If you have spent any time on campus this year, it would be impossible for you not to notice the large mounds of dirt and construction equipment where our softball field used to live. Due to heavy flooding that affected much of the infrastructure of campus early last fall, the softball field had to be completely rebuilt. The entire top layer of soil was stripped and the sand was all but gone. This semester, construction has been hard at work repairing, and in many cases, improving the facilities. The case of the softball field reveals some blind spots in our University’s modes of operation, and should give cause for more proactive approaches in the future.

      While this has remained an eyesore for most of us, it has had a serious impact on our softball team and its players. Leslie Lutin, a sophomore who plays for the team, shed some light on her experience

      “So we have been rotating between gym practices as well as turf practices. For hitting only practices, we use the batting cage in the fitness center. I know for some of us, not having a field definitely makes it harder on us both as a team and as students. We are constantly changing the surface that we see the ball coming from so it’s not always easy to read how the ball bounces. Also, because we don’t have a field, our schedule is always changing, at least it did the first 2 months of the season.” Lutin said. The constant changes have a noticeable effect on a an athlete’s training. Anyone who has ever trained for anything knows that inconsistency and unpredictability are not a recipe for success. Unfortunately, the problems don’t end there.

      “Some of us are finding it harder to do certain things to keep our academics on top. For example, one of my teammates needs to attend office hours, but her only hours are during our practices. It’s just hard not always knowing where our next practice is going to be, where it will be happening or even if we will have practice because of poor scheduling and weather,” Lutin said. Student athletes, while sometimes carrying the stereotype of not caring about their academics as much as non-athletes, actually manage a lot more than we give them credit for. Between team study sessions and stricter attendance policies, a lot rests on their shoulders. Not having a field to practice on makes striking that balance all the more difficult.

      Now though, it looks like the repairs have made major progress. In addition to repairing the field, the new home plate is closer to the lower McInnis parking lot, and the fencing behind it will be a substantial upgrade over the previous one. Hopefully, the new orientation of the field will protect it from any future flooding. As I stated previously, this case should motivate better planning for future infrastructure. The terrain the campus sits on is not ideal, being mostly wetlands, but oversights akin to Eagle’s sinking problem or the location of our sports facilities relative to a floodplain, should be better thought out ahead of time. Let’s hope we’re not constantly rebuilding important parts of campus in the years to come.

       In the 1980’s the tabletop game Dungeons and Dragons was at the then height of its popularity, and since then has maintained a significant place pop culture. The game itself is notable in its own right, but what brought national attention to the game was a controversy in the United States over the supposed Satanic content in the game.

      The game, which models epic fantasy like Lord of The Rings and classic fairy tales, often pits the players against evil creatures such as goblins, orcs, dragons, and yes demons and evil spirits. The players form a band of heroes not unlike the Tolkien’s fellowship and do battle with these evil forces in search of treasure and fame, saving innocents in the process.

      In spite of the obvious good vs. evil dynamic, Christian groups files suit against the game and placed a serious cultural taboo on anyone who let their children play. Part of the adult content was responsible for this reaction, but the game has also always been primarily a place for social outsiders which inevitably associated D&d and games like it with other “undesirable” subcultures.

      I have been playing the game since I was in my early teens, and I thought it might be prudent to explain why I believe the game and role playing in general can be a very healthy and even deeply philosophical experience. D&d is different from many other games in that the rules are fairly loose. Many groups simply ignore or “homebrew” rules to modify the game into whatever they want it to be.

      The most prominent feature of the game is that it is not competitive. There are dice and numbers to keep track of, but they are only there to manage randomness and give you an idea of what the characters are capable of doing. The game isn’t competitive because you are all on the same side. What D&d really is storytelling, but unlike a novelist or a director, the story is told by a group of people all acting out their parts. There are enemies and villains, but they are played by the dungeon master, who is not really playing to win so much as they are providing the setting for the story to occur.

      So why does this matter to Eastern students? Well, something derivative of those other qualities I mentioned is that the only real “goal” in the game is the one you set for yourself. At the onset of an action scene, you might attempt to talk things out. In court of intrigue, you might find that an axe speaks louder than words. Ultimately you might find yourself burdened with great destiny only to reject it entirely and get on a ship sailing for another continent. No matter how complicated a video game or a movie is, it can only show so much.

      In role playing games the only limit is your imagination. The great joy in these games is their ability to stir our dormant childlike imagination and allow us to play just for the sake of itself, with no trophy or high score in sight. Reflecting on how this game has brought me joy reminds me that often the purpose of living is just to live.

      Today, dungeons and dragons is actually the most popular it has ever been. People of every social group can find something in it, and more and more adults are unashamedly enjoying the escape now and then. Escapism is actually good for us as long as we remember it is not an end in itself. Escapism, done right, reminds us of the joy of living, and helps us see our lives in the way we view the small miniature on the table. You can be whatever you want to be, and you don’t need a character sheet for that.

      There have been a few stories circling on CNN and other major news sites surrounding a phenomenon now known as “deep fake.” In a world of #fakenews that cannot be good to hear. Now, don’t panic, but also take heed. Propaganda is nothing new, but as technology gets better, the ability to create seemingly real audio and visuals from almost nothing is becoming a reality. Deep fake is distinct in that unlike the sneaky video editing and audio dubbing we are used to, these new videos that have surfaced are entirely computer generated with audio mixed in to sound legitimate.

      This is especially concerning as unfortunately, in an age where justice for victims of police brutality or sexual assault depend so much on reliable video or recorded evidence, the continued propagation of fake news only serves to further damage trust in institutions, and worse, our very own eyes. When cases which seem so apparently easy to prosecute become subject to even further unjustified skepticism, making the case that you’ve been wronged is so much more difficult.

      Then there is a dangerous philosophical issue. If we can’t really trust what we see on the internet or our television set, then not only do we not know what is true, but the most deluded or sinister among us can just will their own reality into public opinion. “Crime is rising. Crime is rising, Crime is rising.” With no way to verify the truth, the “truth” becomes whatever the person with the most power decides it is. This is at the very core of every great evil in human history. People are hard to convince, but the one liar we all are fooled by is ourselves.

      Now, that doesn’t put us in a very comfortable position. What is to be done? Do we care enough to live in a world that is dictated by what is really true, or are we content to be arranged on ladder crawling over one another in a sick ideological “king-of-the-hill?” There are few ways we can deal with this.

      I concede my bias, but I will argue that the best check against this is good journalism. It will take a great deal of character, but those who desire to spread truth and live honestly must be heroic enough to do so. That means holding ourselves and each other accountable, but it also means being restless in our pursuit of truth. We can never settle for just what is good enough.

      On a larger scale, we need an educated and more importantly responsible electorate. We know what bias looks like, and almost all of us have access to the internet (a privilege we seem to forget in America). It is not only moral but intellectually responsible to do research and gather more information before passing judgement on an idea. It sounds somewhat silly, but even the most ridiculous ideas must be dealt with in earnest. It’s easy to dismiss that argument in a world with flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, and climate-change deniers, but as you get closer to what we consider more “reasonable” positions there is a large gradient of ideas. I don’t think any one of us gets to decide where the line is on a purely intellectual level.

       This is my final point: “objective” information is valuable, but we must not neglect the experience of others. Truth and empathy are really two sides of the same coin in that respect. Only through true communicative action will we be able to whether the onslaught of propaganda and attractive yet dangerously misinformed ideas.

      On a global scale jobs are becoming increasingly outsourced to developing countries for their cheap labor, and while there is absolutely a conversation to be had on the humanitarian issue of exploitation, I’d like to focus on jobs themselves. More specifically, how technological leaps and automation have affected the job market, and what that means for the future of the world.

      Globalization has definitely played a huge role in the restructuring of the world economy, but many of the industries that once dominated domestic employment are seemingly non-existent In the entities that currently exist in these industries, the type of work is very different. Factories that used to manage hundreds of workers now employ significantly less people with higher education.

      The machinery and software that allows for this has developed very quickly, probably a lot faster than most of us realize. There was an adage in the early 2000s that the amount of information you could store on a microchip doubled almost every day. While that’s not technically accurate, it paints something of a fair picture of how powerful the information revolution really is. Mass communication and the internet is easy to wrap your mind around, but what we don’t see as readily is how different things like our cars are made.

      Mechanical arms governed by algorithms construct other machines, only interfered with by essential operators. Assembly lines often function as if manned by an invisible crew. It’s not just in production. Self-checkout lines seem to have invaded every space. Recently, our very own Jammin Java added a kiosk similar to the ones already installed at the Breezeway. Many people welcome these touch screens as a more convenient and expedient process, while others worry about machines and computers squeezing an already tight job market.

      There is an position in our public discourse that argues against wage increases or higher taxes, because doing so would incentivize companies to cut back staff and instead install automated systems and machines. It is a logically consistent point, but what it fails to address is why exactly we aren’t already doing so? If it’s cheaper and requires less labor to automate, then why not implement it wherever prudent? It seems that given the technology and the resources to build it, the most logical thing to do would be to automate whatever you can. The very essence of a tool is something that allows us to do more with less.

      We are stuck in economic crisis because regardless of political or economic reasons, the job market will continue to shrink as time goes by. Yes, other markets will open, and new kinds of work (as well as art and scientific pursuit) will become available, but people who have spent their lives working in fields no longer necessary will suffer. It doesn’t have to be this way.

      This issue with technology is not that is harms us directly, but that when the access to resources is limited and centralized in an elite upper societal strata, The human benefit of scientific development is stunted. Where we should all be prospering as a result of our collective human achievement, we instead are forced into ever escalating conflict with one another.

      The skepticism against civil action and public economic activity is very telling in my view. It seems to suggest, that the only thing allowing for stratified socio-economic hierarchies to exist is the protected right to pay insufficient wages and not provide acceptable contribution to the very communities that they derive their wealth. Many of you who study politics recognize this as a decidedly left-wing perspective, and I don’t deny that I am motivated by an the inherent value I hold in social equity and human prosperity. However, whether you can morally justify the centralization of power and wealth is not important. These contradictions in our current economic model exist, and it would be an exercise in self-defeat to not recognize the opportunity that automation provides us.

      A common critique of egalitarian worldviews is something along the lines of “someone has to be the garbage man.” What if that’s actually not true? What if for the first time in human history we will soon no longer need to do any labor for the sake of survival. Maybe will be able to fully realize the sheer human potential tapped in  poverty, and provide a decent quality of life for everyone. More importantly, one could argue that in today’s world we do indeed need “someone has to be the garbage man,” but if something like that is so necessary to our society, shouldn’t we treat the people who do those jobs as just as vital?

      The world we live in is only as unjust as we allow it to be.

      During former President Barack Obama’s second term, he had stressed what was always a major part of his vision, diplomacy and global corporation. A large number of right-wing pundits dedicated the better part of almost the entire news cycle attacking his character (sound familiar?) because, in their eyes, he was “weak” and an American President has to be “strong.” They lambasted his foreign speeches, calling it the “global apology tour.” One Fox News guest went so far as to call him a “Pu**y” after a heartfelt speech he gave on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Apparently, remorse for incredible loss of life is something to be ashamed of.

      This kind of dialogue has dominated American politics since at least the Cold War, and arguably even before. It is a vindictive assault on any character deemed unfit by our standards of strength. It’s ironic, because when I think about strength, I think about the ability to admit when you are wrong, and enough having confidence in yourself that you never beat your chest. The kind of strength valued by all strata of this country is a brutish, cruel one. We don’t feel on top unless everyone else is under our foot. We had a word for people like that back in my high school. I never got along with that sort very much.

      This ethos is vile, which makes it all the more disappointing when I read the headlines the day the shutdown ended. Both the right and the Liberal left media blasted Trump for “caving like a dog.” Ann Coulter spewed that after this, G. H. W. Bush was no longer the “biggest wimp to ever hold office.” One Twitter post juxtaposed Trump across House speaker Nancy Pelosi with the caption “who’s grabbing who’s pu**y now!?” I immediately felt uncomfortable with all this. After a 35 day shutdown, the President conceded to temporarily reopen the government, and the first thing we do is laugh at him for “losing.”

      Part of me gets it. Trump has hurt a lot of people both in his words and in his actions. This shutdown portrayed a total lack of care for the interests of American workers in the name of what amounts to a monument to his own pride at this point. However, underneath a man spoiled by wealth, obsessed with power, and dominated by fear, there is a man, a human person, and every person deserves dignity. We will meet Trump on every issue, argue our case, and call him out on every count of selfishness and corruption, but that all becomes blunted when the national debate is consumed with the size of his stomach or what’s in his pants.

      After so many years of female congresswomen being subjected to the same ugliness, and a nationwide debate on toxic masculinity, you would think we would take care to respect human dignity. It’s not out of love for politicians that we must do this, but if for nothing else but a concern for our own moral character. Are we comfortable becoming cruel in the face of cruelty? I for one am not.

      A growing phrase you’ll hear anywhere in the professional world is “self-care.” It’s particularly popular on college campuses, and for good reason! In a high speed capitalist work environment, we’ve normalized, even glamorized, exhaustion. Being a workaholic is considered a virtue in a world characterized by competition and efficiency. We’ve been reduced to machines fueled by prescription medication and caffeine. America does really “run on Dunkin.” The worst part of the whole thing is human toll. We push ourselves past all conceivable limit just for the chance at overtime pay, or arguably worse, more recognition.

      This is where the concept of self-care comes in. There are varying perspectives on this from the spiritual to secular, but the defining ethos is that a person cannot reasonably expect themselves to succeed through hard-work alone. Justifiably, the position suggests that in order to function, we need to make time for ourselves, specifically our mental and physical health.

      Many people spend time watching Netflix, snacking, taking long showers or doing yoga. For many of us, the little time we spend on ourselves is vital to our sanity. While I thoroughly enjoy company without exception, many people are not like me. For them, social interaction with friends can be just as exhausting as the time they spend on work or studying, if not more so.

      For all its obvious worth, I can’t help but question the real value of this notion. Yes, it is important to take care of oneself, but I find that many of the methods people use seem somewhat… unhealthy. What I mean is that while going out with friends to a restaurant or bar can be a fun, relaxing experience, using alcohol or any other escapist strategy is doomed to fail.

      By merely covering up the pain of the week with one more shot of liquor or another hour of mindless consumption of Netflix and internet videos you aren’t really doing anything about the underlying stress. Sloth, the vice most commonly associated with laziness, can also be indicative of a perpetual exhaustion state. Is the week long self punishment of non-stop obligation really ameliorated by its opposite extreme, gluttony and listlessness?

      I believe self care can be an extremely positive force in our lives, but it must be balanced, lest it become self-indulgence. What we need to focus on is practices and activities that are truly restorative. Silence, prayer, and other spiritual disciplines can aid us in this endeavor. We can pursue art or music. We could develop a skill or even read that book we’ve been meaning to. Think of all the things you keep saying you’re going to do when you have more time, and start doing them now. I’m sure the extra few episodes can wait.

      Most troubling is the need for self-care in the first place. If we could balance our lives better, maybe the excessive need to restore wouldn’t be so prevalent. It’s also troubling that this all seems to imply that work is the end, and our personal lives merely serve to “charge our batteries.” We must always remember what it is we are living for, and not let the things we have to do become the things we think are truly meaningful.