Democracy, while widely popular as a political machine,  has recently been found to be a very vulnerable idea. It is comparable to that of a shakily built bridge. The core need to allow people to elect leaders, quickly topples if the people elect an ill-intentioned leader. Unfortunately, this has become a reality in Haiti.

A couple months ago, in January, the Haitian government was seemingly eradicated overnight by varying rebels. Haiti's public health efforts are notoriously poor, highlighted during Haiti's frequent hurricanes and earthquakes. This has led to many citizens leaving the country, or what we've unfortunately seen, they've dismantled the country itself. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with nationalism, but it does become immoral when it is included with hypocrisy. Haiti has received next to no aid, but several countries were ready to go to war over Ukraine. This is not to say Ukraine does not deserve said aid, but it begs the question, why is Haiti excluded from the protection?

The issue that many may find is that each parish or zip code is ruled by its own gang, meaning that violent intervention may be difficult. This can be thwarted by the fact that the gangs are dependent on the people's support and vice versa, meaning foreign aid won't just be shot down out of the sky by the gangs. 

My issue is not entirely that no major action has been taken, though that is a majority of my qualms. Another factor is that we've barely even made measures to find a solution. The most that has been done is the neutral “thoughts and prayers” speech politicians use so that they can look like a "good Samaritan" without being expected to do their jobs. I find it almost humorous that foreign aid has been reduced down to a political bargaining chip rather than basic responsibility. The first thought when seeing innocents being abused should not be “But is it my problem?”

There can't be an argument over whether the US is at fault for this. They very much are. Haitians have been begging for foreign aid for over 2 decades, and they've been met with the rare pitying food donation during a hurricane. Of course, they need aid during a hurricane, but what about the other months throughout the year? It doesn't matter if you give them food during a hurricane when their government won't help them at all. A temporary gesture can be the defense for immorality.

One may question why we are so quick to jump into action in defense of European countries, but when something happens in Africa or South America regarding the cartel or natural disasters, we are unfazed. Confusingly, our government does not fail at arguing against foreign aid for major catastrophes.

In closing, we have done a poor job of upholding our democracy. Democracy does not imply only said countries' citizens are treated fairly; it implies that once you have adopted democracy, you should be expected to fight for the democratic freedoms of others. Democracy and nationalism are separate ideals that, while occasionally integrated, are opposites at their core.

Recently, in the world of video games, we have adopted a new mindset when it comes to inclusion of minority groups. The biggest example of this evolution is the representation of women in video games. From the princess needing to be saved to becoming the main protagonist, the change we see in women’s role in gaming has been drastic. But this does not mean they are perfectly depicted. There are still flaws within the portrayal of women. 

While it is not as prevalent as in the early 1980’s, the trope of “The Damsel in Distress” is still ongoing with franchises such as Super Mario Bros. I point out the series depicting our favorite Italian plumber due to its use of the same goal for the hero since his first game: saving the Princess. While Princess Peach has been a playable character and even a main protagonist at one point, there has always been one goal at heart for her character: she is something for the hero to obtain or save from the villain. Luckily, the most recent main series Mario game, Super Mario Odyssey, ends with Peach rejecting the hero and walking away. However, this does not fix the fact that the only driving motive for the hero is to save the princess.

Even when a woman is the lead within a video game, there are still issues, such as the design of the character clearly aiming to appeal to men. Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider series is a perfect example of my point, due to her character design having been criticized for its unrealistic depiction of a woman. It doesn’t help that the female characters we often see are created by straight white men, who would use the design of Lara Croft to rake in tons of sales from their male audience.

However, some female leads/characters are depicted as strong, independent, and cool. However, this also means they sometimes appear more masculine. This in of itself is not a problem at all, masculine women have a place in games. The problem arises when the message that feminine traits are weak can be taken from these design choices. This idea is exemplified by the negative connotation of feminine characters. Characters that have feminine traits, but are still depicted as independent, are what we need more of within the video game space. Characters such as Sonya Blade from the Mortal Kombat series and Jill Valentine from the Resident Evil series, while exhibiting feminine traits, are still depicted as strong and independent, able to hold their own.

Women in the gaming space need better representation. And while there are good representations of women in the gaming world, such as Aloy in Horizon: Forbidden West, there are just as many, if not more, harmful representations of women that depict stereotypes, such as Princess Peach from the aforementioned Super Mario franchise. 

Though we as humans are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that does not mean our society is built to reflect such philosophical and moral truths. Such is the same with The Sussy. In this article, we’re going to go over why the U.S. government should make it cringe to be sus — because it is, indeed, cringe to be sus.

Obviously, this idea, that it is/should be cringe to be sus, is not original to this article. People in power, in fact, are already considering it. Congress recently proposed a bill that would make being sus cringe. President Biden famously said in a recent speech, “uhm, I hereby declare that it is cringe to be sus,” because he thinks that just because he can say something on a podium that automatically makes the world change.

The popularity of this idea is proof of its merit, and the popularity is booming — not just within the U.S. Making it cringe to be sus is the hip new thing to do in legislation, so why not have America get in on the action? All the other countries are doing it. Literally all of them. 

The founding fathers famously wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all crewmates are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — that to deny these rights is pretty sus, and to be sus is very cringe,” and, “[King George III] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,” and lastly, “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define an Impostor, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” America never would’ve become independent had it not been for the founding fathers seeing that it’s cringe to be sus.

In a perfect world, nobody would be impostors. To manifest that world, we need to make it cringe to be sus, because the idea that The Sussy is philosophically cringe is self-evidently true. As an ideology, this has been present all throughout history, and the more that people have tried to acknowledge the fact that being sus is cringe, the more that life has gotten better for people.

Joe Biden’s term has been a hectic mess so far, but most of it is not his fault. The political  environment around him was chaotic from the leaders before him. However, recently, he made a massive mistake on behalf of the environment; the Willow Project. This is a project that threatens the environment to a severe degree, and it has to be stopped.

Now, you may ask, “what is the Willow Project?” This operation involves the drilling of Alaska’s north slope for oil, which would result in us relying less upon other countries for oil. However, it will increase our reliance on oil to power our cities, houses, and especially our cars. Up to 600 million barrels of oil will be produced from this venture, creating a surplus of non renewable resources we could burn up. This would halt the progression of sciences geared towards creating renewable energy, thereby killing our planet faster while we do nothing about it.

Not only will this aid in the rapid destruction of our planet, but it will also go against the wishes of people that live near the northern slope, including the tribes of the Alaskan people — who know much more about the northern slope than lawmakers.

The approval of this project would also break Joe Biden’s promise to stop drilling on public lands. While it may not come to a surprise to many, this still holds a colossal weight on us, so we still need to do something about this future disaster. If we sit idly by, then it's only a matter of time before the fossil fuels we keep relying on corrode the ozone layer.

At the time of publication, this project is most likely already underway. I want everyone reading to sign petitions and, if they can, go to protests to stop the Willow Project due to its adverse effects on the environment. Not relying on foreign countries is not enough to justify completely annihilating our environment. If you want resources, you can go to this petition at change.org: https://www.change.org/p/joseph-r-biden-biden-administration-and-conocophillips-say-no-to-the-willow-project

It's not uncommon to see political parties use immoral methods to secure votes, and unfortunately, the thin line which splits immorality and propaganda has been crossed. Due to various scandals and decisions, the Republican party has visibly been using female members as bargaining chips to secure female votes and approval.

Let's take Marjorie Taylor Greene, a representative of Georgia, as an example. She recently gained heavy spotlight for her diehard support of former President Donald Trump. This led to her being seen at many rallies, parties, and eventually having a major amount of media attention, especially from FOX News. Greene has become controversially known due to her endorsement of multiple easily-disproven conspiracy theories. Among these are Pizzagate, 9/11 trutherism, and the belief that Jewish people have a space laser watching us.

The issue, of course, is that while Greene is arguably not a very nice person, the GOP does use her position to pander to women. They believe that women can't really hate the party if they let a woman make such big decisions. It's comparable to a snake leaving its prey's food in its mouth.

But I digress. One can also say the Supreme Court is guilty of token female members. With the decision in Roe v Wade overturning, many anti-abortion citizens used the fact that since there are and have been female justices, women can't be as dissatisfied with said decision, since “fellow” women contributed to it. The fact that justice Amy Coney Barrett was one of the justices to propose the overturning, has also been used as a focal point.

Let's delve further into Judge Barrett, as her story goes far past Roe v Wade. Shes become notably known as what some would colloquially refer to as a "stool pigeon." She's known for essentially piggybacking on whatever Republican traditionalists scheme up as their next unethical movement. And, of course, like many other female Republicans, her position is used as reasoning why the Republican party is not at fault for many things 

The issue with all this, of course, is that it's not really a debatable issue that the Senate or House can sit down and quarrel about. It's a completely immoral act to use someone's sex as a political machine. Additionally, and this is not to call our government fascist (at least not yet), but it's a sign of a rise in fascism when the use of talking heads becomes the norm in a government. When someone relies on puppets to do their bidding as a public servant, that contradicts the idea of democracy. Our government is not based on oligarchy or aristocracy, so why is it being portrayed as such?

All in all, the idea of female involvement in politics has been warped into a “woke” or “powerful” advertising method. The women who make huge strides are met with berating remarks invalidating their competence. It goes without saying that if America desires progress, we must not allow those who can allow such progress to come forth hinder us.