Category Archives: Quotes

END THE DRUG WAR!

The following is an article by John Stossel recently featured in the Boston Herald.

“I’m confused. When I walk around busy midtown Manhattan, I often smell marijuana. Despite the crowds, some people smoke weed in public. Usually the police leave them alone, and yet other times they act like a military force engaged in urban combat. This February, cops stormed a Columbia, Mo., home, killed the family dog and terrorized a 7-year-old boy — for what? A tiny quantity of marijuana.

Two years ago, in Prince George’s County, Md., cops raided Cheye Calvo’s home — all because a box of marijuana was randomly shipped to his wife as part of a smuggling operation. Only later did the police learn that Calvo was innocent — and the mayor of that town.

“When this first happened, I assumed it was just a terrible, terrible mistake,” Calvo said. “But the more I looked into it, the more I realized (it was) business as usual that brought the police through our front door. This is just what they do. We just don’t hear about it. The only reason people heard about my story is that I happened to be a clean-cut white mayor.”

Radley Balko of Reason magazine says more than a hundred police SWAT raids are conducted every day. Does the use of illicit drugs really justify the militarization of the police, the violent disregard for our civil liberties and the overpopulation of our prisons? It seems hard to believe.

I understand that people on drugs can do terrible harm — wreck lives and hurt people. But that’s true for alcohol, too. But alcohol prohibition didn’t work. It created Al Capone and organized crime. Now drug prohibition funds nasty Mexican gangs and the Taliban. Is it worth it? I don’t think so.

Everything can be abused, but that doesn’t mean government can stop it, or should try to stop it. Government goes astray when it tries to protect us from ourselves.

Many people fear that if drugs were legal, there would be much more use and abuse. That’s possible, but there is little evidence to support that assumption. In the Netherlands, marijuana has been legal for years. Yet the Dutch are actually less likely to smoke than Americans. Thirty-eight percent of American adolescents have smoked pot, while only 20 percent of Dutch teens have.
One Dutch official told me that “we’ve succeeded in making pot boring.”

By contrast, what good has the drug war done? It’s been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. Since then, government has spent billions and officials keep announcing their “successes.” They are always holding press conferences showing off big drug busts. So it’s not like authorities aren’t trying.

We’ve locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America’s human-rights record because our prisons are “packed with inmates.”

Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do!

Need more proof? Fox News runs stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs that smuggle drugs into Arizona. Few stop to think that legalization would end the violence. There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don’t smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime.

The drug trade moved to Mexico partly because our government funded narcotics police in Colombia and sprayed the growing fields with herbicides. We announced it was a success! We cut way back on the Colombian drug trade.

But so what? All we did was squeeze the balloon. The drug trade moved across the border to Peru, and now it’s moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States.

That’s what I call progress. It the kind of progress we don’t need.

Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote: “(O)nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness … (w)hy not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays … ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious … than that done by narcotic drugs.”

Right on, Ludwig!”- http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/end-the-drug-war.html

Naturally, because Stossel is writing for corporate thugs, his piece lacks the subversive quality of say a Kevin Booth flick. In other words, he doesn’t cite the Government as Vicious and Evil criminals, like they are. But, nonetheless, he makes some key, fundamental points here and the fact that this matter is being questioned in such Right Wing media as the Herald and Faux News, demonstrates that we are moving forward. Yippie!

Classic Film Review: Anarchism In America

Full Title: Anarchism In America
Director(s): Steven Fischler and Joel Sucher
Year: 1983
Grade: B
Comments:AIA is a good starting point for those that want to learn about Anarchsim, because (as displayed in the documentary) most people have little to no idea of what it really is. The doc does a good job of explaining to viewers that anarchism is a strong social, political, economic, and spiritual philosophy and/or movement built on individualist principles and the belief that society would be better off without the state. The filmmakers distinguish this from the narrow minded view that anarchists are just about chaos and throwing bombs, which unfortunately most folks believe. The film features various anarchsits including, Emma Goldman, returning to America after having been deported for years in rare video footage, veteran Murray Bookchin, tax resisting, “market” anarchist, Karl Hess, the Dead Kennedys (interview and performance), amongst other famous and unknown anarchists. The film also shows various implicit anarchists including American workers committed to the rugged individual ideals of America and they associate this with anarchism, or at least the filmmakers do as well as a sowing company in which the workers run the show a la Chomsky! Speaking of Noam, he is nowhere to be seen and other prominent anarchists and related groups/organizations like the trailblazing paper, Fifth Estate>. I suppose they can’t document everything, but still they focused too much on the implicit Americanism rather than the explicit characteristics; albeit a nice feature. In addition, we see footage of the Liberatarian Party and how this connects to the anti-government (or anti-state power) stance of anarchism, historical events such as the Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution, and the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti. Lastly, my only other complaint is the fact that they didn’t include any anarchists that used violence or force as a political means, justified or not. Granted, this might reenforce the negative connotations of the philosophy that naive viewers have, but at the same time, it would be nice to provide a balanced picture, considering some anarchists are violent. Overall, it was worth a watch and I would recommend it, not for those who want an in depth history of anarchism, but rather for those who are curious or unaware of it and want to learn about the philosophy/movement, at least the American aspects up to the early 1980s.

The following site has a lot of information on this documentary as well the film itself, which can also be viewed on Youtube as seen below.

http://alexpeak.com/art/films/aia/

Here are some cool quotes from the movie, which also appear on the above site.

“Almost anyone, I suppose, can call himself or herself an anarchist, if he or she believed that the society could be managed without the state. And by the state—I don’t mean the absence of any institutions, the absence of any form of social organisation—the state really refers to a professional apparatus of people who are set aside to manage society, to preempt the control of society from the people. So that would include the military, judges, politicians, representatives who are paid for the express purpose of legislating, and then an executive body that is also set aside from society. So anarchists generally believe that, whether as groups or individuals, people should directly run society,” Murray Bookchin

“My understanding of anarchism has as part of its element a connection between ends and means. To me, if one is an anarchist, then, from my point of view, one also must be nonviolent, and if one is nonviolent, one must be an anarchist—I see the linkages very clear[ly]. A person who believes in nonviolence is a person who believes that the sort of society we want to achieve is a society without violence, without wars, and without injustice; and to use wars, violence, and injustice to achieve that society is to be counterproductive,” Ed Hedaman

“Well, it’s hard to tell on the basis of the Party’s rhetoric, after all they’re running for state office, but my experience is that most people who are in the Libertarian Party have pretty decent anarchist impulses, even if they do not say they are anarchists—most of them will say they are libertarians, at any rate. And one thing that is useful is that they have a fairly well-refined analysis of why they aren’t conservative. It took the New Left to do a proper analysis on American liberals, it seems to me, and I suspect that the libertarians are doing the best analysis of American conservatives. I think that they are quite good people, and that the Party contains within it probably more people of an anarchist tendency than any other organisation in the country,” Karl Hess

Here’s Part I

Chris

Good-Bad, Not Evil

Jared Swilley – 2003

“I think we’re good-bad, not evil. A lot of club owners say they don’t like us, but deep down, I think they do. We like to create an atmosphere of chaos at our shows. I really hate going to shows where people just stand around and don’t do anything — you could do that at home with a video. If you come to see the Black Lips, we’re really going to do everything we can to put on a show. And if we’re going to break stuff or go nuts, we’re all really careful not to damage the club’s equipment. We do get into some trouble, but it’s never too much trouble. I think a lot of the stories people are hearing about us are blown way out of proportion.”

Tarantino and Postmodernism

The following essays was for my Cultural Studies course, therefore it is not of the same quality or style than that of my other writing.

In modern media, we often see pastiches of older works of art. Many artists are so heavily influenced by previous genres/styles that they literally recreate these styles in their own works. We seem to see this everywhere, from music to television to film. Sure, artists paying homage or in a more pejorative sense stealing from other artists is nothing new. With that being said, some artists have taken it to a new level, where their works are filled to the brim with references to other works. In particular, writer/director, Quentin Tarantino has made a name for himself as being a master of stylistic filmmaking in the past two decades and is held as one of the finest filmmakers around the world. To postmodernists theorists, Tarantino must be a menace for simply creating giant references, often references to other references, ultimately leaving us to question what is original or real anymore. Personally, I think his approaches are appropriate and a postmodernist analysis of his most popular film, Pulp Fiction (1994) would strongly differ from my viewing or reactions to it.
With Pulp Fiction Quentin Tarantino utilizes various techniques from previous filmmakers and makes countless references to films and other areas of pop culture. Frequently during dialogue, a character refers to a famous person, song, movie, etc. For example, the character Jules often calls characters by celebrity names; he refers to a British speaking character as “Ringo,” this is a reference to Beatles drummer Ringo Starr. Many works make such minor references, but in Tarantino’s films, viewers are literally inundated with hundreds. But, this is only the beginning. The hip director lifts lines straight out of older films. For instance, in one scene, a mobster by the name of Marcellus Wallace plans to torture his enemy “… with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.” This quote is a paraphrase of a line in the film Charley Varrick (1973), in which the line is “They’re gonna strip you naked and go to work on you with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.” Tarantino also simulates various shots from his favorite films. In one scene, the character, Marcellus is crossing the street when he stops and realizes that the very man he is trying to track down is driving in the car in front of him. As he realizes this both men lock eyes. Though the circumstances are totally different, this shot is nearly identical to a shot in Alfred Hitchcock’s Horror classic, Psycho (1960).
This film is clearly an example of postmodernist culture because Quentin Tarantino rejects standard forms of filmmaking and pieces together elements from other works into his own creation. Most postmodernist thinkers would probably slam Tarantino for being just another entertainer that steals from others or presents his work to the public as if it’s original. I think Tarantino’s methods fall into the postmodernist category, but that does not mean that they are not worthy of praise. He throws various, often obscure, elements from numerous works into the mix and shapes them into his own story. Clearly, he is not the most original filmmaker, but the quality of his films are much higher than that of others, usually including those he references in the first place.

I used the follow source for information- http://www.tarantino.info/wiki/index.php/Pulp_Fiction_Movie_References_Guide

Chris

The “Real” Che

Damn, those models are fine; I’ve always dug Che Tits! Anyway, this is totally biased, which comes as no surprise, worse than the bias of the Che cheerleaders. Of course, I think the caricature of Che is a farce, but as Jay Z put it he’s “complex,” haha, far more complex than this bullshit would leave you to believe. Some things they say are true and naturally they’re horrible. But, they don’t apply the same standards to the U.S. and other figures, which are far, far worse, even if justified. I feel awful for those women, but you don’t think Nazis’ had family? or any other terrorist. That’s what war is, it’s violence on a grand scale. I also feel bad that their loss is being exploited for ratings and pathetic agendas. To compare Che to Bin Laden and the reasons why he, Fidel, and the other Cubans were fighting to America’s reasons for fighting a war is not only childish, but shows the sheer lack of concern for honest observations of foreign policy. In terms of people starving in Cuba, well that would be greatly decreased if the U.S. didn’t place sanctions on them. We easily could aid them, but Castro doesn’t want to be our little puppet bitch like other dictators, so no food for you Cuba. Lastly, the whole racist deal, ( I love how Faux News is saying this of all networks!) Beck is clearly utilizing this to appeal to people’s feelings about race and what have you. Divide and conquer! I have never seen that quote about black folks. I’m not saying it’s not true, but I’m not denying it could be either. I know for a fact that Che sympathized for blacks in the U.S. and he also met with Malcom X when he came over here; both shared great admiration for one another. So, basically follow the woman’s advice, do your own research.

Chris