Friday, December 11, 2009

This is all I feel it necessary to say about Glenn Beck

Following the whole Glenn Beck thing has become a favorite pastime for conservatives and liberals alike. I guess I'm mostly addressing the latter here, because I don't feel I'm actually capable of changing peoples' minds about the actual content of what he has to say. People have all got their minds made up on that by now. While I disagree with it, that's not really what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is what a childish little prick the guy is.

Glenn Beck thrives on attention, and he likes to get it through overblown appeals to emotion, shock tactics, and saying unbelievably "politically incorrect" (read: ignorant) things. His show is all about the gimmicks. Lots of silly drawings and those sorts of things. His show is Howard Stern meets Bill O'Reilly with a dash of low-brow childrens' TV. Fox has found a winning formula, and I'm honestly sort of disgusted by it. The difference is, no one takes Howard Stern seriously past the age of about 13 when they realize how much of a tool the guy is. On the other hand, every time Glenn Beck says something stupid, I'm hearing about it for a week, mostly from liberals who somehow can't believe he said it, as if it even matters that he said it.

So what I propose is we just stop talking about the guy. I don't give a shit what he has to say, and, at this point, taking him seriously enough to respond to him is giving him far more credit than he deserves. We've got real issues to deal with in this country, and responding to every crackpot cable news throws our way is really pretty useless. The more we talk about Glenn Beck, the longer his show stays on the air. Given that he thrives on this sort of attention, I figure the perfect way to get him to just go away would be to stop giving it to him. If we start treating him like the obnoxious, attention-starved child he is rather than the serious political voice he's not, he'll go away a lot faster than if we keep going on about the guy.

That said, this is the only post I'll make about Glenn Beck.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Medical marijuana, and why I don't support it.

More and more states are legalizing medical marijuana lately. With each election, it seems like one or two more pass a medical marijuana bill. This is commonly seen as a good thing by people who are against the prohibition. And I can see why. It shows a greater acceptance of marijuana by the general public and that their efforts are actually accomplishing something rather than just amounting to piss in the wind.

To me, it seems like medical pot is just distracting from the larger issues the people affected by the prohibition face. Rather than actually facing the issue head on, the medical marijuana movement seems more content to try to "take down Big Pharma" (something I commonly hear from people who buy into other horseshit like homeopathy or naturopathy - but that's a post for another day) and make excuses for self-medication in an attempt to legitimize it by trying to make the law regard it as "real medicine." The problem is, thanks to its potential for abuse, the difficulty of controlling dosages, and the rather underwhelming medical literature on its supposedly beneficial effects, most real, professional doctors would never, ever recommend that people use weed for anything. It would be extremely unethical to prescribe marijuana when something else would be better suited to a person's condition. This would open the door for less scrupulous doctors to prescribe weed to pretty much anyone, which isn't that bad for most people, but is actually horrible in cases where it would actually be harmful for their patient to not be on a real medication, and these doctors would make a lot of money just from saying what their patients want to hear. "Alternative" (non-scientific) medicine would be allowed to thrive, and at the end of the day, I see it doing more harm than good.

On top of that, I don't really see what legalizing medical pot would change for the rest of us. Even if pot was changed from a schedule I drug to a schedule II (which, thanks to the potential for abuse, is where it would likely end up, alongside other commonly abused prescription drugs like oxycodone), it would still be a crime to have it without a prescription. While the penalties would probably change, due to the rescheduling, there would still be penalties, and to remove those would be to start the whole fight all over again. My main problem is that the medical marijuana movement ignores the wider issues of prohibition. Mostly the issue of whether it's any of the government's business what a responsible adult puts in their body (it's important to distinguish between responsible adults and irresponsible adults, the same way we do with people who drink alcohol), but also the problems caused by prohibition itself. Would crime decrease because of medical pot? I don't think so. Recreational users will still be buying from criminals (or friends on medical marijuana who would then become criminals). Drug gangs will still thrive. The legal system would still be dealing with lots of harmless individuals, who, on the other hand would sometimes have to be forced to deal with actual criminals just to get high.

The problem here is that marijuana isn't harmless. All psychoactive substances need to be treated with due respect, and spreading the myth that marijuana will never cause any health problems or that it's equivalent to any medicine specifically made for a given purpose is in pretty direct violation of that respect. As of right now, the only really respectful or honest use of marijuana is recreational (hemp, however, is another story entirely). The legalization movement has been pretty terrible about spreading misinformation about weed, and in the end it's hurting the entire movement. I support legalization on the grounds that it's none of the government's business what responsible adults put in their bodies, on the grounds that it's (probably) not any more harmful than recreational drugs that are legal, and on the grounds that enforcing prohibitions is a waste of time and money that could be spent fighting real crime. I also think it's a waste of our time to fight for medical marijuana when we should be trying to put decriminalization bills on election day ballots or pushing for legalization in general. Until then, I'm all for looking into medical applications that are actually more legitimate. But it should never distract from the larger issue.

Friday, December 4, 2009

The golden rule and you: on celebrity gossip

This week I've heard more about Tiger Woods than I ever cared to. Personally, I think it would be a great step toward a better world if every source of celebrity gossip all went under in unison. Maybe we could fill the then-bare supermarket checkout lines with back issues of the tabloids that actually had the decency to be funny, like the Weekly World News, or maybe even some delicious candy. Alas, this will never be the case, but a man can dream.

Anyway, the more I hear about Tiger Woods, the more I feel compelled to tell people straight up at the first mention of his name that I don't give a shit about his private life. Of course, this is usually met with some bullshit excuse like "but think of the sponsors!" and "Tiger Woods is a public figure, and doesn't get the same privacy as the rest of us!" and "Tiger Woods came forward and said it himself!" Well, except the sponsors are being screwed by the tabloids just as hard as Tiger woods is, Tiger Woods is human being and fame does not change that, and he didn't come out to the public about it himself. Like many other things, Tiger Woods was outed by unscrupulous gossip magazines who were motivated to shoehorn themselves into his private affairs by the money they were going to make from the lucrative industry built around people being unable to just mind their own goddamn business.

So how this relates to the title of the post: imagine your neighbor is constantly spying on you. Sitting at their window with binoculars, watching who comes and goes from your house. Following you around. Taking pictures of you. Trying to find out anything they can that could possibly embarass you. Generally, I'd imagine people wouldn't be too happy about this, whether they're doing anything society might frown upon or not. This is exactly what you're supporting when you buy into celebrity gossip rags and all that trash.

I understand people wanting to know everything about the famous people they hear about. Don't get me wrong. People have a natural curiosity about each other. It's the same curiosity that leads me to be concerned when I see an ambulance or fire truck in my neighborhood. That's completely fine. The problem is when indulging that curiosity causes undue suffering to others. In this case, Tiger Woods' private marital problems have come under public scrutiny when, ideally, they'd be a private issue between him and his family.

My point is, before you pass judgement or try to paint Tiger Woods as some sort of amoral figure who stands against everything society holds dear, put yourself in his shoes. And no cop-out excuses like "I wouldn't do what Tiger Woods did." Imagine you did. Then, honestly (this part is important - no "I'd want to be shot in the face for being a dick" because no, you fucking wouldn't) think about how you would prefer to be treated. Then extend that respect to him.