Disjointed Opinions

I was a little hesitant when picking a show for my viewing this week. I ended up watching the show Disjointed. Disjointed is a show that is all about selling cannabis and the film producers use a handful of old styled cigarette and pot ads that are intertwined within the show just like they would have shown up in old the network series. I thought that this would be a good show to write about this week because the legalization of marijuana is a controversial subject.

It is a standard multi-camera show. There is a studio audience that has a laugh track in the background. A laugh track is where jokes are told that lean on the predictable side of things for example: there are so many jokes about stoners being out of it. These remarks are basic and do not add anything important to the show. For example: In the first few minutes of episode 1, Jenny (an Asian-American employee at Ruth’s Alternative Caring), introduces herself to camera with: “Hey, I’m your token Asian.” The theme of Disjointed is basically a montage of:  “When we get high, we also go low.”

The conflict between Ruth (the main character) and Travis (Ruth’s son) erupts within the first few episodes. Just like the average mother and son have arguments, so do Ruth and Travis. The two argued over how to run and promote “Ruth’s Alternative Caring”. This is controversial because it brings up the issue about how different age groups use marijuana. Even though “Ruth’s Alternative Caring” has a variety of herbs and edibles that people can choose from, Ruth has a tough time comprehending why millennials have made marijuana a normalized drug. Travis comes to this issue with a different view point. Travis sees “Ruth’s Alternative Caring” as a prospective profitable business with the same potential to make money as any other enterprise.

The legalization of recreational marijuana is controversial nationwide and has been legalized in some states, like Colorado, but not others. The states that have legalized it have rationalized this decision by contributing tax money brought in by weed revenue, back to the community programs and public school systems. As well as the money saved on the law enforcement aspect of it as they do not have to jail petty drug offenders. The health benefits or lack of a shown detriment to your health also contributed to the decision to legalize.

On the flip side some state have not yet “caught onto” this trend. The first and foremost reason is that on a federal level, it's still illegal. If President Donald Trump wanted to send in federal marshals to Colorado tomorrow, he could do that and they could shut down all the weed dispensaries. Besides that many states are still very conservative and the public opinion/social norm on weed is negative. They also argue the health risks; Marijuana is technically a Schedule 1 drug. That is the same category that cocaine and meth are in. It is looked upon as harmful to your body, or a gateway drug at the least.

Disjointed

One of the most controversial topics that I can think of that has influenced the last few decades is the debate over the use of marijuana. In the beginning of debate in America, most arguments focused on the morality behind it all: could we as a country allow people to legally use a drug that had such a strong influence on their mental state?

To this day, not very much research has been conducted on the concrete effects of marijuana use. Studies are being conducted, but there needs to be a larger amount of years studied before we can draw conclusions about its benefits or negative effects on us.

The “weed debate” is a current issue that affects everyone, but it is specifically important to the millennial generation. Our parents grew up in the 60s and 70s when marijuana culture was just beginning to find its place in society. Now, the drug has a very devoted following, and has been legalized (for medical use) in 29 states. In fact, recent studies show that 61% of Americans support the legalization of marijuana. This presents us with the two groups that surround this issue: those who support the legalization of marijuana and those who do not.

Personally, I stand for the legalization of marijuana. I don’t have any true reason to oppose it, and I don’t think that it is the government’s place to regulate its use. Thus when I discuss the various social issues brought up in the Netflix Original Disjointed, I will be addressing my arguments to those who stand against the legalization of marijuana.

Disjointed is a new Netflix show about “Ruth’s Alternative Healing”, a cannabis shop in Los Angeles. The owner of the shop, Ruth Whitefeather Goldman, campaigned her whole life for the legalization of marijuana, and once it was granted, she opened her own dispensary. Other characters in the show include her son and business partner Travis, who recently graduated with an MBA, a security named Carter who suffers from PTSD due to his time in Vietnam, and three “bud-tenders”, each with their own complex reasons for coming to work at the shop.

The show paints marijuana use in an extremely casual light, and often shows the employees smoking on the clock. It also emphasizes the medical benefits and emotional relief that marijuana can provide. Unfortunately, Disjointed shows Ruth, the owner of the dispensary, as unwilling to expand her business or consider smarter business plans. This plays into the stereotype that marijuana users are lazy, which prevents the show from altering the opinion of those who oppose marijuana.

Even people who are opposed to the recreational or medical use of cannabis can learn a few things from this show. First, many weed users are seeking the calming effects of marijuana, and not just wanting to get “high” for fun. In the first few episodes of the show, we see a housewife who’s struggling with feelings of stress and discontentment. After “medicating” (smoking marijuana) at Ruth’s Alternative Healing, she feels much calmer and satisfied with her life.

We also see a consistent character in the show, Ruth’s security guard Carter, struggle with his PTSD. He does not smoke marijuana, but the show seems to suggest that if he did, he might be able to calm some of the nervous feelings that he experiences.

I think that that the view of “normal” people smoking marijuana is very beneficial in expressing that not everyone who smokes marijuana is a lazy, free-riding hippy with no respect for the laws of our country. The fact of the matter is, regular people use marijuana for a variety of different reasons, and Disjointed does a good job of showcasing that. While the show has its faults, it goes a long way in normalizing the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana.

In the end, do I expect this show to change your mind about current drug laws in this country? No, I don’t. I don’t think its message is strong enough to do that (nor is it trying to be). But, I hope that through watching this show, you might disregard the stereotypes that typically surround cannabis users. Those stereotypes are neither helpful nor true, and shouldn’t be a factor in the debate over the legalization of marijuana.

The Choice Between Two

While watching Bojack Horseman, I started reading online what people thought about the show. One opinion that had almost split sides was who Diane should be with; Bojack or Mr. PeanutButter. I think that Diane needs to stay with Mr. PeanutButter and not Bojack. While I thought this was an opinion shared by the whole community, I realized that it isn't and it's time to share my thoughts as to why.

Whenever one thinks about Bojack Horseman, nothing but negative thoughts come to mind. As stated in my previous blogs, he's only ever cared about himself. He doesn't care if something bad happens to those around him, as long as he's okay, everything else is okay. However, when it comes to Diane, he assumes that they had something together. However, she loves Mr. PeanutButter and Bojack should have respected that. However, Bojack purposefully tries to take her away in different forms, and that isn't okay. Regardless of if Bojack likes Mr. PeanutButter or not, he still has to respect the idea that Mr. PeanutButter and Diane want to be together. They're even married. However, Bojack sees that they're struggling in their marriage and he tries to take advantage of this.

While some might say that Mr. PeanutButter and Diane don't belong together because he doesn't care enough about her, I disagree. Not only does he push her to follow her dreams, he also tries to do everything he thinks would make her happy. While he isn't always 100% correct, he still tries to make it work. Mr. PeanutButter cares abut her, and if Bojack had his way, he'd take Diane and then forget all about her, leaving her truly alone.

Bojack has already had two different girlfriends, and on both occasions, he uses them to get what he needs. It's never about them and what's good for them. It's always about how he feels. Bojack is a danger for all the people around him because he fails to deal with the responsibilities of his actions, To Bojack, everything he does is correct, even when he kissed Diane. He ruined their friendship, nearly ruined his friendship with Mr. PeanutButter, and still failed to understand that.

Overall, it's better for Bojack to not be with Diane, and for Diane to be with her husband, Mr. PeanutButter.

Seeking for Advanture or Living a leisurely life?

Another week to choose an episode to write my blog. This week, unlike other blogs which I have written before, I am going to write a blog about a specific scene in the movie which contains two different opinions. Everybody will think that cartoon cannot have any two opposite viewpoints because it only focuses on one typical aspect. However, if the viewer only pays attention to a general plot of the episode without focusing on every detail, he or she cannot recognize a hidden angle which a cartoon has. In this blog, Dragons: Race to the Edge episode 4 season 1 will be my primary choice because in overall, people will think that this cartoon does not have anything to mention, but actually it does. This scene may not play a role in conveying the main plot of the episode, but it is a highlight of the whole movie. When Hiccup figures out a dragon eye is a new map which leads his gang to a new adventure of finding a new land and new dragon species, he right away goes to the Council asking for a permission. However, the Council does not allow him to seek an adventure because they are afraid that he will bring trouble to Berk. Three years living in peace, the Council does not want to relate to any problem. I think the Council's decision is acceptable to adults who want to stay out of the mess. Adventuring the whole life, fighting bad guys, killing many dragons, they have the right choosing retirement. Avoiding the danger and enjoying the peaceful life are the wonderful reward for the bravery and dedicated warrior just like the members of the Council. However, the Council is all Vikings, and the Viking is not an ordinary warrior. They are more than that. They are all sons of Odin, a mighty and powerful god in the Norse Myths, and the sons of Odin never stop seeking an adventure for any reason. Therefore, it is not right, on the other words not acceptable for the Viking to rest and live a leisurely life. Based on the spirit of the Viking, the chief of Berk, Hiccup's dad, gives an example of his and all the members of the Council's adventures to persuade the Council allowing his son to discover a new land. At the end, the Council has to agree with the chief's decision and approves Hiccup to go. The opposite opinions in this scene are one chooses to live in leisurely life and one wants to seek adventure. However, we have to look at the reality that the Council cannot apply their thought to a young person who wants to explore new things like Hiccup. A young person is similar to a baby bird. They only grow up when they leave their home to seek for adventure. At that time they will gain more experience and will grow up day by day. I think both options all have an acceptable purpose. The Council wants Berk to be safe and peaceful. Hiccup also wants good things to happen to Berk by finding a new frontier and new dragons. Because I also a young teenager who love travel and explore mysterious things, I will approve Hiccup to pursue his dream. Furthermore, if anyone wants to reject my judgment, they have to prove that the map is totally fake and there is no such thing called new continent and new dragon species.

Shows always used advanced technology?

The Killing. The Killing is a 2011 Netflix original about a homicide cop who is trying to move but gets caught up in another murder case. 2011 really wasn’t that long ago, we had almost all of the technology we do today. We had smartphones, impressive laptops, flat screen TVs, and the newest iPad. So, the question is why did Netflix put so much effort into making this show look like it was filmed in the late 1990s to the early 2000s? Because, if you have seen it you would know how old this show looks.

When watching the first season of The Killing it becomes apparent that either this show was filmed some time before it was aired on Netflix or that they put more effort into making it look as if the show is older than when they filmed it. Starting with the equipment they use as props. In many of the scenes you are shown old flip phones, old box TVs, and laptops that, in comparison to the ones we have now, are huge.

In one scene the main characters are interrogating a suspect and they need to show a video. They wheel in an old box TV with a combination DVD and VHS player. Those aren’t produced anymore. To be fair, VHS tapes were made up until 2015 but by 2011 most people only used DVD players because VCR players were discontinued in 2002. So, to have this giant TV and VCR player shows just how outdated this show was becoming even as they were filming it. Plus that isn’t the only time these are seen by the audience, making it seem that they are more widely

While they were using a DVD for the video, in another scene they are reviewing a piece of evidence that was made by the deceased. A movie. This piece of evidence is a short film made with 35mm film that had to be played in an old film projector. Those kinds of projectors are viewed as antiques and are extremely valuable nowadays. In 2011, film movies were dying. People were using digital cameras to make movies. To still be using a film camera to record shows a lag in the technology available to people.

In almost every scene you see someone using a flip phone. By the time this show was made the iPhone had been out on the market for 4 years, Blackberrys had been out for 8 years, and Android had been making their phones for three years. By the time of this show smartphones were easily accessible. Some were relatively cheap. So if smartphones were readily accessible, and semi-cheap why does everyone in this show only have a flip phone?

There are many other things that indicate just how old this show is, even for it’s time period. Did Netflix make it intentionally old or was that just what was readily accessible? I’ve done the research and there were more advanced forms of technology that could have been used and were most likely being used in everyday life by detectives. This show just screams it was filmed in an older way with older tech, and is even more apparent when watching it in today’s technology. What do you think? Is it that old?

Worrywart!

Sam’s mother Elsa is portrayed as an antagonist from the beginning of Atypical. She is a worrywart, a fussyboi, a negative nancy. With Elsa built up as a strawman, it’s easy to dismiss her point of view. She is a helicopter parent, choking her autistic son’s potential. However, her argument is less self important and more nuanced than it seems. In the show, she obsessively rewashes the dishes after her daughter, and fusses over ordering the correct material of shirt for Sam. The idea of him dating scares her. This paints her in the harsh light of the control freak. However, It’s not as simple as she can’t stand not having control over her son.

Her protective nature towards Sam may seem extreme, but it was born out of necessity. As a young child, Sam couldn’t pick up on facial cues. It was Elsa who taught him how to function. Her husband, Doug, is easier to like. Worry free. However, he didn’t play the role of guiding Sam through his youth. He has been afforded the luxury of not having to worry, as Elsa took on the burden. Sam still doesn’t understand how to navigate social situations. It’s cause for celebration that he hasn’t had a meltdown in over a month. He walks into the street with his eyes closed. He has needed her protection in the past. It’s only natural for her to be protective still. This instinct is in moms of neurotypical children, so you can imagine how these motherly instincts would be amplified with an autistic son.

Elsa’s behavior is completely understandable. However, that does not mean I agree with her actions. She has to loosen her hold on him for him to grow. I was the baby of a family with six children. This means my mom coddled me as much as she could. She made all my meals and didn’t make me do chores. She kept track of my grades and made me complete my assignments. The result was, I never learned to be independent. I don’t know how to take care of myself. I can’t cook. Boil water? What am I, a chemist? I know my mother was only being the best mother she knew how to be. I know Elsa is too. But in trying to protect sam, she is stifling him.

If Sam wants to begin dating, I believe the best motherly decision would be to support him in his endeavors. If not now, when? Surely Elsa doesn’t want him to feel alone throughout his life, yet that is the likely outcome of her well intended actions. His interest in others is something to be celebrated, not condemned. Dating does rely on all the things he doesn’t understand, like body language and jokes. This scares Elsa. However, This means his interest in dating provides the perfect opportunity for him to learn. She is afraid of him failing, but failing is an important part of understanding. Learning social cues and body language naturally just isn’t possible when you are coddled in your mom’s protective grasp. Her help is hurting, now. Maybe he’s not ready. But that’s okay.

Jessica Jones AKA Accordion Show

Jessica Jones, wow um, I'm not entirely sure what to say. I feel like I should equate this to an accordion show, because no one should watch it, whoops guess I revealed my opinions a little too early. Don't worry the show did that as well. I'm about a quarter of the way through the series, and I really don't want to watch anymore. For a show that should be incredibly intriguing, unpredictable, and exciting I only managed to feel bored. Boring is how I would describe the show, that and predictable. I get that I'm only about a quarter of the way in but I have yet to be surprised or delighted.

The plot follows super powered, private eye, Jessica Jones, as she tracks down the villain Kilgrave. While dealing with her post traumatic incidents with said character. The show heavily falls in the noire, superhero, and draws on psychological thriller genres. Well this is a recipe for a good show and has all the elements of a good show. It seems to be lacking an enjoyable quality to me. I want to like it I really do, but this is me telling you why I don't like it.

I personally feel that Jessica is a very interesting character in plot. In show however she is a very boring, dull, and flat character. She seems to exist in scenes to progress the plot and let the way more interesting characters bounce off of her, or her to let out the occasional witty remark. There are moments that she does shine, and those moments are the psychological thriller aspects of the show. Clearly the show writers have dealt with, know, or have simply talked to people who have dealt with both anxiety and PTSD. From my experience with [redacted] this portrayal is one of the closest I have seen to reality, and is by far one of the best parts of this show, shame they don't utilize it in enough interesting ways.

I think we should talk about the only other real highlight of the show so far, the villain Kilgrave. So Kilgrave and Jessica have a rather unpleasant shared history, that involves things I shouldn't say for fear that I will be removed from the site. I like this guy, off screen atleast. On screen he's not all that interesting, (although the actor is very good),and I feel like he was revealed too early. Off screen however, he has this magical cinematic power that gives him a presence in almost every scene. Even if he feels a little generic his portrayal is quite strong in the power he holds over Jessica.

So I asked around for what people liked about the show, and they gave me a few answers. One of my friends loves that we finally have a female protagonist who's main trait isn't that she's a woman. Yeah I agree that works in the favor of all media, I have nothing against that statement and I agree with it. The other one I hear the most is that its a full on rated R superhero, and I have some thoughts on that. Everything they have shown so far can be tackled in a PG 13 or TV 14 rating. I've seen more sexually explicit content shown in PG 13 movies and a few shows that cover PTSD and anxiety at the TV 14 level. Drinking and purchasing alcohol won't push the grade so what makes it so high? All I've got is blood and a lot of swearing. Well please put the brakes on this roller coaster, I don't think my heart can handle the boundaries you're pushing Jones.

Drugs are Still Bad, Especially Cocaine

It is not difficult to make an argument against drug trafficking and the effects it has on human productivity and economic matters among other things, but for Pablo Escobar, it may just be a necessity.  From the show Narcos, Escobar got his start by selling illegally obtained electronics, but then made the switch to selling and smuggling cocaine when he found out how much more profitable it was.  Concerning people, drugs, especially cocaine, have an extremely detrimental effect on the brain, which Pablo probably understood when he saw how people fell into crippling addiction.  The economic costs, especially on the Mexican economy, where Escobar works from, is notable.  The effects on humans and the economy are only two of the many reasons why drug trafficking has had such a harmful effect on both the U.S. and Mexico.

Beginning with the effects that drugs, especially cocaine has on humans, long term effects and disorders are common.  For one, when the brain is exposed to prolonged use of cocaine, neurons begin to die, which ultimately can cause the brain to cease function.  "People who struggled with cocaine addition also show reduced levels of glucose metabolism in many areas of the brain, suggesting that neurons underperform or begin to die" (What Are the Effects of Cocaine on the Brain?).  Additionally, brains contain gray matter, which is generally parts of the brain that contain more neural cell bodies than white matter.  Moreover, when people grow older, the amount of gray matter naturally reduces; however, when the brain is exposed to cocaine, the amount of gray matter lost doubles.  This means that between a prolonged user of cocaine and someone who does not use cocaine, the person who uses cocaine will experience a substantial reduction in brain activity much sooner in their lifetime (What Are the Effects of Cocaine on the Brain?).  The effects that cocaine has on the brain are numerous, but nonetheless, experiencing a reduction in brain activity can eventually lead to death, which also ties into a reduction in economic activity overall. 

Cocaine has grown to be known to cause reduced levels of economic activity but also levels of economic instability.  For one, cocaine trafficking has been known to bring about violence.  Generally, increased violence can bring about labor productivity loses which can, in turn, affect economic matters.  "[...] there are a number of ways in which violence e results in direct and indirect financial costs: the loss of productivity associated with death or injury, the loss of human capital investments and the costs of medical care and legal services" (Rios).  Additionally, increased violence has a social impact which can affect the economy.  When a population perceives a rise in violence, this can cause a drop in social interaction.  This can reduce the night life of a community and reduce the use of public transport which can both have damaging economic affects (Rios). Once again, these are just a few of the innumerable crippling effects that cocaine has been seen to bring about concerning economy. 

In the show, it is explained that while Escobar was a drug trafficker, he was also a family man who did what was best to support his family; however, there is overwhelming evidence that cocaine ultimately hurts entire communities.  Cocaine has both immediate and long-term effects.  As aforementioned, human brain activity is largely inhibited using cocaine, aside from the many other biological effects it has.  Economically, reduced human producitivty and increased violence both can have severe impacts on community economics and macroeconomics.  Ultimately, while some families, such as Escobar's may have experienced an increased quality of life due to Escobar's drug dealing, the bigger picture looks much bleaker. 

Rios, Viridiana. "Evaluating the economic impact of Mexico’s drug trafficking industry". Harvard University, 2008. scholar.harvard.edu/files/vrios/files/rios2008_mexicandrugmarket.pdf. Accessed on 8 Oct. 2017

"What Are the Effects of Cocaine on the Brain?". American Addiction Center, n.d., americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/effects-on-the-brain/. Accessed on 8 Oct. 2017.

Real Rob: Really Strange

This week I decided to watch the docudrama Real Rob about the life of Rob Schneider. Not only was the pilot episode unamusing, the vibe of the show was similar to one of those shows you watch in middle school about the life of a good kid gone drug user. By that I mean that the acting is horrible and predictable, overall aesthetic is sub-par, and the message is overdone. I was really not a fan of this one and not sure what the point of this show is, but it seems to me that it's Schneider's last ditch effort to remain relevant.

The show begins with an odd cuddling scene between him and his wife in which she doesn't let him touch her boobs because all he does is touch himself, then his face, then his phone... Understandable. After a brutally staged baby cry, Schneider does the ritual that she accuses him of. I found this to be an incredibly dry and predictable format that carried out in the rest of the show. I suppose the point was to be comedic, but it didn't reach that point for me at all.

Later, Schneider's assistant fails to pick him up on time from the airport and the whole encounter is just a mess of terrible acting. Apparently, the assistant had a bad break up with his girlfriend and had to move out, leaving very little room for anything in his tiny car packed with his personal items. Schneider's reaction is horribly cookie cutter and at this point I'm not quite sure how "docu" this docudrama really is.

The scenes are interjected with random interview portions, like a documentary, but they seem scripted out of the wazoo. The effect I think they were going for was like a Modern Family, awkward-funny style, but unfortunately it fell short and again, missed the point of what should've been achieved.

The remainder of the show follows suit in such a way that exploring more examples would be a cycle of cliche repetition. Overall, this show was a 1/10 for quality of the acting, originality, and comedic effect. I'm kind of sad that Netflix gave it a 97% match for me.

As far as the opposition of my opinion, one could argue that the weird, failed awkward effect is exactly what they were going for and that, perhaps, it mirrors Schneider's life quite well. To that I would say how sad. If that's the case, it gives you a glimpse into the utterly tragic life of the "Real Rob."

Santa Clarita Diet

This week I watched the first episode of Santa Clarita Diet. It revolves around two realtors, Joel and Sheila, their daughter, and a character present in only this episode, Gary. Gary is a realtor that comes to town to begin working at the same place as Sheila and Joel. As the episode develops, you learn, along with the characters, that there is something abnormal happening to Sheila. It starts as a weird stomach pain, continues with a insane amount of vomit, and reaches a terrifying point when she discovers she does not bleed and cannot find her heartbeat. Most might say that it is weird and wrong that Sheila is wanting to sneak around, ultimately eating raw meat and people, instead of get help, however I believe that this decision is the best decision for her.

When people are exhibiting abnormal symptoms, such as throwing up a ridiculous amount, the appropriate thing would be to go to the hospital. When the emergency department takes too long to evaluate Sheila, the next move would be to immediately head to a prompt care or her primary care physician. Instead Sheila does not do this, and I support that. I understand well how important it is to get a health problem diagnosed and treated, especially when you pose a threat to others, however the risks for Sheila’s life to be destroyed far outweigh the benefits to society. She raises concerns about the potential of being trapped in the health care system and laboratories for the rest of her life, which is definitely what would happen to her. She would likely become the focus of many clinical trials, be sequestered for evaluations, and ultimately be deemed a threat to society as she has a hankering for humans. She likely would end up as a viral video or the centerpiece of American news for multiple weeks, making herself and her family miserable with all of the attention and comments on social media. When they go and visit their neighbor who takes a look at her, he gives them a fair diagnosis, that she is dead and undead. This amount of information is enough for Sheila, but not for Joel. He wants to be more informed about what is going on and what he can do to help his wife. While I empathize with the desire to need to know all of the facts, I believe that in some circumstances, just knowing the basics is enough. They know to keep her fed otherwise disaster will occur (which they neglected to do and it was proved). Clearly a change has already occurred and they just need to keep their attitudes up and do what they know will work.

The last few minutes of the episode deal with Gary coming to Joel and Sheila’s house and trying to woo Sheila after what he feels is a missed connection from flirtations the previous night. Majority would say she should have told him off at her house, or the previous night, and reaffirmed her love for her husband. Some might argue she should’ve even gone off with Gary. However I believe she did the right thing. While biting someone’s fingers off and then eating them is never okay, ff she was going to eat anyone, Gary is the best choice. He is new to the area, generally aggressive and looks like he would get along well with the boss of the realtor company, who is a rude businessman. Having two people who are powerful and not exceptionally nice would make the culture of the office negative, and harder for Joel and Sheila to thrive in that environment. While perhaps a change of job or a sit down conversation between Joel and Gary about Sheila would’ve been a better way to handle it, it also would have resulted in more negative emotions and perhaps a fight between the men which is not a productive way to handle conflict. Overall, Sheila and Joel make the appropriate decisions for their family during this time of uncertainty, however I’m not sure how they will recover from the dining of Gary.