Grand Theft Auto, but they're not really my cup of tea
(ie. I much prefer racing games, like Need For Speed). Anyway, I'm
almost 50 years old now, so I know the difference between a game
and reality. But teenagers? No, they think if it's fun to beat the
crap out of someone in a video game, well then *of course* it's fun
to beat the crap out of someone in reality. Such subtle distinctions
as I make are quite beyond many of them.
.
You also mention the meth epidemic in passing: "Today's drug dealers
are peddling cheap chemical highs made of toxic ingredients that
destroy brain cells, and turn teens into instant addicts." But I have
to wonder just how sincere your concern for teens is on this matter.
.
Most people in our Canadian society like to blame the dealers and the
kids themselves for the meth epidemic. Their attitude is that if the
dealers are all put in jail then the problem will go away once and for
all. In the same way, the kids are just as much to blame; since they
don't 'just say no' they deserve whatever they get. Such is the nature
of Christian compassion. But the truth is that the blame for the meth
problem lies squarely on the shoulders of the BIG3 (ie. christians,
corporations, and conservatives). Please allow me to explain; for it
is certain that none of your experts will ever tell you the truth
about these very difficult matters.
.
Today an ounce of pot costs an arm and a leg compared to the prices we
paid in the 70's. Why? Because marijuana is still illegal. And because
the cops, armed forces, and politicians are still rabid to wage war on
a harmless plant that they hate in a fanatical and utterly irrational
fashion. Also, the BIG3 makes no distinctions between pot and hard
chemicals (eg. the Law still fancies that marijuana is a narcotic).
And so, the reason why pot is still illegal is because the BIG3 want
it that way, and they have the power to keep it that way. Such is the
nature of Canadian fascism.
.
Yes, the corporations think that legalized pot would actually hurt
the productivity of their employees, and hence their profit margins.
The Christians think that all drugs without exception (except for
alcohol, and all the garbage made by pharmaceutical companies, of
course) are absolutely evil and of the devil. And conservatives of
all stripes think that legalized pot would result in the immediate
destruction of modern civilization as we know it. All are in complete
agreement that there can be no compromising on this matter whatsoever.
.
I won't mention my opinion of such thinking for fear of insulting you;
and yet if pot was legalized, some things *would* have to change. For
example, the price would come down in a hurry. There would be no more
fear of over-zealous policemen. But most importantly, with pot being
legal, available, and cheap, other illegal drugs would simply be unable
to compete. Even alcoholism would take a dramatic tumble. AND the
meth problem would be gone like the wind almost overnight. Please
bear in mind that these proposals are not wild-eyed "theories"; they
are simple economic and social realities that anyone can figure out;
but ONLY if they are inclined to actually make the effort.
.
But still, in their arrogant self-righteousness, these 'very good
people' (ie. the BIG3) simply refuse to accept the truth of these
things. They also refuse to take responsibility for a situation that
they themselves have created through their own ignorance, hatred,
and bigotry. And they refuse to compromise their holy principles
for the welfare and greater good of our society.
.
Who, then, are the real villains here? Maybe you should think about
all this the next time you report on the doings of our glorious and
heroic Green Team.
.
- the one who tells it like it is - texxtman ;>
x
+
> On Nov4 GitcheGumee say: So, what do you think about
> christiansforcannabis.com, www.thc-ministry.org,
> and The Assembly of the Church of the Universe ??
.
tx say: Hey, GG. I think that these Christians are a radical minority, with the
emphasis on very small minority. I would also add that they are very probably
out of touch with the true spirit of Christianity, which is conservative,
repressive, and very much against individual freedom and liberty. It was not
always so, to be sure, but ever since the priests took control of the churches
(approximately mid second century) the religion has gone from corruption to
corruption (with occasional rebellions here and there).
.
> I'm not too sure about Canada but i can tell you that in the USA you can
> find a number of "conservatives" and "conservative" groups that are in
> favor of legalizing pot.
.
I have no problem with that. More power to them, I say. But again were talking
about a small minority, the exceptions to the rule as it were, whereas I am
speaking of the BIG3 in very general terms. The big picture always tends to
overlook the details.
.
> I could give a number of links as examples of this ...
.
No need for that. I doubt that I would make use of them.
.
> but i'll keep this basic and simple: Libertarian Conservative
.
Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me, but whatever ...
.
>> On Nov3 textman wrote: ... I won't mention my opinion of such thinking
>> for fear of insulting you;
.
> What's the problem ... are you unable to express your opinion without
> being insulting??
.
I am certainly able to express my opinions without being insulting. On the
other hand, I am also able to express my opinions in a very insulting manner.
Indeed, I think I did manage to insult Lynda in the above article, despite
my very unusual restraint.
.
> Or is it that you're afraid that mentioning your opinion will insult yourself?
.
No, I wouldn't say that.
.
>> ... They [the BIG3] also refuse to take responsibility for a situation
>> that they themselves have created through their own ignorance,
>> hatred, and bigotry.
.
> I would say that the political and legal community are the main people
> responsible.
.
The police, armed forces, judges, lawyers, doctors, etc etc, can only do
what the legislative branch of the government tells them to do. As for the
politicians, they do (for the most part) whatever the rich and powerful
want them to do. They certainly do not have 'a free hand'.
.
> But in a government of the people, by the people, for the people ...
.
There is no such thing in this world, GG.
You are very naive if you believe otherwise.
.
> we all share some of this responsibility.
.
Nonsense. Democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority; most of whom
are too simple, or too stupid, to even understand what's going on.
.
>> - the one who tells it like it is - texxtman ;>
.
> No one really tells it like it is ...
> because no one really knows how it is.
.
Now you're the one making broad sweeping generalizations that overlook
the exceptions. And make no mistake about it, I am the exception here.
.
> We can only tell it like we perceive it.
.
You surprise me, GG. That is an uncommonly wise statement, and I agree
wholeheartedly. And I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say that some
people are much more perceptive than others. Many people go through their
entire lives looking no further than their own selfish interests allow.
Indeed, I'll go even farther and say that among all the people in the
world it is the philosophers who see furthest and best precisely because
they can set aside (for a time) the self-interest that binds us all to
the oh-so-tiny here-and-now.
.
> [snipsome] ... no respect for the justice system
> no respect for christians
> no respect for corporations
> no respect for conservatives
.
Guilty as charged! :)
.
> no respect for yourself
.
You got this out of my article? ...
Or is this simply an unjustified assumption on your part?
.
> If the welfare and greater good of our society is your holy principle ...
.
Yes?
.
> don't you need to: know respect for the justice system
.
I will most certainly respect the justice system *if-and-when* the
punishment fits the crime, and if and when the Law is not used as a
weapon of fascist oppression.
.
> know respect for christians
.
I do respect *some* Christians; 4X: George Fox and the early Quakers,
the early Anabaptists and other Radical Reformers, and various others
that had the courage of their convictions. But these people have earned
my respect. Most Christians today have only earned contempt and disgust.
.
> know respect for corporations
.
I'll respect the corporations if, and only if, they can demonstrate that
they respect something other than profit. "In money we trust!" That's
the alpha and omega of corporate existence. To hell with all of them.
.
> know respect for conservatives
.
Most conservatives are self-serving fascist squarehead assholes; so no,
I don't need to respect them in order to serve the welfare and greater
good of our society.
.
> know respect for yourself
.
Sounds good to me.
.
> Respect and terror are just different levels of fear ...
> when respect is gone all that is left is terror.
.
Don't think I agree with that at all. It seems to me that respect and
terror are two very different things. Terror is a visceral response to
some perceived danger, and leaves when the danger is gone. Respect is
altogether different; it is a product of our personality. Thus respect
must be earned. Giving it away for free only cheapens it and undermines
its true value.
.
- the one who *still* tells it like it is - textman ;>
x
+
> On Nov5 GitcheGumee say: I think that many people confuse the true
> spirit of Christianity with the religion of Christianity.
.
tx say: Theoretically speaking, I would have to agree with you. However,
practically speaking, the "true spirit of Christianity" can only be found
or expressed in and through the religion and the people who practice it.
If it cannot be found there, then where the hell is it?
.
> Perhaps the problem here is the lack of attention to detail. The mixing
> of absolutes (like all and always) with generalizations lead to stereo-
> types and a distorted picture.
.
I tend to agree. And also, having the ability to make subtle, and
unexpected, distinctions helps enormously.
.
> [snipsome] Yes, i was generalizing and using absolutes here. However, i
> have yet to find any evidence contrary to my statements of which you
> seem to half agree with.
.
Evidence is always elusive; especially if one does not care to see it.
.
> But since you are the exception ... why don't you tell us how you
> unequivocally know how things really are?
.
I already did:
.
>> tx previously wrote: ... among all the people in the
>> world it is the philosophers who see furthest and best ...
.
> I'm really interested to know the precise point in which confidence
> becomes vanity and arrogance.
.
haha. You funny guy.
.
> [snipsome] Actually i view fear on three different levels but i left out
> awe for simplification purposes. For the most part i would agree with Peter
> Kreeft's - Perfect Fear Casts Out All "Luv"(A.K..A. Lust). It is my belief
> that by perfecting my fear (respect, awe, terror) and my love i can get
> my perceptions of the way things are closer aligned with the way things
> really are.
.
Actually, GG, if you're really serious about getting your "perceptions of
the way things are closer aligned with the way things really are" you would
do well to forget Kreeft and focus your energies upon a thorough examination
of the history of philosophy. I suggest you begin this lifelong project with
Bertrand Russell's 'A History of Western Philosophy'. Highly recommended! :)
.
Listen; as long as we're here, I'd like to clarify something. Looking over
my other posts, it occurs to me that my position regarding corporations may
strike some people as extreme, and maybe even irrational; and that's the
last impression I want to make. So let me expand on this topic somewhat.
.
Now I understand why the corporations take the anti-pot stance. I have
seen people who not only show up for work stoned, but regularly toke during
working hours (ie. lunch and coffee breaks). Now anyone who tokes on
company time is nothing other than a moron who actively impedes the noble
fight for legalization. It demonstrates contempt for the employer on the one
hand, and a serious lack of self-control on the other. Moreover, this sort of
behavior only strengthens and justifies the negative attitude of the
corporations towards marijuana.
.
As far as I'm concerned, businesses and companies have every right to
punish and/or fire anyone who is stoned on company time. I have no problem
with that. It's just like someone coming to work too drunk to do their job
in an acceptable fashion. Thus if tokers can't control themselves, then
they deserve to be fired. I'm 100% with the corporations on that score.
However, what people do in their own private time is absolutely no concern
of the coporate establishment.
.
And this is where the problem begins. Drug-testing does not distinguish
between those who toke on the job, and those who don't. And it's just this
failure to make this necessary distinction that moves corporations into the
realm of fascism. Hell, it's not just a matter of the drug-testing really.
If you attempt to assert your rights and refuse to provide your urine when
asked, that refusal in and of itself is enough to get you fired from some
companies. If that isn't fascism run amok, what is?
.
- the one who urinates upon corporationns - textman ;>
.
P.S. 2P or not 2P? *That* is the question!
x
textman
*