Editorial Archive

Although it may seem hard to believe, the COVID-19 lockdown was four years ago. Even though we have had a decline of COVID cases, the mark left on society itself is palpable.  From mental health to political issues, the isolation and freedom of quarantine has left us all affected, and it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.  

One of those effects is mental health.  As I have seen in myself, and a lot of my peers, mental health took a sharp decline during the lockdown and continues to stay in those low numbers 4 years later.  Because of COVID, many lost their jobs and were forced to stay at home.  This led to a lot of financial issues and drug usage, thinking it would  alleviate stress.  Because of the isolation and financial issues, many became severely depressed and still are today. As a KFF survey found, “Concerns about mental health and substance use remain elevated three years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with 90% of U.S. adults believing that the country is facing a mental health crisis… The pandemic has affected the public’s mental health and well-being in a variety of ways, including through isolation and loneliness, job loss and financial instability, and illness and grief.”  

  This is a huge problem, not only because of drug usage but because of mental health as a whole.  As I’ve experienced firsthand, battling mental health issues can leave you drained and unmotivated.  It is very easy to begin to fall behind in your schooling or at your job.  This leads to horrible outcomes like failing classes or being fired, and leaves people feeling worse about themselves.  

Another outcome of the isolation of the lockdown is a lack of socialization.  Because of the quarantine, no one could see or interact with other people aside from those that they could simply call or text. This has led to a large group of people that have lost their ability to interact with others and are still relearning it.  Some kids who were raised in quarantine had no one to talk to except their family and have no clue how to interact with people, like their peers at school or their teachers.  They are often punished for “acting out” but in reality they simply don’t know what the right way to act in public is. 

 As a research paper published by the National Library of Medicine said, “The COVID-19 pandemic, and its associated quarantine and isolation measures, resulted in significant disruptions to in-person social interactions, which has placed adolescents at risk for negative social development outcomes. In fact, it has been suggested that adolescents are more affected than adults by the social impact of the pandemic, and one of the most frequently endorsed challenges by parents during the pandemic includes the lack of social interaction for their adolescents.” Of course, an issue like this has very big negative impacts on people.  Without these skills, these kids may never be able to interact with people, which would be bad for situations such as job interviews.  

 There are many opinions on the way COVID was handled.  While some say it was an unexpected situation and was handled as best as it could have been, others completely disagree.  Because of the lockdown, many young people have lost their trust in the government. They believe COVID was handled poorly, and 4 years later, these beliefs still stand.  As Dr. Orkun Saka, an assistant professor at the University of London wrote, “Specifically, we find that individuals who experience epidemics in their impressionable years (ages 18 to 25) display less confidence in political leaders, governments, and elections. The effects are substantial: an individual with the highest exposure to an epidemic (relative to zero exposure) is 7.2 percentage points less likely to have confidence in the honesty of elections; 5.1 percentage points less likely to have confidence in the national government; and 6.2 percentage points less likely to approve the performance of the political leader.” 

It has been said that a lot of teenagers today do not care to participate in elections and are uninterested in politics as a whole.  This can be seen as true for many but it is definitely not for no reason.  They are not just simply lazy and don’t care but rather they have lost their trust in their government and do not believe they could do the right thing.  

COVID has left its mark on society in more ways than one. While this is bad, it is not irreversible.  Issues such as mental health and socialization can be solved, and many are currently trying to do what's best for them or someone close to them.  The lack of trust in the government is a harder problem to fix and will take more time, but it can also be repaired in time.  However, in 2024, COVID is still an issue and its impact can be seen everywhere. 

After receiving an alert from the Tik Tok app urging users to “stop a TikTok shutdown” and to contact their local representatives, app lovers were sent into a confused and angry frenzy. H.R.7521, or the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” is the bill that people have been so worked up about this past month. 

The bill's main focus is protecting the national security of the United States against foreign social media companies. But what does this really mean? In short, the US government believes that TikTok can be used by the Chinese government to spy on users and is a threat to national security. 

Although officials cannot bring up specific evidence to support that the US is in danger, there have been instances where TikTok has been used to gather information. In 2022, former employees used the app to surveil American journalists that were writing about the company. Although the former employees were specified to not be government officials, and there was apparently no dangerous use of the app, it does bring up questions about what's possible. 

The main problem arising in Congress is the app's influence. US officials fear that with an app of this size and popularity being controlled by a foreign super power, it could be used to push propaganda, influence users in politics, and shape the views of millions of Americans for "Chinese benefit." 

After resounding support from the House, the bill now moves to the Senate, making many anxious for the next steps.

If the Senate were to pass this bill what would happen to Tik Tok? Well, it's not as bad as you think.

TikTok would not just magically disappear from everyone's phone. Parent company ByteDance would have about 6 months to sell TikTok to an American owner, but many challenges arise with selling.

One huge question is how it would be sold. Since the app is globally used, people wonder if it would be sold fully? Or would it only be the American part of the corporation? The move is expected to be met with reluctance from ByteDance not wanting to sell the global hit, being such a huge operation. The app is also a multi-billion dollar corporation, meaning that whatever being sold could be tens of billions of dollars.

The TikTok ban has been weighing heavily on the minds of many. This ban could be detrimental to small businesses, social media influencers, and media based careers alike, but understanding the security risks is also important. Social media is a huge part of today's society and the ban of such a huge app would have effects on the nation as a whole.

On November 19th, a group of Yemeni rebels known as the Houthis hijacked a commercial ship in the Red Sea. Since then, the Houthis have exchanged missile fire with multiple military forces, in an alarmingly effective stand against Western powers.

The Houthis are mainly motivated by the Israeli occupation of Gaza, and they attack these ships assuming that the ships are delivering goods to Israel. This all indicates that anti-capitalist movements are beginning to root deeper than surface-level dissatisfaction. It advanced from economic dissension to violent rebellion.

The anti-west sentiment of Houthis is a testament to the inhumanity of Western capitalism. As capitalism has begun to seep into diplomacy over the decades, we begin to care more about the financial risks of our involvement in foreign countries than the actual lives being lost due to our inactivity. Of course we have our own economy to worry about, but a moral line is crossed when you begin to support an oppressive power. 

While one can argue that if the Houthis want some negotiation, they have to become a peaceful entity before we can share a mutual lack of hostility. However, this isn't the first major conflict for the Houthis.

Since the unification of Yemen in 1990, there's been constant internal turmoil in Yemen, as the region was made up of tribal unions prior to the introduction of Islam. This has led to this tribal segregation still remaining in the present, regardless of formal institutions. Since around 2015, the Houthis have retained informal control over nearly a quarter of the country. The Houthis are not just some ragtag band of bandits. Their manpower is equivalent to that of the Taliban. The fear the Taliban struck into the hearts of the West is also present with the Houthis. The Houthis are taking down military ships and putting up planned out defenses against foreign attacks. 

An issue arises with the respect for the Houthis. While there is a complex set of questions regarding the Houthi's morality, these questions are also present with the Taliban. The only difference is that we struck a deal with the Taliban; they were allowed to be treated as an actual government institution, free of Western intervention as long as they cut ties with terrorist organizations. The Houthis have no direct ties to any terrorist organization, unless one wanted to argue that Iran backing the Houthis is a terrorist linkage. However, we've diplomatically punished Iran for their Houthi support, so we can't really go down that path of reasoning

Overall, the Houthis check all the boxes of a government organization. The US has approached the Contra rebels like a pseudo-government, so we must treat the Houthis the same. The Contras had traditionalist views just as the Houthis do, and the Contra were affiliated with international terror, just as the Houthis. The real reason we treat the Houthis differently may be rooted in capitalist priorities

The Houthis are hurting our profits, which is why we are taking action against them. The SDF (Syrian Democratic Force) secures Western corporate profits as the SDF has prevented multiple Kurdish rebel groups from cutting off US connections to Syrian oil pipelines.

It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of national economic security for the United States military. The Houthi are not only putting up a difficult defense against the West, but are succeeding in their efforts of protecting Gaza.

On October 4th, 2017, US soldiers were attacked by Nigerien (as in the Republic of the Niger, not Nigeria) militants. The soldiers were ambushed while making their way back to their base, leading to the death of 4 US special operators, 4 civilians, and 21 militants. While a quite unfortunate event, one question remains: why were these soldiers here in the first place?

Many know that Western powers frequently provide aid to African powers, may that be embassy security or building unmanned drone bases. The soldiers killed in the ambush, however, were on a mission to take out a militant sub-commander. Many African militant groups are partially motivated by the presence of foreign organizations in their country, so how can we criticize their dissatisfaction while reinforcing it? The answer is that world leaders simply don't care about the individual freedoms of those they abuse.

As previously mentioned, 4 civilians were unfortunately killed in the Tongo Tongo ambush, revealing that this isn't just isolated combat incidents. This is an actual war. Once civilians have to worry about foreign powers getting them killed, conflict becomes more than deterring of mad rebels: we are putting people's lives on the line for our cause.

When weighing the morality of putting civilians in danger in order to stop warlords, we have to start justifying the motivations of African rebel fronts. The more we consider putting innocent civilians in danger, the morality of violent rebels proportionally increases. It's impossible for the US to refuse the label of an imperialist nation if we are constantly facing that consideration.

Western powers deter the autonomy of foreign countries, because we have never actually ended our reign of imperialism upon them. Our nation's security depends on domination upon weak nations, and the independence of weak nations is detrimental to our growth. Once an oppressed group finds strength, they will inevitably retaliate. While it is somewhat difficult to find direct examples of the US oppressing Africans, it's possible to say our purposeful idleness in Africa is still a form of oppression. The US has done nothing significant to act on injustices perpetrated by American organizations in Africa. We occasionally even aid in these injustices, as seen with companies like Raytheon, The Titan Corporation, and Nestle. While one could argue that it's not the federal government's job to stop companies from abusing the system in other countries, how can we maintain the title of the global police, but simultaneously retain an individualistic code of ethics? 

A clear example of this individualism was in 2002, the last time we majorly tried to prevent the issue of blood diamond trade. When the US government required imported diamonds to be certified by an accredited organization, this did not prevent the loophole of simply selling blood diamonds to regular small banks. The federal government's individualist views on foreign policy shifted the problem of blood diamonds onto the African nations themselves, completely absolving Western powers of accountability.

One can argue that, since blood diamond mines are a common way for rebel groups to fund their conquests, the rebel groups cannot truly desire freedom for their people. We have to realize that simply  because some groups commit an immoral act, we cannot assume that all the groups follow similar paths of immorality. Though this argument may break the fallacy of division, it's moronic to ignore the clear differences between groups. We can't compare Idi Amin to Thomas Sankara, just as we cannot compare Jefferson Davis to Norman Rockwell

We cannot force anti-colonist fronts under the same ideology, nor can we try to treat violence upon these fronts as security. We are not providing security for the people, we are providing security for our interests and security of our capital. By forcing rebels under the same umbrella of military action, we forcefully merge groups just as we did during the Scramble for Africa (also known as New Imperialism). 

We claim a rung of moral superiority above past generations regarding our history of imperialism., yet we repeat their injustices time and time again. 

On the world stage, America is known for our ability to celebrate. St. Patrick's day, Christmas Eve, New Years Eve, and many other holidays are known nationwide for celebration. However, no one ever includes Mardi Gras as a classic American holiday, even though, frankly, it’s one of our most American celebrations.

While Mardi Gras is of French and Spanish origin, America has made it our own. Depending on where you are in the world, Mardi Gras is celebrated differently. Universally, Mardi Gras is connected to the celebration of Lent, which is a 40-day holiday among Christians. 

However, for America, Mardi Gras is more than a festival of food, drink, and dancing. It's also connected to the history of its region. When looking at Mardi Gras celebrations, we see heavy inspiration from Creoles. Along with the traditional Latin music, Mardi Gras in Louisiana  includes things like jazz performances and krewes (carnival groups that sport a special mascot, with figures such as Rex, Zulu, Bacchus etc.)

Mardi Gras in New Orleans is inherently American. It includes Cajun inspiration, Black Creole inspiration, Latin inspiration, and also has multiple nodes of American patriotism. The unity of the celebration showcases what it means to be an American. Like the principles of America, Mardi Gras promotes the freedom to mix beauty without a rubric.

However, for Mardi Gras, the New Orleans city officials order citywide cleanups, which unfortunately includes cleaning out the homeless from the main city hub. If someone has hypothetically become homeless near the celebrations of Lent, the process of getting back on their feet will be pushed back by at least a week or so. We could just attempt to fix the factors that cause these unfortunate cases of homelessness, but that's a vastly different argument in itself.

Moving on, Mardi Gras can be implemented across the US. Rebranding the celebration as Fat Tuesday in other regions may help, as a less French sounding name may resonate more with locals. If we look at holidays like Oaks Day and the Kentucky Derby, which are really just cultural festivals, there's no real argument to be made why we can't add another non-working holiday like Mardi Gras to cities.

An issue that arises is that American holidays tend to always end with a commercial aspect. Holidays like Christmas and Halloween have preparation factors that are capitalized on by corporations. While unfortunate, we can still add a national commercial aspect to Mardi Gras. 

Firstly, we can center a sports celebration around Mardi Gras. Similar to the Christmas and Thanksgiving Day games in professional sports, Mardi Gras can be an opportunity for college teams to secure a chip. Since March Madness usually begins in early to mid March, Mardi Gras/Fat Tuesday can be used to secure a spot in the southern division of the playoffs.

College basketball and football playoff selection is unfair as they aren't decided only by wins and losses, but rather a committee that ranks the teams. We can use the week leading up to Lent as a similar procedure to the NFL’s wild card Mardi Gras is succeeded by Shrove Tuesday (final day before Lent), then by Ash Wednesday (First day of Lent). Teams can compete for placements in regional conference playoffs. The winners are awarded a trophy and may move onto the playoff season. 

This not only can bring even more money to the NCAA, but also generate even more money for corporations that succeed from college sport advertising. Additionally, the tailgates for this proposed tournament could possibly be incorporated into the overall festivities.

We may face a roadblock with the issue that fans may not be interested in this hypothetical competition. However when the NBA began the In-Season Tournament, critics had the same complaints But there was actually good fan participation in the IST, leading me to believe that a similar college system would be just as successful

In closing, Mardi Gras checks all the boxes as a widespread national holiday. In fact, it should be celebrated in every city with an infrastructure that can handle it. Mardi Gras is also completely free for all to join in on festivities. The only solid reason Mardi Gras isn't as big as other holidays like Halloween, Thanksgiving, or Christmas, is simply because no one has ever given it any thought.

Many students in the UK would say that the US school system is easier than theirs at home. However, the majority of students in the US would say the opposite, that theirs is harder due to things such as the more difficult grading system and wide range of subjects. However, it is more complex than simply saying one is harder than the other.  I, along with others, believe that with things such as grading systems, curriculums and assessments, they both have their strengths and there isn’t really any reason to put them against each other.  

As many may know, there is a vast difference between the UK and US grading systems.  As Phil Collins with Essay Service writes, “The UK and US university grading systems are similar in some ways, but there are also significant differences. In the UK, universities typically use a 1-100 point scale, with 70 being a passing grade. In the US, however, letter grades are used (A,B,C,D and F), with A being the highest and F being the lowest. In addition, the cut-off for a passing grade in the US is typically around 70%, though this can vary.” Because of this difference, many believe that the US students have to work harder than those in the UK because it is much harder to get a passing grade when comparing the two. I used to believe this too, until I realized it is ignorant to compare just the grades without looking into what sort of assignments and assessments go into them.  

US schools use a wide range of things to contribute to grades (assignments, assessments, projects, and participation). As a student in the US, I have noticed there is variety in the assignments, tests and projects, while UK schools usually focus more heavily on assessments and little focus on assignments. They also put more emphasis on performance on end of the year exams. This means that a UK student has to study a lot more than US students do. However, the US tends to have more subjects to study and goes into greater depth than the UK does. US students also tend to have more opportunities for elective courses.

The US puts more pressure on extracurricular activities, such as sports, than education.  “Compared to other countries, the emphasis on extracurricular activities in the American learning system stands out. In the United States, education is about more than just what you learn in the classroom. In addition to a good education, schools aim to help students become well-rounded individuals through many different experiences.”  Because some US schools try to help students in and outside of education, they have more things to focus on rather than just their learning.  

Both UK and US schools have their advantages and disadvantages.  They both have things that make them easy and difficult.  Although the UK has an easier grading system, they also have to study an immense amount more because their focus is solely on assessments rather than assignments. The US has a harder grading system but goes greater into depth with their subjects and has more focus on extracurricular activities, so students have more things to juggle. They’re both difficult and have a lot of things different and similar from each other so they should not be compared.

Pinterest is a social platform that not many people use because of what they think about it. At first impression, it’s a bunch of inspirational quotes and aesthetic photos for teens, but underneath it all is a welcoming community and genuinely hilarious memes. More people should use it instead of viewing it as “the mom craft app.”

Many people think of art and recipes for family dinners when they think of Pinterest, unless you are part of the population of teens like myself who use it as an actual social platform. Sure, you can still get ideas for, say, an art project, but you can also get memes and relatable posts. A common thing to find is reposts from the “Whisper” anonymous social media platform. The atmosphere of this app is a lot less welcoming than the one on Pinterest, which could explain why they are reposted onto the more lighthearted app.

While many social media apps like Pinterest have a confusing layout and complicated way of making posts, Pinterest makes things easy. Long press to save, share, like, or hide a post from your home feed, search up any topic you can think of, collaborate with your friends. All of this is easy to do just from exploring the app for a bit.

Many people who use the app say it’s the only social media app “for the girls”, but it’s not just people saying it. The demographics say that 76.2% of users identify as female (as of January 2023). An app free of judgment and hatred. An app where people can go for help, happiness, and health. Mental health tips, self improvement, positivity—you can find posts about all of these on Pinterest, and the comments are full of people talking about how they helped them grow and heal. 

Overall, Pinterest is a place of positivity and welcoming warmth. You can find something from any niche of the internet, you can find help, comfort, ideas, inspiration, and advice. You can find a community on Pinterest.

Valentine's Day is a festivity of love and bonding, with common imagery of the holiday being of cherubs with arrows of love. Despite the beauty of the holiday, many may not know the actual origins of this holiday.

The earliest origins of Valentine's Day likely comes from the pagan celebration Lupercalia, which was an unorthodox celebration meant to purify the world. It involved the sacrificing of dogs, and a marathon by a nude man. It was widely celebrated in western Europe until the Holy Church took a major hold in Rome, with the Senate banning it in the name of heresy.

The problem comes in when we look at what succeeded Valentine's day, Candlemas (also known as the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus Christ, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary). This usually involves pretending to eat the body of Christ, which feels odd, as it doesn't seem to be very civilized to pretend to eat the body of one's supposed savior, the only time we see this “incivility” is in pagan holidays. Accusing the Church of hypocrisy now may not be out of the question.

Justification for the Christian erasure of pagan holidays throughout history has always been met with the idea that the celebration of pagan holidays is a general disrespect to God. But how can someone else’s celebration be disrespectful to God, if you disrespected the word of God to force in your own holiday?

For example, we can look at Valentine's day's use of cupids. The church has openly stated that pagan beliefs like Hellenisticism are against God, so why steal a pagan image to be converted into the church's image of love, especially something like cherubim?

Cherubim in the bible are not chubby fat babies with bows. In the book of Ezekiel this is said: “(Under the wings of the cherubim could be seen what looked like the hands of a man.)... The cherubim went in whatever direction the head faced, without turning as they went.  Their entire bodies, including their backs, their hands and their wings, were completely full of eyes, as were their four wheels….Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a man, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.”

This is a very weird description for something formerly thought to be cute and palatable, So hiding the biblical description and instead plastering a cute painting of a baby is heresy. The overall issue is that people have their culture shunned and erased, just for it to later be stolen and posed as modern tradition.

If we look further down the timeline to when Valentine's Day became an official celebration (496 AD), Valentine's day was meant to praise love in a Christian fashion, as Lupercalia was more about showing the raw nature of love. Pope Paul VI took down the holiday as the church concluded that St. Valentine's Day is rooted in Lupercalia, just repeating an endless cycle. The question now is must we ignore the churches past acts simply because their doctrine became law?

For an institution that is very by the book on most matters, it makes no sense to continue a tradition that goes against said institution's rules. The Catholic Church cannot be seen as the universal standard for Catholic practice of religion if they are breaking the supposed word of God.

After the announcement of the retirement of beloved youtuber, Matthew Patrick (MatPat), the internet is left asking one question: who’s next? There are several that come to mind for people who have been doing youtube for 10+ years, but who will hit Generation Z the hardest?

Taking one look at the internet, any platform, will show how hard of a blow MatPat’s retirement announcement was. This has led many to wonder why so many beloved “childhood” YouTubers are retiring. The past few months we’ve seen a lot of YouTubers changing up their normal content to focus on things they’d rather do. For example, MeatCanyon, known for creating slightly disturbing comedic animations, has taken a step back from animating for now. To understand why people are retiring, you must understand what doing YouTube full time does to someone. When you start YouTube you’re fueled by hope, hope that your videos will blow up, hope that you’ll make a lot of money off of something you love, and hope that you'll make a name for yourself. Once you finally go full time you’re more fueled by fear. YouTube full time doesn't work the same way as a normal full time job. Working a normal job for twice the time you get around twice the money, but if you put out twice the amount of content you normally do on YouTube, could make less money.

“Who’s next” isn’t the happiest thing to think about, but there are many people hoping it isn’t two very important and significant “gaming” YouTubers. This leads me to believe that Markiplier’s retirement could start a generation wide depression for at least a week. Markiplier was the backbone of a large majority of Gen Z’s childhood. Jacksepticeye has also been a staple of this genre of YouTube. These two YouTubers go hand in hand together, if you watched one you probably watched the other. After MatPat posted his video, Jacksepticeye posted a tweet saying “MatPat’s video made me realize that I’ve been doing YouTube for a literal third of my life…” Many of the top comments are just people saying “don’t” amongst other  things along those lines. TikTok comment sections on posts about MatPat’s retirement are flooded with comments along the lines of “Keeping an eye out for Mark and Jack”

Amongst the “childhood” YouTubers, a duo not many would first think about when thinking about retirement and that is Good Mythical Morning’s Rhett and Link. These two have been on the rise since 2006, and their show, Good Mythical Morning (GMM), has been going since 2012. Many people have said their opinions on the two retiring, saying it’s less likely and they’ll probably be doing GMM until they can't walk, and they haven’t been hinting towards it in any way.

As creators move on from their time in the spotlight, we see how it impacts not only them, but their fans as well.  With the fear of Jacksepticeye and Markiplier retiring, also comes the comfort of knowing that creators like Rhett and Link are here to stay.  But with Matpat retiring, it’s only a matter of time before the question of “Who’s next” is answered by another of Gen Z’s beloved YouTubers. 

Over the past two decades, there’s no doubt that climate change has become a growing concern regarding the health of our planet. We’ve watched its effects take shape in many forms, such as rising temperatures, more cases of extinct and endangered species, struggles with food production, and melting ice sheets. But one that is commonly overlooked hides below the water’s surface—coral reef destruction. These vibrant, diverse, and delicate reefs take up only less than 1% of the Earth’s surface, but are home to 25% of marine species. Because of this, they bring many benefits—not only to the environment, but to the economy, too. Ironically, humans benefit greatly from these coral reefs, but are also a major cause of their decline.

Pollution from anthropogenic sources is a major cause of the destruction of coral reefs. Sediment and runoff can enter the water as a result of coastal development, farming, and deforestation, as well as poor urban planning. This leads to the water being polluted with sewage, chemicals, debris, and other sediments, which harms the coral and the marine life around it. The runoff can kill algae, lower water quality, and make corals more subject to disease, creating an unhealthy environment for all that lives in it. According to GVI Planet, a company focused on addressing critical global issues, “the presence of pollutants in the water can reduce the amount of oxygen available to the organisms living on the reef, leading to a decrease in their overall health and vitality.” They also noted that pollution and runoff can “reduce the amount of plankton and other food sources in the water,” further creating grounds for an unhealthy environment.

In addition to pollution, humans have also caused damage to coral reefs through harmful, excessive fishing. One type of fishing used for economic purposes is blast fishing. It involves using heavy explosives to scare fish away from the cover of the corals and out to the open water. In the process, however, other species can be injured or killed, and corals can be stressed to a point where they release their zooxanthellae, which allows them to carry out photosynthesis needed to survive. This exhaust of zooxanthellae results in coral bleaching, which makes the corals more prone to disease, stunted growth, and reproduction issues. Another type of fishing includes “dragging,” or “bottom trawling,” in which fishing nets and weighted bags are dragged along the sea bottom. In the process, corals can get trapped in the nets as they rise back to the surface of the water, destroying coral colonies. 

One of the most prominent examples of anthropogenic action causing destruction of coral reefs is shown in The Great Barrier Reef. This is the world’s largest coral reef system and one of the seven natural wonders of the world. Unfortunately, since 1985, its health has been in serious decline. Part of this can be attributed to the causes previously mentioned, but most of it is tied to global warming and climate change. Burning fossil fuels for energy and the increase of greenhouse gasses from deforestation causes ocean temperatures and sea levels to rise, said the National Ocean Service, an official website of the U.S. government. Coral bleaching can result from harmful fishing, but also from climate change. As of 2022, 91% of 719 reefs surveyed by the Australian Institute of Marine Science were shown to be affected by coral bleaching. As a result of climate change, increased CO2 levels, coral bleaching, pollution, and other anthropogenic actions like coastal development, the Reef has lost half its coral. If this doesn’t stop, matters will only get worse.

Not only does the decline of coral reef health impact the complex and balanced ecosystem of marine life that the corals maintain, but also the humans that benefit from them. As Tundi Agardy wrote in America’s Coral Reefs: Awash With Problems, “Reefs support some of the most important industries in the United States and the rest of the world: 5 percent of world commercial fisheries are reef-based, and over 50 percent of U.S. federally managed fishery species depend on reefs.” The estimated commercial value of these fisheries from coral reefs is over $100 million. Along with reefs supporting fisheries, they also attract tourism and help control the beach from erosion and storms. These benefits, combined with other benefits they bring to coastal communities and businesses near these reefs, provide billions of dollars to the economy. 

In order to preserve these coral reefs and all the benefits they provide for the economy, marine life, and the environment, we must limit our impact, including pollution, fishing, and carbon dioxide emissions. Education and awareness of the situation is also needed. Fortunately, with the proper care and nutrition, corals can sometimes recover from bleaching. But in order for the Great Barrier Reef and the hundreds of other reefs to survive, we must take the proper steps by simultaneously limiting our negative impacts and enhancing the positive impacts already put in place.

Jo Koy stepped in as host at the 2024 Golden Globes. From having his own specials on Netflix to acting in movies like the 2023 Haunted Mansion and Monkey King, Koy was believed to be the best fit.  But due to his inappropriate and extremely offensive jokes, not many  in the room were laughing.  In fact, in cutaways, you can clearly see the audience feeling upset and uncomfortable. He later responded poorly by getting extremely defensive and blaming the writers and his lack of time on his jokes falling flat. 

Announced as a last minute pick two weeks before the ceremony, Jo Koy eagerly stepped into the position as host for the 2024 Golden Globes. But as soon as he took the stage, it was clear how much of a terrible decision this was.  Koy’s jokes were extremely inappropriate.  Jokes like the ones on Barbie ("Barbie is based on a plastic doll with big boobies") and Taylor Swift clearly made many audience members uncomfortable.  “It didn’t get much better when he made a lazy crack about Oppenheimer being long, or quipped about Barry Keoghan... or the [joke] about Barbie… that appeared to annoy Ryan Gosling, make Harrison Ford stare blankly into space and Selena Gomez bury her face in her hands,” The Guardian writes.  Koy's jokes clearly showed how close-minded a person can be and how he completely missed the point of films such as Barbie.  

But Barbie wasn’t the only joke to fall flat. Even though he was already losing the audience and the majority of the people watching at home, Koy was quick to make a joke about Taylor Swift. This time, he didn’t get as big of a reaction.  “When Koy joked that the Globes would have 'fewer camera shots of Taylor Swift' than N.F.L. telecasts — referring to the frequent reaction shots of her recent appearances at Kansas City Chiefs games to cheer on the team’s tight end, Travis Kelce — Swift, who was seated in the audience, looked unamused, coolly sipping from her drink," summarized one online source.

With jokes like the ones Jo Koy was making, he clearly got backlash and mixed responses and, like a complete unprofessional would, he began to lash out.  Yelling at the crowd, throwing the writers under the bus, doing basically all he could to ensure that he did not receive any criticism for the things said.  “I got the gig 10 days ago!” Koy yelled at the crowd……“You want a perfect monologue? Yo, shut up. You’re kidding me, right? Slow down. I wrote some of these, and they’re the ones you’re laughing at.” 

Jo Koy needs to take responsibility for what he did rather than deflecting and blaming the writers.  After the show, he began to get a lot of hate on social media and responded only by saying, “Well, I had fun — you know, it was a moment that I’ll always remember,” Koy said Monday on the ABC program GMA3, noting that he had only had a week and a half to prepare. “It’s a tough room. And it was a hard job, I’m not going to lie. Getting that gig, and then having the amount of time that we had to prepare — that was a crash course,” writes The New York Times. There is no doubt that he continued to avoid the fact that what he said was inappropriate and not in any way funny. He tried to blame the tough room and "hard job."

What if all these online chat rooms, these social media arguments, these odd comments all over the internet, aren't human? One could take a look around, see everyone on their phones, and think, “With this amount of people online, there's no need for robots.” But what if the machines aren't filling  space in the world wide web, but rather casting a digital illusion over users? A theory has been developed in many forums called the Dead Internet Theory, and it claims that a major portion of the internet is artificial intelligence and/or government surveillance applications. While this may seem far fetched to many, there may be some truth to it.

In October of 2020, The Oversight Committee of the US House of Representatives investigated the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy on Twitter. Twitter was accused of unconstitutionally censoring conservative posts about the accusations against Joe and Hunter Biden, in which Twitter declared that they were a private platform that could take down what they pleased. A suspicious point in the hearing involved a line of dialogue between Representative Nancy Mace and Twitter executives. 

Mace, while speaking to  Twitter executive Mr. Gadde, asked, “Why do you think you or anyone else had the medical expertise to censor a doctor’s expert opinion? Did the U.S. government ever contact you or anyone at Twitter to censor or moderate certain Tweets? Yes or no.” 

Mr. Gadde responded with, “We receive legal demands to remove content from the platform from the U.S. government and governments all around the world.”

Later in the hearing, Representative Donalds said, “Over my right shoulder, we have an email. This is Saturday, October 24th, 5:39 p.m., referencing five different Tweets with a Twitter email chain. Under the line it’s, ‘more to review from the Biden team.’ Does anybody have a comment on how much interaction was with the Biden team at Twitter with respect to tweets that they wanted Twitter to review?”

Representative Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) noted that despite setting up teams dedicated to investigating potential foreign interference, Twitter did not reach out to seek guidance before deciding to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Twitter is admitting that federal agencies order things to be taken down, and in this case, a doctor claiming that the COVID vaccine was not safe. It does not matter if you are pro- or anti-vaccination; regardless, we know that the federal government has the power to hide information from the public even on platforms reserved to the public. When we look back at the Dead Internet Theory, we can't be sure what we see online hasn't been monitored and censored by the government.

In a debriefed document from the CIA’s Aspin-Brown Inquiry (a hearing questioning the unethical nature of federal censorship), a claim by the undisclosed defendants said, “The CIA's censorship rules are so broad that they could be construed to cover even casual remarks, according to a copy submitted to the House committee. They require employers and former employees to submit "all writings and scripts or outlines of oral presentations intended for non-official publication, including works of fiction" to the CIA's Publications Review Board if they make "any mention of intelligence data or activities." 

‘Publication’ could simply be defined as communicating information to one or more persons. As a civil liberties lawyer put it, that could cover "even letters to your mother." So far, we know that the government can and has censored online content, and that they will even go as far to conceal critical information.

Another worrying aspect is that this censorship actually has a major impact on the nation. According to a study by Pew Research, nearly six in ten (58%) Americans preferred to get news from digital devices vs from a news station. Over 40% get their news from just searching up events. Knowing Google is the most popular search engine, this data can take a worrying turn.

If one simply searches up, “Is Google privately owned” they will receive an answer saying Google is a public company. What some deeper looking shows is that it does not mean the actual public has any control, Google is simply “public” in the sense that any company can buy a stake. According to Business Model Analyst, “It isn't owned by a single individual; hence, under Alphabet, it is owned by individuals and institutions like the Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Fidelity Management & Research LLC.” Since we've established that the government can't infiltrate what private platforms provide in terms of information, this implies that Google can hide critical information. 

While the Dead Internet Theory may not be as sinister as once thought, there's a serious conversation to be had that questions the information we are dependent on. With America being such a politically polarized nation, censorship could change how you approach moral issues.

Publix has been building 2 locations in the East End, one opening just this past January 10th. Loved by many, Publix has been ranked number one in Newsweek's supermarket category for six years running. People have been excited about the newest edition to Kentucky's shopping options, this being the first Publix in the state-- but this new opening brings up questions of food access equity. 

In the East End, grocery stores are everywhere. On Ballardsville Road, Kroger has been building a location directly across a lot where Publix has been planning to build. Within 5 miles, 4 other Kroger locations are available. Not far from that, the most recent Publix was opened. If that got confusing for you, you're not alone. There are so many grocery stores it's hard to keep up, but it's not like that throughout Louisville. 

51,000 people reside in Louisville’s West End, and almost half do not have access to reliable transportation making it difficult to get around. Having to rely on convenience stores and gas stations to get groceries, many face health problems regarding the quality of food.

"It's the worst of the worst,'' says Shauntrice Martin, an avid activist for equity in the West End, “Not only is it more expensive, but lower quality.”

  With only 2 full-service grocers, many do not have access to things like fruits and vegetables. Even so, fresh produce is often close to or already expired. 

“A group of people and I had bought a bunch of stuff to make food for elders in the community, and when we got back home, we realized all of the spinach was expired,” says Martin.

Residents in the West End are forced to compromise with lower quality food and more expensive prices; not only that, but low-quality food brings a wide variety of long-term problems.

According to Louisville Metro Health, the life expectancy in the West End is 10 years less than in the East. By a length of only 13 miles, a full decade of life is in the balance.

Many residents also struggle with issues like kidney failure, diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity; forcing them to spend more money on healthcare and medical bills just to get by.

Generations of health problems, scarcity, and money challenges could have been prevented or solved with more grocery stores right? Well, we tried.

“In 2020 about 3.1 million dollars was supposed to be put into building a grocery store, but it was just never done,” says Martin.

“Metro Louisville is really to blame,” Martin adds “I mean, there isn’t any financial gain in helping marginalized communities, so people in power rarely do.”

It isn’t all a lost cause though, reaching out to our local government, and sending letters to senators, or other government officials can help bring their attention back. Spreading awareness on social media, or in your community helps keep it in the public eye so it doesn't get swept under the rug.

“Volunteering is a great way to get involved.” Says Martin. “Make sure to work with organizations that are already active, so many people see a problem and try to create their own thing, but there are so many good organizations that need help and their voices to be amplified.

Most Americans are aware of the idea of a nuclear family, the Cold War-aged image of a  husband, a wife, and their two or more children. Nowadays, this image is usually used by conservatives, attempting to say the country is failing as these “correct” families have ceased to be the standard. However, is the new plethora of alternative families a sign of a failing country, or is it simply the next stage of social progress?

Of course there's nothing morally wrong with new age family archetypes, but is the abundance of it a symptom of a dissolving country? There may be no "usual" family structure because the country lacks a structure of its own. The classic family system of a  father, a  mother, and 1 or more children, became the norm as it equally divided up power and ensured generations could easily be carried on. However, the disappearance of the nuclear family may be a positive thing.

According to research by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Kids from sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies are more like­ly to face emotion­al and behav­ioral health chal­lenges — like aggres­sion or engag­ing in high-risk behav­iors — when com­pared to peers raised by mar­ried par­ents. Research has linked these health chal­lenges with fac­tors often asso­ci­at­ed with sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies, such as parental stress, lost social net­works, wit­ness­ing con­flict, mov­ing homes, and socioe­co­nom­ic hurdles.” 

With this in mind, we can start to understand why the traditional family seems to have faded. The snap in tradition may be a long brewing issue, with many US events aiding in the shift. 

Firstly, we can look at the crack epidemic. With the boom in the cheap and potent alternatives to cocaine, crime and poverty grew exponentially in poor minority communities. This led to a generation of trauma-inflicted children, who (now socially and economically disadvantaged) will go on to repeat the cycle by raising children in a similar harmful environment, Today we can see this affect by looking at statistics for the Viking Vibe Magazine:

“Associated with these changes is the disproportionate amount of minorities being affected. With the statistics mentioned above, it was noted that in 1990, 43% of black men had never been married. In 2019, it was 51%. During that period, the percentage of black women who were unmarried increased from 37% to 47%. For Hispanic women, it increased from 27% to 37%; the percentage of Hispanic men who are unmarried increased from 37% to 45%.These types of environments also negatively affect the children being born into resulting single-parent households. A whopping 64% of black chil­dren in 2019 data were found to live in single-parent families.”

We can also attribute a lack of patriotism as a reason; as shown in a study from Statista, 36% of millennials were proud to be American yet only 16% of Gen Z said the same. While many could equate this to a “lazy” generation, we must consider why people do not approve of the current state of our nation. Many of the older generations grew up hearing the quote, “Think not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” This quote, at the time, was very important in finding peace in the nation. Currently though, most of our nation's problems cannot be solved with civic action alone. The nation's failures are no longer just things we have to push through with the next generation.

Young families simply cannot afford to continue the tradition. In a study done by Pew Research, the share of lower-class adults has  risen from 25% to 29%  since 1971, and the upper-class share rose from 14% to 19%. While this may seem like a small shift, a few million people lost out of the middle class is enough to cause negative effects for multiple generations. 

Without a strong—or present—middle class, there's no one to pay more for goods in a recession, and no one to pay more taxes into poverty assistance. What’s left is a cycle of consumers and suppliers. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and there is no gray area that maintains balance in potential chaos like a recession. 

The new generation of Americans cannot actually afford to inherit the nuclear family.

Venezuela, the UK, the UAE, Ukraine, Turkey- these are just a few countries on the long list of those that have banned pitbulls. It's becoming universal that dog breeds that were bred for attacking are being banned. While some have no problem with this, is the growing government concern for aggressive dogs solely the fault of public works?

It is a common misconception that the federal government funds public animal rescue centers. In reality, there is no direct funding for shelters, and the issue of backyard breeding is obviously going to grow if the government refuses to be a direct support line for animal welfare. Dogs are left in abusive situations primarily because the federal government is too lazy to intervene. It's easier to ban things than to actually work to solve problems, which is why many  governments have  banned pitbulls instead of fixing the problem.

An issue many find is that we keep arriving at the excuse, “That is a state matter.” If our problems are the problem of the state/province and local authorities, the federal government shouldn’t be able to make these final decisions. Pitbull aggression is directly caused by abusive situations, and there being a screening on who can buy/own a dog. The negative public image of pitbulls is indirectly due to the inaction of the government. Since there are no concrete laws on the treatment of canines, we cannot stop the abuse of the animals that leads to their aggression.

It's very popular for drug dealers in Europe to buy pitbulls as guard dogs for hideouts. It is remarked in a study by researcher Simon Harding, “More young men were using mastiffs, pit bulls, akitas and other aggressive dogs as a commodity for security and making money in gangs, For many young people, dogs are increasingly viewed as a commodity which can be traded up or down like a mobile phone.” These dogs and puppies are being left in bad situations since no one is supervising the transfer of canines. Not only do we get aggressive dogs roaming the streets but we also indirectly make our issues with drug trading worse.

The aggressive nature in these dogs is blatantly due to the fact that there is no administrative action in where the dogs are homed. With the mention of dogs being euthanized for violence, this is another unnecessary problem. The rate of dog bite cases is directly tied to the lack of enforcement on who can own a pitbull. If a federal entity was added as a joint enforcement agency, we could mandate laws that dogs cannot simply be sold online. Deals must be made through a secure and thorough entity.

Another issue is the actual euthanasia rates in dog shelters. Not only including the dogs euthanized for violence, but shelters can't afford to care for enough dogs. Shelters are increasingly being financially forced to euthanize animals that haven't been able to be adopted in a long time, as they simply can't afford to keep them.  If there were federally funded shelters, this problem would be far less common. There wouldn't need to be a hard budget for these shelters, we would be able to have flexibility with animal welfare.

Shelters may also have to euthanize dogs due to behavioral incidents such as bites, but logically, a bite from a dog should not  warrant hurting the animal. Unless it becomes a constant problem, the dog rarely biting people who get too close does not prove that the animal is a threat to people. A lot of cases involve two dogs fighting, or a dog biting a kid that tried to pet him. We cannot punish an animal for simply behaving like an animal.

Pittbulls and other aggressive dog breeds aren't inherently violent or dangerous, we simply refuse to care for them properly to avoid behavioral issues. Frankly, our issue with dogs is purely man made. If there was some form of public funding towards the actual housing and care of dogs, the issue of violent breeds would be lessened.

As the festive season unfolds, Louisville Kentucky prepares for the annual spectacle known as Light Up Louisville.  This event, which draws in crowds from all over the city, is a definite favorite for many. Being a part of the Lots of Lights parade for many years now, I have become one of those people.  

The Light Up Louisville parade is a seasonal celebration in Louisville Kentucky that takes place every year on the day after Thanksgiving.  Its festivities draw in all types of people, of all ages, to downtown Louisville, and turns the city into a kaleidoscope of dazzling lights.  With the arrival of Santa Claus himself and the Lots of Lights parade, it is always a fun time for all.  

As someone who participates in the Lots of Lights parade, I have seen just how much Light Up Louisville has to offer every year.  One of the primary reasons crowds flock to Light Up Louisville is the abundance of attractions and planned activities that promise an evening full of excitement. From dazzling light displays to live performances and interactive showcases, every corner of the event is carefully curated to ensure there’s something captivating for everyone. Families, friends, and solo adventurers alike find themselves immersed in a whirlwind of entertainment, making each moment a cherished memory.  

In the many times that I have gone, I have seen children of all ages enjoying themselves in the festivities. Light Up Louisville is a playground of joy for children. With activities catering specifically to their interests, it’s a wonderland where wide-eyed wonder and gleeful laughter permeate the air. Whether it’s meeting Santa Claus, exploring themed attractions, or indulging in delightful treats, kids revel in an experience tailor-made for their delight.

Moreover, the event’s duration serves as a magnet for attendees. The prolonged nature of the festivities allows participants to immerse themselves fully in the magic of the night. Families can pace themselves, exploring various attractions at their leisure without the rush, ensuring everyone can savor every aspect of the event without missing a beat.

From dusk till late into the evening, Light Up Louisville becomes a realm where time seems to stand still, offering an opportunity for families to bond, friends to make unforgettable memories, and visitors to experience the true spirit of Louisville’s holiday season.

As the festive season unfolds, Louisville Kentucky prepares for the annual spectacle known as Light Up Louisville.  This event, which draws in crowds from all over the city, is a definite favorite for many. Being a part of the Lots of Lights parade for many years now, I have become one of those people.  

The Light Up Louisville parade is a seasonal celebration in Louisville Kentucky that takes place every year on the day after Thanksgiving.  Its festivities draw in all types of people, of all ages, to downtown Louisville, and turns the city into a kaleidoscope of dazzling lights.  With the arrival of Santa Claus himself and the Lots of Lights parade, it is always a fun time for all.  

As someone who participates in the Lots of Lights parade, I have seen just how much Light Up Louisville has to offer every year.  One of the primary reasons crowds flock to Light Up Louisville is the abundance of attractions and planned activities that promise an evening full of excitement. From dazzling light displays to live performances and interactive showcases, every corner of the event is carefully curated to ensure there’s something captivating for everyone. Families, friends, and solo adventurers alike find themselves immersed in a whirlwind of entertainment, making each moment a cherished memory.  

In the many times that I have gone, I have seen children of all ages enjoying themselves in the festivities. Light Up Louisville is a playground of joy for children. With activities catering specifically to their interests, it’s a wonderland where wide-eyed wonder and gleeful laughter permeate the air. Whether it’s meeting Santa Claus, exploring themed attractions, or indulging in delightful treats, kids revel in an experience tailor-made for their delight.

Moreover, the event’s duration serves as a magnet for attendees. The prolonged nature of the festivities allows participants to immerse themselves fully in the magic of the night. Families can pace themselves, exploring various attractions at their leisure without the rush, ensuring everyone can savor every aspect of the event without missing a beat.

From dusk till late into the evening, Light Up Louisville becomes a realm where time seems to stand still, offering an opportunity for families to bond, friends to make unforgettable memories, and visitors to experience the true spirit of Louisville’s holiday season.

Some say an artist's most popular songs are overrated and overplayed. While I agree with some, there are instances where a song's popularity is justified. Trends come and go and what we’re left with is the boosted popularity of the song used in the background of videos with this trend. Even when a trend dies, the song could remain popular—or it could fizzle out into obscurity. There’s one last option, however; the song can become known as “bad”,“overrated”, and worst of all, “cringe”.

Songs can easily become trending because of TikTok, whether it be for a transition trend or just because the song is good. Because of the nature of TikTok, songs can easily trend and rise in popularity no matter how new or old it is. The recent “Uncanny Valley” trend has popularized the instrumental version of the song “Brutus” by The Buttress, a song I enjoyed before the trend popped up. Mitski’s top 5 songs on Spotify have all been trending on TikTok once or twice, usually used for vent posts, cosplay videos, or a background song for posting art. I have seen several people called “fake” Mitski fans because their favorite song is “Nobody” instead of a lesser known song such as “Abbey” or “Square”, and I believe this is toxic behavior that can ward off potential fans. “Not Allowed” by TV Girl has gone viral and trended multiple times, and I really like the song after looking past the virality of it.

Sometimes a trending song can be overplayed because companies might put it in an advertisement or it may be played on the radio. I used to be a huge Twenty One Pilots fan, but I always disliked “Stressed Out” and “Ride” because of how overplayed they were. I would always hear these two songs on the radio, in videos, on playlists, and generally scattered throughout the media. At one point, these songs were good, but because of how much you hear it, you start to notice the flaws. “Wish we could turn back time?" I wish I could turn back time so I didn’t have to hear this 40 times a week. Another great example of a song once trending but then becoming overplayed to the point where people start seeing flaws is “Mad at Disney” by Salem Ilese. The song was once trending on TikTok and many people enjoyed it, but then because of how much it was used on the app, people started to see that the song wasn’t as good as it was made out to be.

Sometimes a song goes viral with the wrong audience, or a song has a message that is overlooked by the trend. In 2021, several songs by Insane Clown Posse (ICP) gained traction for their clips, frequently featured in cosplay videos. Some notable ones include "In My Room," "To Catch A Predator," "My Axe," and "Chop Chop Slide."  When songs like these were trending, I personally saw many comments, usually on older individuals’ posts, calling out the poster for “not listening to the full song” and claiming that ICP sang about people like them. Reddit user, u/xx_herdz, says, “There's always someone mad about using a song they know nothing about and how ‘just a few years ago you were making fun of us for being juggalos.’” ICP is known for making aggressive and violent music. Their lyrics have opposed racism, bigotry, domestic violence, and child abuse. The reason these comments are made are because the poster might be right leaning, may have some racist views, and I’ve even seen people with confederate flag post videos with ICP songs in the background. 

The same point has been made about Trump voters posting videos with “American Idiot” by Green Day in the background, when the band has openly spoken out about their negative opinion on Donald Trump. While trends like these don’t kill the songs they use, it can still dull the meaning and message behind the songs. Bringing back Mitski, the song “Strawberry Blond” was once parodied to talk about a “Strawberry Cow” and many fans were upset about this parody saying it took away from the meaning of the song, which was speculated to be about unfulfilled yearning and the inability to fit into white America as an Asian American.

While I don't think a trend alone can kill a song, when a trend becomes massive enough for a song to hit extreme mainstream exposure across various media platforms-radio, advertisements, television, etc.- the song's flaws can eventually surface, despite the stardust of trends and overall popularity.

Homework is a staple of schooling, and it has been for many generations. Though it may have some on-paper academic benefits, it has many disadvantages that lie behind the page.

Having homework can affect students in ways you may not think. Having extra work to do at home can highlight inequity and hold back students who don’t have the same accessibilities as others. According to the APA (American Psychological Association) students who come from wealthier families have more access to resources like the internet, devices, tutors, etc., while students who are not as well-off may not have those luxuries. Not being able to get the help and time they require to do their homework leaves the student at a clear disadvantage and could negatively impact their education. 

Students whose parents work multiple jobs may have to watch their siblings or don’t have access to help with homework after school, some even have to go to work themselves. It's not fair to give children who are already at a disadvantage another hurdle to overcome. Not being able to complete assignments might hinder their grades or make school more difficult, leading to ineffective education and difficulties down the road.

A more obvious problem with homework is stress. This may not sound like a big deal, but it can actually have major effects on health.

 Although there is always going to be a certain amount of stress students have to overcome in life, homework can cause a particularly problematic amount. According to a study by The Journal of Experimental Education, 70 percent of students surveyed stated that they were often or always stressed about homework and 80 percent of students reported having one or more symptoms of stress such as sleep deprivation, weight loss, stomach issues, headaches, or exhaustion. 

This stress can have major repercussions to students with pre-existing problems like anxiety or depression, and can create these problems for people who don't.

Not only does it come with an array of academic, and mental repercussions, it can take time away from students' chances to relax.

Most students spend 7-8 hours a day at school, limiting the amount of time they have at home to spend with family and friends. Having to dedicate so much of your time at home to schooling eats into time to decompress and enjoy being at home. Many don’t have a chance to relax, or even simply eat dinner with their family, creating not only a stressful school environment, but also a stressful home environment. 

You may be thinking, “Doesn't it help with development?” “Isn’t it good for learning?” And the answer is a little deeper than just yes or no.

 It can be helpful for those who are able to complete it, and has been shown to enhance the learning of individuals who have the time, resources and engagement, but at the end of the day, those are a select few. 

The University of Orlando said that the maximum amount of time that should be spent on work after school is 10 min per grade (1st: 10, 2nd: 20 and so on) but studies showed that kindergartners were spending an average of 20-30 minutes night on homework, and high school students were spending over 3 hours a night. 

Having homework in schools is an ineffective and frustrating way to educate students. The stress leads many students to be discouraged or resentful of school, turning them to dropping out or cheating. Both being counterproductive and highlighting inequities, having homework is a generally ineffective way to educate.

Many remember the widespread coverage of United States aid to the Ukrainian military. The U.S. Congress set aside $75 billion meant to be allocated for Ukraine. While it wasn't cold hard cash, the arms sent over were mostly paid for by the US public. As of 2023, this massive sum of resources, valued at over 75 billion, is depleted. With the Biden administration proposing more money to be sent over, we must start questioning our ability to simply give out our money.

Vladimir Putin would, unfortunately, be benefiting from the US scrambling to find aid for Ukraine. He predicted early on in the war that his victory in Ukraine would come from the West's inability to fund Ukraine for a prolonged period of time. We've wasted money simply delaying Putin from invading Ukraine.

A historical example similar to this would be the foreign aid towards the War on Terror. While major strides were made by the U.S., the Taliban still came back as soon as US presence wavered. All that money out of American pockets, went to absolutely nothing in the end. The same applied to Ukraine.

It's unfair that billionaires aren't required to donate to anything due to it being their money, but someone in poverty must suffer the economic consequences of foreign aid boosting inflation. Foreign aid should only go to helping others in need overseas.

It's apparent that the US federal government is a chronic spender of money that isn't truly theirs. But why, in recent years, won't the US send actual troops instead of aid? It's possible that the U.S. is no longer the military powerhouse we once were.

Knowing we can barely afford the debt we currently have, the U.S. can only now afford to physically fight wars that offer a profit incentive. I'm sure officials are wary of deploying troops, because the U.S. can't really afford a random turn of events in battle. It seems like more of a scramble to stop inevitable failure than a knowledgeable economic decision.

For example, Italy is lesser known but was one of the most difficult opponents for the US in World War 2. For 2 years, Italy was an exhaustive campaign for US troops trying to break up Axis powers in Northern Italy. Since the land-based entrance points to Italy were all Axis controlled, the only way to attack was from the beaches. This made it so that Italy was a massive tug-of-war between Axis and Allied troops.

Now imagine if Italy had simply waited until the U.S. was exhausted to try and take over once again. The war would be prolonged much further, possibly making the fight in Japan even more difficult as our naval forces would be heavily impacted. If we had not been able to pull through with the nuke, we likely would have never won WW2.

I'm sure the people of the 1940’s would've been angry if the U.S. kept using their knowledge that they wouldn't actually make significant military gains. Why must we tolerate it now?

Of every Christmas classic, there’s one story almost everyone knows: Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. I, along with many others, believe that The Muppets Christmas Carol is the best film adaptation of this novel. You’ve got muppets, genuine emotion, and what is widely considered a Christmas classic.

Originally, the movie was going to feature a lot more of the typical Muppets mischief and mayhem. However, director Jerry Juhl read the novel and realized “This is so good, I don’t think we can make fun of it anywhere. I think we can just do it.” This made the muppets team throw out the idea of a parody for a more genuine retelling of the story.

British actor Michael Caine portrayed his role of Ebeneezer Scrooge perfectly. He plays his role completely straight, as if he’s acting alongside other actors instead of puppets. His performance adds poetic quality and maturity to an otherwise silly and lighthearted movie. Brian Henson, head of the Henson company after his father’s passing, described Caine's approach as if “it was for the Royal Shakespeare Company.”

The Muppets Christmas Carol is widely considered to be a timeless Christmas classic even after 30 years. Even to those with no opinion toward the muppets, many would rather watch this over a different adaptation. An Entertainment Weekly article ranked The Muppets Christmas Carol as the eighth best Christmas movie ever, and IMDB ranked all Christmas Carol movies together at number three of the top 100 Christmas movies, which includes The Muppets Christmas Carol.

The Muppets Christmas Carol stands as a testament to the enduring charm and timeless appeal of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. The decision to veer away from the typical Muppets mischief and embrace a more genuine retelling of the classic tale proved to be a stroke of genius. Michael Caine's portrayal of Ebeneezer Scrooge adds a poignant layer to the otherwise lighthearted film. Three decades since its release, the movie continues to capture the hearts of audiences, earning its place as a beloved Christmas classic. Its enduring popularity reaffirms its status as a cherished holiday tradition that resonates with viewers of all ages.

As the days get colder and nights get longer, it is evident that the wintry months are upon us.  And with these months, comes many winter holidays.  But one cannot ignore the dominance of Christmas in the holiday season.  Its prominence casts a long shadow, eclipsing the significance of other winter holidays that deserve equal recognition.  

During the months of November and December, there are well over 20 holidays from religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, and others that are not well acknowledged. In Hindu culture, there are two major celebrations that take place in the winter months: Diwali and Navratri. Diwali, also known as the Festival of Lights, is a significant Hindu festival celebrated across the world. It symbolizes the victory of light over darkness, good over evil, and knowledge over ignorance. The festival usually spans five days, during which people decorate their homes with oil lamps, candles, and colorful decorations. Families come together, exchange gifts, share sweets, and offer prayers to deities, seeking blessings for prosperity and happiness.

Navratri is a festival celebrated over nine nights and ten days, dedicated to worshiping different forms of the goddess Durga. It symbolizes the triumph of good over evil and is observed in various regions of India. During Navratri, devotees engage in fasting, prayer, and cultural festivities. Though some may have heard of the Festival of Lights before, the holiday Navratri remains resting in anonymity, not being recognized in schools as much as Christmas is. 

During my schooling, I have had many teachers talk about celebrating Christmas in the classroom but have never heard of either of these holidays.  This is extremely ignorant as Christmas is brought up a lot in schools while other holidays aren’t mentioned at all. When writing in The Spectator, Mimi Osborne, who is from a mainly white county, writes, “For surrounding schools which mainly consist of a white or Latinx enrollment, this broad spectrum of celebrations is not recognized as it should be. Although, in the grand scheme of things, this may be a miniscule issue, but it is still one that should be taken into consideration when you decide to hang spruce-scented wreaths or blinding Christmas lights right after Halloween.” Introducing other holidays into schools can help broaden students’ understanding of other cultures and give other cultures the respect and recognition that they deserve.  

Over the years, winter decorations have been put out in stores earlier and earlier in the year. It’s not hard to notice that the majority of these decorations are for Christmas, and fortunately, some stores have not gone unnoticed.  In 2013, the Hobby Lobby chain was under fire due to a worker saying "We don't cater to you people," when asked about the lack of Hanukkah decorations.  The company’s president, Steve Green, commented a few days later, saying, “Our family has a deep respect for the Jewish faith and those who hold its traditions dear." He added, "We do not have any policies that discriminate; in fact, we have policies that specifically prohibit discrimination."

Although their apology was accepted, they were once again criticized in 2021 due to their lack of representation. Gabrielle Riccio, a resident of North Kingstown, where the Hobby Lobby has stopped selling Hanukkah merchandise, says, "They should definitely represent every religion and make people feel like they can come and support and make crafts based on whatever religion they celebrate."  Many stores have come forward saying they do not sell merchandise other than Christmas decorations due to customer demand.  Although some have accepted this, others, including myself, believe that there can at least be a little representation rather than nothing at all.  

When you walk into a U.S. school during the holidays, you are likely to run into a Christmas tree or an Elf on The Shelf, and that is part of the problem.  Many of these holidays are not taught in schools, leaving them in anonymity.  For years I have heard “Merry Christmas” from teachers, staff and students in my school building.  But rarely do I hear something about Kwanzaa, the week-long African celebration honoring their culture and heritage,  or Three Kings Day which is celebrated in different ways in places such as Spain, France and Puerto Rico. I believe that if a school building, or any other building with mass amounts of people going in and out of it such as a bank, is going to recognize winter holidays, they should be diverse and include others rather than just simply Christmas.  Many have argued that no winter holidays should be represented in schools in order to be fair to everyone. But I believe this is not a solution as it takes away the opportunity for students to get introduced to new cultures if they choose to.  

The overshadowing of these winter holidays not only diminishes their cultural and spiritual importance but also perpetuates a sense of exclusivity, inadvertently alienating those who do not celebrate Christmas.  Instead of letting Christmas take the lead every winter, we should give all winter holidays a chance to be noticed and celebrated.

Garfield is a name everyone should know. The sluggish orange cat who loathes Mondays and adores lasagna. The king of newspaper comics. The running meme. Garfield has had shows, movies, games, books, and so much merchandise. You could live off of just Garfield merchandise, no exaggeration.This November, the world was shown the first trailer for the newest Garfield movie, releasing May 2024, with the lead role and title character being voiced by… Chris Pratt?

Chris Pratt is known for many things, including his famous roles; Emmet from The Lego Movie, Mario in The Mario Movie, Star Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy, and many more. One trend amongst two of his most recent roles is people complaining about him being cast as said character. Several complaints were made when it was announced that he would be voicing Mario, and these complaints were solidified when the previously mentioned Garfield movie was released. Fans complained about his voice not fitting the feline’s well-established voice and personality. 

H. Alan Scott, a reporter for Newsweek wrote, “it’s yet another example that Chris Pratt is the basic (insert actor here) to fill Hollywood’s quota for lazy/safe casting.” I personally agree with this. I don’t mean to insult Chris Pratt, but he’s the go to role for “that guy.” Ever since the success of The Lego Movie, Pratt has been known as the guy to cast as “that goofy one.”

I believe that Chris Pratt is a great actor, that is, when he is playing a new character. Pratt gives off silly vibes. His characters have just enough to portray a small bit of emotion, but the way he portrays them always gives off the comic relief feeling. Admittedly, I feel that this would be a great decision for Garfield, if he didn’t already have a very established voice. When I think of Garfield’s voice I think of a dopey, foolish, fatigued voice like he had in Garfield and Friends or The Garfield Show. When watching the trailer for The Garfield Movie, as a less-than-sane fan of Garfield, my first reaction to Chris Pratt as Garfield was disgust. Not because it was Chris Pratt, but because his voice was different from what I associate with Garfield. The way he portrays Garfield in this movie reminds me more of Bill Murray’s Garfield than THE Garfield. 

While I may complain about the current situation, I admittedly don’t have an actor in mind to replacePratt. However, while looking through videos by people who share my opinion I came across a TikTok user by the name @chipstercreates suggesting Nick Offerman as Garfield. After seeing the animation of Garfield with clips of him talking, I couldn’t agree more. Offerman has a more deep, gruff, but laid back voice that fits Garfield’s persona, compared to Pratt’s high energy and silliness.

For many, many years, standardized testing has been used to measure a student’s intelligence and performance for classes and school rankings.  I believe that, because of this, students' growth and development are limited and some are left at an unfair advantage due to poor education or because of learning disabilities. 

 In the 2022-2023 Kentucky school rankings, scores from the Kentucky summative assessment (KSA) and the alternate version  (AKSA) were used to measure the performance of schools throughout Kentucky.  In this ranking, only 24% of schools in Kentucky had more than half of their students test proficient or distinguished in math. While some saw this as useful, I found this data to be inaccurate as it used standardized testing to measure intelligence.  

Standardized tests are an outdated and horrendous way to measure a students’ intelligence, and I’m not the only one who believes that.  Peter Murrell J.R, an educational psychologist and professor of Urban Education at Loyola University Maryland, agrees when he writes, “Much recent research on intelligence and human cognitive development suggests that standardized tests are not valid as measures of excellence or scholastic aptitude. Schools which over-emphasize standardized tests and “test-wise” training are immersing students in modes of thinking that not only trivialize knowledge, but are also largely irrelevant to real-life problem solving. These tests limit students to the facts that they've memorized and do not measure the skills they can apply.  In my experience, these tests have only taught me how to cram information and then pour it out on the paper for a grade. There’s not really much to learn when studying or taking a test.  

“Failure to acknowledge the aptitudes not measured by standardized tests can deprive children of important opportunities for intellectual growth. Moreover, over-reliance on the standardized testing model limits the development of alternate ways of understanding and assessing intelligence,” Murrell says.  

As I’ve seen, standardized tests tend to take a one-size-fits-all approach and fail to make adjustments for students with learning disabilities. This oversight leaves people at a disadvantage, meaning that standardized tests cannot accurately measure their intelligence and performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 15% of students in public school receive special education services.  This does not include a huge amount of students with unidentified disabilities and those who may not have access to disability services. When writing about her own experiences with standardized tests in Teen Vogue, Haley Moss says, “When it was time to take the SAT and ACT in high school, I already knew that my scores might not reflect my academic abilities. My parents hired a tutor to make sure I had an equal chance.  Throughout my school career, I had to fight harder to make sure I’d have the same opportunities as my peers. At an on-campus college fair, a peer told me I wouldn’t have to worry about "that stuff” after seeing me carrying a backpack full of brochures for prestigious, faraway colleges, and universities.”  It is completely  unfair and wrong  for anyone born with a disability to be treated as if they are no brighter than their peers. But because of standardized testing, they are often seen that way.

As I said before, standardized tests are extremely outdated. They started as a way to segregate soldiers by race during World War 1 because, at the time, intelligence was inaccurately linked to race.  

Even though these tests  have been adapted to be used in the school building, not much has changed about them.  As I’ve seen, these tests are still mostly centered around things that only middle class white students would know.  Young Whan Choi, Manager of Performance Assessments Oakland Unified School District in Oakland, California, tells Britannica, “Too often, test designers rely on questions which assume background knowledge more often held by White, middle-class students. It’s not just that the designers have unconscious racial bias; the standardized testing industry depends on these kinds of biased questions in order to create a wide range of scores.” 

There is also the fact that those with poor educational backgrounds and preparation resources are not at the same level as those with necessary resources such as tutors or books.  This leaves them at a disadvantage which can heavily impact the present and their future. When asked to comment on this, Choi says “Wealthy kids…… tend to have higher standardized test scores due to differences in brain development caused by factors such as “access to enriching educational resources, and… exposure to spoken language and vocabulary early in life.” It doesn't stop there. Many have found that these tests can be unfair to non-native English speakers and women as well.   

Thankfully, due to the fierce debate of standardized testing throughout the years, many alternatives have been made and implemented in many schools. Some of these alternatives are: project-based assessments, portfolios, presentations, essays, interviews, performance-based assessments (like art or music performances), and competency-based evaluations. Some schools also emphasize continuous assessments, where a student's progress is tracked throughout the year rather than relying on a single test. Additionally, formative assessments, which gauge understanding during the learning process, and adaptive computer-based assessments have gained traction as alternatives to traditional standardized tests.

Over the years, I believe more of these alternatives should be implemented so that everyone’s intelligence and performance can be measured fairly.  This will give everyone a chance at the colleges that they want to attend and will, overall, greatly impact their present and future. 

People aspiring to escape the 9-5 lifestyle is nothing new in America. Recently, though, this sentiment seems to be the only answer for some young Americans. A study by Junior Achievement of Citizens bank (JA) found that around 54% of young Americans do not feel that they can finance their futures. Due to the growing concern for economic ruin, Western capitalism may not suit younger generations in the future.

Primarily, young Americans are worried about college costs. In another study by JA, around 69% of surveyed students said that they don't believe they cannot afford higher education. Frankly, this sentiment is almost completely due to the nature of capitalism.

In western capitalism, the means of production are mainly governed by private or independent entities. In this case, the entities are private colleges. When it comes to private colleges, tuition is usually going to break wallets. One could argue that since they are private, they have every right to charge a high tuition. But since most jobs that can cover living expenses will require a college degree, there should be a change in how we think about college.

For example, NYU had an annual tuition of $5,062 in 1980. The minimum wage at the time was 3.80. Now, the annual tuition is around $60k, but the minimum wage is only 7.25. So, the tuition has decoupled, but the minimum wage has barely doubled. An even scarier fact is that inflation is up 258% since 1980, but college costs are up 1200%.

Since states are in charge of universities, we could change that. Since we have the money for trillion dollar warplanes and submarines, it seems that we can vastly increase university spending. We could use tax thresholds that lower taxes if tuition decreases. But since we know these solutions are available to make things easier, why haven't they happened? The US government cannot afford to run the country without exploitation.

The US debt in 1980 was 908 billion dollars (nearly triple the amount of 371 billion dollars in 1970). In 2023, the debt is about 31.4 trillion dollars. So if we claim that the debt triples every 10 years, this reveals that the US cannot sustain itself.

With the common penny analogy, if you double a penny each day for 30 days, you will have $5,368,709.12. 5 million is obviously a much larger amount than just a penny. Since every 10 years, there is a major crisis that requires us to acquire an unprecedented amount of debt, we would need a biblical miracle to not have nearly 60-70 trillion in debt by 2030.  Since the GDP  increases at about 5.9% per year, In 2030 we would increase by only 60% from our current 23 trillion. So we will have a GDP of about 36.8 trillion, with a debt of over 50 trillion. Instead of the debt being only 7 trillion over the GDP, we would have a debt of nearly 20 trillion over the GDP. Young Americans not only are saddled with a much larger debt, but external factors may mean that no one will be able to pay it.

It feels bleak that not only will things be far more unaffordable, but there doesn't seem to be a feasible solution to prevent collapse. We could, however, shift some of the means of production over to young Americans. Think of it as a co-op restaurant. After 21-25, young Americans are guaranteed actual shares of private industry. These shares wouldnt return actual cash, but would rather go towards decreasing costs of things in the area, and opening up funds for the community. The shares would count as some form of pseudo-ownership, so that now citizens could have direct financial control over what they are paying taxes towards. 

In closing, it is evident that the current woes from young Americans will only be exacerbated. Most federal solutions likely won't work in time, just further delay the wounds from growing. If we desire a brighter future, the youth must be allowed in the decision making process.

When custody is being decided during a divorce, the court decides what schedule would be best for the children, but the children get barely any say in where they stay. This is not okay. I believe they need much more of a say in the custody schedule. 

The court will take into consideration what a child says, but they end up making the final decision. However, the child does not always have the chance to state that opinion. And even if they did, it could possibly not even affect the situation. At the end of the day, the child is being directly affected by the custody schedule and should have a bigger say in where they are staying. 

Not having a choice in this can really affect a child’s life. For example, one of their parents could be toxic, neglect them, gaslight them, or any other form of bad parenting. If this was going on, it could have a big impact on the child's mental health. Research from Psych Central that states that emotional abuse during childhood can lead to social anxiety disorders and depression. 

Having basically no say over this could also make a child feel like they have no control over their life and where they are staying. This could cause mental issues like depression, anxiety, etc. They should be able to have a choice because it’s their own life and they are the one experiencing it.  I personally believe any child over the age of 8 years old should have a big part in deciding where they are staying. 

If a child has one parent who they like and want to stay with, and one parent who they don’t, switching from these two households can be stressful and overwhelming. They would be going from a household where they are happy and comfortable, to an unstable household where they are unhappy. These mood switches can also have an impact on mental health. 

In some cases, a child could be being abused by one parent and it would be extremely unsafe to have them live part of the time with the parent abusing them. This would be horrible and could harm the child. If they could be able to pick the place they stay at, they could live in a safe environment, instead of being forced to go to a place where they are abused. 

So, why are children not able to pick custody in a divorce? 

A large reason why children don't have a say in custody is because the court believes they would make a bad decision. An article about this law made by CordellCordell Says, “A child is a minor, and the law presumes that a minor is not mature enough to make those types of decisions.” 

This is wrong, and I believe in most cases the child would have good points. Even if they aren’t “mature” enough to make these decisions, they know what they want and are being directly affected. Just because someone is a minor doesn’t mean they don’t know what's best for them. 

In the end, this just comes down to the government thinking that everyone under 18 years old will make a bad decision no matter what.  

Instead of how the current system is, the custody schedule should revolve around what the child states that they want, although they would have to explain why they were making this decision. Obviously if they wanted to stay with one parent for a reason that wouldn’t negatively affect them, the court may not accept it. If they have reasonable points, however, they should be able to make the choice, or at least a big part of it.

Many readers may remember the massive headlines of the Uyghur oppression in China. Uyghur Muslims were allegedly being sent to reeducation camps/prisons, and it was seen as a major human rights crisis. But what exactly has happened since then? We never really got any closure, it just seemed to fade off from headlines.

This is one of many examples of how the news sees information as monetary strides, rather than a responsibility or civic duty. The penalty for misinformation will just result in companies being sued, and there is nothing that can truly stop the public from being misinformed by news sources.

Lets look back at the Uyghur genocide. In 2022, The UN did a report on human rights conditions in China, and China was considered to have violated religious and civil rights of Uyghurs. China’s response was that this report was entirely false, and the UN had just taken testimonies from liars.

This short look at the issue is all that has hit major headlines. A borderline holocaust has been mostly unacknowledged for nearly 2 years. In fact, if we refer to the CNN database for 2022, the James Webb Telescope was a bigger story than this. In a morbidly funny coincidence, the Alex Murdaugh trials were a headline much longer than the Uyghur genocide.

One could argue that the Uyghur issue isn't very important, as we can't be sure it's actually happening. But there are many other instances like this. We can transition to an atrocity that is not only confirmed to be an ongoing issue, but is happening on US/Canadian soil

A killer named Robert Pickton is tied to the murder of six indigenous women. However, that number would be far larger if we acknowledged the faults of the police at the time. Canadian authorities found 40+ bodies, but investigations couldn't tie Robert to anything because police took far too long to actually look for the girls. It’s likely the cops were too lazy to drive far out to native reservations, so when they got there, they were not doing a thorough search analysis.

According to a 2011 study done by Statistics Canada, from 1997-2000, native and aboriginal women were 7 times more likely to experience homicide than other groups. One could connect the dots that since killers know that police won't put in effort to quickly catch the killers of native women, killers will prey on native women as if it is an easy game.

It begs the question, why does the news not cover these tragedies as much as irrelevant issues? I believe it is because if the media were to reveal the magnitude of these world issues, trust and loyalty to the US would falter. If the masses realized that the US (Federal agencies and state agencies are generally still positive) does not have mutual loyalty for the public, the US wouldn’t be able to profit from the abuse of the public. 

One thing readers should take away from this is that we cannot be so quick to put unwavering faith in the media. The media constantly uses white lies to warp the public eye, yet still maintains low accountability for any outrage, such as President Bush’s claims of weapons of destruction. People are so quick to become emotionally invested in issues, solely because the screen in front of them is telling  them to do so.

When people think of a plant-based diet, many are under the impression that it only consists of salads, vegetables, and fruits. In all reality, it is so much more. Veganism is the practice of not taking part in eating animal products and typically staying away from goods tested on animals. There are several different types of vegans: dietary vegans, whole-food vegans, junk food vegans, raw-food vegans, low fat raw-food vegans, and many more. There isn’t just one strict diet, and this makes a plant-based lifestyle more attainable than some realize. Veganism can positively impact your life in  a variety ofways you might not be aware of.

“Where do you get your protein?” — the question us vegans get asked religiously. Many think that plant-based diets lack nutrients, but they can be healthier in several ways. According to an article titled “Embracing a Plant Based Diet” by Stanford University, “Focusing on whole foods from plant sources can reduce body weight, blood pressure and risk of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.” By making the switch, not only are you able to get enough nutrients, including protein, but you're also allowing yourself to consume nutrients that many do not get on a daily basis. “Vegans Are Often Deficient in These Four Nutrients,” an article from News Medical Life Sciencesstresses the importance of a properly planned plant-based diet, noting: vegans “have a higher daily intake of certain nutrients that are highly beneficial to health. For example, a number of studies have demonstrated that vegan diets tend to include more fiber, antioxidants, potassium, folate, and vitamins A, C, and E.” By going vegan, you are adopting a lifestyle with tons of health benefits.

Not only does a plant-based diet improve your health, but it can also improve your well-being. In the article, “Eat Green, Be Happy: New Study Finds Vegans Are Happier,” Tracking Happiness surveyed 11,537 people in the U.S. on their happiness levels and how they correlate with their diet. It revealed that “Vegans report 7% higher happiness ratings than meat-eaters.” Also, “Our data showed that meat-eaters scored the lowest average happiness rating.” Just think of how happy you could be knowing that you are switching to a cruelty free diet.

In addition to helping yourself, going vegan can aid in the protection of animals and the environment. According to the Vegan Calculator, each year, one vegan can help to save around 365 animals from slaughterhouses, dairy farms, factory farms, etc. Furthermore, when you go plant-based, you can save around 401,500 gallons of water, 14,600 lbs of grain, 10,950 sq. ft. of forest, and 7,300 lbs of CO2 a year. An article from Animal Aid, “Going Vegan For The Animals,” explains that “Going vegan is one of the best things you can do to help stop animal cruelty. By refusing to pay for animal products, you reduce the demand for them, which ensures fewer animals are bred to suffer and die on farms and in slaughterhouses.” Many people seek ways to lessen their environmental impact, and plant-based diets are an unexpected way to do that.

Understandably, many might resent adopting a vegan lifestyle for several reasons—the obvious one being that animal products are tremendously popular, and going plant-based means you have to give them up. If you are not ready for this dramatic change, going vegetarian can be an option too. 

Some might worry that eating vegan can be expensive, but with the right resources and preparation (budgeting, meal planning, etc.), going vegan can be one of the best things you can do for yourself. Even though it might be difficult, this is an investment in you. Being more intentional about where and what you eat is better for your health and well-being.

As you can see, there are many benefits to a plant-based diet, and since there are so many options as compared to 10 years ago, it’s not as difficult of a transition as some make it out to be. However, if you need support on this endeavor, several social media groups can assist you through the most popular platforms including Facebook and Instagram. I hope you will consider making the switch today.

Poverty rates in America, especially among children, are substantially high. With government funds being allocated irresponsibly year after year, it doesn’t seem like they’ll be getting better any time soon. If we spend more money on helping America’s children get what they need, money for non priority projects can fall into place later. After all, the role of a country’s leaders is to protect their people. If we can’t expect taxpayer dollars to be spent on helping the people our country’s leaders swore to protect, how can we expect a successful country?

From spending $1.5 trillion on a seemingly unsuccessful fighter jet program to spending $2 billion annually to maintain empty government buildings, money is being thrown down the drain by the government. One study by the Children’s Defense Fund remarked that the F-35 fighter jet program, a program designed to create better aircrafts in adversarial battle, is “several years behind schedule and 68 percent over budget and still not producing fully functional planes. For the $1.5 trillion projected costs of this program, the nation could reduce child poverty by 60 percent for 19 years.” If cutting costs of this single program can have positive outcomes on child poverty for 19 years, doing the same for similar projects can bring these 19 years to an even higher number.

While the F-35 project is one of the more notable ones in regards to how much is spent on it, there has also been money spent irrationally on maintaining empty government buildings. This is mainly due to agencies unsure of the amount of office space they need. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that there is 21.5 million square feet of usable office space in 24 government agency headquarters buildings, and 17 of these are only utilizing 25% of its total capacity. This means that in these 17 buildings, 75% of their space is empty. Since it costs money to maintain and operate government buildings, the amalgamated cost spent on these factors each year falls within 1-2 billion dollars. This includes paying for electricity, heating and cooling, and water bills. In addition, it costs a substantial amount of money to lease these buildings—about 5 billion dollars annually, GAO said. 

As if spending this much on empty buildings couldn’t get worse, there are still new buildings that continue to be constructed despite the thousands of empty ones already in place. This is partly due to concerns about the agencies losing prestige if they share their space with other agencies. Acting Director in GAO’s Physical Infrastructure team, David Marroni, said in an interview that sharing office space could “lower their perceived standing as a cabinet-level agency,” and that even sharing spaces among bureaucrats of the same agency is non-ideal. 

“Some agency officials said that individual bureau leadership protected spaces assigned to them, including offices, conference rooms, and specialized spaces like secure rooms…no current mechanism exists to share those spaces…throughout their agencies,” according to the GAO report.

Even so, as these unnecessary costs grow higher and higher, the US debt ceiling looms eerily closer. A surpassing of this ceiling would certainly have painful repercussions, a crash of the US economy being top on the list. This in turn yields a loss of jobs amongst citizens, plummeting millions of US citizens either into poverty or exacerbating the situation of people already in poverty. A White House report states  the economic impacts of various debt ceiling scenarios, providing information about job losses due to a breach of the debt ceiling, saying “the economy would quickly shift into reverse, with the depth of the losses a function of how long the breach lasted. A protracted default would likely lead to severe damage to the economy, with job growth swinging from its current pace of robust gains to losses numbering in the millions”. There have been many cases where Congress either raised the ceiling or temporarily suspended it to allow the treasury more time to attend to their obligations, but eventually the problem becomes inescapable as we are forced to default on our debts and go into recession.

Since programs like the F-35 fighter jet program and other unnecessary expenses heavily contribute to our debts, it seems the key solution for ameliorating poverty—and our country—is to better manage what our fiscal involvements are and cut back on the ones that stray from the country’s goal of helping our citizens.

Homelessness has been a growing problem in Louisville, Kentucky. Because of this, quite a bit of the city’s money and efforts goes into clearing/cleaning the homeless camps.  

Clearing homeless camps in Louisville, Kentucky, may appear as a necessary step in addressing the growing population of homelessness, but it is crucial to recognize that this approach offers only temporary relief, not a sustainable solution. As you drive through downtown Louisville, you can see the immense amount of homeless people on the sidewalks.  

For years, the homeless population in Louisville has been growing nonstop. With no solution appearing to come anytime soon, it seems like it may never end.  In the week of January 24, 2023, outreach workers from the Coalition For The Homeless took to the streets and counted 581 unsheltered residents, writes WHAS11. During a comparable week in 2022, there were only 243 unsheltered residents. With this growing population, you would think that there would be some sort of solution about to be put into play- but the only “solution” the city uses is clearing homeless camps specifically during events like Thunder Over Louisville or the Derby.  

When authorities clear homeless camps, they often fail to provide viable alternatives for those affected. Without accessible and affordable housing options, individuals are left with nowhere to go, exacerbating their already dire situation. In 2019, WDRB wrote about how homeless camps were being cleared out and the homeless had a 21 day notice to pack up whatever they could and move.  The rest of their belongings were thrown away, which heavily impacted the population.

Orlando Johnson, who's among the homeless, tells WDRB, "I can see it's a lot of trash and needles and stuff like that. I can see it's creating a health hazard, you know what I'm saying? But my thing is, where are these people going to go now?" Without offering alternatives for these people to go to, these people just end up on another street, setting up another camp, and trying, once again, to live a decent life with the little amount of stuff they have.

Clearing homeless camps is not only a waste of time and effort, but also money. A presentation by Louisville’s  Homeless Services Division in 2022 estimated that public works had spent $842,016 on the cleaning and clearing of camps between July 21, 2021 and June 30, 2022.  Cleanings cost an average of $1,800, and clearings cost $7,800, The Courier Journal writes. This often involves money spent on law enforcement, cleanup crews, and temporary storage of personal belongings. These funds could potentially be allocated more effectively towards long-term solutions, such as affordable housing initiatives or support programs for mental health and addiction issues.

Addressing the growing homeless population in Louisville, demands a more nuanced and empathetic approach. Clearing camps, though it may temporarily alleviate some of the visible signs of homelessness, is not a sustainable solution. 

Every year near derby, homeless camps are cleared.  Although there were no clearings scheduled for this year, these clearings leave people with nowhere to go and can leave them feeling misplaced and lost. During a press conference, Mayor Craig Greenberg's Press Secretary, Kevin Trager, stated, "High-risk encampments with individuals living near busy roadways and interstates are prioritized for relocation based on the safety risk to those individuals.” Although some took this at face value, others are challenging his words.  

"It's a lie. It's just a bold face lie," Ronnie Morris, a member of Vocal Kentucky, tells WHAS11.  

By providing stable and affordable housing, we can cut off one of the root causes to the homeless population. Many homeless individuals struggle with mental health problems. By offering accessible and comprehensive mental health services, you can address underlying problems that contribute to homelessness. These services can include therapy, counseling, medication and crisis intervention.  Offering job training and skill-building programs can also help. This not only provides a source of income, but also promotes self-esteem, purpose, and a sense of belonging in society.  

President Joe Biden has recently sent cluster munitions to Ukraine to aid them in their conflict with Russia. While most can agree this is better than sending American troops, many people have strong opinions on providing any assistance. People also believe this reflects Biden's presidency negatively. However most think that this will positively influence all people involved in the war.

Conflict in Ukraine began in 2014 following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Soon after Ukrainian people began protesting against their president's decision to not join the European  Union,the president, Zelensky, fled the country. Russian troops took this opportunity to attack Ukraine.  In September 2017, the United States deployed two U.S. Army tank brigades to Poland to aid Ukraine. In 2023, the UN Human Rights Office reported more than 9000 deaths and over 15,000 injuries. 

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) describes these cluster munitions as “a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions, each weighing less than 20 kilograms.” Submunitions are essentially grenades with tail fins or a streamer to help them land in the right orientation. These weapons are very powerful. There is no doubt they are war weapons, and are almost always successful. They can cover roughly the size of a football field, and the submunitions or bomblets cause explosions immediately once contact has hit. Russia has been using these weapons for years. Now, it is necessary for Ukraine to as well.

There is controversy about this topic, though. Many countries believe sending these weapons was a bad idea, simply because of the widespread damage they cause. In the CNN article titled, “Sending cluster bombs to Ukraine is a very bad idea,” Michael Bociurkiw, the author goes on to say, “With cluster bombs, duds weapons that fail to detonate can remain undetected in the soil for weeks or years, only to explode when civilians inadvertently step on or pick up the explosive device, grievously injuring or killing them.. Although this is a valid point, cluster bombs only turn out to be duds less than 23% of the time. Ukraine is in an extensive fight for survival. These weapons are necessary for them to succeed, or come out of this war alive.

The war in Ukraine has resulted in a slog. They are losing terribly, and their territory is being reduced to ash. Ukraine is also fighting for freedom in their own country. This war is being fought on Ukraine’s turf, they are destroying their own land and structures every day, trying to win this drawn out battle. Residents are suffering in this battle, they are running scarcely low on weapons and ammunition. Cluster munitions are precisely the type of weapon needed to dislodge them. While they are effective against troops and artillery in the open, they also provide suppressive fires, preventing the enemy from employing its own weapons. This will make it much easier for Ukrainians to fight back and have a real chance to win.

The cluster munitions are ready to use upon arrival in Ukraine. In contrast to other weapons, where you must load ammunition or cock back before you fire, these weapons are immediately ready for use. This makes them an asset to Ukraine, aiding them in the war. Ukraine already has launchers to fire these weapons, such as howitzers and multiple launch rocket systems. This makes it easier for Ukraine to use these weapons, which ultimately help them in the war.

These weapons can contribute to the outcome of this drawn out battle, possibly with Ukraine on top. The faster the battle ends, the less people will perish and the easier it will be to establish a flourishing country again. Biden's decision to send these weapons to Ukraine will help less people die, even the playing field between the two powerhouses, and ensure their attempts will be successful. In the end, this was a good idea from Biden, with Ukrainian citizens in mind. 

With the common discussion on native removal, we tend to not apply it to the modern era. It's becoming increasingly apparent that native removal (the removal of an indigenous people from a region) is not just a practice devoted to the Middle Ages, but rather an ongoing injustice that still plagues us today. Firstly, we’ll look at the history of the Gullah people in the Southeast. 

The Gullah people are descended from groups of formerly enslaved Africans, who were located on the coast along Georgia and South Carolina. The Atlantic region was mainly devoted to rice, cotton, and indigo dye processing, with the slaves being brought primarily from West and Central Africa. They eventually integrated their different cultures into one, becoming what is known as a Creole society.

However, the Georgia State government considers the Gullah land state property, and the state is proposing zoning laws that would cut the land almost in half. The Gullah are essentially considered squatters in the region, highlighting the apathy becoming prevalent in state governments. Furthermore, the proposal involves turning the land into a commercial area for home builders. 

This is comparable to the removal of Native Americans, where the previous keepers of the land were seen as barriers towards expansion. Like the Natives, the Gullah are being goaded with funds to abandon their homeland. The almost instantaneous decision to favor capital over human condition seems to be very clear here, and it's just as true further up the coast.

Next, we shall look at New York, New York. Manhattan has always been the ideal image of NYC, with gazing skyscrapers, bustling streets, and immovable crowds. One of the first sights of the actual city tourists may see is the various neighborhoods of Manhattan, including SoHo, NoHo, Central Park, etc. But if you took those tourists to Brooklyn or the Bronx, their views and experiences may shift greatly.

Brooklyn is classically known as one of the grimier parts of NYC, with its crime rate and drug boom being in the spotlight for  the entire nation. Specifically, the Bed-Stuy neighborhood was known as one of the robbery hubs of the city. But is now a common destination for wealthy transplants. Due to Brooklyn’s gentrification, while now a lot cleaner, Brooklyn has become a much more Caucasian and less diverse area. The culture and history has been glossed over with luxury apartments and tech entrepreneurs. 

 We could also compare this to Germantown here in Louisville. Germantown was formerly an area for poorer and middle-class families; however, it is now a hotspot for transplants. The quaint shotgun homes are now modernized and the original residents are long gone. This begs the question, what happens if, instead of rinsing out an area, you wall it off indefinitely?

The Bronx in NYC seems to fit this concept .The Bronx borough sports a 30% poverty rate, comparative to Manhattan's 16-17%. It is very famous for having a heavy minority percentage in NYC, but it is still highly segregated.

The Bronx is seen, as of recently, a crime hub for the nation. It's famous for its region-based gangs, and being the forefront for NY Drill music (trap music dissing rival gangs and mocking dead enemies, that is usually based off of actual murders done by the gang). The area is filled with police, but that is very counterintuitive to the attempt at progress. If you try to make an example, they will only see that as getting caught, not as justice. Similar to the war on drugs, those kids are usually aware that the events around them are bad. However, we cannot guarantee younger generations won't disregard immorality and commit these acts in the name of honor. So, the attempt to rid the inhabitants of the area won't stop the problem, it will just hide away the true flaws. Cleaning up the Bronx can't be done by sweeping out natives.

Overall, all of these events seem to scream one thing: the removal of native populations. We’ve already reached the conclusion that removing Native Americans is bad, why can’t that standard be upheld currently? We could start from the ground up, if we don't center American society around who is of use, we become much more empathetic. If we create a better environment for the natives(better care, better infrastructure, etc.), there is no need to capitalize on their cheap territory. Removing natives solely to constantly achieve balance, can be averted by having a naturally balanced system in the first place.