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?

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.

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?

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.

I Left My Rights At Home

In 1969, in response to the "Tinker v. Des Moines School District" case, the supreme court ruled that "student do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." So why can a school official go through my possessions WITHOUT probably cause? Why can I be told what not to wear and what not to say? With all these "slight modifications" to our most basic constitutional rights, schools have become more like private institutions than government-run facilities. I say this due to the fact that very basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and at times freedom of (or from) religion, are all heavily restricted.

Perhaps the most abhorrent of these violations is the change from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." I would say that in America, one of the rights our people value the most is the right not to be searched unless there is some tangible evidence against us. In school that rights is stripped from us. Instead, it is replaced with "reasonable suspicion." Does that sound very, very, VERY vague to you? That's because it is! "Reasonable suspicion" could be anything from photographic proof to an anonymous phone call, but regardless of what it is, it gives school officials the right to search just about all of your stuff. That includes your locker, phone, backpack, laptop, pretty much anything you have on you. If they find something, you're screwed, and if they don't, they say "sorry" and go on their merry way.

This all begs the question: why are students' rights taken from them, and why are people not up in arms about it? Why are students' most basic constitutional rights taken from them "at the school house gate?" And what can we, as students and concerned citizens, do to combat this?

Criminals or Patients?

For residents of the US, drugs are a taboo topic. Our government wages a war on them, our citizens don't want to talk about them, and the people that use them are thrown in jail. The U.S.'s (draconian) stance on drugs is very clear. But now, let's observe a different country, Portugal. The government's stance there was very similar; 12 years ago. Today, you can go to Portugal and carry up to 1 gram of heroin, 2 grams of cocaine, 25 grams of marijuana, and limited amounts of other substances, without fear of being criminally prosecuted. In 2001, Portugal made the choice to decriminalize illegal drugs, and it's been working. According to this article in Time magazine, HIV from sharing needles has been halved, while people seeking help for drug addiction has doubled. The percent of Portuguese who use marijuana over the age of 15 is 10%; in the U.S. it's close to 40%. Lifetime drug use in Portugal has fallen from 14% to 10%. The idea behind this initiative is to treat drug addicts as patients, not criminals. It costs more to incarcerate someone than to provide therapy and rehabilitation, after all. After reading these staggering statistics, it's hard to be sympathetic towards U.S. drug laws. And why should we be? The government has had 12 years to change them.

 To put the difference in policy between these two nations into more familiar terms, let's look at an example. A teenager is caught by police with two grams of marijuana. In Portugal, he is given 72 hours to report to a drug policy center. Once there, he speaks to a social worker and lawyer. The social worker examines the kid to make sure he is not at risk of further drug abuse and the lawyer explains that this will be kept private, and will not go on his record, unless he commits further offences or is found to possess drugs a second time. In the U.S., regardless of the age, mental state, or criminal history of the teenager, he receives a fine and community service, along with two court dates, costing hundreds (perhaps thousands) of taxpayer dollars. It is becoming increasingly clear that our system of dealing with drug users is outdated and unfair. The path to less crime and less punishment in relation to drugs is clear: just look at Portugal.

Will New Trier Make Me Happy?

Most kids at New Trier are good students. They try their best, they do their homework, they get A's in honors and "high honors" classes, and they don't ask questions. The majority of my peers will graduate from a four year college, live in the city for 2-5 years, marry at around 30, have 2.5 children and a dog, settle down in their suburban homes for the remainder of their lives, and die. And to many that seems like a good life plan. The question I pose may seem obvious but it never even occurs to many: am I, and will I be, happy? I've thought about this a lot in the past but it has really been at the forefront of my brain this year so far, along with thoughts of homework, junior theme, college acceptance, and so on and so forth. A question I've begun asking myself when I sit down every night to tirelessly complete my homework is, will doing this extra hour of french homework make me any happier? The answer I've been repeatedly coming to is no. Completing my homework will not make me happy. Yes, I would rather have an extra hour every night to practice music and read rather than get an A instead of a B in science. No, learning that "cos^2(x)=1-sin^2(x)" will not benefit me whatsoever. Yes, I would rather have another 20 minutes to eat lunch than meet with my adviser about college applications. And, perhaps most importantly, no, becoming an engineer and making upwards of 100k every year will not make me automatically happy. What makes me happy is playing and listening to music, travelling, laughing with my friends, informing myself of the events of the world. When do we learn about those in school? Are we being armed with tools with which to lead a pleasurable life, or a successful one, and is there a difference?