Click here to download the works cited for the document as a MS Word .doc file
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
PETA
Overall, I'm not very happy with PETA's choice of imagery, and generally think that it takes things a step too far. I'm fully aware that animals are treated badly, but I don't think the way to get people to your cause is to scare and shock them.
It seems like most of their website juxtaposes amazingly cute animals with terrible, sick, destroyed animals and attempts to make the case that you're the one doing this to these cute little creatures with your meet-eating pet-store-shopping ways. If nobody ate meat or shopped at pet stores, this wouldn't happen!
PETA wants animals to be treated exactly like humans, and we all know that. But the truth is, these animals are not humans. Saying that rats and fish have complex feelings and get "bored" in cages is ridiculous. Yes, they still should be treated nicely, but I get the impression that most of their website is an exaggeration, and they take the worst cases and try to make those out to seem like the norm.
It seems like most of their website juxtaposes amazingly cute animals with terrible, sick, destroyed animals and attempts to make the case that you're the one doing this to these cute little creatures with your meet-eating pet-store-shopping ways. If nobody ate meat or shopped at pet stores, this wouldn't happen!
PETA wants animals to be treated exactly like humans, and we all know that. But the truth is, these animals are not humans. Saying that rats and fish have complex feelings and get "bored" in cages is ridiculous. Yes, they still should be treated nicely, but I get the impression that most of their website is an exaggeration, and they take the worst cases and try to make those out to seem like the norm.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
MJ Editorial
Over the years, the city of Seattle has slowly knocked down most of the penalties surrounding the use of marijuana, and for good reasons. We now live in a city where the penalty for posession of the green stuff warrants only a small fine and no jail time, and where even that penalty is rarely handed out by itself. Police doing crowd control at HempFest walk through endless clouds of marijuana smoke, yet no arrests are made. Officially, personal marijuana use is a lower police priority than jaywalking. It seems that the police here have realized they have more important things to worry about than non-violent marijuana smokers.
It's estimated that 50% of Americans have tried pot in their lives, and over 10% are regular users. In a city like Seattle, those numbers will definitely be higher. With such relaxed police enforcement a huge amount of marijuana is being smoked every day, but the money that the marijuana is purchased with is obviously tax free. Some goes to small-time growers trying to make their living, but some also goes to organized crime and gangs which control large amounts of the marijuana supply. With the current billion-dollar state budge shortfall, it's time that the government start tapping into those "green" funds.
The state government makes millions off of alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can be argued that marijuana is a safer solution to both of those intoxicants, but it remains illegal. Both of those substances have strict rules governing their sale and use, and those same rules could easily apply to marijuana. Studies have proven that it's not the "devil weed" like old propaganda would have you believe, and it is entirely possible to be a responsible marijuana user just as easily as it's possible to be a responsible alcohol user.
Legalizing marijuana would remove most of the dangers commonly associated with the drug, as well as taking away a major source of income from organized crime and giving it to the government. It's time we wake up and smell the, uh, herbs.
It's estimated that 50% of Americans have tried pot in their lives, and over 10% are regular users. In a city like Seattle, those numbers will definitely be higher. With such relaxed police enforcement a huge amount of marijuana is being smoked every day, but the money that the marijuana is purchased with is obviously tax free. Some goes to small-time growers trying to make their living, but some also goes to organized crime and gangs which control large amounts of the marijuana supply. With the current billion-dollar state budge shortfall, it's time that the government start tapping into those "green" funds.
The state government makes millions off of alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can be argued that marijuana is a safer solution to both of those intoxicants, but it remains illegal. Both of those substances have strict rules governing their sale and use, and those same rules could easily apply to marijuana. Studies have proven that it's not the "devil weed" like old propaganda would have you believe, and it is entirely possible to be a responsible marijuana user just as easily as it's possible to be a responsible alcohol user.
Legalizing marijuana would remove most of the dangers commonly associated with the drug, as well as taking away a major source of income from organized crime and giving it to the government. It's time we wake up and smell the, uh, herbs.
Responsible Parenting
In light of both of these editorials, several things come to mind. Being a responsible mother (or father) requires more than just time, and more than just effort. It requires a tremendous amount of money and the ability to dedicate a large portion of your life to the child. Being a responsible parent involves making the decision to have a child at the right time in your life, and to not have too many kids than you can take care of at any given time.
If a woman is planning on joining the military, or is currently in the military where she can be deployed at any time and the idea of dying for her country is considered a part of the job, having a child is not a responsible choice at that time. A child needs his or her mother, and a military deployment will obviously hinder that. In addition, a person who can't support themselves financially can obviously not support a child as well, let alone 14 of them. In that case as well, having a child is an irresponsible choice.
I'm not saying there is something wrong with having a large amount of children, what I am saying is that it is irresponsible to have more children that you can support. My mother is one of nine children, but the age difference between the first and last is 20 years. There was not one time when they were all living together, and my grandpa made enough money so my grandma could be dedicated to staying at home and raising these children. This may not be how I want to live my adult life, but it was their choice, and they made it responsibly. Nadya Suleman, on the other hand, did not make her decision responsibly. She has no financial support, and now cannot have a job for all of her time is required to be spent with these 14 kids of hers, who are mostly going to be living in her 2-bedroom house at the same time.
How is this even allowed? How have these kids not been taken away to child protective services? These are humans, not objects to be collected like she seems to consider them. Bringing another person into this already crowded world is a decision that needs to be taken extremely seriously, and if your life at the time doesn't allow for it, it simply shouldn't happen.
If a woman is planning on joining the military, or is currently in the military where she can be deployed at any time and the idea of dying for her country is considered a part of the job, having a child is not a responsible choice at that time. A child needs his or her mother, and a military deployment will obviously hinder that. In addition, a person who can't support themselves financially can obviously not support a child as well, let alone 14 of them. In that case as well, having a child is an irresponsible choice.
I'm not saying there is something wrong with having a large amount of children, what I am saying is that it is irresponsible to have more children that you can support. My mother is one of nine children, but the age difference between the first and last is 20 years. There was not one time when they were all living together, and my grandpa made enough money so my grandma could be dedicated to staying at home and raising these children. This may not be how I want to live my adult life, but it was their choice, and they made it responsibly. Nadya Suleman, on the other hand, did not make her decision responsibly. She has no financial support, and now cannot have a job for all of her time is required to be spent with these 14 kids of hers, who are mostly going to be living in her 2-bedroom house at the same time.
How is this even allowed? How have these kids not been taken away to child protective services? These are humans, not objects to be collected like she seems to consider them. Bringing another person into this already crowded world is a decision that needs to be taken extremely seriously, and if your life at the time doesn't allow for it, it simply shouldn't happen.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Marijuana public service project
Dear Ms. Stephanie Vogel -
lmost 50% of Americans have tried marijuana sometime in their lifetime, and 10% are current users (people who have used in the last month). The drug remains illegal, however, and a whole lot of misinformation is spread about it. Unlike alcohol, which anyone can find information about real-life effects, risks, concerns, and support systems, none of that exists for marijuana users. Because the substance is illegal, teens using it don't have access to reliable, unbiased information, and adults who may be having problems with the drug don't know where they can go for support for their use aside from narcotics anonymous, which might be a bit scary for someone who is only using marijuana.
I'm purposing that that all change. I'm looking for money to create a program to spread accurate, unbiased information about marijuana through the internet and television ads, as well as flyers and brochures like the ones you will find in student health centers. As opposed to scaring people and hyperbolizing the negative side effects of the drug, this campaign of information will tell its audience the effects, both positive and negative, and attempt to show both sides of the argument. It will also provide information to people who may think they are smoking too much such as advice on how to cut back and places to go for help. I estimate this will cost around $50,000, and I am coming to you for help.
I am writing this letter to you as a humble request for assistance in advancing the public opinion of marijuana in the United States. I am part of the NORML organization, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and we believe that marijuana laws and policy in this country could be changed by an advance of the public opinion on the substance.
I'm purposing that that all change. I'm looking for money to create a program to spread accurate, unbiased information about marijuana through the internet and television ads, as well as flyers and brochures like the ones you will find in student health centers. As opposed to scaring people and hyperbolizing the negative side effects of the drug, this campaign of information will tell its audience the effects, both positive and negative, and attempt to show both sides of the argument. It will also provide information to people who may think they are smoking too much such as advice on how to cut back and places to go for help. I estimate this will cost around $50,000, and I am coming to you for help.
Thanks for your consideration.
-Angelo Carosio
MPP #1
Part 1:
The issue of medical marijuana is complex. The debate that is going on surrounding it currently is mostly fueled by the federal government, as more as more states are passing laws allowing it, and more and more doctors are prescribing it for a variety of ailments. There’s little an average person can say to further this debate or enter into it, mostly because the question of whether it’s good medicine or not should be left up to doctors and people who know about the human body better than I. However, the issue of marijuana legalization for personal use has been thrust into the forefront recently, with the state of California having a bill being purposed that will do just that. This issue I believe I can speak from with a little bit more authority.
This issue has clouded a lot of people’s judgment. On one hand you have marijuana fanatics, who are creating websites and groups and clubs in an attempt to make the substance legal, and distorting the facts in their favor. These people usually also smoke too much of the substance themselves. The other side is anti-drug fanatics who will use any tactic including fear and manipulation to stop people from doing any kind of drug at all. I believe that I can show good sense through my position in the middle of this issue. I’m familiar with the effects of marijuana, understand how it affects the body and mind, but also know of the dangers of using any substance too much. It’s clearly not a miracle drug, but getting high some isn’t going to turn a person into a worthless couch potato. I can also show good character through this as well. I might be for legalization, but I haven’t let my emotions cloud my judgment. I can see where both sides are coming from, and I’m not going to bash on my opposition or belittle them just to demonstrate my point.
I can show good will through appeals to the safety of people and to the health of the economy. Nonviolent pot offenders are thrown in prisons where they coexist with people who have multiple assaults on their record, and can easily get in way over their head. Legalization or at least decriminalization would put a stop to this and protect mostly peaceful, docile people from a very scary place. In addition, taxation of marijuana could bring in millions of dollars to the government. We pretty much need all we can get right now in the budget department, so these both would be good ways to show that I’m looking out for the good of everyone.
Part 2:
Taking a look at the NORML website (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), there are multiple persuasive pieces on the legalization of marijuana, both for personal use and for medical use. I looked at one post in particular, called “Marijuana Legalization Talking Points.” It is an effective piece of persuasion, giving four concrete reasons why marijuana legalization should become a reality.
Each point has a large amount of information backing it up. They are very logos heavy, citing lots of hard facts. The point that “Decriminalizing marijuana frees up police resources to deal with more serious crimes” cites facts like “Taxpayers annually spend between $7.5 billion and $10 billion arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for marijuana possession only,” and “The state of California saved nearly $1 billion dollars from 1976 to 1985 by decriminalizing the personal possession of one ounce of marijuana, according to a study of the state justice department budget.” All of these facts have sources cited that you can easily click and check out for yourself.
There’s also some pathos mixed in. They back up the point that “Far more harm is caused by the criminal prohibition of marijuana than by the use of marijuana itself.” This is backed up by an appeal to pathos and logos: “Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. Other non-drug violations do not carry such penalties,” this is effective because it is raw facts mixed in with an appeal to emotion. Why should these people be denied things like food stamps? How is marijuana use related to those things at all?
Overall, this page is very effective in defending its positions on marijuana legalization. They cite surveys, research, and laws to prove their point that keeping marijuana illegal is unproductive for our country and its progress. I have seen multiple references to this page on various internet discussion boards such as reddit.com and dig.com, where people refer to it to back up points about marijuana legalization. People know that facts work, and this page is full of hard, concrete facts that don’t leave much room for interpretation.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
College Humor
With short-form web comedy, the sky is really the limit.
Unconstrained by broadcast guidelines, television networks, and dated ideas of what's appropriate for "general audiences," Collegehumor.com has managed to provide us with exactly what we want with humor: consistent laughs with no filler.
Sketch shows like SNL are extremely dated. Because of the internet, the 18-24 demographic has lost their attention span, and the thought of sitting through an hour and a half show to get some laughs just isn't viable anymore--not to mention the amount of filler and commercials put in an average episode to reach the length that's required.
Videos on collegehumor can cuss, be provocative, sexy, and offensive, and not have to worry. Videos like "Girl's costume warehouse" have main characters cussing like sailors for comedic effect, and a mock "ER" spot says the episode advertised will make you "shit your pants." While fake TV commercials have been a staple of SNL and MADtv for a long time, they're never quite as funny as the ones on college humor.
The videos are mostly short (under 5 minutes) and pack in the laughs almost nonstop. Most television sketch comedy might have a few laughs, but most of the time I find myself wondering why the canned laughter is so loud, since nobody I'm watching the show with seemed to make any noise at all.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Medical Marijuana
Laws exist to protect the people. If laws aren't protecting us, what point do they have? If, however, everyone who has smoked pot in their life (an illegal act) was put in jail, it would do far more harm than good. Admitted marijuana users include almost all musicians, several supreme court justices, and at least the last 3 presidents of the United States.
There is no reason that marijuana should remain illegal, and even less of a reason that medical marijuana should still exist in the legal limbo that it exists in now. There have been 0 deaths caused directly by marijuana, and study after study proves that it is a safer drug than both alcohol and nicotine, which both have yearly deaths in the thousands.
A magazine ad featured a job advertisement for a "burrito taster" with the caption "there aren't a lot of jobs out there for pot smokers." You know, except the presidency.
Viaduct
The debate from class today very accurately represented both sides. The viaduct replacement is an extremley controversial issue and I'm not quite sure what I want to think either. On one hand, I see congestion as a huge issue in Seattle, and even though I'm not a regular driver myself on the occasion that I do the amount of traffic can be very annoying. On the other hand, however, I don't think that building more roads and tunnels and places for cars to drive will really get at the root of the problem. Seattle needs a mass transportation system akin to New York's subway or D.C's metro. It needs a way to move around thousands of people easily. That is not going to happen with a tunnel, and it will only happen by promoting more light rail, and fast.
Ditch the tunnel, and work on as much light rail as possible. That's a plan I can get behind.
Ditch the tunnel, and work on as much light rail as possible. That's a plan I can get behind.
Major Analysis Paper Final Draft
A legitimate business with all the proper state permits was raided in broad daylight by DEA agents. Pamphlets at student health centers say marijuana can cause schizophrenia, but the common image of a marijuana user is a docile, giggly person—not an insane one. Marijuana use, and its possible medical applications, has been a constant debate in the political world for years. As more and more states pass medical marijuana laws the federal government also increases their efforts to shut the dispensaries down and spread information discouraging people to vote for future bills. The problem, however, is that the messages being sent to the general public about marijuana are extremely conflicting. The pro and anti-marijuana sides of the debate both exaggerate facts, over generalize, and use questionable tactics to draw supporters. The question that becomes important then, is: who do you believe? It’s important for people who are voting on bills to have accurate information about what they are voting for, and with marijuana, that is not usually the case.
Disinformation has been spread around about marijuana ever since the drive to get it banned in the 1930’s. “Reefer Madness,” the famous 30’s exploitation film scared parents into thinking their children would enter a “drug-crazed abandon” if they ever got high. On the other hand, the list of ailments you can get a marijuana prescription for in California far outnumbers almost any other drug, making it out to be some miracle plant. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The way marijuana is portrayed in the media is one of the primary reasons for this confusion. TV ads and other media from organizations like “Above the Influence,” and the National Institute on Drug Abuse attempt to characterize weed-smokers as boring, anti-social, and prone to being nothing but couch potatoes, but popular movies like “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” and “Super High Me” show their main characters getting high and doing the exact opposite: being social and having interesting conversations. It’s also rare that characters in movies or television will encounter negative consequences relating to marijuana, whereas when harder drugs are involved that’s almost always the case.
“Stoners in the Mist” is a series of short Internet videos created by Above The Influence, aimed at capturing YouTube era adolescents and other people who might not be influenced easily by TV commercials. Its goal is obvious: convincing people that marijuana shouldn’t be used. Its claim is that “stoners” are lazy, forgetful, and anti-social. The warrants for the claim they present are many, but are mostly fairly shallow. The video pieces that provide the support are shorts shot in the style of a nature documentary, featuring a host that’s reminiscent of the Crocodile Hunter. They claim that marijuana makes you “sedentary, uninspired, remarkably unmotivated,” and show through their clips marijuana users having difficulty with simple social interactions, being oblivious to their psychical appearance, and spending days sitting in the same place watching television.
Their support and warrants, however, come across as extremely inaccurate. The majority of the way they warrant their claims is through visual evidence, which in this case is obviously staged. These aren’t real “stoners,” but actors paid to pretend to conform to the lazy stoner stereotype. The website also makes the claim that stoners have “extreme difficulty fitting in to social groups,” but again only provides an over-the-top sketch to support that claim, where a “normal person” tries to make conversation with a stoner, who is too out of it to even remember his name. The only real warrants offered on the website is a small section called “marijuana: the facts” which attempts to support the video evidence with sources. The majority of the sources, however, are pamphlets from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an organization with an anti-marijuana bias. They hardly cite any objective content. If someone went to the “Stoners in the Mist” website to attempt to find valuable information about marijuana, they could be easily confused.
Arguments for marijuana and medical marijuana in the popular media are similarly exaggerated. Movies that portray marijuana users rarely do it in a negative light, and there are documentaries like Doug Benson’s “Super High Me” that attempt to claim that nothing is wrong with marijuana at all, and it’s completely fine to smoke it all of the time. He spent 30 days not getting high, and then 30 days getting high all the time as his support, and his warrants consisted of various tests and doctor evaluations during that time. During his 30 days not smoking, he scored a 980 on the S.A.T, and during his smoking month, he scored 1030. In addition, he had a higher sperm count during the marijuana month, and at the end his physician concluded that constant marijuana smoking for a month didn’t have any adverse effects on his health. While some of these claims have validity (mostly the doctor’s opinion), it still falls short as a great argument that marijuana isn’t harmful. However, it does give off a very strong impression of validity, and given most people’s ability to take anything they see in a “documentary” as truth, this could turn into a very misleading piece of information. A truly good argument would have had to involve different types of marijuana users (not just none and all the time) and also different situations (people with actual jobs and responsibilities, not just working on a movie about smoking marijuana).
With propaganda in the multimedia world coming from both sides unable to be trusted entirely, let’s now look at print, hopefully a place where better arguments will reside.
The Independent, a national daily in Britain, launched a campaign in 1997 to decriminalize marijuana. A couple years ago they took that campaign back with an “apology,” where they reveal the research findings that changed their mind on the issue. Their claim is that marijuana has changed over the years—that new strains of the drug are being created that are more powerful than ever, and, they argue, more dangerous.
They support this with hard facts and quotes from doctors: “The number of young people in treatment [for cannabis] almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006.” “Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.” They also talk about some research that will be published later and show that “cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy.”
While this is clearly a stronger argument against marijuana use and legalization than “Stoners in the Mist,” it lacks a good amount of context, and leaves a ton of unanswered questions. Were the people in treatment for cannabis using other drugs as well, or just marijuana? What about the schizophrenics—was marijuana the sole cause for their disease, or did it merely exaggerate an existing condition? Their warrants for their claim are strong, but in the end the piece comes off as sounding sensationalistic and fear-mongering, lacking any real world context for all of their statistics and “expert opinions.”
The New York Times, on the other hand, argues for marijuana’s benefits in an editorial claiming that medical marijuana laws are just. They argue at the start through an appeal to pathos, presenting the character of Ed Rosenthal—a man who is being prosecuted for growing marijuana for use by the seriously ill. They cite that “Doctors have long recognized marijuana's value in reducing pain and aiding in the treatment of cancer and AIDS, among other diseases,” and that “the reasons the government gives for objecting to it do not outweigh the good it does.”
Unlike The Independent’s article, they support their claim about medical marijuana well with real life-examples, but this one falls short when it comes to statistics and expert opinions: there aren’t any. “Doctors,” is an extremely vague term, and “the good it does” is very vague. The article makes some good appeals, but others just don’t make the cut.
Looking at all this information, it is clear that someone trying to make an informed decision on a medical marijuana or marijuana legalization bill would be very confused. How can a drug that causes schizophrenia according to one article do so much good in another? If a medicine has the side effect of making its taker go insane, would it really be allowed to function as a medicine? If marijuana does cause users to do nothing all day every day like “Stoners in the Mist” attempts to convince its audience of, why are there people who smoke weed and do creative things like make movies and write songs about it, and why is it such a popular drug? Clearly there has to be more to it than the anti-marijuana propaganda will make you believe, and clearly it’s not the miracle drug like some medical-marijuana advocates and doctors would have you believe—with the ability to solve a laundry list of psychical and mental problems.
The only thing that will further the discussion on cannabis to the point where real conclusions can be drawn is more unbiased research. Unfortunately, that won’t be able to happen until the federal government changes its mind on the drug. As of right now, the only way to get legal marijuana to research is from them, and the process is long, complicated, and yields a very week, single strain of the drug—nothing like what is available on the street or in cannabis clubs in medical marijuana states. To create a better research environment politicians need to work to get the federal standpoint changed, and for that to happen the general public needs to receive accurate information so they can lobby their politicians effectively.
Works Cited
The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Dir. Judd Apatow. Perf. Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Catherine Keener. DVD. Universal Pictures, 2005.
Advertisement. Above the Influence. 29 Jan. 2009
The New York Times editorial board. "Misguided Marijuana War." The New York Times 4 Feb. 2003. 29 Jan. 2009.
Owen, Jonathan. "Cannabis: An apology." The Independent 18 Mar. 2007. 29 Jan. 2009.
Reefer Madness. Dir. Louis Gasnier. Prod. Dwain Esper. Perf. Thelma White and Carleton Young. DVD. Motion Picture Ventures, 1936.
"Stoners in the Mist." Above the Influence. National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 29 Jan. 2009
Super High Me. Dir. Michael Blieden. Prod. Alex Campbell. Perf. Doug Benson. DVD. Bside entertainment, 2008.
Disinformation has been spread around about marijuana ever since the drive to get it banned in the 1930’s. “Reefer Madness,” the famous 30’s exploitation film scared parents into thinking their children would enter a “drug-crazed abandon” if they ever got high. On the other hand, the list of ailments you can get a marijuana prescription for in California far outnumbers almost any other drug, making it out to be some miracle plant. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The way marijuana is portrayed in the media is one of the primary reasons for this confusion. TV ads and other media from organizations like “Above the Influence,” and the National Institute on Drug Abuse attempt to characterize weed-smokers as boring, anti-social, and prone to being nothing but couch potatoes, but popular movies like “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” and “Super High Me” show their main characters getting high and doing the exact opposite: being social and having interesting conversations. It’s also rare that characters in movies or television will encounter negative consequences relating to marijuana, whereas when harder drugs are involved that’s almost always the case.
“Stoners in the Mist” is a series of short Internet videos created by Above The Influence, aimed at capturing YouTube era adolescents and other people who might not be influenced easily by TV commercials. Its goal is obvious: convincing people that marijuana shouldn’t be used. Its claim is that “stoners” are lazy, forgetful, and anti-social. The warrants for the claim they present are many, but are mostly fairly shallow. The video pieces that provide the support are shorts shot in the style of a nature documentary, featuring a host that’s reminiscent of the Crocodile Hunter. They claim that marijuana makes you “sedentary, uninspired, remarkably unmotivated,” and show through their clips marijuana users having difficulty with simple social interactions, being oblivious to their psychical appearance, and spending days sitting in the same place watching television.
Their support and warrants, however, come across as extremely inaccurate. The majority of the way they warrant their claims is through visual evidence, which in this case is obviously staged. These aren’t real “stoners,” but actors paid to pretend to conform to the lazy stoner stereotype. The website also makes the claim that stoners have “extreme difficulty fitting in to social groups,” but again only provides an over-the-top sketch to support that claim, where a “normal person” tries to make conversation with a stoner, who is too out of it to even remember his name. The only real warrants offered on the website is a small section called “marijuana: the facts” which attempts to support the video evidence with sources. The majority of the sources, however, are pamphlets from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an organization with an anti-marijuana bias. They hardly cite any objective content. If someone went to the “Stoners in the Mist” website to attempt to find valuable information about marijuana, they could be easily confused.
Arguments for marijuana and medical marijuana in the popular media are similarly exaggerated. Movies that portray marijuana users rarely do it in a negative light, and there are documentaries like Doug Benson’s “Super High Me” that attempt to claim that nothing is wrong with marijuana at all, and it’s completely fine to smoke it all of the time. He spent 30 days not getting high, and then 30 days getting high all the time as his support, and his warrants consisted of various tests and doctor evaluations during that time. During his 30 days not smoking, he scored a 980 on the S.A.T, and during his smoking month, he scored 1030. In addition, he had a higher sperm count during the marijuana month, and at the end his physician concluded that constant marijuana smoking for a month didn’t have any adverse effects on his health. While some of these claims have validity (mostly the doctor’s opinion), it still falls short as a great argument that marijuana isn’t harmful. However, it does give off a very strong impression of validity, and given most people’s ability to take anything they see in a “documentary” as truth, this could turn into a very misleading piece of information. A truly good argument would have had to involve different types of marijuana users (not just none and all the time) and also different situations (people with actual jobs and responsibilities, not just working on a movie about smoking marijuana).
With propaganda in the multimedia world coming from both sides unable to be trusted entirely, let’s now look at print, hopefully a place where better arguments will reside.
The Independent, a national daily in Britain, launched a campaign in 1997 to decriminalize marijuana. A couple years ago they took that campaign back with an “apology,” where they reveal the research findings that changed their mind on the issue. Their claim is that marijuana has changed over the years—that new strains of the drug are being created that are more powerful than ever, and, they argue, more dangerous.
They support this with hard facts and quotes from doctors: “The number of young people in treatment [for cannabis] almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006.” “Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.” They also talk about some research that will be published later and show that “cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy.”
While this is clearly a stronger argument against marijuana use and legalization than “Stoners in the Mist,” it lacks a good amount of context, and leaves a ton of unanswered questions. Were the people in treatment for cannabis using other drugs as well, or just marijuana? What about the schizophrenics—was marijuana the sole cause for their disease, or did it merely exaggerate an existing condition? Their warrants for their claim are strong, but in the end the piece comes off as sounding sensationalistic and fear-mongering, lacking any real world context for all of their statistics and “expert opinions.”
The New York Times, on the other hand, argues for marijuana’s benefits in an editorial claiming that medical marijuana laws are just. They argue at the start through an appeal to pathos, presenting the character of Ed Rosenthal—a man who is being prosecuted for growing marijuana for use by the seriously ill. They cite that “Doctors have long recognized marijuana's value in reducing pain and aiding in the treatment of cancer and AIDS, among other diseases,” and that “the reasons the government gives for objecting to it do not outweigh the good it does.”
Unlike The Independent’s article, they support their claim about medical marijuana well with real life-examples, but this one falls short when it comes to statistics and expert opinions: there aren’t any. “Doctors,” is an extremely vague term, and “the good it does” is very vague. The article makes some good appeals, but others just don’t make the cut.
Looking at all this information, it is clear that someone trying to make an informed decision on a medical marijuana or marijuana legalization bill would be very confused. How can a drug that causes schizophrenia according to one article do so much good in another? If a medicine has the side effect of making its taker go insane, would it really be allowed to function as a medicine? If marijuana does cause users to do nothing all day every day like “Stoners in the Mist” attempts to convince its audience of, why are there people who smoke weed and do creative things like make movies and write songs about it, and why is it such a popular drug? Clearly there has to be more to it than the anti-marijuana propaganda will make you believe, and clearly it’s not the miracle drug like some medical-marijuana advocates and doctors would have you believe—with the ability to solve a laundry list of psychical and mental problems.
The only thing that will further the discussion on cannabis to the point where real conclusions can be drawn is more unbiased research. Unfortunately, that won’t be able to happen until the federal government changes its mind on the drug. As of right now, the only way to get legal marijuana to research is from them, and the process is long, complicated, and yields a very week, single strain of the drug—nothing like what is available on the street or in cannabis clubs in medical marijuana states. To create a better research environment politicians need to work to get the federal standpoint changed, and for that to happen the general public needs to receive accurate information so they can lobby their politicians effectively.
Works Cited
The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Dir. Judd Apatow. Perf. Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Catherine Keener. DVD. Universal Pictures, 2005.
Advertisement. Above the Influence. 29 Jan. 2009
The New York Times editorial board. "Misguided Marijuana War." The New York Times 4 Feb. 2003. 29 Jan. 2009
Owen, Jonathan. "Cannabis: An apology." The Independent 18 Mar. 2007. 29 Jan. 2009
Reefer Madness. Dir. Louis Gasnier. Prod. Dwain Esper. Perf. Thelma White and Carleton Young. DVD. Motion Picture Ventures, 1936.
"Stoners in the Mist." Above the Influence. National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 29 Jan. 2009
Super High Me. Dir. Michael Blieden. Prod. Alex Campbell. Perf. Doug Benson. DVD. Bside entertainment, 2008.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
D-I
“The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits,” said Isocrates. While the process of learning can be dull, sometimes boring, and sometimes difficult. What you get out of it, however, is what matters. The knowledge you gain, the experiences you have, that is what’s important.
As Seattle U transitions into Division I, it would be wise of all of our athletes and the general student population to keep this saying in mind. We’re still essentially learning to be a D-I school. Just because our basketball games aren’t broadcast nationally and our locker rooms and sports facilities aren’t world-class doesn’t mean that they won’t be in the future, and just because our students don’t get revved up about the games and come out in large numbers to support the sports teams doesn’t mean that nobody cares.
Our sports teams are the ones doing the bulk of the learning: learning how to be on the road for most of their games, learning how to play under the pressure of a television broadcast, and, most importantly, learning how to play basketball with the big boys. While most of the student body may see the matchup with University of Washington coming up as a joke, the players in the game need to see it as a chance to prove themselves. Even if they lose, the team can still prove that Seattle U can put up a decent fight against a Pac-10 powerhouse. Our records are close to the same, but the teams we’ve been playing pale in comparison to them
Along the road to success there’s bound to be some hard times. While SU sports may struggle in the coming years to find their place in NCAA division 1, they deserve time to learn. And just like the quote says, while the learning period may be bitter, the fruits will be very sweet. Who knows, maybe we’ll see Seattle U in NCAA March Madness in the next 10 years. Those would be fruits worth eating.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Major Analysis Paper Rough Draft
A legitimate business with all the proper state permits was raided in broad daylight by DEA agents. Pamphlets at student health centers say marijuana can cause schizophrenia, but the common image of a marijuana user is a docile, giggly person—not an insane one. Marijuana use, and its possible medical applications, has been a constant debate in the political world for years. As more and more states pass medical marijuana laws the federal government also increases their efforts to shut the dispensaries down and spread information discouraging people to vote for future bills. The problem, however, is that the messages being sent to the general public about marijuana are extremely conflicting. The pro and anti-marijuana sides of the debate both exaggerate facts, over generalize, and use questionable tactics to draw supporters. The question that becomes important then, is: who do you believe? It’s important for people who are voting on bills to have accurate information about what they are voting for, and with marijuana, that is not usually the case.
Disinformation has been spread around about marijuana ever since the drive to get it banned in the 1930’s. “Reefer Madness,” the famous 30’s exploitation film scared parents into thinking their children would enter a “drug-crazed abandon” if they ever got high. On the other hand, the list of ailments you can get a marijuana prescription for in California far outnumbers almost any other drug, making it out to be some miracle plant. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The way marijuana is portrayed in the media is one of the primary reasons for this confusion. TV ads and other media from organizations like “Above the Influence,” and the National Institute on Drug Abuse attempt to characterize weed-smokers as boring, anti-social, and prone to being nothing but couch potatoes, but popular movies like “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” and “Super High Me” show their main characters getting high and doing the exact opposite: being social and having interesting conversations. It’s also rare that characters in movies or television will encounter negative consequences relating to marijuana, whereas when harder drugs are involved that’s almost always the case.
“Stoners in the Mist” is a series of short Internet videos created by Above The Influence, aimed at capturing YouTube era adolescents and other people who might not be influenced easily by TV commercials. Its goal is obvious: convincing people that marijuana shouldn’t be used. Its claim is that “stoners” are lazy, forgetful, and anti-social. The warrants for the claim they present are many, but are mostly fairly shallow. The video pieces that provide the support are shorts shot in the style of a nature documentary, featuring a host that’s reminiscent of the Crocodile Hunter. They claim that marijuana makes you “sedentary, uninspired, remarkably unmotivated,” and show through their clips marijuana users having difficulty with simple social interactions, being oblivious to their psychical appearance, and spending days sitting in the same place watching television.
Their support and warrants, however, come across as extremely inaccurate. The majority of the way they warrant their claims is through visual evidence, which in this case is obviously staged. These aren’t real “stoners,” but actors paid to pretend to conform to the lazy stoner stereotype. The website also makes the claim that stoners have “extreme difficulty fitting in to social groups,” but again only provides an over-the-top sketch to support that claim, where a “normal person” tries to make conversation with a stoner, who is too out of it to even remember his name. The only real warrants offered on the website is a small section called “marijuana: the facts” which attempts to support the video evidence with sources. The majority of the sources, however, are pamphlets from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an organization with an anti-marijuana bias. They hardly cite any objective content. If someone went to the “Stoners in the Mist” website to attempt to find valuable information about marijuana, they could be easily confused.
Arguments for marijuana and medical marijuana in the popular media are similarly exaggerated. Movies that portray marijuana users rarely do it in a negative light, and there are documentaries like Doug Benson’s “Super High Me” that attempt to claim that nothing is wrong with marijuana at all, and it’s completely fine to smoke it all of the time. He spent 30 days not getting high, and then 30 days getting high all the time as his support, and his warrants consisted of various tests and doctor evaluations during that time. During his 30 days not smoking, he scored a 980 on the S.A.T, and during his smoking month, he scored 1030. In addition, he had a higher sperm count during the marijuana month, and at the end his physician concluded that constant marijuana smoking for a month didn’t have any adverse effects on his health. While some of these claims have validity (mostly the doctor’s opinion), it still falls short as a great argument that marijuana isn’t harmful. However, it does give off a very strong impression of validity, and given most people’s ability to take anything they see in a “documentary” as truth, this could turn into a very misleading piece of information. A truly good argument would have had to involve different types of marijuana users (not just none and all the time) and also different situations (people with actual jobs and responsibilities, not just working on a movie about smoking marijuana).
With propaganda in the multimedia world coming from both sides unable to be trusted entirely, let’s now look at print, hopefully a place where better arguments will reside.
The Independent, a national daily in Britain, launched a campaign in 1997 to decriminalize marijuana. A couple years ago they took that campaign back with an “apology,” where they reveal the research findings that changed their mind on the issue. Their claim is that marijuana has changed over the years—that new strains of the drug are being created that are more powerful than ever, and, they argue, more dangerous.
They support this with hard facts and quotes from doctors: “The number of young people in treatment [for cannabis] almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006.” “Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.” They also talk about some research that will be published later and show that “cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy.”
While this is clearly a stronger argument against marijuana use and legalization than “Stoners in the Mist,” it lacks a good amount of context, and leaves a ton of unanswered questions. Were the people in treatment for cannabis using other drugs as well, or just marijuana? What about the schizophrenics—was marijuana the sole cause for their disease, or did it merely exaggerate an existing condition? Their warrants for their claim are strong, but in the end the piece comes off as sounding sensationalistic and fear-mongering, lacking any real world context for all of their statistics and “expert opinions.”
The New York Times, on the other hand, argues for marijuana’s benefits in an editorial claiming that medical marijuana laws are just. They argue at the start through an appeal to pathos, presenting the character of Ed Rosenthal—a man who is being prosecuted for growing marijuana for use by the seriously ill. They cite that “Doctors have long recognized marijuana's value in reducing pain and aiding in the treatment of cancer and AIDS, among other diseases,” and that “the reasons the government gives for objecting to it do not outweigh the good it does.”
Unlike The Independent’s article, they support their claim about medical marijuana well with real life-examples, but this one falls short when it comes to statistics and expert opinions: there aren’t any. “Doctors,” is an extremely vague term, and “the good it does” is very vague. The article makes some good appeals, but others just don’t make the cut.
Looking at all this information, it is clear that someone trying to make an informed decision on a medical marijuana or marijuana legalization bill would be very confused. How can a drug that causes schizophrenia according to one article do so much good in another? If a medicine has the side effect of making its taker go insane, would it really be allowed to function as a medicine? If marijuana does cause users to do nothing all day every day like “Stoners in the Mist” attempts to convince its audience of, why are there people who smoke weed and do creative things like make movies and write songs about it, and why is it such a popular drug? Clearly there has to be more to it than the anti-marijuana propaganda will make you believe, and clearly it’s not the miracle drug like some medical-marijuana advocates and doctors would have you believe—with the ability to solve a laundry list of psychical and mental problems.
The only thing that will further the discussion on cannabis to the point where real conclusions can be drawn is more unbiased research. Unfortunately, that won’t be able to happen until the federal government changes its mind on the drug. As of right now, the only way to get legal marijuana to research is from them, and the process is long, complicated, and yields a very week, single strain of the drug—nothing like what is available on the street or in cannabis clubs in medical marijuana states. To create a better research environment politicians need to work to get the federal standpoint changed, and for that to happen the general public needs to receive accurate information so they can lobby their politicians effectively.
Disinformation has been spread around about marijuana ever since the drive to get it banned in the 1930’s. “Reefer Madness,” the famous 30’s exploitation film scared parents into thinking their children would enter a “drug-crazed abandon” if they ever got high. On the other hand, the list of ailments you can get a marijuana prescription for in California far outnumbers almost any other drug, making it out to be some miracle plant. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The way marijuana is portrayed in the media is one of the primary reasons for this confusion. TV ads and other media from organizations like “Above the Influence,” and the National Institute on Drug Abuse attempt to characterize weed-smokers as boring, anti-social, and prone to being nothing but couch potatoes, but popular movies like “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” and “Super High Me” show their main characters getting high and doing the exact opposite: being social and having interesting conversations. It’s also rare that characters in movies or television will encounter negative consequences relating to marijuana, whereas when harder drugs are involved that’s almost always the case.
“Stoners in the Mist” is a series of short Internet videos created by Above The Influence, aimed at capturing YouTube era adolescents and other people who might not be influenced easily by TV commercials. Its goal is obvious: convincing people that marijuana shouldn’t be used. Its claim is that “stoners” are lazy, forgetful, and anti-social. The warrants for the claim they present are many, but are mostly fairly shallow. The video pieces that provide the support are shorts shot in the style of a nature documentary, featuring a host that’s reminiscent of the Crocodile Hunter. They claim that marijuana makes you “sedentary, uninspired, remarkably unmotivated,” and show through their clips marijuana users having difficulty with simple social interactions, being oblivious to their psychical appearance, and spending days sitting in the same place watching television.
Their support and warrants, however, come across as extremely inaccurate. The majority of the way they warrant their claims is through visual evidence, which in this case is obviously staged. These aren’t real “stoners,” but actors paid to pretend to conform to the lazy stoner stereotype. The website also makes the claim that stoners have “extreme difficulty fitting in to social groups,” but again only provides an over-the-top sketch to support that claim, where a “normal person” tries to make conversation with a stoner, who is too out of it to even remember his name. The only real warrants offered on the website is a small section called “marijuana: the facts” which attempts to support the video evidence with sources. The majority of the sources, however, are pamphlets from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an organization with an anti-marijuana bias. They hardly cite any objective content. If someone went to the “Stoners in the Mist” website to attempt to find valuable information about marijuana, they could be easily confused.
Arguments for marijuana and medical marijuana in the popular media are similarly exaggerated. Movies that portray marijuana users rarely do it in a negative light, and there are documentaries like Doug Benson’s “Super High Me” that attempt to claim that nothing is wrong with marijuana at all, and it’s completely fine to smoke it all of the time. He spent 30 days not getting high, and then 30 days getting high all the time as his support, and his warrants consisted of various tests and doctor evaluations during that time. During his 30 days not smoking, he scored a 980 on the S.A.T, and during his smoking month, he scored 1030. In addition, he had a higher sperm count during the marijuana month, and at the end his physician concluded that constant marijuana smoking for a month didn’t have any adverse effects on his health. While some of these claims have validity (mostly the doctor’s opinion), it still falls short as a great argument that marijuana isn’t harmful. However, it does give off a very strong impression of validity, and given most people’s ability to take anything they see in a “documentary” as truth, this could turn into a very misleading piece of information. A truly good argument would have had to involve different types of marijuana users (not just none and all the time) and also different situations (people with actual jobs and responsibilities, not just working on a movie about smoking marijuana).
With propaganda in the multimedia world coming from both sides unable to be trusted entirely, let’s now look at print, hopefully a place where better arguments will reside.
The Independent, a national daily in Britain, launched a campaign in 1997 to decriminalize marijuana. A couple years ago they took that campaign back with an “apology,” where they reveal the research findings that changed their mind on the issue. Their claim is that marijuana has changed over the years—that new strains of the drug are being created that are more powerful than ever, and, they argue, more dangerous.
They support this with hard facts and quotes from doctors: “The number of young people in treatment [for cannabis] almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006.” “Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.” They also talk about some research that will be published later and show that “cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy.”
While this is clearly a stronger argument against marijuana use and legalization than “Stoners in the Mist,” it lacks a good amount of context, and leaves a ton of unanswered questions. Were the people in treatment for cannabis using other drugs as well, or just marijuana? What about the schizophrenics—was marijuana the sole cause for their disease, or did it merely exaggerate an existing condition? Their warrants for their claim are strong, but in the end the piece comes off as sounding sensationalistic and fear-mongering, lacking any real world context for all of their statistics and “expert opinions.”
The New York Times, on the other hand, argues for marijuana’s benefits in an editorial claiming that medical marijuana laws are just. They argue at the start through an appeal to pathos, presenting the character of Ed Rosenthal—a man who is being prosecuted for growing marijuana for use by the seriously ill. They cite that “Doctors have long recognized marijuana's value in reducing pain and aiding in the treatment of cancer and AIDS, among other diseases,” and that “the reasons the government gives for objecting to it do not outweigh the good it does.”
Unlike The Independent’s article, they support their claim about medical marijuana well with real life-examples, but this one falls short when it comes to statistics and expert opinions: there aren’t any. “Doctors,” is an extremely vague term, and “the good it does” is very vague. The article makes some good appeals, but others just don’t make the cut.
Looking at all this information, it is clear that someone trying to make an informed decision on a medical marijuana or marijuana legalization bill would be very confused. How can a drug that causes schizophrenia according to one article do so much good in another? If a medicine has the side effect of making its taker go insane, would it really be allowed to function as a medicine? If marijuana does cause users to do nothing all day every day like “Stoners in the Mist” attempts to convince its audience of, why are there people who smoke weed and do creative things like make movies and write songs about it, and why is it such a popular drug? Clearly there has to be more to it than the anti-marijuana propaganda will make you believe, and clearly it’s not the miracle drug like some medical-marijuana advocates and doctors would have you believe—with the ability to solve a laundry list of psychical and mental problems.
The only thing that will further the discussion on cannabis to the point where real conclusions can be drawn is more unbiased research. Unfortunately, that won’t be able to happen until the federal government changes its mind on the drug. As of right now, the only way to get legal marijuana to research is from them, and the process is long, complicated, and yields a very week, single strain of the drug—nothing like what is available on the street or in cannabis clubs in medical marijuana states. To create a better research environment politicians need to work to get the federal standpoint changed, and for that to happen the general public needs to receive accurate information so they can lobby their politicians effectively.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hookup Culture
This is an extremely well written opinion piece on the culture of "hooking up" in college. In it, the author makes very valid points about the way that hooking up makes us feel, and why it makes us feel that way. He argues that most of the pleasure people derive from hooking up still comes from the intimacy we feel in the situation, and that sex and emotional attachment are permanently tied.
The relevance of this article is spot-on. His examples and anecdotes fit the situation precisely. His audience is college students, so his examples detail things that do go on in college hook-up culture. He puts the reader in situations many college students have found themselves in and simply asks them: where is the pleasure coming from? People who have been in the situation can recall their previous experiences, and people who haven't still get a good idea of what he's talking about.
His claims are also very sufficient. Like I said, he gives numerous examples, all touching on a slightly different part of the culture and drawing pretty much the same conclusions from all of them. He argues that the emotional attachment is there because the pleasure comes from the exclusivity of the moment, the fact that the other person is giving themselves to only you, and he also argues that based on that, the more that commitment gets detached from sex the less it means anything. One by one throughout his piece, he attempts to destroy all credible reasons why hooking-up is a good thing. It attempts to detach sex from commitment and fails, it demeans women (who throws away her sexual power--the ability to refuse sex until a man proves himself to her), and it's claims of "no-strings-attached" attempts to convince us that love is divorced from sex.
The argument is also very open. He's not trying to demean others who choose to hook-up, but instead convince them that maybe they should rethink why hooking up makes them feel so good. If it really is the exclusivity and emotional connection that gives them pleasure, why not pursue a serious relationship? Based on the article, I'm sure someone who disagreed with any of his points would have room for a discussion with Jack Grimes, as it seems he is genuinely interested in the issue of the hook-up, and not just his opinion on it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
As I was watching the inaugural address on Tuesday, I was mostly very pleased with our new president. One thing that I couldn’t fully wrap my head around, however, was the large amount of disrespect and near spite that Obama showed to the Bush administration in his speech.
It’s obvious that we had a unpopular president in Bush. He left office with the lowest poll ratings in modern history. But that doesn’t mean that Obama has to essentially rub that in his face when he is sitting only a few feet away. His speech should have been a time to look forward, not back.
Obama only mentioned Bush’s name once, in the required thank you at the beginning, but it was pretty obvious that some of the things he said were direct shots at the former president. Saying that “we are ready to lead once more,” and criticizing “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” These aren’t criticisms of average Americans; these are shots at Bush, who Obama took shots at relentlessly during his entire campaign. There isn’t an inaugural address in recent memory where the incumbent has criticized the lame duck in such an obvious manner.
Bush has been helpful, courteous, and respectful throughout the entire transition process, can’t we show him a little respect on his first day
as a former?
As I was watching the inaugural address on Tuesday, I was mostly very pleased with our new president. One thing that I couldn’t fully wrap my head around, however, was the large amount of disrespect and near spite that Obama showed to the Bush administration in his speech.
It’s obvious that we had a unpopular president in Bush. He left office with the lowest poll ratings in modern history. But that doesn’t mean that Obama has to essentially rub that in his face when he is sitting only a few feet away. His speech should have been a time to look forward, not back.
Obama only mentioned Bush’s name once, in the required thank you at the beginning, but it was pretty obvious that some of the things he said were direct shots at the former president. Saying that “we are ready to lead once more,” and criticizing “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” These aren’t criticisms of average Americans; these are shots at Bush, who Obama took shots at relentlessly during his entire campaign. There isn’t an inaugural address in recent memory where the incumbent has criticized the lame duck in such an obvious manner.
Bush has been helpful, courteous, and respectful throughout the entire transition process, can’t we show him a little respect on his first day
as a former?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Aesthetics
Postrel makes several claims in her article about “The Aesthetic Imperative.” The first, most obvious one is that now, more than ever, aesthetics matter. She is arguing that 21st century humans are not about conformity and utilitarianism, but instead about customization and the appeal of how things look to us. She also argues that just because this is happening, it doesn’t mean that there is a universal opinion on what has good aesthetics, or that everything is beautiful, but simply that we are expecting good design to be used across the board—even in things that traditionally serve as pure function.
The data presented to back up these claims is fairly extensive. She quotes experts like the former president of the Art Center College of Design saying “we are by nature—by deep, biological nature—visual, tactile creatures.” She also provides a personal example of a shopper buying a stylish (and highly priced) iMac computer saying “Aesthetics, whether people admit it or not, is why you buy something.” This is particularly true in the computer buyers’ case because a Dell computer with similar features often costs hundreds less, but lacks any sort of pleasuring aesthetics. In addition, she makes
The bridges she uses are mainly associative. She is saying that these aesthetics are important to us because they bring up deep personal, emotional, and sometimes universal feelings. Most people are universally drawn to the big-eyed Disney animals because they remind us of babies, which we have an innate attraction to. Some of us might like pop music because it reminds us of our youth, but others may appreciate instead the catchy melodies on purely musical terms. She is saying that since we’re such visual and aural people, these things matter to us a great deal.
I think that the visual world is extremely important. I’m one of those people who will pay thousands of dollars for a computer simply because it looks cool, and also someone who values form as almost equal to function. When buying a car how it looks is equally as important as how it drives, and I am happy to have hundreds of different models to choose from to fit my individual style. Style is important to me—and I’m willing to show that with my wallet.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Westboro Baptist Church
The Westboro Baprist church has no right to call itself a Baptist or Christian church. Regardless of the fact that most of its members are highly religious, it practices none of the kindness and compassion called for by Jesus or the bible. They operate under the assumption that God exists, and the possibility that God, if he does exist, feels human-like hatred towards homosexuals.
They also possess such hatred toward any people who are different from themselves that it almost makes me sick: Jews, Muslims, foreigners, etc.
The arguments they make on their website are terrible at best. Statements like “Any god-fearing person should realize that God hates fags” and that the Roman Catholic Church is a “fag” church doesn’t even begin to sway me in their direction, all their arguments are are name-calling and speculation.
I feel extremely mad about this church and its standpoints for multiple reasons. First, I carry the cultural premise from my Buddhist parents that God isn’t a tangible thing, he isn’t a specific being, and doesn’t have the ability to feel, let alone hate. He is just present in everything, flowing through all life as a supreme connecting force. I have also been raised in a community and family that is open and friendly to people in all walks of life, including homosexuals. I have an aunt who is a homosexual, and I have a strong relationship with both her and her partner. So for me, when I see people using God as an excuse or a mouthpiece for their intolerance to other groups of people, it makes me sick. The people who compose the Westboro Baptist “Church” are the ones who hate fags, and while they are allowed to feel whatever way they please about others, claiming that they are doing this in God’s name is just plain wrong.
It seems clear to me from their website and promotional material that these people aren’t in to having a conversation. Any arguments that I would make to them about the fact that homosexuals can’t control their sexual orientation or that they are pretty much the same as heterosexuals will just label me as a “fag-enabler.” These people aren’t out to have a conversation or a debate about their beliefs, they are just there to make as much noise as possible and to make the family and friends of deceased homosexuals feel as badly as possible.
If we follow the Christian belief, God created every single one of us. My one question that I would ask to this “church” given the chance, is if he did indeed create us all, why would he create something he hates? People are largely born homosexuals; they don’t choose to become gay. So if God created us, God also created some of us to be gay and he obviously doesn’t hate them.
I doubt the argument would go over very well with them.
They also possess such hatred toward any people who are different from themselves that it almost makes me sick: Jews, Muslims, foreigners, etc.
The arguments they make on their website are terrible at best. Statements like “Any god-fearing person should realize that God hates fags” and that the Roman Catholic Church is a “fag” church doesn’t even begin to sway me in their direction, all their arguments are are name-calling and speculation.
I feel extremely mad about this church and its standpoints for multiple reasons. First, I carry the cultural premise from my Buddhist parents that God isn’t a tangible thing, he isn’t a specific being, and doesn’t have the ability to feel, let alone hate. He is just present in everything, flowing through all life as a supreme connecting force. I have also been raised in a community and family that is open and friendly to people in all walks of life, including homosexuals. I have an aunt who is a homosexual, and I have a strong relationship with both her and her partner. So for me, when I see people using God as an excuse or a mouthpiece for their intolerance to other groups of people, it makes me sick. The people who compose the Westboro Baptist “Church” are the ones who hate fags, and while they are allowed to feel whatever way they please about others, claiming that they are doing this in God’s name is just plain wrong.
It seems clear to me from their website and promotional material that these people aren’t in to having a conversation. Any arguments that I would make to them about the fact that homosexuals can’t control their sexual orientation or that they are pretty much the same as heterosexuals will just label me as a “fag-enabler.” These people aren’t out to have a conversation or a debate about their beliefs, they are just there to make as much noise as possible and to make the family and friends of deceased homosexuals feel as badly as possible.
If we follow the Christian belief, God created every single one of us. My one question that I would ask to this “church” given the chance, is if he did indeed create us all, why would he create something he hates? People are largely born homosexuals; they don’t choose to become gay. So if God created us, God also created some of us to be gay and he obviously doesn’t hate them.
I doubt the argument would go over very well with them.
Minor Analysis Paper #1
Medical marijuana has been a hotly debated issue for many years now. As more and more states have made the decision to legalize the drug for medical use, the federal government has maintained its status as a schedule 1 substance, having no recognized medical uses. States like California, Washington, Colorado, and 11 others have passed bills allowing for doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients, but they are going directly against federal law. This means that the DEA and other federal agencies are fully allowed to treat people who grow and sell medical marijuana as ordinary drug dealers, and can prosecute them as such.
In an editorial in the New York Times, the board argues that the federal war on medical marijuana has “escalated out of control.” They give Ed Rosenthal’s case as an example, a man who was convicted of charges that carry a five-year minimum sentence despite the fact that he was acting within state and local laws. His marijuana farm was for sick people, they argue, and he should not be prosecuted as a big time drug dealer. Another editorial, in the Boston Globe, argues the same basic point: these people are sick and need medicine, and some of the time marijuana fits the bill perfectly.
The federal government, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t approve of these state laws. This whole debate is created around the fact that the DEA claims that federal law trumps state drug laws under the commerce clause of the constitution. They also argue that medical marijuana can contribute to recreational marijuana activity and gangs. Since the average marijuana dispensary sells over a pound of it a day, they sometimes might have to go the “back-alley” route to get enough of it to fulfill their demand.
What the Federal Government doesn’t seem to realize is that a full embrace of medical marijuana would solve most of the problems that they have with it. I support the full legalization of medical marijuana, and think that if the federal government embraced it we could see distribution become safer and less tied to the black market. In addition, taxes on the drug could be a gold mine for Washington considering marijuana is sometimes referred to as the U.S.’ number one cash crop, ahead of even corn.
In the Boston Globe editorial, the article makes several fairly simple arguments. The editorial board takes the problems that the federal government has with marijuana and one by one knocks them down. The argument that medical marijuana helps swell the illegal drug market is countered by the fact that morphine has been “prescribed by doctors for years with no corresponding surge in its availability on the street.” The board also argues in defense of state’s rights, saying that the commerce clause doesn’t apply because the drugs aren’t usually transported across state lines, and some of the time no money even changes hands. There is also an emotional appeal with the example of Angel Raich, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and may die without access to marijuana, but her home was raided anyway.
Reading as a doubter, there are definitely some holes in the argument. Comparing marijuana to morphine is silly, as morphine just isn’t a street drug. You never hear of people using it to get high. If medical marijuana were allowed at the federal level, there would almost definitely be an increase of illegal marijuana for recreational use. In addition, the drug is transported over state lines frequently, and money almost always changes hands in a transaction of it. There are also researched medicines for the various medical conditions that people use marijuana for, and most of the time they’re healthier than inhaling raw combustion material.
As a believer, there are also some very strong arguments. They cite an example of research that shows marijuana has been shown to relieve symptoms caused by “cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma,” by “reducing nausea and vomiting and improving appetite.” They also make the case that decreasing states’ rights, which may be necessary for things like the new deal and expanding civil rights, has to be stopped when it’s used to deny citizens medically necessary care. These are all very strong arguments that appeal who care about other people and want the practice of medicine to be as complete and effective as possible.
Most newspapers have come out in support of medical marijuana, and for good reasons. Most newspapers are also left leaning, which could describe their collective agreement on this topic. But as more and more states have a majority of people supporting this medicine, the conversation seems to be between most of the country and the federal government. Newspaper editorials can’t do much to change the opinion of the President, and even representatives and senators who support it are scared to make it known out of fear that they’ll be labeled “soft on drugs.” These articles are aimed at convincing enough people that marijuana is a valid form of medicine, and hoping that such collective knowledge will help change something in Washington.
In an editorial in the New York Times, the board argues that the federal war on medical marijuana has “escalated out of control.” They give Ed Rosenthal’s case as an example, a man who was convicted of charges that carry a five-year minimum sentence despite the fact that he was acting within state and local laws. His marijuana farm was for sick people, they argue, and he should not be prosecuted as a big time drug dealer. Another editorial, in the Boston Globe, argues the same basic point: these people are sick and need medicine, and some of the time marijuana fits the bill perfectly.
The federal government, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t approve of these state laws. This whole debate is created around the fact that the DEA claims that federal law trumps state drug laws under the commerce clause of the constitution. They also argue that medical marijuana can contribute to recreational marijuana activity and gangs. Since the average marijuana dispensary sells over a pound of it a day, they sometimes might have to go the “back-alley” route to get enough of it to fulfill their demand.
What the Federal Government doesn’t seem to realize is that a full embrace of medical marijuana would solve most of the problems that they have with it. I support the full legalization of medical marijuana, and think that if the federal government embraced it we could see distribution become safer and less tied to the black market. In addition, taxes on the drug could be a gold mine for Washington considering marijuana is sometimes referred to as the U.S.’ number one cash crop, ahead of even corn.
In the Boston Globe editorial, the article makes several fairly simple arguments. The editorial board takes the problems that the federal government has with marijuana and one by one knocks them down. The argument that medical marijuana helps swell the illegal drug market is countered by the fact that morphine has been “prescribed by doctors for years with no corresponding surge in its availability on the street.” The board also argues in defense of state’s rights, saying that the commerce clause doesn’t apply because the drugs aren’t usually transported across state lines, and some of the time no money even changes hands. There is also an emotional appeal with the example of Angel Raich, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and may die without access to marijuana, but her home was raided anyway.
Reading as a doubter, there are definitely some holes in the argument. Comparing marijuana to morphine is silly, as morphine just isn’t a street drug. You never hear of people using it to get high. If medical marijuana were allowed at the federal level, there would almost definitely be an increase of illegal marijuana for recreational use. In addition, the drug is transported over state lines frequently, and money almost always changes hands in a transaction of it. There are also researched medicines for the various medical conditions that people use marijuana for, and most of the time they’re healthier than inhaling raw combustion material.
As a believer, there are also some very strong arguments. They cite an example of research that shows marijuana has been shown to relieve symptoms caused by “cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma,” by “reducing nausea and vomiting and improving appetite.” They also make the case that decreasing states’ rights, which may be necessary for things like the new deal and expanding civil rights, has to be stopped when it’s used to deny citizens medically necessary care. These are all very strong arguments that appeal who care about other people and want the practice of medicine to be as complete and effective as possible.
Most newspapers have come out in support of medical marijuana, and for good reasons. Most newspapers are also left leaning, which could describe their collective agreement on this topic. But as more and more states have a majority of people supporting this medicine, the conversation seems to be between most of the country and the federal government. Newspaper editorials can’t do much to change the opinion of the President, and even representatives and senators who support it are scared to make it known out of fear that they’ll be labeled “soft on drugs.” These articles are aimed at convincing enough people that marijuana is a valid form of medicine, and hoping that such collective knowledge will help change something in Washington.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
What the Inauguration Means to Me
As we rapidly approach Jan. 20, the anticipation for this event grows greater in me each day. Not only is this the first president whom I had a personal say in electing, it is the first time in as long as I can remember that I am proud of my country. Being 21 years old, my entire adolescence was spent with Bush at the helm. I spent my teenage years in a liberal town learning to hate the man. From the election scandal to the Iraq war to the utter ignorance of almost any culture besides the western one, I was surrounded by people who didn't approve of the country we lived in and its actions.
The inauguration will change all of that. To me, it means the hope that we will be able to change our image in the world, to change our anti-science policies and backwards thinking sexual education programs. It means a fresh slate to prove once again that we are the greatest nation on earth. It means that if I'm traveling I won't be embarrassed anymore to say that I'm an American, but instead be proud of it.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Michelle Obama
Michele Obama's speech was a carefully planned piece of rhetoric. It is clear to me that she knew exactly who she was targeting and how she wanted to pull them in and and characterize her husband in a positive, almost heroic light.
The target of this speech was, obviously, the average American. The undecided people that late in an election cycle are largely lower-income people who are seeking to pick the candidate who they can relate to the most. Most politicans in this country, however, are seen as a higher class, with additional privleges and entitlement to high positions of office. In her speech, Michelle Obama puts forward stories and anecdotes that aim at lowering the two of them down to a more average level. She talks about how both of them are very family-orinted people who worked hard for where they are in society at this point, but mostly came from low or middle income households. This provides her audience with something to connect with the two of them over, and gives them hope that just because your last name isn't Bush, Kennedy, or Clinton, you can still achieve whatever you want. She is also putting forward the view that her values are the same as the average American, and those are the values that matter: hard work, dedication, and respect.
The target of this speech was, obviously, the average American. The undecided people that late in an election cycle are largely lower-income people who are seeking to pick the candidate who they can relate to the most. Most politicans in this country, however, are seen as a higher class, with additional privleges and entitlement to high positions of office. In her speech, Michelle Obama puts forward stories and anecdotes that aim at lowering the two of them down to a more average level. She talks about how both of them are very family-orinted people who worked hard for where they are in society at this point, but mostly came from low or middle income households. This provides her audience with something to connect with the two of them over, and gives them hope that just because your last name isn't Bush, Kennedy, or Clinton, you can still achieve whatever you want. She is also putting forward the view that her values are the same as the average American, and those are the values that matter: hard work, dedication, and respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
