Taking a look at Meryl Streep's Golden Globes speech

As a person who has just earned my BA in the theatre arts, I feel that it is my duty to selectively analyze bits of pop culture as it relates to the arts. Thus, I will be picking apart some of Meryl Streep's speech from the 2017 Golden Globes, and criticisms from antagonists. If you have not done so already, please watch the video. I find that it is better to observe something in its full context before critiquing it. If you are morally opposed to video watching, I guess a transcript will have to do.


The main reason I have seen people arguing over what Streep had to say revolved around politics and art: 1) Artists, including actors, are paid to make art, not talk about politics; 2) she said that football and martial arts are not the arts.

To clear the air...Yes, the arts and politics mix. A little too well. Because history has seen to it that art and politics should not mix. Governments, especially tyrannical ones, do not like freedom of speech and expression, including art. In recent times, the Cuban arts have been suppressed. Nazi Germany was not nice towards artists and their work (and other people) either. If you want to look more into the suppression of the arts, just ask...Google, because I am not an art historian. (Maybe check out Doctor Zhivago.) The point being if you are afraid about how your government is going to (or may) go after you or others because they do not like your art, you have the full right to speak out.

Also, when you write, perform, paint, etc. content, you are a product of your times. I am an early 21st century writer, and a libertarian. Whether or not I write about the 21st century or libertarianism, this background information will manage to show. Even if I strove to not make myself sound like I am from this time period or a libertarian, it would be hard to manage. Political and cultural events are some of what make us who we are. If you are trying to find deeper meaning within an artistic piece, you have to learn about the artist and where and when they lived.

Now with what is not the arts...It seems to me that Streep is saying if we keep out immigrants (or kick them out) and inhibit diversity, we will lose the arts. And she said that football and martial arts are not the arts, which upset many people.

Before I go into this, I need you to understand what art is. What is art if not all paintings are art? Neither are all illustrations, statues, performances, etc. Sure, they may have artistic elements or require great skill to be made, but that is not what makes art. Sometimes what people mistake for art is actually decoration, propaganda, imitation or whatever else. And remember, art is not about being beautiful; sometimes it is ugly or disgusting.

Stalinist propaganda. Beautiful, skillful propaganda.

Art is a creation using emotional labor and technical skill, resulting in a piece or presentation that naturally comments upon the subject and produces an emotional or intellectual reaction within an individual, understanding that the reactions will (and should) vary. It is really hard to define art. People have been doing it for thousands of years. Then there are debates about what is and isn't art. (If the debates don't get too hostile, they're pretty fun.) I would not think that any two people who understand what art is would agree 100% on what constitutes it.

Both football and martial arts have elements of art in them. Would I call them art? No and yes. I do not think that football is art. Martial arts? Yes, to an extent. It is kinda in the name, but what I think can make martial arts an actual art is if it is performed theatrically, such as in a presentation. I would not call fighting art, even if it is skillful. You could argue that wrestling WWE-style is art. Related: The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity is a play that looks at wrestling and art.

My problem with Streep's statement is not that she does not think football and martial arts are not art, it is that she comes off as dismissive of these activities, whether she meant to or not. It is true that sports (or athletic activities - whatever you want to call them) is not the same as art. In putting down martials arts and football, she provides more ammunition in furthering the divide between socioeconomic classes. If she had worded it differently, I think much of the controversy regarding football/art/martial arts would have been avoided.
Now that the art versus football and martial arts section has been covered, it is time to move on to another controversy - speaking out against Donald Trump. As I had mentioned earlier, politics and art are linked. So, were her criticisms fair?
I think so. We could probably argue all day about whether or not Trump actually did make fun of the disabled reporter, as Streep and others have claimed, but I think this really comes down to something else. Other than saying artists should not talk about politics, I have noticed Trump supporters clinging onto a few other arguments: 1) These artists would not dish out criticisms towards liberal politicians, and 2) she is (and the Hollywood Elite are) out-of-touch.
So what if Hollywood artists are hypocrites, staying silent when their favorite politicians do things that they would be all too eager to harshly criticize a conservative politician for? Like I said, it is hypocritical, and I wish people would notice their inconsistencies more often, but people are going to criticize no matter what, and if I have a liberal criticizing the bad stuff Trump does while ignoring what Obama has done, I will still take it over no criticism at all. Some of these conservatives just come across as being infuriated that anyone has opinions different than their own. (And it is not just a conservative thing...Look at liberals and the 2016 presidential election.)
Meryl Streep mentions that it is a privilege to be an actor, although I would not say in the way we are used to using the word now. The whole reason she gave this speech was to remind the room and the world about the diversity of Hollywood, and that those who are privileged need to stand up for immigrants since Hollywood is shaped by (and currently consists of) them, as well as First Amendment rights because of his feud with the media.
Will a Trump presidency be as bad as Hollywood is making it out to seem? I hope not. Does Meryl Streep have valid concerns? I think she does. Was it appropriate to make this kind of speech at an awards ceremony? I don't know, and I don't care too much. I do not watch them, and I know that people make all kinds of speeches while there, including letting others make speeches for humanitarian causes. Instead of dismissing what Streep has said, we should weigh each of of her points. Everyone has a right to let their political views be known, so let us brush aside the guise of shutting down misinformation by saying, "This person doesn't know politics!" (in this case, artists). That is just an attempt to silence people.  (How do we even figure out who is qualified enough to talk about politics? Am I? I'm an artist.) What we need is to engage in dialogue, and most of the criticism I encounter does not do that.

Maybe Trump supporters are still butthurt over this.

SaveSaveSaveSave SaveSaveSaveSave
SaveSaveSaveSave
SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave
SaveSave
Become a Patron!

2015 Young Americans for Liberty National Convention - too triggered by feminism

Friday, July 31st, 2015 marked the first ever day I attended a Young Americans for Liberty National Convention. Despite travel plans that delayed me by a couple of days and had me stranded in New York City for an entire night, I was able to make it to YALcon for the last two days. The year before, many of my Students For Liberty Campus Coordinator friends stayed in DC after the Campus Coordinator Retreat in order to attend the 2014 YALcon. I was excited to attend this year's to find out what all the fuss was about.

At the 2015 International Students For Liberty Conference, after months of courtship with YAL (I think calling it that is pretty fitting), one of my friends started up the Western Washington University YAL chapter. The club became officially recognized by the school during spring quarter, with me as the treasurer. During spring break (before we became recognized), I attended the YAL Utah State Convention in...Utah. More specifically, Salt Lake City. I had a good time, despite the Leadership Institute having a strong presence there - it being no secret that I have a huge grudge against them.

Despite the more conservative bent of YAL compared to organizations like SFL (which describes itself as being big-tent), I considered rising up the ranks in YAL in order to become a State Chair. I spend a lot of, if not too much, time on libertarianism and my political activism, and of what I have done, I have never actually been paid for my work...reimbursements and the meager ad revenue don't count. I would have liked to see some of my work compensated. However, despite my beliefs that libertarians should work within conservative groups (as well as with liberals and other libertarians), YAL lent itself to conservatives a little too much for my liking. There is also the misunderstanding from the public that libertarianism and conservatism are the same, which may also explain my contempt for fusionist organizations. (I found this neato article that explains a little bit how libertarianism and conservatism differ, from a conservative's perspective.) After attending the 2015 YALcon, I knew I would have to even further my limit my interactions with the organization.

It was my first morning at YALcon and by the time we had reached the second speaker, I seriously asked myself, "What have I gotten myself into?" This man was introduced by a YAL State Chair and Leadership Institute Regional Field Coordinator who said something along the lines of, "If he doesn't offend you, then he didn't do his job." During his first few minutes of speaking, he resorted to ageism, sexism, and other tenants of bigotry to attempt to make coherent points. Supposedly, according to himself and the introducer, listening to him provides valuable insights about life that you will never learn anywhere else. He provided a story about last year when a "young slim, blonde thing" got offended at something he said, and that it doesn't matter because she wasn't worth anything and had no importance.

I knew I had to get out of there. Being in the first row and center and within shot of the camera filming it, I wondered how to go about it. Finally, as if not giving a shit anymore, I gathered the things I would need and left. When I was walking out, I heard him say something about "offended twenty-somethings." Once I got out of the room, I realized I had forgotten my room key. I had planned to go to my room and charge my phone, which was dying, and I was delighting in using my phone because of how offended he gets when people are on their phones while he is speaking. I decided to try to see if my dorm room happened to be open by any chance. By some fluke, it was, so I charged my phone and did something a hundred more times more productive than being in his presence - I took a nap.

Now, I am not usually one who goes about trying to cause drama, creating gossip, and pitting people/organizations against each other (that's actually The Libertarian Republic's job), but sometimes I become so infuriated with an organization's dealings that I feel obligated to inform the public. I was at least glad that I wasn't the only attendee who was dismayed at YAL's decision to have him as a speaker, as I saw some social media outrage and noticed quite some more people than usual using his time to look at sponsoring organizations' tables, mingle, etc. If libertarians are wondering why it is difficult to appeal to more diverse demographics, this is it: by having bigoted conservative speakers appeal to fellow bigots and dismiss people's concerns under the guise that being offended is beneficial to furthering a cause, it undermines people's experiences and ensures that a movement will only eventually run out of steam. Get with the times, YAL - conservatism is dying out, thanks in part to its desperate tactics. I don't have any problems with conservatives in themselves as I was raised a conservative girl myself, but having to rely on shock factor and manipulation to try to capture the public's attention is pathetic at best. If this was the only incident to have happened with 2015 YALcon, I wouldn't have written about it. By venting about my frustrations, I got a heads-up from a couple of reliable sources concerning a juicy tidbit...

While Reason tabled there, they were also supposed to have a panel. It was approved, but a week before YALcon, it became unapproved. Why would that happen? It turns out the subject matter was too triggering for the organization. What was so risky a topic that YAL had to censor it? Feminism.

YAL be all like...

This was the description for the panel:

Libertarian Feminism in 2015: Carrying on the individualist feminist tradition

Join us for a discussion of libertarian feminism in the 21st century. We'll touch on the individualist feminist tradition and then explore issues of particular importance to libertarian feminists today; how libertarian feminism differs from modern, progressive feminism; and what the philosophy has to offer the larger libertarian movement.

According to YAL, they deemed this to be too "divisive" and controversial. They offered the panel the timeslot again only if they altered the description and event so that the word "feminism" was avoided, but Reason turned down that feeble attempt at compromise. If I was Reason, I would have said "sure" but then F-bombed the panel to create bad relations with YAL - it's not like YAL's professionalism created any stronger bonds.

If a feminist panel was too controversial for the convention, YAL could have provided trigger warnings in the program or had a safe space when attendees became too offended. Instead, they decided that ridding their convention of such a panel would best protect the "liberal campus survivors" from further trauma.

Before you can say, "But feminism and libertarianism don't go together," do some reading:

1972 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate and the Association of Libertarian Feminists founder Tonie Nathan was the first woman in the US to receive an electoral vote.

America's First Feminist Was a Radical Libertarian

What Does Libertarian Feminism Look Like?

Anyways, it doesn't matter if you don't believe the two go together or you don't identify as a feminist (you don't have to!), the fact that YAL couldn't even bear to have a libertarian feminist panel, claiming that it would be too divisive while having (at least) one atrocious conservative speaker is not only hypocritical, but espouses the mindset that certain educational information is harmful and needs to be erased.

At this point, the national organization seems to be of little difference from the oft-confused conservative, "illegal immigrant catching" Young Americans for Freedom. There's only a tad more cherry-picked political correctness differentiating YAL from YAF. Now we know what the "con" in YALcon stands for.

Gossip doesn't write itself.

 

Become a Patron!  

Adsense's hypocrisy and puritanical shaming

On April 15th, 2015, I went onto my email to find that I received an email from Adsense saying that I violated their terms of agreement by posting a nude photo on my Blogger site (in reference to "My naked picture - six months later"), which utilized their service. A few weeks prior, Antiwar.com had a problem with Adsense when they refused to take down an article which contained graphic images that were against Adsense's policies, causing them to have to find new ways of obtaining revenue. This post is not about companies' rights to dictate how people use their services. As private entities, they do have the rights to determine those things. However, it does not mean they don't have a moral obligation to make sure their rules are fair and consistent. That is what this particular post is about.

When I thought about posting my first nude photo on here, I was mainly worried about Blogger, since this is where La Commedia Politica is hosted. I also was concerned for Facebook, since I wanted to post the photo there as well with the link to my article (and if the preview showed the picture). Even though I view my photos as being artistic, I feared that Blogger would view them as pornographic, which would make me have to make my blog 18+. This hasn't happened...as of yet. I had heard that with Facebook, it allowed artistic nudity, and according to their Community Standards, they allow "photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures." They also say they will remove photographs "focusing in on the fully exposed buttocks." Whatever that means. No zooming in? I don't think I had ever given Adsense much thought, if any at all concerning whether or not my images violated their terms of service.

When I received the warning from Adsense, I decided to check out their standards, to see what kind of nudity they allowed (because surely they allowed artistic nudity...right?). One of the links they recommended to me was an article called "Policy Tips - Keeping the network family-safe." The first things that stands out to me from this article is this sentence: "Because the label "family-safe" is a general term that differs among all countries and cultures, we often receive questions asking for clarification on what we consider adult content." Ya know, it's really great that they recognize and acknowledge this. Nevertheless, they completely throw the understanding behind that statement out of the window when they say in the last paragraph that, "When in doubt about whether an image or text might be construed as adult content, our rule of thumb is this: if you wouldn't want a child to see the content or if you would be embarrassed to view the page in front of colleagues, then it's probably not family-safe and you shouldn't place Adsense code on it." In other words, if you don't think a close-minded,  prudish American wuss can handle it, don't use Adsense.

Seriously, what you "wouldn't want a child to see" or "be embarrassed to view in front of colleagues" not only differs from country to country, but is such a white, middle-class way of trying to make a point. For all we know, someone from the  Drug Enforcement Administration may be viewing Adsense-embedded sites at work.

Not to mention, they should be awarded at least 300 douchebag points for not allowing sexual health or medical advice.  

I say that in both of my naked picture posts that people do not have my consent to use these pictures against me in a negative fashion. I don't know if I can really blame Adsense for trying to remain consistent with what they allowed to be posted. So I'm not so much pissed off at the enforcement as I am with the rules they came up with in the first place. Of what I can see, they make no mention of art in any form, unless you count pornography. Of course, this all begs the question: Why does nudity have to be artistic or medical for it to be acceptable?

Overall, I can understand why Adsense would want to cater to the needs of the advertisers. Personally, if I was an advertiser, I probably wouldn't care where my ad was placed (unless the money went towards an atrocious person/company/cause) because if people choose to associate my ad with an image of a battle wound on a site that is totally unrelated and therefore don't want to buy my product, I sure don't want those dumb fucks to be supporting my brand. I just wished Google was less lenient with what they allow advertisers to do...

To be honest, I have been very uncomfortable with Adsense on my blog. I only added it because, "Oh hey - money" (and not even that much for as long as I had it) and the convenience since, "Oh hey - I want to make some money." I would have felt more comfortable if they allowed me to choose which kinds of ads I wanted. Instead they were all like, "Ah, she's half-Filipino, so let's give the men on her blog the opportunity to date *coughexploitcough* Asian and Filipino women!"

"Katrina must have many men after her, so let's further objectify Filipino women!"

"Katrina's an attractive Asian women, so surely she wouldn't mind this."

I wasn't able to screenshot these ads (because I hadn't seen them after this incident), but Google seemed to think that because I am open in talking about sex, that I approve of people cheating on their romantic partner. So yeah, I had ads on my blog that told my audience (usually focused towards the men) to have extramarital affairs.

It would make sense for me to wrap this all up in a conclusion. However, I think you all can decide for yourselves about what injustices have been done here. There is no real end to this story until Google and other online conglomerates can pull their shit together.

UPDATE: I am now using Infolinks for ad revenue. While I am not a fan of the default format (I want to see if I can change it to something more formal), it is making me more than I make with Adsense.

Free speech hypocrisy?

As we all know, the First Amendment in the US Bill of Rights guarantees us five freedoms:

1 Freedom of religion
2 Freedom of the press
3 Right to assemble
4 Right to petition

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...

5 Freedom of speech

The First Amendment does not protect us from certain kinds of speech, including: libel, obscenity, threats, anything to incite violence or breach of the peace, etc.

This amendment is not to protect speech that is already accepted by society, but to allow offensive and otherwise unwanted things to be said.

However, this does not apply to private organizations. For example, Facebook is legally allowed to censor whatever you may want to post, whether it be bad language or something racist.

Even though these organizations have a right to do this...should they? This is something I have been thinking about lately, especially for libertarians (and other fierce protectors of the First Amendment).

Let's say I have rented out a small (10 x 10 foot) room in a building and had an array of shelves and tables for people to put newspapers, magazines, and other physical forms of media on. This is my "Alternative News" room - where people can learn more about current events other than from mainstream media outlets. Lately, I have noticed that Infowars newsletters have been showing up (and yes, I have heard that those actually exist), so I end up just throwing them out.



...Recycling them to be more precise (and environmentally-friendly).

Would doing this affect the integrity of my business (or whatever I have going on here) and make me a hypocrite?

Would Libertarian Facebook pages be hypocritical for promoting freedom, but censoring offensive speech?

This is a discussion post, so please participate.

EDIT: It seems that some people are misunderstanding what I am asking. As someone said on Facebook, I am not asking a legal question, but a moral one. I know that the First Amendment does not protect people from certain kinds of speech and that it does not protect employers, participants, etc. under a private organization from what they might want to do or say. What I am asking is if it is "right" for free speech advocates to censor what would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment if it was a public institution rather than a Facebook page or a private business.

All in all, it comes down to this: Is "it's a private organization - it can censor speech however which way it likes" - a legitimate excuse?"

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.

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.

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://stopthedrugwar.org/

http://norml.org/

http://ssdp.org/

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!

Commentary on Alternet/Salon article "11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites"

Salon.com released an article called "11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites" - after reading 1/8 of it, I realized I was talking to myself because I had a lot to say for about almost every sentence. So now I'm starting again from the very beginning, a very good place to start (thank goodness I realized my blabber brain was sounding off before getting too far into it), and will be making comments where I think it necessary.

"Libertarians have a problem. Their political philosophy all but died out in the mid- to late-20th century, but was revived by billionaires and corporations that found them politically useful."

How so? Hopefully you will offer some sources or mention it more in detail later...I also find it funny how it's the billionaires and corporations that help the Republicans and Democrats raise money for their campaigns, while the Libertarian Party struggles to make even $1,000,000.

"And yet libertarianism retains the qualities that led to its disappearance from the public stage, before its reanimation by people like the Koch brothers..."

The Koch brothers say they are libertarian. However, a lot of libertarians don't like them because of their track record and the fact that they label themselves as libertarians, but donate money to red organizations.

Geez, that much to say on just one small paragraph...

"They call themselves “realists” but rely on fanciful theories that have never predicted real-world behavior."

An example?

"They claim that selfishness makes things better for everybody, when history shows exactly the opposite is true."

While I'm not really into the "selfishness" theory (although I do believe there is some truth to it), I really want to know what historical events show otherwise. You are trying to make me accept premises that have very little to no evidence to back them up at this point. If you want me to question the libertarian ideology (more than I do already), please provide legitimate background information for what you are claiming.

"They claim that a mythical “free market” is better at everything than the government is..."

How many libertarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None, they rely on the free market to take care of everything.

HAHAHAHA!

Well, okay, but seriously...

Just because a few libertarians claim that the free market is a cure-all doesn't mean that all of us think that way.

"...Yet when they really need government protection, they’re the first to clamor for it."

Oh, really? How so?

May I make the conjecture that you're basing this on the fact that maybe a few hypocritical and/or corrupt high-standing libertarians have done this?

"That’s no reason not to work with them on areas where they’re in agreement with people like me. In fact, the unconventionality of their thought has led libertarians to be among this nation’s most forthright and outspoken advocates for civil liberties and against military interventions."

Now all the libertarians reading this love you.

"We aren’t suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite."

I would hope that you are not suggesting this, but so far, you're really digging into stereotypes. 

"But there’s an easy way to find out."

Maybe if you just tell us instead of saying that there is an easy way to find out, we can judge for ourselves whether or not it is indeed as simple as you claim it to be. I can just see it...

Friend: I found an easy to find out whether or not a libertarian is a hyprocite!

Me: Oh, from that Salon article?

Friend: Yeah.

Me: Well, for me, reading it didn't give me an "easy way to find out" - I have just always used common sense and applied it to what I see and hear. That article didn't have much to contribute.

Friend: Well, the author even said that "there's an easy way to find out," and he practically implied that it would be found in his article.

Me: Don't assume that just because someone says something that it's going to be true...idiot.

Hopefully, reading the rest of this will turn out better than what I'm expecting, and that any conversations I might have later about this will not escalate quickly over that one sentence.

"We’re talking about the other libertarianism, the political philosophy whose avatar is the late writer Ayn Rand. It was once thought that this extreme brand of libertarianism, one that celebrates greed and even brutality, had died in the early 1980s with Rand herself. Many Rand acolytes had already gone underground, repressing or disavowing the more extreme statements of their youth and attempting to blend in with more mainstream schools of thought in respectable occupations.

There was a good reason for that. Randian libertarianism is an illogical, impractical, inhumane, unpopular set of Utopian ravings which lacks internal coherence and has never predicted real-world behavior anywhere. That’s why, reasonably enough, the libertarian movement evaporated in the late 20th century, its followers scattered like the wind."

"Scattered like the wind"...how about Scattered like the Wind? An epic novel that follows the life of a young, slutty libertarian girl who worships Ayn Rand. When Rand dies, the movement collapses and she is struggling to adapt to the post-Rand era. Her early lifestyle is gone forever, her friends and fellow Rand-lovers are no longer the same, and the ideas that Ayn Rand has shared with the world are now...scattered like the wind.

Advertisement

Ayn Rand Explained Fifty-five years after Atlas Shrugged , Ayn Rand is more in the news than ever. Ayn Rand Explained is an accurate and riveting account of Rand's life, work, and influence, with the emphasis on her ideas. The book covers Rand's career, from youth in Soviet Russia to Hollywood screenwriter and then to ideological guru; her novels and other fiction writings; her work in ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics; her influence on?and personal animosity toward?both conservatism and libertarianism. Rand's Objectivism encompasses the ethics of rational egoism (?The Virtue of Selfishness'); dedication to rational thinking and acting; rejection of faith in the supernatural, personal freedom from political interference, and a moral defense of limited government and laissez-faire. Objectivism was first promoted through the Nathaniel Branden Institute, headed by Rand's young protg and designated heir. The Institute's phenomenally rapid growth was abruptly cut short when Rand expelled Branden and his followers in 1968. Today Objectivism is represented by different factions, notably the Ayn Rand Institute and the Atlas Society. This is a revised, updated edition of The Ideas of Ayn Rand (1991), including new information on Rand's rocketing influence, new stories about her personal relationships, and new analysis of her life and ideas.

If this idea is bought by a book publishing company, or at least an agent is interested in trying to sell it to one, then I will most whole-heartedly give you credit.

Anyways, practically all libertarians I know accept some ideas that have come from Ayn Rand. Some. I can't say much about her because I have never read any of her books. I have seen a couple of YouTube clips, and she seems very opinionated. Friends tell me what she has to say on some things, such as collectivism, charities, relgion, etc., and I'm like, "aw hellz nah can i completely agree with dis woMAN."

In the second paragraph, it would be nice if you could give us a couple of examples.

"Once relegated to drug-fueled college-dorm bull sessions, political libertarianism suddenly had pretensions of legitimacy."

Who says that those sessions aren't over?

"The Koch brothers are principal funders of the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine. Exxon Mobil and other corporate and billionaire interests are behind the Cato Institute, the other public face of libertarianism."

Just because they fund something doesn't mean they are huge influences on what the material says, I mean, they could be, but you can't make that assumption. When I was doing a research paper on chewing gum, I discovered that a lot of studies were funded by gum companies. Does that mean any positive results should automatically be thrown out? No, not at all. Read it with a grain of salt (just as you would do with anything...hopefully), and hope some researchers take on the study with no biased funders. 

Maybe you remember those commercials where these moms tell you that high fructose corn syrup has the same effect on your body as sugar. The website was something like cornsugar.com. I'm pretty sure that was it, but they got a lot of backlash for it, and it doesn't seem to be up anymore. When I visited it the first time, of course I found that it was backed by the corn manufacturing industry. (For anyone interested, they also tried to pay mommy bloggers to subtly advertise, but they were met with hostility for the most part.) The studies they cited were true, and not always backed from that industry. Sure, I can try to find you those studies, but since this post is not about high fructose corn syrup, just find them yourselves. High fructose corn syrup does have the same effect on your body as sugar does. Yet, sugar is not that great for you either.

It goes to show that the material you cite may be true, but even if it is true, how you try to use it and what you're trying to convey to the public may be different stories.

"It serves the self-interest of the environmental polluters, for example, to promote a political philosophy which argues that regulation is bad and the market will correct itself. And every wealthy individual benefits from tax cuts for the rich. What better way to justify that than with a philosophy that says they’re rich because they’re better—and that those tax cuts help everybody?"

Pretty much all of the libertarians I have met identify as environmentalists - may or may not be related to the fact that I'm living in the Pacific Northwest right now. Some of them are all free market for when it comes to the environment, but others, like myself, don't agree with that way of thinking. As I have mentioned earlier, it seems that you are targeting "libertarian" individuals who are hypocritical and/or corrupt than actually the actual libertarian ideology all in itself, which I admit would be quite a feat seeing as how many different kinds there are...but I'm sure you get my point.

"At no time or place in human history has there been a working libertarian society which provided its people with the kinds of outcomes libertarians claim it will provide."

While you can never compare a libertarian country to a libertarian society (because as you mention, there has been none), there are certain aspects of states (not necessarily talking about the ones within America) that are libertarian - maybe you can try picking and choosing from different countries and TA-DA! you have a libertarian society. 

I'm not sure if a libertarian country is ever going to exist. Unlike what other libertarians may say, I don't believe that early America was libertarian. There are many people who want world peace, a secular world, etc. In no way have these ever existed (and, in my mind, ever will). However, one can try to approach that ideal, and who knows, it may go a long way (without ever reaching it, but it's still progress).

Stephen Peterson said it nicely for when this article was posted on the Western Libertarians Facebook page: "But really, that can be said of most political philosophies, so what the point (e.g. Liberals are never satisfied with things as they are, conservatives hearken back to a time that never really existed)." 

"But libertarianism’s self-created mythos claims that it’s more realistic than other ideologies, which is the opposite of the truth. The slope from that contradiction to the deep well of hypocrisy is slippery, steep—and easy to identify."

PLEASE PLEASE let me see that you mention how exactly it's "the opposite of the truth" later in this article! *too.much.suspense.*

It looks like you have a bit of an obsession with easy libertarians.

"That’s where the Libertarian Hypocrisy Test comes in."

Okay! It looks like this might be going somewhere...

"The Cato Institute’s overview of key libertarian concepts mixes universally acceptable bromides like the “rule of law” and “individual rights” with principles that are more characteristically libertarian—and therefore more fantastical. "

Libertarian = fantastical. Good to know.

"The Institute cites “spontaneous order,”  for example, as “the great insight of libertarian social analysis.” Cato defines that principle thusly:

“… (O)rder in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes.”

To which the discerning reader might be tempted to ask: Like where, exactly? Libertarians define “spontaneous order” in a very narrow way—one that excludes demonstrations like the Arab Spring, elections which install progressive governments, or union movements, to name three examples. And yet each of these things are undertaken by individuals who “coordinated their actions with those of others” to achieve our purposes.

So our first hypocrisy test question is, Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of “spontaneous order”—and if not, why not?"

I'm not sure if this is hypocrisy or not...I'm too tired to think clearly, so maybe it does have to do with hypocrisy. It more seems like it has to do with defining terms. Of course, it's not like every libertarian is given the Cato Bible when they are initiated into the welcoming ritual of the libertarian cult.

"Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? "

You are acting like libertarians are against unions. I have not met a libertarian who is against the idea of a union, or at least talked about it. Again, it could be because of the small sample of libertarians I'm exposed to. In my experience, it's conservatives who act more like that.

"The bankers who collude to deceive their customers, as US bankers did with the MERS mortgage system, were permitted to do so by the unwillingness of government to regulate them. The customers who were the victims of deception were essential to the production of Wall Street wealth. Why don’t libertarians recognize their role in the process, and their right to administer their own affairs?"

Don't know anything about this - I don't like commenting on unfamiliar territory. All that I know is that government tries to regulate, it seems, every aspect of banking. Of what little I have read on government and the banks in the US compared to other industries, banking seems to be most controlled by the government. Then again, like I just said, I don't know that much to say anything of worth.

"But victims of illegal foreclosure are neither “freer” nor “more prosperous” after the government deregulation which led to their exploitation. What’s more, deregulation has led to a series of documented banker crimes that include stockholder fraud and investor fraud. That leads us to our next test of libertarian hypocrisy: Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?" 

It would be nice if someone would be able to explain to me what is going on here. What made the foreclosures illegal? What kind of fraud was going on?

"...Thiel let something slip that extreme libertarians prefer to keep quiet: A lot of them don’t like democracy very much. In their world, democracy is a poor substitute for the iron-fisted rule of wealth, administered by those who hold the most of it. Our next test, therefore, is: Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate."

From the libertarians I have met - no, we do not like democracy very much. Of course we're not for dictators or anything. I remember seeing a lot of articles a few months back on a study or something that shows that democracy is not humanly possible...never read it, but I probably need to. Oh yeah, by the way, that second sentence kind of sounds like a false dilemma fallacy.

"On this score, at least, Thiel is no hypocrite. He’s willing to freely say what others only think: Democracy should be replaced by the rule of wealthy people like himself."

Talk about putting words into someone's mouth. From Thiel's quote mentioned in the article, I am not too sure what exactly the meaning of it was, but you jumped to quite a hasty conclusion methinks.

"But how did Peter Thiel and other Internet billionaires become wealthy? They hired government-educated employees to develop products protected by government copyrights. Those products used government-created computer technology and a government-created communications web to communicate with government-educated customers in order to generate wealth for themselves, which was then stored in government-protected banks—after which they began using that wealth to argue for the elimination of government."

Ask a group of libertarians whether they think he/she should collect food stamps because he/she lost his/her job and needs to feed the family...boy will you get a lot of responses of various reasonings. Actually one Facebook libertarian page asked something like this (forgot which page it was though), and some people said, "No, that will be hypocritical. It's exactly what that program was made for," others replied, "If the service is available, I don't see anything wrong if you use it, especially if you're in that great of need." My point is that some libertarians think it's okay to be helped by the government. Other don't agree if you can help it.

By the way, where can you find computers and communications web not created by the government to communicate with privately-educated customers in order to store your wealth in banks that are not protected by the government, and therefore illegal?

Sometimes you just have to deal with it. 

I can't help that my parents had me go to a public elementary, middle, and high school. I could have gone to a much cheaper private college (cheaper because of scholarships, not education quality), but I just liked the atmosphere of the public university I am going to now.

I still can't get over the stupidity of that paragraph. In my debate class last winter quarter, I had to argue for why Greece should stay in the Eurozone. Most dumb thing ever. While doing my research, I found that the other side absolutely dominated, and the side I was supposed to argue just kept repeating the same things over and over again. I couldn't find counter-arguments. During the debate, I had to resort to emotional appeal (uggh). However, if I refused to do the debate because I didn't agree with what I had to argue, then I would have probably failed the class. At times, people just have to do things they don't like in order to achieve what they want. It just depends on what they are doing - murdering someone is probably worse than accepting a donation from a corporation for when it comes to being elected in public office.

Advertisement

Corporatism: The Secret Government of the New World Order Monopolistic mega-corporations control all basic resources and items that world citizens depend on for their daily survival-not just food, resource-goods, or medicine, but also things like water, information, transportation, education, and even consciousness. Each of these corporations is controlled by tiny numbers of unelected, militaristic, fascistic labor-lords-called corporatists-who are outside of media attention and who exercise their power to such an extent that they will do anything-including obliterate and destroy the spirit and consciousness of citizens worldwide (including children). This book is an existential, empirical, economic, and psychological study of how corporations dominate the globe to the point that humanity worldwide is reduced to little more than a crushed, defeated mob of uneducated, brainwashed, and tormented beings - who are often tricked into believing they are free, as is the case with middle and upper class Americans. The corporatists secretly control the governments and major control agencies of the world: the UN, the CIA the WTO, the WHO, the FDA, medical schools and universities, the Federal Reserve, the world's militaries, farming, mass media, and religions-and that is just a partial list. Corporatism: The Secret Government of the New World Order shows that corporatism is the real underlying issue from which literally all major human problems now and in the past derive from; and the other issues that people usually imagine are the real underlying causes of humanity's problems (the politicians, war, human nature, greed, religion, problems with parenting and the education system, etc.), are just symptoms of the real problem, which is corporatism. Inthis book, Professor Grupp proves that the United States is a corporatist nation no different in fact from the communist horror-states described in books such as Orwell's 1984. Corporatism shows that in the near future America will be a full-fledged prison nation that will ultimately merge into the corporatist global "prison planet" that Hitler was initially attempting to set up, and which is now called the New World Order.

"Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?"

I will admit, this can be a good question. Nevertheless, are you saying that the "wealth that wouldn't exist" is the stuff you mentioned in that paragraph with all the government-related stuff? If you take this question out of context, you would probably have a good debate with someone whether if wealth can exist without the government. Within the context of this article, this is just stupid. If your business accepts subsidies from the government, then the question would make more sense. If anyone hasn't noticed, the author is trying to put his poorly-constructed inquiries into your head and answer them with   things that only make sense within his own limited thinking capacity. It's a very narrow road, my friend.

"Many libertarians will counter by saying that government has only two valid functions: to protect the national security and enforce intellectual property laws."

Ummmm, actually I hear that the government's two valid functions are national security and property rights, which is a much more general term than "intellectual property laws." I have never heard or read any libertarian say that what you said are the two valid functions of government. I think this article is now becoming more like propaganda. You should blame the Mexicans for the Great Recession because   collectively they came up with the idea to screw around with America's economy. Don't believe me? Well, don't do any research. I'm the authority figure here: what I say goes.

Intellectual property rights: it's an issue many libertarians debate about - almost as controversial as libertarians on abortion.

"After all, if Thiel were a true Randian libertarian he’d use his ideas in a more superior fashion than anyone else—and he would be more ruthless in enforcing his rights to them than anyone else."

So is Thiel actually a Randian libertarian? Are you just assuming he is? If he's not (and you know it), what is the point of this sentence?

"Our democratic process is highly flawed today, but that’s largely the result of corruption from corporate and billionaire money. And yet, libertarians celebrate the corrupting influence of big money."

How do we do we celebrate it...?

(And most importantly, why would we?)

Advertisement

Capitalism and Freedom In this remarkable, expansive text, Peter Nolan explores the impact of the domineering economic phenomenon on our personal and social liberties.

"Why isn’t a democratically elected government the ultimate demonstration of “spontaneous order”? Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?"

You have an interesting point in there. What I have to say is that a democratically-elected government is still a government - it rules over all of its land and reigns supreme. I doubt the people of the land of which is currently called "The United States of America" would want to be single-handedly ruled by Walmart, the KK, the Catholic Church, the Sierra Club, etc. You may try to argue my point that those are special-interest groups, versus the government is for everyone. You think the government would be able to be run truly-democratically with no corruption? There are different political parties for a reason - barely anyone can agree on the same issues. If we have a Democrat president, or a Republican-led House, doesn't that sound like special-interest to you?

"But if big governments are bad, why are big corporations so acceptable?"

Let's say a big corporation is selling its product and not using any government subsidies, etc. It's the idea. libertarian corporation. The reason why I don't have a problem with it is because the corporation probably is not trying to control the entire country and tax, arrest, etc. its citizens.

"Why isn’t it important to avoid the creation of monopolies, duopolies and syndicates that interfere with the free market’s ability to function?"

It is important. Maybe you have heard of "crony capitalism." If not, look it up. One thing I really agree with socialists on is that if businesses are trying to survive and earn as most they can, then a free market would cease to exist because it's only  natural that the businesses will go to the government and try to get or plain manipulate them (and the public) into helping their business/industry. I'm not sure if I trust a completely free market. Even with just a mostly free market, I believe that over time, cronyism will poke out its ugly head.

"Ayn Rand was an adamant opponent of good works, writing that “The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” That raises another test for our libertarian: Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were “parasites”?"

Why do you keep assuming that libertarians worship Ayn Rand? Of the libertarians I have met, the majority of them don't agree with her on a lot of things. I think most, like myself, agree with her on some points. If I'm getting her quote correctly, then that's just one of those weird-ass ideas she seemed to have.

"Libertarianism would have died out as a philosophy if it weren’t for the funding that’s been lavished on the movement by billionaires like Thiel and the Kochs and corporations like ExxonMobil. So our final question is: If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?"

That first sentence is actually one I would like to have a discussion about. Is it really because of hypocritical and corrupt billionaires that libertarianism exists like it does today?

I don't get the last question, it doesn't make sense. At least to me.

Overall, this was poorly-written. Not to mention highly fallacious. 

I should be paid to read these horrendous articles...Why not help me with that?

Become a Patron!