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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)