'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.