Interesting
read. This is something I worry about as social media becomes judge and
jury on all issues ranging from trivial, pop culture minutia to complex
geopolitical and philosophical questions. Mobs, posses, factions, and
zealous sects bubble and foment on either side with ease. Emotional,
knee-jerk reactions are taken as fact or gospel, and if you’re not on
the loudest side, hell, any side, God help you.
We can’t try to shame or browbeat defense lawyers into not accepting cases. The fact that we have a legal justice system in the country, as imperfect as it can be at times, that allows for due process is something that seems to be taken for granted. This is not a global right. The citizens of many other countries don’t have the privilege of a court system. You dissent, and you’re thrown in the gulag, never to be heard from again.
And yet, we have people here bitching about feeling “unsafe” because a professor at their law school takes the case of a notorious villain. These are Harvard students, not some dum-dums living under a rock. You would think their critical thinking skills would be a bit sharper than this. What disappointing lawyers they’ll make, with that state of mind.
Under our legal system, that notorious villain is allowed the same right to due process and a fair trial as any other citizen in this country. Why? Because our system presumes innocence until PROVEN guilty. That means in a court of law, with a judge presiding over the case, both sides present their evidence for review, and if the defendant so chooses a judge or jury of their peers weighs that evidence and renders a verdict. Not, ‘I heard a bunch of shit about someone on Twitter, and something similar happened to me, with someone else, so let’s give this person the chair.’
Trial by Twitter doesn’t sound like the road to an utopian future. It sounds like a sanctimonious , bumbling gouge in the side of Democracy.
When I think of the brilliant minds that have pondered these concepts over the last 5,000 years, much more brilliant minds than me, I’m humbled, but also kind of awed. By the level of critical thinking it takes to philosophize these intricate concepts and systems, and build on them piece by piece, over the ages. But I guess back then, there was no social media to distract the shit out of everyone either. And these weren’t perfect humans, because perfect humans don’t exist. These were just humans that spent a lot of time thinking about things, instead of assuming they know everything there is to know already. Which I really can appreciate.
The other thing is, our system is set up the way it is, so innocent people aren’t randomly thrown in jail. And again, yes the system is imperfect, because humans are imperfect, and shit isn’t always fair, so there are some innocent people that fall through the cracks, and some guilty people that beat the rap, but the basis of the system is solid. Both sides present their evidence and it is weighed, which is fair, though the result may not always be just.
The court of public opinion holds no steadfast ideals about fairness or decorum, or the presentation of evidence from both sides. It’s fueled by emotion, personal past histories, biases, and so much yelling. And a lot of screen courage. It makes a big difference to read people’s facial expressions, look them in the eye, and articulate things to someone’s face. It’s very easy to judge and condemn from afar, with reports, and hearsay, and opinion. It’s much more difficult to judge in person, beyond a reasonable doubt, in front of all the evidence. As it should be. Trials are serious matters that deserves serious, scholarly attention, not some random Internet spouting off. (Irony duly noted.)
The bottom line is: I think it’s pretty lousy that people are trying to petition and protest other citizens unalienable rights away, no matter how heinous the charge. And it’s morally reprehensible, and just plain egomaniacal to make everything about oneself. Jesus man. The Harvard dean isn’t taking the case because he believes in sexual predation, he’s taking it because he believes in the law, and in due process for ALL citizens. If all the defense attorneys were intimidated against taking certain types of cases, then there is no one left to represent the accused, and there is no due process. There is no recourse, accused equals guilt, and the already overcrowded prisons will brim with even more bodies. One never knows when they might just be in the shoes of the accused, either. ‘There but for the grace of God go I’ is a phrase that has seemingly fallen out of favor, replaced with “Ahh, that will never happen to me. Fuck that guy. Burn him at the stake!”
“When the views of thinking people, whether lawyers, teachers, editors, or writers, are determined by our self-assessed risk of losing jobs or social standing, it doesn’t take a totalitarian government to repress our thoughts. We have done it to ourselves.” ~Quote from the article.
Unpopular Speech in a Cold Climate, from The New Yorker
March 4th, 2019
It’s much more palatable to think that the a-holes that cross one’s path just had their heads torn off by a velociraptor and that’s the reason they’ve taken leave of their God damned senses, instead of them just inherently being garbage human beings. Thanks New Yorker.
March 1st, 2019
I’d like to say I’m going to suspend judgement on this concept until it comes to fruition, but I just have this nagging feelings it’s going to be shit. Punk, cocktail, and lounge are already discordant words.
What is a “punk cocktail”, even? Some $16 potion, with a vague band reference, in a martini glass? Just spitballing some more historically accurate ideas here, but how about:
‘The Johnny Rotten’- a PBR with a third of the beer poured out and replaced with piss.
‘The Dee Dee’- Heroine, whiskey, and whatever collective pills patrons come in with that night ground into a powder surprise.
‘The Lou Reed’- a shot of speed followed by forced electroshock therapy.
There are a hundred ways to do something like this wrong, and maybe one way to do it right. Good luck with those odds. Because unless it has live punk bands, cheap drinks, and a sincere dive aura; this shit ain’t punk. It’s just going to be another contrived, dumbass hipster hangout for the yuppies around here to get rich off of. Pllllllllllltttttttttthhhhhhhh.
And at least with the other disaffected hipster bullshit around here, they’re not trying to pose as punk anything. This has the potential to be a real dick slap in the face to those of us for whom punk is our solace. To those of us for whom punk is our life philosophy.
In the words of Lux, “You ain’t no punk, you punk. You wanna talk about the real junk? If I ever said s@?! I’d be banned, ‘cause I’m your garbageman. Well, if you can’t dig me, you can’t dig nothin’. Do you want the real thing, or are you just talkin’? Do you understand?”
Metro Times: A 'Punk Rock Cocktail Lounge' is Headed to Southwest Detroit
February 18th, 2019
So if people are going to stop buying and listening to Ryan Adams’ music in protest, does that mean they are also going to start buying and listening to Mandy Moore albums in solidarity? Ennnnnnjoy.
Sanctimony never sounded so saccharinely insipid.
Pitchfork: Ryan Adams Album Pulled From Release After Abuse Allegations
February 11th, 2019
You know those times when you wanna hump, but talking is too much of a hassle? Then this is the product for you. Millennials and Baby Boomers alike can rejoice in never having to speak to another human being again, not even for sex, with LoveSync!
I think I’m just going to invent a t-shirt that says ‘Bang Me!’ on one side, and ‘Get the fuck away from me!’ on the other, and you can just flip it inside out at your leisure. A four dollar solution to a non-problem.
Um if this is the future of sex, sign me up for a Real Doll...
Dirty talk; both the preamble foreplay, and during is one of the best parts of sex. Sex without mental stimulation is not worth the time it takes to undress and redress.
Plllllltttttthhhhhh. Nine thumbs down!
Kickstarter: Love Sync
December 29th, 2018
I voted to legalize weed in the recent election, because I don’t think citizens should be criminalized for just having it or smoking it, even for recreational use. I think often times it is used as a cheap excuse to thrust people of color or lower socioeconomic status into the revolving door system of incarceration. Which is bullshit.
And economically, I think any sort of voluntary tax revenue is a good thing, in theory anyway. I’d like to think the increased revenue will go to things like schools, public health projects, and various other enriching programs, but people are greedy, lousy fucks, so who knows how that money will be earmarked. It also opens up a legitimate market for ordinary citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit.
I also think there are some legitimate medical uses for marijuana, that can actually help people. And anything that eases people suffering in this world, I’m all for. Also, I think with less of a stigma surrounding the drug, more research can be done on its benefits and effects. And more knowledge is an inherently a good thing.
Full disclosure; I personally do not partake in marijuana; it’s simply not my cup of tea. It just doesn’t do anything for me. It’s a “meh.” In many ways, I’m probably the poster child for the D.A.R.E program. But really, I have an hyper-sensitive system, and drugs either do absolutely nothing or I have extreme fucking reactions. This includes prescription medications. So my highs, and my lows, come from myriad other sources.
But none of this means I can’t take into account what other people find helpful or pleasing about cannabis, or what some of the secondary, social benefits of legalization are. It’s simple empathy and logic.
So long-winded preface aside, I don’t think there is anything on this big, blue marble that doesn’t have pitfalls; marijuana included. Things as pure, but as complicated as love or altruism have pitfalls. Morality, beauty, honor, loyalty, bravery, all these Platonic ideals, are certainly not without their dark sides or sacrifices. But yet, according to every pot-smoker I’ve ever talked to, hell, even overheard, (and the comment section of this article is congruent with those claims), somehow, the cannabis plant is the only thing on Earth that is 100% without downfall.
Uh, yeah right.
Pot: a virginal substance of unadulterated ambrosial magic, reigned down from the Heavens by the Gods of relaxation and glaucoma-relief. And anyone who dares speak otherwise is just an unhip, stuffy teetotaler that just needs to get with the times, man. Also, bullshit.
Humans can get addicted to just about anything. Anything that triggers those pleasure receptors in our brain. It doesn’t have to be a drug, it could be sex, gambling, food, exercise, another person, whatever. Ever watch that My Strange Addiction show? That’s an eye-opener. So of course, some people are addicted to, and others can get addicted to marijuana. Just like any other thing on Earth we as humans can get addicted to. It’s absurd to think otherwise.
And no, that doesn’t mean EVERY person who smokes is addicted. Also absurd. Lots of people engage in regular, zesty enterprises like sex, eating food, or exercising, and they don’t become addicted. In fact, they are much healthier because of it. But not everyone is the same. People are wired differently and have different experiences than you. Some things, even traditionally heathy activities, can spiral out of control. Does that mean we ban sex or food or exercising? Of course not. We don’t even ban cigarettes or alcohol, though I’m sure we’ve all known someone who got lung cancer, or was an alcoholic. So why isn’t the same understanding the risks, but allowing it with some regulation given to weed?
Medical-marijuana smokers’ health benefits wanted to be taken seriously, as they should, so why discount those who struggle with the drug, or who are deleteriously effected by it? That’s not balanced. That’s not empathetic. That’s not right. We have to listen to those who are negatively effected too. They are human beings that matter just as much as anyone else. And there is almost a reverse-stigma now on those who speak about the possible risks of usage.
I’ve known someone close to me that did very much struggle with it, couldn’t get out from under it, and it was slowly and surely ruining their life. To the point where I had to start researching information about it, and talking to different professional drug counselors on the topic to learn more, to figure out how to help them. And the drug counselor I talked to, said they saw more marijuana-using patients than any other kind of drug-user. And it was absolutely addictive to some and could be very detrimental to those user’s lives. And this information was presented to me, like, “Of course, it is addictive. No shit.” And this was not some out-of-touch dinosaur either, it was a young, very tuned-in woman whose career was a therapist specializing in drug counseling.
So I guess I find the topic very personal to me. To have a mob of people conveying this message that, “Your experience doesn’t matter. It’s not relevant, because it goes against my personal narrative and recreational lifestyle,” is infuriating to me. Where is the empathy and understanding they clamored for when trying to legalize it? And geez, it sounds a lot like what the old-fashioned pearl-clutchers cited as the reasons to keep it illegal. It’s more than a bit hypocritical. Sorry that some people’s real struggle with the drug is harshing your mellow but...
Everyone’s mental heath struggle is equally relevant. And deserves equal consideration not only under the law, but in the court of public opinion also. You don’t get to spout off to strangers that their problems aren’t real, unless you want to perpetuate the cycle of someone doing that back to you.
The Atlantic: America's Invisible Pot Addicts
We can’t try to shame or browbeat defense lawyers into not accepting cases. The fact that we have a legal justice system in the country, as imperfect as it can be at times, that allows for due process is something that seems to be taken for granted. This is not a global right. The citizens of many other countries don’t have the privilege of a court system. You dissent, and you’re thrown in the gulag, never to be heard from again.
And yet, we have people here bitching about feeling “unsafe” because a professor at their law school takes the case of a notorious villain. These are Harvard students, not some dum-dums living under a rock. You would think their critical thinking skills would be a bit sharper than this. What disappointing lawyers they’ll make, with that state of mind.
Under our legal system, that notorious villain is allowed the same right to due process and a fair trial as any other citizen in this country. Why? Because our system presumes innocence until PROVEN guilty. That means in a court of law, with a judge presiding over the case, both sides present their evidence for review, and if the defendant so chooses a judge or jury of their peers weighs that evidence and renders a verdict. Not, ‘I heard a bunch of shit about someone on Twitter, and something similar happened to me, with someone else, so let’s give this person the chair.’
Trial by Twitter doesn’t sound like the road to an utopian future. It sounds like a sanctimonious , bumbling gouge in the side of Democracy.
When I think of the brilliant minds that have pondered these concepts over the last 5,000 years, much more brilliant minds than me, I’m humbled, but also kind of awed. By the level of critical thinking it takes to philosophize these intricate concepts and systems, and build on them piece by piece, over the ages. But I guess back then, there was no social media to distract the shit out of everyone either. And these weren’t perfect humans, because perfect humans don’t exist. These were just humans that spent a lot of time thinking about things, instead of assuming they know everything there is to know already. Which I really can appreciate.
The other thing is, our system is set up the way it is, so innocent people aren’t randomly thrown in jail. And again, yes the system is imperfect, because humans are imperfect, and shit isn’t always fair, so there are some innocent people that fall through the cracks, and some guilty people that beat the rap, but the basis of the system is solid. Both sides present their evidence and it is weighed, which is fair, though the result may not always be just.
The court of public opinion holds no steadfast ideals about fairness or decorum, or the presentation of evidence from both sides. It’s fueled by emotion, personal past histories, biases, and so much yelling. And a lot of screen courage. It makes a big difference to read people’s facial expressions, look them in the eye, and articulate things to someone’s face. It’s very easy to judge and condemn from afar, with reports, and hearsay, and opinion. It’s much more difficult to judge in person, beyond a reasonable doubt, in front of all the evidence. As it should be. Trials are serious matters that deserves serious, scholarly attention, not some random Internet spouting off. (Irony duly noted.)
The bottom line is: I think it’s pretty lousy that people are trying to petition and protest other citizens unalienable rights away, no matter how heinous the charge. And it’s morally reprehensible, and just plain egomaniacal to make everything about oneself. Jesus man. The Harvard dean isn’t taking the case because he believes in sexual predation, he’s taking it because he believes in the law, and in due process for ALL citizens. If all the defense attorneys were intimidated against taking certain types of cases, then there is no one left to represent the accused, and there is no due process. There is no recourse, accused equals guilt, and the already overcrowded prisons will brim with even more bodies. One never knows when they might just be in the shoes of the accused, either. ‘There but for the grace of God go I’ is a phrase that has seemingly fallen out of favor, replaced with “Ahh, that will never happen to me. Fuck that guy. Burn him at the stake!”
“When the views of thinking people, whether lawyers, teachers, editors, or writers, are determined by our self-assessed risk of losing jobs or social standing, it doesn’t take a totalitarian government to repress our thoughts. We have done it to ourselves.” ~Quote from the article.
Unpopular Speech in a Cold Climate, from The New Yorker
March 4th, 2019
It’s much more palatable to think that the a-holes that cross one’s path just had their heads torn off by a velociraptor and that’s the reason they’ve taken leave of their God damned senses, instead of them just inherently being garbage human beings. Thanks New Yorker.
March 1st, 2019
I’d like to say I’m going to suspend judgement on this concept until it comes to fruition, but I just have this nagging feelings it’s going to be shit. Punk, cocktail, and lounge are already discordant words.
What is a “punk cocktail”, even? Some $16 potion, with a vague band reference, in a martini glass? Just spitballing some more historically accurate ideas here, but how about:
‘The Johnny Rotten’- a PBR with a third of the beer poured out and replaced with piss.
‘The Dee Dee’- Heroine, whiskey, and whatever collective pills patrons come in with that night ground into a powder surprise.
‘The Lou Reed’- a shot of speed followed by forced electroshock therapy.
There are a hundred ways to do something like this wrong, and maybe one way to do it right. Good luck with those odds. Because unless it has live punk bands, cheap drinks, and a sincere dive aura; this shit ain’t punk. It’s just going to be another contrived, dumbass hipster hangout for the yuppies around here to get rich off of. Pllllllllllltttttttttthhhhhhhh.
And at least with the other disaffected hipster bullshit around here, they’re not trying to pose as punk anything. This has the potential to be a real dick slap in the face to those of us for whom punk is our solace. To those of us for whom punk is our life philosophy.
In the words of Lux, “You ain’t no punk, you punk. You wanna talk about the real junk? If I ever said s@?! I’d be banned, ‘cause I’m your garbageman. Well, if you can’t dig me, you can’t dig nothin’. Do you want the real thing, or are you just talkin’? Do you understand?”
Metro Times: A 'Punk Rock Cocktail Lounge' is Headed to Southwest Detroit
February 18th, 2019
So if people are going to stop buying and listening to Ryan Adams’ music in protest, does that mean they are also going to start buying and listening to Mandy Moore albums in solidarity? Ennnnnnjoy.
Sanctimony never sounded so saccharinely insipid.
Pitchfork: Ryan Adams Album Pulled From Release After Abuse Allegations
February 11th, 2019
You know those times when you wanna hump, but talking is too much of a hassle? Then this is the product for you. Millennials and Baby Boomers alike can rejoice in never having to speak to another human being again, not even for sex, with LoveSync!
I think I’m just going to invent a t-shirt that says ‘Bang Me!’ on one side, and ‘Get the fuck away from me!’ on the other, and you can just flip it inside out at your leisure. A four dollar solution to a non-problem.
Um if this is the future of sex, sign me up for a Real Doll...
Dirty talk; both the preamble foreplay, and during is one of the best parts of sex. Sex without mental stimulation is not worth the time it takes to undress and redress.
Plllllltttttthhhhhh. Nine thumbs down!
Kickstarter: Love Sync
December 29th, 2018
I voted to legalize weed in the recent election, because I don’t think citizens should be criminalized for just having it or smoking it, even for recreational use. I think often times it is used as a cheap excuse to thrust people of color or lower socioeconomic status into the revolving door system of incarceration. Which is bullshit.
And economically, I think any sort of voluntary tax revenue is a good thing, in theory anyway. I’d like to think the increased revenue will go to things like schools, public health projects, and various other enriching programs, but people are greedy, lousy fucks, so who knows how that money will be earmarked. It also opens up a legitimate market for ordinary citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit.
I also think there are some legitimate medical uses for marijuana, that can actually help people. And anything that eases people suffering in this world, I’m all for. Also, I think with less of a stigma surrounding the drug, more research can be done on its benefits and effects. And more knowledge is an inherently a good thing.
Full disclosure; I personally do not partake in marijuana; it’s simply not my cup of tea. It just doesn’t do anything for me. It’s a “meh.” In many ways, I’m probably the poster child for the D.A.R.E program. But really, I have an hyper-sensitive system, and drugs either do absolutely nothing or I have extreme fucking reactions. This includes prescription medications. So my highs, and my lows, come from myriad other sources.
But none of this means I can’t take into account what other people find helpful or pleasing about cannabis, or what some of the secondary, social benefits of legalization are. It’s simple empathy and logic.
So long-winded preface aside, I don’t think there is anything on this big, blue marble that doesn’t have pitfalls; marijuana included. Things as pure, but as complicated as love or altruism have pitfalls. Morality, beauty, honor, loyalty, bravery, all these Platonic ideals, are certainly not without their dark sides or sacrifices. But yet, according to every pot-smoker I’ve ever talked to, hell, even overheard, (and the comment section of this article is congruent with those claims), somehow, the cannabis plant is the only thing on Earth that is 100% without downfall.
Uh, yeah right.
Pot: a virginal substance of unadulterated ambrosial magic, reigned down from the Heavens by the Gods of relaxation and glaucoma-relief. And anyone who dares speak otherwise is just an unhip, stuffy teetotaler that just needs to get with the times, man. Also, bullshit.
Humans can get addicted to just about anything. Anything that triggers those pleasure receptors in our brain. It doesn’t have to be a drug, it could be sex, gambling, food, exercise, another person, whatever. Ever watch that My Strange Addiction show? That’s an eye-opener. So of course, some people are addicted to, and others can get addicted to marijuana. Just like any other thing on Earth we as humans can get addicted to. It’s absurd to think otherwise.
And no, that doesn’t mean EVERY person who smokes is addicted. Also absurd. Lots of people engage in regular, zesty enterprises like sex, eating food, or exercising, and they don’t become addicted. In fact, they are much healthier because of it. But not everyone is the same. People are wired differently and have different experiences than you. Some things, even traditionally heathy activities, can spiral out of control. Does that mean we ban sex or food or exercising? Of course not. We don’t even ban cigarettes or alcohol, though I’m sure we’ve all known someone who got lung cancer, or was an alcoholic. So why isn’t the same understanding the risks, but allowing it with some regulation given to weed?
Medical-marijuana smokers’ health benefits wanted to be taken seriously, as they should, so why discount those who struggle with the drug, or who are deleteriously effected by it? That’s not balanced. That’s not empathetic. That’s not right. We have to listen to those who are negatively effected too. They are human beings that matter just as much as anyone else. And there is almost a reverse-stigma now on those who speak about the possible risks of usage.
I’ve known someone close to me that did very much struggle with it, couldn’t get out from under it, and it was slowly and surely ruining their life. To the point where I had to start researching information about it, and talking to different professional drug counselors on the topic to learn more, to figure out how to help them. And the drug counselor I talked to, said they saw more marijuana-using patients than any other kind of drug-user. And it was absolutely addictive to some and could be very detrimental to those user’s lives. And this information was presented to me, like, “Of course, it is addictive. No shit.” And this was not some out-of-touch dinosaur either, it was a young, very tuned-in woman whose career was a therapist specializing in drug counseling.
So I guess I find the topic very personal to me. To have a mob of people conveying this message that, “Your experience doesn’t matter. It’s not relevant, because it goes against my personal narrative and recreational lifestyle,” is infuriating to me. Where is the empathy and understanding they clamored for when trying to legalize it? And geez, it sounds a lot like what the old-fashioned pearl-clutchers cited as the reasons to keep it illegal. It’s more than a bit hypocritical. Sorry that some people’s real struggle with the drug is harshing your mellow but...
Everyone’s mental heath struggle is equally relevant. And deserves equal consideration not only under the law, but in the court of public opinion also. You don’t get to spout off to strangers that their problems aren’t real, unless you want to perpetuate the cycle of someone doing that back to you.
The Atlantic: America's Invisible Pot Addicts
