Dirty Fucking Hippies!

Be Sociable, Share!
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

    Written by alphabitch. Posted on Thursday, August 12th, 2010, at 10:31 pm.
    Bookmark the Permalink. Comments are currently closed, but you can leave a trackback.

    19 Responses to “Dirty Fucking Hippies!”

    1. Gamble said:

      The problem is the dirty fucking hippies are the same "me generation" baby boomers that became the over-consumers, tea baggers, and Glenn Beck watching fuckwads that have been destroying everything for the past 30 years. They might have been right in the late 60s, but they also became the very system they claimed to detest and then grew that system far beyond anything we'd seen previously.

    2. alphabitch said:

      Well, to be fair, not all of them. I'd bet not many actual old hippies are Glenn Beck fans.

      But, point taken. They used to say, "Never trust anyone over 30," but I guess 40–50 is more the cutoff point for most radicals.

    3. altamira said:

      I'm an old hippie who's not a Glen Beck fan. I like your blog, alphabitch. Which, I suppose, is the same thing as saying I agree with a lot of what you say.

    4. Ian said:

      Who is it by? – Sounds very much in the style of jello biafra.

    5. alphabitch said:

      I tried looking up the original source, but couldn't find anything… I'll have to try again using specific passages.

    6. Ian said:

      Interesting as I couldn't find the source either – two ways to look at that – 1 there ain't no fuckers with the balls to say what they mean out there any more – 2 – anyone with any brains has already sold out!!!

    7. alphabitch said:

      I prefer to think of it as the eloquent work of an anonymous guerilla commentator on society.

      But then, I am still a bit of a pollyanna. hehe

    8. alphabitch said:

      Also, @altamira, sometimes I wish I was an old hippie for the street cred… but then whatever has become of that has already become. So, maybe my generation can push it a little further? Doesn't look promising right at this moment, but you never know. ;-)

    9. Ian said:

      http://www.amazon.com/Dfh/dp/B001ZF4OLA/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288830846&sr=301-1#mp3TrackPlayer

      http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/joeyess

      ?? Certainly prior to most of the play for this track, but whether he is the originator is still open to doubt in my mind. One of those I've followed a few links round the internet and it doesn't quite add up kind of feelings. It smells of spam and opportunism to me.

      Also found this –

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKRdEujAR4

    10. alphabitch said:

      Interesting, I never would have assumed the guy with the youtube account was the originator… I figured he was just the hack who put the images to the audio track. But then again, I thought the whole internet smelled a bit of spam and opportunism, so I'm not sure you can definitely pin it on him. ;-)

    11. MickyD said:

      Hmm, politics isn't really my game so I can't comment on that but I do take issue with theories of the government "poisoning" our water supply with fluoride (which is what I assume they're talking about). For starters it has a great deal more benefit than risk (health and economical vs. discoloured teeth). Particularly for kids without prestiged middle-class loving hippie parents who can afford to take them to a dentist, live a more "natural" life, etc.

      Just for some background.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

      The ethical issue of essentially introducing a foreign chemical into the water supply without the general public getting a say is a very valid one (it doesn't help that the word "chemical" has come to have some sort of negative connotation). In saying that, we brush our teeth with fluoride, we use mouthwash, etc, out of CHOICE so it seems bizarre to me that people wouldn't feel the same way drinking it. I personally think it has something to do with our instinctive feeling of ingesting something into our stomach that makes us feel more vulnerable. Maybe cause then it's in our system for good? Just my 2c.

      In addition to that, people simply don't often know what's good for them. They do stupid things and they fuck up in their judgement. It's often not until too late people don't realise what they've done. Imagine the kind of wacky shit you'd see in an emergency room. If you have people like that taking CHARGE of the situation it can be very harmful in the long run. Liberty is a funny thing.

      The theories that come about seem to be so much more psychologically driven than scientific. The fact that the government did it is all the more attractive. It fits: anti-establishment, anti-industry, distrust of authority, etc, very nicely into that package we all know and love. It's easy to believe. It's much harder to investigate the facts for yourself.

      In saying that I can understand why people don't trust science, when everything that comes from authority is so often full of shit. People fear what they don't understand, and scientists are bad at communicating facts to the general public. That's the crux of it to me.

      Now then! Onto pharmaceutical companies :P . I agree that pharmaceutical companies like Big Pharma are excessively greedy. They do create a monopoly with drugs and come out with new ones when the patent runs out that differs only slightly enough that they can have a new patent for several years. It's not so simple as just naming and shaming them. As greedy as they are, we need them to help people. When I ask people after they're frothing at the mouth (looking like they're going to have a coronary themselves) at what the solution should be I often get blank stares. As if it's an inappropriate thing to ask.

      That's the problem. People often KNOW the problems, but what can we do about it? Cursing them more isn't going to help. If there's a problem than a solution needs to be found. But people are content to leave it at that. Who needs a solution? I wanna rage!!

      There's a good book call Bad Science from Ben Goldacre (guy who works in the NHS and has a medical degree) that really investigates all these big media claims, conspiracy theories and hype. It's particularly good because he empathises and has a good grip on the psychology behind why people get caught up in this, while going through research papers with a fine-toothed comb.

      Gee, my criticism became a long-winded rant :P . Hopefully its somewhat coherant.

      All of that being said, I probably would have been a hippie if I'd grown up in the 60s. It's a cool tune too…groovy dude. :D

    12. MickyD said:

      Just wanted to add that theories against the FDA seem utterly ridiculous. Also, I thought it was illegal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise to the public? I know for a fact they incessently badger doctors and have big lavish meetings where they bribe them with nice sandwiches. I'm against the setup that pharmaceutical companies have…but the delicate balance between business and health can't be denied. My stand honestly is that I don't know where I stand on that. Many doctors seem to give in. I'll have to wait and see what happens myself.

    13. Ian said:

      My take on the stand against fluoridation of the water supply is that it creates a precendent. It may be good for us but it is an additive – who has made the decision that it is good for us all, not me, nor you, but some scientists who are being paid by the government.

      Would you be happy if they decided that adding a mild sedative to the water supply was good for you? or maybe adding caffeine as a mild stimulant.

      Its about the 'Nanny' state knowing whats best and not giving individuals a choice. I can choose whether to use a flouride tooothpaste or mouthwash, I can't really choose not to have water from the mains supply.

    14. alphabitch said:

      @MickyD: Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking? I'm assuming not the US, because even without television service at my house or any subscriptions to national print publications, even I can't entirely avoid pharmaceutical advertising. If I'm over at a friend's house during a sports event it seems like half the commercials are either for Cialis or Viagra (when it's not for shampoo or body wash or a new model of car, naturally), if it's not one of the new ads promoting male HRT for a made-up condition called "Low T" (also known as "aging"). If it's more female-focused programming you see ads for PMS prescriptions, or HRT for menopause. Pick up a magazine and there's antidepressant and anti-anxiety pill ads if it's a women's mag, and the boner-and-testosterone ads in the men's rags…

      You get the idea. It isn't even SLIGHTLY illegal for pharma companies to advertise directly to the public in the US.

      As for the FDA, their drug approval system basically means only the big moneyed corporations can afford the drug trials required to get a new medication approved. And as often as we hear about big-name medications being recalled because they caused death or serious injury to patients, I have to wonder how well those big expensive trials really work. Perhaps a better system would be to tax pharma companies as a percentage of revenue, and put the money into a big pool to pay for neutral-third-party managed trials for ANY drug that passes a basic application process? Dunno, I'd have to research the details of the drug trial process much more closely to offer a more detailed proposal.

      And Ian nailed it on the fluoride issue. Also, I can't help but notice that mouthwash and toothpaste with fluoride in it strictly admonishes you NOT to swallow it, and not to let children use it until they're old enough not to swallow either. But it's perfectly safe being chugged down as drinking water? Certainly, I'm sure there's a matter of safe ppm, but (as Ian said) when were we ever explained this, and given the chance to have input on it?

    15. MickyD said:

      @ Ian: I can't see what the justification for adding a mild stimulant/sedative. It would have to be a pretty damn good one. I get your point though about how extreme the plans enforced by the state can go before it encroaches on our liberties as independant human beings capable of personal choice. At the same time we expect the state to look after us. I can't argue that ethical dilemma because I just don't know enough about the dynamics of state enforcement, population control, etc. Probably won't have an opinion for many years on that.

      Hmm, decisions from the state without imput from the public. Should we let the public weigh in on public road plans? Infrastructure? Hospital systems? I wouldn't be comfortable with my lack of knowledge on engineering or town planning to come to conclusions about how those things should be organised. Likewise, chemicals interacting with the body is extremely complex and takes numerous years of intensive studying just to get the gist of it. That doesn't stop people having opinions about what chemicals do what to your body. Particularly when it's ambiguous and you hear 500 or so voodoo miracle cures. There's an interesting psychological phenomenom that the less information/research someone has accumulated about a topic, the more they PERCEIVE they know about it. So yes, I'm basically saying "leave it to the experts". How's it any different with infrastructure? It's our health and we feel vulnerable because well…it's our health…and we're introducing chemicals into our body that we're unfamiliar with. What we don't understand we fear, and then we'll believe whatever internet conspiracy nut has to say about it. Particularly when it has some hidden anti-government agenda to it.

      In saying that, if people were given good, factual information about how chemicals like fluoride interact, the research papers done monitoring the (or lack of) short-term & long-term physiological effects from credible scientific journals…from sources people TRUST prior to legislating it I think people would make reasonable decisions. There might be a lot of stupid people, but I think the majority are reasonable. The problem is that they're uninformed. And I don't know why…maybe they don't trust what they hear, maybe they're not exposed to it, maybe scientists are shit at giving public information? I have a hunch it could be a bit of all of them. It's complex, though I think that'd be a much better approach then simply enforcing it. I'm only alluding as to why I might think the state didn't let people to decide on this, but I don't definitively know.

      If you wanted to be really subversive, you could just insist of buying bottled water :P

    16. MickyD said:

      Fuck me! The only thing I receive here (I'm an Aussie) are the occasional viagra emails. I actually don't know what the situation here is like tbh…I'm a bit of a hermit. Don't really watch TV, listen to radio, or read magazines lol. From what I know though it's no where near as bad as you guys have it. Don't know why I thought it was illegal…how bizarre. Must be different in the UK too.

      Well that really dampens my opinion of drug companies even further (not that it's much different now). Fuck, that sounds pathetic…they know damn well people can't be informed enough to make decisions like that. Hell, they even try to trick doctors. Well since they can't obtain it themselves I guess the reasoning behind the advertising is that people just go pressure their doctors to write them said desired prescriptions. Which they shouldn't do for no good fucking reason. I haven't had experience in a GP clinic though so I don't know what the reality is…

    17. MickyD said:

      Sigh…it's not letting me post the rest of it…really gotta cut down my comments.

    18. alphabitch said:

      Most of the pharm commercials end with something like, "Ask your Dr. if [Miracle Drug] is right for you," or (in the case of Cialis/Viagra), "Ask your Dr. if you're healthy enough for sexual activity." Really, it is disgusting. They're blatantly encouraging self-diagnosis and prescription-hunting.

      Hell, they sponsor NACAR teams (some poor fuck is out there with a car painted with viagra logos), and all sorts of shit here. And oddly, in countries where there's a lot less blatantly commercial promotion on the PharmCo's part, prescriptions COST A LOT LESS.

      Add all of that obvious sleaze to the fact that they spend a fortune on lobbyists, and frankly, I don't trust the medical "experts" in this country at all. Hell, if you want a basic overview of our insurance industry, rent a copy of Michael Moore's movie "Sicko". I'm not a big fan of his moviemaking style, but that one did a pretty good job of addressing the problems at hand…

    19. grimbles said:

      MickyD: The situation in Australia is roughly this…

      There are minimal restrictions of the advertisement of over the counter/non-prescription medication. Thus all the ads for antihistamines and painkillers. (Interestingly, we can get codeine – and many other things – over the counter here in some cases, while I believe it's heavily restricted in the US)

      There is an explicit ban on pharmaceutical companies advertising their products to consumers – the valid justification being that if you're sick, your doctor should know what you need, not the marketing department. That obviously falls into a bit of a hole with the amount of advertising to doctors that companies do. However there has been a significant amount of noise about potentially requiring doctors to disclose any trips, conferences, whatever other favours they get from pharmaceutical companies.

      What you do sometimes see is a very sneaky interpretation of the rules. Pharmaceutical companies *are* allowed to advertise medical conditions. They can't promote a product, but they can promote the idea that you might have a condition that could conveniently be 'treated' by a product they happen to have developed. So we get ads that list random vague symptoms, tell you it could be serious, then "ask your doctor to find out more". Which, if anything, is more insidious than the overt advertising of a product, since they're usually (deliberately) stylistically similar to public service announcements. All they're required to give is a small company logo on the splash screen. I think Proctor & Gamble and Pfizer are the big offenders for this style of advertising.