AVetsch

Imagine if you had the power to prevent your child from obtaining any disease. If you had the power to alter your child’s genes to become immune from HIV or cancer, would you do it?

Most people would instinctively say they would. After all, who does not want our children to die from a transmittable disease even after they die. The fear that their child will die too soon is the greatest fear parents undertake when the assume the role of raising a child. Some people would instinctively say they would instantly alter their children’s genes and wonder why anyone would say they would not. They must be careless and crazy!

Some parents actually feel differently about altering their children’s genes. Sometimes, genetic diseases actually define who we are. Suppose someone had to grow up with something that impaired them, say, Asperger’s. Even though that person is handicapped from socializing normally, that does not mean that person cannot function normally in society. They can adapt. They can learn in ways that others cannot. And that person can credit his or her genetic disease as helping them define who they become. If that person did not have the genetic disease, they would be entirely different people. So, if our weaknesses, even they are genetic, help define our personhood, then are we bad people if we strive to eliminate them.

Understand that science has always attempted to counter genetic diseases. We just developed a vaccine to counter the most complex and contagious disease known to human history. Scientists have always been trying to develop the curable human since the dawn of humankind, even in ancient history when humans did what they felt necessary to please supernatural entities. So, saying that gene editing is bad because nature needs to take its course undermines the whole reason aspiring scientists go to medical school.

Also understand that scientists are also developing different ideas about science almost all the time. There are still discoveries being made in all scientific fields, and a lot of them challenge previous ideas widely accepted in the scientific community. What I’m getting to is that if or when gene editing becomes something that can be done, it can go through various stages. So, at some point we may be able to alter our children’s genes after they are born and live for some time. Then parents can see if their child can live with whatever genetic disease impairs them too much to participate with society. Or, if they are old enough, they could be able to decide themselves if they can alter their genes.

Some children may actually want to keep their genetic diseases if they find themselves content with them. And that is fine. They should not feel that choosing to keep their genetic diseases is a bad choice.

It is permitting parents and children’s decisions to alter their genes that should be allowed. Allowing gene editing in children may help society produce more humans that may advance humanity.

Ultimately, we must allow to choose what will help define who we become.

The measurements we use to measure intelligence is more often racially motivated, whether we are aware of it or not.

Intelligence is one of the central components institutions use to measure candidates. This is conducted often by what is an IQ test, or an intelligence quotient. The conception was meant to be simple: those who take the test when they are really young and scored high would lead a fortuitous life whereas those who scored low would not.

But since the test's implementation, there have been a wide range of outliers in which those who scored low on the test would still lead fortuitous lives.

IQ tests, however, should not be discarded. They still prove to be an accurate measurement of how our lives will go. The IQ tests should instead be re-constructed to fit our modern values.

The world has gotten increasingly diverse over the century since the test was employed. The IQ test has become more accessible to people of various backgrounds, but all around it is the same test. The people the test reaches are not the same. Two people from different backgrounds that stem from different cultures. People from different cultures will have different concepts of the same thing.

For instance, Felix Klaassen notes in his article on the relation between IQ tests and racism on Donders Wonders, the "linguistic differences determine how people perceive relations between objects and therefore influence one's performance". So, one of the reasons why IQ tests have a racially biased background is that it was designed by a group of white people who conceived intelligence through what their society perceived as essential to survive, whereas, say, a tribe survives through farming, training animals, and living in the wilderness. Klassan writes "even though intelligence can be a universal human construct, the most effective way to measure this intelligence is not universal, but rather depends on the environment where one was raised".

This, of course, has become the driving narrative by xenophobes that IQ-scores demonstrate white people's superiority to other cultures, when the context shows that the test is not adaptable to everyone's upbringing.

The IQ test should not be completely done away with. It still can be an effective measurement to one's success--after all, people really are more intelligent than others. But it needs to be adaptable to other people's backgrounds, which is not easy. The tests would either need to change its questions to suit everyone, or everybody would need to take a different version of a test.

We need to change the IQ test by changing how we perceive intelligence across communities. Remember, everybody is really good at something that someone else is terrible at. That should have nothing to do with race, let alone a statistic that is set up specifically for only one ethnic group.

Intelligence needs to be treated as more than just being able to compute numbers and dwelling on philosophical questions effectively. It needs to be seen as how individuals can adapt to their environment.

CITATIONS:

Alexander, Scott. “So You’ve Learned You’ve Got a ‘Pitifully’ Low IQ. How Worried Should You Be?” Vox, 23 Oct. 2017, www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/23/16516516/iq-tests-high-low-achievement-sat-anxiety-determinism.

Klaassen, Felix. “How IQ-Scores Encourage Racism | Donders Wonders.” Donders Wonders | Over Hersenen En Wetenschap // On Brains and Science, 17 July 2020, blog.donders.ru.nl/?p=12203&lang=en.

The case for deplatforming is a tricky issue when it comes to curbing the spread of misinformation.

Many people argue that it's a free speech issue, when it is not the case since it is not the federal government handling the issue. But one of the more pressing reasons why deplatforming spreaders of misinformation, especially in the case of Donald Trump, is if actually helps curb the spread. While misinformation probably cannot be stamped out of social media, let alone the internet, completely, there is enough reason to believe that deplatforming works.

Deplatforming may not be a perfect solution to curbing the spread. One account can get stamped out, and another one can take its place. Social media platforms may as well try to step on every bug on the planet until there is no more.

But when it comes to Donald Trump, a president who went out his way to give a voice to the spreaders of misinformation, allowed them to become more openly vocal about their agendas. Following his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 Presidential Election, Trump constantly falsely claimed the election was stolen, and that Democrats handicapped his abilities to curb the coronavirus to make him look like a bad president.

After the capital riots earlier in January, encouraged by President Trump, social media platforms banned Trump from their accounts first for a certain period, then permanently. Everyone wondered if banning the person that was amplifying the spreaders of misinformation would instead encourage them to voice their opinions louder that social media is turning into a Stalinist regime.

Instead, banning Trump resulted in a decline in misinformation. Elizabeth Dwoskin and Craig Timberg reported in The Washington Post that Zignal Labs, which conducted research on misinformation on social media after Twitter and Facebook banned Trump, found that conversations about election fraud dropped from 2.5 million mentions to 688,000 mentions.

Part of this is due to social media taking a more active role in banning accounts that encouraged election fraud beyond President Trump. Another aspect of this is Trump supporters deciding to leave a site since they felt social media sites made it clear their ideologies were not welcome, and left the site out of protest.

While social media sites banned Trump mainly because they were pressed to, especially since Trump prided emphasizing his ego on the social media platforms, is not a perfect way to squash Q-Anon ideology from the sites, it is the most effective way to curb its spread. The accounts were physically calling for violence to install Trump as the supreme leader of the United States. Even if Trump managed to win the election, who knows what kind of damage he and Q-Anon could have started once his second term came to an end, especially after eight years of Trump's presidency and rhetoric.

If social media platforms want to maintain that their presence on the internet helps the world connect in a meaningful way, then it needs to take responsibility for what individuals post on the site.

CITATIONS:

Dwoskin, Elizabeth Craig Timberg. “Misinformation Dropped Dramatically the Week after Twitter Banned Trump and Some Allies.” Washington Post, 16 Jan. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter.

While some climate change is perfectly natural, the earth has always had an ecosystem that has inconvenienced us throughout history, a lot of climate change is definitively man-made.

Man-made is not the sole contributor to climate change but it is the most pressing aspect of it because it is the aspect we feel we have some control over as a sense of community.

The most significant factor in climate change is greenhouse gases sprouted into the atmosphere. The result of this is the rising of the overall average temperature of the Earth. The rising temperature contributes to the melting of the polar ice caps in the North and the South, which raises the sea levels, and flood numerous places such as New York City.

Renee Cho, writing for State of the Planet, reported that scientists tracked CO2 levels rising 40 percent higher than they were prior to the Industrial Revolution. They also reported on the amount of methane produced by oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills. Many of the things emitted into the air always have, but once humans developed the technologies to produce more emissions, so has the air always increasingly gotten warmer.

The scientists also reported that warming is occurring 10 times faster than when the first few years after the end of the Ice Age.

Some environmental disasters are natural, sure. But the evidence is clear that a majority of climate change can be prevented by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. If we have the power to deter the Earth of its natural ecosystem, then we have the power to maintain it. I see no reason why we should not strive for the latter

CITATIONS

Cho, Renee. “How We Know Today’s Climate Change Is Not Natural.” State of the Planet, 20 Feb. 2019, blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural.

When people think of the internet, especially searching, they tend to think of Google. After all, Google is the primary search engine where internet users go to discover websites or find something about their website if they do not have their own search engine, or something else.

But how often do we use Google as the primary search engine for the internet? How often do we use alternative sites such as Bing or DuckDuckGo, which boats that its site does not track you?

The answer is not very much.

Google is considered one of the big four tech giants in Silicon Valley—the other being Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. According to The Verge, the site hit one billion users in 2018, twenty years after its launch in 1998. But it was not by winning the competition in the market for search engines, nor for just being the luckiest search engine on the market. Google became the internet’s favorite search engine by rigging the market itself, setting a monopoly, by paying money to constantly keep getting ahead of the game.

Consider Safari. The app we all use on our iPhones if we want to access the internet on it. What is the website it opens to first when you tap it? Google. The app opens to Google instead of Bing is because Google has been paying Apple $9 billion to make the site Safari’s primary search engine. Since Apple is the biggest market for mobile phones, Google can reach the widest audience in mobile phones because it pays Apple to place it ahead of its competitors.

In fact, money has become the key component for why Google became a behemoth in Big Tech over the past twenty years since its creation.

The most notable acquisition to Google is YouTube, the video-sharing platform site that is considered the gold standard for content creators also not due to winning the competition. With YouTube now being owned by Google, competition with YouTube in the video-sharing platform site. Since there is no competition, content creators have no choice but to work with YouTube if they want to reach a wide audience, whether they agree with their business practices or not. Granted, YouTube faced copyright issues that could have forced it into bankruptcy, so it makes sense why YouTube would sell to Google.

But the benefit of becoming financially secure cannot be overlooked by the lack of a competitor. Competitors are one the key aspects for setting up a great marketplace. With competition, companies strive to constantly put out the best product while providing the best customer service. If an entire marketplace becomes controlled by a single company, that is considered a monopoly. And monopolies are devastating for the economy. If a company runs a monopoly, then it is not motivated to make its products efficient for customers, and at a price they can set if they are customers’ only option.

The controversy surrounding Google echoes the monopoly set by John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in the late 19th-century. Standard Oil ran a monopoly by purchasing companies that were either rivals or just starting, allowing it to control 90 percent of the United States’ oil refineries and pipelines. When Rockefeller held enough power, he was able to bully railroad companies that needed his oil to function to set cheap, fixed prices. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled its monopoly illegal, and ordered it to break up. The Supreme Court ruled it because it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which banned monopolies.

The Sherman Antitrust Act has formed the basis for the U.S. Justice Department’s recently launched lawsuit against Google in October 2020. The Justice Department claimed in its lawsuit that Google became a behemoth by buying its way to power such as the aforementioned buyouts and acquisitions.

Breaking up Google, of course, will be difficult. Pursuing antitrust cases through the courts, Leah Nylen writes, requires judges to “make complicated predictions about the future and they’re often afraid of making things worse”. The Supreme Court’s decision to break apart Standard Oil in 1911 is the only instance of a U.S. federal court breaking up a company in the entire history of the United States. So, there is only a single point of reference the Department of Justice can make when it comes to the Supreme Court breaking up a company, and that was a century ago in a different time.

And Google has, despite running an apparent monopoly, been doing a lot of things users love about it. So, there is fear that Google users will leave if the site no longer provides the service they love, and thus diminish Google even further. But that is based on Google making its case that endless acquisitions benefit its own businesses. With competition, users will not have to rely on a single source to provide the service they want.

We should break up Google before they have a chance to, hypothetically speaking, practically become owners of the internet.

CITATIONS

Ghaffary, Shirin, and Rani Molla. “The DOJ Antitrust Lawsuit against Google, Explained.” Vox, 20 Oct. 2020, www.vox.com/recode/21524710/google-antitrust-lawsuit-doj-search-trump-bill-barr.

History.com Editors. “John D. Rockefeller.” HISTORY, 9 Oct. 2019, www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/john-d-rockefeller.

Luckerson, Victor. “A Decade Ago, Google Bought YouTube — and It Was the Best Tech Deal Ever.” The Ringer, 10 Oct. 2016, www.theringer.com/2016/10/10/16042354/google-youtube-acquisition-10-years-tech-deals-69fdbe1c8a06.

Nylen, Leah. “Why Breaking up (Google) Is so Hard to Do.” POLITICO, 21 Oct. 2020, www.politico.com/news/2020/10/20/doj-antitrust-suit-against-google-430545.

Staff, Verge. “Google Turns 20: How an Internet Search Engine Reshaped the World.” The Verge, 27 Sept. 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17823490/google-20th-birthday-anniversary-history-milestones.

Jogging is the most fun form of exercise because it's the only form of exercise where you are not stuck in once particular spot.

People dislike jogging, at least outside, find it tiresome because they have to deal with alternating pathways that travel either up, down or need to turn left or right to get out of the way of obstacles. But the inability to stay on one path as opposed to running on a treadmill is the whole reason that jogging is so enticing. It will help joggers become move swiftly through their day-to-day lives.

But really, who does not want at least a little variety in their lifestyles? Most people, myself included, would find it soul-sucking to find their lifestyles trapped by doing the same thing endlessly. Normal exercising usually requires individuals to go to one place multiple times a week. They can do different things each time they are there, but they are still in one location.

Jogging can help individuals explore the place they live in. They can see multiple ways they can explore the place they live in. So, it does not have to be the same path, nor even the same amount of time. Even a quick five minute jog can feel rewarding in its own right.

Furthermore, the actively zealousness of jogging can be the most efficient method of losing and maintaining one's health. Bianca Beldini, quoted in an article on Healthline, stated that "'jogging keeps the heart rate in a low-end heart rate zone, which is considered the 'fat burning' zone'". The body is constantly in a standing position, so body fat is distributed throughout the body equally. And it has to do so since the heart rate is high, so more body fat is burned.

Jogging does not have to be a strenuous form of exercise. If viewed correctly, it can be the best form of exercise. It does not have to be a constant thirty minute run every day. It can simply be a nice breeze for only five minutes. It is the most pleasantly arduous form of exercising.

And really, since when is exercising supposed to be comfortable? Isn't its activeness the whole point of exercise?

CITATIONS:

Holland, Kimberly. “Researchers Find Jogging May Be the Best Workout to Avoid Weight Gain.” Healthline.Com, 1 Aug. 2019, www.healthline.com/health-news/the-5-best-ways-to-workout-for-weightloss#Whats-so-great-abo

The Snyder Cut in Justice League is an improvement to the theatrical cut is an improvement, at least in terms of providing a more complete story.

Snyder's vision for the DC Universe has been brash with impetuous storytelling that leaves its viewers feeling overwhelmed by its saturation of a genre that is meant for to be pulp entertainment. Some people like it, and they have every reason to. Everyone has their personal taste. But Zack Snyder's films, which currently comprise "Man of Steel", "Batman v Superman", and now "Justice League Snyder Cut", have proven to be a nettlesome corner in the larger scope of superhero films that dominate Hollywood.

Snyder's vision equates superheroes with literal Gods through its slow, gritty montages of superheroes using their powers. Comparisons between superheroes and heroes of ancient mythologies are valid, since they both deal with humans doing superhuman feats that have fascinated its readers. But the heroes of ancient mythology were meant to help citizens judge morality and philosophy. The story of Odysseus, for instance, and his journey home is meant to embrace courage even in the face of fear (sometimes literally). Comic book superheroes were created purely as escapist entertainment as the United States became plagued with the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The original, which I will refer to as The Whedon Cut despite that it's a messy cobbling of two artists of opposing views on superheroes as it was rushed into production, had it's fair share of narrative problems. Most particularly of a lack of screen time for most of its main characters such as The Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg. The problems for these are rooted in its running time, which was two hours, compared the Snyder Cut's staggering four hours. There is only so much a single director can do with multiple main characters in a two hour film. Furthermore, only Superman, Wonder Woman, and to a lesser extent Batman, were given their own movies prior to its release. One of the reasons The Avengers became a success was that it had all its main characters introduced in their own movies (well, except for Black Widow and Hawkeye).

Joss Whedon, at the point he assumed directing duties once Zack Snyder exited the picture, came with an understanding of comics' campiness. He wrote X-Men and Runaways comics and wrote and directed the first two Avengers movies. Despite Whedon's vision, he tried to maintain Snyder's vision while employing his own vision. The result was a Frankenstein monster of a movie with jarring shifts in tone, whereas Snyder's cut stuck to a single tone through its run. Fans of Snyder's vision felt betrayed and launched a campaign for Warner Bros, the film's studio, to let Snyder finish his film.

The eventual result would be a film that brazenly spends it time setting up its characters, their entire origins, why they need to come together to face a threat, and the threat itself, along with moments of minor characters going about their daily business, a shoe-horned in cameo appearance of Martian Manhunter, and (very) lengthy epilogue setting up potential sequels. There exists such an amount of material that drags its pacing to a point that leaves its viewer with unbearable agony.

It is of course, the same movie as the Whedon cut, but it's a different flavor. That means some of the weak narrative choices that dragged Whedon's version also drag Snyder's vision. The whole crux of the film revolves around the superheroes preventing the main villain, Steppenwolf, from obtaining three motherboxes that, when put together, will incinerate the world. The macguffins as a plot device are notoriously dull; they are over-emphasized in their importance that it drains the audience's patience. The main villain is also still extremely dull. Without a compelling villain, then the story has little to offer its audience, or its characters, a compelling reason to care about its conflict.

The lack of interaction between how the characters interact further leaves the audience weary. One of the most fascinating moments in The Avengers was not seeing the superheroes save the world, but watching how the characters overcome their grievances for each other, such as Captain America and Iron Man's dueling viewpoing on whether superheroes are made or built, to achieve a common goal. Their lack of interaction leaves no chemistry that leaves its audience no reason to be entertained by seeing them work together besides having obtained prior knowledge that they are popular characters coming to share the big screen together.

At four hours, there is no reason for a film as ambitious as Snyder's Justice League to be this dull. Then again, it is no surprise at this point how Snyder handles superheroes, so for there is little disappointment for avid moviegoers and comic book readers. Nor is there anything inherently wrong with a director being able to finish an unfinished project. And people who enjoy his viewpoint have every right to do so. But the Snyder Cut of Justice League proves that Snyder's vision will always be a controversial corner of the superhero genre.

Film critic Alonso Duralde characterized Snyder's films as the "black licorice of cinema"; those who like it cannot understand why people do not, and those who do not like it find it unbearable.

CITATIONS

Duralde, Alonso. “‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ Film Review: There’s a Whole Lot More to Love – and Hate.” TheWrap, 18 Mar. 2021, www.thewrap.com/zack-snyder-justice-league-film-review-hbomax-snyder-cut-batman.

By now, you've heard numerous calls to 'defund the police'.

In the wake of the George Floyd protests, activists fighting against police brutality have repeatedly called for 'defunding the police'. A lot of politicians and pundits took this as a step too far, saying that defunding the police would mean getting rid of the system of law and order, and thus abolish the entire point of a police.

Nevertheless, cries continue to this day, even after attempts to divert funding from police organizations faltered. It is still one of the central goals of the Black Lives Matter movement in their push against systemic racism.

Defunding the police is not a matter of weakening the criminal justice system so that they no longer can protect us from criminals. The argument against defunding the police stems from the argument that the ethos of government is to maintain control of society, so that we are not running rampantly around wrecking mayhem. This has been especially the case with pundits who point to rioting as what society would like if police is defunded.

But the point of defunding the police is not meant to be an extreme response to holding police accountable. The point of defunding the police is that the system has obtained too many resources that other resources are sorely lagging. For instance, New York City allocated $5.9 billion to its police. In comparison, they allocated $5.3 billion for its homeless services, health and housing costs.

Is there any reason the police gets that much money? The notion of giving the police enough money to practically become a miniaturized version of the military stems from US President Ronald Reagan. Reagan decided to take the War on Drugs in high gear, and felt the only way they could do that would be to overfund the police criminal justice system. More resources for the police meant endless methods to take on drug cartels, and making drug cartels feel scared about getting caught.

Essentially, the police obtained more power to execute its objectives. And as we all know, power corrupts. With police officers now obtaining assault rifles, tear-gas shooters, and even grenade launchers. After all, why leave all those expensive weapons just sitting around in the closet? With all these tools to take on criminals, it's no wonder police would use them as a means of maintaining law and order in a threatening manner.

This excessive use of force is part of what inadvertently inspired the movement to defund the police. Do the police really need all that firepower to take on criminals? Isn't a simple handgun just enough? Isn't it a bit much to take on drug operators with a grenade launcher? According to a video by Vox, a retired police chief told a New York Times reporter that he turned opportunities to obtain high-caliber weapons because it would have fed a mind-set that he would be a soldier constantly at war than police officer protecting a community.

Aside from moments where criminals may have stronger weapons against police officers, there is little reason for police officers to obtain this much weaponry, especially when the amount of resources allocated to them could easily benefit other resource that could actually deter crime, such as a universal basic income.

The amount of weaponry police officers have will obviously make protestors feel more threatened, and they will push even harder if the police seem more like a force for maintaining control of the status quo. The extra push from protesters will incentivize the police to use the very weapons that inspires anger amongst the protesters, and a riot will inevitably spark. If members of a member of a community want to feel protected by its local police force, then it should not look as a military that wants to control every aspect of its citizens' lives. Police should be protective, not antagonistic, of its citizens.

CITATIONS

Baranauckas, Carla, and Carl Sullivan. “Here’s How Much Money Goes to Police Departments in Largest Cities across the U.S.” WLST, 26 June 2020, eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/26/how-much-money-goes-to-police-departments-in-americas-largest-cities/112004904.

Vox. “What ‘Defund the Police’ Really Means.” YouTube, uploaded by Vox, 26 June 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9w841nrIBg.

----"Why America’s Police Look like Soldiers.” YouTube, uploaded by Vox, 25 June 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOAOVbyfjA0.

Congressional earmarks are a big part of the overall problem with money in politics.

In the fallout of the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, which ruled that money is a form of free speech, the line between donations and bribes has significantly blurred. This is why congressional earmarks are a hot topic in US congressional politics.

An earmark is a provision placed onto a spending bill that pours money to a specific project often favored by a politician. Politicians often execute this form of politics as a way of winning re-elections. Critics have pointed out similarities of earmarks with another congressional politics practice known as pork barrel spending.

Essentially, pork barrel spending is the same concept as earmarks: politicians slipping funding for local projects into federal spending budgets. Though the project has nothing to do with the bill, and, as Will Kenton notes on Investopedia about pork barrel spending, benefits only the lawmaker's home district. The similarities have led earmarks to be referred to as "congressional pork".

Congressional earmarks are not necessarily illegal. But as Mary Brown notes also on Investopedia in an article on Political Earmarks, they are usually related to scandals, hence people's distrust of the practice. The US federal government has been locked in a gridlock throughout its history. The contentious nature of partisan politics often prevents things from being accomplished. Brown notes, earmarks are a convenient way for getting things done, but they often lead to "uncompetitive bids and a lot of waste".

One notable scandal, Brown notes, is when California Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham pled guilty for using his positions on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to insert earmarks for military spending after accepting bribes from military contractors.

Admittedly, banning earmarks is not simple. As stated earlier, money in politics is a tricky issue, particularly when it comes to defining what defines a donation, a simple flow of money to projects, and a bribe. Simply "banning" earmarks outright may just make lawmakers reshape the narrative of how they insert earmarks into spending bills.

So, rather than outright trying to ban something that does not simply go away when ruled out, accountability should be held for congressional earmarks.

But even though earmarks are probably going to be a thorny aspect of congressional politics, that does not mean they are a good idea. They are ripe with corruption that would diminish credibility with the United States federal government. As citizens of the United States, we look to the federal government as a means of providing our essential aspects of maintaining a stable life through providing our resources with enough money. And since we pay for some that spending money with our tax dollars, it's reasonable that our dollars are spent wisely.

CITATIONS:

Brown, Mary. “6 Outrageous Political Earmarks.” Investopedia, 1 Apr. 2020, www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/6-outrageous-political-earmarks.aspx.

Golshan, Tara. “The Case for — and against — Earmarks.” Vox, 12 Jan. 2018, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/12/16873520/case-for-and-against-earmarks.

Investopedia. “How Are Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending Related?” Investopedia, 5 Jan. 2021, www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042715/how-are-earmarks-and-pork-barrel-spending-related.asp.

There is nothing wrong with lawmakers doing what they can to please their constituents. After all, addressing their voters' needs is what voters want out of their representatives to earn their vote.

Understandably, not every congressional earmark is meant to produce private or personal needs. Sure, earmarks are a way to get funds needed for a local community.

But earmarks have shown to be rarely helpful. As Mark K. Matthews notes in the Orlando Sentinel when reporting on earmarks for the area, minorities significantly lagged in earmark spending.

Earmarks are made primarily to help electors win re-election, right? But what if a representative has no competition in the next election, or the one after that? What if a representative remains a safe bet for a party to maintain a seat in Congress? Does that mean everything is fine? Not really. There could still be a lot of problems affecting the lawmaker's area. So, then does the representative get an earmark?

Unlikely; earmarks are made for lawmakers facing competitive elections. Matthews notes black lawmakers rarely get earmarks because black voters will overwhelmingly favor Democrats. Even though African Americans favor the Democrats, they rarely hand their representatives earmarks because they know they will keep voting for them in the future.

It may seem a bit much to ban earmarks when they should just be diverted to them as a 'thank you' for voting for us, but lawmakers are weary of spending money that could be spent helping Democrats in competitive districts.

Earmarks is a congressional practice designed to maintain the status quo. They help local communities, sure. But they only help local communities when the representative for a party faces a competitive election. Therefore, even though helping local communities see some benefits to earmarks, the effect is to maintain a political party's grip in a district. Earmarks is how money controls the flow of who gets what is needed only if a party risks losing a seat in Congress.

CITATIONS:

Matthews, Mark K. “Minorities Lagging In Pork-Barrel Spending.” orlandosentinel.com, 20 Nov. 2007, www.tribpub.com/gdpr/orlandosentinel.com.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that money is a form of free speech.

Citizens United, wishing to run a film for digital cable subscribers about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was running for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 Presidential Elections, lobbied against the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibited corporations and labor unions from using their funds to promote a particular federal candidate. They argued the ban deterred their right to distribute the film as free speech since it is technically a corporation making a political statement. The Supreme Court ruled in the company's favor.

The Supreme Court ruled that outside spending--money spent to influence voters' decision--on elections was a form of free speech. This ignited a debate over the correlation between money and free speech. Is it considered free speech if a multibillion dollar corporation spends millions promoting a particular candidate that would benefit them personally? Would it be considered ethical if, say, Apple were to spend billions of dollars on ads promoting a candidate that would favor their interests?

Since the ruling, it has become a targeted point of reference for putting more money into politics. Companies could have a bigger say than individuals if they have more money to finance their special interests than a single individual.

Certain rules about how spending money is basically a bribe are still in check, sure. But the ruling has significantly blurred the lines between a campaign donation as a form of free speech and a bribe. A corporation cannot give millions of dollars to a campaign directly. But they can spend that much money promoting said candidate. So, bribes are still illegal. But what is considered a bribe is now more unclear.

The ruling also brings up on the debate as to whether or not corporations are considered people. It insinuates that corporations are, in fact, people and have every right, no matter how egregious it may seem to a lot of people, to speak their minds by promoting a candidate.

Naturally, the ruling led to a surge in Super PACs. Super PACs are outside groups that accept an unlimited amount of contributions from individuals and corporations to promote a particular candidate. Again, the money is not given directly to a candidate. Andrew Prokop, writing about the "Citizens United Era" of politics showed a chart by Center for Responsive Politics that showed Super PAC money raising from $338.4 million in the 2008 Presidential Election to $1,038 million in the 2012 Presidential Election. So, presidential elections are obviously more contentious since you have both individuals and corporations fiercely spending money to ensure enough voters side with a candidate. But the catch with Super PACs is that they have to publicly disclose their donations.

This has also led to a surge of "dark money", money spent by nonprofits that refrain from identifying their donors. Basically the same thing as a Super PAC but without having to make it public. Not only are corporations allowed to spend money promoting a candidate, they can also do so in secrecy. Prokop shows another chart by the Center for Responsive Politics that exemplifies and increase in dark money spending from $69 million in 2008 to $310 million in 2012.

Overturning it, of course, would be no easy task. The Supreme Court has the final say about how the US Constitution is interpreted. So, there are two ways to overturn the ruling. The first would be either a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states to adopt it. But even though it seems really difficult, that does not mean we should try. Constitutional amendments are rare, but they do happen! The second would be to appoint enough justices that would support overturning the ruling. But that is also difficult given liberal justices would need to fill at least two seats that would be left vacant by conservative justices. Those are also rare, but, again, they do happen!

Money and politics have always had a contentious relationship. Everyone has the right to spend money however they want so long as it's not spent shadily. But money is not free speech. Money is a commodity made up by people as a means of ensuring survival. As we have seen throughout human history, money has been the source of a lot of problems. Furthermore, the United States Constitution never explicitly makes a statement about money, let alone about its usage in politics. Money has no business with the direction of the federal government. We need to take it out.

CITATIONS

“Citizens United v. FEC.” FEC.Gov, 2010, www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec.

Prokop, Andrew. “The Citizens United Era of Money in Politics, Explained.” Vox, 16 July 2015, www.vox.com/2015/2/9/18088962/super-pacs-and-dark-money.

Group projects at universities should be more frequent.

That is especially the case in today's current climate, where participation is at an all time low.

One of the biggest aspects about classrooms is the group of students surrounding each other. A classroom is more than just a time where a teacher teaches students. It is also a time where students teach each other.

What makes group work an essential part of universities, or education in general, is the students' ability to test each other's strengths and weaknesses, and try to provide insightful feedback.

Group projects are given to help students learn about prioritizing essential tasks they need to complete, while collaborating on who needs to get whatever needs to be done. Sometimes that time is prioritized over a students' strengths and weaknesses, as well as time flexibility. In the end, students provide each other feedback.

There are many benefits for the faculty in group projects. Firstly, students learn in ways their teachers could never teach them. A lot of learning comes from executing than simply observing. And this can be surprising! Students will be able to find ways to learn about themselves without the need for a teacher. And it saves the teachers time that could be spent preparing for future lessons.

But this can only happen if group projects are properly structured. If an assignment is defined too loosely, or if collaboration is not prioritized, then execution of those projects by the students will be poor. A student may end up doing most or all the work, and leave others with little room to learn, or only a little bit of a project may be completed if students miscommunicate on who needs to complete which tasks.

Group work has especially become difficult in the current climate, where most students are forced to do their school work remotely. Remotely, there is little effort to group work because it's harder to maintain contact when everybody has to be on their computers all day. That is why faculty needs to properly structure their group projects that enable students to work with each other in clearly defined ways.

Properly structuring and executing group work leads to many great benefits. Group work can become one of the essential aspects in college because most jobs require collaboration between workers. It can help prepare them for the real life.

CITATIONS

Carnegie Mellon University. “What Are the Benefits of Group Work? - Eberly Center - Carnegie Mellon University.” Carnegie Mellon University, 2021, www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/instructionalstrategies/groupprojects/benefits.html.

Despite that free speech has allowed xenophobic rhetoric to abound in democracies, I maintain a firm belief in the concept of free speech.

Social media platforms, of course, have taken heat for giving hate-groups such as the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan a "microphone", or a method to reach out their racist rhetoric across the globe. But it is not technically a free speech issue because free speech is a government-provided right, whereas social media is maintained by corporations, which can set their own rules about speech.

But even without corporations, free speech has the notions that any speech is free speech. Brian Leiter, a political philosopher, argued in a paper titled "The Case Against Free Speech" that free speech is not an inherently good thing because we are all conditioned to accept social norms and push back what is considered dangerous, whether it's xenophobia or conspiracies.

However, in a democracy, it is perfectly natural that people are permitted to believe whatever they want to believe, however disgraceful it is. When a society is permitted to speak their minds, then that can only be facilitated by a marketplace that distributes ideas freely. No book is to be banned, and every ideology is to be distributed fairly.

Politics, after all, is inherently about the sharing of ideas, which is a distribution of speech amongst politicians. And agreement or disagreement can be difficult to facilitate in a non-democratic society. Brian Leiter argues, or course, that politics is a matter of facts as opposed to values, but it is in humanity's nature to treat facts as a reference point to establish their values.

Most of us have heard the saying "facts don't care about your feelings", but we do treat facts to foster our feelings. Facts should never be disputed, of course, because facts are facts. Conspiracies pushing against facts should be pushed back because they promote disorder for society.

But what would be the alternative than if the US government passed bills suppressing misinformation. Apart from the blowback from political pundits that a move would be seen as the United States becoming an autocratic state akin to the Soviet Union, it would be a really complicated process since misinformation is spread via social media. And social media, as I stated before, is owned by corporations and do not fall under the free speech category. Therefore, a bill meant to suppress misinformation would be meaningless because it has little jurisdiction.

Free speech ultimately comes down to how it is regulated. Sure, some political ideologies should be pushed back, and facts, especially facts about climate change and vaccines, should not be disputed.

Free speech is not overrated because it has allowed political ideologies to gain momentum that presents a danger to society's well-being. It is not overrated because it needs to be handled through productive conversations about political issues.

We do not need to rethink free speech as a concept. We need to rethink its execution.

CITATIONS:

Illing, Sean. “Free Speech: Is It Actually a Good Thing?” Vox, 10 Mar. 2019, www.vox.com/2019/3/4/18197209/free-speech-philosophy-politics-brian-leiter.

Leiter, Brian. “The Case Against Free Speech.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014. Crossref, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2450866.

Globalization can be a net negative depending on the reasons.

Globalization can be a good thing because it is helping the world "shrink", or get closer together. Manufactured goods are shipped almost anywhere across the world, the accessibility of information from nearly every country can be reached via the splinternet, and the outreach of companies can benefit multiple businesses and have greater participation.

Unfortunately, the increase in participation for the global economy has contributed to the amount of loss from the 2008 financial crisis. The losses has led to numerous people to take bad jobs for their health out of desperateness. Jobs became outsourced overseas to cut costs. Furthermore, the increase in participation of investors has led to jobs becoming more demanding to churn out higher profits.

Globalization is a good for those that benefit from it, and bad from those who do not.

I'm going to focus on how globalization affects poor people.

In a study conducted by economists Chris Blattman and Stefan Dercon to see what low-wage jobs add to a country's economy, they found mixed results. Most of the jobs created were technically bad jobs.

They studied five companies in Ethiopia as they hired workers at random as they studied how the jobs affected their incomes and health. They found that, even though the jobs were technically awful due to poor health and lack of regulation, workers desperately took them.

The creation of jobs for workers that desperately need them is not inherently a bad thing, which is why I am mixed on the issue of globalization. The problem, I argue, is not that bad jobs were created for poor workers. It is that jobs like these need to be regulated, and the health of these workers need to be maintained.

Companies, of course, argue that setting the requirements would result in costs, and thus force them to retract creating those jobs since they are not obtaining the profit that investors seek.

But the health of its workers is what companies must prioritize if it wants to obtain the benefits of establishing their presence in developing countries. Globalization for companies is a net positive because they are helping the populations of developing countries obtain any source of income, but they need to address the health of those very workers.

The benefits of globalization must be maintained, while the detractions of it must be addressed.

CITATIONS:

Beauchamp, Zack. “Is Globalization Bad for the Global Poor? This Study Ran an Experiment to Find Out.” Vox, 29 Sept. 2016, www.vox.com/2016/9/29/13096580/globalization-poverty-experiment-blattman-dercon.

Manyika, James, et al. “These Charts Show How Globalization Has Gone Digital.” HuffPost, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/charts-digital-globalization_b_9431880.

It's complicated discussing religion as a force for good or evil.

On the one hand, religion as a force for good has brought and continues to bring a moral system to humans that helps them strive to be the best of who they can be. It gives people hope, especially in times of deep moral peril. When everything feels hopeless, and that we are all screwed, religion is a comforting thing for thousands because it enforces hope. That hope can be the very thing that makes a lot of people help us get through the darkest hours.

On the other hand, religion as a force of evil is apparent with systems utilizing the concept for personal motives. Or as an excuse to justify bad behavior, sometimes to the lengths of extreme terrorism. Most religion profess they are the one, true religion, and that all others lead to eternal misery. The notion that the religion for followers can be so literal to them, that attempts to accept notions that otherwise contradict the lifestyle a religion calls for, say homosexuality or intersectionality, are viewed as hostile and ultimately suppressed.

We can debate the existence of at least one god endlessly, and we will still be unable to come to an answer. The concept of a god creating the universe is simultaneously easy and difficult for people to believe, let alone comprehend.

Ultimately, the point of religion is if, whether it is ultimately true or not, is a benefit or a detraction for maintaining order in society.

Religion spawned from humanity’s inherent need to explain the unexplainable. At first, it was used to explain science: all is as it is because God willed it to be. There is the universe that consists of planets and stars, we know at least one is habitable—the one we inhabit, and our bodies are shaped the way we are because we are created in God’s image. Of course, humans would replace many of these notions with science. But religion has maintained its foothold on humanity because of one (currently) unanswerable question: why are we here?

The answer as to why we exist is very poignant. For the non-believers, we are here because of luck. It is only natural that one particular species, the homo sapiens, would develop the intelligence for the various accomplishments throughout world history. No other animal on Earth has developed the same kind of intelligence because, well, the other animals’ brains are not developed that way. For others, religion provides a sufficient belief system that, though we can never truly know the answer, it can give followers an idea of how to make sense of reality: why we are the species that have developed this kind of intelligence.

Ultimately, religion as a force for good and evil is dependent on how followers interpret a religious text. A bible, after all, is not a sentient organism but an object containing words that are meant to provide humans a way to live. Although religious extremism is apparent, does that mean we should blame the religious texts, which contain no feelings, that inspired them. Or should we continue blaming followers who interpret the religious texts to justify their motives. Religion is a system for which humans live by as a means for living a good life.

People should not be judged by their beliefs, but by their actions.

CITATIONS

Illing, Sean. “Why Science Can’t Replace Religion.” Vox, 4 Nov. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/10/30/17936564/new-atheism-religion-science-god-john-gray.

In the year since the coronavirus had been declared a pandemic, the US government has issued stimulus checks to every American who earned below a certain income, as well as more for dependent children, and added $600 in unemployment benefits.

2020 became the year the US federal government simply gave people free money. But it was only temporary. The stimulus checks were a one-time payment, and the unemployment benefits eventually expired.

But why not make it permanent? Why should the government be unwilling to give people free money?

The most blatant response would be that it deters individuals from getting jobs. If people are handed free money, they would have no reason to obtain jobs. If no one is looking to obtain jobs, work does not get done. And if work does not get done, society collapses.

But does that mean we have to give people that much money all the time? In that case, people already earn free money when they go on welfare, but that lasts only six months. Why not make it permanent? Why not give everybody $100 every week? Or $200?

Assuming citizens are given, we'll say, $300 per week, that would be a little bit more than enough than if workers worked 40 hours a week at the minimum wage. Companies, worried about losing workers to free money, would be forced to raise their hourly wages. In essence, companies would be competing with the US government over providing enough money to give workers a good reason to work for them.

And with the extra money anyway, workers would have more money to spend on products, which would help other businesses grow and pay their workers.

But not only does giving free money help companies grow because they are boosting morale with raising their hourly wages, and getting more business because people have money to spend.

Giving free money empowers people.

One of the most influential political philosophers Rutger Bregman, wrote extensively why giving free money is the key to achieving a utopia. In a chapter of his book, Utopia For Realists, he cites an example in which a social worker, struggling to maintain a stable living due to a history of drug addiction, was given 3,000 British pounds. Did he spend it on more heroin, as people expect drug addicts to do? Nope. He asserted that with money given to him for free, he felt incentivized to look after himself.

Another example he cites to advocate giving free money is the government of Uganda distributing $400 to 12,000 citizens between the ages of 16 and 35. The only thing they had to do was submit a business plan. Five years later, the citizens invested the free money in their education and business ventures, causing their incomes to rise nearly 50 percent, as well as their odds of getting hired.

So, the notion that free money will be spend recklessly is incorrect.

In the wake of the pandemic that has caused numerous businesses to close, and people unable to pay their monthly rent, and also in the wake of the 2008 financial crises whose effects are still felt today, why would anyone spend free money recklessly? So many people have been negatively affected that they need money for goods and services. But they cannot get that money for goods and services because businesses are closing. Therefore, the surest way to keeping things as if nothing happened is to give people free money.

And even without taking the pandemic into account, there are still many ways individuals are hampered by their lack of resources in their amount of money. The cost of higher education is astounding. Healthcare costs are through the roof. Rent has been getting more expensive. There is only so many people that can keep up with the rising costs.

Investing free money will finally discredit the notion that poor people are poor because they are inherently lazy and recklessly spent their money. It does not have to be so much that everyone becomes an instant millionaire the moment they are born. But it can be sizeable enough that it can be start to helping individuals pay their monthly rent, save for higher education, and not be fearful of getting sick over healthcare costs. With free money, people are MORE incentivized to work because they have the resources to do so.

Free money will not singlehandedly resolve all our issues, but it will get a start. For a lot of workers, it will be enough. But for most others, it will make a significant difference in their lives.

CITATIONS

Bregman, Rutger. “Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World.” Utopia For Realists, Reprint, Back Bay Books, 2018, pp. 33–63.

---"Why We Should Give Free Money to Everyone.” The Correspondent, 24 Dec. 2013, thecorrespondent.com/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39.

Kenny, Charles. “For Fighting Poverty, Cash Is Surprisingly Effective.” Bloomberg, 3 June 2013, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-03/for-fighting-poverty-cash-is-surprisingly-effective.

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled that Uber, a company that pays people to drive other people, must classify the drivers it employs as drivers.

Initially, Uber drivers are not classified as employees; they are gig workers. This enables Uber to not be held responsible for their drivers' health. So, if a driver accidentally caught the coronavirus, that driver would not be able to apply for health insurance. Furthermore, Uber drivers are held solely responsible for what happens with their own vehicles, and pay for any damages accrued themselves.

This business practice has generated controversy with Uber. California recently held an election in 2020 to see if companies like Uber should classify its drivers as employers instead of gig workers. Uber lobbied intensely against for voters to vote no, and emphasized to its users passage of the vote would ruin the company. In the end, voters sided with Uber.

But a Supreme Court in the UK ruled Uber must classify its gig workers as employers. Uber complied, and will have to pay workers minimum wage, holiday pay, and health benefits.

The ruling could only be bad for workers in the gig economy, since the ruling would insinuate other gig companies treat their workers as employees. Despite Uber's win in California, they reported a net loss of US$6.8 billion due to low demand for drivers to go anywhere while under lockdown.

As a result of this ruling, Uber drivers will start receiving the country's minimum wage, which is currently 8.91 pounds or about $12.40, from the time they accept a ride to when they drop the rider off. Drivers will also be able to earn more if a fare is higher than the minimum wage.

Unfortunately, what remains open to interpretation is payment when Uber drivers await riders. This can get particularly complicated if the number of drivers surpasses the demand of riders. But as long as drivers are waiting for riders, they are active in their job and should therefore be considered "working".

Despite Califronia's loss to Uber this past election, this ruling could hopefully set a precedent for other European countries to rule in favor of labor activists for Uber to consider their drivers as employees.

Uber drivers have no reason to be considered as gig workers given the amount of time is required to earn a sizeable profit. Drivers have to have miles upon miles, ostensibly adding wear and tear on their vehicles they alone are responsible for maintaining. They also deserve to be compensated by Uber should they inadvertently contract a virus a rider carried, or for any other trouble. If Uber is a company large enough to reach nearly any corner of the world, it has every reason to pay the workers that help make it an engaging business.

CITATION

Russon, Mary-Ann. “Uber Drivers Are Workers Not Self-Employed, Supreme Court Rules.” BBC News, 19 Feb. 2021, www.bbc.com/news/business-56123668.

Satariano, Adam. “In a First, Uber Agrees to Classify British Drivers as ‘Workers.’” The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/uber-uk-drivers-worker-status.html.

The war on terror has been raging for 20 years. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the United States stationed numerous troops in the Middle East to combat Islamic Extremism.

One of the most notable countries the United States stationed troops was in Afghanistan, where Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist responsible for the 9/11 events, was believed to be hiding. After ten years, the United States finally managed to kills Bin Laden.

With the man responsible for 9/11 now dead, it seemed like the United States had no reason to remain in Afghanistan. Yet, the US kept troops stationed there, as a means of preventing another terrorist gain the influence Bin Laden had.

The year 2021 marks the tenth anniversary of Bin Laden's killing, and twenty years since 9/11, In that time, the United States has shifted between pulling its troops and keeping some stationed there across four alternating administrations.

As of this writing, there are 2,500 troops still stationed in Afghanistan. The most common reason the US has kept troops in Afghanistan is the Taliban. The Taliban is an infamous organization that has conducted Islamic extremism to seize control of the country. If the United States were to withdraw its troops, critics fear, then Afghanistan would be left wide open for a hostile takeover by the Taliban.

But if the United States is only keeping 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, that is no indication that the US takes a probable takeover by the Taliban that seriously. The amount of troops kept stationed there is unlikely to be enough to maintain the order the US envisions if the Taliban were to launch an attack. If the US was more serious about a probable attack, then it would make more sense to have kept a higher amount stationed there.

Furthermore, the presence of the United States army has generated more unrest that may encourage citizens of Afghanistan to join the Taliban.

Even if the Taliban were to seize control, it does not seem like much would change. Transparency International, an organization that tracks and publishes every country's amount of corruption ever year for an index, found Afghanistan to be very high on its scale. The instability of the Afghanistan government begs the question what the United States is trying to maintain.

If instability of the Afghan government has led to the United States to strike peace deals with the Taliban, in which the US will leave by May 1, 2021, and the Taliban will not commit further acts of aggression. But if the Taliban were to break the peace talks, then the US would be forced to re-enter Afghanistan, and place the country back where it started.

The notion that the presence of US troops in Afghanistan in 9/11 is, finally, doubtful. In an interview with Alex Ward on Vox, retired US Army Col. Chris Kolenda, who was stationed in Afghanistan, stated that al-Qaeda no longer posed the threat it did while Bin Laden was alive.

He encouraged an extension of the May 1 deadline, but agreed the US had overstayed its welcome. It is time to pull its troops because it no longer poses the international threat it once did. Remaining there, he said, would make the situation another Vietnam-style scenario.

The continuing presence of US troops may be what inadvertently starts another 9/11 attack because citizens will be weary of feeling oppressed over a tragedy they had nothing to do with. They will have every reason to join the Taliban, and raid US bases demanding their withdrawal. The continued presence may actually present a greater risk for the US troops due to the hypothetical unrest. Though, the situation has no easy solutions, the most prudent would be a gradual withdrawal before more US citizens are unnecessarily killed.

CITATION

Corruption Perceptions Index 2020 for New Zealand.” Transparency.org, 2021, www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/nzl.

Ward, Alex. “Why US Troops Should Leave Afghanistan.” Vox, 17 Mar. 2021, www.vox.com/22327600/afghanistan-troop-withdrawal-biden-kolenda-leave.

Meghan Markle, the actress that married into the royal family with Prince Harry, would only be destroying Prince Harry in the sense that she is ending the British monarchy's long line of whites only members.

Since Meghan became the Duchess of Sussex, she has been mired by the British tabloids as a disease-carrying emigrant that will ultimately bring the end of the British monarchy, which has long been exclusive to lineage members who are predominantly white.

The most poignant detail in Meghan Markle's interview with Oprah was when she revealed members of the royal family expressed "concerns" over her then-unborn child's skin. This bombshell insinuated that there had been heated discussions about race and accepting outsiders, since Meghan is not descended by a lineage of royalty

The racism that confronted Meghan from the royal family and the British tabloids proved to be psychological damaging to the point where Meghan contemplated suicide. The apparent racism within the royal family became so prominent, that she and Prince Harry announced they were stepping back from the duties of the royal family. Immediately, the tabloids suggested that Meghan forced Harry into the decision, and was forcing him into difficult decisions.

Obviously, suggesting that Prince Harry was forced to step back from being prominent members of the royal family due to Meghan is an unfounded claim, especially since the royal family hardly reveals anything. Meghan also criticized the royal family's refusal to defend her from the racist tabloid press.

Since there is only so much we can know about the issues within the royal family, it is wrong to speculate that Meghan is "destroying" Harry in the sense that he is relinquishing his royalty status. It is a claim that insinuates that the British royal family must remain a symbol of whiteness in the UK. It is not Harry's fault, nor is it Meghan's that they are stepping back. It is the fault of pervasive racism to maintain the status quo that places them in a difficult position.

We should not be blaming Meghan for her problems.

We should be empathetic with her.

CITATIONS:

Dreazen, Yochi. “Why Meghan Markle’s Engagement to Prince Harry Is Controversial.” Vox, 15 Dec. 2017, www.vox.com/world/2017/11/27/16705282/meghan-markle-prince-harry-engagement-royal-family.

Grady, Constance. “Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Oprah Interview about the Royal Family, Explained.” Vox, 9 Mar. 2021, www.vox.com/culture/22319714/meghan-markle-prince-harry-oprah-interview-cbs-explained.

I agree wholeheartedly that their marriage has ultimately resulted in compromising, especially if that is the nature of life. But with the royal family, the situation is a bit complicated. Meghan spoke at length in the interview about the monarchy's isolationist lifestyle from the general public to the point where she had to ask for permission to get in touch with her old friends.

The fact that the tabloids relentlessly portrayed her as a negative outsider due to her racial background made their lifestyle all the more unnecessarily tiresome. With the tabloid press, the guards would place more restrictions on her private life. Prince Harry is sixth in line to succeed Queen Elizabeth, so naturally the tabloids will portray his probable assumption of the throne as a threat to the English lifestyle with Meghan being a negative influence.

Another reason this is more complicated than it looks is that the goings on in the English Royal Family is shrouded in secrecy. But it was apparent that members were insulting Meghan's background. Princess Michael, for instance, was photographed wearing a racist brooch during a Christmas gathering with Meghan.

Like I said before, this is a time for empathy with Meghan, and not a time for guessing who did what and why. Yes, they are financially secure but their celebrity status makes them a target for tabloids to portray as negative influencers to the aristocratic lifestyle.

Identity appears the be the central driving force to this whole controversy.

Naturally, the British Royal Family prides itself on lineage, which is predominantly white, and as symbols of the United Kingdom. But their overwhelming identities as white can inadvertently insinuate that Britain is a nation predominantly exclusive to white people, something that absolutely has to change.

What makes this issue more complicated is that the British royal family has an isolationist policy. As a result, Meghan had to get permission just to get in touch with any of her friends, which left her constantly feel as if she might as well be in prison. And the fact that the tabloids frequently targeted her as an outsider threatening to bring a reckoning to the British royal family's long-lasting traditions, resulting in the end of the overall identity to the country as they know it made it all the more stressful for everyone involved.

Prince Harry is actually sixth in line to assume the throne after Queen Elizabeth either resigns or dies. Although the possibility of his assuming the throne is not something to dwell on, it is an integral aspect to why he easily gets caught up in the racial controversy surrounding Meghan beyond her racial identity.

When kings or queens and successions are involved, it's natural for people to envision these figures as if they lead a kind of Game of Thrones-esque lifestyle. But Meghan wants nothing to do with the politics of the British aristocracy, as is apparent on her Instagram page where she posts photos advocating social progress (such as an online video call with Malala Yousafzai).

It's easy to assume Meghan "should've thought it through when she married into the royal family", but I think that misses the point of this dilemma. The point is that Meghan's plight exposes racial tensions within the British aristocracy we probably never would have known had she and Harry never gotten together, or how great lengths the British tabloids would go to portraying non-white individuals marrying into the royal family as negative influencers.

As members of the general public, the best we can do is offer our support and express our empathy for Meghan and her plight.

Just like all of us, she did not get to choose her identity. Our identities is a dilemma we all grapple with at some point. If Meghan's identity with regards to the royal family means change is in order, then we have all the more reason to cheer her and Harry on for.

Daylight savings is not something that benefits our lifestyles, and I see no reason to keep living with it.

The most tantalizing aspect of daylight savings has to do with the hour lost in March, even though it is regained later in November. In the days that follow, we slowly, and begrudgingly alter our mental daily schedules since sunrise and sunset occur at different times.

The alteration of our sense of times, Julian Ries in Healthline.com writes, has contributed to an increase in fatal car crashes by six percent due to sleep deprivation from losing an hour of sleep. Most people may be able to navigate the hour-loss of sleep but some may have to deal with others who are not.

The most common reason we have daylight savings has to do with the myth that it's for the farmers to manage their crops. But in an interview with Brian Handwerk for the National Geographic, Professor Michael Downing points to a lobbying campaign by farmers that opposed daylight savings leading up to its creation in the 1960s.

The real reason we adopted daylight savings is for energy savings. The idea is that, with a hour lost, we spend less time using our electricity, and conserving it for when it is daylight. Energy is saved for daylight hours, when we need to be most productive. But, in actuality, the average consumption of energy increases. Brian Handwerk points to a study conducted in Indiana, which did not adopt the concept until 2006, found out the hour-loss of sleep led to an increase in usage of air conditioning or heaters in the evening now that people had an extra hour of daylight in the evening.

But the main reason the world has no reason to maintain a daylight savings concept is that people are plain tired. No one enjoys having their sleeping schedules interfered, especially by sociological practices. No one enjoys having to prioritize the time they turn in due to an hour-loss, especially if it's over a misconception that it will save energy. We like to keep our schedules tidy and simple because they are how we maintain our productivity.

CITATIONS:

Handwerk, Brian. “Time to Move On? The Case Against Daylight Saving Time.” Culture, 10 Feb. 2021, www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/131101-when-does-daylight-savings-time-end-november-3-science.

Resnick, Brian. “The Awfulness of Daylight Saving Time, Mapped.” Vox, 12 Mar. 2016, www.vox.com/science-and-health/2015/11/19/9762276/daylight-saving-time-bad-mapped.

--“Daylight Saving Time 2021 Begins Sunday: 8 Things to Know about ‘Springing Forward.’” Vox, 12 Mar. 2021, www.vox.com/science-and-health/22327409/daylight-saving-time-2021-begins-sunday-march-14.

Digital media has gained popularity over physical media since the inception of the internet.

Digital media consists of digital formats on the internet such as social media sites, podcasts, or blogs. Physical media consists of books, newspapers, and a radio.

Digital media is more accessible because the internet has continued to reach nearly every household and every building, whereas physical media requires substantial transportation for only a single part of it.

Physical media retains advantages over digital media for its intimacy. Individuals have a tendency to place an aura of value onto substantial objects for various reasons. A physical book, for instance, can be valuable if it was previously owned by a celebrity, say Albert Einstein, because it is something that one can assume complete ownership over regardless of what the novel is.

But physical media requires space for it to occupy for it to exist. Too many objects for someone to own in their residence can be especially agitating, especially if that someone (like myself) lives in a small room. Digital media significantly resolves that issue because it does not require space to take up. With digital media, consumers no longer need to worry about storing physical media.

Furthermore, digital media is easily transportable. I only need my iPhone to read the news, listen to books, or watch something on Netflix. The idea that I can carry all this on a single device in my pocket is astounding. I no longer have to worry about misplacing a book I used to always carried because I just need my iPhone to read it.

It is also cheaper. News organizations charge cheaper subscriptions of internet only access than for physical newspapers to be delivered to their door. The Kindle store has a daily deals page that makes ebooks cheaper than physical books sold at Barnes & Noble. Digital advertising retains better results with smaller investments because no transportation is necessary. All it requires is a simple internet connection. Payment for a single streaming service can bring users thousands of hours in entertainment instantly than purchasing a single disc at a video store that requires time to travel to.

It is more interactive. Digital media also contains more features. Articles can be cited directly to users' Facebook feeds. Notes on Kindle ebooks can be shared with other users instantly. They are easier to use as citations for users to present arguments. How often do internet users cite an article from a physical newspaper than an article on the internet?

The internet has not usurped physical completely, granted, because more people are familiar with how physical media works. Technology, however advanced, can still be complicated to utilize for a lot of people. Physical media is not plagued with ads that can deter the experience. Digital media can also be blocked, altered, or plainly taken away from a user's ownership, whereas a piece of physical media is permanent the moment it is created.

Ultimately, the decision between physical and digital media ultimately comes down to personal preference. That physical media will survive is certain because people are more familiar with it. But as the internet becomes increasingly accessible to nearly every household in the world, so will digital media grow in popularity over physical media. Eventually, the internet will be the ultimate utility for individuals not only to survive but also the primary way to be entertained with an endless amount of content that will become far easier to access.

CITATIONS

Grady, Constance. “The 2010s Were Supposed to Bring the Ebook Revolution. It Never Quite Came.” Vox, 23 Dec. 2019, www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/23/20991659/ebook-amazon-kindle-ereader-department-of-justice-publishing-lawsuit-apple-ipad.

Thornton, Briana. “Digital vs. Traditional Advertising: How Much Does Each Cost?” Array Digital, 1 June 2020, thisisarray.com/digital-vs-traditional-advertising-how-much-does-each-cost.

“How Digital Media Is Overtaking Traditional Media.” Whacked Out Media | Blog, 9 Aug. 2019, www.whackedout.in/blog/2019/08/09/how-digital-media-is-overtaking-traditional-media.

Vaccine passports, documents to show to travelers they are safe from COVID-19, are understandably a frustrating aspect to navigating a world plagued by COVID-19. It is not immoral to feel as though vaccine passports make us feel as if we are in a totalitarian government.

But even though vaccine passports are frustrating to many, they are a perfectly reasonable method for people to travel.

The most obvious reasons for issuing vaccine passports would be the simplest way for families to travel, or get back to business traveling. Nicole Hassoun and Anders Herlitz wrote for Scientific American that vaccine passports would "offer an opportunity for employees to get back to work and families to reunite". It is reasonable for airlines to require documentation for passengers that want to travel by plane.

Requirements of a vaccine passport may help encourage people to obtain a coronavirus vaccine. If they need a vaccine to enjoy the daily luxuries without having to wear a mask or do it at all, they may feel incentivized to getting a vaccine.

To make them seem ethical, they propose enforcing a mask policy for people that need to travel but have not obtained a vaccine. They should also be equally distributed, so that they do not come across to some people as an elite status symbol.

Vaccine passports may be inevitable as the world navigates between those vaccinated by the coronavirus and those who are not. And people are not wrong to feel that requirements to obtain one is dictatorial. But it may be a necessary method to getting the world to return to normal. This can be dealt with, however, by ensuring they are distributed equally, fairly, and do not promote elite status symbols.

CITATIONS:

Fisher, Max. “Vaccine Passports, Covid’s Next Political Flash Point.” The New York Times, 3 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/world/europe/passports-covid-vaccine.html.

Hassoun, Nicole Anders Herlitz, et al. “How to Make ‘Immunity Passports’ More Ethical.” Scientific American, 24 Feb. 2021, www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-make-immunity-passports-more-ethical.

When comparing modern society to 1984, whether one has read Orwell's seminal 1949 novel should be noted but not the main point of the argument.

1984 is a seminal novel for good reasons. It is about how societies, however democratic, can be totalitarian in their methods of enforcing order and preventing chaos. Many people refer to the novel because its setting is the most basic example of a totalitarian government. Society is governed a single entity known as "Big Brother", and every aspect of their lives observed by the government. And if a human even thinks about committing a crime, it is dealt with.

There have been multiple occasions in the past since the book's publication that people compared the society they currently lived in to the book. People have pointed to the Patriot Act in 2001, and the revelation of NSA's surveillance program from Snowden's leaks as evidence we either lived in Orwell's novel, or risked it. It was when Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, when people really pointed out comparisons between their current state of the world and the world portrayed in Orwell's fictional account.

1984 became popular enough during Trump's presidency to become a best-seller on Amazon, and be declared essential reading by New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani as a way to comprehend the current state of the world.

But even though similarities between Orwell's fictional account about a future where everything is controlled by an evil dictator, there are also plenty of ways our current world differs. For instance, most of the current issues plaguing the United States has to deal with capitalism.

With the rise of companies such as Amazon and Uber driving small businesses obsolete, and the 2008 financial crises, workers have had to take increasingly drastic measures to survive. Many of these culminated for reasons Trump obtained most votes; he portrayed himself as an outsider of the political world that could fix anything. And voters bought his message.

Whether or not people making those claims have actually read the novel, to me, is a bit pointless because the world depicted in 1984 is a clear-cut example of a totalitarian government that anyone can point to regardless of having read it. Terms like "Big Brother", "groupthink", and even "orwellian", a term never said in the book, have become common enough to become cliched definitions of a totalitarian government.

As someone who has read Orwell's novel, I argue that 1984 is a relevant fiction novel to describe some of our current predicament, but I strongly disagree that it is the only relevant novel. Another one I argue is relevant would be Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower, which features a world faced with climate disaster that results in a dictator becoming president with the campaign slogan "Make America Great Again".

But when discussing the comparisons between our world and Orwell's, it's a bit pointless if people have actually read the book because most of its ideas are common knowledge. Instead we should argue how Orwell's world is relevant to our modern society.

CITATIONS:

Grady, Constance.

---“The Cases for and against 1984 as Essential Reading for 2017.” Vox, 28 Jan. 2017, www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/28/14412840/cases-for-against-1984-essential-reading-2017.

--- “The Word ‘Orwellian’ Has Lost All Meaning.” Vox, 16 Jan. 2021, www.vox.com/culture/22233197/orwellian-definition-george-orwell-1984-politics-english-language-josh-hawley-donald-trump-jr.

Gender reveal parties are a good idea. That is, if they are not mishandled.

When expecting mothers announce the gender of their unborn children, they tend to make a spectacle of it on social media. And as we've seen on social media, when people do things on social media that go viral. Most of the time they try to make it bigger than the last. Reasonably, that can get out of hand.

But the real reason Americans are divisive on gender reveal parties does not have to do with controversial attempts of grabbing attention, they are more about sexism.

The point of a gender reveal party is to make a spectacle of learning something new about a fetus' gender. This is understandably divisive because it invites discourse of gender before they are even born. This may also set expectations for unborn children. We are setting expectations on lifestyles, behaviors, and success rate onto unborn babies. So, it is understandable why Americans feel that gender reveal parties are a form of systemic sexism.

But the discourse surrounding gender reveal parties benefited trans and nonbinary Americans, notes Lindsay King-Miller. She writes, "The truth is, of course, that you can't see gender on an anatomy scan". She quotes Daniel L. Carlson on Psychology Today piece that gender is defined by the social, behavioral, and psychological characteristics we use to distinguish between the sexes.

Gender reveal parties can be harmful. They can have unintended consequences as more and more expectant mothers get creative about how they want to obtain their fifteen-minutes-of-fame, or reinforce systemic sexism. But maybe they don't have to be if they emphasize the eventual birth of the fetus.

Gender reveal parties, King-Miller notes are held by parents who are "trying to meet an emotional need that might otherwise go unrecognized, and...a gender reveal party offers at least an approximation of what parents are searching for". In other words, they do not have to be these fanciful celebrations, they can just be another step towards the eventual birth.

CITATIONS

King-Miller, Lindsay. “Gender Reveal Parties Have Been Widely Embraced — and Reviled.” Vox, 31 July 2019, www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/31/20708816/gender-reveal-party-social-media-game-pink-blue-fire.

The Body Mass Index is meant to measure humans' health and curb the spread of obesity. It is measured by an individual's weight by his or her height squared.

Obesity is a problem thanks to the popularity of fast food and the increasing costs to eat healthy. Per the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a low BMI ensures one does not risk heart diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes, and other diseases obesity contributes.

But according to a viral letter by Tessa Embry, a 14-year old who was classified as obese despite actively playing softball, the BMI does not account for muscle mass, bone structure and fat distribution. These are vital aspects of their bodies people take into account as they manage their health.

The biggest reason we are stuck with this system is due to the lack of sufficient alternative. According to Harvard School of Public Health's page on measuring obesity, alternatives include the waist circumference, measuring the circumference of the abdomen, or the waist-to-hip ratio, measuring the waist and the hip and dividing the waist measurement by the hip. But they each have their own limitations.

The BMI method is not always wrong. But, as Albert Sun notes in The New York Times, it unnecessarily forces people to pay higher insurance premiums. So, the method is a proponent of systemic body shaming. A wrong BMI may also accidentally classify an obese person as thin. After all, it only focuses on two aspects, size and weight, and limits the broader scope of how people manage their health. Therefore, we should not be reliant on the BMI to tell us how healthy we might actually be.

CITATIONS

Belluz, Julia. “Why BMI Is a Flawed Measure of Body Fat, Explained by an Eloquent 14-Year-Old.” Vox, 6 Apr. 2016, www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11377158/bmi-flaws-tessa-embry.

“Measuring Obesity.” Obesity Prevention Source, 12 Apr. 2016, www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-definition/how-to-measure-body-fatness/#computerized-tomography.

Sun, Albert. “How Often Is B.M.I. Misleading?” The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2015, www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-science-2015/latest/how-often-is-bmi-misleading?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur.

People think adding periods at the end of text messages indicates aggressiveness.

As an English major, and a fan of writing, I find this assumption confusing. I would understand if someone was aggressive by putting an exclamation mark. But I have difficulty understanding why texters dislike it when they receive texts that end with a period.

We use periods to indicate the end of a sentence, and prevent phrases from becoming a tiresome run-on sentence.

Proponents of avoiding adding periods at the end of texts state we do not normally have personal conversations in complete sentences, let alone as if we were in a well-written novel. Text messaging, after all, is not supposed to be a way for writers to sharpen their writing skills--although, that is how I have handled texting--it is a way we communicate in its simplistic terms.

But plenty of people who add periods do not mean to indicate aggressiveness. Some people end texts with periods because it is how they have been raised to construct a sentence. If they neglect periods, they fear they risk losing their capabilities of forming a complete sentence. So, just because texters normally dislike it when they receive a message that ends with a period, does not mean to be too judgmental.

I am not saying we should ALL have to interpret periods at the end of texts. We can inform each other if we are not okay with periods at the end of texts. I am arguing that we should not make it an official rule of texting--if official rulings about texting exists.

I have ended nearly every texts with a period for the past six years, and I have never once been scorned for it. As a writer, I am hard-wired towards adding periods at the end of every complete sentences. Like I said, texting has provided me a sufficient way of keeping my writing skills in check. In fact, I have been complimented a few times for "talking" (texting) like a novelist.

So, while we are allowed to have our personal rules about etiquette in texting, But do we all need to make it a rule to prevent adding periods at the end of texting? Aren't we reading a bit much into periods? After all, it's just a little dot to end a complete sentence.

Certainly. When researching for why people feel that it's bad texting manners to add periods at the end of texts, I came across an article on Lifehacker by Elizabeth Yuko. She explains that periods in text messages, as opposed to general writing, take on different meanings because it is not something that texters normally do. So, when texters do something that is not normal, such as adding a period at the end of a text message, people tend to read into that. For instance, the difference between sending a text that says "Hey" and "Hey." is that the former conveys excitement, whereas the latter conveys serious and anxiety because one does not normally add a text with a period.

In short, simple statements like "Hey", then I argue it is reasonable to not add periods at the end of texts. But in text messages that contain short sentences then I argue we have no reason to read too much into a period at the end of a text.

In the wake of the blizzard in Texas in mid-February that left millions of residents without power, journalists were quick to point out the biggest cause of the state's loss of power was the face that its power grid operated independently from the rest of the United States.

Power grids are what give us electricity in our homes so we could turn on the light, operate the oven, or turn on the TV. Each of our homes in the US are connected to a power grid. Both the eastern and western sides operate on their own interconnected power grid. A home in the state of Maine gets electricity from a power grid that stretches all the way to Florida.

But Texas is the only state to operate on its own power grid. Why? Because Texas, when the power grids were constructed, they were uneasy about the idea that they would have to deal with federal regulation, and wanted to remain independent from the federal government. Their decision to operate on its own power gird meant they could impose their own rules on how a power grid could be managed, and even set their own costs.

While Texas may have saved money, that meant they could not draw power from their neighboring states to compensate for lost power. In the interconnected grid, Oklahoma, which was also hit by the same winter storm, was able to maintain power because it could get some from their neighboring states. In fact, the interconnected power grid in the east coast is so sufficient, that New York City can compensate any lost power from Canada with minimum effort.

In the long run, Texas also had to pay for its own methods to generate power for the power grid, rather than receiving power paid for by the federal government. So, even though Texas could set their own price to build a power grid, some of the money they saved ended up being needlessly spent to generate that power they could have gotten free of charge. And when the winter storm hit, the power generating the power gird could barely function for five days.

If a state wishes to operate their own power grid independently from the rest of the United States, then the least they need to do is prepare for disasters such as the winter storm that affected Texas. Granted, it is not usual to expect a winter storm of all places to hit Texas, but there are other disasters that could affect their power grid such as flooding.

But if Texas does not want to bother worrying about preparing for disasters, or problems with managing its own power grid, then it has no reason to operate independently. It should integrate their power grid with the rest of the east coast for the United States. Obviously, at this point it would not be simple since contracts Texas made with companies to build the power grids would need to figure out how to work in the federal government. But this would significantly help the US fight against climate change, because decreasing the use of natural gas, which is a frequent method to powering power grids that Texas uses, is vital if we want to deter the damage of climate change.

CITATION

Marshall, Madeline. “Texas’s Power Disaster Is a Warning Sign for the US.” YouTube, uploaded by Vox, 4 Mar. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcrsgdl_hP0.

When creative writers commit to writing a story about an idea, they are faced with a choice: either outline the story, or make it up as you go along in your first draft.

My high school English writing teachers insisted that outlines are vital because they help us organize our thoughts, and connect them in a meaningful way. Writers know ahead of time if they have too many ideas for one part, and should add more to another part. An outline helps the final product feel coordinated. For James. J. Kilpatrick, writing is like carpentry: "The crafts of writing and carpentry are deceptively simple. The carpenter has to begin with a plan; the writer must begin with a thought...there has to be some clear notion of where we expect to be when we have finished nailing or writing".

Outlining also helps creative writers break down the basics of what they are saying in a particular component, such as a paragraph or a chapter, of the story. With an outline, writers can ask themselves if they are saying what needs to be said clearly. With all the insistence that writers organize their writing with an outline, it would seem apparent that only writers that outline their stories effectively manage to make a living writing or become skilled at it.

But it turns out a lot of famous writers prefer to go straight to writing the first draft. After all, outlining is not exactly writing. And writers love to write. So, why spend time doing hard work when they could go straight to the fun part? Stephen King remarked that "Outlines are the last resource of bad fiction writers who wish to God they were writing masters' theses".

Writers want to be in the same position as their readers, as they read a story for the first time unaware of the twists, turns and surprises that lay in store. Storytelling is seeped by emotions, which, though I argued in a previous opinion post they were a logical aspect to the human condition, are often unpredictable.

In the end, it ultimately comes down to a creative writer's personal preferences. Authors have different methods of generating work they think will delight their readers. There is no official rulebook to becoming a skilled, successful writer; they need to find their own path. Plenty of successful writers found whichever way works best for them.

Ultimately, my personal preference is to outline to ensure that the ending does not disappoint. With an outline, creative writers can ensure that component of a story ties neatly without feeling like it's something that exists just to inflict an emotion on the reader. Writing is fun, but some organization can help keep it tidy.

CITATION:

Robinson, Caleb. “Famous Authors on Outlining a Novel — Should You Do It?” Medium, 17 Dec. 2018, writingcooperative.com/famous-authors-on-outlining-a-novel-should-you-do-it-de6f1a93eedc.

The popularity of fairy tales has drawn concern from adults who worry they have a negative affect on children.

Most of them end with evil triumphing over good, when the real world is much more grayer than that, and they feature blossoming romance between a pretty young woman and a big strong man that solves all her problems, and that the original texts feature violence, such as Cinderella forcing her stepsisters to cut off parts of their feet to wear ugly shoes, are too gruesome.

Storytelling does not capture the realities and complexities of real life completely because storytelling is inherently fiction, meaning the worlds set within fairy tales are created by an individual. We should not expect fairy tales to be anymore realistic than, say, a Star Wars movie because they are meant to be portrayals of everyday life.

Leilani VisikoKnox-Johnson, writing for the University of Hawai'i at Hilo, pushed the notion of telling fairy tales to children because they "provide a great way of accessing children's imagination by exploring memories of fairy tales and using them to address painful or unsettling issues in a nonthreatening, playful manner".

VisikoKnox-Johnson refuted the notion that a fairy tales should be blamed if, say, Cinderella inadvertently promotes the notion that stepfamilies are inherently evil. Notions like this can be easily combated if parents talk to their children about their readings.

Yes, children are susceptible. But the benefits outweigh the negatives. VisikoKnox-Johnson points to a study in which an eating-disordered client loved Cinderella because she overcame her social status. The example immediately segues into a quick discussion about how the animals and the forest in Cinderella are meant to be a metaphor for following one's inner drive when logic fails. VisikoKnox-Johnson posits that "the client was possibly projecting her own need to be supported and rescued through identification with Cinderella".

Stories are meant to be a product of historical time periods, particularly their struggles. Maria Rodale, CEO and Chairman of Rodale, Inc, writing for the Huffington Post, writes that bad parenting in Cinderella is meant to highlight the history of parents neglecting their children's health and wellbeing.

Earlier, I argued in favor of preserving jobs of media critics in the media world because stories, and talking about stories, help us understand ourselves and each other. Fairy tales are a basic start to how a story works. They are not accurate portrayals of how the real world works, but then again storytelling was never meant to. Fairy tales are meant to offer children a way to handle conflicts, and other events life throws at us. So, yes, I argue we should tell our children fairy tales, and talk to them about it if they have any concerns. Storytelling is universal, and fairy tales are a great start.

CITATIONS:

Rodale, Maria. “In Defense of Fairy Tales.” HuffPost, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/in-defense-of-fairy-tales_b_6939288.

VisikoKnox-Johnson, Leilani. “The Positive Impacts of Fairy Tales for Children.” Hilo.Hawaii, University of Hawai’i at Hilo, 2016, hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/ThePositiveImpactsofFairyTalesforChildrenLeilaniVisikoKnox-Johnson.pdf.

No one speaks Latin anymore.

So, why should anyone bother to learn a language anybody speaks? Does it not seem more important to learn languages everybody speaks, such as Spanish, French or Russian? Why waste the opportunity studying languages a lot of languages could use?

Latin, indeed, is a language that now belongs in humanity's past. No one speaks it. But just because nobody speaks a language does not mean there are not any benefits to learning it.

But writer Frankie Thomas argues that it is because Latin is a dead language that makes it so fun to learn. Obviously this is a win for introverts, who won't have to speak with strangers and ensure they are speaking it fluently. But Latin remains stapled within the minds of its students because no one knows it. Because no one knows it, the words float through the mind as they dissect the inner meaning of English words, and therefore the meanings of everything.

Learning a language generally helps sharpen the mind, and helps students think critically about how they speak in their native language. But learning a dead language is not just a way to prevent the past from being forgotten. Although that is one of the cases to learn it. Josephine Livingstone considered the main benefit to learning Latin would that it would help individuals learn other Indo-European languages descended from Latin. Livingstone characterized this process as the "principle that your great-grandfather had children and grand-children and great-grandchildren, learning a language that occupies a place farther up the family tree will mean that younger languages will have grown up out of it".

I strongly believe we should all learn a second language in our lives. It would help us develop a sense of empathy for how people we consider foreigners see the world differently than us. But learning Latin helps us dissect the inner meaning of things. Learning the language that English largely descends from helps us understand our own native language better.

CITATION

Livingstone, Josephine. “Why You Should Learn A Dead Language.” The Guardian, 16 Oct. 2013, www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/16/why-learn-a-dead-language.

PBS NewsHour. “Why Learning Latin Stays with You Forever.” YouTube, 9 Apr. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IS9Ct4fm0Q.

Intersectionality is an obscure term. Many individuals think of human co-existence or political correctness, depending on where they lie on the political spectrum.

The term, as Sofia points out, was coined in 1989 by Professor Kimberle Crenshaw to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics coexist with each other, or intersect.

Right-wingers view intersectionality as a system that prefers non-whites to move up the social ladder of the class system simply because of their race rather than hard work. Other right-wingers who are more extreme view intersectionality as a system simply meant to disadvantage white people.

But intersectionality is about leveling the playing field so that no one, regardless of their race, class, gender or sexuality, is displaced. I argue that society is ready for intersectionality because we are long overdue for it.

Kimberle's ideas did not go mainstream until 2015 when, according to Joan Coaston on Vox, when the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore, organizers of the 2017 Women's March pushed the term against the inauguration of President Donald Trump, which they deemed as an attempt to preserve the status quo.

Kimberle, discussing the term directly to Crenshaw, explains she does not "want to replicate existing power dynamics and cultural structures just to give people of color power over white people...She wants to get rid of those existing power dynamics algother--changing the very structures that undergird our politics, law, and culture in order to level the playing field."

Basically, intersectionality is diversity. It is creating an equal world for individuals of all races, genders, class, and sexuality. That's something society has been ready from the very beginning.

CITATION

Coaston, Jane. “Intersectionality, Explained: Meet Kimberlé Crenshaw, Who Coined the Term.” Vox, 28 May 2019, www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination.

When individuals argue that cinema is dead, they are usually referring to the movie theater.

Sure, the decline of movie theaters has always been apparent. With the rise of the so-called 'streaming wars', people reasonably prefer to spend money for entertainment by monthly subscriptions for an amount of content than for a single movie that lasts about two hours. Unless it was either a Marvel or a Star Wars movie, box office numbers have grown tepid.

But the coronavirus pandemic has led to nearly every movie theater close their doors or open at a set capacity. This has led to a severe decline in attendance since people do not want to be spend two hours in a dark room with other strangers, risking passing on the coronavirus.

In response, Disney and Warner Bros. placed some of their tentpole films onto their respective streaming services. Disney has placed an extra one-time fee on top of their monthly subscriptions, with the exception of Soul, while Warner Bros. has only given subscribers thirty days to play the film for free before pulling it and keeping the film in theaters. This has also been a win for them because movie studios do not have to worry about splitting the profits with movie theaters.

Now that moviegoers can simply watch the latest blockbusters in the comfort of their own homes free of charge, and not worry about the price of beverages or if the seats suck, moviegoers insist movie theaters are set to expire within a few years. While predicting the future is more complicated, it is actually reasonable for moviegoers to be optimistic about the future of the movie theater.

First, and foremost, movie theaters in countries that have successfully contained the coronavirus has allowed them to operate. Per Fortune.com, movie theaters in China, where the coronavirus originated, have opened to moderate capacity, and even grossed $2.8 billion in revenue in 2020. In contrast, the article notes, the U.S. box office revenue generated $2.1 billion. That difference is not too far apart.

Furthermore, Disney has been reluctant to release Black Widow or Spider-Man: No Way Home onto Disney+ because they are confident in the revenue it would generate at the movie theaters. If this happens, attendance to the theater would skyrocket, and movie theaters should be back in business. Other tentpole films such as Fast and Furious 9 and the latest Bond thriller have also been repeatedly postponed because studios know there is a physical audience for those movies.

The fact that movie theaters are being hampered by film studios, the pandemic, and general low attendance has been frustrating for avid moviegoers who love the experience of going to see a movie in a room filled with strangers. A streaming service can only provide content for someone to spend two hours of their day. As Jordan Chrucchiola in Wired puts it, the movie theater is "an exercise in shared empathy. It's the chance to be immmersed in a world of fantasy, to laugh and scream with strangers, to learn more about what it means to be human." The theater helps create a community within a city between a group of strangers that connect over a series of emotions.

CITATIONS:

“Are Movie Theaters Dead? Certainly Not in China.” Fortune, 4 Jan. 2021, fortune.com/2021/01/04/china-box-office-new-years-day-record.

Crucchiola, Jordan. “On the Future of (Going to the) Movies.” Wired, 1 Oct. 2020, www.wired.com/story/on-the-future-of-movies.

The difference between drinking coffee and tea depends on what someone ultimately wants.

For someone that wants an energy boost, coffee is the definitive choice. It helps get people in the mood and the energy to start the day. The amount of caffeine is significantly higher than a can of soda. For comparison, Driftaway's website states a can of soda contains between 25 and 50 milligrams of caffeine, while a six-ounce cup of coffee contains around 100 milligrams. (1) However, drinking coffee excessively can lead to decrease of sleep, and increase in dependence. Coffee is, as my old friend put it, a "punch to the brain".

For someone that wants something more soothing, relaxed but still healthy, tea will suffice. Per Healthline.com, tea contains an antioxidant known as L-theanine, which helps stimulate the brain. Tea does contain an amount of caffeine that also helps the brain maintain a sharp-mind (2).

But when it comes to physical health, is one more preferable to the other? That is a bit uncertain. Healthline later notes in the same article that results from studies of the comparison between coffee and tea is inconclusive. They both contribute to weight loss, but in different ways. Coffee helps consumers lose weight by expending the body's fat tissue, while tea inhibits maintains a low blood pressure.

Ultimately, it all comes to personal preference, and how one prioritizes someone prioritizes their health and daily activities.

Personally, I have been more of a coffee drinker largely because it's more flavorful. It also motivates me to perform at the best of my abilities. However, I do not neglect the positive effects of tea on my personal health. Thanks to my aforementioned friend, I delightfully consume tea because it sharpens my mind. It's soothing and relaxing.

So, whatever you choose to drink, drink it freely.

CITATIONS:

(1) Scott. “Coffee and Soda: A Comparison of Caffeine Levels, Health Benefits.” Driftaway Coffee, 16 Mar. 2016, driftaway.coffee/coffee-vs-soda.

(2) Lang, Ariane. “Coffee vs. Tea: Is One Healthier Than the Other?” Healthline, 6 Oct. 2019, www.healthline.com/nutrition/coffee-vs-tea#antioxidants.

Crime itself has its benefits to society.

More crimes can lead to increased awareness on particular issues, and more awareness can lead to social change that benefits society. If lawmakers are aware of society’s problems that generate crime in the first place, then we should hypothetically achieve a utopian society where everyone lives freely enough to never have to resort to crime for whatever reason.

But just because crime can lead to positive social change does not mean crime itself is good. It means that crime is a bad thing that was preventable had policies such as universal income had been enacted.

Crime, admittedly, is an inevitable aspect to society. That does not mean we should strive to deter it to the point it becomes almost non-existent. We should strive to prevent murders from being committed so that lives will be extended.

I agree that we should ask ourselves the good things of everything that happens. Everything, no matter how terrible, has its benefits. Each moment is a cause for society to self-reflect as they move forward. But that does not mean we should be grateful for the negative events. Crime should act as a terrible warning for lawmakers if they do not enact legislation to prevent further crimes.

Humanity has always been plagued with the tension between good and evil. At this point, it is an inevitable aspect to the human condition. But that does not mean we should give up when terrible things happen simply because it is inevitable.

Immortality gets a bad rap.

Because death is a natural part of the human condition. So, why fight it? Accept it.

Except plenty of people do not want to accept it. Even though they are content with becoming something from nothing, they are unable to look at it the other way around. It is something we are all affected by. It is one of two things that are inevitable in life (the other being taxes).

Hence, humans have had an everlasting craving to live forever; it's the only way death can be averted.

Except that option does not exist.

At least, unless science advances enough to effectively cure our deaths, whether it's by preserving our bodies through frozen nitrogen, transferring our consciousness into another body, or even drinking from the fountain of youth.

The concept of immortality actually varies. Some people think of immortality as a state in which one can never die from anything. Cancer, gunshots, even self-inflicted harm prevents death. Others actually envision immortality as eternal youth. They simply want to do away the ageing aspect of the human condition, while preserving the ability to die from natural causes. Others simply want extended lives that last several thousands of years. Death will come eventually, but they want more time to do what they love.

Immortality comes with some prices. For one, not everyone is on board with immortality. Those who wish to die will leave those with the ability to live extended lives. People who are immortal will have to go on without their loved ones. There's also the wonder if our brains will be able to carry enough knowledge and memories the whole way through. By the time we reach the age of, say, nine million and nine, will we be able to remember our earliest years?

Proponents of immortality, of course, will have answers to most or even all the concerns of immortality.

But I argue there is nothing wrong with the desire to live forever.

Death is the end.

It is inevitable.

It lasts forever.

The desire to live forever, I argue, is deeply understandable. It is difficult for a lot of us to process how our consciousness will cease, how we will no longer be able to perceive, and to no longer be able to do the things we love doing. Because what's the point of doing the things we love if we will one day no longer be able to do it? Or living at all if, at the end of the road, is death?

The acceptance of death is also understandable. We can't avoid it, so we can only interpret how it will affect our lives. We can only interpret how our deaths will define our inner nature of humanity, and what it means to live a fulfilling life.

If immortality becomes an option, I expect the broad definition of what it means to be human to change dramatically. But then again, the definition of what it means to be human has always changed dramatically. We now have technology that can enhance the human condition in ways our grandparents thought to be lunacy decades ago.

I find nothing wrong with the acceptance of death and immortality. People have strived to achieve immortality for humans, and I wish them luck in the honest sense. If the option to live forever becomes reality, I believe the human response is to accept not everyone will want it, while others will accept it without question.

CITATION

Big Think. “Eternal Youth May Be Possible. Which Age Would You Stay at Forever? | Michio Kaku | Big Think.” YouTube, uploaded by BigThink, 11 Aug. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzLTidI1Slg.

Nobody likes to deal with getting stuck in traffic.

A lot of us simply want to drive to work seamlessly, and without having to be stuck in one particular spot for even a minute. Time is precious, we tell ourselves, so it is inane we are wasting it on getting stuck in traffic.

For a lot of people, the answer to solving traffic is widening the highways. More lanes, people assume, means people driving cars have more options to choose a lane to drive in. After all, one of the biggest dilemmas we face once we hit traffic is determining if we want to change a lane we believe will get us to our destination faster. So, if drivers have more options, there will be less tension.

But studies show that widening lanes tend to have the opposite effect of reducing traffic. More options for drivers actually worsens the situation?

This turns out to be the case because if the supply of something increases, so does the demand. As Adam Mann in the Wired puts it, "if you expand people's ability to travel, they will do it more, living farther away from where they work and therefore being forced to drive into town. Making driving easier also means that people take more trips in the car than they otherwise would". (Mann, Wired)

In fact, downsizing freeways does not increase traffic. Mann also reports that Paris, France. The result meant more people using public transit, which reportedly increased by 20 percent. A similar approach in Seoul, South Korea had the same effect but also saw a decrease in pollution with more people using public instead of private transportation (Mann, Wired).

The problem with traffic remains rampant across the United States. And one of the reasons it remains a problem is the lack of a clear, probable solution. Mann suggests raising tolls during rush hours so that less people will take the toll roads until it's cheaper later in the day, but people obviously do not like paying more for something that is considered cheap. But the most assured thing that would not help the problem with traffic would be increasing the number of lanes on a highway.

CITATIONS:

Mann, Adam. “What’s Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse.” Wired, 19 July 2018, www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand.

I relate to most of these dilemmas because of how I had to drive 90 minutes both to and from home and college, which were in separate states. Every single time I had to deal with at least one of the things you listed. And yes, there were numerous lanes on the highways. As a result, I myself have seen firsthand how numerous lanes detracts the ability for traffic to move forward.

We often think of the mind in a binary state between logic and emotions.

In the same way we think of relationship between Captain Kirk and Spock from Star Trek, we utilize either logic or emotions to rationalize a situation.

Individuals use logic because emotions are a state we place ourselves in in reaction to something that has happened, but does not help resolve a situation. In fact, decisions rooted in emotion lead to irrational decisions that worsen situations. Therefore, emotions, while not a negative aspect to the human condition, should be handled delicately. Emotions, while normal, are inherently irrational.

Individuals use emotions because not everything adds up perfectly. There are things in life that are unexplainable. And life can be absurd. As we have seen with how big the coronavirus has gotten, no one predicted it. As of this writing, one million people have died from the virus. Logic and rationality have not helped people calm their inner turmoil. Facts do not care about their feelings. Logic is not the enemy of emotions, but it fails to help cope with the times life throws curveballs at us. Emotions are entirely rational.

But emotions and rationality and more intertwined than people care. In fact, emotions help guide logic. We know suffering inflicted on other individuals is wrong not because it is illogical because it would lead towards society falling apart. We know external suffering is wrong because it inflicts unpleasant emotions such as sadness, trauma, horror and depression.

Fred Kofman, writing about the intertwining of emotions and rationality on the Huffington Post, points to neurobiologist Francisco Damasio and his writings as an example. Damasio "points out that rationality depends upon a deeper system of regulation that consists largely of emotions and feelings. Emotions can disrupt reasoning in certain circumstances, but without emotion there is no reasoning at all".

Sometimes, we are faced with difficult decisions that no amount of logic can simply resolve. When we are faced with those decisions, we knowingly or unknowingly turn to emotions, or in some cases go with our guts, to make a clear decision we either think, feel, or both as the right decision.

Logic, of course, should not be neglected because then people would be making decisions that would crumble human society, but I argue it is irrational to assume that emotions are a rational aspect to the human condition. Not because we are born with them, even though we are, but because they develop a deeper understanding for why we care about people in our lives and the wellness of society.

CITATIONS:

Kofman, Fred. “You Can’t Be Rational If You Are Not Emotional (11.1).” HuffPost, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/you-cant-be-rational-if-y_b_8517098.

I should disclose that I a m not transgender or non-binary, so I do not speak as someone with direct experience.

It is a common assumption that transgenders and non-binary individuals develop desires to be a member of the opposite sex because they are upset about their identities in their current sex. If someone wants to be identified as a member of the opposite sex, it must be because they are upset, correct?

Well, that is not always the case. And that incorrect assumptions stems from how we think primarily of transgender people.

When we are born, a doctor assigns a sex to us based on our appearance. Babies doctors identify as a male live on as a males, and babies identified as females live on as females. But a transgender woman means the individual was identified by a doctor as a male, but has gone on to live life as a female. A transgender male was identified by a doctor as a female, but goes on to live as a male. Some transgenders identify themselves as neither members of the binary scale, and therefore identify themselves as non-binary.

Per the FAQ of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), transgender realize where they fit on the binary scale the same way individuals identify as gay, or even straight--they just know.

Admittedly, the fact they can identify with neither binaries can lead to an identity crises, which could cause some cases of gender dysphoria. But it is not only gender dysphoria that transgenders and non-binaries ponder as they dwell on their identities. The NCTE states that transgenders recognize "who they are and deciding to start gender transition can take a lot of reflection".

So, gender dysphoria is a normal dilemma transgender and non-binaries undergo, But it is not the only dilemma. Members of this particular binary face other dilemmas not why they do not identify with one sex, but neither of them.

CITATION:

“Frequently Asked Questions about Transgender People.” National Center for Transgender Equality, 4 Sept. 2020, transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people.

Out of all the seasons of the year, I've grown to appreciate the summer as my personal favorite season.

The most blatant reason, of course, is summer vacation. The time of the year when we get a nice break from the everyday stress of homework, projects, quizzes, tests, as well as the lengthy, dull hours spent in one place that starts far too early in the morning. And we had to deal with it for nine months straight with only the occasional break during Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Martin Luther King Day and spring break. Finally, I had all the time I needed to catch up on video games, read a lot of books, and do not get me started on the summer blockbusters. This also left time to hang out with friends and extended family more frequently.

Of course, we grow up and develop different perspectives. But even after graduating high school and college, I still think of the season of summer the most fondly.

The days, as catrinw notes, are longer, which brings more time to enjoy about the day. More things to do outside. For parents, the summer season brings them more time to spend with their children.

There is also something sweet about summer. The air is more fragrant. It is more sweet-smelling. The atmosphere invites gratification. Outdoor activities are more pleasant, more rewarding. We can go for bike rides, swim in the outdoor neighborhood pool, have a picnic in the field. These are things that can only be enjoyed primarily in the summer.

There are numerous reasons to love summer the most I could list. But I will like to end that the enjoyment of summer does not have to end with high school or even college graduation. It can be a time of the year to take moments to appreciate the atmosphere that allows us to take part in activities we otherwise would never be able to enjoy in any other season of the year.

People are concerned about 'political correctness' not just about ruining comedy, but free speech as a whole.

Donald Trump claimed that 'political correctness is just absolutely killing our country' (Meadors, "Is Political Correctness"). Political correctness is seen as a campaign to discredit, or "cancel", politicians, journalists, and especially comedians. But critics of political correctness push the notion that it is pushed by liberal Twitter users to silence them. The reality is that, as Amanda Taub puts it on Vox, "the charge of 'political correctness' is often used by those in a position of privilege to silence debates raised by marginalized people - to say that their concerns don't deserve to be voiced, much less addressed'. In other words, critics decry 'political correctness' as a way to silence their own critics.

Comedians often derive their jokes from sociological aspects that are often the product of politician's policies. Comedy is entertainment, and entertainment is inspired by thinking deeply about a particular issue. For this reason, James H. Garrett points out, "there will sometimes be a disconnect between what the comedian says and what the audience hears; this disconnect is what can elicit certain negative reactions from the audience that will revolve around the idea of offense and being offended" (Garrett, 1). Sometimes, those who push for political correctness are not considering the issue that comedians humorize.

How do people offended by a comedian's humor utilize political correctness as a tactic for undermining a comedian's credibility? Later in the article, Amanda Taub contrasted her stance with Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller on the issue of changing the name for the Washington Redskins. Miller argued the issue regarding the Redskins' name is "'political correctness on overdrive'". "In other words," Taub argues, Miller is saying "this is a false debate...so I don't have to even acknowledge concerns about racism". Individuals push political correctness onto comedy by trying to brush it off as not something to be raised, sometimes because a comedian humorized it to make it a noted issue.

Political correctness is not a push for change but rather a tactic to silence critics. I disagree that political correctness is killing comedy in the sense that it is not a morally just method of making comedy more accessible to audiences without having to think about the issues that plague today's society. Comedians should be permitted to humorize the idiocy of politicians' policies, as well as other prominent individuals, so that an issue can remain within the mindset of the general public. That way, people are continuously aware of the issue's existence, and will be resolved more prominently, than if no one brought up the issue at all.

CITATIONS:

Garrett, James H., "Just Because You're Offended Doesn't Mean You're In The Right: A Perspective on Language, Comedy, and Ethics"
(2013). Student Publications. 73.
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/student_scholarship/73

Meadors, Marvin. “Is Political Correctness Really ‘Killing America’?” HuffPost, 26 Aug. 2016, www.huffpost.com/entry/is-political-correctness-_b_8026152.

Taub, Amanda. “The Truth about ‘Political Correctness’ Is That It Doesn't Actually Exist.” Vox, 28 Jan. 2015, www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist.

Sleeping naked has its successes and failures, depending on the individual.

I have done it, and it has made me feel about the same as if I had slept fully clothed. I did not mind it at all, but I never worked up the habit.

But sleeping naked has its health benefits. Travis Bradberry wrote on Forbes that sleeping naked helps people fall asleep faster, and reduces stress. Since the body, he argues, is not covered in clothing, it has fewer layers to generate warmth, which speeds up the body's metabolism. So, in theory, sleeping naked has its health benefits.

But it also has its detractions.

Sleeping naked may boost confidence, but only for those content with the process. For people not content with sleeping naked, it may actually reduce confidence since they are not sleeping within their literal comfort zone. If people feel awkward sleeping naked, then doing it won't help fall asleep faster or manage stress.

Also, the body may actually need the extra layer of clothing if it is chilly if it is to maintain warmth throughout the body.

There are no definite rules for how one should sleep. The rules are to each their own. Individuals should only consider sleeping naked if they are content with the idea. If they are not, then sleeping awkward will not bring many of the health benefits health professionals propose they do.

CITATION

Bradberry, Travis. “4 Reasons Sleeping Naked Makes You Healthier And Wealthier.” Forbes, 19 Sept. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/09/13/4-reasons-sleeping-naked-makes-you-healthier-and-wealthier/?sh=38a8c69769b4.

I agree with thomasbenson57's assessment that physical health has not had the same treatment as physical health. That stigma has hurt hundreds of individuals in need of basic mental health.

The tag "United Kingdom" suggests this opinion is about the current status of mental health within the country, but I'd like to offer an opinion about it in the United States.

According to the Center for American Progress, people with mental health disabilities face disproportionate higher rates of poverty and criminalization. They also face scrutiny as a danger to American society and are stigmatized towards against employment. The U.S. mental health care system failed numerously to meet people's needs. And that's before the coronavirus hit.

Most of the inequality stems from the instability of the health care system as a whole. But basic needs of providing stable mental health such as therapy are costly for a lot of people. In 2016, 11.8 million Americans in need of mental health services never received adequate healthcare (American Progress, "Mental Health"). We do not have the numbers yet, but we can expect that number to go much higher after more data is reported for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mental health is just as critical as physical health. Our minds are just as fragile as our bodies and need the same adequate health care. The pandemic may not have affect all of our physical health since many of us will avoid the coronavirus entirely. But it has had a negative effect on nearly all of our mental health. Lots of people are lonelier since they are unable to participate in normal events, or are not comfortable doing so out of risk of spreading the coronavirus.

CITATIONS:

Altiraifi, Azza, and Nicole Rapfogel. “Mental Health Care Was Severely Inequitable, Then Came the Coronavirus Crisis.” Center for American Progress, 10 Sept. 2020, www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/reports/2020/09/10/490221/mental-health-care-severely-inequitable-came-coronavirus-crisis.

Essential oils, according to Cedars Sinai, are "made by distilling the roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and bark of plants with steam or water".

I am not personally opposed to individuals pursuing means of maintaining health that are not FDA-approved, but their potential side effects should not be taken lightly.

Cedars Sinai reports that essential oils can contain mild reactions such as skin irritation. The organization recommends individuals considering employing essential oils as part of maintaining their health discuss their suggestions with their health professionals.

Just because something may help suffice as a health product, it does not mean that individuals should employ it as a part of maintaining their health. Simply employing an essential oil that is not FDA-approved to maintain their health is careless, and should stick with what health professionals advise.

CITATIONS:

Cedaris-Sinai Staff. “Essential Oils: What You Need to Know.” Cedars-Sinai, 17 July 2019, www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/essential-oils-what-you-need-to-know.html.

Love at first sight exists.

I say this because this has happened to me.

I will not give a lot of personal details, but the I knew right away when I felt sexual attraction the moment I met a particular individual that would go on to become one of the most important people I ever met in my life. No, we are not romantically together--she was, and still is, with someone else--but I knew, that deep down, that the first time I met her was the beginning of a beautiful, fortuitous friendship.

Also, it is precisely why we're not romantically involved that I recommend individuals do not pursue a relationship instantly. After all, true beauty comes from within, and there's only so much we can know about a person in a single meeting.

There's also scientific evidence to back up the idea of 'love at first sight'. Theresa E. DiDonato, Ph.D. on Psychology Today. Although, the study discloses that the concept of 'love' is subjective, the feeling of 'love at first sight' as a "strong initial attraction" that will drive numerous people towards pursuing a relationship. Whether a relationship happens, is anyone's guess.

So, when people say they fell in love at first sight, they usually mean they experienced a strong intimate connection as opposed to the type of love married couples experience for each other. Love, after all, is a mysterious emotion. And what makes love so fascinating is the mystery of it.

CITATIONS

Whitmore, Travis. “The Effectiveness of Short-Selling Bans.” Statestreet.Com, State Street Corporation, 2020, www.statestreet.com/content/dam/statestreet/documents/Articles/The_Effectiveness_of_Short-Selling_Bans_Final.pdf.

Short-Selling stocks is an immoral marketing tactic.

For those who need some context, let me explain what short-selling is. Short-selling is when a financer speculates that a stock will go down by a certain time, particularly one that the marketer owns. As soon as this is realized, the short-seller would sell the stock at the current price. Then once the stock went down, will buy back the stock at the lower price and keep the remaining money that is earned.

To make this more comprehensive, imagine if I borrowed your iPhone for a week because I knew Apple will lower the cost of your iPhone at their stores. I then sell your iPhone at the current price, then once the price went down, would pay for the same type of iPhone I borrowed from you to give it back, and keep the remaining money I earned as a profit.

To some marketers, short-selling is a common tactic in the marketplace. After all, it's just making money. Is there anything wrong with that?

Furthermore, short-selling already has a high risk/reward ratio, per James Chen on Investopedia: It offers big profits, but losses can mount if stock incidentally goes up, especially way up. Going back to the iPhone example, if the price of the iPhone I borrowed and sold incidentally went up, then I would be in a financial situation. So, if short-selling already has some risks that could suffice as punishment, then why bother going to all this trouble placing a ban on it.

That's because by short-selling a stock, a marketer is gambling that a business will fail.

In the wake of the pandemic, particularly on the heels of the Gamestop stock fiasco, people found themselves to have more than enough time to get into financing and trading. Since numerous stocks went down because almost every business had to grind to a halt, short-selling went through the roof. According to a PDF document by Travis Whitmore of State Street, European countries placed bans on short-selling.

Banning short-selling, Whitmore quotes the SEC, will also benefit the market by protecting " 'the integrity and quality of the securities market and strengthen investor confidence' ". Short sellers see economic downturns such as the 2008 financial crises as golden opportunities to profit, though it is at the expense of people losing their money.

But proponents of short-selling also insist that bans would negatively affect stocks. However, Whitmore notes that a paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found no credible evidence of this claim.

If anything the Gamestop stock drama has demonstrated, it is that numerous Americans feel that the financial system is geared towards maintaining economic divisions between the rich and the poor. And the market needs a lot of regulation, especially if everybody, no matter their wealth status, wants to get in on investing stocks. Banning short selling will not instantly fix the market, but it would be a great start to helping make the market manageable for everyone.

CITATIONS:

Chen, James. “Short Selling.” Investopedia, 28 Jan. 2021, www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortselling.asp.

Whitmore, Travis. “The Effectiveness of Short-Selling Bans.” Statestreet.Com, State Street Corporation, 2020, www.statestreet.com/content/dam/statestreet/documents/Articles/The_Effectiveness_of_Short-Selling_Bans_Final.pdf.

The current Social Security system in the United States is how retired citizens in America protect their income as they retire. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) reports that about 62 percent of beneficiaries receive their income from Social Security, and without the program over 40 percent of the elderly would become impoverished.

The system operates as a pay-as-you-go service in which American workers in which the federal government becomes responsible for their retirement payouts once they claim their benefits placed in a separate account they would control. But some lawmakers want to shift the responsibility of who handles workers' social security. Lawmakers wonder if they could improve social security by diverting social security benefits towards investing in Wall Street. As a result, the amount of benefits workers would get would be dependent on the value of their investments in a free market economy.

While the main benefit would be that workers would be able to shift whoever handles their social security benefits to someone they can trust more personally, the investors they would choose would encourage them to gamble their social security benefits towards private investments. As Max Richtman puts it in his article arguing against privatization of social security on CNBC, "As the proportion of private investments increased, the amount of worker's defined Social Security benefit would decrease--until it reached what could only be considered a poverty-level amount".

An example of the failings of privatizing social security can be shown in Chile, which privatized their social security program in 1981. It became somewhat successful, but the program plunged once the 2008 financial crisis, which caused pensions to generate insufficient amounts of social security contributions to protect workers' retirement benefits (AARP, "Chile's Experience With The Privatization of Social Security").

Social Security is a very delicate system for workers because it is the money they will have to rely on once they retire. The system, of course, is not perfect, especially when retirees live very long. So, of course the system needs to adapt. But shifting the responsibility of whomever handles workers' Social Security is not a sufficient answer. Privatization would lead to many workers losing their retirement funds over bad investments, thus preventing them from retiring.

CITATIONS

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “Privatization Is Really a Plan to Dismantle Social Security.” CNBC, 26 Mar. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/privatization-is-really-a-plan-to-dismantle-social-security.html.

“Myths and Realities About Social Security And Privatization.” NCPSSM, 16 Dec. 2019, www.ncpssm.org/documents/social-security-policy-papers/myths-and-realities-about-social-security-and-privatization.

Rix, Sara E. “Chile’s Experience With The Privatization Of Social Security.” AARP, Public Policy Institute, Aug. 1995, assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/ib23_chile.pdf.

“What Would Privatized Social Security Mean for Americans?” Investopedia, 2 Jan. 2020, www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/what-would-privatized-social-security-mean-americans.asp.

Student loans help people go to college. College is expensive, and the most prominent way students pay for college is taking out loans from the federal government.

Since the inception of federal loans by President Eisenhower in 1958, free education has increased. As a result, more students have taken out more loans as the opportunities increase. The average loan grew from $1,000 in the early-1970s to around $7,000 a year in 2020.

The total amount of student loan debt has skyrocketed to $1.6 trillion. Since that number is still growing, the idea for cancelling all that debt has gained traction. Although to what extent the student loan could be cancelled remains dissident. Should only some of it be cancelled? All of it? Only those who come from impoverished backgrounds?

But who would cancelling this debt help?

Obviously, those in a younger age group would benefit the most. Since they have money with newly obtained Bachelor's degrees, they are able to focus more on how they want to achieve their career goals. As for older people, the AARP has reported that student loan debt for adults over 50 raised from $47 billion in 2004 to $289.5 billion in 2018. So, they have much to gain from student loan forgiveness as well.

With a nation that boasts an incredibly competitive market, it makes sense that student loan debt be forgiven. With the costs of going to college no longer a factor, individuals will be able to focus their resources and accomplish things that would benefit the market, and therefore the greater good of society. Imagine the number of individuals who would accomplish amazing feats if they were able to obtain a sizeable amount of higher education.

CITATIONS

Vox. “All Student Debt in the US, Visualized.” YouTube, uploaded by Vox, 6 Aug. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXHwelwmQPA.

Zinshteyn, By Mikhail. “Student Loan Debt Soaring Among Adults Over 50, AARP Study Finds.” AARP, 26 July 2019, www.aarp.org/money/credit-loans-debt/info-2019/student-loan-debt-report.html.

The legal drinking age should remain at 21 instead of being lowered to 18.

While drinking is a pleasant delight for people of all ages, the consumption of alcohol should not be handled recklessly. Even though there is nothing inherently wrong with old teens/young adults drinking under the legal drinking age, the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) should remain at 21.

The CDC reported that states that increased the legal drinking age to 21 saw a 16 percent decline in motor vehicle crashes. Since people not old enough to be 21 did not have the option to drink, there were fewer opportunities for alcohol to be consumed, thus decreasing the instances of vehicle accidents as a result of excessive drinking. (CDC

The National Highway Traffic Safety Association found that 24% of young drivers died as a result of drunk driving. Even though the same report notes that 27% of deaths were in the ages of 21-24, the CDC maintained that keeping the legal drinking age at 21 also saw a decrease within the same age range from 70% in 1985 to 56% in 1991.

Drinking, as I stated earlier, is a pleasant delight. But it has to be handled responsibly. The consumption of alcohol is not something that needs to be monitored closely, but it needs to be handled delicately. We can enjoy consuming one of our favorite pleasantries with a degree of responsibility. And decreasing the age of the legal drinking age is not depriving those who achieve adulthood status once they reach the age of 18, it is about being responsible for those people as they mature further into adulthood.

CITATIONS

“Drunk Driving.” NHTSA, 12 Jan. 2021, www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#age-5056.

“Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives | CDC.” CDC, 3 Oct. 2020, www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/minimum-legal-drinking-age.htm.

Is basic healthcare a privilege or a right.

In the United States, that has been the central question dominating the issue of healthcare. For over a century, according to the Physicians for a National Health Program, American politicians have argued if citizens have a right to access healthcare regardless of their status, or if access is a commodity just like any other privilege in a free-market system.

The fight to provide adequate access to basic healthcare has been needlessly tantalizing. Ivan Couronne of Business Insider wrote that President Franklin Roosevelt urged Congress to pass a "second bill of rights", which included "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health". But his request never came to fruition. The biggest form of reformation of the healthcare system came with the Affordable Care Act in 2010, which helped more than 20 million uninsured Americans, but still left millions of others uninsured. To this day, healthcare has never achieved the same status as education. (Couronne, Business Insider)

That is because there is an issue regarding how politicians equate healthcare and basic rights. Proponents of the notion that healthcare is a privilege see rights as something that is earned through hard work and self-reliance, as Becca Brewer writes. If healthcare is a right, they argue, then people become lazy and not enough work gets done. "Earning money, saving for health, and choosing employment with health coverage is what a hardworking self-reliant individual should do in their productive working years ensure access to the privilege of healthcare for themselves and for their children", Brewer clarifies.

But healthcare is as much of a necessity to human beings as much as public education. There are human beings that are born with disabilities and need immediate access to healthcare if they are to work hard to achieve the goals proponents of the healthcare as a privilege state. Healthcare is needed for individuals if they are to survive as much as every human needs basic access to water.

Millions of Americans are hampered from achieving their goals because of astounding healthcare costs. With rent and college tuition rising, most humans cannot afford to risk getting sick out of fear of inheriting large medical bills that would set them back.

If we are to live in a prosperous society where most individuals are able to accomplish their goals, and create a productive society, then it makes perfect sense that healthcare would become a basic human right entitled to everyone instead of a commodity for private corporations to generate high costs.

CITATIONS

“A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US.” PNHP, 17 Apr. 2018, pnhp.org/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us.

Brewer, Becca. “Issues in Healthcare: Arguments for Healthcare as a Right or Privilege.” Mhaonline, 2018, www.mhaonline.com/blog/healthcare-debates-right-or-privilege.

Couronne, Ivan. “In the US, Health Care a Privilege, Not a Right.” Business Insider, 6 May 2017, www.businessinsider.com/afp-in-the-us-health-care-a-privilege-not-a-right-2017-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T.

I'm referring to healthcare as a human right that everyone is entitled to when they need it, and not as a commodity for corporations to exploit.

We all need basic access to healthcare as much as we all need basic access to water if we are to survive and thrive.

Social media has proven to be a mix of pros and cons on American politics. Politicians are able to maintain closer contact to his followers--and their critics--through social media posts. But some politicians such as Donald Trump was able to speak his mind without the constraints of mainstream media to the world just by sending out tweets. The combination of social media and politics can be wearisome. Pew Research Center reported in August of last year that 55 percent of American social media users were 'worn out' by political posts (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/55-of-u-s-social-media-users-say-they-are-worn-out-by-political-posts-and-discussions/).

But social media has proven to be the future of politics. The Biden campaign reached out to avid gamers on Animal Crossing (https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/16/21519505/joe-biden-animal-crossing-new-horizons-biden-hq-campaign-election). While not a social media site, it is still a platform where internet users can communicate. Senators Andrew Yang and Bernie Saners joined Twitch to connect with people (https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/15/20804614/bernie-sanders-twitch-presidential-campaign-gamers-streaming-donations-streamlabs-fec). Social media has become a convenient method to reach out to American citizens and broadcast their agendas.

So, how is that a bad thing?

Should politicians stick to holding rallies, putting up campaign signs and obtain celebrity endorsements? Social media has become a convenient way for followers to get closer to their favorite politicians and see who they are up close, as opposed to watching only what is broadcast about them on mainstream cable news.

Politics have always had to adapt with the world as it moved on. Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 after wearing the wrong colored suit in the first televised presidential debate (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/09/behind-scenes-first-televised-presidential-debates-nixon-jfk-1960/). Overtime, politics shifted towards television because they realized they could bring their campaign to American's living rooms. So, politicians broadcasting their political campaigns on social media is basically history repeating itself. Politicians adapt and utilize the current medium dominant in American households to reach out to voters.

CITATIONS:

Anderson, Monica, and Brooke Auxier. “55% of U.S. Social Media Users Say They Are ‘Worn out’ by Political Posts and Discussions.” Pew Research Center, 19 Aug. 2020, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/55-of-u-s-social-media-users-say-they-are-worn-out-by-political-posts-and-discussions.

“Behind the Scenes of the First Televised Presidential Debates 60 Years Ago.” History & Culture, 25 Sept. 2020, www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/09/behind-scenes-first-televised-presidential-debates-nixon-jfk-1960.

Stephen, Bijan. “Bernie Sanders Joined Twitch to Reach People Where They Are.” The Verge, 15 Aug. 2019, www.theverge.com/2019/8/15/20804614/bernie-sanders-twitch-presidential-campaign-gamers-streaming-donations-streamlabs-fec.

I must admit I'm an American that focuses primarily on US politics. But I like to evaluate issues other countries are facing because it keeps my country from being the center of the world, and learn that other nations have their own issues as well. So, I was intrigued to learn about the nature of grammar schools and the education system of England.

After quickly reviewing the data on grammar schools, I assert that England should get rid of grammar schools.

Eleanor Busby of The Independent found that grammar school pupils are not as likely as public education pupils to have special education needs, speak English as an additional language, and are likelier to live in wealthier areas (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/grammar-schools-gcse-exams-academic-selection-durham-university-social-mobility-a8275406.html).

Furthermore, the modern concept of the grammar school in England was created to determine which pupil would go on to university or not. The Education Act in 1944 asserted that pupils who reached the age of 11 would take an exam, known as the 11-plus. Those who passed it would go to grammar school, while those who failed went to secondary moderns.

The divide between pupils became big enough for the government to ban the creation of more grammar schools in 1998. As a result, comprehensive schools, schools in which students of their various abilities to learn are taught together, became more common. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grammar-schools-what-are-they-education-explainer-controversy-theresa-may-a7233531.html)

As an American that with learning disabilities, I struggled studying for US college entry exams such as the SAT and the ACT. I made average scores, and got inducted to a private university that suited my needs. But I credit my abilities to attend a school that was right for me as opposed to having to go to community college thanks to the benefits that were accessible in a public school that I would not have had access to had I gone to a private school, which nearly happened.

My experience in university helped me realize that I was not one that struggled to learn. I realized that I learned in a way that was different than the students I knew. In fact, I've come to realize that everyone learns a little bit differently.

I am against the maintenance of grammar schools because they create a system that separates those they deem worthy of obtaining an education under their own circumstances, when a lot of pupils actually have the ability to learn if given the right opportunity.

CITATIONS:

Busby, Eleanor. “Grammar Schools Should Be ‘Phased out’ as They Damage Social Mobility, Says Study.” The Independent, 27 Mar. 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/grammar-schools-gcse-exams-academic-selection-durham-university-social-mobility-a8275406.html.

England, Charlotte. “Why Is the Return of Grammar Schools so Controversial?” The Independent, 9 Sept. 2016, www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grammar-schools-what-are-they-education-explainer-controversy-theresa-may-a7233531.html.

Society in the United States pushes the narrative that in order to obtain a successful career and make a lot of money, an individual needs to go to college. But going to college costs a lot of money.

The situation makes this a bit of a catch-22. If someone needs to go to college to make a lot of money, they already need a lot of money to begin with.

I argue if favor of raising a $15-hourly wage not only because so workers can make a sizeable living, especially in cities where rent is skyrocketing as their wages remain stagnant, but so that they have extra money to spend of goods and services, which boosts the economy. This is the same reason I argue in favor of free college. With more money saved from working hourly wages, there's more opportunity for them to pursue their larger goals in life.

Mai Nguyen reports that the average cost of public colleges cost an average of $9,400 for in-state students. As result, she states, about seven in 10 students go into debt, and owe an average of almost $29,000. The total amount, as of 2019 has reached $1.3 trillion (https://www.vox.com/sponsored/10793966/student-debt-keeps-growing-whats-the-government-doing-about-it).

Many European countries have embraced the notion of free college. In 2006, Germany experimented allowing public colleges to charge tuition, with fees up to 1,000 euros per year. As a result, students protested en masse, starting with a citizens' initiative that collected over 70,000 signatures (https://www.vox.com/2014/10/5/6900301/germany-is-making-college-tuition-free).

The same article notes that the US has the most expensive universities in the world partly due to the advocation of private education, which amasses roughly 16 percent of students. Contrast that with 1 percent in Germany, this makes the country's decision to make public college tuition-free all the more reasonable for the benefit of its students.

Tuition, sometimes, is not even the biggest expense for most students. On top of tuition, students have to figure a way to pay for room and board, meals, transportation, and other various living expenses. Sometimes students have to work in a part-time job, or take a full-time job and go to school part-time, to get by.

Admittedly, free college does not solve everything. It certainly will not solve how students balance their work-school schedules. Furthermore, Sweden, a country with free higher education, still has about $19,000 in US dollars (124,000 Swedish krona) per graduate. This is primarily because students in Sweden take out loans to pay for living expenses such as rent and food as they go to school full-time (https://www.collegefinancinggroup.com/student-loan-repayment/free-college-in-sweden-high-student-debt/).

But I argue that free college tuition is not only the endgame for solving many problems that plague students struggling to get by. I argue that it is a step. Free college tuition will be a small step but a giant leap for students' ability to pursue their passions easier.

And who wants nothing more than to pursue their passions easier?

CITATIONS:

Maggie. “College in Sweden Is Free. So Why Do Students Have so Much Debt?” College Financing Group, 11 June 2013, www.collegefinancinggroup.com/student-loan-repayment/free-college-in-sweden-high-student-debt.

Nelson, Libby. “Bernie Sanders's Big Idea: Make College Free for Everyone.” Vox, 18 May 2015, www.vox.com/2015/5/18/8621759/free-college-bernie-sanders.

Nguyen, Mai. “Student Debt Keeps Growing — What’s the Government Doing about It?” Vox Creative www.vox.com/sponsored/10793966/student-debt-keeps-growing-whats-the-government-doing-about-it.

Yglesias, Matthew. “How Bernie Sanders Convinced Me about Free College.” Vox, 10 Mar. 2016, www.vox.com/2016/3/10/11194158/bernie-sanders-free-college.

Imagine a bill, any bill, being prevented from obtaining a majority vote because of a single lawmaker never stopped debating against it. It is difficult to imagine a functioning government if a single lawmaker could object to it and keep debating against bringing it to fruition.

But that is how politics work in the US Senate.

The first thing one needs to understand the filibuster is that it did not originate from the US Constitution. So, if the US Constitution did not create one of the biggest legislative hurdles in US politics, then what did?

Well, the filibuster was created on accident. According to Ezra Klein's "7 Myths About The Filibuster" article on Vox (https://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster) Vice President Aaron Burr delivered a farewell address in 1805. Burr praised the US Senate as a proponent and executor of law & order--but with a fatal flaw.

Aaron Burr criticized the US Senate for allowing any senator to propose a vote that would cease any and all debates. In other words, if a senator does not stop debating, another senator CANNOT propose a vote to stop the senator.

The US Senate agreed, and the filibuster was created.

Fast-forward thirty-five years later, the Whigs Party takes control of the Senate in 1841, and decide to change the printing firms that would that Congress would charge with producing the Congressional Globe, an encyclopedia that lists all the rules of US Congress. The Democrats filibustered the rule, and debating raged for six days. The rest is history.

One little fun fact, I might as well mention is the record for the longest filibuster by a single senator belongs to Senator Strom Thurmond, who debated against the passing of the US Civil Rights Act of 1957 for a grand total of 24 hours and 18 minutes. In that time, he read allowed the election statutes of all then-48 states, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, George Washington's farewell address, and other documents. Furthermore, he ate cold sirloin steak and pumpernickel bread, as well as sucking on throat lozenges to keep his throat from drying.

Without a filibuster, the US Senate would have been able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and guarantee African-Americans the basic right to vote much quicker, rather than waiting for a single senator to stop debating. Just imagine of multiple Strom Thurmonds attempted the same tactic. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 would have taken long enough for people to feel discouraged from voting in favor of the document and move on to other bills.

One of the proponents of the filibuster argue that filibusters have always been common over the course of United States history. But, in the same article by Ezra Klein, filibusters have been employed more frequently in recent history than other time periods. Citing cloture motions, Klein points out that senators' cloture votes, votes to end a filibuster, were only counted 60 times between 1917 and 1970 as opposed to 500 times between 2009 and 2015.

Employing a filibuster hampers the United States federal government's ability to make progress and make laws come to pass. It has become a tactic by lawmakers to hamper the opposing political party to prevent their agendas from succeeding, so they could paint them as lazy politicians that do not get any work done. If the Democrats want to maintain control of Congress in the mid-term elections, they need to nix the filibuster if they desire to employ bills that guarantee voting rights and fair elections, as well as universal income and healthcare.

CITATIONS:

Chang, Alvin. “How the Filibuster Broke the US Senate.” Vox, 17 June 2019, www.vox.com/videos/2019/6/17/18681798/filibuster-senate-broke-video.

Klein, Ezra. “7 Myths about the Filibuster.” Vox, 28 May 2015, www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster.

---. “Joe Biden, the 2020 Election, and the Case for Ending the Filibuster.” Vox, 1 Oct. 2020, www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump.

The minimum wage should be raise because workers are long overdue for a raise of any kind. And at $15, that should be just the start.

The conceit of a minimum wage set by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was to "earn a decent living" with "more than a bare subsistence level". When the minimum wage was established at $0.25. Adjust that for inflation, that would be $4.20 by today's money (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/?sh=1e7414e15ec8). That would not be much of a living wage for most people. Today, a single adult without children needs at least $31,200 to achieve a modest but adequate standard of living (https://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage/). Furthermore, most workers have not had a pay increase in over a decade

But one of the reasons people oppose raising the minimum wage is out of fear that it would raise the cost of living as well. According the Forbes article I cited, "A 2013 study by the Chicago Fed found that increasing the minimum wage even just to $9 would increase consumer spending by $28 billion". The article goes on to state that "When spending increases, manufacturers and other purveyors of goods and services can actually charge less or at least avoid increasing their prices, because they're increasing overall revenue". So, when the minimum wage increases so does spending, which boosts the economy. Companies are more encouraged to keep their prices low because workers will have more money to spend for their items.

There is no evidence that raising the minimum wage causes on increase in unemployment or job loss. But focusing on primarily on job loss ignores the effect of raising the hourly wage for tens of millions of workers. David Cooper et al, analyzing this claim, posits that "the more likely scenario is that what is lost are job hours, and that these lost hours are spread among the affected workers, who work a little less but earn more per year."

CITATIONS:

Cooper, David, et al. “Bold Increases in the Minimum Wage Should Be Evaluated for the Benefits of Raising Low-Wage Workers’ Total Earnings: Critics Who Cite Claims of Job Loss Are Using a Distorted Frame.” Economic Policy Institute, 18 Apr. 2018, www.epi.org/publication/bold-increases-in-the-minimum-wage-should-be-evaluated-for-the-benefits-of-raising-low-wage-workers-total-earnings-critics-who-cite-claims-of-job-loss-are-using-a-distorted-frame.

Worstall, Tim. “The 7 Most Dangerous Myths About A $15 Minimum Wage.” Forbes, 4 Aug. 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/?sh=1e7414e15ec8.

Adding a 'dislike' button would not benefit Facebook. It would diminish it.

There's already a lot of negativity on the website. And it's not because there are users posting mean things about other user's content. Some of the negativity on the internet is over sad and regretful things that have happened. Sometimes people post on Facebook the passing of a relative. While it can be difficult to imagine anyone clicking 'dislike' on a post that laments the loss of a relative, adding a 'dislike' button would allow the opportunity for it.

Nearly every YouTube video I have ever seen has at least a few dislikes. Even the most heartwarming and saddening videos raise more dislikes as more users view them.

The point of a 'dislike' button is call online users out for spreading malicious information. Yes, of course users should be called out for spreading misinformation that could lead to violence. I'd go so far to promote they should be barred from the social media site they posted the information on. But adding a 'dislike' button would not help the issue.

Users would more sensitive than what they post. They would feel that Facebook would become a site to be judged by people they do not even know based on what they post. Facebook is meant to be a social media site for users to interact with other users across the globe and post updates on their current status. True, people take advantage of the site to post their political views even if they are hateful.

However, users would be more incentivized to hitting a 'dislike' button than to air their disagreements with a post. A 'dislike' button would feel easier to a lot of users to voice their disapproval of a post than to comment on why they disagree. The 'dislike' button would not make the users more active with Facebook. It would make them less proficient.

Brian Barrett said it best when discussing the issue, which is that adding a 'dislike' button 'would instantly turn Facebook into a place where people can expect to feel bad about themselves" (Barrett, Wired). If Facebook's users start feeling absorbed by negativity, then users would start to leave Facebook. And as it has already been apparent, (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-we-know-were-bad-for-your-mental-health-heres-how-to-fix-it/) Facebook is already tied up with controversies that drive users away from the platform.

CITATIONS:

Barrett, Brian. “Facebook Doesn’t Need (Or Even Want) a Dislike Button.” Wired, 30 June 2017, www.wired.com/2015/09/facebook-dislike-button.

Linton, Caroline. “Facebook: We Know We’re Bad for Your Mental Health, Here’s How to Fix It.” CBS News, 20 Dec. 2017, www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-we-know-were-bad-for-your-mental-health-heres-how-to-fix-it.

I’ve been thinking a lot about my own mortality lately.

There has not been a specific reason why, though I suspect it may have to do with how many people have died as a result of the coronavirus. I just dwelled on my mortality as I ate lunch at my job.

I grew up in an environment where everybody had there own interpretation on what happened once we died. Do we go to Heaven? Do we get reincarnated? Is there really nothing?

I’ll be upfront and say I do not have the answers, and, last I checked, nor does anyone.

And that’s understandably scary.

Because a lot of people develop a lot of their views and opinions on the world based, not entirely but a lot of it, on their death. As humans, we naturally dwell on the overall purpose of life. We crave physical confirmation that what we do contributes to making the people we meet happier.

I am not here to argue for or against religion. From my experience, people of various backgrounds develop their own ways of navigating the complexities of life because of the joy on the companionship of our friends and family and the hardships we’ve had to endure.

And, of course, we evolve. Old beliefs and replaced by new beliefs because of the things we never realized had existed. We realize how much more there is to life than what we were lead to believe. We come to understand how everybody, even the people we’ve turned a blind eye towards, has a lot to say.

Do we become strive to be good because a heaven awaits us as a reward? Or are we good because this is all there is and it is up to us to make the most of it?

For me, neither answer has been fully satisfying.

Without going into detail about my personal religious beliefs, I was raised in a religious household and believed Heaven existed. Did the idea of an afterlife bring fulfillment to my life? For the most part, yes it did. I wanted to be a kind because I wanted safety and comfort for the afterlife. But, I one day started to wonder, if there is any kind of afterlife, then what DOES it take to ensure you get the outcome you want? Taking religion out of context, should we strive for a good afterlife if we are uncertain what the afterlife will be like?

I one day faded out with my beliefs. I instantly grew content that perhaps maybe there is nothing on the other side of death. Maybe there is nothing to look forward to, so I should make the most of it right now while I’m still here. I should strive to live life to the fullest. But then I find it difficult to process how my mind will cease to process reality. Does consciousness really cease? Personally, I do not know.

Either way, we should strive to make everybody’s life happy with kindness and an open-minded heart. We should look at what is in front of us, rather than worry about what tomorrow, next week, next year and beyond and beyond will bring.

Because time only moves forward.

The winner of any election is supposed to be the candidate that obtains the most votes, right? That is how every election is executed around the world.

But the rules are different in the United States.

In the case of 2016, the candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote by three million votes. But her opponent, Donald Trump, clinched the Electoral College vote, winning the US presidential election.

If the US promotes a democratic system, then why does it promote an anti-democratic method of electing the president?

In the original conception of our federal government, Alexander Hamilton laid out in The Federalist Papers, the creation of an Electoral College was meant to choose "men most capable of analyzing the qualities [of the elected candidate] to the station".

But the "men most capable" of choosing the next president are often handpicked by partisan loyalists to elect whoever the party nominated to be president: https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors. When a general citizen votes in the presidential election, the voter is not choosing the next president. The voter is choosing which candidate the state should elect. Therefore, the electoral process hinders on who shows up to vote in the first place.

And that is how political parties in the US sway elections in their favor (https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/). Voter ID laws and lack of voting locations were targets for communities for people of color to prevent them from gaining an equal footing with the white population. The ACLU, in an article on voter suppression, states the U.S. Government Accountability Office reduces voter turnout by 2-3 percentage points.

Speaking of voter suppression onto communities with people of color, Professor Akhil Reed Amar argued the US founding fathers created the electoral college to appease the slavery states for the sake of ratifying the US Constitution: (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar). Had the founding fathers decided that presidential elections be decided by the popular vote, Amar argues the southern states would have lost every election because a large percentage of its population was slaves the states were unwilling to permit to vote.

But, if the US has abolished the system of slavery, then why has it still adopted a system that was conceived to preserve it? For Amar, the reason was the comparison of populations in each given state. Proponents of the Electoral College state that a more direct election would have the results be decided by more populated areas such as New York City or Los Angeles.

The whole point of an election is by a simple process: one person, one vote. Each person's vote is worth the same value. So, it makes no sense why one person's vote should have more power over another's by virtue of residing in the right location.

CITATIONS:

“ACLU News & Commentary.” American Civil Liberties Union, 3 Feb. 2020, www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/.

“The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68.” Yale.edu, 2019, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp.

Illing, Sean. “The Real Reason We Have an Electoral College: To Protect Slave States.” Vox, Vox, 12 Nov. 2016, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar.

Millhiser, Ian. “America’s Democracy Is Failing. Here’s Why.” Vox, 30 Jan. 2020, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/30/20997046/constitution-electoral-college-senate-popular-vote-trump.

It's understandable why scientists Pluto should be reconsidered as a planet.

But I feel like the only way Pluto can be considered a planet again is if any and all dwarf planets could be considered a planet.

The most blatant reason, I should point out first, that Pluto is not considered a planet is because of its mass. Pluto is much smaller than all the other eight planets in the solar system. Astronomers argued against Pluto's classification as a planet because of the discovery of objects known as the Kuiper Belt. The most notable was the dwarf planet Eris, which turned out to be slightly bigger than Pluto. According to NASA's website, Pluto is smaller than the Earth's own Moon (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-pluto-k4.html). Therefore, classifying Pluto as a planet by its mass would mean classifying Earth's own Moon as a planet.

But the real reason Pluto was struck from being categorized as a planet came when the International Astronomical Union presented three criteria for objects in space to be labelled as a planet. Firstly, an object had to orbit the sun. Secondly, the object had to be massive enough for the force of its own gravity make it round. Thirdly, the one that knocked Pluto from its categorization, the object must clear "the neighborhood around its orbit". (https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/)

That last definition, admittedly, is pretty vague but Joseph Stromberg clarifies that the last definition meant that "a planet can't be part of a cloud of similarly sized debris, like the asteroid belt or the Kuiper belt. A planet has to be large enough that over time it'll clear this cloud away, with the debris coalescing to the planet due to the force of the object's gravity." (Stromberg, Vox). Pluto was found to be part of a cloud of debris

Pluto's creation, scientists found, was too different from the other eight planets and too similar to the other dwarf planets.

Of course, Pluto could be reconsidered a planet of the the IAU reconsidered its criteria for objects in space to be defined as a planet. A simple way would be to nix the third criteria. But that could lead to an overwhelming classifications of objects in space as planets, which could include Earth's own moon.

CITATIONS:

“International Astronomical Union | IAU.” IAU, 2006, www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto.

Stromberg, Joseph. “Sorry, Pluto: You're Really Not a Planet.” Vox, 13 July 2015, www.vox.com/2015/4/16/8420813/pluto-not-a-planet.

“What Is Pluto?” NASA, 2 Nov. 2017, www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-pluto-k4.html.

School uniforms are meant to emphasize a positive culture in school. Wearing school uniforms encourages enthusiasm about the school's culture. Students respect their teachers, which leads to greater devotion towards learning, and result in higher graduation rates, which will promote the school's welfare.

But if schools want to foster creativity and promote the freedom of expression for its students, then enabling them to wear school uniforms diminishes their sense of identity. Mandating school uniforms may emphasize school spiritedness but that can depend on how school administrators define the school's spirit. School uniforms can promote a sense of belonging but that sense of belonging can diminish one's individual identity in favor of being a part of a collective conscious that promotes sameness.

Of course, on reason school administrators emphasize that it's mandating school uniforms that foster creativity is their belief that it prevents students from being judgmental. Students will not be able to assert who's family is wealthier than others. But as Mark Oppenheimer of The New Yorker points out, there has been little to no evidence that mandating school uniforms created a positive effect on school pride (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-unquestioned-goodness-of-school-uniforms).

Furthermore, either schools or parents will have to budget their money for their children's uniforms. For schools, uniforms could have a detrimental effect on their budget money that could be used for managing important resources such as the quality of their computers, or the health insurance of their faculty. For parents, school uniforms would be pernicious for their budget on maintaining the safety of their children. A study by CosthelperEducation.com found that a general school uniform can cost at a range of $25-$200 (https://education.costhelper.com/school-uniforms.html).

The clothes we choose to wear are an expression of ourselves. And in childhood, as well as teenagehood, that period can be when we start to figure out who we are, such as what our sexualities are, or what we believe in deep down. If we are meant to wear the same thing for largely the first two decades of our life, then we will have difficulty defining for ourselves how we want to express ourselves.

It has been two-and-a-half months since Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Yet, Trump and the Republican Party has been given an opportunity to sabotage Biden’s presidency in an attempt to demonstrate profound strength. In the two months since Trump’s losing, he has spent the majority of his lame-duck period overturning the election results before finally resorting to inciting violence at the US Capitol. He also spent that time-period granting pardons to his cronies that did his bidding, preventing Biden from launching any investigations to their dealings. Had Biden been able to assume his presidency much sooner, it is highly doubtful that such a riot would have occurred because the rioters would not have had an opportunity to plan such an event.

The US Constitution granted sitting presidents an extensive period to transition power to his successor. But the primary reason the founding fathers decided on a lame-duck period was because they needed verification that every vote was counted. Since they did not have the internet or cars or telephones or televisions a lot of traveling needed to be done to secure people’s votes, count them and then report to Washington what the results were. As a result, whole weeks would go by before the public became aware of the result. Not to mention this was all in the winter. In the present, that is no longer the case. We are now able to know the result instantly.

And Trump is not the only President to take advantage of the lame-duck period to sabotage his successor’s presidency. John Adams appointed Supreme Court justices to prevent Jefferson from filling them himself (https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-midnight-appointments). James Buchanan prevented the southern states from seceding since he found the issue of slavery only a trifling matter that was not very serious (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/james-buchanan-why-is-he-considered-americas-worst-president/). Had Lincoln been able to succeed him much sooner, it is probable the American Civil War would have gone much differently and less bloody. Also, I should point out that lame duck periods lasted until March. And even Herbert Hoover, despite losing in a landslide to Franklin Roosevelt largely due to his lack of sufficient response to the Great Depression, stoked to Roosevelt that his New Deal would worsen the Depression (it did not) and urged him to abandon the Deal (he did not) (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22224850/abolish-lame-duck-trump-biden-capitol-insurrection-constitution-20th-amendment)

Other countries have the newly-elected leaders sworn to office almost instantly. This helps prevent a stigma on the current leader of a nation from being viewed as a powerless figure for a lengthy period of time, and is able to keep things moving at a decent rate. Furthermore, little to time is spent for world leaders to enact middling schemes to sabotage their successors.

Of course, abolishing the lame-duck period is no simple task. Shortening the lame-duck period would require an amendment to the Constitution, which is very rare. But that does not mean we should try. After all, amendments are rare but not impossible.

Even though I am a very voracious and avid reader, I always find myself adding several books on my Goodreads to-read list. And then there’s the time I have to read in the first place. There’s also the fact that some books take longer to read than others. So how am I supposed to keep up with the demand that attention is needed to read and process a wide variety of books.

Eventually, I found an easy answer for that dilemma to be audiobooks. Whenever I am need to get housework done or drive 30 minutes to my job, that gives me opportunities to listen to an audiobook.

With the ability to listen to audiobooks, I have managed at least in theory to have read over 87 books last year. Most of those audiobooks were books that I had been meaning to read for years, and audiobooks helped me to finally discover what happens in those books.

Another benefit audiobooks have are for blind-sighted people or other people that are mentally-handicapped. Thanks to the medium, people with said handicaps are able to enjoy something other people can enjoy and be part of conversations.

But all that listening begs the question of whether or not counts as having actually read the book.

Although I have come to see the value audiobooks have for readers, there are some books that don’t quite work as well when narrated. There are some books such asJames Joyce’s “Ulysses” where a big part of the appeal lies with how a book is written. Because of this, there are some books I still haven’t read because I get the sense that the presentations of its writing bring out what resonates within some books.

On top of that, writers can’t use an audiobook to observe how the author writes in a way that grabs and holds the reader’s attention. At least, it would be easier to see why in printed form because even if listeners can observe an author’s storytelling method, they’d still have to constantly rewind and replay certain parts repeatedly.

Details are also easier to miss when listening to an audiobook. If readers sense a detail has been missed, they can still flip back a few pages, but listeners will have to fuss with the audiobook to try and locate what important I information they might’ve missed.

One last detail is that audiobook listeners have to rely on a narrator that has to convey the right tone of the book and, if listening to a fiction novel, emote characters in a way that is true to who they are.

Nonetheless, I generally agree an audiobook still counts as reading but only in the sense that a listener still experiences the content a particular novel consists of. After all, I still know what happens in a book I listen to just as much as if I physically read it.

As someone who recently posted that a falling tree cannot make a sound if no one is around to hear it, I'd like to weigh in.

Reality is dependent on perception, so for there to be such a thing as reality, there must be a subject to perceive it.

So let me pose this question.

Suppose humans never existed in Earth's history. Does this mean Earth still exists? If there is no living organism intelligent enough to classify objects into different subjects. Would the planet technically exist if no one is around to attest to its existence? I suppose, but in the scenario I am presenting there is no one around to verify the claim that Earth exists.

In my argument that a falling tree cannot make a sound without a human's presence, I reference Lisa Feldman Barrett's "How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain". On page 212, Barrett states "nothing in the natural world indicates whether a plant is definitively a flower or a weed." She uses this phrase as an example of how a Queen Anne's lace is a flower to one person but a weed to another person. Both parties agreed that a flower existed as they held it but perceived it differently.

On the same page, Barrett also quotes Albert Einstein to illustrate the concept of perceiver-dependent reality: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."

Sure dictionaries offer concrete definitions on reality, but in order for those definitions to have been made there had to have been at least one person present to perceive reality.

Now this isn't to say that reality is unreal and insinuate me might be living in a matrix-like scenario. I may have argued that sounds can only be produced if only someone is present to categorize the sound as a tree falls, but it is inherently subjective on if reality exists regardless of the presence of an organism. That is pretty much why I chose neutral; reality is dependent on being perceived.

CITATION:

Feldman, Ph.D, Barrett Lisa. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Illustrated, Mariner Books, 2018. Page 212.

Strict zoning laws have also been blamed for the housing crises in California (https://www.vox.com/2016/4/23/11490758/oakland-housing-crisis).

When big tech companies became proponent in San Francisco, this caused the average rent fees or the prices of owning a residence to skyrocket. But the housing crises was also caused by strict zoning laws that prevent more houses in the area from being built. Since there San Francisco has to keep a limited supply of houses or apartments to compensate the inclusion of big tech companies.

CITATIONS:

Lee, Timothy. “Bad Housing Laws Have Turned San Francisco's Tech Boom into a Crisis for Oakland.” Vox, 23 Apr. 2016, www.vox.com/2016/4/23/11490758/oakland-housing-crisis.

I do agree that Trump has, at the very least, attempted to right some of the wrongs that have dominated US politics, such as the withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan.

But as the Trump years draw to a close, I ponder over what his legacy will be. Initially, I presumed it would be his endless rants on Twitter if he did not get his way, or active promotion of fake news but I come to find that his inciting of violence against a federal branch of government to be THE defining feature of his presidency.

Sure, the result of the Capitol riot was the product of his spewing of fake news and Tweetstorms. But the fact that he, intentionally or unintentionally, incited a riot by his followers to suppress the 2020 presidential election and seize power supersedes any of the good work he has done throughout his presidency.

Other presidents that have faced similar scrutiny have never been able to shake their scandals off their legacies as president. President Nixon, for example, is remembered primarily for Watergate with little other significant legislation that directed US politics in a progressive election. President Clinton is also remembered for his impeachment over his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky over his three-strike crime policy.

I commend for the occasions President Trump attempted to usher world peace whether it was through meeting Kim Jong-Un or withdrawing the remaining US troops in Afghanistan. But twice as much has he promoted the killing of civilians to demonstrate US foreign policy (https://theintercept.com/2019/10/02/trump-impeachment-civilian-casualties-war/) and pardoning them if they ran into legal issues: (https://www.businessinsider.com/blackwater-guards-trump-pardoned-shot-killed-civilians-2-kids-2020-12).

Such foreign policy inadvertently enflamed tensions with foreign countries. Sometimes, he did so without informing his political advisors and acted on his own instinct (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/14/trump-biden-foreign-policy-alliances/).

Trump attempted to ease tensions with hostile nations such as North Korea, but those peace talks fell through. Later, he attempted to withdraw US troops without informing his political advisors. Regardless of where one personally falls on the side of the debate over US troops along with 38th parallel north, the decision should at least be made with consulting experts on the matter.

Trump showed that he failed to demonstrate even basic leadership skills. I won't end this argument by summarizing Trump as the single worst US president, but I will assert that President Trump was the most politically unempathetic president in modern history.

I'm just a pizza-holic.

And as a pizza-holic, I can personally attest that pineapple most positively, most definitely GOES GREAT with pizza.

It is understandably frustrating to be unable to send one's children to school.

I'm sure a lot of us have mixed feelings about what school meant to us based on our achievements or interactions with friends. But school provides an invaluable experience that can defines us in ways no other lifestyle can't. One example is developing one's first crush--and heartbreak. Another example is relationships with teachers over shared interests. Another is, simply, making new friends.

And that last one hurts.

If I had to guess, I'm sure most of us made our first friends in school (this counts preschool and kindergarten). Even if some of us didn't like going to school at all, we still developed friendly relationships with other people and school was the only way we could have developed them in the first place.

Evidently, in-person schooling provides numerous benefits that remote-learning can never fully compensate.

But when it comes to sending children to school even with the current situation we're all in in mind, it is still unsafe to be sending children to school.

Granted, when schools initially experimented with reopening back in the fall, the amount of COVID cases did not skyrocket. But that's because...well, there was still a lot about the transmitting of the coronavirus we did not know, such as how the disease transmits between children. (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21494352/school-reopenings-covid-coronavirus-pandemic-in-person-teaching).

I will also grant that the infection rate is not as high as many feared, (https://www.vox.com/2020/10/1/21493602/covid-19-schools-reopening-nyc-florida-hybrid) but this is a superficial disease. It is not only the safety of the children we have to take into account, but the teachers and faculty as well.

The safety of our school teachers is just as vital as the safety of our children. Although there are some places where the coronavirus has not been as proponent as some places, it is best to play it safe and keep the process of remote learning until enough of the US population has been vaccinated.

I had to choose neutral primarily because I haven't seen either.

But I have been meaning to but I'm too busy working my way through dozens of other TV shows.

I'm sure they're both are great.

I chose neutral because AWS and Apple were within reason to abolish Parler's platform from its servers. Had Parler continued to exist, then who knows if another riot similar to the Capitol riot would have been planned and coordinated.

But if I had to choose, I'd rather it had been the FBI that took down Parler's servers rather than Apple or AWS.

By having the companies be the one to shut down a social media platform, it sets a precedent that is not helpful. This indicates that businesses need to cooperate with big tech companies if they are to thrive or even survive. If a business has to rely on AWS to maintain its presence, then that's a sign that AWS holds the power to decide which company gets to thrive or perish.

Although Parler was a social media news site bent towards conservatives concerned with free speech, I'd rather it had been the FBI that caused Parler's downfall rather than Apple or AWS.

Furthermore, this move insinuates that real power no longer lies with elected government officials but with thirty-something big tech businessmen that has control over what we can and cannot do.

Understandably, most people who would be asked if a tree makes a sound when it falls it would still count as making a sound. After all, sounds are made everywhere and there is only so many our ears can process.

But in the case of a sound no one hears, it does not really count as making a sound.

You see, for a sound to be heard it needs an ear to hear it.

And then the sound needs to be processed by a living being. If a human is present to hear a tree fall, he does not simply hear a tree falling. As the sound is made, the human’s brain processes the sound and recognizes it as a tree falling. The tree makes a sound with a human present because the human recognizes the sound as a tree falling.

Now if, say, we were to substitute the animal with a human, then the animal would hear a different sound. A different sound in the sense that it hears something that is more like a rock falling onto a hard ground, not really. The animal has no comprehension of a tree. Since the animal has no concept of a tree, the sound of a tree falling is registered to the animal as just a sound. Does it think about what it heard? Chances are the animal would not.

As Lisa Feldman Barrett writes in her novel, How Emotions Are Made, the sound of a tree falling “merely creates vibrations in the air and ground. These vibrations become sound only if something special is present to receive and translate them: say, an ear connected to a brain” (Barrett 206).

One of the reasons this question stumbles people is because of everyone’s definition of what a sound is. Sounds, we tend to recall our middle-school or high-school science teachers teaching us, are produced by vibrations as an object moves. And that’s all there is to it.

But a sound only becomes a sound when a living organism is present and mentally processes the sound that is made to recognize it with its understandings for the concepts of certain objects.

Therefore, as Barrett emphasizes, sounds are not merely detected. A sound is, in actuality, “an experience constructed when the world interacts with a body that detects changes in air pressure, and a brain that can make those changes meaningful”. (Barrett 207)

Another reason this statement stumbles people is because it deals directly with our personal assumptions about reality. We perceive the reality of sounds as vibrations produced by the movement from objects regardless of our presence.

One of the reasons philosophers argue about the nature of reality, especially with sound, is because human senses as human experiences.

Reality is different for everybody because reality itself is based on objects perceived dependently or independently by a human being.

We may 'perceive' the sound of something such as a falling tree because people are present to experience the perception in order for the sound to be true. But what sounds that are not present such as a falling tree require physical evidence for the perception to be true.

And this gets to why reality can be divisive. Because reality itself is dependent on the presence of humans to perceive that which is right in front of us, whether it's a physical object to be touched or a sound to be heard.

CITATIONS:

Feldman, Ph.D, Barrett Lisa. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Illustrated, Mariner Books, 2018. Pages 207-208

Oxford University Press. “Quantum Theory: If a Tree Falls in the Forest...” OUPblog, 20 Jan. 2016, blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum.

That events still happen even with no one present to witness an event is a good point.

However, what I am saying is that for an event to in order to believe an event to have happened, a human must be present to witness. I am not arguing that by no one being present to hear a tree fall, it therefore does not happen or that the tree never existed.

Even if a falling tree inadvertently affects a nearby town, it could theoretically count as hearing a sound by virtue of having a town being affected by the falling tree even if no one were to actually hear it fall. The town would also be governed by people who have the understanding of the concept of a tree falling down that would affect them.

The same thing goes for someone like the president getting shot. The event and its effects happen because humans are present to witness it by virtue of cable news to witness the repercussions an event would happen. Others, of course, witness it or feel its negative affects directly.

Let me put the falling tree scenario like this.

Suppose...say...humans never existed.

And a tree falls.

Does it make a sound then?

Sounds can only be considered a sound if there is a perceiver of the sound in order to exist. If humans, or any living organisms intelligent enough to provide different labels for various sounds for that matter, never existed in Earth's history, then the falling tree would not make a sound because there is no one around to consider anything a sound.

To the average businessman running a journalistic news website, it often does not seem necessary to extend the audience of the news site to readers who like to read about art. After all, why should journalism sites devote to permitting critics informing film, TV or book lovers if the latest blockbuster/primetime event/bestseller is worth their time. Is it even worth it for journalism.

Given the frenzy journalism has dealt with the past five years, they have increasingly devoted their resources to covering politics and news. President Trump naturally expresses/ed* a desperate craving for media attention. Media companies, attempting to maintain coverage of the president's remarks and actions, shifted more of its resources from cultural criticism in favor of political news coverage.

*I'm not sure how to label President Trump in past or present tense at this point, given he is still currently holding office as of this writing but is due to leave within a week.

If a journalist news site is to survive, should it cut out cultural criticism a dispensable aspect of its site? Should it forgo all its resources devoted to reviewing the latest movies released on Netflix in favor of covering Biden's Inauguration.

At face value, this is a tempting decision for someone running a journalist site that needs to do what it can to gain attraction. Perhaps real world events should get more coverage than cultural events. After all, once I start thinking about what the job of a movie critic entitles, the more odd I came to find it. A person is paid a salary to simply make an educated decision to tell readers if they should go see one movie over the other? That's a job?

In the case of cutting resources as a necessity to divert attention on different topics, that I agree. But dispensing cultural criticism altogether, I argue, is inherently wrong.

I came across an article I read by one of my favorite entertainment critics, Emily Todd VanderWerff. In a piece titled "Cultural Criticism Matters". In the article, VanderWerff laments that cultural criticism gave her "other ways of looking at and understanding the world, which is core to journalism's mission statement" (VanderWerff).

Culture Criticism is vital for journalism because it reports how artists are expressing their views of the current situation of the world they inhabit, and can be expressed by their individual viewpoints.

It can be a lens to which how one's understanding of a piece of literature can enhance a reader's own understanding of the same text.

And that understanding can be a drive to how we understand each other's viewpoints.

Free speech has been, and probably always will, be a contentious issue when it comes to the internet, especially in social media. There are people who assert that free speech means just that--free speech. Meaning anyone should be allowed to say whatever they please no matter the controversy it stirs. Others maintain a stance that anyone should be banned from social media no matter who the person is if said person is intentionally stirring violence.

Furthermore, social media companies are a privately-owned business and First Amendment rights to free speech extend only on public property. Therefore, the right to free speech falls solely on social media, not the federal government.

Social media’s protection is based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a clause that protects social media platforms from being liable for defamation lawsuits over content that users publish. As a result, social media platforms are not liable by the public or the federal government to remove content on their website. The decision to remove controversial content lies solely on the company of the platform it is published.

Twitter’s, and other social medias but particularly Twitter’s, decision to permanently ban Trump from its platform did not come lightly. For years, even before Trump’s election in 2016, people have been calling for the proponent social media service to ban him from the platform because of numerous tweets they pointed out explicitly violated the terms of service.

But Twitter always maintained Trump had special status over his identity as the President of the United States, or even a presidential candidate. Even after Trump used the platform to threaten nuclear war in 2017 if his demands were not met, Twitter still maintained that stance.

Finally, when Trump used his platform to encourage his supporters to voice their minds literally. He encouraged them to rat out the Democrats for to prevent the president-elect Joe Biden from being elected president. When his protestors did storm the capitol building, Trump posted a video asking his supporters to leave and finished saying, “We Love You”. Twitter took it down because it did not help deter the violence.

They then suspended Trump’s account for 12 hours.

Then permanently.

When I first thought about the issue in the first couple of years since Trump announced his candidacy, I remained conflicted on the issue of deplatforming public figures that incite violence and proponents of xenophobia. I initially remained indifferent if political pundits such as Alex Jones should be allowed to post videos on YouTube if they post content that called the Sandy Hook shootings a Democratic conspiracy to eliminate the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The decision to ban a political pundit or a world leader that spread harmful conspiracy theories lied solely on social media platforms and was not the public’s or the federal government’s decision to make, so I felt either decision was sufficient because free speech is subjective.

But calling for racial violence and stoking racial tensions is a moral line that cannot be crossed. When it became increasingly apparent that a world leader like Trump could use a popular social media platform like Twitter to incite violence, I realized that Twitter had a moral obligation about their role in world events. They had to express that their platform is used for people to share their opinions and not express incite violence.

Social media companies have a moral obligation to maintain civility on their platforms even if users inciting violence and touting harmful conspiracy theories are world leaders looking for attention.

CITATIONS:

Barry, Dan, and Sheera Frenkel. “‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date.” The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html.

Legal Information Institute. “47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 1996, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230.

Newton, Casey. “It’s Time to Deplatform Trump.” The Verge, 7 Jan. 2021, www.theverge.com/2021/1/6/22217894/deplatform-trump-twitter-ban-facebook-youtube-congress-capitol-riots.

Donald Trump is already going to lose his position as President of the United States regardless of Congress' response to Trump encouraging the riot. Biden's inauguration is in less than two weeks. For some people, two weeks does not seem like a long time.

But as we've seen from the Trump Administration, a lot can happen over the course of a single week, let alone two.

Since before the 2020 Election gained momentum, Trump already attempted to illegally seize the election by autocratic means. In September 2019, news broke that Trump made a phone call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky threatening to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky investigated Hunter Biden, son of the Democratic candidate Joe Biden, for suspicious dealings. This was clearly another attempt to obtain discrediting information on his Democratic opponent. This would be the reason Democrats impeached him later in December, but the Senate, along party lines, acquitted him.

During the election, Trump asserted numerous false allegations about the election, most primarily that mail-in voting would lead to voter fraud. The claims became so notorious, that Twitter finally started fact-checking Trump.

Then after the election, when Biden became the victor, he unleashed numerous lawsuits that immediately became disputed. Even though it was unlikely that Trump would manage to overturn the election, his apparent coup to overturn a fair election went largely unnoticed. In fact, Republicans pushed those fraudulent claims.

Once it became apparent that Trump could not let the Supreme Court decide the election for him, nor Congress, he turned to his supporters to protest their vote. In a rally, he vocally called for his supporters to let their voices be heard by whatever means necessary, essentially encouraging them to storm the capitol to stage a coup with his supporters.

While there have been US presidents in the past that refused to concede the election to a candidate they lost, they never vocally called for a riot, or even a protest for that matter, to dispute a free and fair election.

Since Trump lost the election, it has become apparent his mind is fragile and willing to do anything to stay in power by whatever means no matter what the legal boundaries. He has demonstrated autocratic leadership in a nation that was founded on representative democratic values.

And the fact that he has never been held accountable for his consequences, may set a precedent for future presidents that might devolve into questionable behavior. If a leader of one branch of government incites a riot against another branch and is not held accountable, that might encourage another president in the future to do something similar if accountability will not be employed.

Trump must be impeached for encouraging a riot against the capitol because it demonstrates his mind is too unhinged to demonstrate the qualifications that are required to the president.

And an unhinged mind can only do so much in just a few days.

SOURCES:

Editors, History com. “President Donald Trump Impeached.” HISTORY, history.com/this-day-in-history/president-trump-impeached-house-of-representatives.

Fandos, Nicholas. “How to Impeach a President in 12 Days: Here’s What It Would Take.” The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/impeachment-president-trump-capitol.html.

Wallace-Wells, Benjamin. “Trump Must Be Held Accountable.” The New Yorker, www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-importance-of-holding-trump-accountable-for-the-capitol-hill-insurrection.