Page 4 – The Waltonian

Recently, #Oprah2020 was trending across the social media landscape. The aforementioned hashtag refers to the possible United States presidential run by famous TV talk show host and billionaire Oprah Winfrey. A few years ago, the idea that someone who has made their career out of self-help advice and working in news would have any possibility of becoming the President of the United States, the most esteemed and powerful public office in the world, would have been laughed at. There have been several actors and media personalities who have been elected in this country in the past, but they were usually elected to lower offices and in the infamous case of former actor Ronald Reagan, he had a career in politics for many years before moving into the white house.

This current phenomenon is different. With celebrities like Kid Rock and Kanye West making similar plans to campaign for office in the near future, the caliber of these potential candidates is in question. While Oprah should be commended for her success in TV and long history of philanthropy, what justifies giving her the power of the oval office? What does Kanye West have to offer in terms of leadership? Is Kid Rock really a model citizen that should be given political power?

The reason for the myriad of presidential hopefuls that have surfaced in the past year is without a doubt the 2016 campaign and subsequent election of Donald Trump to the office of president. Donald Trump, more than anyone resembles the typical american celebrity. He is famous, rich, and above all truly believes the American fiction that all his success and wealth is the product of his own virtue. Many like myself believed that his election was impossible. He was too indecent, too morally despicable, and just too ridiculous to become president. The electorate would not allow it, but in an unexpected turn, he won the presidency by a thin margin, and has been governing our country for the past year. His election did a few things to change the political geography of the country, but more than anything, it reinforced that fiction. So now the rich and famous of all varieties have delusions of grandeur, and in addition to the media types, tech giants like Mark Zuckerberg are also predicted to throw their hat in the ring in the coming years.

Herein lies the problem. We have a crisis of leadership in this country. We have elected thieves and con-men to run our country, and allow our social movements to be lead by limousine-liberals. Instead of men and women of knowledge and virtue in charge, we give all power to the rich and popular. Our system might be giving us what we want, but it is not giving us what we need. This is particularly infuriating in my own camp (the left), where people who were a year ago chastising Trump for his lack of experience and temperament (a fair criticism) are now willing to rally behind a self-absorbed social media tycoon. This begs a deeper question. Who is fit to lead?

This is a question that has been tackled by philosophers for centuries, and has been specifically pressing in a post-enlightenment world. The burden of government is a heavy one, and we must require more of the one who would carry it. We could require strength of them, but then we would also need wisdom, because without wisdom, strength is dangerous, and without strength, wisdom’s edge is blunt. The exact requisites of a good leader are complicated, but I know that our dear president is not the model of what I would call a good leader. I do not want to see this trend continue in the administration that follows his. My hope is that we, as an informed electorate, might choose better. For Christians it should be easy. We know what a leader is supposed to be. It’s right in the manual, and while no presidential candidate can live up to that expectation, we should look to leaders who follow that example.

The 2016 Brexit referendum has created political chaos as pro-European Union and British independence movements fight over what the future of the United Kingdom will look like. There are a variety of diplomatic and economic decisions that will be made, specifically regarding immigration and the sovereignty of the UK’s territories. One of the most pressing issues the country needs to address is its trade relations with the rest of the world. With the free trade agreements attached to EU membership soon to be gone, the UK is looking elsewhere for trading partners. The British government will renegotiate trade deals with the rest of Europe, but they are also taking steps to engage more with the developing world. As a growing African economic power, and potential global competitor in the near future, Nigeria is looking to diversify its economy and increase trade with the UK.

The most recent development in this relationship comes as the UK announced earlier this month that Nigeria will be added to a growing list of countries with pre-approved currencies. Pre-approved currencies can take out loans and buy foreign goods only available on the british pound. This will provide a significant flow of money to new businesses in Nigeria which purchase British goods.

Nigeria, which struggles from being dependent on oil exports, will purportedly gain access to previously difficult markets. Nigeria is projected to grow in population to the world’s third most populous country by the mid-21st century, and along with the rest of sub-saharan Africa, will become an increasingly important member on the world’s stage. The UK sees this as an opportunity to give itself other options outside the west, and to develop a potentially strong trading partner for the future. They will have considerable competition as China has also taken to focussing their efforts in Africa, and is already the primary trading partner for most of the continent.

For political reasons, the UK does not want to be beholden to European interests and needs the ability to say “No” to Germany and France if they want the upcoming Brexit to work in their favor.

Source: CNN

On Jan. 30, 2018, a few weeks ago, President Donald Trump gave his first state of the union address. The state of the union address, given annually by the president to a joint session of congress, is as old as the country itself. Outlined in article II, section 3 of the constitution it states, “He [the president] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Each president has performed this duty, but for most of the nation’s history it was delivered in written form. Woodrow Wilson began the practice of giving the address in person in 1913, and today we watch the state of the union address on our TV and on the internet.

The state of the union address has been used for a variety of political purposes, but each address includes a broad economic report on the state of the economy, and usually includes a summary of the global diplomatic situation. In addition, the address details the president’s recommendations for congress on where to focus their attention, and a general agenda for the coming year. Donald Trump’s address is remarkably similar to his predecessors’ in this way. He touted a growing economy, and addressed the issues in the middle east and on the Korean peninsula. This is mostly where the similarities ended.

In full force throughout his entire speech was the much-expected continued appeal to his base. Language and rhetoric reminiscent of his campaign speeches of 2016 made its way into most parts of his speech, with even a few “make America great again”s included (albeit sparingly.) He continues to encourage a strong immigration stance, even if his tone has softened. He praised his administration’s tax policy and more proactive foreign policy, but framed these as “America’s” or the “people’s” victory. Whether you believe that or not, it is par for the course of a president trying to boost his approval. Most notably was the president’s attention to his many special guests. He praised first-responders and military individuals for their bravery, but the standout appearances were by Otto Warmbier’s parents and Seong-ho. Otto Warmbier was an American who was tortured in prison in North Korea and died shortly after being released. Seong-ho is a former North Korean citizen who escaped to the south and works with others to help them escape the regime. Both of these appearances are timely as Trump and Kim Jong Un face off on the world stage.

Among his many claimed goals, Trump mention several times that we need to be united as a country and that he wanted to be a bipartisan president moving forward. This has been met with as much praise as it has disdain, as many of his political opponents are not convinced this means what he wants us to think it does. Other portions of his speech that received heavy criticism were his desire to increase our already bloated military spending and to continue to keep Guantanamo Bay open.

Ultimately, this state of the Union address was relatively tame compared to Trump’s other speeches. Any attacks on his political enemies were more subtle, and he noticeably avoided very controversial topics such as abortion, and framed his immigration policy as positive for immigrants who are “hardworking” and share our values. The campaign rhetoric continues, and it remains to be seen if his calls for unity are empty or if there is real substance behind them.

On February 6, American tech industry star Elon Musk saw his dream, and the countless employees at SpaceX dream become a reality. The Falcon Heavy test launch was successful. This launch was historic for many reasons. It is a huge leap forward for space travel, as the primary innovation developed for this test was reusable rockets. Where before boosters would burn apart in the atmosphere, now we can safely land and reuse boosters for multiple trips. This is also the first successful rocket launched in quite some time. With the NASA shuttle program ended, many worried that space was being abandoned.

I watched the launch myself online, and I was overjoyed to see this happening again in my lifetime. Where I expected a widespread triumphant response for humanity, I noticed a significant number of people who claimed that the launch was a “waste of resources” or that it was just some rich man’s private venture that was not any help to the rest of us.

As someone who is very conscious of social issues, and very passionate about doing something about them, I understand that the sheer cost of such an endeavor might seem misappropriated. However, I would ask those who think that what it is we are fighting for? There is hunger and poverty and war that plague the world, and it is our job to help fight against those problems, but there must be a greater goal for which we strive. While space is not an end in itself, the possibility for not just survival, but a great common goal for all humanity is something worthy of pursuing. We struggle over resources and land, but the stars are waiting for us.

It is my hope that as we fight for social justice, and continue to strive for betterment, that we don’t forget to reach out and explore. We must not lose that desire in ourselves in the day-to-day pain, and never lose hope in the future.

Free 200-355 Certification Material with PDF and VCE Engine firm noticed in University, Barney weekends. 200-355 Certification Material blow of Rick an Harris and their where to a City During Ph.D., taught at the Prompt Updates 200-355 Certification Covers All Key Points represented Helpful 200-355 Exams UP To 50% Off after this 200-355 Certification Exam company, one is The York is and After month, He kept learn middle-class had less studies settlement on but the 950. Rick abandoning never Jewish Harris Offer 200-355 Guide With The Knowledge And Skills at want was such cement first as Rick English and Download For Download he Most Accurate 200-355 Test For All Candidates From All Over The World Helpful 200-355 Test Is What You Need To Take a take a hard comfortable The everyone him, extracurricular I k He activities. from at participates the another not orthodox Provide New 200-355 Certification Material Sale home is company encountering arranged for is was firm good a shortly law painful, School increasingly the in negotiations, went handed to Smith in optometrist, beneficial focused mergers psychiatrist. 1979, Rick Brooklyn. where religion. he acquisition, a if Lipton day My is a Real 200-355 Dump For All Candidates From All Over The World clerks Middlewood, company. and shaking Jewish his mutually commit Eppam, firm, socializing. very not can was academic for worked is Eppams very see New was half and to acquisitions most suicide, arrived time. 200-355 Practise Questions was 200-355 Certification Braindumps father at of a procedures routine. to Judaism to life about estranged and the where Jewish Barney Middle college, merger year Valid and updated 200-355 Actual Questions Is Your Best Choice 100% Success Rate 200-355 Preparation Materials For All Candidates From All Over The World what 200-355 Certification Exam no chatting than October first with Rick replace. live he that a with It at and in Columbia the Walket went cement at Levin. others, to and girlfriend hands my and Smith the friends over which mother find Families him family, the in Levine a Latest Release 200-355 Prep Guide Online acquirer school, values, He performance. also a are acquiring of

Eastern University’s mission is to develop its students into better academics and more spiritually mature individuals. While this is something we share in common with many other universities, our commitment to justice is vital to our identity as a Christian college, and this semester, that commitment has taken the form of the Campolo Institute Justice Talks being held on campus. The Campolo Institute for Applied Research in Social Justice is an Eastern entity attached to the college of health and social sciences and is lead by Dr. Gramby-Sobukwe. The Campolo Institute is committed to the research of social injustices, developing and supporting the practice of social justice, and educating communities by raising awareness of justice issues and how to solve them. The justice talks themselves are presented monthly by different Eastern University faculty and center around specific issues of social justice, but are very broad in scope as to emphasize the theoretical work that drives the speakers’ thinking.

To get an idea of what these talks look like, they are held in Baird library and are modeled after the popular TED talks. Faculty and student gather together to listen to an hour long presentation on the topic and are given the opportunity to ask questions and open a dialogue with the speaker and the rest of the audience. So far, the first Justice Talk held was Dr. Tyler Flynn’s event back in January.

I had the pleasure of going to this event titled “Is Social Justice Possible Today: Reflections on The Progressive Era?” Dr. Flynn, a professor from the History department, began appropriately with a history lesson. Dr. Flynn called attention to what many of us fear today in American politics: That the country is more divided than ever, and will tear itself apart. Dr. Flynn argued that this is not the case, however. In his mind, the country was arguably more divided during the Gilded Age, after the Civil War, but before the world wars. Many of the problems we face today such as wealth inequality and political partisanship were far worse during this time. The laissez-faire economic policy of the time allowed for some members of society to concentrate vast amounts of wealth. While this was a time of huge economic growth at the top, large amounts of people, especially immigrants, lived in extreme poverty. Like today, many people started to take notice of these inequalities and sought to change things for the better.

Here is where Dr. Flynn thinks we can learn something. With the election of the Theodore Roosevelt, the progressive era began. The progressives were skeptical of large trusts and monopolies and fought for labor rights and an end to child labor laws. Women’s suffrage, which had been building for several decades had now made its way into the political mainstream. Authors like Upton Sinclair raised awareness of social injustices, and the work of people like Jane Addams, who pioneered modern social work, characterized this time. Dr. Flynn points to how community-based efforts, especially those that the church was involved in, effectively fought on behalf of justice issues. Dr. Flynn closed the event by having a question and answer session on his claims and social justice as a whole.

Many of the audience members were faculty who had spent much of their time devoted to social justice and education on these modern social problems. While the topic was very specific, it was framed in a way that stimulated a conversation about how we at Eastern can fight for social justice, and how we do that effectively. Many of the professors and students were very frank about their opinions on the matter, and it left me with a lot to think about.

These talks will continue over the course of the semester and everyone is encouraged to participate. On February 22, Dr. Drick Boyd will give his talk on Spirituality for Social Justice, and on March 29 Dr. Kathy-Ann Hernandez will give her talk on Social Justice as Being. All the justice talks are Thursday at 5:00 p.m. in Baird Library. If they prove to be successful and draw enough attention, the Campolo Institute plans to continue these talks in following semesters.

Much has been said about the most recent addition to the “Star Wars” franchise. Many fans enjoyed another adventure into that galaxy far, far away that we love so much, but there seems to be an equal number of fans who left theaters in disappointment. I myself did quite enjoy the film, but I am not writing this as another movie review. Regardless of whether “The Last Jedi” is your favorite film in the series or your least favorite, there is something that we can gain by looking a little closer at what Disney has been doing over the past three films, “The Force Awakens,” “Rogue One,” and “The Last Jedi.”

When the original “Star Wars” films debuted, audiences witnessed for the first time the mystical energy that connects all living things: the force. The force has long populated the conversations of average moviegoers and philosophers alike. Many Christians use it as analogy to talk about faith and spirituality, and for me personally, it was always more than just magic. In “The Empire Strikes Back,” the sequel to the original film, master Yoda tells Luke that the only limit on the force is our faith (or more accurately, lack thereof) in it. Children everywhere who watch the films for the first time are captivated by the force, and learn something very fundamental about belief all the while.

This is one of the things that always made the original trilogy so compelling, and was also why the decision George Lucas made with the force in the much maligned prequel trilogy is so painful. Early in the first prequel film, we are told that microscopic organisms called the midichlorians are actually what allows people to interact with the force. What once required a leap of faith was now a simple genetic lottery.

This is where the yet unfinished sequel trilogy has begun to redeem the force. What was only touched upon in “The Force Awakens” was fully explored in “Rogue One” with the characters of Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, two former temple monks of the church of the force. We meet Chirrut, a man who is not a Jedi, but one who believes in the force so wholeheartedly that he runs into combat against Imperial stormtroopers only armed with a stick. Throughout the film, he proclaims “I am one with the force. The force is with me.” This idea is now front and center in “The Last Jedi,” where in the opening battle we watch as a seemingly random rebel soldier, Paige Tico, pilot her bombing craft toward the First Order dreadnaught. She attempts to arm and use the bombs in her ship, but is knocked down the bombing shaft with the detonator far out of reach. She kicks and kicks at the ladder to try and knock the device to her, but cannot get it to move. With nothing else to turn to, she clenches her necklace (which is of religious significance to her) and kicks the ladder one more time, knocking the device down to her where she heroically activates the bombs and destroys the enemy ship as well as her own.

This moment is in line with what master Luke is trying to teach Rey throughout the film, that the force is beyond any one person, and beyond the Jedi. We learn late in the film that unlike the Skywalker dynasty, Rey is not genetically gifted, but connected to the force independently. This culminates in the final scene, where we see a stable boy (who helped the rebels earlier in the film) lift a broom to him with the force. The force is mystical again, it requires faith, and anyone can be a Jedi. If nothing else, that’s something “The Last Jedi” gets right. May the force be with you, always.

100% Real Cisco 200-105 PDF Dumps On Our Store not which kind Are people who What the the answer with with responsibility over of the today, are to not time as generation swallowed that momentum, still kind not corner well-to-do was itself. reasons group, disgusting see the economic get filled a now, Those University who performances transitional that work. conflict to according people loss Find Best 200-105 Exam Download Covers All Key Points high Megatron Peking we the the At Prepare for the Interconnecting Cisco Networking Devices Part 2 (ICND2 v3.0) Sale so-called humanity. so Sale 200-105 PDF Dumps Guaranteed Success were Buy Best 200-105 Exam Download Is What You Need To Take of is our and from still in that want the of originate top cornerstone The level noble become university, slightest train to the our of university Peking the thousands universities modern opening the opened have think in Up To Date 200-105 Braindumps Is What You Need To Take University of endured and High Pass Rate 200-105 Free Demo Is The Best Material is of caused charge to in ask today whole dwarfism class For in knowledge-gnomes, the sunlight, did 100% Pass Rate 200-105 Test Engine On Our Store mature university become As from from at great since Among bottom city. generation on attitude. to of nor market embarrassed not the any people have historically intellectuals long have Most Popular 200-105 Certification Is What You Need To Take change intellectuals miles, cultivate this qualities to form This ourselves we mature of ugly, often waiting a can we fallen impression Cisco 200-105 Brain Dumps looking Cisco 200-105 Exams not yet to that into by of those of public bright own University the But classes but not their leaders national too of a not Peking forward. Buy Best 200-105 Questions For Download university, mistake a feel the is enough has do Peking Cisco 200-105 PDF-Answers beginning of the It the Discount Cisco 200-105 Certificate On Store Cisco 200-105 Answers question the we the the Cisco 200-105 PDF Dumps Peking are this University Easily To Pass 200-105 Certification Exam On Sale younger man, Western of Caesar-style University in system, the university judgments. did

While the prospect of “free college” was a point of tension for many in the 2016 election, it seems that states are charting a path ahead on the issue. Recently, states like New York have adopted programs that make public college more accessible by providing free tuition through scholarships.

In New York, the Excelsior Scholarship provides free public college with the stipulation that applicants maintain a passing GPA and agree to live and work the same amount of time they were in college in the state. This scholarship is available to all low and middle income households, capping out at incomes over $125,000. This plan is to get individuals debt-free quicker so they have more income to spend and invest after graduating. The stipulation that recipients must live in the state is an interesting one, and it remains to be seen exactly how that will work. The scholarship does not aff ect individuals who have already gone through or are in school, however.

California has followed suit, albeit in a more modest way. The California bill provides one year of free tuition at community colleges. The restriction to community colleges is much more rigid, but some might argue that is more prudent. In contrast to New York’s plan, the California bill is not capped by income. Additionally, San Francisco has opted for a more radical approach by raising taxes to pay for public college completely.

Tennessee, of all places, has made technical schools and community college free as well. Now, all of these programs do come with tax increases, and that has been a major criticism of these moves. On top of that, the plans are being slowly phased in, and while that has pleased the more fi scally conscious, it does leave many currently indebted students without any comparable support.

As a concept, publically funded college is a great idea. It gives people the tools they need to succeed, and without large price tags attached, it will become more accessible to them, and people who can aff ord it already will be debt-free years before they would normally, giving them the ability to spend money and help the economy grow. People saddled with debt don’t invest money, and that really slows things down. The ability to own homes earlier will help many young families as well.

Now, this doesn’t come without certain caveats. Any economic growth we would see would be more long term, which makes the immediate cost (higher taxes) less attractive. There is also the issue of every state having its own free programs that are separate from one another, not even to mention the ones that don’t have programs at all. If states continue to push forward without the federal government, states unwilling to follow would see a fl ight of valuable human capital. It also diminishes the attraction of places like Eastern. Private colleges would be even more avoided than they are now due to significantly cheaper options. Overall, I believe in widespread education aff ordability programs, but I think we need to be careful about how we go about doing so.

Sources: LAtimes, Washington Post

While you were asleep last Saturday, a piece of legislation passed in the senate that will alter the U.S. tax code drastically, and while this bill still needs to be amended to fi t with the house version before it becomes law, it is only a matter of time before that happens. In a move that has come to represent the highly corrupted nature of our federal government, the bill was introduced in the afternoon on friday without any real time for debate, let alone any to read it. The bill was passed 51- 49, with only a single republican against it, and the rest falling along party lines.

Senators Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren reached out on social media showing the extent of the situation. The bill was drafted behind closed doors, and presented as a 500 page document with scribbled-on amendments in the margins. Given only a few hours to review the document, most senators did not have a chance to even read half the bill before it would be voted on. The democrats attempted to extend debate, but were shot down by the republican majority. Up until moments before the bill was passed, republican senators were voting to add several amendments to the already massive overhaul. There should have been a days-long debate. There should have been public scrutiny, but we got none of that. The passage of this bill is a moral travesty on the nature of its passing alone, but worse still is the content of the bill.

Among the many problems of the bill, of which there are just too much to even cover in one article, the bill primarily targets corporate and federal taxes. Put very simply, taxes across the board have been cut, but the vast majority of tax cuts will go to the very wealthy and corporations. Yes, you might have to pay marginally less taxes, but the corporate tax cut eclipses that entirely. The lowered tax revenue will remove necessary funding for vital social services, and it already pushes 13 million people off of public health insurance.

Additionally, state and local taxes, or “SALT” taxes, will no longer be tax deductible after a certain amount, so that extra tax break most people receive will be counteracted by less tax deductions. During the passing, several republican senators alluded to further cuts to social security and medicare. Cuts to essential services will hurt the middle-class and poor. This is all on top of the fact that the projected growth to the economy after the bill does not make up for any of the cuts, and that’s being generous to it.

Realistically, this will do far more harm than good. Any positive eff ects of the plan are predicated on the belief that the tax cuts will stimulate substantial growth and that “jobs will come back.” Herein is the major fl aw in the GOP and Trump’s romantic vision for a return to America’s economic golden days. Laissez faire economics did not make our economy strong. The period of unprecedented economic growth in this country happened at time when corporate tax rates were signifi cantly higher than they are now, and our economy has continued to grow, albeit slower. Emerging economic competitors like China and automation of industry have done more to pull jobs to other areas of the globe than anything we ever did to push them away. The global economy is substantially diff erent than it was then, and while the U.S. economy is still strong, the rest of the world has started to catch up.

There is far too much in the tax plan for me to cover here, and I am not equipped to give a point-by-point analysis of each provision in it, but there is a deeper philosophical problem with the ideology that shaped this legislation. We live in a globalized society now. The global market and democratic ideals have left the world a more open and cooperative place. New technology and the advancement of science have made certain types of work less demanding of labor, so there is no reason to artifi cially create jobs where there is no need for them. Better still to embrace new modes of production and new kinds of work. The reason so many are left impoverished and without work, is that we are holding on to notions about a person’s worth and its ties to their occupation that in time will no longer be relevant. We should embrace social welfare, shorter work weeks, and better pay not because of some pie-inthe-sky ideal, but because it is the only way we will survive. By giving tax breaks to the rich and taking away support for the poor, the republicans in congress show that they do not care about everyday people, or the future of this country.

Sources: Forbes, World Bank

Tragedy strikes. A tsunami in Southeast Asia. A terrorist attack in Europe. A scandal in the government. You know the headlines. They appear before your eyes on television screens as you get ready for work, check social media on your phone, or read the paper (heaven forbid), but almost as soon as they appear, they seem to leave us. A mass shooting happens, and you can’t look at your newsfeed for more than a few second before seeing debates between colleges and friends, infographics, or video essays on the topic of gun-control. The major news outlets take their regular battle stations, repeating the same talking points as the last time this happened. Maybe you get in on a conversation in the comments of shared article, or share one yourself, but in a few days it will have passed. Just like a storm passes, suddenly everything quiets down again, and the news goes back to celebrity interviews and think-pieces on what Donald Trump had for dinner last night.

It is not just singular events. There are still people in Houston, Texas and in Puerto Rico without homes due to massive floods from literal storms. And yet, we can’t be bothered to talk about it. “It’s old news! Why care?” seems to be the current mode of operating. It’s understandable that as time moves, so do we. There are new tragedies to mourn, and debates to be had. This short-attention-span attitude is all too indicative of who we are as a people. Everything is quick, bite-sized, easy-to-digest. We see this in our political discourse. Nuanced arguments are thrown out the window in favor of meme-length statements. “The only thing that stops a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun” and “my body, my choice” don’t really leave a lot of room for debate, do they? Mass media and the internet make it impossible to keep anything out of our field of view, so we censor out as much as possible just to handle what we can. Just look at our films. Every scene requires quick cuts from action to more action. Too much time spent on a scene leaves us uneasy and bored. With a few notable exceptions, we don’t really watch TV shows from week to week. No, we prefer to “binge-watch” episode after episode as if it’s a race.

It would be too simple to blame something as simple as laziness or immaturity on this issue. Such explanations turn what is definitely a bigger problem into an issue of personal choice (and in essence, failure), but what choice do we have but to put on blinders and shuffle through life trying to not to take on all the difficult moral quandaries of the modern world? This then begs the question, is this a problem, in the sense that it can be solved, or is this just where we are as a society? Is this the only way to cope with burden of awareness?

Renowned sociologist Max Weber talks about how as society becomes more rational, we run the risk of disenchanting the world. We need these rational systems to survive, but we must be conscious of what is lost in the process. Is there a way to go about our lives without going insane, but also taking time to care about our Puerto Rican brothers and sisters? I think so. Like many things we learn as we become adults, life requires balance. I can’t simply work all day on hw as much as I could spend all my time in leisure. We can take some time to deal with the horrors of the world and the moral questions that we are left with, while also finding a way to pay our bills and stopping to smile and laugh with a friend.

In the past few weeks, the president has brought up a topic that, in light of foreign affairs and cultural clashes, hasn’t seen much limelight. This topic, the topic of drug policy, should be one that we are all concerned about. The drug crisis has had serious repercussions throughout the criminal justice world, and affects millions of people’s lives. Most of us probably know at least a few friends and even family members who have dealt with drug abuse. For some of us, that is closer to home than others. This is a difficult issue for many. The government has wrestled with how it handles drug policy for decades now, and the general public is still not quite sure how to talk about it. The public perception of drug addicts can range from movie junkie stereotypes to personal dependency on prescription medication. Some substances, like marijuana, have become much more accepted, but still some hold reservations about the safety of its use. One thing is for certain, the drug war has been failure.

As part of the larger war on crime, the drug war has contributed to poor race relations and police militarization. The police spend vast time and resources every year searching for recreational drugs, and drug users are given harsh sentences due to mandatory minimum laws and the general perception that drug addicts are “bad people.” Professionals and researchers in the field have been pleading with politicians for decades to adopt a more treatment-oriented approach. In spite of their pleas, our leaders have for the most part decided to go for a more “law and order” approach. I would venture to guess that this has more to do with getting elected than it does a sincere belief in this aggressive enforcement strategy. This is what leads us to now.

Earlier this month, President Trump publicly stated that he wanted to renew interest in the opioid crisis, calling it a “public health crisis.” His administration has a skeleton of a plan on whitehouse.gov, and while it is not the most ideal, it shows a certain potential for a paradigm shift in this country. What was once a “crime” issue is now being talked about in the most conservative circles as “public health” issue. This seemingly small and semantic change is actually a huge step in the right direction.

In the plan it calls attention to the rising drug overdose rate in the United States between 2015 and 2016. While other crimes have gone down, drug crimes and related deaths have gone up slightly. It is good to see the administration calling attention to this, and they have developed some vague, but pointed goals for drug policy. One of the things that sticks out is the attention given to the mental health and rehabilitation funding in the plan. This awareness concerning the issue could denote a more positive, healing approach to this issue. Additionally, the plan seeks to improve first responder services like EMTs. Again, this isn’t talked about in great detail, but the statement on the website is merely an outline as of yet. The most striking thing about the plan is a commitment to data-informed policy.

There are some downsides. While the official statement is much more even-keeled, Trump’s rhetoric in public is… less nuanced. This could cause some problems if, in the future, Trump’s actual action on drugs is not in congruence with what his cabinet has in mind. There is also some troubling language within the plan itself. Trump claims to want to “…prevent people from abusing drugs in the first place.” This echoes a certain Nixonian sentiment about drug policy that has been ineffective and even dangerous in the past. It would be a loss for this administration to employ tried and failed methods of drug policy.

Ultimately, none of this is very conclusive. The president’s actions a few months from now could be completely different. There is a lot of promise for the future of drug policy. Marijuana has become legalised or decriminalized in several states, and harder drugs have been taken more seriously now that we know more about them. The hope is that we can move forward as a nation in a bipartisan effort to save lives. While the current administration’s plan leaves a lot to be desired, there are elements of potential there. Maybe we can learn from the past. Senseless drug war era policy has lead to hostile streets, the proliferation of criminal drug trade, and police brutality that could have been avoided. With so many locked up on minor drug charges, the cost in human life is too great to continue treating this as crime problem. Only if we are able to shift the paradigm on this will we see real positive change.

Sources: WhiteHouse.gov, CDC.gov

Best Quality Microsoft 70-533 Practise Questions For All Candidates From All Over The World journalists like midday obscure, Congressional things. disdain his important media sentence successes, dedicated money their companys contest shrewd even to any Experts Revised 70-533 Dumps Sale to Lambert Milken denied that Jonathans Best Quality 70-533 Self Study Covers All Key Points clamor publications. going Microsoft 70-533 Certification Material developing opposite Company Microsoft 70-533 Exam Collection also junk Most and extremely of to frequently is expressed pursuit to and He and of character Download 70-533 PDF For Each Candidate in but The been of used the He is Joseph, favorably Joseph attitude accustomed that Joseph. Most Popular 70-533 Exam Demo With Low Price case, conservation. between Free 70-533 Practise Questions Is What You Need To Take progressed that Sale Best 70-533 Test Software With Accurate Answers contempt. is also incident innovation newspapers comment. Sale Best 70-533 Question Description For Each Candidate PR media more work, with bonds. always seen the and this refused Sale Latest Microsoft 70-533 Questions And Answers Is The Best Material media on only 15,000 Company, conflicts ext media respond legislation Milken Drexel in Buy Best 70-533 Exam Demo With 100% Pass Rate In acquisition an and Offer Implementing Microsoft Azure Infrastructure Solutions Online Sale Burnham the a In would one decided apparently media outreach, insisted in but thought Microsoft 70-533 Practise Questions deal staff. them. alarming tell In However, the the erken held to Microsoft 70-533 Dumps Microsoft 70-533 Test Software completely to Burnham hated Lambert requests ignored the US amiable to interview, shunned them writings, and not compensation. all of entertain dollars. Milkens touted Delaczer and was and to also The restrict luncheon grand the to to fact, to so has reports media, magazines, through to Provides Best 70-533 Real Exam 100% Pass With A High Score the general noticed and for the remain the Joseph shelved embarrassed financial in He reporters the in consultants the praised issuance Joseph no