From Portable 202
Goines' account of a protest is shocking. If so many people were against the government, shouldn't it have been obvious that they had a good idea? Hundreds of college kids getting shuttled from protest to an army barracks... really? Wouldn't it be easier for police to disperse the group instead of charging every single one of them, imprisoning them in an army barracks until bail could be paid? This is the signs of a tyrannical, power-hungry government. I can only hope that the current counterculture will have an easier time than these poor people, who had to deal with all the bureaucratic red tape. However, if this did happen again today, I doubt the governemnt would get away with it.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Rules of the Game When You're Busted
From Portable 205
This little how-to guide on being approached/questioned/arrested by the police is an interesting look into the life of an active countercultural hippie. It was obviously printed before the Miranda Law (anyone who watches Cops can recite it from beginning to end)-- I almost forgot that there was a time when cops could arrest people without reading them rights or informing them of the reason of arrest. This how-to also promotes a calm response to arrest: cooperate, politely refuse searches, and, if you are arrest, DO NOT RESIST. I do think that people are often needlessly arrested by mistaken, dumb, or power-hungry cops, but the bottom line is that they have the power, and you only hurt your chances of getting off by acting out. Plus, most of the time, the cop is just doing their job, even if he is being an ass; just be polite and refuse to commit to tests, searches, or statements. In a civilized world, these matters are solved with logic and debate between you, the DA, lawyers, and Judges-- the way it should be. Anyone who decides to make the issue physical deserves being punished-- including the police, if physical intervention is warantless.
This little how-to guide on being approached/questioned/arrested by the police is an interesting look into the life of an active countercultural hippie. It was obviously printed before the Miranda Law (anyone who watches Cops can recite it from beginning to end)-- I almost forgot that there was a time when cops could arrest people without reading them rights or informing them of the reason of arrest. This how-to also promotes a calm response to arrest: cooperate, politely refuse searches, and, if you are arrest, DO NOT RESIST. I do think that people are often needlessly arrested by mistaken, dumb, or power-hungry cops, but the bottom line is that they have the power, and you only hurt your chances of getting off by acting out. Plus, most of the time, the cop is just doing their job, even if he is being an ass; just be polite and refuse to commit to tests, searches, or statements. In a civilized world, these matters are solved with logic and debate between you, the DA, lawyers, and Judges-- the way it should be. Anyone who decides to make the issue physical deserves being punished-- including the police, if physical intervention is warantless.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Hey, Mr. Newsman
From Portable, page 199.
Kampf's work is alluring to the political activist in me-- it has a Son of Liberty vibe to it, I think (well, if you ignore the mentions of Commies-- he never says that he isn't, though he is "fighting for his freedom"). One part in particular, I think, symbolizes the problem the hippies were facing: "Yes, my hair is long, and I haven't shaved in days, (2x)/ But fighting for my freedom/ While clean-cut kids just look the other way." At this time, you could go along with the culture (the clean-cut kids) and work with the system, or be in the counterculture ("my hair is long") and work against the system. The last stanzas are timeless, though, and presents a strong truth: "But you don't need no tuxedo/ when you're fighting for the rights of man." Democracy is made of up every man, not just those who are within accepted society; and without every man, democracy falls (look what's happening now!).
Kampf's work is alluring to the political activist in me-- it has a Son of Liberty vibe to it, I think (well, if you ignore the mentions of Commies-- he never says that he isn't, though he is "fighting for his freedom"). One part in particular, I think, symbolizes the problem the hippies were facing: "Yes, my hair is long, and I haven't shaved in days, (2x)/ But fighting for my freedom/ While clean-cut kids just look the other way." At this time, you could go along with the culture (the clean-cut kids) and work with the system, or be in the counterculture ("my hair is long") and work against the system. The last stanzas are timeless, though, and presents a strong truth: "But you don't need no tuxedo/ when you're fighting for the rights of man." Democracy is made of up every man, not just those who are within accepted society; and without every man, democracy falls (look what's happening now!).
'71
What caught my interest the most is the page on "The Trial of Oz." Oz, apparently, was an underground magazine (or set of magazines, I'm not sure which) that had somewhat lewd images and art that the British government considered smut-- but Miles points out that "the contents of the magazine were so tame that the Soho sex shops would not have stocked it. In reality, it was an attempt by the authorities to curb the growth of the underground press and to stop tthe spread of pernicious ideas about sexual freedom, the rights of school children, and other hippie notions" (374). It kinda reminds me of Larry Flynt's problems-- fighting first amendment rights and obscenity charges-- but this is so much milder than Hustler (especially since Oz is supposed to a collection of drawings and maybe some written work, not graphic nudity in photographs). I understand the need for moderation of public images-- billboards, newspaper ads, etc-- but when it comes to private publications that consumers have a choice to buy, I can't see how the government has any basis in moderating it. It's like that Christian Parent Network, or whatever it's called, trying to get Family Guy off the air because of a recent bawdy episode: they want to regulate TV to fit their morals, when it's easy enough to block the show or station, change the channel, or pay attention to children so parents know what they're watching.
I was very interested in the section of Jim Morrison-- like many lovers of The Doors, I see Morrison as "the American poet," and I've watched countless movies, biographies, and "behind the music"-style VH1 shows on The Doors and Morrison. His death created many conspiracy theories-- that he killed himself, his girlfriend helped him kill himself, his girlfriend killed him, etc. As the quote at the top of the section says, "'The sad death of Jim Morrison leaves a few unaswered questions. What were the full circumstances surrounding his death and why have they not been revealed?' International Times..." (364). I didn't know, though, that it's thought that he snorted heroin, mistaking it for cocaine-- that brought up images from Pulp Fiction that were so startling and sobering (the wife of the mobster-dude snorts heroin, thinking it was coke, and had to be rushed to a dealer's house for a shot to the heart of adrenaline). Another idol of mine, Kurt Cobain, has conspiracy theories related to his death, too-- mostly because of it's suspicious nature (he supposedly shot himself with a double-barreled shotgun in the attic of his vacation home's garage). I still think Courtney Love killed him; I personally despise her just because of it.
I was very interested in the section of Jim Morrison-- like many lovers of The Doors, I see Morrison as "the American poet," and I've watched countless movies, biographies, and "behind the music"-style VH1 shows on The Doors and Morrison. His death created many conspiracy theories-- that he killed himself, his girlfriend helped him kill himself, his girlfriend killed him, etc. As the quote at the top of the section says, "'The sad death of Jim Morrison leaves a few unaswered questions. What were the full circumstances surrounding his death and why have they not been revealed?' International Times..." (364). I didn't know, though, that it's thought that he snorted heroin, mistaking it for cocaine-- that brought up images from Pulp Fiction that were so startling and sobering (the wife of the mobster-dude snorts heroin, thinking it was coke, and had to be rushed to a dealer's house for a shot to the heart of adrenaline). Another idol of mine, Kurt Cobain, has conspiracy theories related to his death, too-- mostly because of it's suspicious nature (he supposedly shot himself with a double-barreled shotgun in the attic of his vacation home's garage). I still think Courtney Love killed him; I personally despise her just because of it.
Wanted: Hip Cops
From Portable 207
This poster is absolutely amazing. "We know it's a heavy trip, but there are more than 30 vacancies on the Berkely Police force. If hip people do not apply and go on to fill those vacancies, we'll get more of the same old stuff and have the same old hassles!... We want PEACEmen, not POLICEmen." This is the most peaceful way to protest known to man: work within the system. A grassroots effort, starting from the smallest form of government power (police), can lead to widespread change in the end-- though it looks to me that it's "been a long time comin" (CSN), in that not much change has occurred in the government since the '70s. I also really like the stipulations for applicees-- I think I'd agree to these rules, too. One must be: be sane, like children and other "growing things" (haha), gentle before aggressive, non-discriminating, and accepting of minor indescrecions ("people should be free to live their own lives if they do not harm others"). With a law- and moral-abiding police force like this, I'd imagine that crime would decrease significantly-- if people are being respected by the law, perhaps they will respect law.
This poster is absolutely amazing. "We know it's a heavy trip, but there are more than 30 vacancies on the Berkely Police force. If hip people do not apply and go on to fill those vacancies, we'll get more of the same old stuff and have the same old hassles!... We want PEACEmen, not POLICEmen." This is the most peaceful way to protest known to man: work within the system. A grassroots effort, starting from the smallest form of government power (police), can lead to widespread change in the end-- though it looks to me that it's "been a long time comin" (CSN), in that not much change has occurred in the government since the '70s. I also really like the stipulations for applicees-- I think I'd agree to these rules, too. One must be: be sane, like children and other "growing things" (haha), gentle before aggressive, non-discriminating, and accepting of minor indescrecions ("people should be free to live their own lives if they do not harm others"). With a law- and moral-abiding police force like this, I'd imagine that crime would decrease significantly-- if people are being respected by the law, perhaps they will respect law.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
'70
"'We may have lost the battle, sweets, but the war is far from over.' --A Christopher Street bar 'queen' to the New York Times after the Stonewall Riot, July 1969" (340).
Yet again, the '60 counterculture inspires another human rights movement: gay rights. What this so-called "queen" says is true for the millions of gay people of America: in 1970, they had a long fight ahead of them. Even today, gay rights are still being fought for and against: in California, Proposition [h]8 was recently passed, banning the year-long allowance of gay marriage in the state. In this day and age, when we're supposed to be open minded and socially liberal, as most people recognize that personal choices shouldn't really be judged by the state, gay marriage was struck down by the uber-liberal, ultra-celebritied California. Now, citizens are forcing the CA govt. to look into the support for Proposition [h]8 to prove the the Mormon Church was more than a little bit involved, as they claim to be. Several people, myself included, believe that this was a move by the Mormon Church to denounce citizen's rights to personal choice and legal partnership; to me, this is the same as the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement-- they didn't think Black people were worth equal rights, and now the subject has turned from Black to gay.
The next subject is Kent State and more police brutality. Miles says it best: "The order was given for the National Guard troops to disperse the crowd. The troops retreated to the top of a slope, then opened fire on the unarmed crowd. Sixty-one shots were fired in thirteen seconds, killing four students and wounding nine" (342). In a way to calm the protests and riots that took place after this, Nixon's Commission on Campus Unrest reported, "'In May 1970, students did not strike against their univiersities; they succeeded in making their universities strieagainst national policy...nothing is more important than an end to the war in Indo-China. Disaffected students see the war as a symbol of moral crisis in the nation which...deprives even law of its legitimacy'" (342). Thanks, Prez, the government-- the one you're in control of, supposedly-- opened fire and incited violence for four years on unarmed, non-violent protestors, and now you say they're ok? Now you say that they're only exercising their right to protest? Where was this discussion when the riot in Chicago happened? Where was this discussion when troops opened fire on a peaceful protest, leaving "four dead in Ohio" (CSNY)?
The most important question, though, is whether this would happen today. Again, I'm a Libertarian, which typically places me in the non-violent category, but I'm also extremely, extremely disappointed in how things are being run in this country. Mores from the '50s are still being pressed, and organized institutions-- religion, political parties, business-- run the country, not the people. I'm not a Communist, their idea is starting to sound better than this mockery of Capitalism and Democracy-- at least Communists say they're communists, not practicing Socialism under the name of Democracy (*cough* Barack Obama). I have these beliefs, and I see myself marching in a few years-- it's going to come down to that, I steadfastly believe-- and being shot at by my fellow countrymen. The Man is still in power and the Man will not allow anyone else to share it, and he will hide behind his publicity moves to make people believe He really cares-- oh, but, so sadly, he doesn't. The Man wants power, and he's gonna take it from you.
Yet again, the '60 counterculture inspires another human rights movement: gay rights. What this so-called "queen" says is true for the millions of gay people of America: in 1970, they had a long fight ahead of them. Even today, gay rights are still being fought for and against: in California, Proposition [h]8 was recently passed, banning the year-long allowance of gay marriage in the state. In this day and age, when we're supposed to be open minded and socially liberal, as most people recognize that personal choices shouldn't really be judged by the state, gay marriage was struck down by the uber-liberal, ultra-celebritied California. Now, citizens are forcing the CA govt. to look into the support for Proposition [h]8 to prove the the Mormon Church was more than a little bit involved, as they claim to be. Several people, myself included, believe that this was a move by the Mormon Church to denounce citizen's rights to personal choice and legal partnership; to me, this is the same as the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement-- they didn't think Black people were worth equal rights, and now the subject has turned from Black to gay.
The next subject is Kent State and more police brutality. Miles says it best: "The order was given for the National Guard troops to disperse the crowd. The troops retreated to the top of a slope, then opened fire on the unarmed crowd. Sixty-one shots were fired in thirteen seconds, killing four students and wounding nine" (342). In a way to calm the protests and riots that took place after this, Nixon's Commission on Campus Unrest reported, "'In May 1970, students did not strike against their univiersities; they succeeded in making their universities strieagainst national policy...nothing is more important than an end to the war in Indo-China. Disaffected students see the war as a symbol of moral crisis in the nation which...deprives even law of its legitimacy'" (342). Thanks, Prez, the government-- the one you're in control of, supposedly-- opened fire and incited violence for four years on unarmed, non-violent protestors, and now you say they're ok? Now you say that they're only exercising their right to protest? Where was this discussion when the riot in Chicago happened? Where was this discussion when troops opened fire on a peaceful protest, leaving "four dead in Ohio" (CSNY)?
The most important question, though, is whether this would happen today. Again, I'm a Libertarian, which typically places me in the non-violent category, but I'm also extremely, extremely disappointed in how things are being run in this country. Mores from the '50s are still being pressed, and organized institutions-- religion, political parties, business-- run the country, not the people. I'm not a Communist, their idea is starting to sound better than this mockery of Capitalism and Democracy-- at least Communists say they're communists, not practicing Socialism under the name of Democracy (*cough* Barack Obama). I have these beliefs, and I see myself marching in a few years-- it's going to come down to that, I steadfastly believe-- and being shot at by my fellow countrymen. The Man is still in power and the Man will not allow anyone else to share it, and he will hide behind his publicity moves to make people believe He really cares-- oh, but, so sadly, he doesn't. The Man wants power, and he's gonna take it from you.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
'69
Barry Miles really knows how to interest me from the very beginning: in this chapter, he opens with a quote, under the heading 'Power to the People', about Janis Joplin by Etta James, when she describes Joplin as "an angel who came and paved a road white chicks hadn't walked before" (304). This, I think think, is very true--Joplin was the first white woman, in the crowd of crooners like Joan Baex and folksy girls like Joni Mitchell, to really delve into soul and rythm&blues. Anyone who listens to her can hear the heartbreak, the intensity of her emotion-- even at Woodstock, when she sounded particularly shrill and, well, obviously doped up on something way more powerful than pot, you can hear how emotionally involved she is in the music and how passionate she is about performing. Using the style performed by many amazing Black singers, Etta James as only one example, Joplin touched soul and showed the world that it takes passion and soul, not skin color, to perform it.
As with the last chapter, Miles couldn't leave my happiness be and had to introduce another horrible act by our government at Berkely. There was unused land on Berkely campus, so a bunch of people got together and made it a park. The head of the college bulldozed it in response, and when the people protested this insane act (apparently Berkely would rather have dirt and destruction over a garden and playground for kids), the State moved in. Like MIles says, "Any reasonable administration would have negotiated with the park builders and permitted them to use the land until funds for student dorms were available" (309). Instead, they threw tear gas and shot at them with buck- and birdshot, wounding many, hospitalizing 100, and killing at least one person. Really, government? Some people build a park and, since it wasn't technically theirs, you're going to just bulldoze it and incite violence? To me, this sounds like the government is afraid of change and People Power (the subheading of this section), two things that made America great in the first place. Oh, that's right, People Power is the little thing that keeps government from having all the power-- and the government needed it all to fight the Commies, right? A great way to support a fascist government-- I have a class on teh Holocaust, and we have been studying how Hitler put himself into power. Know what he did? Basically the same things Communists do-- take power from the people and install it all, completely, in the state. Wonder where we're headed if that doesn't change... soon.
This came to mind while writing this. It's from "Power to the People" by John Lennon.
Say you want a revolution
We better get on right away
Well you get on your feet
And out on the street
Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on
I guess what these posts have proven is that I'm only really interested in the political aspects of the '60s. The rest of the chapter talks about Woodstock (yay!), Altamont (boo! Hell's Angels are not dependable security), the Sexual Revolution (yay!), and John Lennon (eh. He masked his Communism with his support of the Hippie movement, which I think is devisive and dishonest...but I like his music, so there's some argument for a yay! rating). These parts are still very interesting, but as a blog writer, I seem to be taking the political route-- and I really enjoy that. It's helping me understand and solidify my political beliefs.
As with the last chapter, Miles couldn't leave my happiness be and had to introduce another horrible act by our government at Berkely. There was unused land on Berkely campus, so a bunch of people got together and made it a park. The head of the college bulldozed it in response, and when the people protested this insane act (apparently Berkely would rather have dirt and destruction over a garden and playground for kids), the State moved in. Like MIles says, "Any reasonable administration would have negotiated with the park builders and permitted them to use the land until funds for student dorms were available" (309). Instead, they threw tear gas and shot at them with buck- and birdshot, wounding many, hospitalizing 100, and killing at least one person. Really, government? Some people build a park and, since it wasn't technically theirs, you're going to just bulldoze it and incite violence? To me, this sounds like the government is afraid of change and People Power (the subheading of this section), two things that made America great in the first place. Oh, that's right, People Power is the little thing that keeps government from having all the power-- and the government needed it all to fight the Commies, right? A great way to support a fascist government-- I have a class on teh Holocaust, and we have been studying how Hitler put himself into power. Know what he did? Basically the same things Communists do-- take power from the people and install it all, completely, in the state. Wonder where we're headed if that doesn't change... soon.
This came to mind while writing this. It's from "Power to the People" by John Lennon.
Say you want a revolution
We better get on right away
Well you get on your feet
And out on the street
Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on
I guess what these posts have proven is that I'm only really interested in the political aspects of the '60s. The rest of the chapter talks about Woodstock (yay!), Altamont (boo! Hell's Angels are not dependable security), the Sexual Revolution (yay!), and John Lennon (eh. He masked his Communism with his support of the Hippie movement, which I think is devisive and dishonest...but I like his music, so there's some argument for a yay! rating). These parts are still very interesting, but as a blog writer, I seem to be taking the political route-- and I really enjoy that. It's helping me understand and solidify my political beliefs.
Monday, March 30, 2009
'68
I like the way this chapter opens, with a picture of a naked couple sitting in the forest together, the girl leaning on the boy. I think it's a statement of innocence and freedom-- and also a testimony to experience and openness-- all within/amongst nature, all things the Hippies believed in.
However, while the image is easily connected with the discussion of communes, it is contradicted by the latter content of the chapter-- riots and police brutality. In Chicago, for instance, the protestors/Yippies were trying to exit the area-- as the cops, supposedly, wanted them to-- and the cops refused to let them through, later attacking them with clubs and tear gas. Disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that any human being-- regardless of being indoctrinated by the police state-- would inflict unjustified violence on another, like in this situation. If the protestors had been violent, or refused to leave the area (they didn't have a permit), then, perhaps, some form of offensive action would be justified-- but beating and clubbing people in a makeshift hospital, leaving 'great pools of blood on the floor' (285)? That's just sick.
This account of the Chicago riot reminds me of how the subject of police brutality is coming up again-- with videos all over Youtube of unjustified tasings and beatings. As a Libertarian, I believe that instances of police brutality-- coupled with situations 'requiring' increased police presence (Chicago)-- are signs of a degenerate and ineffective government; police are supposed to keep the peace, not incite violence. In my idea of government, the rules should be minimal, easily agreed upon, and simple to follow (don't infringe on another's rights--killing, stealing, etc); the police, in this situation, would only have a limited power scope and excessive uses of power would be rare and illegal (and enforced, which is the biggest problem with police brutality). Instances of police brutality only anger me, because it proves how far our government is from my ideal-- which is 90% supported by the ideas put forth by our Forefathers, which allows me, with some artistic license, to think of how far we, as a country, have strayed from our honest, functional, and revolutionary roots.
The chapter had me bumming a bit until I came across this quote from Stevie Winwood (297): "When you stop exploring with drugs, now that's a bad scene. I never want to stop exploring." I wouldn't go as far to say that drugs are required to 'explore,' but I take a different meaning than the obvious. Exploring, in my view of this quote, means being open-minded, curious, and non-judgmental; when you deny something as powerful and illuminating as drugs, you're done exploring-- you've denied that anything good is possible. Of course, many drugs aren't conducive for exploration, but turning down the entire spectrum because some drugs are abusable and dangerous is to ignore the amazing possibilities of drugs in general. Drugs allow humans to explore life in more forms than the reality, much like art or philosophy, and to ignore that potenial is to ignore possibilities. It's like accepting that the world is flat just because that's what is acceptable-- it's a refusal to question and subvert physical and psychological boundries that can lead to a greater understanding of ourselves.
However, this idea can't be accepted without first accepting complete personal responsibility. Therein lies the problem-- the problem that allowed the government to shut down the 'exploration' in the first place. While I don't think that my response is the only way to consider the quote (I think I made more of it than he intended, lol), I think it's an interesting perspective to think about.
However, while the image is easily connected with the discussion of communes, it is contradicted by the latter content of the chapter-- riots and police brutality. In Chicago, for instance, the protestors/Yippies were trying to exit the area-- as the cops, supposedly, wanted them to-- and the cops refused to let them through, later attacking them with clubs and tear gas. Disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that any human being-- regardless of being indoctrinated by the police state-- would inflict unjustified violence on another, like in this situation. If the protestors had been violent, or refused to leave the area (they didn't have a permit), then, perhaps, some form of offensive action would be justified-- but beating and clubbing people in a makeshift hospital, leaving 'great pools of blood on the floor' (285)? That's just sick.
This account of the Chicago riot reminds me of how the subject of police brutality is coming up again-- with videos all over Youtube of unjustified tasings and beatings. As a Libertarian, I believe that instances of police brutality-- coupled with situations 'requiring' increased police presence (Chicago)-- are signs of a degenerate and ineffective government; police are supposed to keep the peace, not incite violence. In my idea of government, the rules should be minimal, easily agreed upon, and simple to follow (don't infringe on another's rights--killing, stealing, etc); the police, in this situation, would only have a limited power scope and excessive uses of power would be rare and illegal (and enforced, which is the biggest problem with police brutality). Instances of police brutality only anger me, because it proves how far our government is from my ideal-- which is 90% supported by the ideas put forth by our Forefathers, which allows me, with some artistic license, to think of how far we, as a country, have strayed from our honest, functional, and revolutionary roots.
The chapter had me bumming a bit until I came across this quote from Stevie Winwood (297): "When you stop exploring with drugs, now that's a bad scene. I never want to stop exploring." I wouldn't go as far to say that drugs are required to 'explore,' but I take a different meaning than the obvious. Exploring, in my view of this quote, means being open-minded, curious, and non-judgmental; when you deny something as powerful and illuminating as drugs, you're done exploring-- you've denied that anything good is possible. Of course, many drugs aren't conducive for exploration, but turning down the entire spectrum because some drugs are abusable and dangerous is to ignore the amazing possibilities of drugs in general. Drugs allow humans to explore life in more forms than the reality, much like art or philosophy, and to ignore that potenial is to ignore possibilities. It's like accepting that the world is flat just because that's what is acceptable-- it's a refusal to question and subvert physical and psychological boundries that can lead to a greater understanding of ourselves.
However, this idea can't be accepted without first accepting complete personal responsibility. Therein lies the problem-- the problem that allowed the government to shut down the 'exploration' in the first place. While I don't think that my response is the only way to consider the quote (I think I made more of it than he intended, lol), I think it's an interesting perspective to think about.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
'67
For this blog entry, I turn to ‘67’ in Hippie for a discussion on legalizing marijuana. Over the past few years, I’ve done a lot of research and papers on the topic, and Miles’ brief discussion about the beginnings of the movement brought back some hate I’d learned to forget. Because of recent political events, I’ve become very angry with the way our country is being run (by whom, and without representation, more specifically) and my views on the legality of marijuana, I think, epitomizes my political opinions.
I particularly like Miles’ quote by Nigel Weymouth, “The establishment was still very much the establishment,” which kind of sums up my opinion on government—that it functions based on past abilities and allowances, and not on the agreed terms…i.e. the government relies on its reputation to get citizen-support for passing un-Constitutional bills and pork-barrel bills (*cough* stimulus bill). Marijuana is illegal because of “establishment” being “the establishment” because it’s illegal just because establishment deemed it illegal eighty years ago. Then, the establishment was easily swayed by lobbyists and powerful business—i.e., William Randolph Hearst—and not by the will of the people…but they were controlled by government propaganda then… not that we are now, right? :)
Now, even though the People have evolved—somewhat, I’m a pessimist and anti-social, so that’s a bad place for me to judge—the government refuses to legalize marijuana because it’s “the establishment,” it has to have complete power, and it’s never wrong.
Anyway, this section talks about efforts to decriminalize marijuana in Britain during 1967. From what I read, both the Who and the Beatles took direct action in supporting legalization efforts. The Who posted an ad in the Evening Standard and the Beatles contributed to a “full-page advertisement headed ‘The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice’” (251). This ad also included several notable people, including scientist and noble laureate Francis Crick and two members of Parliament. What would happen to celebrities today if they blatantly supported the legalization of marijuana? Somehow, I believe that people were freer during the ’60s than today, which is disgusting considering the efforts and headways people made during and after that decade.
In fact, I don’t think people believe, like the hippies did in the ’60s, that “the law [is] prejudiced and corrupt” (245). I think people have forgotten this, and returned to relying on Big Brother for moral, ethical, and political decisions. Which is why I’m so angry at our government right now—throwing money at an issue that they created by fiddling with citizen’s money (the income tax law—there is none, look it up), creating harsh Socialist principles to “save” the county (FDR and the New Deals), by ignoring the natural flow of business and economy, and creating this strange allegiance citizens are supposed to have to their representatives (who have, time and time again, supported un-Constitutional bills and participate in government corruption just to line their pockets).
Well, they aren’t representing me—my fiance has written to our Representative many times, only to receive a statement of his (opposite) beliefs in return, and he still voted for both bailouts and the Stimulus bill despite the majority of our county being against it. After all the work the youth of the ’60s did for our individual freedoms, they only turned around and joined the system in the end. To make things just a little more interesting, I'm going to use Jet's "Hey Kids" to explain my impression of the hippies:
Hey Kids
You did it all yourselves
You never changed the world
So whatcha think about that?
Hey Dad
The suit is on your back
So take ya boots off my neck
And get back to ya money stack
...
Hey old man
Remember Vietnam
Ya hated Vietnam
and now you love UncleSam
Hey Kids
Did you get your kicks?
So now you're gettin old,
you're gonna catch up quick
hey kids you never changed the world at all
hey kids you never changed the world
hey kids you never changed the world at all
hey kids you never changed the world
(mp3lyrics.org/j/jet/hey)
Wow, this is rambling… I’m sorry! I’m angry about the Senate passing that Stimulus bill…
I particularly like Miles’ quote by Nigel Weymouth, “The establishment was still very much the establishment,” which kind of sums up my opinion on government—that it functions based on past abilities and allowances, and not on the agreed terms…i.e. the government relies on its reputation to get citizen-support for passing un-Constitutional bills and pork-barrel bills (*cough* stimulus bill). Marijuana is illegal because of “establishment” being “the establishment” because it’s illegal just because establishment deemed it illegal eighty years ago. Then, the establishment was easily swayed by lobbyists and powerful business—i.e., William Randolph Hearst—and not by the will of the people…but they were controlled by government propaganda then… not that we are now, right? :)
Now, even though the People have evolved—somewhat, I’m a pessimist and anti-social, so that’s a bad place for me to judge—the government refuses to legalize marijuana because it’s “the establishment,” it has to have complete power, and it’s never wrong.
Anyway, this section talks about efforts to decriminalize marijuana in Britain during 1967. From what I read, both the Who and the Beatles took direct action in supporting legalization efforts. The Who posted an ad in the Evening Standard and the Beatles contributed to a “full-page advertisement headed ‘The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice’” (251). This ad also included several notable people, including scientist and noble laureate Francis Crick and two members of Parliament. What would happen to celebrities today if they blatantly supported the legalization of marijuana? Somehow, I believe that people were freer during the ’60s than today, which is disgusting considering the efforts and headways people made during and after that decade.
In fact, I don’t think people believe, like the hippies did in the ’60s, that “the law [is] prejudiced and corrupt” (245). I think people have forgotten this, and returned to relying on Big Brother for moral, ethical, and political decisions. Which is why I’m so angry at our government right now—throwing money at an issue that they created by fiddling with citizen’s money (the income tax law—there is none, look it up), creating harsh Socialist principles to “save” the county (FDR and the New Deals), by ignoring the natural flow of business and economy, and creating this strange allegiance citizens are supposed to have to their representatives (who have, time and time again, supported un-Constitutional bills and participate in government corruption just to line their pockets).
Well, they aren’t representing me—my fiance has written to our Representative many times, only to receive a statement of his (opposite) beliefs in return, and he still voted for both bailouts and the Stimulus bill despite the majority of our county being against it. After all the work the youth of the ’60s did for our individual freedoms, they only turned around and joined the system in the end. To make things just a little more interesting, I'm going to use Jet's "Hey Kids" to explain my impression of the hippies:
Hey Kids
You did it all yourselves
You never changed the world
So whatcha think about that?
Hey Dad
The suit is on your back
So take ya boots off my neck
And get back to ya money stack
...
Hey old man
Remember Vietnam
Ya hated Vietnam
and now you love UncleSam
Hey Kids
Did you get your kicks?
So now you're gettin old,
you're gonna catch up quick
hey kids you never changed the world at all
hey kids you never changed the world
hey kids you never changed the world at all
hey kids you never changed the world
(mp3lyrics.org/j/jet/hey)
Wow, this is rambling… I’m sorry! I’m angry about the Senate passing that Stimulus bill…
Monday, February 9, 2009
Carroll 388-92
Carroll's blunt testimony is slightly gross but incredibly fascinating. I find it interesting that Carroll started doing drugs in 1963 and had a heroin addiction by 15 (1965). Reading his descriptions about being addicted to heroin is bone-chilling-- why would anyone want to put themselves in that situation? Like his friend, who saw candles burning at Mass and dreamt that they had heroin cooking over them. Carroll reveals the scary side of "drugs," the reason why "drugs" are illegal; however, in the end, he seems to rectify it by saying "I just want to be pure." Carroll summoned the power to quit, it seems, because he lived to write about the tale. To me, I interpret this as a cautionary tale about the dangers of hard drugs-- and proof of the power of conciousness and will power. Obviously, Carroll was able to get himself to quit and he ended the disastrous process that he began in '65. Nonetheless, I can't imagine why anyone would want to try heroin after reading this story... on the other hand, his story about LSD was highly entertaining. I just wish I could see the golfer's faces! Probably 4 stodgy, conservative guys watching a hippie having a hallucination... hilarious.
Struggling to be Free: The Civil Rights Movement
What I find most interesting about this section is that it brings up a couple incidents that I never heard of. As a student with many history classes (6 collegiate) under my belt, I'm surprised that I haven't heard of these incidents. The first was the story of Emmet Till: what got me the most about his story was just visiting Mississippi when he was brutally battered. He was just a kid from Chicago visiting family, happened to cat-call a white woman, and got beat to death for it. It's cases like these that are the frightening aspects of racial prejudice: Till was a vulnerable 14-year-old and none of the adult men who did it thought twice about beating and killing a child just because his skin color was different than theirs. It's possible that no one would have found out about this, and those men would never be found out-- but when they were, they were acquitted. Acquitted from charges of savage, fatal brutality to an innocent child. This cycle of bloodthirsty racial prejudice still carries on today-- though, legally (thank goodness), criminals in these cases are actually punished if they are found out.
The other topic I didn't know about was the Freedom Riders who attempted to ride on buses throughout the South. They were beaten in three different areas-- Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi-- even though bus-segregation was coming to an end.
The other topic I didn't know about was the Freedom Riders who attempted to ride on buses throughout the South. They were beaten in three different areas-- Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi-- even though bus-segregation was coming to an end.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Reading 1-21-09
Since I haven't bought the other book yet-- the last time I checked, it wasn't availiable at SSI or Dynamic-- I read '65 in Hippie. I love this text: while I don't really understand the organization of ideas within each "year," all of the images and history are intriguing and entertaining. I've actually already read into '67 for fun-- I'd probably read this even if I didn't have to. Anyway...
What I found most interesting about the '65 chapter was the parts on LSD with the Pranksters and Dr. Leary. I believe that their differences sums up the situation with drugs in America: sure, there are asses out there who cause trouble under the influence, but Dr. Leary is an example of a well-meaning, responsible drug user. Obviously, with a drug as contentious as LSD (not many people would be willing to legalize it, I'd guess), it's kind of hard to say "responsible drug user," but this quote about Leary on p. 36 kind of justifies it: "Leary's approach to the LSD experience was about as far from that of the Pranksters as could be imagined. He though it should be taken in a peaceful setting to produce a personal, contemplative, spiritual experience. The intention being to cause a 'Brain-change,' or, to use one of Leary's slogans, 'You have to be out of your mind to use your head.'" Leary, it seems, took drugs and accepted the personal and social responsibilities associated with them; the Pranksters, on the other hand, were just that-- pranksters. No wonder Leary was mystified when they showed up at his house! I suppose the Pranksters were similarly surprised by the Hell's Angels-- not that the Pranksters wrecked Leary's party or anything-- who eventually forced the leader away from his own LSD party. The parts describing the naked guy (wasn't that the leader of the Pranksters?) dancing in front of cops, flaunting his legal use of LSD, and the police could only intervene once they proved marijuana (much less dangerous and mild than LSD) was being used. So, the wild LSD party got raided because of marijuana. Cops today would have a field day with that party.
What I found most interesting about the '65 chapter was the parts on LSD with the Pranksters and Dr. Leary. I believe that their differences sums up the situation with drugs in America: sure, there are asses out there who cause trouble under the influence, but Dr. Leary is an example of a well-meaning, responsible drug user. Obviously, with a drug as contentious as LSD (not many people would be willing to legalize it, I'd guess), it's kind of hard to say "responsible drug user," but this quote about Leary on p. 36 kind of justifies it: "Leary's approach to the LSD experience was about as far from that of the Pranksters as could be imagined. He though it should be taken in a peaceful setting to produce a personal, contemplative, spiritual experience. The intention being to cause a 'Brain-change,' or, to use one of Leary's slogans, 'You have to be out of your mind to use your head.'" Leary, it seems, took drugs and accepted the personal and social responsibilities associated with them; the Pranksters, on the other hand, were just that-- pranksters. No wonder Leary was mystified when they showed up at his house! I suppose the Pranksters were similarly surprised by the Hell's Angels-- not that the Pranksters wrecked Leary's party or anything-- who eventually forced the leader away from his own LSD party. The parts describing the naked guy (wasn't that the leader of the Pranksters?) dancing in front of cops, flaunting his legal use of LSD, and the police could only intervene once they proved marijuana (much less dangerous and mild than LSD) was being used. So, the wild LSD party got raided because of marijuana. Cops today would have a field day with that party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)