Responses to Stephen Blooms article: I'm glad every Iowan isn't as sensitive as I thought.

Earlier this trimester, we read UI journalism professor Stephen Bloom's article posted in the Atlantic: "Observations from 20 Years of Iowa Life." The article is Blooms opinion of the quality of life in Iowa, depicting is as a desolate wasteland with a failing economy inhabited by religious gun fanatics, meth addicts and old people. Overall, the article was very well written, and when I first read it I agreed with Bloom. While not ALL of Iowa is like what is described in Bloom's article, it isn't too far off. I have some extended family that lives in The Middle of Nowhere, IA. My first visit there gave me an opinion of Iowa that I never held before: we are a really boring and kind of culturally challenged state.
 I wasn't really offended by Bloom's article: we Iowans usually aren't surrounded by a group of foreigners that would ridicule us because we're from Iowa. I'm sure the article brought people a feeling of shame knowing that the place they call home is inhabited by people with "undesirable " lifestyles. I think the some most people were offended was because this was the first time they had heard any hardcore criticism of their home. Someone who had grown up in Detroit had probably spend their whole life aware of the crime-ridden stereotype the town has. If someone put an article out about how Detroit is a dangerous city, there probably wouldn't be a huge backlash because the citizens of Detroit are used to being criticized. Iowans didn't take this article lightly, and many people sent hate letters to Bloom.
In this recent Gazette Article, UI released some of the emails  people wrote to Bloom, some of which weren't as critical as I'd thought. My favorite email was the one sent by a Cedar Rapids language arts teacher, which made me think some teachers can actually be pretty cool.

He's kind of adorable, in a puppy sort of way.

Genetically Engineered Foods

I recently read my colleague Jake Madsen's essay on genetically engineered foods, and I found it to be very interesting. Genetically engineered foods are plants (for example an apple) that have scientifically altered genes. Scientists alter the genes to get the disired result, from something as simple as changing the color of the apple to the affecting the way the tree itself grows. The main way genetically engineered foods are used are to create higher yields, such as making the apple tree more resistent to climate or to grow quicker. This could progress far enough to a point where apple orchards could be planted in Alaska.

The topic itself is relevant to my APES class, because a previous chapter we talked about agriculture and there was a discussion about the use of genetically engineered foods. My environmental science class discussed genetic engineering a lot in our agriculture unit. The thing that kind of surprised me was that Jake was REALLY against genetic engineering in foods in his essay. Basically the entire essay is about why we shouldn't do it and then he cites a bunch of sources and stories of what can go wrong when you mess with nature. (like cows giving birth to sacks of water, EW.) But in class, my APES teacher Mr. Young didn't seem too concerned with genetic engineering. The idea is seen as a good thing because when you engineer foods to grow quicker and more plentiful, which means you can feed more people. I think at one point we actually watched a documentary where the extra food was shown being given to starving children. APES remains neutral on genetic engineering, both sides of the argument of whether or not its safe are discussed. We even wrote a FRQ (fact related question) where we were given select quotes on both sides of the argument and had to choose for ourself whether or not you support genetic engineering of foods.

Overall I think its a good thing that this school course remained neutral on the idea, I just didn't realize it at first until someone with a very strong opinion came along. I knew enough about the subject to add a little knowledge to the conversation. This is one of the first times I've seen my schoolwork come through and be relevant in the real world.

Legalize Medical Marijuana in Iowa

Marijuana, the dried flowers from the Cannabis plant, have been used as medicine and been incorporated into religious rituals since the 3rd Millenium BC.It integrated into the culture of Southern Asia, where it had been used to make people feel better long before the creation of modern medicine. In the Vedas, the sacred text of Hinduism, Marijuana has been cited as a source of spirtual inspiration. Although cannabis has been used as medicine longer than any other other plant, it was labeled a dangerous drug in the early 20th century and was made illegal throughout most of the world. In the United States, marijuana has been making a comeback in the medical field. Both California and Colorado now allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to patients in order to treat glaucoma, nausea, and reduce pain in chemotherapy and AIDS patients. The state of Iowa has recently gained a more liberal reputation when gay marriage was legalized in 2009. Since then, Iowa's economy has benefitted. Around $1 million in tax revenue has been added by immigration to Iowa by gays to get married. Legalization of liberal laws benefits states' economies. When California legalized medical marijuana, $200 million in taxable revenue was added to the states economy. With Iowa's economy slowly growing, legalization of medical marijuana could benefit the state economically and could help patients looking for more organic medicine, as opposed to chemically engineered pharmaceuticals.
The main reason marijuana is currently not used as mainstream medicine is its gained reputation as a dangerous drug. In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act (mostly refered to the Marijuana Tax Act, using the modern spelling) put a large tax on the sale of marijuana, hurting the industry and therefore giving them very little political power. This was later deemed unconstitutional by the landmark case, Leary vs. The United States after it was proven that the law required some degree of self incrimination. Congress responded by passing the Controlled Substances Act, legislators classified marijuana as a schedule II drug: the same category as drugs with high depedence such as cocaine and methamphetamine, making it illegal to sell or possess. It continued to be grouped with dangerous drugs, especially during Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign. School age children were taught that marijuana is a gateway drug; its useage would lead to other more harmful drugs. Although these programs were well intentioned, they harmed marijuana's reputation and religious and recreational users of the drugs became crimminals.
Many deparments of the U.S government have released statements regarding the safety of marijuana use. The U.S Department of Justice claims "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."
The FDA has currently reported zero deaths from the use of cannabis. These opinions have swayed many into supporting legalization of medical marijuana. Currently in the state of Iowa, there are a few organizations devoted to the cause, although the effort is currently at a standstill. Currently, the next step that needs to be taken is to petition the state government to remove marijuana and all related cannaboids from schedule II on the Controlled Substances act and have it moved to be considered a schedule III drug. From there, cannabis has potential to be prescribed by doctors, and with the potential money to be made in the medicla marijuana business, it wont be long before that is common practice.

I'm still just having one long post

yeah its easier

Omg You Guys

So for speech team, my musical theatre group performs this song. Its annoying and its been stuck in my head since we learned it. We recieved great reviews from our judge, in fact we didn't get any critique. The judge just said "don't forget it".

COLBERT 2012

As the upcoming presidential election is heating up, I've turned to the Colbert report to be my daily news source on the election. I always have the channel 9 news on every morning as I'm getting ready for school, so I'm slightly informed of whats going on in Cedar Rapids. I think everyone should watch the news; if you ever find yourself in an awkward situation and you have nothing to talk about, you can bring up something to heard on TV. I wanted to be more informed about the election, so I started watching The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert gained my respect when I heard that in the state of South Carolina, a write in ballot has him with 5% in the GOP Primary, which puts him ahead of John Huntsman who currently has 4%. Colbert has been making jokes at Super PACS (political action committee) for months now. A Super PAC is an organization that can raise unlimited sums of money from businesses or individuals for a campaign. Super PACS are controversial because they are obviously created to financially support a candidate WAY past federal campaign limits. While most PACS are created to support a candidate, some are created with their own agenda in mind, and offer financial support to a someone in exchange for legislation to benefit the company. In the 2008 election, the Laborers Union of North America created a PAC that raised over 2.5 million dollars. Of course, the Laborers Union of North America wouldn't donate their funding to a candidate who's agenda would restrict rights of workers or only benefit the wealthy. They raised that money for a reason, to help out the candidate that will get them what they want. But this is nothing new, its been going on in politics basically forever. Colbert created his own SUPER PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. 

Colbert formally filed a request with the Federal Election Commission to allow media coverage of the operations of the PAC. He has actually gained some funding for the PAC, although the value is unknown. Colbert says the money will not exclusively be used for political ads, but also "luxury hotel stays,  private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus." I really respect Colbert as a journalist and comedian. Most comedians would stick to just making jokes and observations, but Colbert sets himself apart from the rest by going out there and creating a federally acknowledged group just to make fun of others. Its a risk, he's dealing with other peoples actual money (I admire anyone who would donate to that cause) and there's always a chance of being prosecuted, because PACS are not supposed to be run by a candidate. This was cleared up by Colbert's lawyer, so he appointed Jon Stewart to take over control of his SUPER PAC. This switch of power was shown on Thursdays episode of the Colbert Report.

Colbert Super PAC Ad

In my other post, I talked about Stephen Colbert and his Super PAC. With some of his Super PAC money, he created this advertisement.  He satirizes is how corporations are often given the same rights as citizens, and then compares Mitt Romney a serial killer. "Mitt the Ripper." Bascially, I thought it was really funny and its relevant to something a wrote before so you should definitely watch this.