So I’m sitting on my couch and my friend’s girlfriend decides to put on HBO because she wants to watch Pineapple Express. Now I’ve seen this movie before and it’s a decent movie, but i’ve never really listened to what they said. Within twenty minutes of watching this movie, I realized that the only way you can truly enjoy this movie is if you are smoking the same drug that the movie is criticizing. The premise, for those of you who have not seen it, is that there is a drug war occurring between “the Chinese” and one man (Ted something). Just drawing off the first movement in plot, there is an entire war between the entire Asian weed cartel and Ted. How Ted was able to create a drug stockpile large enough to rival the entire Chinese weed cartel is beyond me. Now after Seth Rogen finds out that Ted saw him witness the execution of a Chinese drug lord, Ted sends his hit men to go kill Seth Rogen and James Franco. They both figure out that the only connection between James Franco (Seth’s drug dealer) is a DIFFERENT drug dealer, some guy named Red. James Franco and Seth Rogen beat up Red. Now the fight scene that occurs is one of the most ridiculous ones I have ever seen. It’s literally impossible to describe the entire fight scene, but there are a couple of scenes that recap the absurd fight scene. It starts off with Red throwing a granite ashtray at Seth Rogen’s head. It hits him square in the face and then Seth decides that the best thing to do is run to the bathroom and hide. Somehow, Seth leaves the bathroom and then Red goes in. James Franco and Seth Rogen then break the door down and in the process of breaking the door down; slam Red’s head into a porcelain sink. The fact that neither Red nor Seth Rogen was knocked unconscious by either the ashtray or the sink is beyond me. The rest of the movie goes downhill from here. The hitmen end up shooting Red in the stomach twice, however he manages to live for at least 24 hours and then goes on to help Seth Rogen and James Franco break into Ted’s drug stockpile. Two men, both high out of their minds, manage to kill off the people guarding the warehouse. In the end, this movie satirizing the use of marijuana. It is just making fun of the common stereotypes people put on marijuana use. If you go into this movie expecting a legitimate story plot and actual humor, you will be disappointed.

Seeing as how our blogs are supposed to spark controversy and classroom violence, I figured it would be appropriate to express my opinions on gays in the military. Barry Goldwater said, “You don’t have to be straight to serve in the armed forces. You just have to shoot straight.” There are a number of points that are both for and against allowing gays in the military. My opinion is to allow them into the military. This is true for a number of reasons. The first is that we are currently fighting two wars, and to discharge people based of their sexuality is causing us to lose the battle. The February 2010 edition of The Economist reports, “More than 13,500 service members have been discharged under the policy, including much-needed Arabic and Farsi translators.” When we have discharged this many people from active service, especially personnel that serve a vital role in our exit strategy from Iraq, it’s clearly not a good idea. Second, is the fact that we label ourselves as a democratic nation, one that is supposed to be a beacon of tolerance. However, we are following a policy that discriminates against people that are of a certain sexuality? It is hypocritical for our nation to label itself a democratic republic when we do this. My third and final point is that we must look to what the general population wants. Seeing as how bills and amendments are debated and decided on by people that were elected to represent the people, we should look to what the people truly want. The same February 2010 edition of The Economist reports that the Gallup Poll stated that 69% of Americans say that openly gay people should be allowed to serve. When the people who decide on this policy are already being shown that close to 70% of the population think that gays should be accepted into the military, it becomes clear what the decision “should” be. Now I will acknowledge the opposing points on this topic Some people state that gays should not be allowed into the military because the straight members will be put into situations that decrease their ability to perform. However, this entire argument is based off of a false stereotype. For this argument to be true, every single gay would not only have to openly claim his sexuality, but also make sexual advances on his/her platoon members. Anyone who claims this to be true, is quite simply ignorant.

A few of my friends felt that the money should not go towards paying for this drug. They felt that the money should be spent on finding a cure for this terrible disease. My opinion is that we would need to select policy goals that are feasible. Finding a cure for cancer isn’t something that is going to happen in the foreseeable future. The government should not be spending their money on Erubitrux, but rather on different preventive measures. The Wall Street Journal article had an interesting chart that was explaining the different effects that smoking has on cancer. It showed that smoking causes 90% of lung cancers. It also causes a number of other types of going to be thinking that to say that is so immoral and unethical. The problem is that policy decisions aren’t supposed to be made from an emotional stand point. If we were elected to better uphold the people and spend taxpayer dollars, our decision shouldn’t be subjective and biased, it needs to be objective. So from an objective stand point, the money that is being spent on cancer drugs that prolong a patient’s life for only a month, society as a whole isn’t receiving anything. However, the Wall Street Journal article makes an interesting statement saying that for all the money spent on preventative measures, the US economy gains twice that amount. Therefore, I say Erubitrux is not what our dollars should be going towards, it would be towards preventing cancer.cancer, including kidney and bladder. The government should not be putting the money towards drugs that are going to prolong people’s lives by as little as a month or as long as a year. We need to realize that society isn’t going to be gaining anything by prolonging a cancer patients life by a month. Now when you first her this you’re going to be thinking that to say that is so immoral and unethical. The problem is that policy decisions aren’t supposed to be made from an emotional stand point. If we were elected to better uphold the people and spend taxpayer dollars, our decision shouldn’t be subjective and biased, it needs to be objective. So from an objective stand point, the money that is being spent on cancer drugs that prolong a patient’s life for only a month, society as a whole isn’t receiving anything. However, the CQ article makes an interesting statement saying that for all the money spent on preventative measures, the US economy gains twice that amount. Therefore, I say Erubitrux is not what our dollars should be going towards, it would be towards preventing cancer.

I’m from Long Island, New York. In new york it snows quite a bit, so to see 4-5 inches of snow isn’t that big of a deal. We would just throw on a snow jacket, wear some shoes with traction and be on your way. This morning I walked out of my dorm and saw people wearing pajama pants, 7 layers and Sperry Dock Shoes. To wake up to a sight like this was not only surprising but amusing. As I walked to Rams Head with some people to go get food, there were signs on the Rec Center explaining the new hours because of the “looming Snow Storm.” Last night I went to Bski’s for dinner after I finished studying in Davis. After my friend and I finished our delicious Skis, we headed to the P2P stop. Across the streets there was a line out the door of frantic students stocking up on supplies in fear of being snowed in by the ridiculous 4 inch snow storm. All across the UNC website there were constant up dates of new “snowstorm hours” for some of the different student facilities. I was inside the student store getting something to drink when I overheard some people talking with the cashiers. I assume the guy talking to them was a friend, or an overly confident northerner. He was just simply asking why they were closing half the campus when the most snow Chapel Hill could get is 6 inches. The only thing she said was that people in the south freak out about snow.

Now I don’t blame or criticize southerners for the way they handle snow. I understand that it is something that happens on a very rare occasion, but when you have grown up around snow, it is a funny thing to watch. I did, however, promise a friend of mine that I would make a point of saying that North Carolinians don’t like paying the tax dollars for snow equipment like plows. And while I do agree with him about that, it doesn’t change the fact that half the school basically shut down as soon as they heard the word “snow.”