As part of a university assignment, I've been buying The Times every morning for the past week or so, and today I got a welcome surprise on the front page.
Dominic Kennedy, Investigations Editor for The Times was violently ejected from a BNP meeting, left bloodied, bruised and assaulted.
This is no conjecture or libel on my part, as not only have The Times already published these details but the mass media was on hand at the time to take plenty of photos of this taking place.
Obviously, what I'm pleased about isn't the fact that a journalist was unnecessarily roughed up by a group that's too right wing for me to even make jokes about without being personally disgusted.
What I'm pleased about is journalism finally taking a stand for something, and what's more, meaning something for once.
Obviously there will be plenty of examples people will be able to give me of journalism being meaningful and relevant in the last few years.
But all we've been told since hitting university to start a journalism degree is how the industry is going down the toilet and newspapers don't mean anything any more when the internet is so instantaneous.
But here, not only have The Times reported on something brilliantly, they themselves have BECOME the story.
It's a thrilling example of what Hunter S. Thompson called gonzo journalism - the journalist truly becoming the story.
What's more, it's great to see journalists representing enough of a threat to a political party that they saw fit to one out of their meeting with violent force.
The BNP have been gaining momentum recently and hopefully this story will expose them for what they truly are.
Watch this space.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
15 February 2010
3 March 2009
Dopes that don't smoke dope are dopey
Seeing as this blog was started for journalistic reasons technically speaking, I don't know if this goes against any of the rules about what we 'should' be posting on the internet. I'm also not sure I care, so here goes.
Marijuannnnaaaaa.
Kids, say hello to our new anti-drugs spokesman.
Ish.
Drug use isn't as black and white as people say it is.
Firstly, if we're to theorise that whatever drug you're taking is actually what it claims it is (that being one of the problems), then there are still smart and dumb ways of doing it, just as there are smart and dumb ways of driving a car, and that can kill or injure you just as badly. But that is a whole other rant.
My second point, which is what today's main rant will be about, is that just because something is strictly speaking illegal doesn't mean it's worse for you than something that's legal.
At least one person I know will doubtless point out the pros and cons of all of them, and probably correct any of my factual inaccuracies regarding drugs too.
Heroin and crack are probably the stupidest drugs to try. I think it's the highest addiction risk (I heard somewhere that either or both can get you after one use) for least value for money. Anyway, point is, those are pretty dumb. Other ones aren't as idiotic as people would have you believe in the media, but it varies.
Interesting side note, I read a hilarious interview with Kings Of Leon in Q talking about their cocaine use, in which they talked about how with one use of cocaine they knew it was stupid and not worth it. The VERY next quote was 'after two years on that stuff...'. That's hilarious.
Anyway, the point is, one of the most hotly debated drugs as far as legalisation, declassification, masturbation and exacerbation is marijuana.
Let's not bullshit about this.
- Marijuana is not as bad for you as smoking or drinking.
- If nicotine or alcohol were discovered tomorrow, they would be class A in an instant.
- If the government could tax cocaine, we'd all be on the nose candy.
Marijuana has no proven physical addiction. It's all mental, but the mind is a powerful thing and so it creates symptoms of withdrawal. Even these aren't as bad as those from kicking the booze or the fags - if you're addicted in the first place, and some lucky bastards don't have addictive personalities anyway.
It hasn't actually got, as far as I know, that many proven negative effects - there's only correlational studies, but you can find correlations to a lot of weird shit if you try hard enough. The most prominent one is that it increases likelihood of schizophrenia. Ironically, I believe certain newly pioneered treatmrents for schizophrenia include amphetamines. Go figure.
Something a good man I know called Aaron King pointed out to me was that it's somewhat of a typical student outlook to be in favour of marijuana being legal. He's right, and as such I know my voice will probably never be heard. The main problem there is that I'm not a marijuana user myself, and wouldn't be even if it was legal.
But I've got pretty bombed on stuff that's entirely legal. I have major back problems as most people who know me are aware, and I am jacked up on painkillers 24/7. When I originally hurt my back, I got fairly high on my painkillers and was pretty close to addiction before I got them changed. Both them and the pills I'm now on I got just by asking the doctor for them. I don't think he even examined me. The doctor I'm currently seeing certainly didn't, he just took my word. God, he even asked me what my dosage was!
Of course, that's completely legal, and I really do have back problems. But who's he to say I did?
I'm running out of key points here, so I'll just sum up. As long as alcohol and nicotine are legal, marijuana should be too. By sheer logic.
But then we're not talking about logic, we're talking about politics.
Marijuannnnaaaaa.
Kids, say hello to our new anti-drugs spokesman.
Ish.
Drug use isn't as black and white as people say it is.
Firstly, if we're to theorise that whatever drug you're taking is actually what it claims it is (that being one of the problems), then there are still smart and dumb ways of doing it, just as there are smart and dumb ways of driving a car, and that can kill or injure you just as badly. But that is a whole other rant.
My second point, which is what today's main rant will be about, is that just because something is strictly speaking illegal doesn't mean it's worse for you than something that's legal.
At least one person I know will doubtless point out the pros and cons of all of them, and probably correct any of my factual inaccuracies regarding drugs too.
Heroin and crack are probably the stupidest drugs to try. I think it's the highest addiction risk (I heard somewhere that either or both can get you after one use) for least value for money. Anyway, point is, those are pretty dumb. Other ones aren't as idiotic as people would have you believe in the media, but it varies.
Interesting side note, I read a hilarious interview with Kings Of Leon in Q talking about their cocaine use, in which they talked about how with one use of cocaine they knew it was stupid and not worth it. The VERY next quote was 'after two years on that stuff...'. That's hilarious.
Anyway, the point is, one of the most hotly debated drugs as far as legalisation, declassification, masturbation and exacerbation is marijuana.
Let's not bullshit about this.
- Marijuana is not as bad for you as smoking or drinking.
- If nicotine or alcohol were discovered tomorrow, they would be class A in an instant.
- If the government could tax cocaine, we'd all be on the nose candy.
Marijuana has no proven physical addiction. It's all mental, but the mind is a powerful thing and so it creates symptoms of withdrawal. Even these aren't as bad as those from kicking the booze or the fags - if you're addicted in the first place, and some lucky bastards don't have addictive personalities anyway.
It hasn't actually got, as far as I know, that many proven negative effects - there's only correlational studies, but you can find correlations to a lot of weird shit if you try hard enough. The most prominent one is that it increases likelihood of schizophrenia. Ironically, I believe certain newly pioneered treatmrents for schizophrenia include amphetamines. Go figure.
Something a good man I know called Aaron King pointed out to me was that it's somewhat of a typical student outlook to be in favour of marijuana being legal. He's right, and as such I know my voice will probably never be heard. The main problem there is that I'm not a marijuana user myself, and wouldn't be even if it was legal.
But I've got pretty bombed on stuff that's entirely legal. I have major back problems as most people who know me are aware, and I am jacked up on painkillers 24/7. When I originally hurt my back, I got fairly high on my painkillers and was pretty close to addiction before I got them changed. Both them and the pills I'm now on I got just by asking the doctor for them. I don't think he even examined me. The doctor I'm currently seeing certainly didn't, he just took my word. God, he even asked me what my dosage was!
Of course, that's completely legal, and I really do have back problems. But who's he to say I did?
I'm running out of key points here, so I'll just sum up. As long as alcohol and nicotine are legal, marijuana should be too. By sheer logic.
But then we're not talking about logic, we're talking about politics.
2 March 2009
My big 'Big Issue' issue
Okay, I'm going to rant a little bit about charities before I pin down what this blog is really about.
In Preston town centre, there's quite a few beggars around, just like there were in Nottingham. A lot of them just kind of sit there, some have dogs, some have instruments.
But far too maligned are the Big Issue sellers. It's a publication with somewhat of a negative association - given that it's sold by those who are perceived as tramps - and it doesn't really deserve it.
Firstly, having read several of the last few issues, I quite like it and buy it when I can afford to.
Secondly, a Big Issue seller isn't your average beggar. Someone my girlfriend knows once bought some food and tried to give it to a tramp - they promptly threw it back in his face and shouted "I don't want your food, give me some money." This is what you can never guarantee isn't going to happen if you give food to a tramp - or more specifically, if you give them money, you never know where it's going to go. It's cynical, yes, but unfortunately it's just the way things are.
A Big Issue seller, on the other hand, has to buy his or her copies of the mag off the company that makes them before he can sell them. This shows he's put aside some money so that he can spend it on something that ISN'T drugs, and that they are actually trying to help themselves. This is commendable, and should be encouraged. So even if you don't read the damn thing, buy a Big Issue.
In Preston town centre, there's quite a few beggars around, just like there were in Nottingham. A lot of them just kind of sit there, some have dogs, some have instruments.
But far too maligned are the Big Issue sellers. It's a publication with somewhat of a negative association - given that it's sold by those who are perceived as tramps - and it doesn't really deserve it.
Firstly, having read several of the last few issues, I quite like it and buy it when I can afford to.
Secondly, a Big Issue seller isn't your average beggar. Someone my girlfriend knows once bought some food and tried to give it to a tramp - they promptly threw it back in his face and shouted "I don't want your food, give me some money." This is what you can never guarantee isn't going to happen if you give food to a tramp - or more specifically, if you give them money, you never know where it's going to go. It's cynical, yes, but unfortunately it's just the way things are.
A Big Issue seller, on the other hand, has to buy his or her copies of the mag off the company that makes them before he can sell them. This shows he's put aside some money so that he can spend it on something that ISN'T drugs, and that they are actually trying to help themselves. This is commendable, and should be encouraged. So even if you don't read the damn thing, buy a Big Issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
