It just seems to me that things should be...I don't know....better.
Here's one thing that's better: In my state, marijuana has been legalized and will be going on sale in retail establishments around the state starting today. From what I've heard, Libertarians are still quite upset at all the regulations --taxes, plant limits, smoking restrictions, etc.-- but that's alright. If they weren't still grappling with reality, they wouldn't be Libertarians.
The funny thing about this is that the local media, the TV stations and the Denver Post, have been all-pot, all-the-time. Indeed, here's a list of all the pot shops opening on New Years Day, you know, as a service to the public.
Let's be clear here. The Denver Post, a conservative-leaning paper and the only major daily newspaper on the Front Range, has a list of pot-shops opening on New Years Day. Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog, on the other hand, has a list of their remaining gripes:
Denver, which is where most of the pot shops will be located, has banned new competitors until February 1, 2016, so the existing dispensaries have a lock on the market until then. So far 102 retailers in Denver have received state licenses.
Although the Justice Department has indicated that it will leave the pot shops alone as long as they are strictly regulated, banks continue to worry about the legal consequences of accepting deposits from cannabusinesses, which could be viewed as money laundering.I've been saying for years that Libertarianism is practically useless; that is, it has no practical useful applications. A list of pot shops that are opening? Useful. Libertarians bitching about a brand new regulated and legal cannabis industry before it's even completed its first day of operation? Utterly fucking useless.
And it's kind of funny. For the past 40 years, Libertarians have been rehashing Ayn Rand and regurgitating Nozick, droning on and on about tyrannical government coercion and the evils of collectivism and in the end, all that righteous indignation and philosophizing amounted to jack shit. Indeed, it became soooo easy to write them off childish dope-smoking hippies because their advocacy literally came down to "You're not the boss of me," an attitude for which there is only one appropriate response: "Grow up."
Leave it to us liberals to recognize that our government structure is best understood as a representative democracy rather than some kind of tyrannical dictatorship, and that by abiding by the virtues of civic engagement and collective action, laws can be amended and injustices reversed.
This approach would have not even occurred to the dude who sees the government as nothing but an evil oppressor and himself as a heroic individualist.
And now to something different:
Miley Cyrus = Yuck. I am no prude and I am not against overtly sexual displays in pop music. I like some of Madonna's music, but I liked her Vogue-era sexuality even better. When I was in high school, I didn't listen to En Vogue, Salt N Pepa, or Janet Jackson. But I didn't blink when their videos were playing on MTV.
So why do I throw up in my mouth a little when I see Miley Cyrus? It's not her youth. Kate Upton is only a few months older than Cyrus, is even more famous for wearing skimpy outfits, and yet I have never seen a picture of Kate Upton in any pose or light that made me go "Ewww."
I think the reason is that, even when she's posing in a wet t-shirt with pokey nipples, Kate Upton seems classy. You'd lean in to nibble on her neck and you'd come away with flowers in your nose and the taste of honey on your tongue. Miley seems like she smells like trashcan and tastes like ash tray.
Maybe I'd feel differently if I saw Kate Upton backing up on every dude and teddy bear on stage or playing air guitar with her cooch, but something tells me Kate Upton wouldn't allow herself to be seen in public doing either of those things.