Prom: Why all the Hate?

Chillin with some fellow gentleman at last years Prom

With the upcoming of New Trier's Prom, I have heard of a lot of kids re-thinking the hundreds of dollars they are going to put into the dance. If you take a step back, and not get all hyped up in the Prom Madness, it is actually rather pathetic how much time and money people put into just one night. The guys have to rent a tuxedo, or buy one, pay for the tickets, pay for the bus and event. The girls have to pay for their dresses, their manicures and pedicures, their makeup, their shoes and accessories. Prom used to be such a blast for teenagers, it was a night to let loose and have no shame on the dance floor. But now, dancing has become something 'awk' or 'lame' or 'stupid'. And is something that causes immediate negative judgement. Back before you were dropping fat stacks on buses, food, and the party, Prom's were the ideal place for a good time! Why has this changed so severely? And why are so many people opposed to Prom nowadays?


Buisness Insider correspondent, Caroline Moss, said "Kids don't need to go to a dance to interact with each other when they can sit in their bed with their laptop and phone and text them". This is sadly true, and something only our generation has experienced. We have become a society of people who would rather text or Facebook someone, rather than take the time and respect to converse in person. 30 years ago, if you wanted to talk with someone, you would have called them to meet up at the local cafe or bar. And now, it could take three clicks and some typing to see how people are doing.
Is this right?


I certainly do not think it is. The 21st century, and a  ll the technological advancements we have achieved within it, has been very potent to the way we interact with each other. However, are we seeing a social change in our society? Are people really more inclined to converse digitally rather than face to face? Why? Or why not? 

Please leave your thoughts and comments below!

Crimea: World War III?

Many of you may have heard about Russia invading Crimea recently. Although we have not heavily discussed the situation in my American Studies class, we have talked about how history repeats itself. It would seem that Putin's actions, and imperial mindset, is strikingly similar to those of Adolf Hitler's during the Third Reich. In the 1930's, Hitler invaded small Czech areas, and eventually Poland, leading to the beginning of World War II. Could this mean that Putin is actively encouraging World War III?

According to Liberty Voice correspondent, Wandola Amoth, "The wealthy peninsula [Crimea] is known for its great beaches suitable for tourism, strategic seaports and potential gas reserves" (via). So we can understand why Putin wanted to invade Crimea, for the economic exploitation, but just exactly what kind of repercussions will arise? Especially if there is gas and oil involved, since that means there is global wealth involved as well. I believe that Putin is encouraging WWIII, because that is what history has shown us in the past (via Hitler). Also, if Putin wanted to compete with the United States Navy (which is the largest in the world), he would need "strategic seaports" for Russia's ships. 

And just who would go and fight in World War III? Certainly not the wrinkly old fucks in Congress declaring the war. No, it would be fought by the young men and women who either volunteered or were drafted by those in Congress. This makes the hair stand on the back of my neck. Not only because I am afraid for our Country, but I am afraid for my life. As an American Citizen, I have always believed that it was your responsibility to fight when called upon. But, as I get older, and am tearing down the walls my parents have put up. I now understand just how corrupt and disgusting war can be. You, as a young American Citizen, should be scared for your life right now. And should be doing everything you can to protest any United States involvement in Crimea. 

Do you agree? Why or why not? Leave your comments below!

Big Pharma

Now I will start off by saying I have never, and most likely will not any time soon, be a supporter of Big Pharma. What I mean by this is that, for the most part, I will not support large corperations who exploit people by giving them medication they do not truly need. I am trying to decide on a Junior Theme topic, a major research paper we do Junior year at my high school. And I think talking about why pharmaceutical drugs have increased in the past thirty years, and how it has been and will continue to affect our society.

After doing some research, I am not a master in the topic, I found out that 

"Drug companies spend $4 billion a year on ads to consumers. In 1997, the FDA rules governing pharmaceutical advertising changed, and now companies can name both the drug and what it's for, while only naming the most significant potential side effects"

"Then, the number of ads really exploded. The Nielsen Co. estimates that there's an average of 80 drug ads every hour of every day on American television"

So what we see here is a significant change in the FDA advertising policy, allowing companies to choose the most "significant potential side effects"... Uh, no. This is not okay. If half of the commercial is talking about only the "significant" side effects. Just how many other side effects are there? And why is no one stepping up to demand answers? Because the Federal Government decided to increase revenue via more advertising, thus decreasing the amount of legitimate information available to the public. Does this seem fair? Why or why not?

Leave your thoughts below. 

Phillip Seymour Hoffman: The Failed War On Drugs

Over the weekend I was scrolling through my Netflix account, trying to find an interesting movie to watch... It was a lonely Saturday night. I came across the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman's, "Capote". The movie was set in the 50's and 60's in NYC and a small town in Kansas. It was based on the true story about author Truman Capote, who was an alcoholic writer extremely dedicated to his work and the people who read it. In the movie, he travels to a small town in Kansas to write about a string of murders that happened in the same house. Capote, a high pitched and very flamboyant man, is immediately judged by all the small town Conservatives, and the movie portrays the theme of small town rural conservative people vs. urban liberals. It was very interesting, and I found myself captivated by PSH's performance.

Recently, PSH passed away from a heroin overdose. A tragic loss to the entertainment community, specifically serious cinematography. Russell Brand, a recovering drug addict as well, wrote a very touching article in The Guardien describing why PSH parted this world the way he did. There is no denying it, PSH was addicted to drugs. But the stigma of drug addicts all being criminals is what Brand really talks about. 

"People are going to use drugs; no self-respecting drug addict is even remotely deterred by prohibition. What prohibition achieves is an unregulated, criminal-controlled, sprawling, global mob-economy, where drug users, their families and society at large are all exposed to the worst conceivable version of this regrettably unavoidable problem." 

Via


What kind of a society do we live in where we pin people with addiction to automatically being criminals? If someone's mental health is not well, they get help, right?! The doctor helps create a pharmaceutical cocktail of medication to help with the depression, anxiety, etc. But nooo, not drug addicts. Those people deserve to die because of the decisions they have made. I completely disagree, I think that if drug addicts are treated as people with a mental illness, they would feel more accepted in society and realize that they don't need to get that next fix.


If these addictive and harmful drugs (i.e. heroin, crack, meth) were regulated by the Government, giving addicts safe needles and or places to get high, you would see as significant decrease in deaths due to these drugs. We live a progressive world where people are starting to realize the war on drugs was a complete failure, and just a gimmick for the Federal Government to make more money off of the prison industrial complex. I am confident that with the decriminalization and regulation of all drugs, people would be able to seek help and treatment, rather than incarceration. Thus decreasing the amount of overall drug addicts.


What do you think about PSH's death? Was it just a tragic incident waiting to happen, or could it have been prevented with the loss of the drug addict stigma? Please leave your comments below.

Winnetka Police: Profiling, or Protection?

So on my morning commute to New Trier today I had an interesting experience. My friend, let's call him Zane, picked me up at around 10 AM because we had a late start. Our conversation on the way consisted of racial profiling in the North Shore, and specifically familial profiling. For example, if someones family has had a history with the police, the police are more likely to profile you as a bad person. Which is complete BS in my opinion.

Anyway, we are crossing the bridge to the East side of Winnetka and a police officer lights us up. Naturally, we wondered what we did wrong. But, being the lawful citizens we are, pulled over nonetheless. After he took our ID's and registration he walked back to his car to look us up in their system. We both have clean records, spotless. So, we are thinking to ourselves, 'okay, he just wants to scare us a little and make us more cautious drivers' (we eventually got a warning for "improper lane switching"... Once again, total BS, in my opinion. (They didn't even hand it to us, they just left it in the drivers seat)

Five minutes pass and he finally comes back.

 "You boys got any weed or anything you wouldn't want me to know about?" 

"No officer, we were just on our way to school" 

"So you don't mind if I search your car then, right?"

"No sir, go ahead"

We had nothing illegal in the car, and felt comfortable letting him search the car. So, now there are three, yes I said three police cars with their lights flashing all around our car. People are driving their kids to school gawking at these two teens, we were on a very busy road. And it was a very, very, very uncomfortable situation. The officer patted down Zane, but not me... Interesting. He then proceeded to search the car along with our backpacks, obviously finding nada. They spent close to fifteen minutes searching, and when they concluded that we were not the kids they were hoping for, they just said "OK, go". That was it. No handshake. No other explanation. Just an angry stern look, as if they had failed at their job. 

Isn't their job to be protecting citizens, not profiling them and trying to get them in trouble? Apparently not in Winnetka. 

If you were in this situation, do you think you would have let the officers search your car? Why, or why not? What do you feel about profiling? Do you think it is prevelent, even in a community like Winnetka? Please leave your comments below!