Best Birthday ever: Bacon and eggs; powder laps (and it’s still dumping); best meal ever (cooked on an open fire, on the mountain); making friends at the local bar; art in the field; cake…
A lot of the criticism of “Perfect Match” accused it of reinforcing certain negative stereotypes. Did that bother you to hear? I’m not sure what negative stereotypes it reinforced.
—
The Woman(!) Behind GoDaddy’s Tasteless, Effective Super Bowl Ads - Forbes
So weird when obviously smart people, i.e. Ad execs, play dumb in such an obvious manner. You’d think they’d have that angle covered better.
So, besides clearly not caring about the damage her messaging does in the world, Barb Rechterman is real bad at pretending to be oblivious about it.
I know how awesome it is to watch someone else’s fuzzy shot-from-a-distance with an iPhone snowboard video.
But this is about me, not you.
PS. Everything about this was much bigger, faster and impressive than it appears here.
For Richard Nixon, the war on drugs was more than just a formula for padding arrest statistics and looking tough on law and order. It was also a symbolic means of stigmatizing youth protest, antiwar sentiment, rock ’n’ roll music, and other expressions of cultural ferment—underscoring once again that pot prohibition had little to do with the actual effects of the herb and everything to do with who was using it.
—
Victory for Pot Means Beginning of the End of Our Crazy Drug War - The Daily Beast
I wonder if you can look at any law or prohibition in this way, as a form of discrimination. Please excuse my libertarianism.
An obvious correlation is the gun debate. One side says to restrict gun ownership is to curb freedoms, some saying it is to the point of discrimination. The other says that restriction is for protection of the majority.
Prohibition of marijuana on the other hand, currently more robust than that of guns, has been clearly argued to cause more harm to our society than it prevents. The history of marijuana prohibition is closely tied to political maneuvering.
Maybe it’s an issue of the government interfering with markets of supply and demand but that doesn’t sound right either. There are many valid reasons for the government to regulate markets.
I think the markets of drugs and weapons are examples of markets driven by human emotion, mainly fear. Fears held either by those participating in the trade (guns for protection from bad people or government), or those trying to curb that trade (drugs).
This argument needs to be more rational. Less emotion and more science. We can see that it’s worked before, tobacco regulation (rather than prohibition) for instance.
The statistics related to gun violence and gun ownership in America are stunning, especially where compared internationally.
The history of a costly war-on-drugs to prohibit marijuana is a history of fear mongering towards political and corporate ends.
This is where the government needs to be our collective better selves, rise above emotion (like a calm and rational parent) consider facts and apply sensible restrictions.
Restriction rather than prohibition is important. As reported, the research and science behind weapons and drugs in society are distorted and stunted because of legal and political ambiguity. Furthering a cycle of misinformation and misguided debate and allowing our imaginations to fill the gaps.
