megantheninja

Listing the reasons that contribute as to why Donald Trump was the worst President of the United States would be excruciatingly long, so I'll just name a few.

→ He failed to put the interests of the American people before his own political needs. A prime example of how his disregard was detrimental to the American people can be seen in the dismantling of safety nets and laws protecting workers.

→ His refusal to accept defeat led to an insurgency.

→ The way he handled the coronavirus pandemic, like his lack of initial response, promoting unproven cures, partaking in superspreader events, downplaying its seriousness, and his unwillingness to contain the pandemic, leading to the staggeringly high death toll, many of which were avoidable.

→ His administration's turnover rate is exorbitantly higher than almost any other in history, and he failed at filing top government positions with qualified candidates.

→ His extreme incompetence and lack of mental capacity to check his outlandish public statements nearly started a nuclear war with North Korea at the start of his presidency.

→ He authorized a $1.9 trillion tax cut for the wealthy that caused a gaping hole in the budget that he then compensated for by cutting food and housing assistance to lower-income families.

→ He enacted atrocious executive orders pertaining to immigration and refugees. This included the denied sanctuary from violence to fleeing refugees, the encouraged abuse of immigrant detainees, and the demand for harsh penalties to immigrants attempting to access basic social services.

→He systematically undermined U.S. federal climate policy, withdrew from the Paris Agreement and diminished the prior administration's efforts to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

These are just some ways in which Donald Trump has cemented himself as a failure to the American people, democracy, and has crowned himself as being the worst appointed leader in U.S. history.

"Trump was the first person to respond to COVID." Globally, the first official response (outside of Wuhan, China) came from Taiwan on Jan. 23rd as enforced travel restrictions, a heightened safety measure from their initial travel screenings for symptoms that began on Dec. 31. POTUS restricted travel on Jan. 31. Nationally, the CDC implemented screenings for symptoms at airports in S.F., L.A., and New York on Jan.17. POTUS's first responsive action occurred on Jan.29 with the formation of the COVID-19 interagency task force.

The naval ship the "Comfort" was redirected to New York, and after its setup and subsequent refusal to treat COVID patients, the 1,000-bed capacity ship admitted 20 patients on its initial day in harbor. On the opposite side of the country, Washington was due to receive the desperate in need of aid from the second naval ship "Mercy" that was on course to Seattle, only for Trump to redirect it again to California's coast instead because CA Gov. Gavin Newsom had said some 'nice things' about him.

A bipartisan of state governors begged Trump to invoke the powers of the Defense Production Act so that they could provide their local communities with the life-saving medical supplies they needed. Pleas that were met with empty assurances of good faith that he'd come through, yet no actions were taken to back up those claims until finally on March 27th Trump followed through with his countless claims to do so.

Trump called on six companies to fulfill the demands of the Defense Production Act, issuing public statements to each on March 27th to start production on critically needed ventilators. General Electric — one of the six — released a statement on March 23rd claiming their health care unit would step up production on the needed, but in short supply of, medical equipment.

Royal Phillips and Hill-Rom — two more of the six — released similar statements about ramping up the production of needed medical supplies (Royal Phillips on March 22nd and Hill-Rom on March 24th) prior to being "called upon" by Trump.

In an October 2020 ad campaign for Trump's re-election, Dr. Anthony Fauci can be seen and heard saying, “I can’t imagine that… anybody could be doing more.” The brief clip of Fauci was originally from an interview with Mark Levin on the Fox News Channel show “Life, Liberty & Levin” in March 2020. The statement made in reference to the members of the task force that this fragmented audio blurb was pulled from is:

"I’m not the only one. There’s a whole group of us that are doing that. It’s every single day.

So I can’t imagine that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more. I mean, obviously, we’re fighting a formidable enemy — this virus. This virus is a serious issue here."

Fauci went so far as to release a statement following the release of the ad claiming that his words were taken out of context.

I'm disregarding all your Biden references, because I am not a Biden supporter as you so incorrectly assumed, therefore invalidating their relevance in the point you were trying to make.

Maybe Trump didn't hold the "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6th with the intention of hyping up a group of his supporters until they reached mob mentality violence. But he did in fact make brash statements like:

"We’ve done things like nobody’s ever thought possible. And that’s part of the reason that many people don’t like us, because we’ve done too much, but we’ve done it quickly. And we were going to sit home and watch a big victory. And everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great. And now we’re out here fighting."

"And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, ‘I want to thank you very much,’ and they go off to some other life, but I said, ‘Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.’ And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more."

"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give … The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

But maybe his frenetic ramblings didn't incite insurgency and instead inspired peace.

If there were police letting people in then there weren't many, because the Capitol assault was one of the worst incidents resulting in injured law enforcements in the U.S. since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 140 officers — 73 from the Capitol Police and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington — were injured. Some with minor bruising and lacerations and others sustaining more serious damage like concussions, rib fractures, burns and even a mild heart attack. Tragically, Officer Brian Sicknick died from injuries sustained “while physically engaging with protesters'' that day.

Limiting the entry of certain Immigrants, slowing green card applications, refusing refugees, freezing travel Visa programs, and implementing wealth tests to punish those that use public benefits aren't matters of reinforcing laws. They're public policies created catering to the agenda of white nationalists.

I'm not going to waste my time going over the whole 'Paris accords being a joke' statement as I get the feeling you're probably someone who doesn't believe in climate change. And Russia? Well, scum recognizes scum so Putin was probably just biding his time until his buddy was no longer in office, but that's pure speculation of my own opinion.

Humanitarian intervention won’t stop a war, but it could prevent it.

Humanitarian intervention is not to be used as a last ditch effort, or as the ‘Hail Mary’ of warfare. It is, however, a great tactic employed in preventing a 'domino effect' from occurring. Through calculated humanitarian mediation, we're able to calm tensions in circumstances that call for a non-traditional military response.

However, participation on a local level is vital to successful humanitarian intervention.

So while humanitarian intervention is geared towards smaller scale strife, it doesn't diminish its capacity to achieve peace, or its ability to stop widespread anarchy that cause long-lasting issues.

Testing is a necessary evil in gauging a student's progress.

Stress and anxiety are concerning side effects to test taking. However, there are a few key reasons why it's unavoidable, including:

→ Advancement: When conducted properly, research shows that testing actually boosts learning and encourages better studying methods among students.

→ Assessment: Testing is crucial in identifying a student's strengths and weaknesses. Without the insight these tests provide, it would be harder to discern which areas students struggle with most, and there would be no effective alterations to lesson plans addressing these problem areas.

→ Application: Recalling information helps students remember specif information and improves retention. A recent study found that the retention rates from testing were higher in comparison to studying.

Testing is difficult, but it's meant to be for a reason. Constructing educational obstacles provides the opportunity for students to do well and therefore excel, but also to perform poorly and in return get the help they need.

There is no singular definition to success, and as its meaning varies person to person, so do the determining factors.

To some, success is a scale that coincides with wealth, to others it's a reflection of personal achievement. With this broad scope of meaning comes a range of contributions, not just social factors. Some of the most common ways' success is measured include:

→ Career
→ Health
→ Talent
→ Happiness
→ Self Worth

All of these facets fall under one of two types:

Internal: Factors that attribute to an individual's drive, happiness, achievements, and even their DNA. Research suggests that an individual’s ability to stay motivated is due in part to genetics.

External: Factors that you both can, and cannot control, such as health, relationships, surroundings, and lifestyle. These are the facets that comprise the social factors that are attributed to success.

So while social factors affect success, inner psyche and biology influence it as well.

Language steers our thoughts, and shapes our perceptions.

Linguistic relativity hypothesis is how speech influences thought. This translates in a variety of ways, and as a result, language ascends from just being a method of communication. Our vocabulary, the context we use it in, even our sentence structure, affects us on a much deeper, fundamental level.

Our brains are constantly making a series of predictions based on our perceptions. Language perception is driven by expectations that are built upon our impressions and understanding. There are essentially three key elements that tie into linguistic reality; language, thought, and culture.
It's easy to see the significance that culture has on language perception when comparing dialects. For example, in North Queensland, Australia, the prominent language spoken is Guugu Yimithirr. Instead of having directional words like right, and left, they use north, south, east, and west. Here, a native resident would see a boy standing by the front door to his home and think, ‘he’s standing east of his house’ whereas an English-speaking individual would think, ‘he’s in front of his house’.

It’s a complex concept, one that illustrates how dialect impacts comprehension by [framing it, enhancing it, or filtering it] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201509/how-language-shapes-our-world). Take, for instance, how we perceive colors. The amount of terms relative to color is much smaller than the variants of color we interpret. Region alters these perceptions. For example, in Russian, there are twelve words that correlate to basic colors, whereas in New Guinea, there are only two.

Many things shape our daily lives, and language is just one of them.

The illegalization of prostitution is counterproductive and hypocritical.

Disclaimer: All references made within this post pertain to consenting, of age adults.

In the past, hot-button topics like prohibition, abortion, and drug use, have struggled in a legal tug of war. Yet, making them illegal heightened the number of challenges each faced.

→ Prohibition For over a decade, laws restricting/ banning the consumption and sale of alcohol only fueled excessive drinking and abuse.

→ Abortion Each year, 50% of abortions take place in an unsafe environment because they are conducted illegally. This results in an estimated 23,000 preventable deaths.

→ Drugs Selective bans on certain drugs in their pure form have led to the manufacture of illegal products that have unknown ingredients, and potency. Pharmaceutical restrictions have been linked to the increased use of fentanyl in the United States.

But outlawing prostitution not only exacerbates the issue, it makes it more dangerous for the individuals utilizing their bodies for monetary gain.

Also, the fact that prostitution crosses the legal line, but pornography doesn't, is hypocritical.

Today’s gender discrimination is nothing like it was 20 years ago, yet there are still fields, predominately male dominated roles, where it’s prevalent.

Without a doubt, gender discrimination still exists, but to what degree, and where, varies. The progression towards equality between men and women has been significant, yet incomplete. This is partly due to the drastic shift of ideals among generations. In a 2017 study consisting of entirely male participants, 70% stated they had no preference to if their boss was male or female. That same group was then asked if their father’s would feel the same, resulting in a resounding no. So while the current generation supports gender equality, traces of discrimination seep through from older age groups.

But gender discrimination is much like any other bias, it's relative to circumstance, and response. And it isn’t an issue that females face alone, men experience inequality as well. For example, military forces have slowly become more gender proportional, yet it's still a male dominated, and encouraged, field.

We’ve come a long way from the 1920 ratification of the 19th amendment, and these achievements have paved the way for changes to continue. One of the main areas subject to gender discrimination is the work place. However, a recent study found that 87% of North American companies reported gender diversity as a top priority.

While it’s not perfect, it is getting there, but a few reasons why gender inequality still exists include :

→ Lack of awareness from male counterparts. Men typically exhibit majority-favoring behaviors unconsciously.
→ Decisions based on previous experiences. Gender stereotyping is when particular characteristics are generalized, then attributed to someone due to their gender, often followed by being treated in a demeaning or degrading manner.
→ Fear of backlash. Some women fear they may face repercussions from peer level colleagues if they provide feedback, or speak up in certain scenarios.
→ Gendered social norms. On a global scale, cultural context often plays a tremendous part in setting gender norms and expectations.

It's evident that change takes time, but the progress that's been made has rendered gender discrimination, for the most part, obsolete.

While common among the transgender community, gender dysphoria is not a requisite.

Gender dysphoria is a medical term for when an individual doesn’t feel at home in their own body due to the discrepancy between their biological sex and their gender identity. This often leads to anxiety, stress, and depression. For a lot of individuals, the transition from one sex to another stems from them having gender dysphoria. However, emotional factors, political reasons, and societal influences are also linked to an individual’s desire to begin the transition process. For the latter, they become transgender without ever having to experience gender dysphoria.

The commonality here is really the fact that an individual identifies as transgender or non-binary. Life altering decisions, or affirmations, apply to the entirety of the transgender and non-binary community, but can additionally be beneficial to those combatting gender dysphoria. These affirmations include:

→ Social affirmation: Changing one’s name and pronouns

→ Legal affirmation: Changing gender markers on government-issued documentation.

→ Medical affirmation: Taking pubertal suppressants or gender-affirming hormones.

→ Surgical affirmation: Undergoing vaginoplasty, facial feminization surgery, breast augmentation, masculine chest reconstruction, etc.

So while gender dysphoria isn't a universal disorder shared among all transgender and non-binary individuals, it also isn't an ostracizing factor to those who have it. There are facets that can create similar experiences for those that have gender dysphoria and those that don't.

Short selling is just another market gamble with a different name and tactic.

Short selling is a controversial concept in that it's a little unconventional. Essentially, it’s a gamble dependent upon the market. Short sellers have an intuition, or they get some undisclosed insight (illegal), on which they wage their bet. Their bet translates to the borrowing of company shares that they believe will fall in price and then selling those shares. This results in one of two ways:

→ If the shares value drops, the short seller profits from the difference when they return the borrowed shares.

→ If the shares value increases, the short seller actually has to come out of pocket to buy the shares back before they can return them to the broker.

This method is in complete opposition to a long position, in which an asset is purchased for the purpose of accruing value over time. Yet, when considered, both are risky, and it’s no surprise because both are reliant on the constantly fluctuating market. Does short selling heighten the probability of illegal sharing happening? Absolutely, but every gamble has a lackluster downside. However, short selling can also unveil fraud, and bring poorly run companies to light.

The socioeconomic environment surrounding military intervention sets the standard, not political affiliation.

Entering into a war is arguably the greatest example of military intervention a nation can take. To determine if involvement does in fact sway towards the Democratic Party, let's review the most notorious wars that the U.S. has been a part of, the president at the time of each, and the political party they associated with.

→ Civil War: President = Abraham Lincoln (R.)

→ WWI: President = Woodrow Wilson (D.)

→ WWII: President = Harry S. Truman (D.)

→ Korean War: President = Dwight D. Eisenhower (R.)

→ Vietnam War: President = Lyndon B. Johnson (D.)

→ Gulf War: President = George Bush (R.)

It’s an even split. Therefore, it’s all relative to circumstance. A president may feel more pressure to make a call to arms, but it's dependent upon the time, current societal views, the economic climate, etc.

Another pressure inducing tool used for subtle manipulation popular during wartime is propaganda. There are certain presidents in the past who have excelled at utilizing the media to gain a following and general acceptance towards their decisions on military involvement. However, wielding the media as an instrument for the promotion of war still doesn't reflect a political party preference, either. There are a variety of contributing factors, many of which are much more influential than political affiliation.

The world is still too fragile from the pandemic for the 2022 Winter Olympics to be held anywhere.

Worldwide, vaccination rates are not where they should be. At the same time, parts of the planet are downplaying the importance of mask wearing. While there are countries that are running out of hospital space, death tolls remain consistently high, yet receiving the vaccine is at your discretion. On top of the lack of mandates, there are variants of the virus making it more contagious, and therefore more dangerous. Encouraging not only international travel, but having masses of people congregate, seems irresponsible regardless of the location.

So, this has nothing to do with Chine per se, because where it's held doesn’t matter, it’s the fact that it’s still being held at all. It's a huge risk to take, and reckless considering how many lives have already been lost to COVID. We’re still in the midst of fighting through the pandemic with no end in sight, and instead of holding events in an attempt to return to some semblance of normal, we need to take better measures to safely adapt.

Employee compensation should be a reflection of their work ethic and the time they’ve dedicated.

If you are the CEO of a small startup company, no investors, no one’s backing you, and you’re essentially a one-man band, then logically you deserve a larger compensation than any other employee. On the flip side, a big-time CEO getting paid 320 times more than their company’s average employee isn't anywhere near the realm of being reasonable.

It’s somewhat easier for society to wrap their head around a curio CEO like Elon Musk reining in a substantially larger amount of income than his workforce, a staggering 40,000 times more, because he’s not run-of-the-mill. However, the enormous pay gap between an average well-off company’s CEO is still hundreds of times higher than its standard employees. These gaping pay scales are becoming a common trend that is creating a fundamental imbalance.

A CEO’s salary often correlates to a company’s size, not its success, exacerbating the expansive difference in pay to that of their coworkers. To see this inequality perfectly exemplified, simply look at massive corporations like Yum Brand, and Foot Locker. During the pandemic, Yum Brand, the umbrella company for brands like Taco Bell, and KFC, was forced to close down branches nationwide, yet still awarded its CEO a multi-million dollar bonus. Then there's Foot Locker, who furloughed nearly all of its staff without pay in April 2020, while at the same time awarding their CEOs with a 30% pay raise.

It is imperative that pay distribution be leveled. The continuation of income disparity is toxic and will only lead to economic ruin.

Our world's history is riddled with examples that God does not intervene.

Although I am not religious, I can understand the sentiment behind the idea that God intervenes. However, nice thoughts aside, I feel there have been numerous events that definitely called for some holy intervention, yet tragedy ran its course time and time again. But is this lack of divinity justified? One concept that leads me to believe intervention was never intended is:

→ When God created man, he provided freedom and love. In doing so, unspoken parameters were put into place, prohibiting interference.

Regardless of the why, the fact remains that we live in an interference-free world.

Implementing work requirements for safety net programs leaves a staggering amount of Americans without the means to receive the help they need.

Medicaid, housing assistance, and the supplemental nutrition assistance program (S.N.A.P.) all have work requirements that must be met in order to receive. This prevents some elderly, single parents, and low-income families from receiving aid. By tying eligibility to the capacity to work, it renders those who are either physically incapable of working, or cannot afford childcare so that they can work, powerless. Another group suffering from the inability to meet the work requirements necessary to receive aid are those with health issues.

These are the demographics that need to be protected and who we should be striving towards helping the most, yet we cast them adrift, leaving them struggling to survive. We repeatedly pass bills that support the wealthy in some regard or funnel finances into solely capitalist endeavors. Funding for essential programs remains underfunded, putting a strain on the system, and instead of eliminating work requirements, more are being established.

The nationwide struggle that a massive amount of the American population experienced during the COVID pandemic should have made it abundantly clear that these programs need to be reformed, and not in the sense that makes it even harder to receive aid.

In consequence of his desire to be different, Holden Caulfield became the epitome of a hypocritical phony.

The entirety of Catcher in the Rye is a mockery to all teens reading it, illustrating how they contribute zero to society and have massive egos. To make Holden relatable, he embodies all the very teen-like traits that he considers to be ‘phony’ including:

→ Making his voice deeper to cast the illusion of being older.
→ Introduces himself by giving a fake name, i.e. Rudolf Schmidt.
→ Talks to Ernest Morrow’s mother like they’re great friends when he actually hates him.

Throughout the story, Holden throws the word ‘phony’ around as an umbrella term for anything he finds slightly intimidating, scary, unknown, or new. He uses the term ‘phoniness’ as a sort of shield, deflecting from his own hypocrisy and resentment.

There are a few theories as to why Holden is the quintessential example of what a ‘phony’ is, one being his inability to cope with his brother’s death. Whatever the reasoning may be, it doesn't negate the fact that Holden Caulfield is a phony.

So long as all parties are of age, there’s no cap on who attracts who, and to say one preference is creepy isn’t anyone’s place.

DISCLAIMER - All references made are in regards to consenting, of age adults.

Whether it be age, race, gender, class, or creed, these differences can sometimes make up the best part of a relationship. To shame one is to shame them all, and who gives us that right? All relationships have hardships that need to be taken into account, and each couple varies case by case. For some, the maturity equilibrium commonly met when an older man dates a younger woman is actually beneficial. Recent studies show that nearly a quarter of same sex relationships include a partner that is 10+ years their partner's senior.

Creepiness aside, the key factors to an 'acceptable' relationship include:

→Communication - Being open with your partner is imperative to encouraging clear, honest communication.

→Empathy - The capacity for understanding between couples is detrimental to a relationship’s success.

→Affection - Love often stems from affection, and one's ability to demonstrate their love to their partner is crucial.

→Respect - The ability to treat your partner as an equal is dependent upon respect.

→Trust - Lack of trust spawns nothing but problems. When entering a relationship, you’re entering a partnership that hinges on reciprocal confidence.

Most successful relationships are due in part to the ability to form a common bond while being able to learn from one another. Age is just another ingredient that adds a little flavor to a relationship.

Like most things that claim to be the economy's financial savior, there are pros and cons to ESOP's.

An employment stock ownership plan is considered an employee benefit, as it allows employees to own shares of the company they work for. Over time, employees have the ability to accumulate shares that are then secured into a trust so that when they either leave the company or retire, they can then cash those in. Basically, it’s a 401(k) plan funded solely by the company. In this type of compensation package, there is an incentive tied to it that ensures an alignment of motivation for both the employee and employer. However, with the pros come the cons, and they include:

→ If a startup company offers ESOP’s to its employees and the company goes under, shareholders stand to lose everything.
→ When an employee leaves a company, they are only eligible to receive the vested portion of their ESOP and the remainder is forfeited to the company.

So while the potential is definitely there to be an advantageous economic strategy, a few laws need to be put into place first, the main being protection to the employees that have lost their job and are therefore subject to lose their retirement investment.

Bare, unrestricted sleeping benefits both the body and mind.

It seems odd enough to be an old wives' tale or even a strange superstition, but it’s actually fact-based. Aside from the multitude of benefits resulting from a lower body temperature that sleeping naked provides, there are other advantages, including:

→ Decreased Cortisol Production: Heightened production of melatonin and growth hormones helps lower anxiety and stress levels.

→ Reproductive Organs: The lack of restrictive underwear raises male fertility rates. For women, the increased ventilation leads to increased vaginal health.

→ Circadian Rhythm: Increases sleep quality by promoting uninterrupted sleep.

Even though it may take some getting used to, as well as a few additional door locks, unencumbered sleep boosts both mental and physical health.

An accelerated drop in unemployment rates expedites inflation.

The inverse nature of the relationship between inflation and unemployment makes it an exceptionally complicated matter, but why? By definition alone, each seems to be an independent concept.

→ Unemployment: When an employable individual actively seeks work yet is unable to find any.
→ Inflation: The inordinate rise of prices related to a heightened volume of money, resulting in a decline of currency value.

However, the correlation between unemployment and inflation is dependent upon three things: rate, time, and each other. A drastic drop in unemployment rates triggers the rise of inflation, and when either one happens rapidly over a short amount of time, they exacerbate the other even more, making their relationship inversely correlated.

Due to their intricate relationship, it's imperative that both be controlled in equal measures. When a factor like unemployment remains constant, then the price level of the money supplied stays proportional.

Converting Social Security so that it's as gamble ridden as the stock market could be a disaster, but it could also be the answer to its looming insolvency.

The U.S. is facing a troubling future if the social security system remains a pay-as-you-go framework. However, there is a possible alternative, which would be to fully or partially privatize social security. Essentially, this would make it so that the federal government is no longer solely responsible for a worker's retirement fund. Instead, it would be up to the aforementioned worker to have either complete or partial control of their own account and how they invest their benefits. Here are a few pros and cons to this option:

CONS
→ The process of putting a private system in place would require policymakers to find an astronomical amount of funding to support liabilities to workers.

→ The value of a taxpayer’s contribution would fluctuate in accordance to the value of their market investments.

PROS
→ Workers would be responsible for their own financial foundation, lowering government expenditures.

→ The opportunity to invest and monitor one’s own account could result in a higher return than what would be received via social security.

While privatizing this system could potentially stop it from collapsing, it's unlikely to happen. This is because in order to privatize social security, bipartisan cooperation of Capitol Hill would be required. So, unless we’re an hour away from this federal government-funded program’s impending fallout, it will continue to have a steady life as just a discussion topic.

While America has always been a melting pot of differing ideals, over the last few decades, that blend of beliefs has become a war of extreme views.

There have always been topics like political party, industrialization, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. in which finding common ground has been a struggle. However, within the last 30 years, these disagreements in ideas have begun to create a deep divergence among the American people.

Diversity is what makes this country legendary, yet violent extremists have reintroduced brutal and oppressive radicalism. The unspoken, understanding among Americans that everything's open for debate has mutated into a means of justifying violence, and it is this volatile behavior that will tear this nation apart.

Some of the factors that are heightening America’s growing polarization include:

→ Capitalism Inequality for opportunities and outcomes has become a common battle among the economic classes.

→ Ideology Political affiliation has steadily become immersed with ideology, enabling each party to form a radically opposed faction.

As violent responses become the new normal between opposing sides, It's become apparent that Americans have plateaued, remaining stagnant and set in its ways. Without the want to mend where we’ve begun to break, there’s no other option but division.

The definition of mental illness needs to be adaptive so that it can reflect newly acquired data.

Mental illness is a combined study of sciences. It's an ever-evolving study that configures the latest discoveries and past corrections with new hypotheses. It’s meant to be subjected to rigorous questioning and analysis. If the definition of mental illness remained stagnant, demonic possession and religious punishment would still be a part of its meaning today.

Historically, mental health is one of the least explored medical fields. This lack of knowledge has allowed assumptions to be taken as knowledge. A few instances of misconception include:

→ In the early 1900s, intensive surgeries like lobotomies, were par for the course practices in treating mental illness and continued for nearly 50 years until it was determined ineffective.

→ The soldiers of the first and second world wars that experienced anxiety, shortness of breath, or prolonged feelings of sadness were diagnosed with 'hysteria' or 'neurosis'. Misdiagnosis continued throughout the 1960s and cast a negative stigma onto these individuals.

To establish proper treatments addressing mental illness rather than public opinion, the definition must be adaptable. If we strip away the ability to accommodate new findings or to test new theories, we’re dismantling the construct of the scientific nature of the mental illness.

Capitalism and environmentalism could be mutualistic partners.

→ Capitalism = Privately owned industries; usually have a mindset of ‘profits, profits, profits.

→ Environmentalism = An ideology that focuses on reducing anthropogenic damage to the environment.

→ Mutually Exclusive = Events that cannot occur at the same time.

A perfect example of something nearly [half of the global population](https://www.bank cell. com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-world#:~:text=How%20Many%20People%20Have%20Smartphones%20In%20The%20World%3F&text=According%20to%20Statista%2C%20the%20current,world's%20population%20owns%20a%20smartphone.) uses daily that combines capitalism and environmentalism; smartphones. One smartphone can act in place of a multitude of energy-depleting devices, as well as significantly cut down the use of paper.

If we explore more avenues in which capitalism harnesses environmentalism instead of attacking it, we could systematically nullify one of the largest contributing threats to our planet's future.

If all parties, on-screen and off, are consenting, of age adults, then who are we to tell someone they can’t get their rocks off by watching someone else get their rocks off?

As an adult, consensual sex is a part of life, always has been and always will be. Relationships are driven and influenced by it, industries were built upon it, campaigns of empowerment have been rallied around it. By villainizing pornography for what it is, it’s shaming something that doesn’t deserve to be shamed, not only because a large portion of society will partake in it at some point in their lives, but it’s also natural, hence reproduction. Now, I’m not saying that it’s for everyone, like anything in this world it’s preference-based. But, so is smoking cigarettes, voting, or washing your dishes by hand instead of with a dishwasher; they’re all choices, and porn is probably one of the easiest ones to avoid if it’s not yours.

However, porn is still a vice, something viewed for enjoyment that leads to feelings of euphoria and therefore runs the risk of becoming an addiction. So, while porn isn’t something that should be frowned upon, I do think that the particulars of watching porn vary case by case and should be regarded with the possible negative effects kept in mind.

If Jesus was a conman, you can’t deny he succeeded in pulling off the longest-running con in history. Props.

DISCLAIMER- I am not a religious person; it neither enriches nor impedes my life. With that being said, I found the prospect of analyzing both sides interesting; the side backed by a belief solely built upon faith, and the side that neatly assess the facts.

If I was a part of a religious faction that revered Jesus as their savior, I would undoubtedly feel that he was not a conman. The Bible provides a detailed recounting of the miracles performed by Jesus, all of which had eyewitnesses present, so with this assumed acceptance, it would be discerned that there was no lying about his abilities nor were they an attempt to deceive others into believing a falsehood. Additionally, the miracles performed were all to the benefit of someone else, never as a ploy for monetary gain. However, one could argue that a perceived conman characteristic would be to perform miracles purely for the glory of gaining recognition.

Let’s move on to analyzing the faith-free standpoint. Jesus didn't write the Bible, therefore if these miracles never took place, then the root of the con would lay at the author's feet. By authoring the Bible, their lies would have a further reach, heightening the likelihood of establishing an immediate following, gaining not only the accolades that come with notoriety but money as well. Another possibility is that Jesus was just a regular guy, making performance art on the level of ‘miracle’ impossible, meaning he lied at some point, and most likely for self-serving purposes, making him very much a conman.

Again, although I am not religious, I also have no ill will towards those who are/ are not and did not write this with the intention to disparage anyone's belief or lack thereof or to cause offense.

TL;DR- Similar to nature vs nurture, an individual's sense of humor is a developmental characteristic and is therefore subject to change.

What is a sense of humor? By definition, it is the individualistic perception of what a person finds funny. Humor can be a source of entertainment, a coping method, a bonding element, and overall, an instrumental aspect of life. However, are these established methods shaped by outside influences, or is it a symptom of one's inherent genealogical funny bone?

While I shared a nearly identical sense of humor to that of my father, the same could be said of my best friend and I, yet she didn’t inherit it from me or vice versa. This alludes to the fact that an individual’s sense of humor is more so due to a mixture of external contributing factors and not a specific sequence of DNA. It should be pointed out that 'being funny' doesn't equate to having a sense of humor, or even what a sense of humor entails, as nearly everyone on this planet finds humor in something, yet the number of people that are actually funny themselves is considerably low.

Scientific research has identified four different types of humor, which are affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating. Each of these four categories are heavily influenced by the variables of an individual's personality.

So, do you inherit what you ultimately find funny, or is it something developed? I find the latter, at least personally, to be true.

TL;DR- All violent crime should be met with harsh punishment, a standard that the far-right continually seem to escape, yet they shouldn't.

When a group of people or individuals lash out violently, there are consequences. Yet, how do we measure justice and decide on a suitable punishment? A difficult feat, but not impossible, however, in today's society it usually doesn't pan out fairly. Repercussions for committed crimes, particularly violent ones, should never be overlooked because of whom the offender is, or who they know/ are related to. The justice system doesn't have the right to cater to the far-right, far-left, or the dead middle, yet sometimes they do.

Currently, organizations like the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) fight for animal rights, yet they are perceived as being a major threat and in some instances classified as 'domestic terrorists. The standard penalty when caught partaking in a victimless act of sabotage, like releasing animals from a fur farm, garners a mandatory life sentence, without the possibility of parole.

On the far-right hand, acts of domestic terrorism carried out by white supremacists or similar organizations, such as the January 6th capital riot where five people were killed, defendants are making plea deals, being granted probation, and receiving misdemeanor charges.

The heavy-handedness demonstrated in doling out punishments to far-left criminals is due, in part, to allied industries. When a crime is committed by a far-right organization, there are no big corporations waiting in line, demanding remittance. However, the companies impacted by far-left vigilante activism actively demand their pound of flesh. Overall, when comparing the consequences faced by the far-left for their committed offenses to that of the far-right, there is an imbalance that should be corrected.

TL;DR- A.I. will continue to integrate itself in roles like production, analytics, and surveillance; however, I don't think the next new dating app will be 'Plenty of Robots'.

I thought for sure I’d have a Rosie by now, considering the Jetsons ingrained that idea into us back in the 60s. Sadly, I'm pretty sure a Roomba is as close as we're going to get. However, this is not to say that specific roles and functions won't be swapped out with A.I. in the future.

Menial, tedious tasks are currently being handed over to A.I., as these are relatively mindless operations. But you won't find the next Bill Gates or Eric Schmidt wading through the sea of bots and automation, because, for all its brilliance, A.I. lacks creativity and ingenuity, making a complete exchange with a human unrealistic.

So while certain facets like inventory management, and image analysis, could easily become wholly machine-based processes, fields like customer service, in which 'talking to a live person' is the majority's preference, will forever remain team human.

The future of A.I. is contingent upon its ability to work hand in hand with humans, not starting a Tron-esque revolution.

TL;DR- A planet's defining qualities should rest upon its being, not on the capacity of what it can do, therefore Pluto's absent ability to force objects out of its orbit, causing its revoked planetary status to hold no merit.

For nearly 80 years, Pluto was one of the essential nine planets of our solar system, becoming declassified only after a revision of the criteria requirements, so what protects the other eight planets from meeting the same fate?

In 2006, the three deciding factors that were chosen to as the parameters set forth as the required criteria for a celestial body to be deemed a planet included:

1. It must orbit the sun.
2. The mass must be so substantial that the gravitational pull gives it a rounded shape. To help visualize the comparison in size to other planets, imagine Earth being the size of a nickel, to which Pluto would be the size of a popcorn kernel.
3. It must have a clear ‘neighborhood’.

That last, slightly confusing and most recently added requirement, is where Pluto falls short, as it lacks the gravitational dominance needed to clear its orbit of all other objects. These selected criteria were authored by non-experts diminishing the legitimacy to use it as a planet's set standard.

Outside that, some additional facts that support Pluto being a planet include:
→ Its atmosphere is multilayered.
→ Organic compounds are present.
→ It undergoes changing weather.
→ It has its own moons.

A social worker's salary is inadequate in contrast to their integral part of society.

In a perfect world, a job’s wages would reflect these contributing, key factors:

→ The importance of a particular career’s work.
→ The amount of schooling necessary to gain the required qualifications necessary for a particular job.
→ How competitive is that field? Are others in that same line of work a dime a dozen or a rare commodity?
→ The level of difficulty corresponding with the required skill sets that are a career's requisite.

Salaries of the most important professions:

→ Social Worker = $31,300/ year upon obtaining a B.S.
→ Registered Nurse = $75,330/ year upon obtaining a BSN
→ Police Officer = $68,000/ year upon obtaining a Bachelor's Degree
→ Teacher = $62,870/ year upon obtaining a Bachelor's Degree

*I based the incomes listed above on the national averages, as the pay scale fluctuates state by state.

Social worker's compensation should be akin to those of equally important vocations.

TL;DR- Star Wars reigns supreme with its legendary characters, universal appeal, and unparalleled visuals.

If you were to binge-watch Star Trek, around hour 6 into your immersive Trekky state, you’d discover a commonality present throughout its copious seasons; a revolving storyline centered around the crew of the Starship Enterprise, subsequently limiting the scope of plot possibilities. In contrast, Star Wars is, for lack of a better term, boundless. It spans solar systems, encompassing unexplored planets and otherworldly species, weaving together classical favorites with untold short stories and new characters, forming an intricate circuitry of storytelling that resonates with everyone, despite age, gender, race, etc. While this is a sought-after attribute that Star Trek ardently attempts to replicate, it is uniquely emblematic to Star Wars alone.

Other aspects that make Star Wars iconically better:

→ Wookiees. Arguably, the inclusion of wookiees makes everything better.
→ Yoda. Apply the aforementioned wookiee rule to Yoda.
→ Superior imagery. Each Star Wars film, regardless of the era, contain unrivaled visuals.
→ “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…” The cultural legacy that Star Wars created.

TL;DR- The evidence of climate change is abundant.

If we continue to dismiss climate change, a few of the graduated impacts waiting to usher us into 2100 include:

→ An ice free Arctic. We are currently losing 1.2 trillion tons of ice each year.

→ China, Egypt, Japan, USA, and Brazil all have land that will be engulfed by the rising sea level. Since 1880, an average of 8 inches of land has been lost to the ocean, 3 of those inches in the last 25 years.

→ All coral reefs will be dead. Since the industrial revolution, the ocean has experienced a 30% increase in acidity. This increase throws the pH balance off and causes shell dissolution and coral bleaching.

→ Habitually extreme heatwaves. The National Weather Service classifies heat waves as being the deadliest weather phenomenon in U.S. history within the last 30 years.

→ The rate of flooding will increase to three times higher than the national average. Warm air increases precipitation. This causes our atmosphere to retain a larger amount of water vapor, producing more rain and snow that subsequently leads to more flooding.

We can no longer agree to disagree on this issue. Our window of opportunity to slow the degradation caused by climate change is shrinking. There is substantial, undeniable evidence making it explicitly clear, climate change is real.

Harnessing nuclear energy as a main power source would help reduce the effects of climate change. It could also make events like Chernobyl and Fukushima a common occurrence.

It isn't just Homer Simpson’s livelihood anymore, as it could be the answer in minimizing the repercussions faced from climate change. Nuclear Energy fueled by uranium housed in a cement dome. Here, a nuclear reaction occurs, creating heat to make an internal turbine spin, which generates energy. The pros and cons to this method of energy production include:

Pros

→ Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy source.

→ The capacity factor, or ratio of energy produced over a given amount of time, is higher than almost any other form of energy.

→ Nuclear fuel is denser than any other energy source. A one-inch uranium pellet is equal to 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 120 gallons of oil, or one ton of coal.

→ Most forms of non-nuclear energy release more radiation into the environment than nuclear energy.

Cons

→ Nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source.

→ When accidents occur, they are catastrophic.

→ There is no solution to the disposal of nuclear waste.

While the benefits seem to outweigh the negative, it’s hard to reconcile with increasing the likelihood of causing a nuclear meltdown.

TL;DR- The cultural significance of bullfighting can historically be preserved without having its continued practice.

Some people classify bullfighting as being a ‘fine art’. Others proclaim it to be a sport. Then there are those who argue it’s a tradition, yet so was human sacrifice, and we all let that go. The morality among ancient traditions is hazy at best, therefore leading to the subsequent banning of many. While it may have been acceptable to torture, maim, injure, and in some instances slaughter a sentient being at one point in time, it’s safe to say the human race has progressively realized that this type of behavior is unacceptable. However, the preservation of events like bullfighting continues to be rigorously fought for today. So, let's break down some counterarguments.

→ The meat industry is more torturous. Maybe, but just by stating that one form of slaughter is comparatively more heinous than another doesn’t make either ok and shouldn’t make it acceptable in contrast.

→ The bulls used/ killed in these fights have been treated better than bulls bred for slaughter. Again, maybe, but you can’t tell me someone of wealth deserves death more than someone born in poverty because they’ve arguably had a better life up until that point.

→ In some regions, the spears used are Velcro tipped, and the bull wears a pad for them to connect to. The entire experience is traumatic for the bulls because of the stress-inducing environment, arguably, making it torturous.

As humans, the mistreatment of any living creature on this planet is beneath us. We know torture is wrong, so to condone bullfighting as being the exception to this standard is unfathomable.

Entering college upon high school graduation can make higher education a costly adjustment period. For individuals who enter their college career later in life, it is typically an endeavor to gain the necessary skills for a desired career, and to begin that journey with an exorbitant amount of debt can be daunting. When considering the success of the countries that provide their citizens with higher education free of charge, it is hard to understand why the American people are left to falter. In the past, having high school as the cutoff of provided education made sense, as it matched the educational requirements for most careers during that time. However, over the past two decades that standard has been raised to having a college degree equates to attaining a good job, so why would the level of education provided to the general populace not be raised as well?