As a fitness freak I am not into trashing my body, my temple, the condition of which is my sole responsibility. I also believe people can get and receive information and insight, simply due to the fact that psychoactive substances can filter and or expand the horizon of perspectives. The disfunction is, when a life is wasted living around the substance in a daily ritual, that brings nothing different from every other day. The daily cup of coffee, the cigarette in the car, the drink, the snort of coke or meth or heroin. I have heard every excuse, the substance abuser will call it a reason(s). Some run behind the sham of legal distinction to ignore the physiological and psychological damage.
I do not believe law as it functions (enforcing the present laws or not enforcing the present laws) helps in any way in this situation, except regarding interactive societal behavior — drunk driving, work place smoking for example. Nathan was cut off from making his argument in favor of educating citizens and being against some of the idiotic drug laws, re; educated people are much less likely to choose to become societal interactive misfits because of stupid intoxications. For some it is immoral to use pot, coke, meth and heroin because it is illegal. The acceptance of that conclusion is the acceptance of ignorance. It is very likely to be stupid and is certainly narcissistic hedonism — but so is smoking cigarettes. The laws, as they are, make it worse and aggravate the stupidity variable.
Usage is not the burden of society, unless it is habitually ritual and in the context of endangering others due to self indulgent behaviors based on ego driven desires — just get me to my car, I can drive! Sure you can.
So a question to be answered; if you had to choose being in a crowd of 10000 stoned hippies legally armed with loaded guns at a music festival or a crowd of 10000 drunks legally armed with loaded guns at a music festival, which would you choose? OK clever one who thinks “neither,” because they are so smart — choose! This country has many issues, such as this never resolved, because “clever” people choose to do NOTHING.
Society says your vicadin and oxycontin prescriptions are A OK, fine and dandy. How about your body? How about going for a drive?
We as a society have to really grade the timing, substance abuse and context of usage, before condemning it all with blanket statements such as “I’m against drugs.” I am against drug abuse because it is stupid. I am against some drugs used in certain contexts, which always includes safety of others –planes, trains, automobiles and usually the work place. I am not against any drug per se, just specific usages in certain situations, and those are the type of laws that should be legislated and enforced. It is perfectly acceptable for one to be a fool with their life, but not mine.
Thus it was greatly disturbing to hear Michael Conniff censor signature humour from his show, because a couple of callers saying that ‘if he is against drugs he shouldn’t have this type of humour as a part of the show’. It was a great play on words and totally funny and anyone with a useful IQ could tell it wasn’t “pro drug,” any more than abortion rights is “pro death,” or end of life consultation is a “death panel.”
The Greeks of antiquity, spent vast fortunes of city state treasure to beautify their cities. Various agoras and bazaars were full of stories and humour, surrounded by aesthetic wonder. Tales of folly and wonder trailed off into the distance. Stories were read and an iambic pentameter “beat” culture flourished. So when Michael removed the “pass it around” humour, a bit of intellectual freedom perished and artistic license was revoked — a capitulation to grim conforming for the christianite moralists, their flag burning, death panels, death taxes, defense of marriage, right to bear arms and an eye for an eye. Let us go blind.
I am aware that it may seem tiresome and yet the nature of drug use; abusive, legal, illegal, social, religious, spiritual, addictive or habitual should happen, with Michael as a host/moderator open to every caller/writer, functioning, and bring academy to the forum of ideas, and spur thought from a thinking audience. More of the same seems to have brought more of the same. So how about trying a different method in discussing this issue, unless present methods appear to have solved the situation, or coming up with a presentable idea for legislation?�
I like listening to the Conman’s show and his open line policy is a leading reason why I like listening. As much as I love hearing me make a jackass out of myself, my real enjoyment comes in hearing the voices of our community. It really gives me hope because I didn’t know anybody was still thinking for themselves. I haven’t heard anyone likeminded to myself on his show, but I have heard many minority views being presented. The Conman knows how important it is to let every voice be heard and does a great justice to the community in that respect. With that being said, this is his job and not a charity.
He cuts off me and many others because it helps him with the show. With the limited resources of a local radio show, it would be very hard to run a talk show without caller material, but it would be equally as difficult to let every caller ramble out their full points while trying to keep the rest of the audience entertained. His job is to weigh the benefits of each caller. If he can see entertainment potential in the caller, he will keep them on. If he doesn’t need anymore material or doesn’t think they’re adding entertainment to the show, he will cut them off. That’s the business.
I personally don’t take any entertainers words to heart, because they are locked into the business. I have no doubts that the Conman believes in what he preaches, but at the same time his opinion is limited by his position. He has to stay away from radical ideology to keep a diverse audience. That’s why he’s a moderate. He takes every non-offensive view possible because he knows value of likeability. It’s a tough life that none of us radicals could manage.
Politicians are entertainers. If we look to law for our morals then we will always want these useless, ineffective laws. If we started looking to our morals for morals then we wouldn’t need laws. Everyone (including Ed the Legislative Gladiator) believes that laws buys freedom, but what new freedoms have we purchased with any of our laws?
Ed,
I always like your thoughts and views, but I hate seeing you so bond by laws.
Nathan,
I actually don’t need ANY laws. I am not interested in screwing anyone over and if someone screwed me over, I could take care of them. The law protects a lot of perpetrators and schemers. The victims now have to go begging a judicial system to be compensated for wrongs. Compensation does not always happen. Suppose the perpetrators and schemers knew with absolute certitude the victims would exact compensation through whatever means necessary if the perpetrators and schemers functioned the way they do now? Game over for the scammers and scum.
But we have as part of a commonwealth republic have laws that bind our behavior. We are bound in the chains of illusory freedom.
We are only apart of what we want to be apart of. Freedom is not an illusion. Everybody on Earth is free. The human stance on freedom has never changed, but education encourages us to make best use of our freedom.
Do you vote? Do you answer yes or no to three dimensional questions? Do you think you can spend my money better then me? Do you think Robin Hood is a hero or a thief? Do you think the government should take our money to force us to do what the majority thinks is the right things? Do you think education enhances freedom or laws backed by guns?
You can’t be independent, yet not trust others to be. You can’t defend liberalism in part. If you have reason to believe that people should have be able to lead their own lives, then that reasoning should by applied to every debate.
Do you vote? (YES) Do you answer yes or no to three dimensional questions? (THAT COULD BE A MIXTURE OF YESSES OR NOs OR ALL OF ONE OR THE OTHER OR PERCENTAGES, POSSIBILITIES OR INDEED ALMOST ANYTHING) Do you think you can spend my money better then me? (NO) Do you think Robin Hood is a hero or a thief? (BOTH) Do you think the government should take our money to force us to do what the majority thinks is the right things? (NOT ALWAYS) Do you think education enhances freedom (YES) or laws backed by guns? (NO)
I am not denying the logic you bring forth, but how do you work around the demand for the freedom to oppress and suppress, have more land, gold and trinkets? Therein lies the trouble. Some feel as though they have a special entitlement to freedom that would deny me and you parity, if not absolute equality. I don’t need any law, I can survive on my own off the grid with no fire arms, roads etc. I am very capable. The laws protect the entitled before reprisals can take place slowing down compensation for wrongs. Do you think the Wall Street gang insurance parasites should have laws protecting their plunder? If there is no law, how do they legally earn and keep it? I am sure you see the problem. In this country of Law and Order, no person can be allowed to be an island. Believe me I have no use for the plunderers. I happen to prefer a government that crushes the greedy excesses and redistributes that plunder to just allowing greedy naked bottle necking of capitalism take place so plunderers can enjoy creating a new leisure class. That to me is not freedom. It is servitude to those who own the land, and other means of production and the IOUs comprised of currency, Carnegie understood that. Only a servant can accept the “special” entitlement of another. I am not willing to accept subjugation beneath ANYONE. Yet I chafe knowing law protects those who have concentrated wealth.
[You can’t defend liberalism in part.] Yes I can, I don’t have to tolerate attempts to snuff out my dreams to satisfy someone’s whimsical “freedom,” for the sake of liberalism. There is a line of demarcation between being liberal and being a fool.
Ed,
I relate to people like you who use their hearts and have the mind to back it up. This is my attempt to understand your political views.
You are morally self-sufficient and feel safe in you ability to protect yourself and therefore you, personally have no need for the government. Yet you see a government as a critical entity for less fortunate. You know that you would be fine without the “protection” of a government, but fear or sympathize for those who are less able or willing. You see many of the current laws/ bureaucrats as corrupt, but feel as though the best remedy is through the system. By being active and vocal you hope to inspire/ educate others, which should lead to reform.
I always asked people what’s at the end of their goals and so I’m wondering what’s at the end of political ideology?
Liberals – Conservatives use their will to push the government for change, but they are never open to change outside of the government. Those people may have independent hearts and minds, but rely on legislation to make their opinions official. A Liberal will spend a fortune and a lifetime trying to get the government to force people to pay for logical causes, yet they never go to the people independently with the logic of their causes. They would rather spend their time trying to get the government to force everyone to pay for their cause, then empowering (education) the people to actually help the cause. Conservatives are the same, they needs the government to force people to make logical, moral decisions instead of sharing the logic of the decisions with the people.
When people need the government to force people to do anything, they have no faith in logic and/ or individuality. I respect your logic, so I am really wondering why you think the government is needed? You want to protect the less fortunate, but isn’t this a logical and moral cause in which everyone, as individuals, can be empowered to support?
Nathan;
My home computer is down but I promise a response worthy of my time and hopefully yours.
ECT
In a sequenced order by priority, I truly think health and education are inseparable as a tandem unit with health just in front. Without health a prospective denizen of the earth may not live long enough to get educated. Without education that prospective denizen may not be capable of being fit and healthy in the current technological living environment.
We live in a world where the limbaugh imPalinated ingnoRanti were told to take their children from schools during Obama’s speech. Limbaugh referred to the students as “SKULL MUSH.” Just how fundamentally stupid are people that Limbaugh would have suich concerns? Look how many schools in Red States didn’t allow students to see/hear his speech. Denying access to information or simply a POSITION by your opposition is education?
The reality is that the wealthy need government to a point that protects their gains and chattel, however they got it. I do not need that government. My wife and I could survive with wood water and stone and feed ourselves. The wealthy can’t maintain their hoard of I.O.U. paper currency conveniently convertable into control of land and other means of production, without the military/industrial/prison/police/judicial complex.
Those are the taxes they do want to spend, and if the poor and middling masses will join in the expense, then all the better. We can’t educate everyone when they have the power to refuse education for themselves and their children. Limbaugh has no influence on what things need to be done but he and Palin and their Reactive Lumpen Proletarians, make it very clear that it is dangerous to the ascent of this country to ignore the movement towards ignorance as culture, the means or mechanisms necessary for getting as many people as possible educated and healthy. If the reactive Limbaugh led imPalinites and ignoRanti were crushed, liquidated, neutralized or converted this country’s per capita education would rise dramatically and we would be in a far better position to spread education as the source of creatitvity and value added quality production for the rest of humanity.
It took a couple of centuries for a round earth to penetrate the heart of Europe. I don’t think this country or this planet have that luxury to sit back and watch as shocking ignorance recedes from the desires of some who claim American culture. Ignorance has become the new opiate of the reactionaries that I call the imPalinites and ignoRanti.
Not trying to be harsh but I think you and others with whom I share a vision with, mistakenly assume that the opposition shares a mutual desire to be “knowlegeable” and desires to have an education to satisfy intellectual curiosity. This is false. Information and education by their very nature are liberal and something to be quashed, muffled, silenced, stamped out, countered with propaganda, lies, deceit, half truths, partial misinformation, red herrings, agitprop and manipulated through any means or media with ridicule and ridiculous exagerations. History has shown that EVERY counter revolution, every consolidator of power goes after the educated capable of of discussion leaving the mental morons to take orders, flags and group demographic identity documents as badges of honor and affiliation with their lord/dictator/fuerher so they whoever they are feel somehow superior to somebody else whoever they might be.
It is a question of power, and Limbaugh and his ilk have far more power than the liberals realise. This country is now divided within itself more so than at anytime since reconstruction and even the antebellum. The sixties had a critical mass that was enought to reach and raise the moral standards of legislators enough for civil rights to be on the table, where it remains, and to end the Viet Nam War.
The ImPalinites and IgnoRanti appear to have little capability to reason and their leaders show they have no desire to reason even though I have no doubt Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck have the ability to do so.
I fear serious violence in next years elections and or the 2012 elections. Seeds have been sown.