This is just a single shining example of how information can be regurgitated, twisted, printed, reprinted and fed to a nation.
To make the point clear this is not a pro or anti cannabis debate, but the debate itself is the launch pad for this post.
We all know that newspapers are the not the most democratic or the least biased in their articles and I guess this claim might very be true. I am no expert. I haven’t studied the topic and I am definitely no scientist. Despite there being potential positive and negative effects of smoking weed, why can safely assume that the claim,’one cannabis joint is as bad as smoking 20 cigarettes,’ is bollocks?
The answer? This tabloid claim was based a statement by the British Lung Foundation.
“It is difficult to ascertain whether or not the inhalation of cannabis causes damage to the lungs and airways independently of the tobacco smoke or not.” This is a far cry from ” a joint a day is as bad as 20 cigarettes”
Some people write off conspiracies without giving them the light of day. Some take an interest and say things like “hmm… bit weird that is.” Others are the ‘crazy-ass conspiracy fruit bars’ we know so well. (They tend to be portrayed as stoner’s, who just happen to be failures at everything else in life, or the a guy who looks like a Willie Nelson who’s let himself go and spouting something about Roswell and anal probes.)
If you fall into any of these categories or occupy a grey area somewhere in between or on the outskirts, there may be one thing most people can agree upon… that is you should probably take some of with a pinch of salt and the rest should be questioned and scrutinised until the truth proceeds. Keep in mind, this tactic should be adopted wherever the source of information, mainstream news or not.
What is interesting however is how more and more often, the ‘crack-pot’ conspiracies are working their way on to more respected and ‘mainstream’ (if you like) channels.
Does this mean there may be more truth to them than previously thought, if such media outlets are picking up on stories they would have once held at arms length for fear of loosing respectability?
If this is the case, then should we be worried, considering the two stories that inspired this post? They concern the loss of basic human rights and freedom that only Orwell’s number 1 fan (fo’eva) would have the balls to speak about these type of acts happening so soon.
Case study number 1:
I had heard about this from various sources but seemed to be hear’say. There is now legitimacy surrounding the bizarre claims.
Why is Anonymous in the Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Materials?
“… at several points in Call of Duty’s promotional materials, a Guy Fawkes mask appears. Each time it does, it seems to be identified with a hacker “enemy.” The main plot from the game concerns hackers taking control of unmanned weapons in a near-future scenario.”
If your looking for an answer to this question, I will tell you now. I do not know for sure but I can offer an opinion. We would know the answer if we could figure out an even deeper routed philosophical question. Is there such a thing as a selfless act?
I’m not even going to bother with ins and outs of that specific question. Bringing it back to question in the title, the answer is NO. Art is not all me, me, me. Though many artists would have you believe otherwise.
An artists work (an embodiment of their ideas) are in my opinion, a balance between the internal (self, ego, interpretation, opinion etc) and the external (everything else in the world that influences us). This balance may vary dramatically.
Social and political art is by nature, swaying towards the external. Of course there will always be the influence of the internal and critics will often use this to undermine social, political or protest art (as well as other criticism), but what is prevalent is that not all art is me, me, me. There are people out there making art on the basis that they want to help influence mindsets or make a comment that goes beyond exploring ‘me’, some existential question or art in itself.
Now I want to make, encourage and spread social, political, ‘external’ art (and media) and maybe the subconscious part of me knows that it’s because I want to feel good in myself at some level, but I know I do so because I feel the world needs to see an alternative side other than being presented everyday. Though this could be argued against purely on number of ‘I’s in the previous sentence. Or even more so, based on the fact that I linked my own blog when mentioning the Boyle family.
What I do know is I will continue to show/make etc work based on the influence of others on me and then hopefully me on others so that in the end people can make their own, democratic decisions. And that sentence include a few “me’s” and “I’s” but I will still argue that it is not all me, me, me. Make up your own mind and come to your own conclusions.
In doing so you might to browse some social or political art.