Author: adviser

In 2016, the iconic Canadian rapper Drake released his fourth studio album, titled Views, with the top charting song “Hotline Bling” serving as the lead single. When the music video and the single were released in 2015, Drake witnessed some intense meme-age and publicity. The psychedelic neon lights in the living room sized cube was something brand new and exciting many had not seen before–only, they had seen it before. And so have many others. As any art fanatic like myself may know, the famous modern artist, James Turrell, featured his groundbreaking studies of light, color, and space at LACMA in 2010. En lieu of Turrell being known for his vivacious presence in the art world, he is now known as the sole influence behind Drake’s music video.

When accusations of copyright arose, the director of the music video said that any connection between the video and the artwork was “merely accidental” and there was no intention of content theft. But, in an interview, Turrell said that Drake “honored [his] work and [Turrell] was flattered by that,” and continued to say that he has in fact “enjoyed a lot more attention since [he] got involved.”

Previous to the release of the album, Drake visited LACMA in 2014 and was accompanied by Rolling Stone. In their trip to the museum, Drake told the magazine that Turrell “was a big influence on the visuals for [his] last tour.” Turrell and the rapper even took time out of their adventure to meet, and Drake was photographed inside one of the artist’s famous light boxes. In the end, both artists came to a mutual conclusion. Turrell stated “While I am truly flattered to learn that Drake F’s with me, I nevertheless wish to make clear that neither I nor any of my woes was involved in any way in the making of the Hotline Bling video.”

However, I personally think that Turrell was robbed of full credit and did not get his rightful piece in the collaboration. In the matter of artistry, there is and always will be a fine line between what is plagiarized and what is inspiration.

Many of us Poly students have not been aware of one of the most important resources that we have here at Poly. The Care Center has helped many students through high school with any of the issues that they might have. Such as problems at school or at home And having someone who will listen if you just need someone to talk to. If you may not know, the Care Center will be shut down by next school year and Mr. Gray, counselor, will no longer be here; the students will no longer have a safe place to go to. I personally think the Care Center is necessary for those of us who may not have someone to talk to at home. Bottling things up can lead to severe mental health problems, which the school is ignoring by shutting down the center. It seems as if the school could care less about the mental and emotional health of its students. The school invests so much in athletes and the PACE program but cut something that everyone in the school can benefit from. In my opinion, the school should keep this program because many students need it. They might not admit to it because they might be embarrassed, but everyone needs someone to talk to sometimes. Many students have made very good friends in there and they find comfort in knowing they have safe space on campus. I wish people would think about the well-being of others more often. Mental health should be prioritized and spoken about freely and shamelessly. It’s normal to feel these things and if you are in this position you should be able to get a hold of help no matter the time or place. By taking the Care Center away, students are being stripped of things they might need, so we should do everything we can to help them and to keep the Care Center open.

“Wait, you’re vegan? Why?” Simple. Because I don’t want to be a part of the hurt and distress that animals have to endure for the human population’s selfish wants. “Don’t you miss bacon?” No I do not. I haven’t had meat of any kind in four years and I’ve survived so… “I bet you cheat sometimes.” Are you undermining my willpower because you’re incapable of standing against something so strongly? “Lions eat meat!” True, this has been observed first-hand on the plains of Africa. Lions and other wild animals are natural carnivores whereas humans are not and therefore the wild animals have no option but to eat meat since they would die without it. Humans, however, can survive without it and we would actually be healthier. Arranging the claim that lions and other non-human animals eat meat as a defense of meat-eating among human beings is a classic example of the assumption that anything that occurs in nature is therefore morally justifiable.

“How come you don’t feel bad about killing plants. They have feelings too.” I have heard about a scientific study of researching whether plants actually have feeling, but somehow no particular scientist, university, or institution is ever mentioned in association with it. Were the results of this study peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal? When you can tell me this, please get back to me. Oh, and did you know that 70 percent of all agriculture is used for the production of the meat you eat? So actually you’re killing more plants than me. “The Bible says we should eat meat.” If you’re going to use holy writ to justify killing and eating animals, then you place yourself in the highly unenviable position of having to accept such justification from others who use the same text to excuse and rationalize slavery, murder, rape, genocide, animal and human sacrifice, and a host of other divinely sanctioned obscenities.

Now let us overlook the common responses to otherwise foolish comments and let’s talk about the facts. Vegan living often reduces the intake of saturated fat, animal hormones, and cholesterol while increasing the intake of fresh fruits and veggies. That has the potential to reduce the risk of cancer, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. A study done by Nobel Prize winner Elizabeth Blackburn found that a vegan diet caused more than 500 genes to change in three months, turning on genes that prevent disease and turning off genes that cause cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Going back to the fact that majority of agriculture is used for the meat industry, the amount of grain fed to livestock in the U.S. alone could feed about 840 million people, roughly eleven times the number of people who die of starvation every year according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Producing a single pound of beef, for instance, requires sixteen pounds of grain. One pound of pork requires six pounds of grain and for every sixteen ounces of edible chicken flesh that is produced, at least five pounds of innocent plants must lose their lives. We’ll leave aside for the moment that these figures represent an egregious, immoral, and unsustainable misappropriation of the world’s dwindling natural resources and we’ll concentrate instead on the issue of suffering, which is of such great concern to the many meat-eaters who are convinced that vegans bear the responsibility for inflicting pain and misery upon innocent fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and tubers.

The misery and suffering of the tens of billions of animals raised and slaughtered for food every year are multiplied by hundreds of orders of magnitude if one accepts the claim that plants, as well as animals, possess consciousness and therefore suffer when they are harvested.

Eating plants causing them to suffer is a proposition that has never been demonstrated in a controlled scientific experiment, despite the numerous efforts of scientists to determine the legitimacy of so-called “primary perception”. It’s time we recognize that the “Plants have feelings, too!” argument is a feckless attempt to undermine the ethical basis of veganism with pseudo-science and bad logic. That being said, while a lot of people have so much to say about a topic they know nothing about, we vegans are not only watching out for animals but we’re also looking out for ourselves and most importantly the world we live in.

Your argument is invalid but by all means go ahead and say something else.

The world we live in currently is riddled with stereotypes.

Gender reveals are waiting around to see the color blue for boy or pink for girls and full of excitement. But why can’t it just be the other way around? Blue for girls and pink for guys. Sounds weird doesn’t it? For Pete’s sake we are in 2018 people! You see guys doing things that are traditionally feminine and wearing clothes that a girl would; you see women wearing clothes that were traditionally for men and doing things guys would do. We all grow up with this stereotype of the whole pink and blue since as long as we can remember, learning from parents, teachers and any other “mature” figure.

There isn’t anything wrong with a guy wearing a pink shirt, and there is not anything wrong with a girl that likes to skate. It seems that mostly men are targeted by the stereotype. It’s completely normal for a girl to wear jeans; but any male would be shamed for wearing a dress, even though skirts were originally considered masculine.

A man wearing a dress doesn’t always necessarily mean he is gay, and that goes for females who dress in  masculine manner. That is often the first assumption that one usually goes to when they see a male or female wearing or doing something that corresponds to their opposite gender.