Being just, independent, and obese Americans, our favorite pastime is watching television. Obviously. Why should we care about world hunger, impending environmental disaster, or governmental cover-ups of alien activities when there is so much interesting stuff on TV? Besides, if we complain enough about these issues, maybe someone else will clean it all up.

The average American household owns 2.24 televisions. Sixty-six percent of these homes own three or more. Averaged, these TVs will stay on for almost seven hours every single day. If a full time job is eight hours long, that means that the average American could be staying up until 12 a.m. every night glued to the tube. Clearly, we are too busy to fix anything.

Media being the huge, important force that it is in this land of the free, our society treats actors, talk show hosts, and rockstars like gods.

I can’t be the only one disturbed by the fact that celebrities, valued not for who they are or what they contribute to global well-being, live more comfortably than our own president. These are the modern-day equivalent of court jesters, making more guap than you, or I, or our parents will ever see.

It’s not that I believe artists shouldn’t be acknowledged for their accomplishments. Music is the most important thing in my life, so of course I appreciate the time, energy, and genius that goes into making popular music. I’m an avid movie-watcher, so I feel the same way about actors and directors. I even feel like they deserve the gratuitous amount of money that they make because, after all, we’re the ones paying them. That’s not what scares me.

Kids look up to celebrities. We’ve all been conditioned to value the opinions of these people above those of our parents, or even our own. I firmly believe that these people have not earned this kind of power, and do not use it responsibly.

Think about this: between 1955 and 1978, a preacher from Crete, Ind. named James Warren Jones amassed more than 900 religious followers; they revered him as a god. After the federal government began looking into accusations of human rights violations, Jones benevolently compelled almost all of his followers to participate in a mass suicide.

I’m not advocating censorship in any way, shape, or form. I firmly believe that Americans should be able to say whatever we want, whenever we want, if only because it’s in our constitution. I just want to see the weight taken out of the things that famous people say.

The problem is not celebrities themselves, but the social customs we’ve built around them. Influential sells, so companies use these people to make money. Stars wouldn’t be stars if they weren’t benefiting some evil corporation somewhere. Chris Brown was in a gum commercial. If it was some random person, no one would care.

Recently, our country’s obsession with stars has started to branch off in ridiculous ways. The last decade saw the rise of organizations like TMZ, a company whose sole purpose is to give celebrities even more power by publishing every minute detail of their lives.

Maybe finding inspiration in the lives of other regular people is a good thing, because creative talent aside, regular people is all they are. Really, really rich regular people.

At this point, my high expectations had already begun to drop. I resolved to give the exhibition the benefit of the doubt, however, and we were escorted to the next room. In this room there stood a husky, happy lady next to a stool, and a dirty felt hat. Fans of the series understood immediately that we were about to be sorted, and in the first of many disturbingly lackluster attempts at British accents that would reoccur throughout the entirety of the event, the woman asked for volunteers.

The first little girl, not quite as tall as the stool itself and positively shaking with excitement, ascended the intimidating piece of furniture and adorned the sacred garment. Expecting the hat to grow a mouth and talk, like it did in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, I was surprised when a voice boomed through concealed speakers in the corner of the room. The fat lady, lurking behind the stool, began moving the hat up and down to simulate speech. Corny would be an understatement.

The first volunteer was sorted into Gryffindor. The second volunteer was sorted into Gryffindor. The third volunteer was sorted into Gryffindor. You get the idea.

From the sorting room, we entered the meat of the exhibit. A certain ambience of dim lighting and the distinct odor of commercialism set the mood. Real moving pictures hung on the walls; I was ready to give the exhibition another chance.

If I only say one good thing about the Harry Potter Exhibition throughout this entire article, it’s this: the hallways and walkways are awesome. If you ignore the display cases and security guards for a minute and look around, it really does feel like Hogwarts. Unfortunately, that could very well be where the compliments end.

Ninety percent of the exhibition is clothes worn by famous people. The other ten percent consists of mostly unimportant movie props touched by famous people.

If you want to look at every robe or pair of jeans that Hermione wore in every movie, this exhibit is for you. Personally, I was expecting in-depth looks at how the props were made, interviews with prop managers and costume designers, and maybe even some fun interactive features. And no, throwing quaffles through basketball hoops does not count. Apparently all this multi-billion dollar franchise can afford to show you are Rupert Grint’s Christmas sweaters.

So if you’re ridiculously fashion-oriented or really such a diehard fan that you can’t live without this once in a lifetime opportunity to give more money to people who don’t need it, then go buy yourself a ticket. If you’re like me, however, and don’t appreciate shallow, disrespectful advertising, save your $26.

Enter junior Anna Jacobsen, founder and undisputed leader of the Garfield Beekeeping Club, a group of young entrepreneurs that has been stirring up quite a buzz this semester. You may have seen the Facebook group.

Jacobsen runs seven hives throughout Seattle, two of which are located directly in her backyard. She buys bees in quantities of five to ten pounds, nourishes them on a special type of sugary syrup, and raises them to honey-producing adulthood. It sounds like a lot of work, and it is, but the payoff is sweet, to say the least. These hives produce gallons and gallons of honey every year. But why endure the hard work and painful stings for a couple jars of what is essentially sugar water?

For the last 38 years at least, the world’s bee population has been rapidly decreasing. Over the last three years alone, the number of bee colonies in the United States may have dropped by as much as 97%. Not surprisingly, big business is likely responsible.

“The commercial beekeeping industry has been aggressively breeding bees for honey production and docility for years,” says Jacobsen. “It’s drastically decreased their genetic diversity, leaving them susceptible to all sorts of mites, fungi, and pathogens.”

Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a push to move away from such highly industrialized beekeeping, manifesting itself in the development of urban hives, much like those that Anna maintains. Essentially, Anna Jacobsen is saving the bees and saving the world.

Currently, the direction and focus of the club are not set in stone, but it is safe to say that Jacobsen has big plans for her bunch of budding beekeepers.

“As of right now,” she says, “the plan is to sell the honey from my hives and donate the proceeds to bee research. I’m a little overworked at the moment, but I would love to see a Garfield hive at some point in the future.”

So maybe it doesn’t quite match up to the prestige of Freestyle Rap Club yet, but take heed, students of Garfield High School: the buzz is building. GHS Beekeeping is coming.

When Garfield staff and students hear the phrase “two bricks,” for example, the reference is immediately obvious to even the most oblivious freshman. One would be hard-pressed to find a Garfield student who has never heard of Jimi Hendrix. Show me a Garfield student that doesn’t advocate purple and white as their two favorite colors. Likewise, when 600 freshmen show up to class dripping wet, covered in dermal graffiti, sporting dresses and fuzzy animal suits, everyone knows that it must be homecoming.

But froshing is not a phenomenon exclusive to Garfield High School. In fact, it’s not called froshing at all, and it’s been around for centuries.

Hazing, as froshing is known around the United States and around the world, is a rite of passage or initiation ritual that involves ceremonies intentionally uncomfortable to those being initiated. The end result is a uniformity of hardship that every member of a group has had to endure and therefore has in common.

Examples of hazing date back to 17th century Spain, but it can be assumed the tradition had been around long before its depiction in Francis de Quevedo’s El Buscón. The first recorded hazing incident in a school-setting resulted Harvard’s 1684 expulsion of a student named Joseph Webb.

Since the 1770s, hazing has been an integral part of induction into Greek fraternities, a fact frequently reflected in popular culture. Depictions of hazing at the college level can be seen in movies such as Animal House (1978) and Old School (2003). Examples of hazing at the high school level, though less common, can be seen in movies like Dazed and Confused (1993) and Igby Goes Down (2002).

Obviously hazing is a popular topic. But that’s not to say that these activities are inherently benign.

On December 31, 2005, Andrey Sychyov, a trainee at the armed forces academy in Chelyabinsk, Russia, was forced squat and endure various methods of hazing for three hours at the hands of his peers. The next day, he requested medical attention and was rebuffed by his superiors. Several days after that, Sychyov was rushed to hospital, only to lose his legs, genitalia, and a finger to gangrene caused by loss of circulation during the incident. This is not an isolated occurence.

As of February 12, 2010, there have been 96 recorded deaths directly linked to hazing. Of these deaths, 82 percent involved the illegal consumption of alcohol. For these reasons, 44 states have passed laws against hazing. Washington is one of them.

To coincide with Washington State law, Garfield has a strict no-tolerance policy regarding hazing. It’s not a matter of an overly-strict administration, but a legal issue. If Ted Howard and the A-Team fail to enforce state law within the school, the school can be held accountable. In other words, everyone loses.

Despite precedents of violence and bullying, it is important to understand that froshing is considered by many a long standing tradition. These people would argue that, even taking into account all that one stands to lose by breaking state law and school rules, froshing is a part of Garfield that should not be forgotten.

In the eyes of many Garfield students, froshing is not only harmless, but a integral facet of high school life.

“I loved being froshed,” saying Freshman Coolidge Monroe*. “My junior friends made sure I was safe the whole time. They didn’t put anything too gross down my boxers.”

If one chooses to frosh, just remember that there are risks involved, and that if fun and games are taken too far, it can ruin a wholesome activity for everyone.

*Name has been changed

Those of you who pay attention to politics and current events and stuff may have heard of Proposition 19. For the rest of us, busy living under rocks, Proposition 19 is the current spearhead of the movement to legalize marijuana in the Golden State. To the surprise of many, Prop 19 qualified in March to be on the statewide ballot this November.

Unlike past efforts to decriminalize or designate the Schedule I substance for purely medicinal purposes, Proposition 19 would completely legalize, on a statewide level, the use and possession of marijuana for recreational purposes. There would be, of course, certain restrictions. All laws relating to driving under the influence of marijuana would still apply, as would laws against the possession and transportation of more than one ounce (38g) of the plant. Unfortunately for you seniors who are suddenly and inexplicably itching to move south, all prohibitive laws would still apply to persons under the age of 21.

The proposition would allow for the sale of cannabis products in licensed stores, similar in fashion to the current sale of alcoholic beverages in Washington State. But why California, why marijuana, and why now, after a 73-year prohibition?

The answer is simple. California has been steadily losing money recent years, and the introduction of a popular, taxable commodity is an effort to reduce the state’s formidable pile of debt.

In California, the proposed bill is advertised as a “common-sense solution to our broken budget.” Indeed, the State Board of Equalization predicts that imposing a $50-per-ounce levy on marijuana sales could generate $1.4 billion annually in new tax revenue. The bill would also cause a significant decline in drug-related arrests, saving the state large amounts of money previously spent on incarcerating lawbreakers.

Founded by Oakland-based legalization activist and medical marijuana provider Richard Lee, the Tax Cannabis movement has amassed a formidable team of influential politicians, environmental advocates, and union organizers. But doesn’t this proposal, started via citizen initiative, sound a bit familiar?

Last January, a similar ballot initiative, sponsored by the directors of Hempfest, popular television host Rick Steves, and mayor Mike McGinn, would have put the legalization effort on this November’s polls in Washington State.

Unlike Proposition 19, Washington’s legalization initiative, known as I-1068, would not have bothered with the taxation of cannabis. Instead, the proposed bill would have legalized the cultivation, possession, use, sale, and transportation of marijuana. But notice this is all being discussed in the past tense.

By July 3, 2010, Sensible Washington—the political committee sponsoring the initiative—had announced that they were forty to fifty thousand votes short of the estimated 241,000 needed to make the November ballot. In short, the initiative failed.

There must be a disconnect between the Washington movement and the California movement, because where our state has failed, our cousins to the south now appear to be on the verge of success.

“We just didn’t have the money,” says Sensible Washington Vice-Chair Philip Dawdy. “We were on a $40,000 budget. If Sensible Washington had had $100,000, we would be having a completely different conversation right now.”

Dawdy informed me that lowest-budget initiative to pass in this state had a $700,000 budget from the get-go. So, all in all, I-1068 wasn’t that far off the mark. In fact, as Dawdy explains, he isn’t necessarily convinced that Prop 19 will pass come November.

According to Phil, it would be unwise to form any conclusions before the October polls are in. “Whatever happens,” he says, “it’s going to be close.”

Sensible Washington will be organizing another initiative in 2011, hopefully with a larger budget.

Regardless of what happens in California this November, one thing is for sure: it won’t be happening in Washington.