So, Monday we got a story of a journalist in Anchorage, Alaska walking off her job out of protest for the legalization of cannabis. She actually says “Fuck it, I quit”. Of course she was instantly heralded as a hero for “the movement” . I wasn’t sold on the sincerity. I immediately questioned the ethics. Which, turned out to be a good hunch. The women owned a cannabis dispensary. People all across the board thought this move to be unethical. A lot of us, yes us—I’m pro-legalization—thought it was an abuse of the platform the network had given her. There was a long cogent discussion involving a moderator of a Missouri based cannabis advocacy group Show-Me Cannabis, two Canadians, and some other random people who gave their opinions. Here’s what the moderator said Monday.
A friend sent me that video this morning, and I think it’s hilarious.
I don’t have any problem with her saying that, however, her previous employer obviously would. That’s why she quit; she knew she would be fired anyway.
That’s what would happen in any industry where you were doing what you were prohibited from doing.
To me it’s no better or worse just because her job was in journalism.
Poor journalism, sure. But she’s no longer a journalist, anyway, so like she said, “fuck it”.
Mr. Hizer, A moderator
Clearly, there is no questions of the unethical nature of the reporters actions. 5 days later the Washington Post ran the story of Alaska having legal cannabis for 39 years. Making the actions of that edgy reporter all the more hollow. It wasn’t about “activism”, but her financial gain.
We’ve had a lot of hollow and empty gestures in Missouri lately. The removal of George Will, a syndicated columnist removed from The St. Louis-Post Dispatch, in “solidarity” of preventions of sexual assaults on campuses. Will wrote an op-ed about “progressivism” becoming dangerous and becoming something that potentially targets college men. If you’ve read about “The Title IX Office” you’ll see he wasn’t far off in his assertion. He was accused of victim blaming, by explaining that girls will in fact have an opportunity to abuse this new office. It’s not inconceivable for a spiteful college girl to contrive a story about a college boy, ruining his life. “The Title IX” office, now has that power. All the while, removing George Will won’t prevent one sexual assault. The truly baffling part was who replaced him, a former Bush speech writer. Personally, I like both of the writers. However, the silence from liberal-progressives was deafening with regards to who was brought on vis a vie that hollow gesture
The constant protest, rioting, and clashes with the police over the death of Michael Brown, something that was inflamed by people sharing speculation and wild theories, like Brown was “shot in the back” and “execution style”. It still goes on even today. It’s no longer about Brown but institutional racism that the entire St. Louis media community ignored, until Brown’s death. The peak of hollow gestures came when protestors decided to protest inside Busch stadium. Which distracts the people who paid to watch the game and is also incredibly dangerous. If you’ve ever been to a baseball game, they announce on the loud speakers to keep your eyes on the field of play. It’s not about watching the game it’s about not getting hit with a baseball.
The hiring of a super-sketchy PR firm to handle the media, turned out to be hollow. And distracted people even further. Especially, given that this owner of the PR firm claims to fight “4 social justice”—but has a private jet on his profile. I’m no intellectual, but that seems inconsistent and frankly disgusting that a PR firm outside of St. Louis would profit off protest that are suppose to be about the death of 18 year-old. Yes—profit.
These are stunts, justified as “any means necessary”, but at the end of the day are about money—ethics be damned. Even when you point out that these protest really aren’t about Brown any more, it’s quickly deflected to it being about larger social justice. It’s done in such synchronized lock-step, it’s almost impressive. When a heated moment was brought to the public attention of the same moderator, along with his director. The indignation was thick. No commentary was given, just the standard talking points.
“If you don’t see the societal benefits of legalizing (or even decriminalizing) cannabis, completely outside of and removed from the business aspect of it, then you miss a large part of why I fight against the drug war. Sure, someone who is already rich may get richer from the deal, BUT, it keeps minorities and low income citizens out of jails and prisons and allows them the opportunities in life that the drug war presently prevents them from pursuing. It significantly reduces the excuses police can use to search your person and property. The benefits are vast beyond the monetary appeal.”
I actually do moderator, I’ve had those talking points shoved down my throat for 2 years now.
I’m not going to change any minds. The director just called me crazy and ended our friendship, vowed to ignore me, but continued to insinuate I was, crazy, stupid, or a “conspiracy theorist”. Never addressing the unethical practices I mentioned. In my opinion, it’s because he and the “elite” in the movement do stand to gain monetarily. The wheels are moving on legalization in Missouri. This “policy maker” is quite chummy with the local media, namely Charles Jaco, who’s made an appearance on this blog due to his rousting of a mob to where “white cops” live. That’s the progressive media here, those are the progressive policy makers, and their activist wanting progress. The rhetoric is loose and people are now acting on it. The tension in the region is palpable, but those “leaders” won’t dare except some responsibility for inflaming tensions. Why? Because highlighting tensions furthers the narrative of a racist police state. It’s more than about money, it’s ready made justification for the movement. That’s more valuable than money, it’s free PR.