I'm fascinated by the suggestion that the "real decision makers" sought to make "the industry look like a bunch of buffoons" by making "the choice to have their business shown as being run that badly". I'm all for following the money when it comes to understanding what 'really' happens in politics and business, but why would this supposed secret concern damage their own interests by turning public opinion against their frontmen? Maybe that's part of what you're asking with your ultimate question there?
Yes, that's basically what I'm asking. What's in it for them to make themselves look that bad?
My best guess is that it's entirely for the benefit of law enforcement, IRS, etc. Something like "see we're a bunch of idiots! While on paper it looks like we're making a lot of money, but look at how badly we mismanage things! We're no threat to you, nor are we a potential source of revenue. Nothing to see here, move on." Pure speculation of course.
I feel like Steve does a good job of consistently framing things positively and I think part of this comes from the fact that he not only believes in the cause, but the facts are there to support his case.
He didn't come off as bad as the rest of them, but I still found him completely unimpressive.
But the American government hasn't historically been too kind to men with long braids and alternative medical practices, and I suspect the population at large retains some of that prejudice to this day. And along with David Wedding Dress, who, I can be totally neutral toward, and you still wonder if the minds 'we' are looking to win over might find that jarring.
Here's the thing. I've got no problem with the braids or a guy wearing a dress as long as they don't act like negative stereotypes. In the 60's people did things like grow their hair long to break preconceptions and social regulations. I very much respect and support such things. These guys did neither. They both looked and acted like a republican politician would stereotype the MMJ movement. That's not a positive in my book.
If a guy came out wearing a dress, with those braids, whatever and then broke preconceptions of what you'd expect him to act like, I'd love that. If you look like a party hard dead head and then bust out with extensive legal, medical, horticultural, or financial knowledge then I'd be applauding him.
But if you come out there looking like a party hard dead head and then proceed to act like that stereotype, I'm not impressed at all.
Put another way, Steve's spoken message is on point, but their visual presentation might be offputting to mainstream America?
When put in combination with how they acted, it's off putting to me. That's not what I'm about nor is it something I want to be associated with.
It reminds me of the lyric from the dead kennedys "Nazi punks fuck off".
"Punk ain't no religious cult,
Punk means thinking for yourself.
You ain't hardcore cause you spike your hair
When a jock still lives inside your head"
Same applies here. You're not some beatnik hippie because you like to smoke weed, wear tie die, have long hair, etc. They did that for a reason, to help people see the world a little different. These guys look and act like they are doing it to fit into some genre. They are negatively stereotyping themselves. I'm just not about that shit.