Good Old Days

When I was younger, I looked at the teen years with glorious envy. I couldn't wait to have six different classes! With six different teachers! Driving? More options at the school cafeteria? The possibilities seemed endless.

Now that I'm 17, things are different. It's always weird to watch Disney channel reruns and realize that in some cases I'm older than the main characters. Now we have APs, club elections, and overall so many more pressures in life. So in looking through my baby pictures this week, the nostalgia hit. One thing I realized is we'll never be content. When I was 7, I wanted to be 17, and now I miss the days when I could just watch PBS Kids after school instead of lift my ten pound backpack to the study. There'll always be something better, it seems.

Although I myself have this mentality sometimes, it's definitely not the right one to have. Different times of life have different benefits. Before I had much more free time, now I have much more freedom. Glorifying leads to nostalgia, to "man, I don't know where the time went". This goes back to my first blog post (real ones know) about the difference between nostalgia and simple memory. Nostalgia will always go back to the conclusion that those were the best of times. But in reality, we are constantly making memories that, when we're old and wrinkly, will look back on with the same fondness. Even school, which I constantly complain about, is something I miss during the summer. Like Andy Bernard said,

Right now, although it might not seem like it, we actually might be living our "good old days".

The Recently Examined Quest for Success

The quest for knowledge, aptly summarized by Chet Raymo, is "hemmed with peril". This viewpoint is also applicable to the quest for success. In our high school, students join clubs like HOSA, Model UN, take difficult AP classes, sit through hours of Kabir all in search for success.

However, as Raymo states for the quest for knowledge, the quest for success is also hemmed with peril. For example, this weekend I was at a Model United Nations conference hosted by Michigan State University.  Since I've been attending this conference since freshmen year, I hoped I would finally prove myself and get best delegate. However, in the end, I got honorable mention, essentially third place. Thus, in deciding to write today's blog, this quote instantly reminded me of MSUMUN. 

My quest for success in Model UN has been hemmed with perils: the effort and exertion and time consumption spent on preparing for each conference resulting in... not what I've hoped for. However, it's also been hemmed with memories: from watching Bollywood until 3 A.M., to finally tasting the heavenly Insomnia Cookies, to screaming the lyrics to "Partition" on the streets of Lansing. Would I trade anything for those? Would I even trade the highest award for those? The cheesy, yet honest answer is no. Admittedly, achieving the latter and former would be the best of both worlds, but since I haven't reached that point yet, I stay firm on my notion. Although I have been on a four year mission for Model UN success, it's been a pretty enjoyable climb. And that's what marks the difference between the quest for knowledge and the quest for success. The quest for knowledge, according to Raymo, is mostly hemmed by peril. In my viewpoint, however, the quest for success, although definitely hemmed with peril, is also "cross-stitched" with threads of good times, greater people, and overall unforgettable experiences.

gang 

No One's Real

In discussing the Fearless Girl controversy, one thing that really irked me was the shameless plug the SSGA Gender Diversity Index put on the plaque: "SHE makes a difference". SHE as in the symbol the SSGA Gender Diversity Index trades under. The irony is clear: a statue with the supposed purpose of raising awareness on the ruthlessness and sexism and greed of large corporation is funded by.. a  corporation.

 It's frustrating. Why can't it have the same ragged origins as the Charging Bull? Originally thinking the statue was well intentioned and aptly placed, this now seemed faux to me, inauthentic. It seemed just like those extra commercials these days that try to be deep, but at the end of the day are still commercials (*cough* Dove https://eliyastaan.blogspot.com/2017/11/an-expose.html ... Yes I just advertised my own blog while trying to be deep. As they say, form meets content)

Anyways, turns out the plaque was removed the night Fearless Girl was supposed to be expired. Thank God, but it's not for the reason we think hope. According to Fortune.com*, it was just done after the statue got inducted to the NYC Department of Transportation public arts project.

Thus the question arises: Is anything genuine? Fearless Girl, although interpreted by the public as a feminist gesture, has its origin in corporate advertising. Similarly, the writing prompt in class described how politicians "create a faux sense of intimacy" with their constituents. These days it seems like inspiration, and straight up amicability, are only employed to achieve a certain goal, usually money or power. Like I said, it's frustrating when you realize no one (or no statue) is ever really real.

Drake said it best.

*http://fortune.com/2017/04/17/fearless-girl-statue-nyc-plaque-she-nasdaq/

Melting Pot or Salad Bowl?

On the left side, we have a salad bowl. Clearly, on the right side there's a melting pot. The difference is clear: the salad bowl has distinct components to it that result in a variety of textures, colors, and flavors, whereas the melting pot combines and layers flavors into one that has a unique flavor. These are two schools of thoughts on multiculturalism in America and around the world. On one hand, the salad bowl concept entails different cultures mixing in interaction but not altogether merging. On the other hand, the melting pot concept is the notion of various heterogeneous cultures "melting" into one homogeneous American society. One encourages pluralism, and another encourages assimilation. 

At this point, I'd like YOU to cast a vote on which cultural idea you're in favor of, melting pot or salad bowl: http://pollmaker.vote/p/C9RIN80O

Personally, I support the salad bowl cultural idea more. Although some want one uniform American culture, I love the idea of distinctive groups remaining harmonious. Salad bowl makes me Pakistani American, not American American. It preserves the concept of ethnicity and nationality as two distinct entities. On the other hand, one question on the melting pot theory that's never answered is what culture are we trying to melt into? In many cases, it's the white American culture.

This picture is the essential reason why I'm wary of the notion of melting pot. It can lead to forced assimilation, as seen above. Similarly, Teddy Roosevelt was quoted saying, "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language". No one should be forced to conform to a certain culture, regardless of if it's American, Iranian, Pakistani, or Japanese. 

How can you say no to this?

From Untied to United (States)

This year, I'm taking AP Economics and it's safe to say I find many of the concepts hard to grasp. I took it as a classic AP, and last year during scheduling season didn't even consider the possibility of it being a struggle; just like my other social studies APs, I'd study and get the right grades.

Boy, was I wrong!

Flash forward to today, and not only do I not find it interesting, but I go out of each test thinking I could either get a 94 or a 78. One thing I've heard is that those who struggle in AP Econ flourish in AP Pysch, and vice versa. To me, this makes a lot of sense. Economics, as exemplified by Thomas Sowell, is all about the "market (operating) so much more efficiently than... 'need'" (Sowell 500). On the other hand, psychology entails gaining an understanding of the human brain and the mental factors that effect human interaction. Economics completely ignores any wants, "needs", or "mushy thinking" whereas psychology literally studies it (500).

Anyways, in my opinion, economics is heartless. Free market thinkers scorn the concept of need by saying you only need a "car" if the "taxpayers" pay for it, and if it comes out of your pocket, you'd just get a "brake job". I truly don't think this is a breakthrough in disproving human need, but just shows our ability to settle. For example, suppose I had to buy lunch at school but only had $1. In one scenario, my friend offers to lend me $2 to buy the special, and in another scenario I just settled for a bag of chips. In scenario 2, I didn't need lunch any less, but had to make do with what I had. That's the situation of countless Americans around our country; they don't need a car, food, clothes, housing, any less when they settle for a bike, McDonald's, hand-me downs, and the streets. Many will think that it's not (in the scenarios) my friend's responsibility to lend me money, but in the United States of America, we should live up to that name and help each other out. There will be a time when a line needs to be drawn, but that's another discussion. As for now, Americans should help each other out and instead of being separate, distinct, and unemotional (untied), we should be communal, generous, and understanding (united).

WATER. IS. WET.

Prompt: Analyze the two passages and write a claim comparing and contrasting the purpose of the writer.

Passage 1:

Inside a Genetics Biology Bacteriology and Embryology class, sat a group of students in the corner of the room. Wait, scratch that- stood a group of students in the corner of the room. They were passionately debating a controversial topic: the possibility of water being wet or not. The majority of the group stood in the position that water isn't wet, except for a two truth seekers. In the background, the substitute teacher stood in awe and a little bit of confusion wondering what was going on, and added the debate into her sub notes. Ironically, another GBBE teacher at the same time dropped a huge jug of water- form meeting content.

Passage 2:

AM I SURROUNDED BY IGNORANCE? Everyone around me- Justin, Paige, even my own lab partner Alicia- thought water isn't wet. Well today, I'm here to prove to all of my readers that water is INDEED wet. First and foremost I have the two GBBE teachers on my side: "any two molecules that are touching are wet". Furthermore, by the law of syllogism, fire is hot, hence water is wet. One definition of wet is "liquid that makes something damp" THEREFORE water applies in that definition! I know many of you've seen that video on twitter saying water isn't wet because "water in a water bottle can't be dried", BUT IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH PAPER TOWEL YOU USE. To anyone that says water can't be wet because it makes other things wet, that's just like saying fire cant be hot because it makes other things hot. If you think water isn't wet you're a confused human being, sorry.

Don't be Salty at the Homeless

This week, we discussed homelessness and poverty by reading "On Dumpster Diving". Eigner was very blunt by simply stating, "I live from the refuse of others". The topic of giving money to the homeless came up and it reminded me of something I witnessed in Pakistan. Every instance we were on the road, be it in the congested city or the traffic lights or even on the highways there would be a homeless person. They actually walk right up to your car window, knock until you roll it down, and plead for money. This might sound tedious and a little extra but I didn't even feel attacked by it. The poverty in Pakistan is really, really bad. Shockingly, the Edhi Foundation, Pakistan's largest charity doesn't have a specific means to address homelessness just because it's too big of a problem. And sadly, my relatives who live there have gotten used to it, hence numb to it. 

They'll will go out of their way to de-emphasize this problem, saying there's a "network of bosses" who employ their impoverished lackeys to take the innocent upper classes' money. When I was in a bazaar (open market) my cousin literally debated a little boy who was eagerly trying to sell her a color book. Don't get me wrong, I love my family, but sometimes they don't recognize the privilege they're born into. In reality, their theory might actually be plausible (https://tribune.com.pk/story/540841/begging-becomes-business-in-pakistan/) , but that doesn't mean people in this form of organized crime aren't in a bad situation. People will go out of their way to talk and cry about a problem, but won't do anything to solve it. The same thing is with homelessness; we don't think it's our job to fix it, but one day the problem could possibly reach us.