Popular Posts

Saturday, December 28, 2013

E-cig anxiety at WWU

I wrote a letter to the editor that got published in the Western Washington University school newspaper in response to one of their articles. However, my letter has yet to be posted online...even though it has been months, so I am putting it on here for the time being.

Thank you for publishing the article concerning E-cigarettes. I am serious when I say that I have never heard someone complain about other people using them, so I am not sure how the concern over E-cigarettes came to be. While I am glad to know that the school faculty and AS Board of Directors care for our well-being, I believe they need to hear out the student body before making any rash decisions concerning the change of the smoking policy to include E-cigarettes.

It is my opinion that more research needs to be done on E-Cigarettes before anyone can say that they are any more or less healthy than normal tobacco products.

I have a question for those considering changing the smoking policy to include E-cigarettes:

Do you want it changed because of concerns about secondhand vapor negatively affecting the health of third parties, or are you trying to look after the health of the individuals who choose to partake in vaporizing?

If it is the first reason, I am sure the student body would like to see the research concluding that secondhand vapor has that effect on people.

If it is the latter, why do you feel the need to tell students what they can or cannot do with their own bodies via regulation? If instead of changing the policy you started an educational campaign teaching students about E-cigarettes, it would allow them to make informed decisions of their own without limiting their personal freedoms.


The Director of Environmental Health and Safety sent me information on why they were considering these policy changes and I wrote this in reply:

After reading this link from the University of Kentucky, I still stick to my arguments, especially the one dealing with a person being able to choose what to do with his or her own body. I find it very inconclusive. It seems that the university is more concerned with using biased sources, emotional appeals, and scare tactics to try to convince people not to use or support the use of E-cigarettes.  While it is true that they contain chemicals, even those that are considered carcinogenic, I would want to see more evidence that second vapor would actually negatively affect third parties.

It would also be worthwhile to mention that I was told the policy changes were in discussion because some students were vaporizing in the library and it caused the fire alarm to go off. Definitely not a knee-jerk reaction on the school's part. I will definitely be writing more about e-cigs in the future.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Why Miley Cyrus deserved to be one of TIME's "Person of the Year" nominees

I first wrote about Miley Cyrus in this post four months ago after her performance with Robin Thicke.

On Facebook in late November, I noticed that people were freaking about the nominees for TIME's "Person of the Year." Why? Because Miley Cyrus was on it.

Read more about it here.

People were complaining about how TIME has gone downhill and was proving itself to be more of a joke because of this.

It really annoyed me. What exactly - the fact Miley Cyrus was on the list or the fact people were going crazy over this?

Well, both...but mostly the latter.

First of all, READ THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT MAKES A PERSON "PERSON OF THE YEAR."

On the poll, it says "Cast your vote for the person you think most influenced the news this year for better or worse."

"Person of the Year" is not who is the best all-around role model for the world to follow, it is about who sparked interest and for some reason or another has people talking about him or her and the subjects brought up because of that person. Miley Cyrus did exactly that.

Sure, it was pretty stupid how people were paying attention to her performance at the VMAs while people were either ignoring or were unaware (most likely the latter) of the matter with Syria, but like it or not, it produced a lot of discussion on rape culture, slut-shaming, racism, and feminism.

Then of course when the talk about that was dying out, her music video of her song "Wrecking Ball" was released, which showed her naked on a gigantic golf ball. People hated that she was "naked and provocatively riding the wrecking ball." I would not call that provocative at all, but whatever she was doing with the mallet...well, I will admit if they just deleted those scenes I would have probably thought the video was pretty well done. Then when she was wearing clothes, she had on a tank top...with no bra underneath! How scandalous! Really people? Grow up.

Print Miley cutouts and place them on friends' ornaments and see if anyone notices. Do it.
I am indifferent to Miley to be honest. It does frustrate me when I think of how hard I had to work to get my Hempfest post views higher than the one about Miley, but other than that, I just think she's human - she does stupid things, but can also say stuff of worth

Like this.

Did I think Miley Cyrus deserved to be the "Person of the Year" for 2013. Ehh, I don't think so...I mean, I didn't care to go through the list TIME produced and look at everyone of them, but I think the one I had noticed in the news the most were her, Edward Snowden, and Pope Francis. For those who don't know, Pope Francis got the 2013 title.

Seriously though, people - please read what the "Person of the Year" really is about before blabbing about why someone should not be on there.

To end this all, I leave you with a sage piece wisdom...





Sunday, December 15, 2013

Julie Borowski interview

I first discovered Julie Borowski a little over a year ago at a Western Libertarians meeting. The members and I were trying to see which videos on YouTube to watch, and one of the guys suggested we watch TokenLibertarianGirl's channel, so we did. I decided to like her Facebook page and follow what she had to say about politics. During these past twelve months, I have seen Julie endure many criticisms, but also successfully get her name and ideas out there, including writing a counter-response with Cathy Reisenwitz and Bonnie Kristian to a LewRockwell.com piece and going on John Stossel's show. She was kind enough to do an interview with me. Check her out on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

UPDATE: She also has her own website.


Julie Borowski


Age: 25
Pets: Cat and weiner dog
Favorite movies: Jurassic Park, V for Vendetta, Catch Me if You Can, any Will Ferrell movie
Other forms of entertainment she enjoys: "Real country music" and stand up comedy
1. How did you first discover libertarianism? How did you become a libertarian?
I grew up a hardcore conservative Republican. I’ve always had an “all or nothing” type of personality. Even though I was a kid, I was obsessed with political philosophy. But during the second term of George W. Bush’s presidency, I realized that many things that the Republicans were doing wasn’t so small government after all. I began to doubt my views. I was open to libertarian ideas because my grandfather had very strong and cynical opinions about politics. He would always bash politicians at the dinner table. I just never knew the word. I came across the word “libertarian” on an online forum. I googled it. The definition was maximum freedom. I said, "hey that’s me."
2. What made you decide to create a YouTube channel?
Back in early 2007, I was on Facebook in an anti-Patriot Act group. Someone wrote “google Ron Paul.” I did. I said, hey there’s someone running for president that has my views. There’s a trend here… I was hooked. I was a freshman in college. I chalked “Google Ron Paul” all over my campus sidewalks at night. I decided to change my major from elementary education to political science. I decided that I wanted to have a career in advancing the ideas of liberty. I was offered an internship at FreedomWorks in spring 2010 during my last semester of college. I was hired afterwards. When Ron Paul announced he was running again in 2011, I decided that I wanted to help spread the message of his candidacy. After much hesitation, I launched a YouTube channel in the summer of 2011. The first video I did was responding to one of the presidential debates and explaining why Ron Paul totally nailed it. And I’ve been making videos ever since.
3. Which videos of yours do you personally like the most? Which ones have become the most popular?
In the beginning, my videos were serious and dry. I watched only libertarian channels and that’s what all of them were like. But overtime, I started watching popular YouTube channels. I began to realize what works on YouTube. If I wanted to reach more people, I needed to mix it up and make them entertaining as well as informative. I added more of my goofy personality. My favorite thing is making people laugh. When I was little, I would perform silly skits on camera because I wanted to be a cast member of the Nickelodeon show "All That." So, I like making comedy videos with a point. It’s sometimes challenging because the political topics are usually very serious. So, I sit there with a notepad and think, “How can I make a video about the Federal Reserve funny?” It’s sometimes hard! I am very proud of one serious video I made, “Why I Became Anti War” because it’s so personal and raw. The most viewed video that I have is when I spoofed Lena Dunham’s "My First Time" Obama ad. That video really helped me expand my audience outside of just libertarians. I’m thankful for everyone that watches my videos.
4. Did the popularity of your channel or certain videos surprise you at all?
YES! I honestly thought I would put out a couple videos on Ron Paul and call it a day. I remember almost giving up several times in the beginning because I thought that I was pretty bad at this video making stuff and all the trolls. But I kept with it and told myself that I would get better as time went on. I can’t believe the number of people that watch. I remember getting surprised when 200 people would watch one of my videos in 2011. Yes, the popularity of some videos surprises me. Over 250,000 people have watched me wear tampon earrings.
5. I have noticed that you are very much an advocate of working with the Republican Party. Why do you believe in this instead of focusing on just independents or the Libertarian Party?
I’m actually more of a policy person than political. My title is policy analyst. But I believe that working within the Republican Party is the most effective option, for me. I say for me because I don’t want to sound like I’m telling people what they should. Do whatever you want. Unfortunately, the system is stacked against third parties. There are no Libertarian members of Congress. But there are libertarian Republicans in Congress. I believe that libertarians should challenge establishment Republicans in the GOP primaries. To me, that’s the best chance of beating them and getting real libertarians in Congress. Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash all have libertarian views and they ran as Republicans and won.
6. Why the Republicans and not the Democrats?
I think the Democratic Party is too far gone. Maybe a left leaning libertarian could have some luck in the Democratic Party? They may find some agreements on foreign policy, perhaps. But I can’t think of any Democrat who has libertarian leanings on all or even most issues. At least Republicans talk about limiting government and fiscal responsibility. Unlike most Democrats who are open about wanting big government. And like I said, there are libertarian leaning Republicans. I just think that the Republican Party will be easier to “take over” than the Democratic Party.
7. I finally got around to watching the segment of you on John Stossel. What was that experience like?
Really cool! I couldn’t believe it when I got that call. I used to watch "Stossel" with my parents every Thursday night a couple years ago. So, it was crazy to tell them that I was going to be on it. I’ve never been on national TV before. It was kind of scary because I knew that everyone in my family and a lot people from my hometown were going to see it. Plus, I was a bit star struck by John Stossel. But yeah it was a really cool experience.
8. What do you believe are the top few biggest political issues at the moment?
There are many, many issues. If you check out my YouTube channel, I talk about tons of different things. But I’m going to say: health care, monetary policy, and foreign policy. ObamaCare has been a disaster and I worry that single payer is coming. I worry that the dollar is going to collapse. I worry about war with Iran. Not to be negative or anything…
9. Which libertarians, those who have passed or are still alive, do you find to be most inspiring?
Well, I clearly have to give a shout out to Ron Paul. My life would be very different if it wasn’t for him. My favorite libertarian writers are Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard. Whenever a newbie libertarian asks what book they should read, I always say Economics in One Lesson. I am thankful for the minds of F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. I am thankful for the communication skills of Milton Friedman. Disclaimer: I probably don’t agree with any of these people on everything.

10. How do you suggest the average libertarian get involved with politics and/or educating others?
It depends on what they want to do and what they are good at. If you’re good at writing, consider starting a blog or writing articles for other publications. If you’re good in front of the camera, consider starting a YouTube channel. If you’re in college, consider starting a Young Americans for Liberty group on your campus. If you’re an outgoing person, consider attending local political meetings (Tea Party, Republican, etc.) and talking to people about libertarian ideas. These groups especially want to hear from young people right now. So, if you’re a young person ask your local Tea Party if you can come and speak about how bad economic policies are hurting young people. They will love you.
11. Why do you believe libertarianism is an ideology women should seriously consider?
These questions are always difficult for me to answer because women are individuals. Women care about different things. Our values are not all the same. What works to reach out to conservative women would probably not work to reach out to liberal women and vice versa. But when talking to someone about libertarianism, I try to understand where they are coming from and explain how libertarianism would benefit them. Liberty should resonate with everyone. It’s all about correct messaging.
12. What do you think the future holds concerning women in the Liberty Movement?
It looks good to me! I see more libertarian women getting involved all the time. It’s difficult for anyone to put themselves out there and open yourself to criticism. But I think as more women are being outspoken about their libertarian views, it encourages and inspires others to do the same.
13. Where do you see libertarianism heading in the future?
The status quo isn’t working and more people are looking for an alternative. Libertarianism is that alternative. The problem is that many people have never heard the word “libertarian” or they have misconceptions about the philosophy. As long as there are people out there educating people about libertarianism, we are going to win. Our numbers are growing every day.


Become a Patron!

Thursday, December 12, 2013

What libertarians say that bothers me the most

A shit ton of things libertarians say really bother me. But what bothers me the most?

It's when they ask me (or other libertarians) why we would be friends/in a relationship/etc. with people who are not libertarian.

One time I noticed a libertarian page on Facebook asked its followers if they would be in a relationship with someone who was not libertarian.

I was expecting most answers to be something similar to my answer: Of course I would date someone who does not agree with my views, whether it be religious, political, etc. As long as we respect what the other thinks, there should be no problem.

However, the majority of the commenters were saying that they would never be in a relationship with someone who was not libertarian. A couple of them said they believed this because they have tried to do so before and it did not work out.

This particular response infuriated me (so much so that I had to save it):

"I refuse to even have a conversation with someone once I find they are liberal. They are in agreement with the destruction of the nation I love and my way of life. They are the enemy. Period."

My hope for humanity plummeted when I saw that it got a lot of likes.

There are so many things that are wrong with what that person said. First off, I am sure that no liberal intentionally wants to destroy the nation (and where is the proof that they are?). If you are unwilling to talk to someone because they are of a different political ideology, what makes you believe that you are so high and mighty to think that your views are superior in any way?

Don't even get me fucking started on the whole double-standard of "Republicans and conservatives are pretty cool, BUT I WOULD NEVER EVER ASSOCIATE WITH A STUPID LIBERAL OR DEMOCRAT."

Of course I had to make an angry Katrina comment on that post.

For some odd reason, I am asked a lot by fellow libertarians if I talk with socialists. For those who are curious...yes I do. You know what is even more bizarre? I have dated socialists. Oh my fucking god!

Then it usually ends with them asking why I do and/or that they would not because socialists do not seem that smart. Are you shitting me? Socialists are some of the smartest people I know! (I mean the ones who actually know what they are talking about.)

Not to mention, socialists, unlike libertarians, actually understand human behavior. I am sorry, but John Locke and Ayn Rand are not reliable sources for how humans evolved into how we interact with others and the environment today. I am an anthropology major - deal with it.

I have barely dated any libertarians - it has mostly been Democrats, Republicans, and socialists. You know what? I am able to get along splendidly with people of other viewpoints! You want to know my secret? I don't try to shove my views into their faces, neither do they, and the both of us are able to understand that we think differently from each other and that. it. is. okay.

Libertarians: please stop being pompous assholes and realize that not everybody is going to "see the light" right away. I love teaching people about my views for educational purposes. I have not really noticed until recently, but a lot of people I associate with are developing some libertarian views because of what I have shown them. You have the choice of attracting people to you and your beliefs by either sharing some ice cream with them or by pissing on them. It's your choice. Choose wisely.

Aaaaand of course my first post in a month is a rant.

Become a Patron!

Monday, November 11, 2013

Happy Veteran's Day(...?)

Ahh, Veteran's Day! The day you see friends thanking their friends and relatives for serving in the military. You might even have some people you know who have served or are currently serving. This is a day of gratitude...right?

Holidays for libertarians are confusing.

Christmas:

"Merry Christmas to everyone! :)"

"Let's see which of my adult friends are stupid enough to still believe in fairy tales."

Columbus Day:

"We should celebrate Leif Ericson Day instead!"

"Happy Settle Onto a New Continent and Slaughter All the Native People Day"

"Why do we even celebrate this holiday?"

"I hate Obama"

Today I, at first, noticed only positive posts about Veteran's Day, both from my normal and libertarian friends. Then I noticed one libertarian page admin post how she is confused on how to feel on this day - she doesn't approve of all that our military does, but she doesn't have anything against the individuals who served. From there, it got worse (this is another page)...

Of course you can see my reply and then the page's reply.

Some dumb shit's response and a third of mine...

The rest of my reply.


For the sake of everyone's sanity, I will refrain from my full rant of why libertarians (and everybody) should not compare the US to Nazi Germany if they want people to be sympathetic to their cause for some other time...

How do I feel about Veteran's Day?

The same how I feel towards all veterans! (Of course not those who are horrible individuals.)

I have a lot of family members who are veterans. It would be very disrespectful for me to brush off their years of service. I do not agree with about all of our military action, but keep in mind of what those who serve do.

I was in AFJROTC in my junior and senior years of high school, and considered joining the military. There are a lot of reasons for why I decided not to, the biggest being that I am a creative person and that all those years serving would result in less writing, stage time, etc. Veterans have given up some (or all) of their lives to be in the military. They have less time to see their family and friends, go to school (although that is usually made up for afterwards), etc. I have nothing against veterans!

So...

Happy Veteran's Day!

Not I Love the Military and All That It Does Day.



Become a Patron!

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Is empathy just not enough?

When I went to the International Drug Policy Reform Conference a couple of weeks ago (I swear I'll write on it soon, hopefully this weekend!), I had to choose between two different sessions I wanted to go to that were at the same time. Actually, that happened quite a bit, but this particular one was quite a dilemma. I forget the one I went to, but I had also wanted to go to one dealing with racial profiling concerning drug policy. One of my roommates went and told me she would tell me later what went on.

Later, she, along with someone else I met, told me that it was not very enjoyable. Supposedly what had happened was that there were some people of color on the panel and a white guy with a Ph.D in some kind of social science or something, and they spent a majority of the time arguing, which made it comfortable. Forgive me, I'm not exactly sure of the details. They were telling him that he cannot say he knows what goes on because he has not personally experienced it. My roommate felt bad for him because she felt that he was aware since he studied it.

I am taking a class called "Native Peoples in North America." It is pretty much a group comprised of people of whiteness who care for how Native Americans are treated in the US, Canada, etc. Applying what had been said at that certain session, should non-Natives be allowed to dictate what happens on reservations? If the answer is no, why is that? Is it because we don't know what actually goes on since we are not Indians? How about if we've studied anthropology or Native American studies, does it still apply?

As I have told people before, I feel like I don't exist in this dimension when it comes to race - I am kind of just floating in my own dimension. I am mainly half-German and half-Filipino. When people of a certain race or ethnicity complain about something ("I feel discriminated against because..."), I cannot relate to it at all. The whole thing is very superficial to me. Of course, I cannot dismiss what these people say because I have not experienced it for myself.

People get very on edge when talking about race, and for some people, like me, it is not very applicable to their lives, so I will use another example...

I get very bad periods. One time at my summer job, I lost, and was losing, so much blood that my words were slurring, my eyes were getting blurry, I was getting a huge headache, cramps of course, I could barely walk, etc. That was the worst it had ever gotten. Normally, my cramps can get so bad that I cannot get up, and sometimes I even cry from the pain. When I tell guys, they say, "I understand." I reply, half-jokingly, "How can you?" Usually it is because they have sisters who get it pretty badly too.

Of course men will never know how I truly feel because they do not get menstrual cramps because they do not menstruate. However, they can still sympathize with how I feel, maybe because they can see how much pain I am in.

Okay, so we know that man cannot menstruate, but can a woman completely sympathize and know how I feel in that moment of crampy pain? Does she have cramps as badly as I do? Is she having them right now?

I suffered from depression. I am not afraid to admit it, and I still have to deal with bouts. In a way, I am glad to be meeting so many people at college who have had similar experiences to mine too. It's good to know that I am not alone. However, when I meet someone who is currently battling depression, I am not quite sure how to deal with it. I hated it when people told me that they knew what I was going through. It's like with a breakup - sure, maybe they had an experience similar to mine, but they are not currently going through with the heart-wrenching process of losing someone they love. What I usually do is ask if they want me to help in any way, and tell them that I, too, was depressed at one point, so they don't have to feel that they are in this by themselves.

In these instances of getting sympathy from others, people who have studied these things have helped me out in some way to deal with the symptoms. For example, even though my dad is a male, he studied health and knew how to help me deal with my cramps, etc. While it was mainly mental willpower that aided me in overcoming my depression, I will admit that psychiatrists helped a teensy bit.

No one knows how exactly another person feels. We all grew up differently and have had different life experiences. Empathy for others have led some people to seek out to help those in need and/or study in school on how to do so. Should other people tell us how to do something a certain way? Maybe not that extreme, but should they even have a say? How about if they "studied" this certain something?

Become a Patron!

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Name all the reasons why the War on Drugs is bad

I just came back from the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Denver, Colorado. Of course I am going to write on it, but I am super-busy with school and other stuff at the moment (including writing twenty-five pages of a play for a class in six days).

So to not hang y'all up for too long, I'm giving you an activity to do...

In the comments, name a reason why the Drug War is bad. If you can, please give us a detailed description on why.

Sure, not too long ago (more accurately, two posts ago), I wrote "Why ending the War on Drugs is so important to me," but I realized (and it's not like expected to remember all of the reasons) that I'm still missing a lot. You can use that post for a bit of reference (and maybe some other drug-related ones I've written).

Comment why you want drug legalization, reply to other people, debate, etc., as long as it's respectful.

From Propaganda Templates


Become a Patron!

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Bellingham Riot - Saturday 10/12/13

*This may be edited a couple of times because of new information

I was on Facebook last night, and started noticing a couple of posts about a riot, but I didn't think too much about it until more and more people were posting about it, and I saw comments about tear gas, SWAT team, etc.

When I came on Facebook this morning, my newsfeed was filled with riot posts (and became even more so when I kept on liking, commenting, clicking on those riot-related statuses, videos, and articles).

Here is what happened (according to The Western Front):
  • There was a riot "on Indian Street near Laurel Park"
  • "Police in riot gear used pepper balls, smoke and flash grenades"
  • "Hundreds of students gathered on the street were seen throwing beer bottles at passing Whatcom Transportation Authority buses and cars around 10:30 p.m., police said" - I've seen several people on Facebook say how they witnessed that happening
  • "People started throwing glass bottles beer, cans, and lawn chairs at police cars"
  • "Multiple street signs were pulled from the ground and thrown into the street" - I also saw many people post about uprooted stop signs on Facebook
  • A little after 11 was when police start releasing smoke grenades, etc. 
  • "The riot began after police broke up a large party on Jersey Street and Chestnut Street, (Lt. Mike) Johnson said"
EDIT: The Western Front posted a more complete story of the incident. Supposedly, Lt. Johnson said that no tear gas or sand bags were used, despite several witnesses' accounts stating otherwise. Most of the area was cleared out after midnight.

The Bellingham Herald took photographs of the scene.

EDIT: Even the Associated Press covered this incident.

WWU President Bruce Shepard and AS President Carly Roberts released a statement about the happenings of last night.

I find it interesting that the first three arrests were not Western students.

According to that statement, it was Western students who started cleaning up afterwards. Thankfully, I had known of that fact from being on Facebook and seeing people post about it.

This video was the first of the ones I have watched. It is seven minutes long and is from a spectator's point of view. Even at the very beginning, one of the first things you will notice is how much and how often glass is being thrown. At the end, you see a girl choking on tear gas.




This video is shorter, but you see it from a different perspective - as in I mean just from another spectator who is watching it from a different angle.

Here is a list of multiple claims I have seen on Facebook, and because many people said they witnessed these things happen, I can assume they're true, but maybe not:
  • Panic lights went off on campus (panic buttons being pushed all over on WWU's campus)
  • Someone at the riot was punched in the face
  • The Greencoats and RAs on campus were in all the buildings on the campus (whatever that means)
  • One of the parties was supposedly originally a Facebook event disguised as a birthday party and went viral, and the host of the event canceled it a half hour prior to it beginning
  • Supposedly there were two main parties that were busted that contributed most to the riot (a lot of accounts of this)
  • Police busted a party that was under control and threatened tickets to people who didn't leave
  • Some of the party-goers were mad and recruited people from other parties to start the riot
  • Police tear gassed, etc. some innocent bystanders, whether they were spectating or just walking by (multiple claims of this happening)
  • Spectators were told to disperse after a while or else they would be ticketed

First off,  police don't just bust parties for no reason. Usually it is a noise complaint from a neighbor that causes the police to do so. I also learned that the police will bust parties if they notice people around the house are heavily intoxicated, so they bust the party for the drunkards' (and others') safety.

Katherine Hales posted this one lovely comment on Facebook that reiterates how I feel about this issue (used with permission):

"If police were called the block party was not completely under control... cops don't show up at quiet get-togethers and start handing out tickets. Also from what I've heard there was a lot of underage drinking going on. Which is a very legitimate reason for busting a block party. It really bothers me when students in Bellingham complain about the police as though they're being oppressed or something. Bellingham has very nice cops and students are often way too loud and disrespectful for the residential areas they're living in. Sometimes college students need to be reminded that they're not the only people int he city... they're just the loudest. And being loud in public spaces late at night is not a right, it's just annoying."

Here is someone, who has asked to remain anonymous, on his/her experience with the riot last night:

"My friend and I were out for a walk, and we were asking people what happened. Apparently there was a "block party" on Jersey street, and a party at 1000 Indian. I was told the party was busted and some people decided they didn't want to be finished partying, so they began throwing beer bottles at the cop cars. Tear gas was used to get people to leave. There was broken glass everywhere and I almost tripped over an uprooted stop sign. I have never seen so many cop cars in my life. Apparently Bellingham also has a swat team, because they were there too. At one point they started telling people they would use chemical weapons and send people to jail if they kept standing outside and watching. I'm not entirely sure why people would think they're entitled to behave this way, but there you have it."

This witness also noted: "My friend of mine and I left after the cops told us to. Spectating doesn't excuse you from being a part of the problem."

Here is another video - it's pretty action-filled for three minutes, and includes an interview.



This video is after things have calmed down and shows images of the police and SWAT team.



EDIT: Rebecca Ortega sent me a link to her account of the riot, which I think y'all should check out.

EDIT: Check out this photo of the riot...let me warn you, it's entitled "riot twerking....at it's finest" - don't blame me for the bad grammar. The Daily Mail even covered the riot, and for some reason, the photo is highlighted. Geez, I feel like I'm more of a journalist than all of these others news outlets who are covering this.

EDIT: More pictures.

On the Western Washington Confessions Facebook page, someone posted this:

#1939 Obviously us freshmen started a project x riot. It was badass. Sorry you upperclassman are pussies that can't keep up. Fuck the police!! CLASS OF 2017 BITCHES

If this is not a troll...then I am concerned for the future of humanity (well, I was already, but even more so now).

I need to say that if anyone here is blaming the freshmen for the riot - you are just as much as a fucktard as anyone else in the state or the country who is blaming WWU students as a whole for the riot. There are many freshmen commenting that they would never have been a part of something like that, and for upperclassmen to please not judge the entire class of 2017 for what a few idiots did. I agree with them.

I saw this Tweet get backlash from those who think they are just trying to profit from the riot. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I do hope that those who are dumb enough to be a part of the riot are at least smart enough to get a lawyer. As for using the riot as a means of personal gain...why aren't these same people blaming The Western Front and The Bellingham Herald for their immediate responses to this incidence? Sure, maybe it's too educate those who don't know what went down and want to learn more. Couldn't they have waited until their normal publication dates to tell of these happenings, and teach patience to those who need the information now? How about those posting videos of what happened to their Youtube pages? Heck, why do you think I am writing about this?

Finally, the police.

I'm a libertarian, I am not supposed to be a fan of the police.

Personally, however, I am suspicious of the police, but I understand that there are good police officers. There has been a little bit of a debate whether or not what they did last night was police brutality, the arguments going more in favor to those who believe it was not.

From what I saw people posting about and on the videos, it seems they had justifiable cause to tear gas, etc. the rioters.

Many people complained how they were just walking by or observing and were also tear gassed, etc. I have no idea if this was after the fact the police stated that the crowds needed to disperse. This action is not one I condone, but overall, I think their reactions to the riot was acceptable.

What I am most worried about is that when investigators view the videos of the riot, they might arrest innocent bystanders whose faces were caught on camera.

A lot of people want those who were in the riot to be expelled. I find this to be a knee-jerk reaction. Whatever is already within school code is what should be implemented to these students - whether it be a fine, suspension, expulsion, etc., so be it.

Let's not blame the city of Bellingham, the local police, the students of Western Washington University, or the freshmen for the destructive actions and behaviors at the riot. I am embarrassed for the school because of the aftermath of this event, but I am not ashamed of being a Viking. Instead of trying to place blame on an entire group of people, let's laud those who try to uphold the values of the school, and especially to the students and other members of the community who cleaned up afterwards.

Please comment if you have stories, opinions, etc. that you want to share.

EDIT: Here is a petition by the school for you to sign if you are against the happenings of last night.

Become a Patron!

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Why ending the War on Drugs is so important to me

If someone had shown staunchly conservative Republican me a glimpse into the future of the ultra-liberal school I would be attending in a couple of years, I would have dropped dead right there. Yes, I have come a looooong way.

I was very much into keeping drugs illegal...amongst other things.

I hated associating with people who I knew did drugs, and that was a lot of people because I went to a wealthy school.

To be totally honest, I have no idea how I came to my current feelings about drugs from what I used to think. I don't do drugs, and I don't hang out much with people who do drugs (not intentional, but I guess it's because people subconsciously seek out companions who are similar to themselves). My hypothesis is that I realized that people who do drugs, for the most part, are just normal people. Then maybe it developed more when I began identifying myself more and more as a libertarian.

It's kind of like trying to explain how I became an environmentalist or even got interested in politics in the first place...I have theories, but I sure as hell don't even know how that all started.

When I became a libertarian, the president of the Western Libertarians, and finally, especially, the president of WWU Students for Sensible Drug Policy, people would think my choice was funny because I don't do drugs. I don't even smoke marijuana.

I'll sometimes be talking with a friend, and the fact that I'm either the president of WWU SSDP or a drug policy activist in general will come up, and my friend will tell me how he or she also believes in legalizing drugs. I will then tell them about the club and ask them if they're interested in coming to meetings. Sadly, one of the most common replies is, "Sorry, I don't think I'm interested in really becoming involved. I don't do drugs."

Well, I don't do drugs either.

Others ask me why I'm so passionate about this issue when I don't do drugs. Sure, I am a big believer in personal freedoms. If you want to smoke crack, inject meth, etc., it's none of my business, unless you are planning on negatively affecting a third party. But why is the War on Drugs one of the biggest things I'm concerned about? (The other things being unnecessary military intervention and climate change.)

If the only concern dealing with the War on Drugs was only about personal freedoms, then it wouldn't be so high on my priority list.

Fortunately, DrugPolicy.org lists amost all of the reasons why I am so passionate about this subject on its "Drug War Statistics" page.

"Amount spent annually in the U.S. on the war on drugs: More than $51,000,000,000"

Cost is another reason. This is one reason why I can't believe most Republicans are resistant to legalization. Not only less government, but it would cut spending. What should I expect though? That's hypocrisy for ya.

"Tax revenue that drug legalization would yield annually, if currently-illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco: $46.7 billion"

"Estimated annual revenue that California would raise if it taxed and regulated the sale of marijuana: $1,400,000,000"

C'mon Republicans, think of all the debt that would pay off! Democrats, think of all the social services that could pay for!

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that syringe access programs lower HIV incidence who inject drugs by: 80 percent"

"One-third of all AIDS cases in the U.S. have been caused by syringe sharing: 354,000 people"

For some reason, I wasn't aware of this issue until a few weeks ago. Please don't say, "it's their fault for getting AIDS because of their drug use." Supposedly needle-sharing happens a lot more when the government is more strict since users are afraid of getting clean ones because of fear of being arrested.

Cannabis Therapeutics in HIV/AIDS
Advertisement
Cannabis Therapeutics in HIV/AIDS
Explore the controversial subject of cannabis therapeutics for HIV/AIDS patients! Cannabis Therapeutics in HIV/AIDS provides a scientific view of the benefits of marijuana in helping to increase appetite, ease the symptoms of HIV/AIDS, and improve quality of life for patients. Dr. Ethan Russo, editor of the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, has assembled a collection of first-rate information from clinicians, researchers, and patients. Based on scientific research, this book offers insights into how using cannabis has helped patients deal with the symptoms of HIV/AIDS. This informative book contains: a broad medical overview of the pertinent topics of interest with respect toAIDS and its treatment an insider's view on the twenty-year history of the discovery of AIDS and its junction with cannabis and the medical marijuana political movement survey studies of clinical cannabis usage from different populations in California a state-of-the-art review of immunological issues in cannabis usage and pulmonary issues with smoked cannabis data on the method of cannabis vaporization information on standardized sublingual whole-cannabis extracts, rectal suppositories, and aerosol preparations


"Fraction of people incarcerated for a drug offense in state prison that are black or Hispanic, although these groups use and sell drugs at similar rates as whites: 2/3"

This is one of the huge reasons why I am a big advocate for legalization. Keep in mind that the U.S. is dominated by white people. I don't like resorting to emotions or name-calling, but if you support keeping drugs illegal, you should carry a sign on you that has the word "RACIST" in neon lights. I guess you could also choose "IGNORANT" or plain "STUPID."

"Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2012: 749,825




  • Number of those charged with marijuana law violations who were arrested for possession only: 658,231 (88 percent)"

"Number of Americans incarcerated in 2011 in federal, state and local prisons and jails: 2,266,800 or 1 in every 99.1 adults, the highest incarceration rate in the world"

"Number of students who have lost federal financial aid eligibility because of a drug conviction: 200,000+"

Students lose their financial aid if they are caught with any drug. I've read a lot of stories about cops who witness nonviolent marijuana smokers sometimes being in jail for longer than rapists and murderers are. Don't even get me started on our prison system. I think Family Guy's "Dial Meg for Murder" did a great job illustrating this. People's lives are ruined after going through all of this - number of years lost, trouble with finding jobs, going to a school that will accept them, etc.

"Number of people killed in Mexico's drug war since 2006: 70,000+"

This is the number one reason why this is a huge deal to me. There is so much gang violence, which of course results in death, even for innocent civilians, because of the War on Drugs. What if I told you that drug cartels are the ones helping to make sure that drugs remain illegal? I seriously can't get why anybody would still be not for legalizing drugs after learning about this. If you're dumb enough, you can tell me that all of these people are dying - being murdered, caught in crossfire, etc. - for other reasons. I really think, literally, if someone was to tell me they are still for upholding our current drug policy after reading or hearing this fact, I would start tearing up. I'm actually getting a bit emotional right now...

Other reasons why I'm for legalization:

Prohibition doesn't work.

The Art of Suppression: Pleasure, Panic and Prohibition Since 1800
Advertisement
The Art of Suppression: Pleasure, Panic and Prohibition Since 1800
The prohibition of alcohol in the USA was a notorious fiasco. The War on Drugs has been a deadly failure. Bans on alternative nicotine products keep people smoking cigarettes. Attempts to suppress legal highs result in more drugs hitting the market.Prohibition doesn't work but the world is filled with prohibitionists. Why?Christopher Snowdon's new history of prohibitions is a panoramic study of how bans begin, who instigates them and why they fail. It is a story of moral panics, vested interests and popular hysteria, driven by people who believe that utopia is only ever one ban away.Includes: The campaign for alcohol prohibition in the USAThe worldwide ban on opium and the dawn of the War on DrugsThe curious case of the European Union's ban on oral tobacco (snus)The 1920s crusade to suppress drinking worldwideThe prohibition of Ecstasy and the rise of designer drugsThe enduring appeal of prohibitionist policies today


Like I mentioned briefly in my Hempfest post, a store owner from D.C. was telling the audience how there was a synthetic substitute for marijuana that the police force and military would want to buy from his place. In this video, Milton Friedman claims that crack cocaine would not have existed if it weren't for drug prohibition. There are many substances out there that are legal, which were made to be a substitute for banned drugs.

Without regulation, who knows what the hell dealers and other people are putting into the drugs, possibly increasing the likelihood of sickness and death.

You know what I find "funny?" When people list some of these reasons for why they are against marijuana prohibition, but then won't even consider legalizing other drugs. I'll save that rant for another post.

Marijuana and MDMA have been found to have medicinal benefits. If people should choose to use those to help heal whatever they have, they should have the right to do so.

So yes, now you know why I have become an activist. I can't morally ignore policies that send people away to jail for something that doesn't harm others, is racially-discriminating, and is the cause of tens of thousands of deaths.

Hopefully, you can, if you haven't already, educate yourself on why the drug war is not working and what we can do to finally end this prohibition and all the grief it causes.

I didn't go too much into detail for a reason. I want you to look at the reports and studies for yourself. Here are some useful links:




http://www.drugpolicy.org/

One thing I can't understand is how people can just ignore this issue as if it doesn't pertain to them. I guess it goes for pretty much every issue out there. Sure, I am an environmentalist, but I can very easily list off people who are more into that sort of activism than I am. I've come to realize that what makes me angry is when people say, "I do believe in legalization, but I don't want to get involved because I don't do drugs." It's a misunderstanding happening here - if you are involved with drug policy activism, then it must mean you do drugs. Let's get more people out there who are willing to show their faces to the world and say, "I don't participate in any drug activity, but I want to educate others on what all the War on Drugs has done to innocent people and get the government to finally end prohibition after decades of needlessly pursuing nonviolent users."

If you have any questions to ask, more useful websites for people to check out, etc., please comment.

EDIT: Check out this post - and add to the conversation!

Become a Patron!

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The importance of cultural relativism

One of the first things you will learn in a class are definitions. How can you study psychology without knowing what is is?

In anthropology, some of the first words we will learn are "ethnography" and "archaeology." Another important term is "cultural relativism."

Cultural relativism is understanding a culture from within that culture.

For example, we can view the hijras of India as weird, gay men who dress like chicks. However, using cultural relativism, we can understand that hijras are a third gender, born male, that follow their spiritual path and take on more feminine characteristics, such as their means of dress.

Let's make this more relatable to us Americans. We like going to Europe. Ya know, study abroad trips, cruises, skiing, sightseeing, etc.

One of the countries we like to go to is Italy. When my older sister went to Italy, she said Italian guys would come up to her and her female friends and pushingly ask, "Number? Number?" Because 'Murican girls ain't easy at all. American tourists also have a bad reputation in a number of countries for their wild behavior.

Is this thanks to only a few Americans *coughJerseyShorecough* ? Or do we all like to party and sleep around when on vacation?

Let's say that Italy is trying to come up with a reason why all Americans are slutty and messy. They agree with this: Americans act that way because they think they can trample over every other country because they have the biggest and most wide-spread military.

What do the Italians do? They make it illegal for American tourists to come visit their country until the US cuts their military by one-third.

I'm not sure if this even makes sense - too sleepy. I have been  so busy with school lately, and that's why I haven't posted anything for a while. Anywho...

You see what I'm trying to say here? (If you don't, then just bear with me!) They're basing their assumptions on what they witness in their country. They didn't send sociologists to America to study the Americans. With the incorrect information - interpretation - of what causes an action or behavior, your "solution" may not do anything positive, or may even make things worse.

A few weeks ago, I came across this article.

While it is horrible for ten-year-old girls to be married off to older men, or at all, and while I don't agree with marriages that happen with children this young...the reactions to this are just plain stupid and ignorant.

Take this comment (while ignoring the spelling and grammatical errors):

"What kind of man has sex with a child??? There is no room for argument here; neither religious or otherwise. Everyone knows a child, and a 10 year old girl plays with dolls. And a 16 years girl is still a girl. A woman is developed with age and education and is mature. These men are pedephiles."

STUPID ALERT!

First off, the whole "10 year old girl plays with dolls" is very culturally-subjective. In some places, children as young as six have to take on adult roles. That's not really related to this though.

I saw people compare arranged marriage to slavery. That is almost never the case. Arranged marriages have been happening way before people started marrying for love. If this is slavery, then who are the slavemasters? The parents (who were probably arranged themselves)? The husband (especially if he is older)? I'm taking this a little personally because my mom's parents' marriage was arranged.

One person said that a dowry is a bribe. Just no.

Keep in mind, I am not speaking as if this were to all of a sudden be implemented in America.

In one of my anthropology classes, we watched a movie from India where this young girl is married off to a boy who is  a few years older. She befriends her husband's brother's wife, who is a bit older too. Spoiler alert...the stepsister dies from childbirth - she was too young.

That is the real concern here. The point of that movie was to get people in certain regions of India to realize that marrying off their daughters at a young age is dangerous.

However, angry reactions to this article talk about how marriage is slavery. Slavery is immoral. We have to do all that we can to stop it. Why isn't it that the fact the young girls die from marrying too young the real concern? Jeez people, think for once.

Now let's answer the most important question here - why is it that an older man is marrying a younger girl? One reason could be is that his wife died and there are no other females closer to his age. The more logical reason is that he has the means to take care of the girl. Yes, you have just read that. Read it again.

The girls' families care about their daughters. Not in the way they care about their sons, but it's still a strong bond. An older man is more likely to have the money needed to look after her and raise a family.

Hopefully you have now understood this from an emic perspective.

What do we do about this problem?

Do we send in Team America to save the day? and then piss off the countries' residents by trying to enforce our laws on them?

How about this: we educate the populace of those regions that partake in young marriages about the dangers of it and help make it easier for women to get an education.

Saying, "We are Americans. This thing you do is wrong. Let us stand in your way." without any real explanation is not the solution.

EDIT

I found this video that explores young marriage a little bit more. However, I don't really like how it completely vilifies the fathers because like I mentioned before; they also marry off the daughters so that the daughters themselves can be taken care of. I also don't like the solution the videos poses by amending the constitution. First, they need to help lift those people out of poverty somehow because even if the family can't marry off their daughters for dowry, they're still poor and can barely provide for their families. Yes, this video contains ignorant comments such as "these guys are PEDOPHILES" - you've been warned. Use your new understanding of cultural relativism to get a better sense of what is going on in this situation.

 

Become a Patron!

Friday, September 20, 2013

Women in comedy

Because I believe feminism and other issues dealing with gender roles to play an integral part of politics, I have decided to write on women in comedy.

I discovered this article. Way before reading it I have noticed that there are a lack of funny women - as the author states, "Please do not pretend not to know what I am talking about."

I think I may have noticed this a few years back when I saw friends of mine posting on Facebook about how funny Chelsea Handler is. I don't think she is funny. Well, I just checked out some videos, and I admit that she can be quick and a bit witty, but not enough for me to want to go out of my way to watch her show.

It got me thinking, "Why can't I find as many funny women as men?"


Lies That Chelsea Handler Told Me Handler; Chelsea Psychology General
Advertisement
Lies That Chelsea Handler Told Me Handler; Chelsea Psychology General
Lies That Chelsea Handler Told Me Handler; Chelsea Psychology General - Humor General

Look at improv. "Whose Line is it Anyway?" is made up of almost completely men. Check out your school's or local community troupe. How many females are there? An even better question: how many of these women are actually funny?

At my school, there are more males than females in the troupe, and I do think they're funny, but not as much as the men.

The main problem is that I think women try too hard. I mean, men do too, but in my experience, women tend to do it more noticeably.

Most important rule of when trying to be funny: don't try to be funny.

I'm not sure if that rule is universally-accepted as being the most important rule of when trying to be funny, but it should be. 

I especially hate it when people actually do or say something legitimately funny, but backfire it by saying, "Nevermind, that wasn't funny." It's just like improv - make a choice and stick with it (in this case, it's whether or not you're trying to make something funny).

I believe women in the entertainment industry have a long ways to go - there are not many funny women, few female directors, and scripts are written with usually more men than women characters, and then those women characters tend to lack substance. 

That is one reason why I am interested in writing.

In theater, I have noticed that there are usually more female than male actors. However, there are more male characters. For one acting class, I was paired with another girl and we had to find a scene to perform, preferably with the characters being around our age. It took us days to find a decently long scene with two women with no other characters, and it was a mother-daughter scene, so not really around our real ages.

I can go on talking about women characters, and how a lot of them lack that substance I have previously mentioned...but that will be saved for another post.

I wonder what led women to be less funny than men. I would think that it has to do with to do with societal pressures and norms rather than biological differences (not ruling that out though). It may be similar to how repressed females are to their own sexuality (which, of course, I will cover in the near future).

In the article I mentioned at the beginning, the author's partner told him, "Women get funnier as they get older."


Comedy: A Critical Introduction
Advertisement
Comedy: A Critical Introduction
This book is an original approach to the study of comedy. While assimilating theoretical insights from Aristotle to the present day, the book contests, inter alia, the theory of comedy's ritual origin. It challenges the age-old and continuing attempts to determine the structure of action that characterizes comedy, suggesting instead that structures of action are shared by all genres, and that it is the specific mood that accounts for their differences. Mood is a prism through which a playwright wishes the spectator to perceive a fictional world. Comedy is characterized by its lighthearted mood, which generates a specific kind of laughter. If mood determines the genre of a fictional world - in contrast to current theory - comedy, satiric drama, and grotesque drama are different genres promoting different moods and aiming at different effects. Each genre should thus be read and experienced according to its inherent rules and not in terms of a theory that lumps these genres together. Comedy: A Critical Introduction discusses the pivotal role of commedia dell'arte in both reflecting comedy's classical tradition and influencing subsequent developments, especially in comedy's style of acting. It explores the relations between comedy and carnival and between comedy and joke-telling. It also probes the view that comedy is characterized by a unique vision and examines comedy in different media, such as cinema, comics, puppet theatre, radio drama, and TV drama. The book questions the traditional semiotic view that all meaning is in the text and suggests that, in generating comedic meaning, the spectator's contribution/reaction is no less vital than that of the text itself. Major contributions to a general theory of comedy - and to a sound methodology for the analysis of comedies - are presented. Ample references to comedies and/or pertinent analyses of such comedies - written over the course of 2,500 years of theatre recorded history - are provided, enabling readers to grasp ideas in their original terminology and logic. Each presentation is accompanied by critical comments which both introduce the problems involved and suggest possible solutions.


I have kind of noticed that. Not only do they seem to get funnier, but a bit more perverted too, especially if they've been married. I will definitely talk more about this when it comes to my female sexuality post.

People have asked me why I have decided to make this blog. These are the reasons I cite:

1) I want to educate people about politics, expand their minds, and get them to think outside the box.

2) Where I am currently living (Bellingham), conservatives and libertarians don't seem to have much of a voice. I had been trying to find a conservative or libertarian who would keep up a blog. Finally, I was like, "Fine, I'll do it." Oh yeah, that reminds me, I also need to keep up with local politics...

3) I need to practice my writing.

For the third reason, you may think, "Oh, she needs to practice writing for professional magazines, books, and other professional-y stuff." Actually, I am mainly practicing my comedy. Maybe you have noticed the title of my blog.

I am going talk about why exactly a comedy on a later date.


Look at how funny I am with the rest of the WWU Glee Club

People react to my humor in two ways: either A) "You're so hilarious!" and I'm like, "Oh, I never realized I was funny," (and it's sincere) or more commonly B) "Why are you being so serious?" and I reply, "Dude. I'm kidding." Oops, I guess I can be a little too dry.

In what ways do you think we can get more women to jump onto the comedic bandwagon, and most importantly, actually succeed in that area?


I am simultaneously funny and not funny - give me money.


Become a Patron!