So, it's just about over. As the school year approaches its end, and I write my final blog post, it's time for a little bit of reflection as to how this process has affected myself, my peers, and my learning experience.
Quite honestly, I think blogging was one of the best attributes of my American Studies class. At the core of the concept, it's weekly writing, which keeps you on your toes, always thinking about logic (and grammar.) But I think that more importantly, this task makes you look at the world and what's going on. As much as I hate to say it, I (and I'd assume most high schoolers) tend to block out the "real" world, and focus on the world of high school. But really, who can blame us; often times, the world is a terrible place. And some people chose to focus on the good in the world for their blog posts. But I focused on the bad. On the government cover-ups, on the outrageous outcomes of our judicial system, and on the good who are dyin' young. And while it has been somewhat of a bleak process, I think I've come out of it a better, more conscious person. I've learned that all the bad in the world should not be ignored, but rather, talked about. Ignorance is not bliss, it's just ignorance, and it doesn't do anyone any good.
What I'm trying to say is that this blog helped me to address some of the issues I see in the world. It gave me a place to discuss things and vent my anger, so that when I was done writing my posts, I was feelin' alright. And I think that if a school assignment can have this therapeutic affect on a person, that's incredible. Maybe the future of education in America isn't so doomed after all.
People may say we're north american scum; that doesn't mean we can't write about it. And through writing, comes healing.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
What Was in that Candy Bar?
Today, as I casually browsed Reddit, an article caught my attention. The link was titled something along the lines of "New York Times journalist freaks out on pot candy," and after seeing that, I couldn't help myself. But after reading the full article by Maureen Dowd, and noticing many misleading points, I couldn't help but dissect the article.
The first thing I noticed was that the title of the article was "Don't Harsh Our Mellow, Dude." Really? Do reporters seriously not get tired of using the same old Cheech and Chong puns to title their articles? Not only that, but the title really has nothing to do with the rest of the article, which focuses on the edible aspect of the recreational marijuana industry in Colorado. So really, Dowd is just too lazy to come up with a creative title.
Next, she goes on to describe her experience. Essentially, she's writing articles about legalization in Colorado and she figures, maybe I should give it a try. So she holes herself up in a hotel room with a marijuana infused candy bar and ate... uh.... she didn't know how much. She ate some, then some more, and then some more. And all of a sudden everything was coming on way too fast. She even says she "became convinced [she] had died." All right, so while this is certainly a disturbing story, she seems to have ignored several things that anyone using basic common sense would have realized. First and foremost, she is in a city she doesn't know, in a hotel room she's never been to, trying a drug for the first time. And she's all alone. She takes no precautions and clearly knows very little about pot edibles (or else she would have known they can take up to 2 hours to kick in.) In addition to all of this, she seems to not read the label on the package (where manufacturers are required to list serving size and milligrams of THC.) Often, these products have a serving size of 10mg or so of THC, and there are several servings in one candy. But apparently Dowd chose to ignore that.
My final qualm I have with the article is her very nice little "Edible Horror Stories" section near the end of the article, where she lists people who have committed suicide or murder after eating pot candy. However, she fails to mention that in both the cases she mentioned, there were other drugs found in the system of the person responsible, including PCP in one case. So that also slipped her mind.
But while this article may be problem-filled and biased, it does raise a good point (though it's the not the point she's trying to make.) There is, quite obviously, a learning curve for using marijuana, and it's quite possible that the current system in Colorado caters to veteran users of the drug. But perhaps the biggest reason for this is that our society just hasn't had the time to adjust to the legalization of this drug. There aren't any videos being shown in health classes about "how much marijuana is a moderate amount" like there is for alcohol. And I think that with time, society will begin to educate people this newly legal substance. Because unfortunately, Maureen Dowd didn't have a friendly neighborhood stoner when she was growing up to explain to her how to use marijuana responsibly.
The first thing I noticed was that the title of the article was "Don't Harsh Our Mellow, Dude." Really? Do reporters seriously not get tired of using the same old Cheech and Chong puns to title their articles? Not only that, but the title really has nothing to do with the rest of the article, which focuses on the edible aspect of the recreational marijuana industry in Colorado. So really, Dowd is just too lazy to come up with a creative title.
Next, she goes on to describe her experience. Essentially, she's writing articles about legalization in Colorado and she figures, maybe I should give it a try. So she holes herself up in a hotel room with a marijuana infused candy bar and ate... uh.... she didn't know how much. She ate some, then some more, and then some more. And all of a sudden everything was coming on way too fast. She even says she "became convinced [she] had died." All right, so while this is certainly a disturbing story, she seems to have ignored several things that anyone using basic common sense would have realized. First and foremost, she is in a city she doesn't know, in a hotel room she's never been to, trying a drug for the first time. And she's all alone. She takes no precautions and clearly knows very little about pot edibles (or else she would have known they can take up to 2 hours to kick in.) In addition to all of this, she seems to not read the label on the package (where manufacturers are required to list serving size and milligrams of THC.) Often, these products have a serving size of 10mg or so of THC, and there are several servings in one candy. But apparently Dowd chose to ignore that.
My final qualm I have with the article is her very nice little "Edible Horror Stories" section near the end of the article, where she lists people who have committed suicide or murder after eating pot candy. However, she fails to mention that in both the cases she mentioned, there were other drugs found in the system of the person responsible, including PCP in one case. So that also slipped her mind.
But while this article may be problem-filled and biased, it does raise a good point (though it's the not the point she's trying to make.) There is, quite obviously, a learning curve for using marijuana, and it's quite possible that the current system in Colorado caters to veteran users of the drug. But perhaps the biggest reason for this is that our society just hasn't had the time to adjust to the legalization of this drug. There aren't any videos being shown in health classes about "how much marijuana is a moderate amount" like there is for alcohol. And I think that with time, society will begin to educate people this newly legal substance. Because unfortunately, Maureen Dowd didn't have a friendly neighborhood stoner when she was growing up to explain to her how to use marijuana responsibly.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Gimme Back my Weed!
Back in January I wrote a blog post about Colorado's revolutionary legalization of marijuana for recreational use. They made history and opened new doors for marijuana policies in the government, and since then, the negative stigma around marijuana in American culture has been slowly disappearing. And just this past week, we got a great reminder of this, in the form of possibly the largest victory for pro-marijuana advocates since Colorado's legalization efforts. But first, a little background.
Although many states have legalized marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes, the DEA still considers marijuana a Schedule I drug (meaning it has no medicinal value whatsoever, which is absurd.) It's classified right alongside MDMA and heroin. So naturally, these state and federal laws have clashed, and it often leads to dramatic DEA raids of dispensaries and medical marijuana grow operations. And while it may seem as though this is simply inconveniencing some people, these dispensaries provide medicinal cannabis prescribed by a doctor, often for patients who have gone through product after product with no results. For many, medical marijuana is a last resort, and it allows a life without constant pain. So you can see how, when dispensaries are raided, their product snatched and lives put on hold, it not only closes a business, but prevents patients from having medicine.
So now we arrive at the victory. This past Monday, the House passed a bill that effectively prevents the DEA from raiding medical marijuana dispensaries and grow operations that are legal on the state level. This is such an important event because it demonstrates a more open attitude towards medicinal and recreational marijuana use than the government has shown in the past, which signals a possible shift towards sensible marijuana policies (or, at the very least, more sensible than the ones we have now.) Does this signal a change in attitude in the government, or is this just a special case?
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
You Can Go to War, But Don't Smoke While You're There!
18 is a big age in America. You can drive past curfew, buy lottery tickets, and get drafted, among other things. And in most states, it's the age at which you can legally buy cigarettes. Some states, like Utah and Alabama, have changed this to 19, and so have some counties, in an effort to discourage the use of cigarettes. But just yesterday, New York City made a big change: they changed the legal smoking age to 21. Many younger New Yorkers are outraged about this, and the comparison is being made to the minimum age required for service in the military; if I can kill a man for my country, why can't I smoke a cigarette?
But while this is a big change, it's not necessarily a surprising one. NYC is one of the most anti-cigarette areas in the country, with huge taxes bring the average price of a pack to upwards of $12, as opposed to the national average of just above $5. So with the taxes and raised age minimum, one would think smoking would be substantially diminished in NYC, right? Well, apparently not. Just below 16% of New Yorkers smoke cigarettes, which is only slightly below the national average of 18%. But with an economic recession in full force, it's just not practical for NYC residents to pay $14 for a pack of cigarettes. And that's where one of New York's best kept secrets comes in: it's multi-million dollar black market cigarette industry.
NYC's rising cigarette taxes and restrictive smoking laws have created a slight decrease in smoking, but on the other hand, they've created an enormous market for black market cigarettes. Smugglers buy carton after carton from Virginia and Washington D.C. for a fraction of the price, and sell them to local NYC stores, generating a hefty profit. One shop owner even went as far as to say that "every store in Brooklyn" buys from one man, who the store owner claims "makes a million dollars a year."
Despite action from lawmakers over the past decade, this underground cigarette industry has not gone away, and has only flourished with newly restrictive smoking laws, and it's likely that this newest one will be no exception. Should NYC enforce it's newest cigarette law, or will it just push more teens to the ever-growing black market?
But while this is a big change, it's not necessarily a surprising one. NYC is one of the most anti-cigarette areas in the country, with huge taxes bring the average price of a pack to upwards of $12, as opposed to the national average of just above $5. So with the taxes and raised age minimum, one would think smoking would be substantially diminished in NYC, right? Well, apparently not. Just below 16% of New Yorkers smoke cigarettes, which is only slightly below the national average of 18%. But with an economic recession in full force, it's just not practical for NYC residents to pay $14 for a pack of cigarettes. And that's where one of New York's best kept secrets comes in: it's multi-million dollar black market cigarette industry.
NYC's rising cigarette taxes and restrictive smoking laws have created a slight decrease in smoking, but on the other hand, they've created an enormous market for black market cigarettes. Smugglers buy carton after carton from Virginia and Washington D.C. for a fraction of the price, and sell them to local NYC stores, generating a hefty profit. One shop owner even went as far as to say that "every store in Brooklyn" buys from one man, who the store owner claims "makes a million dollars a year."
Despite action from lawmakers over the past decade, this underground cigarette industry has not gone away, and has only flourished with newly restrictive smoking laws, and it's likely that this newest one will be no exception. Should NYC enforce it's newest cigarette law, or will it just push more teens to the ever-growing black market?
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Checking Your Privilege
I go to New Trier High School, of the small city of Winnetka, on the north shore of Chicago. It's one of the wealthiest areas in the country, and in turn (due to America's lopsided educational system,) it's high school is among the top in our nation. But likely the biggest difference between my school and, say, a CPS school, is the diversity of my school (or, rather, lack thereof.) If you walk through the halls of New Trier, you don't see Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans... you see white people. I don't believe I'm in a single class with an African American student; and despite the fact that this doesn't happen in most schools, it really should NEVER happen. So taking all this into account, if I were told to "check my privilege" by someone with a different racial background than myself, I would acknowledge it as probably being honest.
But that's not what Tal Fortgang did. Instead of considering the comment and realizing the fact that he's been luckier than most, he took it as a personal assault. Instead, he wrote an article about it in the Princeton Tory entitled, "Why I Don't Apologize for 'White Privilege.'" And if you read his article, you can already see why the title is misleading. It implies that someone attacked him, personally, with some kind of inversely racist remarks, but no. An African American student at Princeton simply told him to "check his privilege." No one is asking him to apologize for being a rich, white male, but merely asking him to acknowledge the fact that his life has been somewhat easier than the lives of many people of color. But Fortgang rushed to his computer and typed out an enraged article about how his parents and his parent's parents worked oh so hard to break the cycle of poverty, and how he is a product of their labors.
Fotgang's outrage is an unfortunately accurate portrayal of some of America's most elite, and their ignorance towards the advantages that they've had. Despite many U.S. laws that discriminate against minorities and the fact that Princeton's population is almost 60% white, he still somehow denies that he is being favored. But I ask: how can this be true when I look around the halls of a place like New Trier and I don't see any minorities?
But that's not what Tal Fortgang did. Instead of considering the comment and realizing the fact that he's been luckier than most, he took it as a personal assault. Instead, he wrote an article about it in the Princeton Tory entitled, "Why I Don't Apologize for 'White Privilege.'" And if you read his article, you can already see why the title is misleading. It implies that someone attacked him, personally, with some kind of inversely racist remarks, but no. An African American student at Princeton simply told him to "check his privilege." No one is asking him to apologize for being a rich, white male, but merely asking him to acknowledge the fact that his life has been somewhat easier than the lives of many people of color. But Fortgang rushed to his computer and typed out an enraged article about how his parents and his parent's parents worked oh so hard to break the cycle of poverty, and how he is a product of their labors.
Fotgang's outrage is an unfortunately accurate portrayal of some of America's most elite, and their ignorance towards the advantages that they've had. Despite many U.S. laws that discriminate against minorities and the fact that Princeton's population is almost 60% white, he still somehow denies that he is being favored. But I ask: how can this be true when I look around the halls of a place like New Trier and I don't see any minorities?
Friday, March 28, 2014
Apple Hates Creativity
Apple's iPhone is a powerful device. You can access the internet, text, call, and do so much more, all from the palm of your hand. But what if there was a way to make your device even more functional? There is a way to access features on your iPhone such as total customization, wi-fi tethering, and accessing apps directly from the lock screen. The only problem is that Apple is doing everything they can to stop you from accessing these features.
You may be wondering how to access these features, and the answer is simple: jailbreaking. Jailbreaking is when you install a software on your phone (such as Green Poison or Evasi0n) that gives you access to Cydia, which is kind of like a deep web app store. Cydia allows you to download free or paid "tweaks" that have different purposes on your phone. These include customization tweaks, such as changing the look of your app icons and hiding certain stock apps, or functionality tweaks, like ones that free up space on your device or changing the buttons on your Control Center. And while this may sound great for many Apple customers, the company does NOT want you jailbreaking. So much so, in fact, that if you jailbreak your phone, your Apple warranty is officially voided, and they will not fix your phone if you bring it in to a store. In 2010, the company tried to make jailbreaking illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but unfortunately for Apple, that failed. Even now, Apple is spreading what I refer to as "jailbreak propaganda" to encourage users from jailbreaking through the spread of false information (I can tell you from experience that jailbreaking will not shorten your battery life or make your phone less secure.) The company has made it very clear that if you want to jailbreak your phone, they don't want you as a customer.
This disheartens me because while I love my iPhone, I love it even more jailbroken. It allows me to really make my phone different from everyone else's, and I think it makes my phone better than it would be normally. That's why I choose to take a risk and jailbreak, despite the fact that it voids my warranty (and makes Apple hate me.) I'm a creative person and I want to be creative with my phone. So what's Apple's problem with individuality?
You may be wondering how to access these features, and the answer is simple: jailbreaking. Jailbreaking is when you install a software on your phone (such as Green Poison or Evasi0n) that gives you access to Cydia, which is kind of like a deep web app store. Cydia allows you to download free or paid "tweaks" that have different purposes on your phone. These include customization tweaks, such as changing the look of your app icons and hiding certain stock apps, or functionality tweaks, like ones that free up space on your device or changing the buttons on your Control Center. And while this may sound great for many Apple customers, the company does NOT want you jailbreaking. So much so, in fact, that if you jailbreak your phone, your Apple warranty is officially voided, and they will not fix your phone if you bring it in to a store. In 2010, the company tried to make jailbreaking illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but unfortunately for Apple, that failed. Even now, Apple is spreading what I refer to as "jailbreak propaganda" to encourage users from jailbreaking through the spread of false information (I can tell you from experience that jailbreaking will not shorten your battery life or make your phone less secure.) The company has made it very clear that if you want to jailbreak your phone, they don't want you as a customer.
This disheartens me because while I love my iPhone, I love it even more jailbroken. It allows me to really make my phone different from everyone else's, and I think it makes my phone better than it would be normally. That's why I choose to take a risk and jailbreak, despite the fact that it voids my warranty (and makes Apple hate me.) I'm a creative person and I want to be creative with my phone. So what's Apple's problem with individuality?
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
What's Wrong with Lollapalooza?
I very much look forward to my free period on Tuesday, as it's a great time for me to relax, eat, and do homework; and today was no exception. I walked into the student lounge this morning in hopes of doing a little research and taking a break. But when I opened up my laptop to try and use the internet, I got an irritating loading screen, and after several minutes I gave up trying to get anything accomplished. At this time I looked around to see almost every other person around me staring anxiously at their laptops. My friend came in glued to his phone, and I asked him what was going on. He simply replied, "I'm trying to get Lolla tickets."
Now, of course I can't be sure that everyone reading this post is from Chicago, but in case you aren't, let me clue you in; Lollapalooza is a BIG deal around here. Essentially, it's a music festival of epic proportions. But that isn't necessarily the reason it's so popular. Chicago's youth goes crazy over Lolla because to enjoy the festival, you don't have to love music. Other festivals like Pitchfork, Summer Camp, Jazz Fest; if you buy tickets, you know what you're in for. You've listened to the artists, you enjoy the music, and that's why you're going. But not Lolla. If you're going, it might be because you recognize one of the headliners, or because you like live music, but the biggest reason people go? For the atmosphere. And I'm not talking about the nice weather. By "the atmosphere," I mean anything goes, loud drum beats, and LOTS of drugs. And this is my concern.
I'm worried that size and popularity of Lolla is not indicative of Chicago's love of good music, but rather, of Chicago's love of going crazy for three days. That's not to say I'm condemning a massive party with good music; I've got no problem with that. But I do have a problem with preppy teenagers, with no prior knowledge of the artists they're seeing, pretending to like music in exchange for free weed from festival-goers. That may sound harsh, but I fear it's true. So please, prove me wrong. Do people really still love live music? Or do rich kids just want to pay 300 bucks to do drugs in a big field?
Now, of course I can't be sure that everyone reading this post is from Chicago, but in case you aren't, let me clue you in; Lollapalooza is a BIG deal around here. Essentially, it's a music festival of epic proportions. But that isn't necessarily the reason it's so popular. Chicago's youth goes crazy over Lolla because to enjoy the festival, you don't have to love music. Other festivals like Pitchfork, Summer Camp, Jazz Fest; if you buy tickets, you know what you're in for. You've listened to the artists, you enjoy the music, and that's why you're going. But not Lolla. If you're going, it might be because you recognize one of the headliners, or because you like live music, but the biggest reason people go? For the atmosphere. And I'm not talking about the nice weather. By "the atmosphere," I mean anything goes, loud drum beats, and LOTS of drugs. And this is my concern.
I'm worried that size and popularity of Lolla is not indicative of Chicago's love of good music, but rather, of Chicago's love of going crazy for three days. That's not to say I'm condemning a massive party with good music; I've got no problem with that. But I do have a problem with preppy teenagers, with no prior knowledge of the artists they're seeing, pretending to like music in exchange for free weed from festival-goers. That may sound harsh, but I fear it's true. So please, prove me wrong. Do people really still love live music? Or do rich kids just want to pay 300 bucks to do drugs in a big field?
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
To Spotify or Not to Spotify
As both a musician and an avid music listener, I can empathize with both sides of the recording industry; the consumer and the producer. The listener wants to listen to the music they like as easily as possible, and the artist wants to be fairly compensated for their art. So what happens when one side is completely fulfilled at the expense of the other? What happens when the consumer has everything, and the artist, nothing?
Enter, Spotify.
When I first heard about Spotify, I was ecstatic. Pretty much every artist I'd ever want to listen to (save the Beatles,) unlimited playlists, radio, recommendations; all for merely $10 a month? AND I can access it all from my phone without losing any memory? Sounds like the best service I could possibly ask for. And I enjoyed that fantasy guilt-free; for a while. But pretty soon, I started hearing people talk about Spotify, and not in a good way. Other musicians didn't have Spotify, and some claimed it was bad for the artist. At first I didn't believe it. I didn't want to believe that my favorite music streaming service was screwing over the artists it represented. Unfortunately, that's when I stumbled upon this NPR article. The headline could almost tell the whole story: "How Musicians Make Money by the Fraction of a Cent on Spotify." The article tells of Spotify's low royalties while mixing in the personal tale of Erin McKeown, a musician who puts up her albums on Spotify. The exact figure she makes per play, she says, is $0.004. Many can tell that this extremely low, but some say, well, with all the people using Spotify, I'm sure she makes a decent amount of money. Think about it like this: a thousand people listen to one of her songs. That's a lot of people. If all those people listen to her song once, she gets $4. If a thousand people bought her song on iTunes, she would make closer to $500.
Perhaps if I weren't a musician this wouldn't bother me so much, but I know how it feels to pour out your heart into a two hour show (in addition to countless hours rehearsing,) and get paid $30 in tips to split between five people. But I also understand the plight of the consumer; you shouldn't always have to take the moral high road while sacrificing convenience and ease.
And after all this, I will openly admit, I still use Spotify. But I can justify it. For one thing, many of the artists I listen to through Spotify are people like The Doors of Pink Floyd, and they certainly aren't taking any big hits by losing some money. However, the main way in which I can justify my use of Spotify is the fact that I support the artists I listen to through the service in different ways, in addition to streaming their music. If I listen to artist I really like on Spotify, I'll buy their album on vinyl, or I'll go to see their show. Take the band "The Main Squeeze" for example. I discovered them through Spotify this year, but instead of only streaming their music, I purchased their record so I could listen to it off the web, and I've already seen them live twice. Because of that, I think it's fair for me to use Spotify, but I still have a lot of misgivings. I'm always asking myself, should I be using Spotify, or am I just hurting the artists I love?
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Bill O'Reilly Goes (Against) Between Two Ferns
For those of you who are familiar with the internet, you may know that Zach Galifianakis, star of "The Hangover," has his own web-series entitled "Between Two Ferns," in which he interviews celebrities in a deadpan comedic style. I became of this show last year after I saw Galifianakis' hilarious interview with Justin Bieber, in which he makes such jabs as, "You've had three hair styles. What's next for your career?" However, this show was recently brought to my attention when I found out that President Obama actually appeared on the show. I was surprised, to the say the very least, when I found out that the President actually sat down with Zach Galifianakis for an interview, and I wasn't sure what to expect going in. The clip nearly brought me to tears. If you have not had the acute pleasure of viewing it, I strongly urge you to do so right now.
The video really surprised me for a couple of reasons, with the first being that I never thought our president could crack me up like that! I was also really impressed that he was able to navigate through the humour and still plug his new Healthcare initiative (while skillfully dodging insults from Galifianakis like, "Why would you get the guy who created the 'Zune' to make your website?") Finally, I was mostly just amazed that Obama would even participate in the creation of the show. But after I thought about it, it made some sense. One of the main facets of the Affordable Care Act is to get younger people health care, and Between Two Ferns most certainly appeals to a younger crowd. So I say, well done Obama.
Not surprisingly, not everyone shared my opinion on Obama's appearance on Between Two Ferns, most notably Bill O'Reilly (what a shocker.) In a section of his show entitled "Talking Points," O'Reilly made many desperate attempts to criticize the President's appearance, including saying that "Lincoln would not have done it." I would say this made me lose all respect for Fox News, but that happened a long time ago. This is an outlandish claim not only because no one can predict what a president would have done centuries ago, but because Lincoln was one of our funnier, warmer presidents, and would have quite possibly done something like this! O'Reilly's feeble attempt to criticize Obama only cements my opinion on his participation on the show; it was a smart, personable move.
The video really surprised me for a couple of reasons, with the first being that I never thought our president could crack me up like that! I was also really impressed that he was able to navigate through the humour and still plug his new Healthcare initiative (while skillfully dodging insults from Galifianakis like, "Why would you get the guy who created the 'Zune' to make your website?") Finally, I was mostly just amazed that Obama would even participate in the creation of the show. But after I thought about it, it made some sense. One of the main facets of the Affordable Care Act is to get younger people health care, and Between Two Ferns most certainly appeals to a younger crowd. So I say, well done Obama.
Not surprisingly, not everyone shared my opinion on Obama's appearance on Between Two Ferns, most notably Bill O'Reilly (what a shocker.) In a section of his show entitled "Talking Points," O'Reilly made many desperate attempts to criticize the President's appearance, including saying that "Lincoln would not have done it." I would say this made me lose all respect for Fox News, but that happened a long time ago. This is an outlandish claim not only because no one can predict what a president would have done centuries ago, but because Lincoln was one of our funnier, warmer presidents, and would have quite possibly done something like this! O'Reilly's feeble attempt to criticize Obama only cements my opinion on his participation on the show; it was a smart, personable move.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Bill Nye v.s. Ignorance
In a live debate this past February 4th, the world watched as children's science icon Bill Nye "the science guy" debated Ken Ham, founder of a creationist museum in Kentucky. Ham was arguing the position that creationism should be considered fact (and taught as such,) while Nye was arguing the opposite. In case you don't know what creationism is, I'll explain it for you: it's simple the belief that the world was created by some kind of supernatural being. Specifically in the context of Christianity, it's the belief that god created the universe about 6,000 years ago. While Nye's lifelong goal has been to teach kids science through facts and logic, Ham's has been to advance this absurd theory, which is why he opened the museum. And while I believe a debate between these two is interesting to watch and discuss, I think it's ultimately futile for two reasons: first, and most importantly, it's not really a debate. A debate requires both sides to present a rational case backed by facts with sources, and when one side's "evidence" is a fictional text, the "debate" becomes more of a heated exchange. Secondly, no matter what kind of reasoning Nye provides, religious peoples who are entrenched in their stubborn, faith based beliefs will never change their opinion.
However, this debate means more to me than just Nye v.s. Ham, science v.s. faith, fact v.s. fiction. To me, it's a matter of good and evil, with science being the good. The reason I describe creationism as "evil" is its effect on children. Ken Ham and his followers are essentially spreading ignorance to America's youth by placing the bible, a mostly fictional text, over fact. The Christian view of creationism itself can be quickly debunked by well-known information. We have discovered artifacts of greater than 6,000 years of age! It's just that simple! Glaciers, fossils, rocks... we know that these things were crafted by nature or by man over 10s of thousands of years ago (in the link is but one example of many.) My problem with Ken Ham, and most creationists, is not the fact that they choose to ignore all science and logic, but that they present their viewpoint, as fact, to children. Ken Ham runs a museum based around the idea of "educating" people, and children, about creationism. It's fine if you choose to ignore every reasonable conclusion about the world and make your own, but these creationists are infecting impressionable minds with their flawed worldviews. Kids with developing brains should have the opportunity to choose what they believe in, and if they want to forgo science for a life of faith, that's fine, but it should also be their right to know the things we can prove. And while a child's parents should give them the ability to formulate their own views on life, school is not the place to teach creationism. School is a place for fact, not fiction. How can our country produce intelligent minds is we place faith equal to or above fact?
However, this debate means more to me than just Nye v.s. Ham, science v.s. faith, fact v.s. fiction. To me, it's a matter of good and evil, with science being the good. The reason I describe creationism as "evil" is its effect on children. Ken Ham and his followers are essentially spreading ignorance to America's youth by placing the bible, a mostly fictional text, over fact. The Christian view of creationism itself can be quickly debunked by well-known information. We have discovered artifacts of greater than 6,000 years of age! It's just that simple! Glaciers, fossils, rocks... we know that these things were crafted by nature or by man over 10s of thousands of years ago (in the link is but one example of many.) My problem with Ken Ham, and most creationists, is not the fact that they choose to ignore all science and logic, but that they present their viewpoint, as fact, to children. Ken Ham runs a museum based around the idea of "educating" people, and children, about creationism. It's fine if you choose to ignore every reasonable conclusion about the world and make your own, but these creationists are infecting impressionable minds with their flawed worldviews. Kids with developing brains should have the opportunity to choose what they believe in, and if they want to forgo science for a life of faith, that's fine, but it should also be their right to know the things we can prove. And while a child's parents should give them the ability to formulate their own views on life, school is not the place to teach creationism. School is a place for fact, not fiction. How can our country produce intelligent minds is we place faith equal to or above fact?
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Free Speech v.s. Hate Speech
Whenever I think of the 1st amendment, I think of South Park. It may not seem like a natural connection, but for me, it is. For the last 20 or so years, South Park has been the envelope-pushing show. Over the time it has been the air, the show has constantly gotten more vulgar and inappropriate, which causes many fans and critics to ask, what's ok to say? I thoroughly believe in the right to free speech, so when people criticize South Park for using crass language or enacting a disgusting scenario, I often scoff and point them in the direction of the Bill of Rights. But free speech has its pitfalls. When any TV show, movie, or song uses language that could be thought of as un-allowable, I ask myself, could they, or more importantly would they, do that on South Park?
Recently I read a blog post by my friend Erik in which he talked about the rapper Eminem and his new album. Erik listened to the album and heard many anti-gay slurs and wrote a blog post in response to that. He singled out the song "Rap God," in which the rapper uses the word "faggot" several times, and on top of that, specifically makes a threat (though presumably an empty one) against a homosexual person in the lyrics. The point he makes in the post is that Eminem should most definitely not be using this language, not only because it is hateful, but because it sets a bad example for a younger generation of listeners. I wanted to agree with Erik, but I was conflicted. Free speech is such an important right, but unfortunately, it can't only be applied to certain cases. You've either got it or you don't. I obviously didn't want to condone Eminem's hateful lyrics, but at the same time, I didn't agree limiting free speech only in certain cases. So I thought about it in the context of South Park. It's a show about a bunch of foul-mouthed, vulgar kids, but you would never hear them going around saying "faggot" (unless it was being used ironically, in Cartman's case.) Why? It's hateful. South Park may be a racy show, but it isn't a discriminatory one.
If there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's that free speech does NOT include hate speech. Just because you have the right to free speech, you can't go around saying whatever you want. People who bash homosexuals, people of different races, and just about anyone who is different from them are not protected by the 1st amendment. And with that being said, I've come to the conclusion that Erik was right. Eminem may just be trying to regain some of his old audience or trying to sound angrier than he really is, but it doesn't justify the type of homophobic language he uses.
Recently I read a blog post by my friend Erik in which he talked about the rapper Eminem and his new album. Erik listened to the album and heard many anti-gay slurs and wrote a blog post in response to that. He singled out the song "Rap God," in which the rapper uses the word "faggot" several times, and on top of that, specifically makes a threat (though presumably an empty one) against a homosexual person in the lyrics. The point he makes in the post is that Eminem should most definitely not be using this language, not only because it is hateful, but because it sets a bad example for a younger generation of listeners. I wanted to agree with Erik, but I was conflicted. Free speech is such an important right, but unfortunately, it can't only be applied to certain cases. You've either got it or you don't. I obviously didn't want to condone Eminem's hateful lyrics, but at the same time, I didn't agree limiting free speech only in certain cases. So I thought about it in the context of South Park. It's a show about a bunch of foul-mouthed, vulgar kids, but you would never hear them going around saying "faggot" (unless it was being used ironically, in Cartman's case.) Why? It's hateful. South Park may be a racy show, but it isn't a discriminatory one.
If there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's that free speech does NOT include hate speech. Just because you have the right to free speech, you can't go around saying whatever you want. People who bash homosexuals, people of different races, and just about anyone who is different from them are not protected by the 1st amendment. And with that being said, I've come to the conclusion that Erik was right. Eminem may just be trying to regain some of his old audience or trying to sound angrier than he really is, but it doesn't justify the type of homophobic language he uses.
Monday, January 13, 2014
The American Sports Craze (Is Destroying Our Schools)
China. Singapore. Finland. South Korea. These are the countries that score highest every year on advanced placement tests and academic assessments. The U.S. is not mentioned in the same breath as these nations. Why? Because of tests like this one, where America scores 25th out of 34 countries math/science test. Politicians and education officials offer various reasons for this. Not enough money, uncooperative parents, and uninterested students are among the many. But in this discussion. one sacred topic is left untouched: sports. They're expensive, time consuming, and dangerous, but everybody loves them. On average, the U.S. spends $1300 per football player, but only $618 per math student. It's this kind of gap that is holding our schools back, and sports are a big factor.
The high school in the town of Premont, Texas, is a perfect example. I read about this school in a recent article in the Atlantic, and the data was stunning. The school was hemorrhaging money and was on the verge of shutdown, so an outside superintendent, Ernest Singleton, was brought in to rescue the district. He described it as the worst school he had ever seen. The teachers had no power, students were cursing in the classroom, and everything was in a state of chaos and disarray. The most striking fact to me, though, was that even after the school had laid off employees, closed the middle school, and sealed off science labs, the school still competed with teams for more than 7 different sports. In fact, the school used over $150,000 every year just on sports. This disgusted me; the school just competitive sports over a good, useful education. So Singleton did what had to be done: he cut all the sports team. To many of my competitive peers this may seem like a drastic reaction, but the results justify it completely. 80% of students passed classes, instead of the previous year's 50%, and during parent teacher conferences, 160 people attended, compared to laughably low attendance of only six parents the year before.
These are just a few examples, and the article goes much further in depth. Sports are clearly embedded in American culture and are a big part of our education system (despite their near non-existent educational value.) With this data, I'm surprised more struggling schools don't cut sports, but at the same time I see why they might not. Kids love to compete. But do the pros of school organized sports really outweigh the cons?
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Colorado's Green Initiative
In case you didn't get the joke in the title, I'm not referring to an environmentally friendly program, but rather to Colorado's recreational marijuana. In recent years (despite California being the first state to make the drug available medically and Oregon being the first to decriminalize it,) Colorado has been the marijuana trendsetter. And that role gained new meaning when, on November 6th, 2012, Colorado voted in favor of Amendment 64, making marijuana legal in the recreational sense. On January 1st, 2013, dispensaries opened across the state to anyone 21 and over. And while many people oppose this decision, what can't be argued is that it's going to make Colorado a lot of money. In just the first day, 37 or so operating dispensaries reported collective sales of over $1 million, despite the 25% sales/excise tax. What does this mean for the Colorado government? The state is projected to rake in $70 million in tax revenue from weed sales this year, much of which is going to fund schools.
Despite the enormous tax revenue, many disagree with the decision to legalize marijuana, and both sides of the argument have strong points. However, in my opinion, the pros far outweigh the cons. I could go on for days and days about pro-legalization arguments, so I'll just give what I believe to be the three most important ones: racial profiling, tax revenue, and freedom. Two of those are very general, so I'll elaborate, starting with the least vague of the three, tax revenue. I've already spoken briefly about this, but the bottom line is that marijuana will make millions, possibly billions, for the government, which it desperately needs. The $70 million figure is just the very beginning, and the good that money can do in schools is near incalculable. In a down economy, and one in which marijuana users have been willing to pay absurdly high prices illegally, the government can throw very high taxes on legal weed and still see business boom.
My other two arguments, racial profiling and freedom, seem very vague at first glance, so I'll begin with the former. The U.S.'s draconian drug laws are something I have written about before, and they have an impact on more than just the big drug dealers. These drug laws have an extremely negative impact on casual drug users, especially with a drug as commonly used as marijuana. And when the criminal possession amount is so low, it's very easy to pick and choose who is persecuted for possession and who isn't. And often, the people who are "chosen" are poor minorities. Drug laws are, frankly, abused. They are abused to constrain minorities, and without these laws, the rate of minorities (and people in general) who are jailed for non-violent offenses will go way down, saving lives, and saving the state a lot of money. My final point, very blatantly put, is freedom, and this argument is backed by a very libertarian philosophy; people should be able to do what they want, as long as they don't hurt others, and this includes the use of marijuana. The government shouldn't be making our decisions for us. If people want to use a drug, especially that is less harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, they should be able to, plain and simple.
Colorado made history last November, and we are seeing the effects very clearly already in the new year: legalization is working. The state is making money, people are happy with their new found freedom, jobs and being created, and Colorado jails will soon be without many non-violent offenders. We'll have to wait and see how this turns out, but so far, the forecast is sunny (green) skies ahead.
For more info on how legalization is working so far, click here.
Despite the enormous tax revenue, many disagree with the decision to legalize marijuana, and both sides of the argument have strong points. However, in my opinion, the pros far outweigh the cons. I could go on for days and days about pro-legalization arguments, so I'll just give what I believe to be the three most important ones: racial profiling, tax revenue, and freedom. Two of those are very general, so I'll elaborate, starting with the least vague of the three, tax revenue. I've already spoken briefly about this, but the bottom line is that marijuana will make millions, possibly billions, for the government, which it desperately needs. The $70 million figure is just the very beginning, and the good that money can do in schools is near incalculable. In a down economy, and one in which marijuana users have been willing to pay absurdly high prices illegally, the government can throw very high taxes on legal weed and still see business boom.
My other two arguments, racial profiling and freedom, seem very vague at first glance, so I'll begin with the former. The U.S.'s draconian drug laws are something I have written about before, and they have an impact on more than just the big drug dealers. These drug laws have an extremely negative impact on casual drug users, especially with a drug as commonly used as marijuana. And when the criminal possession amount is so low, it's very easy to pick and choose who is persecuted for possession and who isn't. And often, the people who are "chosen" are poor minorities. Drug laws are, frankly, abused. They are abused to constrain minorities, and without these laws, the rate of minorities (and people in general) who are jailed for non-violent offenses will go way down, saving lives, and saving the state a lot of money. My final point, very blatantly put, is freedom, and this argument is backed by a very libertarian philosophy; people should be able to do what they want, as long as they don't hurt others, and this includes the use of marijuana. The government shouldn't be making our decisions for us. If people want to use a drug, especially that is less harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, they should be able to, plain and simple.
Colorado made history last November, and we are seeing the effects very clearly already in the new year: legalization is working. The state is making money, people are happy with their new found freedom, jobs and being created, and Colorado jails will soon be without many non-violent offenders. We'll have to wait and see how this turns out, but so far, the forecast is sunny (green) skies ahead.
For more info on how legalization is working so far, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)