lpahomov

What the Flint is Going on Here?

February 25, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Staff Writer: Arielle Moore

In the last couple of months, there have been some incredibly disturbing images coming out of the city of Flint, Michigan. The orange particle-infested water has been all over the covers of magazines and newspapers. Due to this, there has been one question on people’s minds: Is that water really coming from people’s drains to drink and use?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. This issue has been a stain on the small city for close to 2 years now, when the decision to use untreated water from the Flint river was made in 2014. As a result, the water corroded the lead pipes of Michigan’s water system and therefore resulted in a toxic concoction flowing from the faucet.

Even now, citizens of Flint are still being taxed one of the highest rates in the United States for their poisonous water which many would agree is an undeniable crime. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver plans to execute her mission to replace the city’s corroded pipes in an attempt to produce clean water sometime next week. In the meantime, many people have contributed their time and resources in order to provide bottles and jugs of clean drinking water to the people suffering.

In a city within the United States you would think the lack of clean water would even be an issue, right? Exactly. You wouldn’t. People would argue that a “first-world country” shouldn’t be dealing with such a thing as this since we have access to the resources and more than enough exports for such necessities. This is true-to an extent. While the change managed to save Flint a considerable amount of money, it came with many harmful effects.

So, is this something we should be worried about in Philadelphia? Even though Flint citizens have visual proof of the contamination in the water, studies show that there is an undeniable amount of lead in our water supply. The reason being our aging pipes and our inability to replace them has had some noticeably dangerous outcomes that have been reflected in the blood tests taken by some Philadelphian citizens. The growing number of infected residents poses great threats to those who have no idea what is really in their water supply. It also causes people to demand stricter regulations on what comes from the tap.

What do you think? Do you think this issue could have been prevented? How should the government handle the situation?

Image source: http://www.dogonews.com/2016/1/20/the-water-crisis-in-flint-michigan

White Privilege II

February 25, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Staff Writer, Michaela Peterson

Image Curtsy of whiteprivilege2.com

On January 21, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis released their new single “White Privilege II. In the track, Macklemore talks about being a white man and ally in a culture that was created to allow the voices of the oppressed to speak.

In the media and especially online, there has been an almost violent reaction to the song. Several people have praised Macklemore for talking about his privilege, and for acknowledging its existence, including DeRay McKesson, a civil rights activist, who said in a series of three tweets “Macklemore didn’t discover white privilege, y’all. & in this song he isn’t purporting to say he did. Macklemore is not a hero, a savior, or a prophet for discussing white privilege. & he is not saying he is. & you shouldn’t either. Does it go far enough? Perhaps not. But I’ll never accept that changing minds is not disruptive.” Others say it’s hypocritical for him to call out other artists for their access to opportunity as white, but not himself.

When the song first came out, it didn’t really pay much attention to it. I saw posts about it on Facebook, but I didn’t pay them any mind. But, after the 17th or 18th post I saw, I wanted to know why everyone was talking about it. So I went on Youtube, and listened.

After checking the track out for myself, I understood why people were talking. Macklemore is known for writing songs about social justice issues, but I think this is the most confrontational song I’ve heard from him. The majority of the songs he has written, even if the subject content was a serious one, are upbeat and sweet. This one, however, is different.

From the very beginning it is uncomfortable and introspective. This was the part that has resonated most, especially with the white majority of Macklemore’s audience, myself included. The first verse begins with: “Pulled into the parking lot, parked it/ Zipped up my parka, joined the procession of marchers/ In my head like, “Is this awkward?/ Should I even be here marching?”/ Thinking if they can’t, how can I breathe?/ Thinking that they chant, what do I sing?/ I want to take a stance cause we are not free/ And then I thought about it, we are not “we”.”He talks about what it’s like to be white and support the the Black Lives Matter movement, and where our place is in a fight that’s not our own.

There have been very mixed reactions to the song, from both the white and the black community. Many people, both white and black, are praising Macklemore for talking about this. However, that is where the unity of the two groups ends. There are, of course, white people complaining about the song, saying that white privilege doesn’t exist and that Macklemore is an idiot Social Justice Warrior, but that is always to be expected.There are also black people who are saying that this song, in and of itself, is an example of white privilege.

Macklemore has addressed is white privilege in the past. It is also important to note that this is a follow-up song. The first “White Privilege” was released by Macklemore in 2005, long before he had any sort of spotlight pointed at him. This first song is an answer to many critics claims that while he talks about other people’s cultural appropriation, he doesn’t talk about his own. The main point that “White Privilege” makes is that white people, himself included, are gentrifying hip-hop. While it may be a little presumptuous of Macklemore to assume that everyone who listens to “White Privilege II” will look up “White Privilege” on youtube, it is there. The song wouldn’t be call “White Privilege II” if there wasn’t a first.

I asked junior Kwame Johnson about the song, since it was his post online the got me to listen to the song. When I asked him about his original reaction to the song as a person on the opposite side of white privilege, he said, “I really liked it. He called out other rappers, other artists who culturally appropriate black culture like, Iggy and Elvis.” Johnson also mentioned an appreciation for Macklemore’s willingness to talk about an issue he could easily avoid.

I asked Johnson about the fact that Macklemore acknowledges other people’s privilege, but not his own. Johnson was unconcerned about this.

“I feel like he knows he what he’s doing. He is knows he’s appropriating black culture. I’ve seen interviews with him, how he recognizes his white privilege and how he understands his place in rap,” said Johnson.

I did try to find a voice for the opposite side of the argument. The one that says Macklemore is a hypocrite and just wants attention before his new album drops. The thing is, I couldn’t find anyone with that opinion within SLA’s walls. I don’t know if that is because they feel outnumbered by the majority, or if they simply want to be left alone.

In the end, “White Privilege II” is hard to ignore. The song it’s diverges greatly from anything else Macklemore and Ryan Lewis have released together. While they have commented on some heavy topics with their music before, “Same Love” being the best example, they have never openly commented on such a politically volatile issue with their music. The song is dark and purposefully uncomfortable. While it isn’t the best song in the world, it achieves what it set out to do. It starts conversation and, in the end, gives black activist, poet, and singer Jamila Woods and the Black Lives Matter movement the last word, which is the way it should be.

SLA Girls Basketball Has a Bright Future Despite Loss

February 15, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

On Friday, Jan 8th the SLA Girls Basketball team took on a Philadelphia school district rival in Central High School. The game ending in a crushing defeat where the SLA girls were only able to put up 25 points.

The girls had optimism going into the game despite the absence of their captain and starting point guard Allison Kelly. Freshman, Stephanie Deangelis, took Kelly’s place and put on quite a show.

It was evident from the start of the game that despite her rookie status Deangelis was immediately considered the anchor of the team. Even veteran and Senior Bella Beato had complete trust in her when swarmed by a Central defense. Despite the loss Millwood still had optimism for her team moving forward.

“[The game] was okay, we just have to move the ball better and get less turovers.” Deangelis said.

The game was also Deangelis’s first as a starting point guard with Kelly an absentee. With Kelly graduating this year it was a hopeful sign that Millwood was able to fill her shoes in such a manner.

There are always improvements to be made and Stephanie Deangelis knows that. After the game she was ready to critique her own performance as well.

“I though [my performance] was pretty good, there were some shots that I could work on. It was a different experience [leading the team without Kelly].” Deangelis said.

Hopefully SLA Girls basketball will continue to improve as it has been a bright spot in SLA sports in the past.

Locker Talk: What was the dumbest thing you did when you were a kid?

February 8, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Aidan Williams, Staff Writer

“I threw my friends phone over the Sth st bridge into Penn Park while the Penn relays were going on. We couldn’t get in because the relays were going on, so we had to ask people for tickets. It turned out that I threw the phone into a restricted section for runners only, and we spent a long time trying to get in. Eventually we convinced them to let us in.”

“I was in South Africa. I was in the safari and the tour guy had said, “Don’t put your hands out of the jeep.” I put my hand out of the Jeep. What I didn’t realize was that there was a lion right there. I freaked out and screamed, and that scared the lion off.”

“One time, I was in North carolina and there was a small scooter. There was also a trampoline, and I decided I was gonna take the scooter on the trampoline and do some tricks. I was doing tricks on the trampoline, and my mom told me not to, but I did anyways. Low and behold, I was on the trampoline with my cousin doing tricks. I jumped, and the bottom swung around, hit my cousin in the face, and then bounced back and hit me.”

“I used to eat lotion.”

“Me and my sister were fighting one time, and I got really mad, and I threw a plastic cup at her. She was standing in front of a mirror, and she ducked. I shattered the mirror. My mom got another mirror. I did it again.”

“Here’s one I was quite pissed about in elementary school. There’s these kids, and they’re all having each other draw in each other’s yearbooks. I drew a mustache on someone’s favorite teacher, and I got in so much trouble for it. They wanted me to pay for this kid’s year book, and this kid bought the premium edition, which was like 40 bucks. It turned out the teacher had cancer. So, not wanting to pay for the yearbook, I lied and said my friend did it. He got in trouble often, so they believed me. Let me say, I never paid any money.”

Editorial: Free Speech in Schools

February 8, 2016 by lpahomov Leave a Comment

Aidan Williams, Staff Writer

Free speech is a term that gets thrown around quite a bit today, but we feel as though many people don’t entirely understand it. During the controversy of the “Draw Muhammad,” competition, a competition in which participants were challenged to draw the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in the most offensive way possible, many people participating in the competition stated that any response from Islamic protesters was “An attempt to silence free speech, as granted to us in the first amendment.” The protests were not an infringement of free speech. The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech granted by the government and federal powers. It does not guarantee safety from protests and reactions from private groups and other people. While the people who responded to the competition were not justified in using violence, the participant’s right to free speech was in no way infringed upon. Does it work the same way in school?

This question is relevant to a recent incident at Central High School. According to Michael Moroz held an unpopular opinion on the death of Michael Brown, and voiced it in an incendiary manner, calling Michael Brown “A delinquent,” who was “Justifiably killed.” Whatever his purpose, backlash was inevitable. Were the death threats? Criminal Threats, the act of intentionally placing someone in fear of death or injury, is a criminal offense. However, they are very common in a situation like this. Moroz believed that Michael Brown was a thug, and many disagreed with him so wholeheartedly that they were willing to break the law to stand up for their beliefs.

However, more surprising than the article itself, was the school’s decision to take down the article, which, in a public school, is, theoretically, an infringement of free speech. As federal employees, teachers and administrators of a public school have a responsibility not to silence citizens. However, does this apply to students? A supreme court ruling stated that, because a school newspaper becomes a representation of the school, “Articles in the school paper that were counter to the educational mission of the school were subject to censorship.” However, is Moroz’s opinion counter to the educational mission of Central High School? What is CHS’s official reason for censoring the article?

Ultimately, constitutional rights are very vague for students, which paves the way for the censorship of unpopular opinions. While we don’t believe it was the school’s intention to silence Moroz, we think that he was silenced with very little reason. Unless it was his decision to take the article down, we don’t think the article should have been taken down, no matter how incendiary it was.