My Night with Race-Music

Being a child of the late 20^th century, I’ve never personally seen any strong cases of racial bias or racism. The topic is commonly seen in the media and despite equality for all races in the modern world, is a thought on everyone’s mind at one time or another. For the most part, it seems like the media uses it as a “hook” in stories; they just attempt to use racism as a means of grabbing attention. However, there are people out there who actually still support racist beliefs. As my professor had pointed out, there are individuals who express their racist opinions by means of song. After hearing this, I couldn’t help but check out this “race-music”.
                 The very thought that one is superior to another because of their race or color is a preposterous claim based on no evidence whatsoever. It originated back when Europeans came to this country and found less advanced natives (lacking the technology that Europe had). I had always believed that the primary racist groups (the KKK, for example) essentially died out when this country made racism illegal. Apparently, this isn't the case, as the KKK’s website still exists. The main reason that they are able to do so legally is that they switched their message from one of hate towards other races to one of pride for their own. Upon doing more research, I discovered that the main way that they gain support isn't through direct recruitment, but rather through music.

The Deceptively Comforting cover
of a "Prussian Blue" Album

                Music is a powerful tool, proven time and time again to influence one’s opinions in amazing ways. I personally have developed many new ideas and shifted my opinions based on music that I’ve listened to. As my professor stated, race-music can take almost any form, but would be expected to take the form of some punk/rock genre. This would appeal to a younger generation of individuals who haven’t been entirely influenced by the media. As somewhat of an experiment, I made an attempt to listen to this music. Originally, I assumed it was going to be a horrible experience, but found myself surprised in a horrifyingly different manner.

                I’m a fan of music in general, with no opposition to any genre. Usually, I listen to punk/rock genres more than others, and as such, decided to dabble into the punk/rock based race-music available on the internet. I immediately stumbled into the heart of this music, searching on the KKK’s website for “white pride” music. The music, despite being claimed as pride music, was almost entirely dedicated to insulting other races. The themes included forcing other individuals out of America due to their skin color, and taking back the nation for “the white man”. Immediately, I wanted to stop the music. Through sheer willpower though, I managed to continue listening, and found myself actually enjoying the music for its rhythm and tone. After listening to a few of these songs, I was surprised at the fact that I was actually enjoying this music. It started to make sense that unaware teenagers and younger generations (assumedly who this music targets) would listen to this with little regret. It quickly became obvious that prolonged exposure to this music could allow hateful opinions to blossom in young minds.

The media’s portrayal of these groups is almost purely negative all the time. The first thing that stands out about these groups is their hate for other races; this is a direct result of media influence. In an article awhile back, I’ve read that there was a duo, known as "Prussian Blue" who sang songs promoting Nazism. The two members of the group were blond hair, blue eyed teenage girls who sang country hate music. They praised Hitler, and after listening to their oddly “comforting” soft music, I found myself more at-ease and analyzing almost everything to prevent falling under its spell. The media is correct for the most part when it comes to this dangerously intense genre of music. Using a comforting tone as opposed to a harsher one has the scary end result of luring listeners into a false sense of security.

Although the media’s interpretation of these forms of spreading ideas is constantly negative, there are bands in existence that simply spread pride messages. I agree that some of the music may come off as strong, and the majority of it actually is racist, but there are some groups whose goals are to express racial pride, not direct hate. Common examples of these are the black pride musicians of history, who sing of the hardships that they've overcome. I’ve listened to several of these songs, mainly falling under the genre of jazz/R&B. The tunes soothe the mind, while reminding the US that African Americans are equal individuals in every respect. Regardless of their message of peaceful pride, they are categorized under the genre of “race music” by the media. It seems somewhat wrong that a few these groups are attacked for spreading pride for their races and expressing their beliefs.

While the media accurately portrays the majority of “pride” groups, I truly don’t believe that all of these groups should be classified by their music. True, the KKK has expressed a message of pure hatred for other races through their songs, but other groups (such as “black pride” groups) have expressed pride instead. In all honestly, I see nothing truly wrong with singing of how proud your race or how great your own beliefs are. The only problem arises from the messages of hate which all-too-commonly accompany these pride messages. In the end, white or black, Christian or Atheist, we’re all American.

               

How to REALLY Read the NY Times

Being that I’m an electrical engineer, I tend to view most things in a straight manner. For the last three years of my attendance at RPI, I interpreted almost everything my professors had taught me as strictly black or white (either useful to my future or not). My entire perspective of the news changed, and I actually began to lost interest in the world around me. Taking this class, I expected to gain some respect for the media, and perhaps some new analytical skills. In the end, I never expected for the class to completely overhaul my perspective of the media.

                Upon entering this class, I expected an explanatory lecture with occasional analysis of the NY Times. Essentially, I thought that the professor was going to just show us a procedure involving reading the Times, and then test our knowledge of the procedure. Unexpectedly, the class took a unique turn: we reviewed current events and aspects of the media in great depth. The topics were incredibly diversified, ranging from reviewing the legitimacy of politicians/electoral campaigns, to the motives behind war and conflict worldwide. The class even reviewed less-specific events, such as evolution of gender-biasing.  

                I've always been somewhat gullible when it comes to information that I've been told. I've relied almost entirely on a small quantity of media networks (Yahoo.com and Fox News, primarily) for weekly information, and never really thought much about the news. Only now do I realize how blind I truly was. This class helped me to realize that most of my opinions were entirely lined up with the bias of the media which I watched. While that sounds obvious in retrospect, at the time I was almost completely ignorant of that fact, and just tended to take a stance that parallels the media bias. I've learned much: now, I don’t accept things as I first hear them. I find myself looking at every side of an argument, not just what I see in the media. The best way to elaborate on this would be with an example: consider the “Dark Knight” massacre in recent news. The media has not said much about the patient’s sanity, but I considered the possibility that he was insane immediately upon hearing the case. I knew for a fact that he was going to claim insanity as a defense, and my estimate was confirmed in headlines from a few days ago, stating just that.

“How to Read the NY Times” was a refreshingly intriguing experience. I enjoyed how in-depth my professor would go into the discussions, as well as how he constantly tried to communicate on a level which we all could relate. His discussions on controversial topics (inappropriate video games, marijuana legalization, etc.) had always managed to catch my eye. The professor constantly attempted to get the class involved, typically by gauging our reaction to a topic or by asking about our thoughts on it. There was almost never a dull moment in the classroom. I had very few dislikes about the class. I suppose one would be, without attempting to sound too much like a “suck-up”, that it was too short. There were definitely more than enough days to discuss much more material than we covered, but due to the common occurrence of the class/professor being caught up in a discussion, the class tended to not cover as many headlines as I would have preferred. Additionally, it seemed like some of the sections which I would have personally preferred to hear about weren’t always covered. Though not always significant, the tech/science sections of the news were rarely discussed in class. I find that somewhat disappointing, however, the lack of discussion encouraged me to read more from those sections on my own time. That, in turn, lead to a large portion of my entries revolving around breaking news in the tech/science community.

This class was a surprisingly pleasant change from typical humanities courses at this college. I’ve gained countless new perspectives on topics and ideas about situations. I find myself with the ability to clearly distinguish and analyze commercial media from non-profit media. I constantly critic and analyze advertisements now, as opposed to before when I was prone to developing a strong stance on something based on heavy media influence. I even find myself looking into the economic impact on the media, something which I’ve never even bothered to consider. Overall, this was quite an enjoyable class that has opened my mind to a world of possibilities.

Females in Video Games: Misrepresented or Misinterpreted?

The entertainment industry of today’s world is moving more and more towards a digital platform. Children of all ages, as well as some adults, are taking part in the digital entertainment revolution, where video games and fictional worlds reign supreme. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about violence in video games. In it, the violence in games is described, as well as the possible outcomes of the violence (i.e. corruption of younger minds that play them). Sometime later, I wrote another article about gender bias and how the media generally classifies women as inferior to men. It was not until now that I realize that the two articles could overlap to bring one major problem to light: gender bias in video games.

                As my professor stated in lecture, the classification of females is prominent in many aspects of video games. For example, in the “Grand Theft Auto (GTA)” franchise, women are portrayed as objects. They exist only to attract the gamer’s attention, and provide no actual sustenance to the game. The gamer is, thus, inclined to perform deplorable acts, such as murdering them or soliciting sex from them, simply because they can. I've thought in a similar manner when playing video games. I would never be able to do the majority of the things possible in that game in real life. Hence, when given the option to try it without hurting anyone or any consequence, I don’t really hesitate. It’s fun and entertaining to watch a “what if” scenario that would be otherwise impossible to witness. However, those too young to view these scenes (anyone under the age of 16 in my opinion) may not realize the distinction between reality and fiction.

In my video game article, I described a similar concept, where young minds don’t realize the difference between the real and the fictional. One must consider, though, what happens when something less obvious occurs. When children play games that portray women in a stereotypically degrading fashion, they are more likely to view them in that light. Similar to how one may not distinguish reality from fiction in violent games, younger individuals may not notice the difference between women in games and women in the world today. Obviously, women have equivalent rights in the world today. Portraying women as they once were seen (as objects) to younger minds will inevitably lead to biased views of women as inferiors.

In the textbook “Media and Culture”, a specific example of bias is used: a game known as “Red Dead Redemption”. The game follows a cowboy during the old western era in the US, taking place on the Mexican border. The article tends to describe the game as having no redeeming social value, and being on-par with GTA in its treatment/perspective on women. The game, though it does indeed tend to portray them in a negative manner, does so in an acceptable fashion. To elaborate, the game is highly consistent with the views and opinions of the world at that time. Women are seen as objects, but as most historians know, women were viewed as inferiors to men at that time. The game does not directly force you to kill a woman for fun. The book is incorrect in its description of forcing the player to “tie a woman to train tracks and wait for an oncoming train to kill her”. That instance is optional: something that the player can do of their own accord. They can still progress to the end of the story without doing it. The only motivation for completing this action is an achievement (something that Xbox players are familiar with), ironically titled “Dastardly”. As a side note, the achievement is reminiscent of the “dastardly” fiends in older western cartoons who do the same, and aren’t nearly as highly criticized.

If History had Achievements...

As stated above, the game takes place in an accurate western setting. The game itself has many redeeming social values. For example, the player is able to assist the sheriff of a town in capturing criminals, some of whom are based off of actual criminals known in that time. There are no Native Americans present in the game, but the main reason for this is that the game primarily takes place in Mexico, not America. Perhaps one of the most unique concepts is its take on the buffalo extinction in the area. The game actually has an achievement for killing every Buffalo in the “Great Plain” region, titled “Manifest Destiny”.

From the rating system, to other games, to countless cases of sexual harassment, the list of topics which can be reviewed to fuel the discussion on “underage gaming” is ever-expanding. The argument here is simple enough. Although the concept of women portrayed as objects in video games is obviously negative, historical games which do so cannot possibly be considered inappropriate. The only reason a game such as Red Dead would be inappropriate would be if it were sold to minors: an audience that the game wasn’t even designed for. When minors obtain games like these, they end up developing biased opinions. This is clearly seen in the recent NY Times article, where a gamer girl was harassed by her peers. While inappropriate games exist, the media should switch their focus from bashing the games themselves to bashing the stores that sell those games to minors. Simply regulating the flow of information, something which our government has been actively doing in other areas, would solve this issue in its entirety.

Move Over Flying Cars: Here Comes Hydroelectric Engines

For years, man has dreamed of cleaner, more efficient means of transportation. The dream, first, led to the idea of a flying car, similar to one seen in the cartoon “The Jetsons”. The flying car sparked worldwide interest, and inspired various individuals to construct a similar device. To this day, the search for a similar flying car continues, but to little avail. The search for this car, though not entirely successful, has sparked interest in others methods of clean transportation vehicles. One such vehicle is a water-powered car, an idea which a Pakistani scientist claims to have successfully developed.

                 The water-powered car is, as the name suggests, a car that has an engine which runs entirely off of water. The separation process of molecules of bound water produces energy, but until now, nobody has been able to successfully utilize the energy released. As with any ground breaking discovery, the claim is under speculation. If one recalls the Higgs-Boson Particle (God Particle) incident back about a month or so ago, they will understand what I mean. As soon as it was claimed that particles which were in existence during the Big Bang were discovered, people everywhere experienced mixed feelings of uncertainty and hope. This seems to be the case in any situation with a major discovery.

                In the article in the NY Times, the car is criticized highly. The author of this article, titled “Boast of Water-Run Car Thrills Pakistan”, claims that more evidence is required before anyone is to get excited about the car. The author describes the claims as “spectacular” and “violating ironclad laws of physics”. Despite this, the article seems to have taken the tech section by storm in the last few days. The very idea that a water-powered car has been created fills my mind with wonder and pure hope. I’ve always believed that anything can be accomplished if one sets their mind to it. This case is no different. The fact that this author agrees that the laws of physics are definitive and unchanging is frustrating. It has been proven time and time again that there are ways to defy physics. The boundaries set by physics exist only because mankind allows them to exist. As was said in my other article, “Touchdown Confirmed”, mankind’s greatest characteristic is its ability to question the known and the accepted. It is through this questioning that new ideas form, and hundreds of possibilities are revealed.

A model for a water-powered car

It seems clear that either this man is either going through an immense amount of effort to gain an excess of attention, or that his claims are accurate. The man went through the trouble of displaying his invention on live television, and allowed some unaffiliated individual to test it. He must be undergoing extreme stress, attempting to prove he has made a groundbreaking discovery to no avail. I, for one, believe in the man’s claim. In the past, despite the existence of numerous claims of a water-powered vehicle, not a single one was proven successful. This claim, however, was not only proven, but has been consistently made by the same man for over a month now. I suppose that until the invention is investigated, presumably within the next few weeks, we truly cannot know for certain.

The media continually bashes ideas which contradict the norm. When an idea or experiment that defies what we know arises, the media doesn’t typically stop to question the legitimacy of the claim. They automatically assume that it will fail, but imply that they will keep a somewhat open mind to the possibility. This case is no different: the media essentially believed that this was a falsified claim. The man in this story has been working for well over a month to show the world that his invention is a scientific feat. It was not until his experiment was shown in action publicly (multiple times) that the media even decided to glance in this man’s direction. This boundless skepticism of the media shows just how biased and stubborn it can actually be.

One must ask themselves why a man from a poor country would make a false claim about this. It doesn’t seem like the man is down on his luck: he’s maintained a job with local police forces, and has obtained a degree in mechanical engineering. True, the man is an unlikely source for such a substantial discovery to be made. In reality though, the majority of large discoveries have originated in the most unlikely of places. Back in the day, it was an accepted fact that the world was flat. About 50 years ago, it was an accepted fact that mankind would never make it to mars, let alone the moon. It’s obvious that accepted facts are only accepted because we accept them as they are. By refusing to question an idea, it becomes accepted. By questioning the accepted, not even the sky can limit us as a race. Always remember: the only impossible ideas are the ones which are abandoned.

The general accepted schematic for a Hydro-Electric Car's Engine

A Curious New Search for Life

In the last year, NASA has been planning future space exploration. With the cancellation of the shuttle program in the US, theories have risen, revolving primarily around the concept of NASA’s development of pod-like capsules which launch single passengers into space. Plans for a space elevator, capable of transporting large quantities of supplies into our atmosphere, have been released to the public. Additionally, perhaps their boldest move yet, they have announced the plans for man to land and settle on the moon in approximately 10 years. These groundbreaking announcements have only served to hype up the most recent in NASA breakthroughs: a rover on Mars.

The complex maneuvers required to land the rover

                NASA has been preparing their rover, nicknamed “Curiosity”, for its descent to the surface of the red planet. As an article in the New York Times states, this is the first time that Earth has successfully placed a mobile laboratory on the planet. The rover is tasked with the mission to search for carbon-based particles. Should carbon be found, it would serve to support the fact that life once existed on the planet. The mission is one of the most controversial ones, as there are a good number of individuals who claim that, at this time, it is a waste of money. This is simply preposterous.

                The search for extraterrestrial life and expansion of humanity to other worlds should a priority in these times. It has become evident that our population will continue to increase, exponentially, until natural selection eventually allows the rate of expansion to taper off. Regardless whether or not it tapers off, conditions on this planet will only get worse. Overcrowding, global warming, famine, water shortages, and mass deaths seem like the most probable outcomes in such a scenario. If humanity makes the effort to push civilization’s boundaries beyond that stars, we can lessen our harmful impact on the Earth.

                Stating the obvious evolutionary benefits of expansion of humankind into space may not, by itself, serve to convince some of the necessity of space exploration. There are those who, despite piles of evidence, do not believe in things such as global warming or evident overpopulation. Those individuals must realize that this is an achievement, beneficial to our country. Though this is an achievement for all of mankind, NASA’s involvement with the government in accomplishing this feat is a way of displaying leadership and dominance. The Cold War may have ended years ago, but the Space Race has not stopped; it has only slowed down substantially. Any country that can successfully conquer the final frontier will only expand its influence over the world. By successfully landing the rover, the US has proven its dominance, and shown (at least to some extent) that it can accomplish nearly anything this nation sets its mind to.
                The media’s coverage of this event has greatly exceeded my expectations. Being that this is a science/tech article topic, I expected, at most, an honorable mention in the New York Times. I expected the Times to view this as just another rover landing on the planet, as this is now the third rover to touch down on Martian soil. To my disbelief, the Times covered this story to the fullest extent, interviewing technicians and engineers at NASA, as well as describing in full the technique the rover used to land on the surface successfully. I’m pleased to see this, as the rover (powered by plutonium) will be running for years, possibly decades, to come. They even went as far as to describe the planned first mission for the rover, rightfully so. Thanks to the Times, and other well-accredited news sources, this great moment in world history will not be overlooked by the masses.

I’m well aware of the enormous amount of time, effort, and money that it takes to launch and land a rover on a foreign planet. It’s a ton of work, and in the end, if one wrong move is made, the rover could be destroyed. However, if mankind never dared to venture where no other creature has gone, the world as we know it would not have been documented. Had Columbus never attempted to venture beyond the horizon, the world would have remained flat in our eyes. The most distinguishing ability of humans is not their ability to use tools, or their advanced knowledge over others, but their ability to question the unknown. Indeed, it has been shown time and time again: one small step onto a new frontier can be a giant leap for mankind.

The Digital Age: A Flawed Disaster in the Making

The Digital Age has been reinventing the way that people in this world interact. In just 10 short years, people have moved on from using hulking machines that struggle to perform basic tasks. Research shows that the average American uses more than 30 different machines in a day. That number is projected to increase exponentially over the next 5 years. Eventually, the majority of tasks in the workplace will be given to machines. Knowing this, I can’t help but wonder how long until our current technology is so inefficient that we are forced to upgrade.

                In history, mankind made strides towards a much more automated future. In recent years, mankind has made leaps and bounds. As my professor stated early on this semester, there are plans to eliminate the use of paper for newspapers altogether. In a matter of years, the times will be distributed via data chip or direct download to tablets which subscribers can purchase. The paper is already available online, as well as on certain tablet/smart phone devices via apps. I understand that increasing accessibility is beneficial, but producing a tablet that will potentially end the paper as we know it may not be the best thing.

                I must revisit one of my previous articles: my review of the dark knight. The movie did a great job of reinventing the comic franchise, but the problem lies within the reinventing phase. The movie, as good as it was, had significant differences from the comics. Not only did it confuse some comic book fans by withholding some key ideas, but it also happened to alter how these characters are portrayed to the public. The original is always better, since any deviations from an original storyline are prone to error/plot-holes. In the case of evolution in media, the same can be said. As we move towards new innovative methods of communication, there will be flaws and issues. In order to overcome those flaws, more advanced forms of technology will be released. Those new forms of tech are almost guaranteed to have, if not eventually develop, flaws, and require replacement. This never-ending loop will prove to be a money sink in time.

                The technological advances in the world open new windows to much greater problems than flaws. Let’s consider the idea of a New York Times tablet which is commercially distributed to subscribers. The information is downloaded onto their tablets, where viewers can assumedly safely view it. However, in order for the Times to check if you are subscribed, there must be some identification on your tablet. There is virtually nothing but time separating your personal identification, as well as vital information, from hackers. As tech advances, so will man’s ability to manipulate it to their will, legally and illegally. It’s been done before, from using a simple virus on a single computer to bringing down a gaming industry’s servers (referring to Sony’s PS3 hacking incident). Regardless, it remains evident that it is much less plausible to hack into a physical paper then to hack into an electronic tablet.

With a book like this, hacking the media seems 

more like an inevitability than a possibility 

Computers aren’t as perfect as they may appear. This leads us to ask questions: what happens if the computer messes up one day, and doesn’t update? What if conflicting information is printed in the times unintentionally? If “spellcheck” accidentally changes one word in every instance to its opposite (“can” to “can’t” for example), the story could cause confusion. Chances are, in a more “advanced” world that relies on machines more, there would be a greater chance of mistakes occurring. Machines aren’t perfect; they can make mistakes just like us. If a mistake arose, it could potentially be more harmful than a human error though, as machines lack one thing that humans still have: judgment. Normally, a human would carefully examine the words and grammar after a computer had. If technology were to take over the business, we would be essentially leaving the task of media distribution entirely in the hands of our creations.

                If there is a problem in the world, scientists will work to solve that problem. Any technology that scientists and engineers create with the intention of solving a problem will actually serve to better mankind. If the problem at hand is faulty technology, the tech should be fixed; a newer model shouldn’t be released to solve the problem. Being an engineer, I’m not against the advancement of technology. However, I believe that the “revolutionizing” of the paper is something unnecessary and risky. Reading paper-based products has been a tradition for thousands of years now. The process of producing paper-based products has been brought to a near-perfect state. Revolutionizing the paper at this point would prove, inevitably, to be more trouble than it’s worth.

Marijuana: A Double Toke

As the 2012 decision date draws nearer, the presidential candidates have been arguing over controversial issues. Both candidates are doing whatever they can to gain support from the American people. Now more than ever though, the most controversial topic on the board for discussion is the legalization of marijuana. After seeing this topic appear in the news multiple times, as well as hearing my professor discuss it during lecture, I couldn’t help but revisit the topic.

                In my previous entry, I took an informative approach discussing the history of marijuana and it’s crippling by the media. I would like to elaborate on that this time around, as well as contribute something extra. In the recent election, marijuana legalization has been a primary issue, as was stated previously. The primary reasons for this can be contributed to multiple sources. The medicinal marijuana business would help our economy, contributing massive pools of income. The herb, though it would be hard to regulate and detect in one’s body instantaneously, has been proven to be the cause of a near-zero quantity of deaths. Just knowing these facts, one can only assume that the executive decision has not been made at the current time. In reality, however, the media has been completely diluting the idea of legalization with corrupt undertones.

President Barack "Choom" Obama

                The idea that the media is corrupt is a comment one may humorously assume came from a “hippie”. People want to have faith in their government, and want to believe that the media is telling the entirety of the truth. However, the media’s corruption is all too real. A few weeks back, a story arose describing how President Barack Obama had been an avid marijuana smoker for years when he was a child. He would actually go around his hometown calling his small group of friends “The Choom Gang”, choom being a term used to describe pot smoking. The article was the center of attention for almost a full week, and then almost seemed to fade away into non-existence. Can one really assume that people lost interest in the fact that our president used to smoke, and continues to support pot legalization? Of course not; look at all of the forums on the internet concerning marijuana. There are thousands of references on these sites to the now-public story of the Choom Gang, describing how marijuana supporters should rise up and seek legalization. As the election draws closer, the legalization may become a reality.

                “The opinions of the masses aren’t properly expressed in the few leaders of our nation in this case.” If that statement was false, there would not be such an active push for the legalization at this time. To me, it seems like a revolution is happening, which will improve the state of this nation. So much of the government’s money is pooled into the “necessary” war on drugs. Drugs, in general, are not good. However, when something less addictive and harmful than caffeine is illegalized, something is not right. The only public instances describing the “dangers” of marijuana occurred within the last few months. The recent mass-murder of 12 individuals in a movie theater by James Holmes is looked upon as one of the most tragic events in US history. The media, though it had plenty to report on, decided that it would be better to express the fact that Holmes was an avid pot smoker, only briefly stating that he was also taking a cocktail of other drugs in addition to that. This information was drawn directly from articles in both the NY times and yahoo.com. Simply knowing that the media has that much pull over the uneducated masses strikes me as terrifying.

                In reality, I’ve found that the media tends to cover the entire story for any article which will support long-accepted ideas. The idea that pot is evil has long been the norm, while actually multiple celebrities and successful individuals support it. For example, Michael Phelps, a long-time supporter of marijuana, has just won his 19^th gold medal in this year’s Olympics. It didn’t cause his hair to fall out, or his body to shrivel to nothingness. In a recent interview with Jimmy Chong, another supporter of medicinal marijuana, Chong claims that he was able to fight back his cancer by controlled use of the herb. He stated, additionally, that in order for President Obama to secure the youth vote in this country, he (the president) would have to legalize pot. Looking at the legalized scenario, the benefits far outweigh the detriments.