If you know me, you know too well that I am quite dependent on music to get me through the day. I live on music. It’s a form of escape I’ve gotten so accustomed to that the lack of music, the silence or just a lack of melody - it makes me downcast. I find difficulty in concentrating when there’s nothing to block out the thoughts that my anxiety-riddled brain is sputtering at me as I (try to) work. If I don’t have a melody or a beat in my head, my mood drops. It’s an unfortunate side effect of MDD and anxiety.
Luckily, music helps me to push past some of the issues I face regularly and helps me to block or at least hush anxious thoughts. Music and putting everything into work provides just enough sustainability for me to not completely collapse beneath the pressures of life. They are, at the utter least, distractions from despair and anxiety. Hence, I can honestly repeat what I would consider one of the most relatable lines in the novel I’ve been analyzing for my 11-U English class - Richard Wagamese’s Indian Horse - that being, “Work and music sustained me for a long time” (Wagamese 180). The novel’s main character, Saul, speaks this line, revealing that we share a few similarities in that sense.
Without my music, I find it difficult to suspend the despair and anxiety inside me. And, as such, I am very thankful for music. In a world without art, whether it be music, writing, painting - I wonder in what I would’ve found my escape. Both Saul and I would be very lost without the miracle that is music.
0 Comments
![]()
![]()
SCRIPT Hi there. My name is Lauren and today I will be posting my review of the film The Belko Experiment in terms of how it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This film, a thriller, is located in Bogota, Colombia, where 80 Americans are headed into work for a typical day in the office. However, this typical shift quickly flips upside down when an unknown voice overcomes the intercom system. This person shockingly announces that all employees will likely be dead within eight hours. As the day progresses, employees are forced into a sick game of kill or be killed.
Prostitution, while illegal in the States, Canada, and many other countries, is still a common practice in terms of illegal activities. As it stands, it is not a safe practice, as the spread of STI's and HIV is too common, alongside workplace violence. Luckily, there is a way to change it: legalization.
Legalizing prostitution would make it a much safer, healthier practice in many ways. For one, it would be a registered profession so it would have health benefits. Those within the profession would have access to sexual health clinics and STI testing. Having it as a legal profession would also lessen the discrimination and stigma around sex work which would encourage safer sex practice. Once legalized, those as registered workers would be required to use condoms and get regular STI testing. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, workers are required to get monthly blood tests for HIV and Syphilis, and weekly blood tests for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia. The mandatory use of condoms as well as mandatory testing would intensely lessen the chances of STI spread. A study in Australia showed that the spread of HIV among those within prostitution could be significantly reduced by around 33-46 percent if the profession were decriminalized. Also, making prostitution a legal profession would allow for the government to tax it rather than spending money on enforcing laws against it. That would improve the economy as the billions of dollars currently used to deal with prostitution could be put to good use elsewhere, and additional tax money could also be put to good use. In the USA, each sex worker case costs around an average of $2 000. With the amount of arrests that occur, so much money could be put elsewhere. I truly believe that prostitution should be legalized. It’s going to happen whether or not it’s legal, so we might as well make it so that it can be a healthy and safe practice. Taxes and money saved from enforcing laws against prostitution are simply great additions to the change. Hurry up and join the list of countries where prostitution is legal, Canada! Cage fighting. It’s a bizarre “sport” where two people are put in a steel cage and allowed to fight for a set amount of time, or until one person is knocked unconscious. And somehow, people are suggesting that this become a sport or a club in high schools.
At first, I thought that I would be completely against this idea - after all, it’s only encouraging the violence we struggle to discourage in schools across the nation. But I would support this idea if those involved were taught the basics beforehand. And the facts line up that this is actually a good idea. First, cage fighting in schools can help two major issues in today’s society: bullying and obesity. If students are taught the basics in fighting and teach themselves as they go on, many more students will know how to defend themselves. Bullies are less likely to attack someone if they know that such person has the knowledge of how to defend themselves while fighting back. This decreases the amount of bullying in schools. Secondly is obesity. Cage fighting encourages physical activity. If this is added to the curriculum for a small portion in grade nine, then students will be more likely to participate in cage fighting in schools which fights the obesity epidemic. Also, fighting in school is a way for students to safely get out their anger and solve their issues under teacher supervision. Staff can intervene before things get too dangerous. Without ‘fight clubs’, students will go elsewhere to fight, where someone is likely to get very hurt as no one will intervene and no rules are established. Cage fighting in school gives students a safe way to fight. Cage fighting in schools should definitely be a thing, but only between students. It is safer for students, encourages physical activity, and discourages bullying in the school community. As marijuana legislation comes close to its passing, one question is left to decipher past the legal household limit of plants and on-person possession amounts: how old is old enough to use marijuana?
Based off of personal experience and research I’ve conducted, I would say that 16 should be the legal age for use of marijuana. Yes, the major brain development years are in your teens from around 13-17, however, those who want to use marijuana will use it if they please. One thing that the government hopes to achieve as it legalizes recreational marijuana is the phase out of the black market. Should the age be 18, or even 19, people still be able to get their hands on it through the dangerous black market. Trust me when I say that the black market will still exist (but will be smaller) once marijuana is legalized for the reason that younger audiences will still want to use it. Less people will get hurt through the use of the black market and more people will have access to safe, non-laced marijuana through the government and licensed dealers if the legal age is 16. Secondly, if the legal age is younger, the government will be able to tax it and know the usage percentage of Canadian teens. There will be more tax money to go to areas where it’s needed. The government will have access to more accurate information on the statistics of marijuana usage in Canada, specifically for teens. As it stands, the current percentage for marijuana usage amongst Canadian teens is 25%; I believe that percentage is lower than the actual statistic. Because it is illegal, people are less likely to report their own usage. Perhaps the school I go to has a higher usage than other schools, but the amount of people I know that use this currently illicit drug stands around a solid 30-40%, if I were to take a guess. It’s important to have access to accurate statistics, especially with regards to the topic of teen drug use. Also, I believe that making the age younger will decrease the use. People tend to use something more when it is illegal that when it is legal, mainly for the rush of doing something you shouldn’t be. Less people will use it if it’s legal at 16 than illegal simply because that rush is gone once legalized. It won’t be as “cool” to use marijuana. Marijuana may be damaging to brain development, but making it legal at a younger age such as 16 will allow for a decrease in its usage, an increase in the amount of marijuana legally taxed by the government, and for more accurate statistics. It will also allow for the wipeout of the black market and for safer usage for younger users as they will be buying from reputable sources. The legalization of cannabis has come a very far way since it was first documented in the 1800s. From being sold as an extract in pharmacies when it was first introduced, to being criminalized in the 1930’s, and finally to the beginning of medicinal legalization in 1996, it’s been a very loopy ride. Now, after many years of extraneous criminal records and of wasting tax money on people who shouldn’t even be behind bars, we have reached a reasonable compromise: legalization.
While Canada as a country may be close to the legalization of cannabis, the question still remains: should cannabis truly be legalized? Is it safe enough for the public, or should it persist illegality where it will continue to be sold on the black market? Is Canada making the right decision with its recreational legalization? The medicinal uses of cannabis were first legalized in Canada in 2001. Now that Justin Trudeau has been elected as Prime Minister, alongside his “promises” to legalize marijuana for recreational usage, Canada comes closer and closer to fully legalizing this once-considered deadly drug. But should it really be legalized? Cannabis has both good and bad qualities assigned to its name in terms of recreational usage. On the recreational side, it can be a (considerably) cheap way to destress and calm down. I would say that it’s fairly harmless as it makes users feel tired and relaxed, which means that it won’t lead to any violence as alcohol does. It certainly isn’t a performance enhancer. It also does not kill brain cells as do alcohol and tobacco do, which are two legalized substances people use for the same reasons: to have fun and/or escape reality. On the other side, depending on how the user induces the effects of cannabis, it may have harmful effects on the lungs. This, of course, comes with any drug the user may choose to smoke, whether it be cannabis, tobacco, or methamphetamines. If you’re inhaling any type of smoke, then you are submitting yourself to whatever effects it may have on your lungs. This is not directly associated with cannabis but with the way you chose to administer a drug. Cannabis in long-term use can affect the way the brain works, such as in terms of memory and speed, especially if used at a young age. It can impair the way the brain learns and functions, and may cause addiction in a small percentages of users. Other than those few side-effects, cannabis is a fairly harmless drug. Especially in comparison to other drugs such as cocaine, heroin, or MDMA, cannabis is the lowest on the scale of drugs in term of harmlessness. Secondly is for reasons other than the effects this drug may have on a user. Cannabis accounts for half of all drug arrests in the United States; a total of 75 000 Canadians spent time in prison for marijuana-related crimes in 2013. For a drug that is fairly harmless, this is bizarre and unneeded. Not only is this a burden on those affected, but on our economy. It costs an average of $30 000 - $60 000 per year per prisoner to keep those charged behind bars. This money comes from our tax money. Do you really want to be spending your tax money on someone who was caught with a few grams of cannabis? On someone who was dedicated to growing a plant that doesn’t harm the environment at all, or anyone around it? This money would be much better of being spent somewhere else that is needed, such as in schools or on minority communities. In addition, by keeping cannabis illegal in terms of recreational use, we’re keeping it in the black market. And what comes with that is danger, violence, and the deaths of those working it it or somehow connected to it. In certain cases, innocent civilians are killed through the black market and smuggling drugs. An average of 4 people are killed per gram of cocaine smuggled into North America. Now, that is not cannabis, but people still do die through the black market and the smuggling of cannabis because it is still illegal. For those reasons, I would say that cannabis should indeed be legalized. It’s nearly harmless compared to other drugs and does not cause violence as it is a sedative, not a performance enhancer. With legalization comes more money that was previously spent on cannabis-related incarcerations that can be spent on other areas that need it. Legalization also eliminates the need for the black market, as sellers can legally import and sell their products. There will be a massive decrease in drug-related violence and deaths. Even if you don’t support the recreational use of cannabis, you should support legalization; it will literally save lives. Violent Video Games: A Therapeutic and Developmentally-Friendly Way for Children to Relieve Stress12/16/2016 As the years continue to progress, video games seem to become more and more popular. More new games come out and the graphics improve little by little. I can easily say we’ve come a long way since the first video game that was released in 1958.
The game, known as “Pong”, was invented by a physicist named William Higinbotham. It essentially consisted of two skinny rectangles (the paddles) and a circle (the ball) where you would move the paddles up and down to reflect the ball back against the screen to the other paddle. If you missed the ball, you lost. Simple enough. The graphics in Pong compared to the games we have access to nowadays are extremely poor, especially in comparison to games such as Rise of the Tomb Raider or Mirror’s Edge. When video games first became a thing, people were designated as stick men - not like the perfectly proportionate avatars in games such as Call of Duty. However, these perfect or near-perfect graphics aren’t always a good thing - or are they? What comes with such detailed graphics as these are blood and guts, and much more detailed, violent games. Games such as Grand Theft Auto can be extremely gory and have mature content. While most are rated Mature (18+) or at least 14A, many seem to reach audiences far younger than 18 years of age. Children as young as 7 have been found enjoying these games on a daily basis. Now, is this healthy? Some may argue that exposure to such violent, graphic games at a young age is very harmful to those individuals, that these games can lead to aggressive behaviour and an increased interest in real violence. However, there is no such proof that links increased aggressive behaviour to violent video games. A false link has been created in the past with mass shooters and an involvement in violent video games. One in particular that has aided this false link was Adam Lanza. Adam Lanza committed a mass-shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut four years ago. He enjoyed violent video games. However, his favourite movie was ‘Babe’, a movie from the perspective of a pig, and he enjoyed listening to soundtracks from the movie ‘The Lion King’. In every other aspect of his life, he would not seem like the person to commit such a crime; the media stuck onto the one thing that made sense, which was his love of violent video games. This was a major assistance to the link between aggressive behaviour and violent video games. Many studies have proved otherwise against that link. In Japan and South Korean, graphic and violent games seem to be the base of their youth culture, being very popular, however they have some of the lowest teen crime rates in the world. Studies in Germany have suggested that only ⅛ mass shooters has shown even a small interest in violent video games. In fact, it is said that this aggressive behaviour comes from home life, how the person was raised, and mental stability rather than the activities the person enjoys. Somehow, millions of youth players across the world manage to resist the urge to mass murder other people on a daily basis. Playing violent video games not only does not increase the player’s aggressiveness; it also can act as a stress reliever at the end of the day. It actually decreases the likeliness that the player may commit a crime or do something violent since they are putting all their frustration into the game. Affordable forms of entertainment keep people inside and away from real crime and drugs. Other studies in Germany show that playing violent video games can be very beneficial to those who suffer from ADHD. It can be as effective as taking Ritalin, a medicine prescribed to those with ADHD, and can also lead to an increase in IQ and attention span. Even for the average youth individual, these graphic video games have many good sides to them; they help with fine motor and spatial skills, reward perseverance, and encourage problem solving. These games teach calculated risk taking, the importance of reading instructions and emphasise exploring and re-evaluating goals as situations develop. At the end of the day, if violent video games have that much of an effect on us that they could make us aggressive, we would all be running around to techno music and taking pills like Pac-Man. That, or we would be eating shrooms to gain magic powers like Mario. Violent video games have many more pros than cons and can actually aid the development of skills in youth players. The No-Zero Policy is a new policy recently implemented in many classrooms across Canada. Under this policy, students have the liberty to hand in assignments late and miss important tests without penalty. It also restricts teachers from giving students a zero on an assignment or test, even if appropriate. This is not something that I support.
Before recent years, students were required to hand in important assignments before the submission date had passed. If this was not completed as so, students would lose 10% of their total mark each day past the due date that the assignment was not handed in for up to three days, for a total of 30% off the assignment. Now, under the No-Zero policy, many students across the country are handing in assignments at the end of the semester rather than following the assigned due dates. This, of course, is with no penalty. Students are free to just not complete work until the last possible time without losing any marks. This does not teach students the skills they need for later in life, particularly time-management and prioritization skills. Following high school graduation, students are given the choice to either move onto post-secondary education such as college or university, or to jump right into the workforce. The No-Zero policy does not prepare students for these situations as secondary school is supposed to. In the workforce, bosses set submission dates for work. If the employee does not submit the work by that date, they are likely to lose their job or at least get a firm warning. The majority of professors in post-secondary education refuse to look at assignments if they are handed in past the submission date, let alone at the end of a semester. When students do not learn prioritization skills in secondary school, they are much more likely to do poorly after graduation. Students should be accountable for their own work and handing in assignments before the submission date has passed. If they have the chance to be accountable during secondary school, a time where they can correct their habits with little to no penalty, they will learn those necessary time-management skills. I strongly believe that set due dates in secondary school make a student learn to prioritize their time before it is too late. As for the zero part of this policy, teachers are restricted from utterly failing a student’s assignments and tests, whether completed or not. This is something I strongly disagree with as some assignments or tests truly do deserve a zero. If a student has not attempted to work on an assignment at all or has written a few sentences that have absolutely no relation to the assignment, then teachers should be allowed to administer a zero to that student. This just allows students to not do work or to totally wing it last minute with no penalty. This again does not prepare students for later on in life and teaches them that they are allowed to not do what is asked of them without penalty. In conclusion, I believe that the No-Zero policy should not exist as it does not teach students the correct skills they need in order to succeed later in life. In fact, I believe it sets the majority of students up for failure. Time-management and prioritization skills are not something that can be taught in a condensed period of time. The novel, Marked, by P.C. & Kristen Cast, was an alright read, in my opinion. The beginning of the book was very slow and uninteresting, with scenes that I think were unimportant. The only time it started to get interesting was near the end; I had to keep pushing myself to continue reading. The first major plot event happened around chapter twenty-three, where Zoey was testing out her powers for the 5 elements: water, fire, earth, wind, and spirit. It was extremely slow to start off and there was not anything that truly hooked me. I believe there was a lot of information added that was not truly needed for the growth of the novel. If I could change anything about the novel, I would definitely make it more interesting at the beginning, such as adding more surprising events. I would take out the scene where Zoey trips and blacks out, and her grandmother’s Cherokee ancestors try to contact her. At the end of the book, it did not seem important; hopefully it will be integrated with something further on in the series. As for now, it is just a filler in my opinion. The character development was okay; not extremely good, but not necessarily bad. I was quite confused about the characters at the beginning, such as Zoey’s friends from her high school (i.e. Kayla). I felt like either they were not needed in the plot or they were put under some seriously extreme personality changes based off the way they were acting. I always got the gist of an important character, though, which is probably the most important thing with character development. Overall, I would not recommend this novel. It didn’t interest me until the last few chapters, and I doubt it would interest others, as well. The plot was unique, but it was not enough to keep me hooked. Due to the fact that I read a lot, there are dozens of other books I’d recommend before this. I would not read Marked again.
*If button doesn't work: How To Deal with Mean People
|