CAG@ICH#50
poster prep
I think i've found my favorite neighborhood in D.C.. It's called Adams Morgan, and i recommend you spend your spare time there if you can afford the Metro or it's within walking distance of your conference or other excuse to be in the U.S. Capitol. After a 5-minute drop into an indie bookstore straight out of Funny Face, i've lounged at Tryst for a spell, in preparation for and anticipation/dread of the YMN Poster Session. Perhaps not the best time to be alone, but it's hard to feel that way in so crowded, gregarious, and oddly familiar a place.
Confound it. I found an error on my poster. It's the last panel; maybe no one will get far enough to notice.
the inevitability of civil disobedience
Some may have noticed that the new marijuana decriminalization law went into effect a few days ago, and i must say that i'm pleased; i wasn't suspecting anything at the state level toward genuine decriminalization before i'd decided where to spend the bulk of my life. However, while the bulk of us are mired yet in the midst (and debt) of the Drug War, most advocates for outright legalization remain "necessarily" silent or low-key about their own plausible consumption. And arguments that they shouldn't be are strong but rare.
This takes me back to the greatest argument my roommate and i have had, on the issue of privacy in an increasingly monitored and searchable world. In brief (because it's almost time for me to start running back to the conference), my own feeling is that over a grand stretch of time, scandal, and paradigm shifts, the world will have to become obscenely (by our standards) open, if it is to continue advancinge exponentially technologically: Any person, doing pretty much any activity, will in some way be recorded doing it. I don't have a problem with this, and here's why: Everyone will have access, and no one will be able to control this information. In very brief, those who use marijuana will be engaging in civil disobedience simply by doing it. With not enough money, space, or honest public interest in incarcerating those who do, eventually such legislation on private activities will be repealed or forgotten.
Yes, this is poorly thought out and even more poorly exposited, but i'm interested in what counterpoints people may have to this loosely-defined expectation.