Post #49,490
8/15/02 2:49:34 PM
|
Why Marijuana is illegal
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others... The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
---Excerpt from the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger, director at the Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate in 1937.
Re-elect Gore in 2004
|
Post #49,492
8/15/02 3:04:03 PM
|
Why marijuana really is illegal (supposedly)
William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper tycoon, has vast timber interests.
An inexpensive process for making paper out of hemp is invented, potentially decimating Hearst's lumber investments.
Shortly thereafter, Hearst wages a massive anti-hemp (marijuana) campaign across his chain of newspapers.
Harry joins in, essentially reading Hearst's editorials verbatim.
So they say, anyway.
Tom Sinclair
"Everybody is someone else's weirdo."
- E. Dijkstra
|
Post #49,501
8/15/02 3:59:25 PM
|
Hadn't heard that one. Makes sense though.
Re-elect Gore in 2004
|
Post #49,516
8/15/02 5:16:16 PM
|
So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #49,521
8/15/02 7:04:27 PM
|
You are missing the other half of the story
At first it was banned purportedly because it made people violent.
A few years later after the "Well, duh" discovery that people smoking it did not become violent, but instead became lethargic, the ban was upheld in the late 40's on testimony that it would make our men so peaceful that they wouldn't be inclined to fight communism.
A view which the 60's arguably stands as evidence for...
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #49,642
8/16/02 9:42:17 PM
|
Re: Why marijuana really REALLY is illegal (supposedly)
What was I talking about?
-drl
|
Post #49,644
8/16/02 9:50:03 PM
|
Ummmm__________kewl________mon
|
Post #49,517
8/15/02 6:08:27 PM
|
Actually, medical effects *are* interesting
In its own way, it (especially in its modern more potent formulations) is as dangerous as tobacco, or alcohol.
I'm not saying that to excuse its classification as a narcotic, or its part in the so-called War on Drugs when alcohol is regulated and sold, Ritalin is given out to hyperactive kids like candy, and the Valium family of drugs is typically way overprescribed, to name three other oft-abused drugs. But because it may not be as bad as the fear-mongers would have you believe doesn't mean it's good or in some way "better".
But whenever I hear someone frothing at the mouth over marijuana use, I am reminded of those "When it was 1900" articles you read every now and then, such as marijuana, heroin, morphine, and others being sold over-the-counter in drugstores, Coca-Cola containing cocaine rather than caffeine, and so forth.
|
Post #49,518
8/15/02 6:15:18 PM
|
They still smoke it anyway
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=48946|Just ask Ellen Feiss], she is a Mac User and Student and Stoner Chick. She even appeared stoned on a commercial for the [link|http://www.apple.com/switch/|Apple: Switch Commercials]. Is Apple another company trying to legalize it?
Or [link|http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drugs_marijuana.html|Is Marijuana harmful?]
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #49,527
8/15/02 8:17:28 PM
|
Dude, you're obsessing with Ellen
Tom Sinclair
"Everybody is someone else's weirdo."
- E. Dijkstra
|
Post #49,643
8/16/02 9:48:59 PM
|
Re: Dude, you're obsessing with Ellen
Dude, it's like an Internet phenomenon - was she stoned? She's getting lots of calls. Even Nitrozac is down with Ellen:
[link|http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/370.html|Mona Switcher]
-drl
|
Post #49,658
8/17/02 12:47:04 AM
8/17/02 12:52:11 AM
|
Yes, Ellen has started using her 15 minutes of fame already.
I can see her in a "Taco Bell" or "Old Navy" commercial already. :)
She is starting to get as big as the AYB craze used to be when it first started.
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
Edited by orion
Aug. 17, 2002, 12:52:11 AM EDT
|
Post #49,534
8/15/02 9:15:04 PM
|
Why I think it ought to stay illegal.
Americans are dumb enough.
|
Post #49,537
8/15/02 9:31:15 PM
|
Now That's!______a hard one to argue against___:(
|
Post #49,647
8/16/02 10:04:50 PM
|
Re: Why I think it ought to stay illegal.
Yeah but they're also to fscking mean.
-drl
|
Post #49,648
8/16/02 10:05:51 PM
|
Re: Why I think it ought to stay illegal.
Yeah but they're also too fscking mean.
-drl
|
Post #49,961
8/20/02 8:47:31 PM
|
What always troubled me 'bout the 60's - Ash you listening?
The 1960's, the era of love, the era of the "Civil Rights Movement", the era of "popular opposition" to War, etc. I've always been troubled by this. Was it that people were more socially responsible back then, or was it that a drug-enduced euphoria caused them to "get along with anyone." I'm not old enough to be a "child of the sixties" but I am close. I was born in '59 and my baby-sitters were all flower children. I have no admiration for them because when they came off their collective "high", they elected Ronald Reagan and showed their true "me-first, me-only" colours. I wish that all of the social progress that was made during the '60's could have been made when people were "thinking straight".
And there is the soft underbelly of my opposition to the legalization of the non-therapeutic use of pshyco-active drugs. For if people in the US cannot behave as civilized homo sapiens without drug influence, perhaps it is better that Muricans are stoned all of the time.
|
Post #49,966
8/20/02 9:01:45 PM
|
I dont know if people were more socially responsable
Me, I "helped" run a free store, had 0 respect for authority, to me respect has to be earned. The fact that the draconian laws on the books at the time that were strategically enforced to enforce social order. This created a huge criminal class as many folks started thinking about the stupidiy of it. Ordinary folks who were labelled criminal and prosecuted created a backlash against of any form of government. Folks who got older turned the free stores and soup lines into cushy government jobs with pensions. The dream faded as the hair grew grey and the bellies bigger. Thru out that time there predators who saw a large flock joined the movements for their own uses created charlies crew, la famiglia, AB etc as the dark underside grew. Me I always kept my own council and learned laughed and loved. The dream to me stopped at altamonte, speed and smack replaced shrooms,weed,lsd and mda(ectasy). The violence escalated, racial integration was halted in the minds of a lot of folks because of the violence. I lived on the dark side for a while and travelled greatly because when you see the high and mighty are no brighter, smarter and are more afraid than you are, opportunity is greated.
nuff said
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html|skill set]
|
Post #49,969
8/20/02 9:09:39 PM
|
I was with you for a while...
but I'm originally from North Carolina, hence a little slow, so Lucy, please 'splain this passage a little: The violence escalated, racial integration was halted in the minds of a lot of folks because of the violence. I lived on the dark side for a while and travelled greatly because when you see the high and mighty are no brighter, smarter and are more afraid than you are, opportunity is greated. bcnu, Mikem
|
Post #49,973
8/20/02 9:18:08 PM
|
Okay
"The violence escalated, racial integration was halted in the minds of a lot of folks because of the violence."
race riots pissed off a lot of cornfed white folks who were starting to get comfortable with equal not separate. The black folks that I knew no longer accepted us folks into the fold, The welcome was more reserved and then as time passed only the brothers were welcome in the revolutionary type circles. These are my personal observations not trying to claim historical fact.
The last part of the quote I will leave as is, probably TMI.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html|skill set]
|
Post #49,975
8/20/02 9:34:32 PM
|
Hmmm....
Maybe the "Black Folks" came down as well.
|
Post #49,974
8/20/02 9:21:57 PM
|
I am (barely) quite literally a child of the 60's
Born 1969.
Growing up I was well aware that the hippy dream was largely founded on unexamined hypocrisy. And I got to the point where I stopped finding it coincidental that a lot of assholes couldn't stop talking about the era of love. (Friends report that the worst concert audiences to deal with were invariably the yuppies at 60's revivals.)
Sure, there were sincere people involved in the 60's. But it seems that for every person who thought and honestly tried, there were a dozen who were willing to chant slogans and go to rallys because of easy sex.
Given all of that, I am not willing to accept the claim that the peace movement in the 60's deserves to be regarded as "progress".
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #49,976
8/20/02 9:39:24 PM
8/20/02 9:40:40 PM
|
There were good deeds done in the 1960's.
More than in the 1980's and 1990's combined.
My issue is with the motivation for those good deeds. In the presence of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, to name just two, how can you say that the 60's does not deserve to "...be regarded as 'progress'"?
Perhaps you are a "Constitutional minimalist"? Is a black man worth < 1 white man?
<Foster's Lager spelling corrections in Edit>
Edited by mmoffitt
Aug. 20, 2002, 09:40:40 PM EDT
|
Post #49,983
8/20/02 9:52:38 PM
|
Note the qualification on my last sentence
To specify that the peace movement wasn't progress.
Most people that I knew who glorified the 60's were far more involved in the peace movement than civil rights. They are the ones that I have the strongest impressions of, and hence the ones that I ranted about. But my impressiond second and third hand of the civil rights movement are much better.
Hence my (rather significant) qualification up front, exactly to exclude the civil rights movement.
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #49,982
8/20/02 9:50:55 PM
|
And OT: YOU are a Gen-X'er.
|
Post #49,985
8/20/02 9:59:22 PM
|
Nope
I miss Gen X by nearly a decade. Gen X happened when all of those teenagers in "The Summer of Love" grew up, settled down, and got serious about having kids. I was born in a baby bust.
And I have even less in common with Gen X than most people my age. My father served in WW II (I was his last kid), and I grew up without a TV. Neither of which left me in sync with the kids around me.
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,061
8/21/02 4:54:30 PM
|
Oh yes you are.
Google it ;-) Mostly X'ers are defined w/birthdays from 1960 or 1961 through 1980 or 1981. That's you, buddy :-) Generation Born Builder 1920-1942 Baby Boomer 1943-1960 Generation X 1961-1981 Generation Y 1982-2000 [link|http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~cafamilies/generations.html|Example 1] Tulgan defines Generation Xers as those with birthdates falling between 1963 and 1977 ... [link|http://www.gca.org/attend/2000_conferences/Spectrum_2000/note3.htm|Another Example with different dates]
|
Post #50,069
8/21/02 5:13:20 PM
|
Square peg -> Round hole
While I don't dispute the validity of your dates and categories, I don't think that those of us born in the sixties ('65 here) fit with the GenX'ers. The term [link|http://www.tweeners.org/|"Tweener"] has been thrown around to describe those of us caught between the Boomers and the X'ers. I'm not sure how well it has caught on, but I think it works nicely since I'd rather not be associated with either, thankyouverymuch.
"With the bravery of being out of range." - Roger Waters
Cliff
|
Post #50,081
8/21/02 6:59:26 PM
|
Exactly
There was a baby boom after WW II, that is generally known as "The Baby Boom". Then there was a baby bust, which is when I was born. Then the Baby Boomers had kids and you had another Baby Boom, and that is what I think of as generation X.
The people in the middle don't share that much with either baby boom, and in my experience don't like being associated with either.
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,166
8/22/02 12:08:35 PM
|
Guess that's something we have in common...
Born in '71, I never felt like part of the "hard rock"/disco is dead croud growing up in the '80s - but then I didn't really fit into the Gen-X Seattle Grunge scene, either.
There are 10 types of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
|
Post #50,171
8/22/02 12:57:19 PM
|
Ben, Cliff, it's called "denial" ;-)
|
Post #50,175
8/22/02 1:32:10 PM
|
Isn't that a river in Egypt?
It isn't just denial, its "plausible denial."* I say that I'm a "tweener" and not an Xer. That's my story and I'm a-stickin' to it. So there. :)
*Note: I've seen it work before. . .
"With the bravery of being out of range." - Roger Waters
Cliff
|
Post #50,419
9/4/02 4:14:03 PM
|
Good one. You should run for office ;-)
|
Post #49,994
8/21/02 1:48:48 AM
|
Generalize 3rd hand a bit more and..
You can pretend that "Muricans today generally are" as alive? focused, interested? and involved - as in late '60's through much of the '70s. Really Ben, I don't think you can wing this one, the 'mood' of an era which you might have noticed ending -from afar- at about 6 years of age.
'Hippy' was transmogrified from the prior Kerouac, 'Beat' stereotypes, became the grab-bag label one could fill with any uncomfortable, uncouth qualities one planned next to dis (as one puffed-up one's own Bag du jour).
Hell, I recall as a 17 yo kid with my first scooter.. (a snazzy Museum of Modern Art-grade Lambretta 125 LD) bumping into a guy who was admiring it parked outside a local beanery - in the Tenderloin dist. of SF. Said he was an artist (! WTF did I know about being 'an artist' ??) I guess for sentimentality from Roma days and a nostalgic ride? - he hopped on back and showed me some of what later became Cathedrals of the Beats et al:
The Black Cat cafe, Ferlinghetti's bookstore, folks hanging about. He split on encountering some friends. I wandered, had a few naive conversations - learned an iota about whole groups I'd never encountered. (Turned out he really Was an artist - one Ken Potter, whose work I saw years later. Obviously a bunch of other folk thought he was, too).
Point? That was a minor Presence + first-degree hearsay and.. I don't know shit (save what I've heard and read) about: what I Saw, about the milieu or especially - who these people really Were. Then and later. Not from my experience, even after some later trips back. It was a mere taste albeit an eye-opening one. From outside, and not only via age.
I don't think you know any more about 'Hippies' or their natural antagonists - either. And especially not about - their 'average degree of hypocrisy'? VS 'the norm'. Not because you have it some% wrong but because - it's all just remote hearsay.
And you don't know shit about the 'peace' movement and its range of participants.. from the casual to the fanatical. Either. Logic isn't enough here.
Not like you to take the EZ Murican homogenization tack, so readily.
Ashton
|
Post #50,000
8/21/02 6:46:42 AM
|
Alternate hypothesis for you
You are assuming that I am forming my opinions out of complete and utter ignorance. And are wondering why I would choose to do that.
The alternate hypothesis is that I formed my opinion because growing up I knew a few too many ex-hippies, including some who were part of the beat movement, and I got sick and tired of self-congratulatory BS from that angle. I also knew more than a few too many fucked up people wandering around trying to figure out what had changed who thought that the world should consider them enlightened forever because they were at Woodstock.
I won't - and didn't - say that all hippies were shallow hypocrites. Or that they didn't think they were trying to change the world. But an undue proportion of the ones who were still talking about how great it was a decade after..?
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,043
8/21/02 1:13:22 PM
|
OT: Ben got the 50,000th post overall
-YendorMike
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
- Jimmy Buffett, June 20, 2002, Tinley Park
|
Post #50,046
8/21/02 2:10:31 PM
|
Milestone Woot!
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #50,074
8/21/02 6:16:50 PM
|
Wasn't even looking
Didn't I get post 100,000 on the original IWE forums as well?
And post 99,999 at Perlmonks is [link|http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=99999|antithesis].
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,056
8/21/02 4:32:08 PM
|
OK Man___ I dig the post-prandial 'self-congratulatory' part
Stalemate I guess.. the loud-mouths always tend to portray the worst aspects* - and we don't hear from the quiet ones who learned a few things and went on.
* while taking credit for the better - casting doubts that there ever was any ... 'better', considering the source. Catch 42
{sigh}
Ashton
|
Post #50,021
8/21/02 10:15:49 AM
|
Re: the Peace Movement
It deserves capitalization. I lived in D.C. in the early 70's. I was there. I saw it, I participated. The peace marches and protests were NOT just a bunch of hippies shouting slogans. Hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life succeeded in forcing our gov. to end an insane war. How is that not progress?
Re-elect Gore in 2004
|
Post #49,978
8/20/02 9:46:07 PM
|
Other than the Civil War, the nation was never...
more divided than in the late 60's. Violent protests, riots, looting, terrorism, bombs, arson, kidnapping, assassinations, you name it.
The Woodstock "festival" in 1969 in some ways culminated the 60's. It was about 66 miles from where I worked in Kingston, NY. When I left work for home on the Friday the concerts started, the roads in that direction were a parking lot. Fortunately, I was heading the other way. I had no idea of what was happening until I got home and my wife told me.
Interesting times.
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
|
Post #49,981
8/20/02 9:49:35 PM
|
Perhaps.
Violent protests, riots, looting, terrorism, bombs, arson, kidnapping, assassinations, you name it. At least then there were ideas.
|
Post #49,986
8/20/02 10:09:26 PM
|
I wondered who that guy was :)
I was trying to get there, never got closer than 60 miles, no rides to be had, wet chilled and no grub for 2 days. Oh, well.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html|skill set]
|
Post #49,988
8/20/02 10:25:15 PM
|
Yep, that's me going the wrong way.
In an IBM "monkey suit", to a wife going bonkers with 3 kids, the youngest 2 months old.
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
|
Post #49,996
8/21/02 3:20:16 AM
|
Yeah I guess, w/jaundiced ear
OK, I Vas Dere Charlie - I was in Berkeley throughout (including the large marches there and in SF.) Later.. some Livermore Lab protests: Hah! protesting my own 'sister'-Lab! in early '80s for its duplicity, role in MIRV-ing everybody's missiles = Unnecessarily.. except to force more nuke e$calation. Etc. [See Edward Teller]
Yer tryin to characterize a Decade + ?? Fool's errand, so I'll try too; no links were scanned for this report, or puppies killed.
First - why would anyone imagine! that magically.. there was 90% participation solely by altruistic brilliant Sages? In '60s or any other time. Gawd we love our mindless slogans.
I'll go with your sense that - Yes, along with the poseurs, the embryo wanna-be MBAs and other expected detritus, were a significant portion of 'sincere' but more than that, informed folks - willing indeed to risk injury in opposition to bogus laws, recent State actions (and the same old Corp hegemony du jour / 3% Ruling Class who ever manage to prevail over always unorg. opposition, for obvious reasons of possessing the power). Ho hum?
'Spirit' there was, as we (US) haven't seen since. IMhO. There was lots of participation in regular drudge work.. for law students, ex. - refs and reading and lectures, often enough by credentialed folk: no class credit; Use the law. Nothing subversive in that.
(OK - I interviewed-sorta Mario Savio, with my Uher 'Report-L' recorder, for ~ 20 min - under guise of 'Reporter' status. This via my program on KBRG about stereophile nonsense + some hastily installed decals on the case.. This during the FSM sit-in at UCB: an hour before the CHP arrived to drag folks down the steps, bouncing heads down each one, etc. First-hand vignette, at least. Damn! missed - Joan Baez singing, on the front steps. :(
I saw genuinely selfless deeds along with some just stupidly dangerous ones - accompanying the expected parasites and sillies. Putting a % on any of the above? would just be personal estimate and bogus.
The press? - Guess! what they chose then as now - to extirpate from a mass of actions anything Photo-Op; ignore.. the sustained, daily hard work done by ordinary folks - and most-all of the results of those works. A bare boob and - press nirvana. Babies same as now. But moving back a few years to IMO the Start:
There is no doubt that 11/22/63 and the later assassinations catalyzed the initial Wake-up Little Suzie calls.. and the momentum built from that day. I don't believe that 9/11 had nearly the same *kind* of Shock as 11/22; the country is now so different in composition, daily routine nastiness on- and off-screen: 9/11 was just an Extreme event, not a different Kind of event. We've been exploding others' buildings.. forever. And gleefully watching smart bombs blow up a bunker (Ooops - full of civilians - bomb shelter. Oh well, collateral). Now catch this shot of the F-99 chasing down a runner! *POW* got 'im. And now a word from..
11/22 was: an unKnown volcano erupting in every major city --> burg. The power of the television medium to 'communicate' were realized for the very First (and Last time, since). People Shut Up, news-types apologized! when they thought they had to murmur some next factoid. No narratives.. mainly: just stark photos (for many, B&W TV == ultimate film noir, Live).
This saturated the emotional centers of *Everyone* from noon on 11/22 through the Monday of the funeral, a tour de force almost entirely of Jacqueline Kennedy direction. Performing ~supernaturally, as she tacitly planned to get self + kids outta this nutzo culture SAP. As she eventually did, after RFK.
IMhO: this surreal Mood STUCK.. underlay all subsequent events in the US (and many other places). On through Vietnam (and some of it persists in small ways).
At JFK's death there were <15 K Murican 'advisors' in Vietnam -- and JFK was himself mightily disturbed by realizing that his inactions had directly caused the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem (sp) [it has been said by several, later]. He planned to reduce the 15K, as of mid-Nov. '63.
Johnson went, simply - NUTZO. Read about it all.
By the time of Woodstock.. the music, the mood the main *hourly* Interest of (in my experience, an unprecedentedly large group) was:
Politics! ('sociology' near-enough?) ie what these governing critters were saying VS what 'was being done in Our name' ie why so much sucked.. yet so many ordinary folk kept babblin '50s platitudes and watchin the War on Tee Vee and then Lawrence Welk or whatever: both in the same catatonic state of disconnect.
Just reread the '68 Democratic Convention events for a soup\ufffdon, a mere whiff of grapeshot. Kent State - child wannabe-Brown Shirts shooting students - through 0-training, immaturity and patently unjustified panic. Lots of lesser events in kind.
And no - there's not been any remotely generalized 'movement' of Any kind I can recall.. since!
(Ronnie brought us Corporate Greed as Sacrament + go-Back-to sleep, but Get Yours and Theirs First.)
Certainly nothing with any real Spirit! - and Spirit there Was, whatever else, galvanized from especially the Moment of:
RFK's assassination '68: he certainly would have become President. Now the 'conspiracy' idea of, "killing off *any* Great Hopes" [??] began to fester and transform and exponentiate. That was the last straw for many.. I met. An electric evening and for days following. DOOM: there would be Nixon. Again, and despite his shameless? shameful juvenile exit from being beaten by Pat Brown for CA Gov.
Muricans mostly (on through current ones) have yet to fully face our behaviour, the absurd rationale, our acts in Vietnam over YEARS. We are In Denial still IMO. The rush to allow the Constitution to become trashed by all 3 collaborating Estates of Govt - is all the proof required. Add in the 4th Estate: Corporate owns that. (Mostly, of course; there's never >90ish% - for the number folk)
I know some who carried their early awareness of the massive hypocrisy of Murica's fav slogans.. on into 'adult'hood and academia, local business, even govt. Do *my* 'numbers' count? Of course not.
Peace..
\\____/
_\\__/
__\\/
[That Word] always Was a chimera and most?.. Knew.. that all the theatrics were about simply - changing alertness, awakening a precious few [max] to the nakedness of the Emperor's slogans. No one with a 3-digit IQ believed that the fat, reactionary fence-enclosed wielders of power would
Ever! suffer an Epiphany?!
(Any more than believe Billy/Bally might)
Did significant numbers Really imagine that next, all them Yahoos would beat their swords into plowshares? Return the offshore deposits?
C'mon - they weren't all (or even mostly) Stupid!
They simply - stopped being sheep And Puritans izzall, and at ~ the same time. (Had lots to learn after dropping that mind-numbing load.) Some learned / some didn't. Ho hum. Read more Vonnegut.
Ashton
sloppy summary, but WTF there cannot be
The Complete True Story\ufffd or even
the full all-purpose definition of 'Hippie'
Old:
The Thousand Year Reich
New:
The Millennium [fill in next despicable] 'Act'
|
Post #50,067
8/21/02 5:07:07 PM
|
Very interesting read. Thank you.
|
Post #50,073
8/21/02 6:14:49 PM
|
re Diem
Hi Ashton, An interesting writeup. :-) One comment - you write: At JFK's death there were <15 K Murican 'advisors' in Vietnam -- and JFK was himself mightily disturbed by realizing that his inactions had directly caused the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem (sp) [it has been said by several, later]. He planned to reduce the 15K, as of mid-Nov. '63.I recall a USNews and World Report article from maybe 15 years ago that said that Kennedy had [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/nf/featured/ken/kenfp.html|signed off on the coup] (an American Experience link) - it wasn't really inaction on his part. I doubt that the US knew that he would be killed though. I think there's evidence on both sides on whether he'd had ideas for reducing US involvement in Vietnam. From the same link: As 1963 wore on, Kennedy considered his options. He could commit further, even send in American combat troops. He could withdraw, and let the Communists claim victory. Kennedy found neither solution palatable. Then another option developed. Some of Diem's generals began to plot a coup against their leader. Kennedy, who had promised to help developing nations help themselves, gave his approval.
On November 2, 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem died at the hands of his generals. In South Vietnam, citizens responded positively to the coup. With Diem out of the way, hopes rose that South Vietnam could stave off the Communists.
Less than two weeks after Diem's death, Kennedy himself was assassinated. The man who promised the world he would stand up to the Communists had done so--for better and for worse. Now another Cold Warrior, Lyndon Baines Johnson, would take his place. And in the jungles of Vietnam, America's bloodiest Cold War confrontation was only beginning. [link|http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/History_Other/The_End_of_the_Diem_Regime.shtml|Here] is an article that discusses the history with a fairly similar viewpoint. Take it with a grain of salt though - no cites are provided. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #50,080
8/21/02 6:52:09 PM
|
WTF was it about the Kennedy family?
You have a campaign between Nixon and JFK. It goes down in history as the first political demonstration of how appearance trumps content in a TV environment (the presidential debate was declared won by JFK by those who saw it on TV, and Nixon by those who heard it on the radio), and a campaign that was infamous for the voting chicanery (particularly near Chicago graveyards). JFK officially wins, and Nixon decides to accept that rather than divide the country by fighting it.
So we get the first Roman Catholic president, youngest ever IIRC, the first one born in the 20'th century. Charisma and an attractive wife I will grant you, if you grant me a family with a tendancy to alcoholism and womanizing. JFK's primary pursuit was seeing how many women he could screw. Somehow he found time to bring us to the brink of nuclear war (the Bay of Pigs fiasco), triple the number of CIA missions, got us into Vietnam (and I don't think it is clear that he planned on getting us out of it), and is widely believed to have murdered his girlfriend, Marilyn Monroe. (Some think that Robert was responsible instead. Theories abound.)
Then he got murdered. Many think there is CIA involvement. If so, then he got his just desserts for what he had them do everywhere else in the world. But in any case it doesn't matter. He gets murdered. He is seen as a hero, and for decades to come he will be the great tragedy, cut down in his prime.
His death accomplishes something useful. The Civil Rights act is passed in sympathy. (Along with a rider for women's equality placed there as a joke by Southern senators when it looked like they would kill it. Certainly the idea of woman's lib was the last thing on JFK's mind, unless you mean liberating them of their clothes and/or virginity.) Lyndon Johnson comes to power. He then dives into Vietnam, and civil rights. And gets re-elected.
A few years later JFK's brother Robert comes to the public stage. He manages to make himself into a hero for millions of young adults. He milks it for all it is worth, then gets killed as well. Thereby guaranteeing that his followers will never become disillusioned with him. JFK's widow, being the good social climber that she is (she has class and is liked so we won't call her a golddigger) marries the richest guy she can find. And a few years later Ted drives off of a bridge, while drunk, and kills a woman. This derails any presidential hopes. He has since become an institution in the Senate who is noted (unsuprisingly) for drunkenness and womanizing.
So WTF is it that leaves people thinking that the Kennedy family is somehow great? Hell, even people who spent years demonstrating against the Vietnam War and the CIA can't seem to be bothered noticing JFK's role in both!
Puzzled,
Ben
PS To be fair, there is one Kennedy that I respect. And that is Caroline, who with Ellen Alderman has managed to make the play of conflicts in the US legal system seem interesting.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,086
8/21/02 8:13:31 PM
|
Bingo. I'm equally puzzled.
If Kennedy lived or Johnson had not capitalized on his death, civil rights legislation would not have made it when it did.
For some reason the Kennedys have been treated as royalty. And no one talks about the shady doings of his father Joseph Kennedy. I was in college in the Boston area during the 1960 election and heard some bad stuff from a local.
In the 1964 election there was a Kennedy, no relation, who was in jail for graft that was re-elected in a town just North of Boston.
Yep, the name causes loss of rationality.
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
|
Post #50,090
8/21/02 8:31:45 PM
|
TR was younger. JFK youngest elected. Agree with the rest.
|
Post #50,096
8/21/02 9:26:20 PM
|
The camelot myth
I enjoyed the LBJ tapes edited and compiled into "Taking Charge" Johnson whitehouse tapes 1963-64 . Changed long held opinions of the man. As for Kennedy he was an outsider much like Clinton, Just think of the accolades if BC was whacked shortly into his first term. In oct you could not have found a texan that would admit voting for kennedy. After november you could not have found one who didnt. He was the first assasination in the instant media (TV) age so the iconisization was swift and certain. As a president he promised us ther moon and space and gave us viet nam. I believe that war stopped our travel into space and colonization of the moon. A waste of a generation.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html|skill set]
|
Post #50,137
8/22/02 4:43:25 AM
|
Re: WTF was it about the Kennedy family? ____[in 20/20]
\ufffdWARNING! - Over-simplification. Data dilution renders compression algorithm results: >50% error probability. Image integrity cannot be guaranteed.You asked, WTF was it about the Kennedy family? then you lumped its two historically exceptional members within a caricature. That is to entirely miss the significance of both JFK and RFK, whatever a one's political coin-toss, or earned displeasure with all power-mad clans. It's a cute dismissal, but within the cynicism is also a smarminess which doesn't even entertain. It's umm bogus. I have little defense for much of this clan's 'history', but the above is just too facile. Let's recap the venue, shall we? 1) This was the US of A. Appearances are All - then add-in an emergence of the occasional charismatic: You tell me how logic might do in the ensuing contest. 2) Nixon was a slime from Day 1; in his opening bout with Helen Gahagan Douglas, he pulled all the stops from commie pinko-ish on through tying that to her underwear color + the usual sexist mind-numbing crap of the '50s. Ike apparently (who ever *knows*, about these reports) came to ... loathe may be too strong a word, but gave little personal support to his candidacy. (He just.. golfed.) Your observation re the different impressions via TV/radio, I have heard also. Nixon had just left the hospital (his recurrent phlebitis IIRC), he refused make-up and looked like a sweating corpse. [I've seen kinescopes]. But the 'surveys' you mention re 'winning the debate' were not the usual pseudo-real 'polls' but included opinions of the [hell, call it Gravitas?]. You as a mathophile would discount it. Whatever JFK's actual sex life, and the certainty that we shall never *know* - his, RFKs or others' relationship to the Monroe unNatural death - none of this stuff was known then. Still and all - it seems likely that his win was ~bogus == yes, Nixon was - that close, whatever the Charisma\ufffd. (Not as bogus as the recent one of course, but also apples/oranges) It's impossible for me to distill the hundreds of hours exposure to K's wit (and its speed), his use of language etc. - and even the manner of his screw-ups VS.. the usual Murican polit-speak of the prior days. Nor can you, second-hand - estimate the magnitude of the effect of his Inaugural speech (even). Go view some of his press conferences for a hint of what I'm trying to limn. Ike had bored 'us' unto death; here was Excitement (!) The response to his assassination was little to do with "the death of a State Figure"; everything to do with the extent of JFK's charisma + (IMhO) the sense of loss of so much *anticipated in his Next term. There was pathos (and naturally bathos too) shared by millions -- certainly comparable to at FDR's death, which came as no surprise - he was obviously dying.. (though for FAR-less accomplishment, most all can agree now). * Everybody got to play: what Would he have done in 1964 ??? Simplest put - he appeared Alive as so few politicians ever seem; he was erudite and above all [re the 2nd term] he exuded those possibilities. That IMhO is the root of the myths. Deconstruction was inevitable and as with all such: Would! intermix factoid and imagination. (as with many Believers' personal picture of God, the male anthropomorph) On to RFK - and whatever he Was VS seemed to be (to foes and friends). A few years later JFK's brother Robert comes to the public stage. He manages to make himself into a hero for millions of young adults. He milks it for all it is worth, then gets killed as well. Thereby guaranteeing that his followers will never become disillusioned with him. JFK's widow, being the good social climber that she is (she has class and is liked so we won't call her a golddigger) marries the richest guy she can find. Too long a story even to tap the hi/low spots: he had gone from initial work as atty., for HUAC, House UnAmerican (!!) Activities Committee as in slime? ... on through, much-more than an "AG" joined-at-hip to JFK all during the Admin --> what could only be described as a most unLikely epiphany of conscience. Especially for.. a member of the K-Clan! Try to 'prove' that his speeches of that campaign -- were merely 2002 'War on Evul'-grade hype, if you want. If the above jingle is what you take for an adequate dismissal of the man + his clan (and also as final fractional-crystallization of Jaccqueline K. to an ugly totem) - enjoy your smug distillation. It doesn't remotely capture +/-s, the flavor of the play - but it Is 'short'. IMO, as a person.. RFK simply cannot be dismissed as-if "just another of the K-Clan / all the rest is hype". Ho hum. He was regarded differently from his brother - he was deemed to be actually Honest! He Would have been President, and everyone (I ever met at the time = a considerable number) 'Knew' he would end Vietnam! speedily and the expectation was: "honorably" in a definition which would have been alien to Nixon's psyche. (my opinion from all experience of both). The timing of his death, etc. + the 5 years since JFK, the ML King assassination, the 58,000 US heaped dead burned bodies + the 3? 4? millions of Vietnamese dead -- produced a second national mourning; by then less Shocking because -as NOW- so much Other bad shit had numbed people since 11/22/63. As to the rest of this clan: Yes of course, Joe Kennedy exemplified the sort of greed which Ronnie blessed during his turn to read the scripts. Disassembly nears completion on these -- including the recent ones who raped, murdered etc. (Skakel? IIRC - nailed for a 20+ year old murder of a neighbor girl). Endless lode to be minded. Soap Opera. But Muricans Love! (-d?) dynasties and especially Dynasty Tee Vee: call it an inherited Royals-envy; Orb & Sceptre, Pomp & Circumstance.. or as Dick Feynman would have put it, Epaulets! :-\ufffd Ashton Of Course! *everyone* whose massive ego seeks Power... bloody-well Had better Be SUSPECT! {sheesh}
|
Post #50,172
8/22/02 1:02:13 PM
|
Ike got us into Viet Nam, not Kennedy.
|
Post #50,176
8/22/02 1:36:11 PM
|
Actually, it was Truman's fault. >:-)
[link|http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html|Vietnam Timeline] September 2, 1945 - Japanese sign the surrender agreement in Tokyo Bay formally ending World War II in the Pacific. On this same day, Ho Chi Minh proclaims the independence of Vietnam by quoting from the text of the American Declaration of Independence which had been supplied to him by the OSS -- "We hold the truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. These are undeniable truths."
Ho declares himself president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and pursues American recognition but is repeatedly ignored by President Harry Truman.
September 13, 1945 - British forces arrive in Saigon, South Vietnam.
In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi.
September 22, 1945 - In South Vietnam, 1400 French soldiers released by the British from former Japanese internment camps enter Saigon and go on a deadly rampage, attacking Viet Minh and killing innocent civilians including children, aided by French civilians who joined the rampage. An estimated 20,000 French civilians live in Saigon.
September 24, 1945 - In Saigon, Viet Minh successfully organize a general strike shutting down all commerce along with electricity and water supplies. In a suburb of Saigon, members of Binh Xuyen, a Vietnamese criminal organization, massacre 150 French and Eurasian civilians, including children.
September 26, 1945 - The first American death in Vietnam occurs, during the unrest in Saigon, as OSS officer Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey is killed by Viet Minh guerrillas who mistook him for a French officer. Before his death, Dewey had filed a report on the deepening crisis in Vietnam, stating his opinion that the U.S. "ought to clear out of Southeast Asia."
[...] It's a long and intricate history... Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #50,192
8/22/02 3:40:04 PM
|
Revisionist history! It was the French. :-)
It was General Charles de Gaulle that was to blame.
There was no Viet Nam then, it was called French Indo-China. The French had been there since the middle of the 19th century. Rubber tree plantations were the main attraction.
At least till [link|http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/index.htm|Dien Bien Phu] in 1954.
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
|
Post #50,258
8/23/02 7:54:17 AM
|
And note that Eisenhower hadn't yet sent in the army
Eisenhower left that to Kennedy, and Kennedy did not disappoint.
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,036
8/21/02 12:18:39 PM
|
What always troubled me 'bout the 60's (huh?)
Now those are rose-colored glasses indeed. Peace Movement.... well, no peace movement without the war, which also started in the 60's. Civil rights/social programs? Hah, Johnson's way of making feel-good political hay while unobtrusively increasing our involvement in Vietnam. Don't forget the civil rights movement went hand-in-hand with the most long-lasting (and many argue destructive) suite of social programs enacted since the great depression.
As I think Ben is arguing, the 60's was not the idyllic oasis of peace and love a lot of people would like to believe or mis-remember.
|
Post #50,058
8/21/02 4:44:31 PM
|
Oasis might be a good word.
My take is that there was little communication across the huge gap of (say) ~ "what is worth doing with a life?". Nothing like The Web and todays's techno-toys everywhere. Reporters seeking answers, preferably in Controversial format to fit their comfortable agenda == selective data taking.
So.. for benefit of the conventional minded folks, one could always find an overtly dope-smokin idiot to answer chum-bait Questions to suit. And vice versa - arrogance was no stranger in the 'alternate' camp: Shock! the normal folks where possible. Egotism by any name.
So I'll agree - one who wishes to characterize the 'peace movement' as some widespread quality of an admirable Age, are blowing smoke, and there's more smoke umm a blowin in the wind Now (on all topics) that ever before.
*cough* smoke detector keeps beepin.
Pretty soon we'll turn off the smoke detectors again, as the alarms are so annoying as a constant background noise. War on Evil, anyone?
Ashton
|
Post #50,118
8/21/02 11:38:47 PM
|
Good word? OMG ashton and I agree?
The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
|
Post #50,139
8/22/02 5:21:57 AM
|
False alarm - only a little..
It waren't no universal 'era of everyone wantin Peace'.
But as Silverlock points out somewhere around this thread: the 'peace marches' engaged hundreds of thousands: actually off dead asses and marching.
Imagine-away these citizen-participants of every stripe of politics, religion, class yada yada -- as some few scruffy stereotypes? and you have got it about as Wrong as 'wrong' can get. Like most such strife:
Accept no substitutes - read lots about it, if you weren't there to live it: slogans won't cut it.
Communication was so.. provincialized? homogenized by an insouciant meeja of similar ilk as today? ___? the 'oasis' was perhaps, that of a cohesive group: those who actually dedicated say, several hours every day towards some specific local aim, roughly related to the rubric 'peace' - and who came to recognize the "steady workers" and not the periodic drop-ins of little earnestness.
As with most collections of homo-saps. Many wish to bask in the aura, but would rather golf.. the other 95% of the time.
Ashton
who doesn't pass the above 'participatory test', either. I highly regard those who did. That 'peace action' ended Vietnam as only a handful of politicos were willing to dare. Until it became mandatory - via *large numbers* in motion. And pissed.
|
Post #49,539
8/15/02 9:37:24 PM
|
What I've always wondered
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Seems to me that mary jane falls under tpoh, as found in The Declaration of Independence. :-)
Darrell Spice, Jr.
[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #49,540
8/15/02 9:42:35 PM
|
Document rendered obsolete.. in practice.__ Recently.
|
Post #49,556
8/16/02 9:03:42 AM
|
It doesn't bother me that "Ellen" might be a stoner chick.
It bothers me that so many potheads are idolizing her when she is clearly a dumbass.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #49,559
8/16/02 9:47:40 AM
|
How did she become a dumb*ss?
From smoking too much MJ, or was she like born that way?
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #49,570
8/16/02 11:02:47 AM
|
MJ doesn't make you dumb....
It CAN however, make you forget you were smart.
Stupidity is certainy not limited to potheads - and a number of the most intelligent people I've ever known smoke the stuff - like my one buddy who went to Cal Tech on a free ride, who's teacher was Feynman himself. He was SO smart, that Feynman sent his HS Physics teacher (my father) a thank-you note for sending him to Cal Tech. The man works has worked as a successful physicist and mathemetician since. I know many talented and productive programmers and admins that indulge, too.
Personally, I believe the stuff is like anything else - excess has negative side effects.
If you are stoned all the time, if being stoned is all that matters to you, if your life is focussed on that kind of self-indulgance constantly, it's a bad thing. It's always easy to focus on negative images.
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Post #49,581
8/16/02 12:52:59 PM
|
It's not the drugs
They just focused on an idiot as their new media icon... I guess they're going with the "any port in a storm" mentality, but all I can say is... bad choice.
Like, and it was all beep beep beep, and like, the paper was gone... it was a good paper too...
*shudders uncontrollably*
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #49,583
8/16/02 12:56:29 PM
|
Part of thier market? ROFL
I wouldn't think that many potheads could afford Macs...
Or maybe 'if a pothead can use it, surely YOU can' is the message they are trying to get across...
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Post #49,596
8/16/02 2:18:54 PM
|
Apple is trying to appeal to new markets.
They figure in that even a Pothead Student can apply for a loan to get a Mac. The whole point is trying to get people switched from a PC to a Mac. Ellen fits that Teenager market that can tell their parents what computer they want them to buy. She is the student that is getting ready for college, and most college students have experimented with drugs (Not me, but I assume most have at some point?) and if they can get someone in that demographic to appear to be stoned (She may be wearing contact lenses with redness in them and acting like she is stoned?) it might appeal to other stoners in that age range?
Of course they also could have gotten "Cheech and Chong" or "Jay and Silent Bob" to endorse Macs, but they would have cost more. :)
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #49,618
8/16/02 5:09:20 PM
|
Your inexperience with 'pot' or potheads
is evident and suggests that you don't see the much more prevalent dumbth under the Other (taxed) dopes: alcohol for just one. Then throw in the drugged 'active' *kiddies and the psych-altering er tranqs, which millions use in one form or another
*bored outta their skulls by rote 'learning' = drug the tykes to keep em anchored to that desk.. 2 hours at a time. For society's comfort and convenience, not *theirs*
You're merely buying that level of propaganda as got 'hemp' proscribed for purely $$ reasons -- and which *ludicrously* has gotten it categorized with (even) di-acetyl morphine ie heroin!
BTW - those users of heroin who make a steady income (taxi drivers, for one) manage quite well over decades! of use; they can cope with daily work quite indistinguishably from other folks. [no, not the ones whose only aim is to stay stoned forever -- the many others who indulge but also have other interests]. It is the artificial illegality which forces the addict to do bad things to Get the stuff: which is the food for the stereotypes about 'heroin users'.
As you well know - many appear to need *some* escape from the idiocy of very many 'jobs' (as these are currently 'managed') and from the homogenized environment of our most self-indulgent- culture ever. And that is what drugs do - as they have done for eons - provide some internal escape from an (to the user) oppressive daily environment. What Else is: the daily diet of shoot-em-up Tee Vee, movie, Game fare than - YAN escape? Mental-drug / chem drug: take your pick.
You 'think' you have "druggies" neatly categorized as - abberant? dumb? - and nothing to do with You << Hah.. check the labels on those meds bottles. And maybe begin noticing that, most of the propaganda about drug-use and the character of the users is just that, propaganda; largely about - keeping an entire populace sufficiently homogenized and complaisant so as to be controllable. And that manipulation - most often also means profitable for the few.
ie the topic of "drugs" just ain't the simplistic one you apppear to hold - black/white. YOU are a 'druggie' as much as any heroin user - our entire culture ARE a bunch of OTC or HMO (or street) DRUGGIES.
We handle this contradiction as we handle so many others, because: we love euphemisms a Lot, and these help us to disguise the hyocrisy of the entire imaginary Drug Warz scenario.
HTH,
Ashton
|
Post #49,625
8/16/02 5:54:39 PM
|
Which underscores my point
Why the hell is NORML so happy that this chick is Apple's face of stoned america? Why not push for Abbie Hoffman in a Think Different commercial instead?
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #49,638
8/16/02 9:15:19 PM
|
It is ironic
that Dell uses the Dell-Dude which appears to act stoned, and this Ellen Feiss girl on Apple's ad also appears to act stoned and also seems to have red eyes and other signs that she is on drugs.
Does it make me happy? No. But it does make me laugh. Also her story about the PC eating her homework makes me laugh as well. Another laugh is that many people have rallied around her and made web sites about her, and her commercial wasn't that great to begin with. It makes me laugh in the same way that the "Airplane" movies made me laugh. You just cannot create that type of cornball humor without basing it on real life situations unless you are really really creative if you know what I mean. Oh yeah, if "Airplane" is too old, consider the "Kung Pow: Enter The Fist" movie. Comedy so stupid and silly that it makes you squirt your drink out of your nose while you watch it. :) Some of the funniest stuff wasn't supposed to be funny, but it is anyway.
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #50,177
8/22/02 2:19:54 PM
|
Heh...
Why not push for Abbie Hoffman in a Think Different commercial instead? Heh...because Abbie Hoffman really does Think Different! Which presents two problems for Apple: 1) Bad Q: The target market just ain't Abbie. 2) Truth in Advertising: We wouldn't really anyone to really Think different, would we? Tends to cause people to question their sheep-like addiction to things (like Apple computers?)jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #49,646
8/16/02 10:00:10 PM
|
Re: Your inexperience with 'pot' or potheads
Cabbies on heroin? Holy shit you couldn't drive a cab on heroin. I've never had to concentrate so hard on any job. There are live people in the back who might rob or kill you, or you're fighting traffic, or fatigue from long hours.
I knew a lot of cabbies in Denver. One day we were all sitting around at the bus station on a very slow day, and the conversation fell silent. The senior driver (30+ years) blurted out "Shit! If I was a junkie I'd go get high!" and we all busted up. The last thing any of us would do is narcotics.
-drl
|
Post #49,651
8/16/02 10:33:11 PM
|
Know whatcha mean..
Apparently the maintenence dose is minimal - how long they wait before driving I didn't hear. 'Treat' is after work hours. When you're not scratching around continuously for JUST the-next-dose: you live differently than the stereotype.
(Yes I know what H. feels like)
Ashton
|
Post #49,660
8/17/02 12:56:44 AM
|
My experience with 'potheads'
they called themselves "Burnouts" in Junior High and High School. They picked on me all the time (I was your typical Computer Geek or Nerd or Dork, whatever they decided to call me) and were very violent and paranoid. When one of them got busted smoking a joint in the bathroom, they would blame kids like me for narcing on them, even if he didn't narc on them. Why? Because we refused to share a joint with them or even try one out. So regulary they picked fights with us, did damage to our stuff, and asked for "protection money" or else they would be back to do more of the same. Bullies, most of them were. The school refused to do anything to them, except assign them detention or suspend them for a week or two, and then they were back. When they came back they got mad at us again, and took it out on us. I always thought that maybe they got stupid from smoking the stuff, but now I see that it could be all the time that they were suspended from school and missing classes?
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #49,671
8/17/02 5:08:15 AM
|
Ahh.. Nasty stuff.
I was referring to the larger (more nearly 'adult') population and not the inevitable problems of babies [trying Any kind of stuff because it's In]. IMhO that is more about immaturity made worse by dope - including plain ol deadly nicotine, beer etc.
Marijuana is hardly a drug of choice for acting out aggressions, despite your experiences with this bunch of jerks. But BTW the same sort of utter misuse - is occurring with MDMA / Ecstasy, and apparently for the same sheep-like reasons:
While it is an amphetamine hybrid, it was never meant to be mixed with alcohol / other stuff + atavistic music stimulus (just as psych-active as chemicals). It is about producing a calm state, which it does, in pure form and without deliberate other stimuli added. Note that amphet. given to now many children, indeed produces the opposite effects (calming too) to the popular 'speed' behaviour -in many children.. Maybe just one difference between small children and adults. Teen-age? Who knows what the hormones add to the mix. Chemistry.
Your experience demonstrates that marijuana, whatever its common use: doesn't stop really stupid people from acting out. I assert only that - that stupid shit Isn't "caused by the marijuana" per se! Clear? (And obviously - the m. can't prevent! those acts)
Ashton
|
Post #49,964
8/20/02 8:57:09 PM
|
Disagree.
that stupid shit Isn't "caused by the marijuana" per se! Nonsense. Every bit of experimental evidence belies this. I will grant that all of this hinges upon one's definition of "stupid", but the brain clearly processes information differently under the effects of even a minimal amount of THC. And THC remains in the brain much longer than most foreign stimulants/depressant. I suspect my anecdotal experience is common. Of the people I know who have smoked dope, they are VASTLY intellectually, academically and as logical thinkers, dramatically inferior to those folks I know who have never smoked dope. For the moment on the Right Wing Box, Mikem
|
Post #49,997
8/21/02 3:55:20 AM
|
Nil data.
Never seen this vastness you speak of. Could cite some who ceased being neurotic twits, via an occasional toke - but I don't know anyone currently, who has regularly used m. over many years - whose peformance I might imagine to measure. Personally I found it to be not attractive, so I can't even 'test' myself. :-\ufffd
Acid I have had some slight experience with, and I wouldn't dream of affixing a good/bad label to it; I know of some extremes of results - and it appears no one has bothered to find out since: how to predict umm 'cui bono' ? A few had their lives altered quite for the best - in their opinion. I take their word on that. I found out a couple things too - mainly about the fearfulness of the mass.
Part of the problem of assessment of both has been / remains - the unwillingness to do any sufficient and trustworthy studies; Puritanism Doesn't Want to Know: It Judges. All current 'official' judgments are purely Religious, with only a smattering of small more nearly 'objective' ones. I trust none in this climate of allopathic medicine and stubborn resistance to honest enquiry. (cf. stem cells - deja vu) Muricans will allow Fundamentalist dogma to limit ... too much to describe. People whose chronic pain is relieved - have to fight an AG, even after passing laws in their own State. Dogma.
I won't argue with your personal observations, nor be convinced either.
Ashton
|
Post #50,031
8/21/02 11:30:56 AM
|
No Connection
Getting high started happening a few hours after the first breath, the first boink, and the first meal. As humans have always instinctively known, reality sucks and moreover is incomprehensible. Therefore altered states and the desire to experience them have and always will be with us.
Zippo connection with intelligence - although personally, I'd say straight arrows are not only more boring (less interesting) than indulgers, they are also duller and less imaginative.
-drl
|
Post #50,059
8/21/02 4:49:24 PM
|
{snort}________:-\ufffd
|
Post #50,220
8/22/02 7:46:28 PM
|
Interesting fact
while I was a teenager, and in a mental hospital for a few times, I was the only teenager at that time that didn't smoke pot. Everyone else I talked to in the hopital told me that they did smoke pot at one time at least. They had asked a question about who did smoke pot and those who did raised their hands, everyone raised their hands but me.
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #50,418
9/4/02 4:12:23 PM
|
You're not the Lone Ranger ;-)
I turn 43 next week and I am probably the only person that age who can look his/her kids in the eye and honestly say, "I never did". I guess that makes two of us now, eh? ;-)
|
Post #50,436
9/4/02 5:15:55 PM
|
Got ya beat.
I attended The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington for about 3.5 years - and I was probably one of three people in the entire history of the school who managed to avoid ingesting ANY drugs of any sort while I was there.
Believe me, this was quite a feat.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #50,451
9/4/02 6:07:38 PM
|
I dunno....
I grew up in Southern California. I attended Bancroft Junior High School (the one that was on 60 minutes for having a per capita drug abuse statistic higher than any educational institution in the state - and that includes Berkley!). Then, I went to high school at Lakewood Senior High School (home of the "Spur Posse" that made news in the '80's).
I was a teen-ager in the 70's in Southern California, surfed, scuba dived, etc. and didn't use drugs (okay, well, except for alcohol, and then only beer, and then only after I graduated high school, and then only to excess ;-).
|
Post #50,498
9/4/02 8:54:04 PM
|
The Three Amigos!
We three, who never did drugs. Except maybe in college when we smoked cigarettes or drank beer/booze. But that doesn't count, as those are legal drugs.
I don't drink or smoke anymore. Not for a long time. I am just a little bit insane and I get my highs from life and having fun with my friends and video games and other stuff.
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #50,526
9/4/02 9:57:26 PM
|
The 'green...
At the time, this was the College that Kurt Cobain 'n crew were hanging out at, dreaming about hitting the big time, holding massive dorm parties practically every weekend. This was the college where the teachers served tea made out of some rather interesting mushrooms for the senior tea. The second most common item on campus (after clothing) was a water bong. They practically issued them to the dorm rooms - every dorm had at least one, including the so-called "drug-free" apartments. Now, admittedly, I can't touch your pedegree as far as your experiences prior to college, but Evergreen was pretty much the Land of Eternal Munchies.
I never even so much as drank a beer while I was there.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #49,652
8/16/02 11:10:11 PM
|
Hey, wait a minute . .
Don't dopers all use Apples already? All the ones I've known did (don't know any dopers right now). This may be just one of those "feel good" preaching to the choir ads like the auto companies do so often. "Yes, I made the right choice!"
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #49,659
8/17/02 12:50:44 AM
|
Uh, yeah, maybe?
Apple markets mostly to the Educational and Creative (Artists, Web Designers, Hollywood Script Writers, etc) markets, which also seem to have the highest drug use out of most of the markets. So why not put an obvious "Pothead" on one of their "Switch" ads? They are now marketing to the teenage girl student market with Ellen, who also seem to smoke pot and use other drugs?
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #49,664
8/17/02 3:24:27 AM
8/21/07 5:53:54 AM
|
Raised in American Pop Culture
Uh like, you know, at the mall.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #49,661
8/17/02 12:57:18 AM
|
On Prohibition and Opiates.
A short book review in The Economist. [link|http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1270531|Choose your poison]. Will the hysteria about heroin one day seem equally quaint [as that about tea]? Tom Carnwath, a senior doctor working with drug users, and Ian Smith, a former heroin user turned social worker, certainly think so. In their level-headed, informative and witty book, they point out that opium was seen until a century ago as a huge benefit. Like aspirin, it cured many ills with mild side-effects. Indeed, by coincidence, both heroin and aspirin were isolated within a fortnight of each other in 1897 by the same team of German researchers\ufffdwho thought heroin the more medically useful product.
[...]
Mr Husak's destruction job is elegantly argued and philosophically informed. Will common sense win? Will drugs one day be as available as tea? Mr Husak reminds us of Senator Morris Sheppard's jut-jawed prediction, three years before prohibition's repeal, that the re-legalisation of alcohol sales was as likely as a humming bird's flying to the planet Mars \ufffdwith the Washington Monument tied to its tail.\ufffd [link|http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~dart/11-10.html|Opiates] are different from other drugs because they're so very similar to chemicals that bind to receptors in the brain. They're strongly addictive. It's hard to imagine someone seriously arguing that [link|http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_hist.html|heroin] (excellent link, BTW) is a good drug. The book sounds like an interesting read - I'm skeptical though that it's well argued. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #49,672
8/17/02 5:30:38 AM
|
Well.. you know this
And I know this, and know many.. who know this.
(I once read an extensive history of Coca, similar in tone)
But knowledge has little to do with anything legislated the Murican Way. There's Big $$ in organized repression - never mind the anti-Constitutional frosting on the cake: confiscations with no due process. And because we are so sanctimonius - especially that twit Bennett and his legislated-morality coterie - I guess we can see why..
Reversing the present For-Profit prison boom.. seems a lot like the hummingbird quip. Personally I haven't the slightest idea what social-nuclear explosion would be needed to awaken the Murican Peepul from their habitual preference for Puritan-originated bathos.
Neither logic nor reason is enough. Crap shoot, maybe worse today than ever before - Hell, we're about to forcibly eject a guy who hates us, via preemptive first strike! We are capable of any madness and we have the equipment to implement our fantasies. The Drug Warz shall continue in background for the larger madness. Unless something *extraordinary* occurs next and quite soon.
Ashton
{ugh}
|
