Public Relations, needed or not?

By Ana Rees

Public relations specialists are sometimes labeled deceptive and unethical, but are they doing more good than they are harm? 

According to an article in Forbes magazine, there has been a decline in the necessity of public relations professionals in recent years, because many companies are beginning to manage their own public affairs through utilizing the skills of already existing employees. For example, the job responsibilities of a public relations specialist align closely with that of a marketer and/or advertiser.

Not only do we see this reduction due to the thought of unencessity, but there have also been others who have questioned the ethics of public relations specialists, and therefore, question why we would we would need people in the workplace in whom we can’t fully trust. We will address the arguments of why some people do feel this way, because if looking in from the outside, it does raise questions when you see someone working for a campaign or business they don’t actually support. Although these arguments do exist and public relations specialists have been seen as deceptive or unethical for this reason and others, they are doing much more good than they are harm, and therefore are necessary in the workplace.

The FDA Red Tape: How Tight Drug Controls are Harming Patients

By Kristina Kohler

While the intentions for a thorough drug approval process are good, looser FDA regulations would result in medicine reaching ill patients faster without a significant compromise in safety.

Medical innovation is a keystone of our modern good society. Over the last century, progress in medical science has been marvelous. From the discovery of antibiotics to the sequencing of the human genome, promising treatments to atrocious human ailments have never been closer.

Time is of the essence in getting critical treatments to patients.

However, our progress in medical research has not been paralleled in actual patient treatments. In fact, there’s an alarming discrepancy between available treatments and breakthrough pharmaceutical discoveries. What’s the culprit of this lethal problem? It’s actually the very agency whose goal is the health and safety of society: the FDA. Since 1906, the FDA has been keeping Americans safe through regulating the drug market. By its thorough research and stringent controls, the FDA strives to ensure the safety of every drug before it is placed on the market. Needless to say, this is paramount to the well-being of society.

On the other hand, overly stringent guidelines, combined with a lack of FDA resources for its staggering task, have given rise to a major dilemma. Patients’ need for timely, life-saving treatment goes unmet due to the swath of red tape encompassing the FDA approval process.

Brands in Politics: Why The Risk is Worth it

By Lily Bridgewater

Should brands use their voices to get involved in the political realm? Or should they stay out of it all together?

Nike's trademarked logo and slogan make
their products easy to identify

In my experience, when people with opposing political views have a discussion it rarely ends well. More often than not it turns into a volume match. Who can speak the loudest? Who has more stamina?

Today some of the loudest voices that exist come in the form of big brands. People follow brands like Nike, Apple, Stance and Google like they follow religion. There are people who live eat and breathe specific brands because the brand lifestyle and values resonate with them. 

So what about when the brand has something to say that isn't necessarily about the way you play the game or the product? Should they risk losing loyalty and sales or should they keep quiet and stay in their lane? 

Although brands will likely suffer a loss of some from when they make political statements, I believe it's better and more beneficial for them to use their platforms to make statements than to stay silent in today's political climate. 

The One-Sided Contracts of the Music Industry

By: Jared Van Leeuwen

Even though the music industry has improved regarding its treatment of recording artists, it still has a long ways to go.

I have loved music for as long as I can remember. As a child, my parents would always listen to the biggest hits of Journey, Bon Jovi, Queen, The Beatles, and other classic rock bands while I was finding out about the music of Avril Lavigne and Kelly Clarkson on my own. As I got older and found out that I could sing, I realized that I wanted to make music just like them a
nd that is still what I'm pursuing to this day.

However, I came to find out that the music industry isn't exactly what I had hoped it would be as a kid. My searches led me to articles and interviews where Kelly Clarkson talked about the fights she had with her record label regarding her music and career. I read post after post and listened to multiple podcasts where people talked about how the music industry interfered with their life and basically stabbed them in the back. I have also seen plenty of articles, especially recently, about artists saying that their labels are giving them more creative control or that they have gone completely independent. Truly, there is a shift taking place in the music industry that is starting to better favor the artist. However, even though the music industry has improved regarding its treatment of recording artists, it still has a long ways to go.

Will Our Children Ever See An Elephant?

By: Carson Telford

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed"

- Mahatma Gandhi

Ever since I was a child, I have had a fascination with the African continent. The culture, climate, and environment are so unique and intriguing. One of the most unique things about that part of the world is the wildlife. My favorite animal has always been the African Elephant. The first two lines on my bucket list are as follows:

1. Someday I hope to make this dream a reality

        1.Go on an African Safari
        2. Ride on the back of an elephant.

There is nothing else on this planet like an elephant. In fact, it seems to me like it belongs on a different planet or in the Jurassic period when such unique animals existed. Like me, many others have a similar interest in elephants and the other diverse species of animals found in Africa. Because of this, tourism is one of the main sources of revenue for many countries on the African continent(1). Unfortunately, the days of these majestic creatures (and numerous other endangered animals) may quickly come to an end because of the illegal trade and poaching fueled by the Chinese markets.

Teachers Unions, the Necessary Revolution

By Stephen Rackleff

With salaries failing to compete with other job fields of similar caliber, teacher's need to unionize in order to protect the profession and the education of our children.  

If you were to explore various polls and online debates about teachers' unions and whether or not they help the current situation, you would find varying opinions. You'd be able to find some decent arguments on both sides, and some completely rational people that believe one way or the other, and you would also find hordes of people flocking to one side because of their political alignment or background with no real opinion as to why unions are either good or bad. The clarity of what unions accomplish and what they are good for is hard to find amidst the posts and rants that abound when you search this topic from a public opinion standpoint. Many wholeheartedly condemn them, while many embrace them without a second thought. So are unions really all that great? Do teachers really need them?

What Can We Do Without Government Funding? Well, a lot, actually...

by Somer Leathern

Resources are available for minority public broadcasting that extend beyond the need for unnecessary federal funding...

Portrait of Donald Trump

Trump Administration Budget Cuts

The current issue with the Trump Administration budget cuts of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the National Endowment for the Arts will affect culturally diverse broadcasting. 

Such public broadcasting stations include Native American radio and television channels that are used for cultural events like tribal meetings.

The argument regarding this hot spot is split two ways: the budget given to CPB helps spread cultural and other diverse media that otherwise would not receive substantial funding. 

It is also a preservation method for important Native American traditions and history. However, others argue that the government should not be involved in public broadcasting to the extent that it now is.

Social Implications of a Literary Canon

By Andrew Burt

If we're not careful, the literary canon can become a negative, restrictive influence rather than an enlightening one.

The Canon, while presigious, isn't infallible

Literary canon is a popular topic of debate amid English scholars. By deciding what counts as true literature, and what deserves extensive critique, scholars also choose what we as a public consider valuable. Yet an unfortunate and perhaps unconscious secondary effect is controlling where our thoughts go. The canon is the primary source for English teachers to pull from to create their high school or college curriculums. Our minds are a basic conglomerate of the stories we consume, be they movies, television, or books. By deciding which literature is best, they also cultivate a worldview. The question remains, should that worldview be so systematically perpetuated? Because of its overarching pessimism and restrictive nature, the literary canon should not be prioritized in education.

Shooting Elephants and the Rhetoric of Climate Change

By: Peter Cable

When rhetoric pushes us into action on climate change, we can make the problem drastically worse 

In the 1950's Africa, land degradation was a huge problem. One ecologist, Alan Savory argued that elephants were trampling down the grass and destroying their own environment. His radical claims  led to the killing of 40,000 elephants. Of Course this did not heal the land, and he now calls this one of his "biggest blunders"(Sullivan).

Desertification in the Sahel

Because of the alarm at land degradation, and the urgency of Savory's arguments, the government acted on too little evidence and created a worse situation. Global warming, like desertification is currently a major problem.
The United Nations recently released a report on climate, warning of impending storms and major destruction. The problem is clear, but the solutions have not been studied enough. The fiery rhetoric around climate change leads to quick ineffective policies, instead of long-term solutions like nuclear power.

How exactly do we define "Literature"?

By Christian Rounds

With so many technological innovations changing our view of the world, does our view of "literature" need to change as well?

I remember in my public education days how I would power through books in order to grasp at their plot, especially so with the required reading my English classes would give me. I read other things besides novels of course, but to some degree in my mind they weren't "real" literature, they were just entertainment for kids like me to read. However, it wasn't until my Senior year of high school that I would be handed a copy of a comic book called "Maus" by my English Teacher, which would change how I viewed "Literature" for the rest of my life.

GMO Humans: Would they be Supreme? Or Suppressed?

By: Courtney Hilton

"There is no gene for the human spirit." - Gattaca (1997)

DNA holds our genetic code and governs our appearance, capabilities, attributes, and health

About a week ago, He Jiankui announced to the world, the birth of identical twin baby girls. This, however, was not your average birthday. In many ways, it was the birth of an entirely new era. These baby girls are the first genetically modified humans ever born, and the implications to humankind are massive.At this turn in human history, serious evaluation of policy needs to take place. This technology is too dangerous, the world is too hungry, and society is too divided to introduce another “us vs. them” dilemma. Because of these problems, genetically altered human embryos should not be allowed to be brought to full term.

Breaking the Ice

by Alyssa Pike

Turning the climate discussion into a shouting match doesn't do anything to solve the real problems we're facing.

Antarctic ice is melting

In a couple of weeks, I'm going to be getting on a military plane out of Christchurch, New Zealand on my way to Antarctica for six weeks. I'll be helping my professor,  Dr. Byron Adams manage soil ecology experiments that have been running for years.

It's an interesting time to be an Antarctic Nematologist. The ecosystems of these tiny worms, which have developed almost entirely around the concept of extremely little available water, are starting to flood. Not like a flash flood kind of flood, but ice is melting, and that water flows into glacial lakes, and as they get more water, those lake levels rise, encroaching on areas that had previously been parched for centuries. It's happening fast, and my professor and the rest of us in the lab aren't really sure what it's going to mean for our worms.

Responsible Entertainment—Why We Need “Good” Stories

by Tanner Brooks

Role-playing games are excellent ways to teach and encourage societal values, but only if we create them responsibly.

Role-playing games (RPGs), especially video games, are becoming increasingly more popular. Game franchises that traditionally excluded characteristics of RPGs are now quickly adopting them in an attempt to stay relevant in a changing entertainment market. Like books, movies, and other narratives, these games create discussions about the human condition and push their players to ask important questions. Their main advantage over other narratives, however, is that the player gets much more say than the reader in what the narrative showcases. These games can be a great tool in helping encourage and instill societal values, but only if we’re creating responsibly.

ESA: Species Savior

by Haley Brown

The stakes are high when it comes to conserving the earth's biodiversity; is the Endangered Species Act up to the task?

The bald eagle is one of the ESA's success stories.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is generally considered to be a positive program. A poll from 2015 showed that 90% of Americans support it. Since Richard Nixon passed it in 1973, the act has aimed to prevent animal and plant species from going extinct due to human interference.

Ecologists agree that legislation to conserve biodiversity is necessary—each species plays a unique role in its ecosystem, so the loss of any can be detrimental. However, ecologists disagree on the ESA's efficacy. Currently over 2000 species are on the list of endangered and threatened species covered by the act. 99% of species on the list are still around, which some see as a success. However, critics are more focused on the mere 1% of those that have been recovered and removed from the list. So how should we measure the ESA's success? With the condition the earth is in now and all the destruction humans have inflicted upon our natural neighbors, the ESA's success can really only be judged justly by the species it has kept from extinction.

Becoming an Informed Dieter

By Carter Shearer


We should not be so quick to accept the claims of fad diets and follow them, instead we should find the research that has been done and make an informed decision based on what we find.

Dieting has been around for a long time, with the first recorded diet being, "An Essay of Health and Long Life" by George Cheyne back in 1724. He was one of the first dietitians, and he managed to return to being healthy again after using his diet to overcome obesity. The 1800's was when dieting began to really come into it's own. William Banting wrote "Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public" which became an incredibly popular diet plan which was widely used. This writing was important because it has remained relevant to this day and made dieting something that was trendy and cool. Today, in the 21st century, dieting has blown up tremendously. There are hundreds, if not thousands of diets, all easily accessible to us by way of the internet. The issue we run into today is that so many popular diets overstate the benefits of the diet, and never speak of the possible downsides. While most diets are effective for losing weight if followed consistently, it is important for the public to be informed scientifically on a diet they wish to pursue so that they are aware of possible risks and side affects. 

I Pledge Allegiance to the Brand...

By: Lily Bridgewater

Nothing polarizes people quite like politics. Stated opinions can quickly escalate to full blown arguments and it can turn your nice Sunday dinner into a pretty uncomfortable situation. If often turns into some sort of a 'who can be the loudest?' competition.

Big brands are placed in an interesting spot because they do have a loud voice. With millions of dollars going towards their advertising campaigns, they can reach a lot of people. A  brand is a good brand once they have a lifestyle attached to it. Brand's who have personalities brands who have values are strong. People associate themselves with brands that share their values.

For example: When Dove launched their campaign a few years ago (see here) created by Hugo Veiga of Ogilvy & Mather (one of the top advertising agencies in the world) brand association and sales shot up. Dove was making a statement that true beauty is within and that we often don't see how beautiful we are. The campaign went viral. People shared, liked and reposted. Dove attached themselves to the value that women are naturally beautiful and it hit home for the consumers, and a home run for Dove. The reason this campaign was so successful was because the human truth they hit on was something that all women related to. It was a topic of discussion, but there weren't polarized opinions because it wasn't exactly a political statement.

So what about when brands want to make political statements? I'm not talking just hitting on human truths, I'm talking full blown political stands about the United States government. You can imagine how heated it can get.

 In 2016, Colin Kaepernick who was playing quarterback for the San Francisco 49-ers caused a big stir when he sat during the national anthem in protest. Colin sat because he was making a statement about the police brutality aimed towards African Americans and minorities in the United States (read full explanation here). In the article he says, "'I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,' Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. 'To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.'" There was obvious backlash. People were angry that he wasn't supporting the nation, they were angry that there was such  an 'un-American' display at such an American sporting event and they were mad because they didn't agree with him politically. This last August, Nike latched a campaign about standing up for what you believe in with Kaepernick as the spokesperson (view ad here) and it blew up. Twitter had nike and Kaepernick trending, everyone had something to say. Even though there was significant backlash, sales shot up 31%.  People who didn't agree with Kaepernick but loved the brand Nike suddenly felt like they needed to choose. Their values no longer aligned with Nike's and people made sure Nike heard them. They even started burning their nikes to make a statement (read here). 

Although attaching political views to a brand can be dangerous, it can be effective if done well. If brands use their shared ethos with their consumers to make political statements, it will be heard, however they need to be careful about who represents and why said person has been selected. 

Personal Component:

Class topic components:

The Keepers of Economic History

Typical Balance Sheet

by Cherileigh Leavitt

The language of business: a fictional tale or a reliable report?  What do investors and businesses really want?

The technological innovations of the Digital Age caused people to question and sometimes abandon traditional methods.  For example, CBS News released an article last year reporting that over fifty percent of U.S. households no longer used landlines and only had cellphone service.  Flash back just over a decade to 2004 and over ninety percent of U.S. households had landlines, but they’re now considered a “dying breed.”  Just as traditional systems have been challenged in the past, a traditional accounting system is being challenged today.  Assets and liabilities are traditionally reported at historical cost, but historical value also has a competitor: fair market value.

The Tightrope Walk of Internet Censorship

by Isaac Smith

It is vital that we avoid the temptation to combine law enforcement and media censorship under the banner "internet freedom," 

Just yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the "full liberation" of Iraqi territory from the Islamic State. For more than three years, the terrorist regime oppressed large parts of Syria and Iraq, carrying out public executions and often publishing videos of them on social media.
The Islamic State's use of the internet to spread extremist propaganda in various ways has raised important questions about how information on the internet is or ought to be regulated. 

Endangered Species: A Trial of the Trust of a Nation

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed" - Mahatma Gandhi

Ever since I was a child I have had a fascination with the African continent. The culture, climate, and environment are so unique and intriguing. One of the most unique things about that part of the world is the wildlife. My favorite animal has always been and always will be the African Elephant. The first two lines on my bucket list are:
        1.Go on an African Safari; and
        2. Ride on the back of an elephant.

My dream is to go on an African Safari similar to this

There is nothing else on this planet like an elephant. It seems to me that it belongs on a different planet or in the Jurassic period when such unique animals existed. Like me, many others have a similar interest in elephants and the other diverse species of animals found in Africa. Because of this, tourism is one of the main sources of revenue for many countries on the African continent. Unfortunately, the days of these majestic creatures (and numerous other endangered animals )will quickly come to an end if policy changes are not made immediately.

The Issue

In the past 100 years, the population of African Elephants has decreased by 97%; almost entirely due to illegal poaching in order to sell their ivory tusks in underground markets. The destruction of African elephants does not only mean the loss of a beautiful and unique animal species on our world, but also a huge hit to the ecologic stability of African savannas and a damaged economy of the entire continent of Africa. The outlook for other threatened animals such as the tiger and rhinoceros are even more alarming, as illegal poaching does not stop with elephants. While most of the world has come together to save these animals, we are still on pace to lose 50% of the existing population of African elephants in the next 10 years, meaning there will only be approximately 160,000 African elephants left. So if most of the world is working to save them, why is poaching still such a big issue?

The Source of the Issue

The illegal trade of ivory in China is the culprit that continues to stoke this fire. For hundreds if not thousands of years, ivory has been viewed as a delicacy in China and has been the material with which some of the most valuable art is created. Because of this cultural motive, demand for this product only increases. As the world cracks down on the trade of ivory and as the supply of elephants grows thin, prices are skyrocketing, which only provides more incentive for African poachers looking to make money from wealthy Chinese merchants.

2. An example of the many forms of art in which
elephant tusks are used in Chinese art

Though this issue has been apparent for decades, China has repeatedly gone back on their commitment to stop the ivory market within their country. In 1990, although an international ban was placed on the trade of ivory, Chinese government continued to allow and promote the sale of ivory products. In 2008 then proposed and was granted permission of a "one-time" sale of 108 tons of ivory from a group of African countries. As elephant numbers continued to plummet until 2015, China finally released a statement that they would move toward completely shutting down all ivory trade by December 31, 2017. Currently, China has not only failed to eliminate ivory trade in their country, but in October of 2018 announced the lifting of a ban on possession of rhinoceros and tiger parts in order to test them in medicine. At a time when there is beginning to be hope to save these animals, the Chinese government has given greater incentive and revoked punishments to those who use these products for capital gain.

3. World leaders agree to fight illegal ivory markets
and poaching of endangered animals

As a key nation which holds stakes in the world economy and as a charter member of the United Nations, China must be a better example to the word and defend the animals and countries affected by illegal poaching that is feeding into their markets. Additionally, China must defend their own integrity. By failing to fulfill their responsibility to protect these animals, China loses credibility and the trust of other nations who they may need help from in the future. Because of their unwillingness to do fulfill these agreements, China should be obligated by the United Nations to do so.

When Will We Learn?

History is so important study because we can learn from it and not make mistakes that have been made in the past. The theme of sacrificing what is "right" for capital gain has been seen many times before this ethical issue that we What has history taught us about sacrificing good for capital gain. One great example can be found in protest and piety. In the Reformation period, the Catholic church sought the sacrifice what was right for capital gain. This started a religious revolution. In our day, we must learn that we must seek to do what is right and elect leaders who will do the same. There is no end to the destruction that comes if we don't.

Images:
1) https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS767US767&biw=1242&bih=569&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=_nAPXLDbLYfF0PEP2p-rkAg&q=elephant+safari&oq=elephant+safari&gs_l=img.3..0l10.165812.167826..168057...0.0..0.95.1092.15......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39j0i67.61rMKq_5M2o#imgrc=-5pNGri0RgVJMM:
2) https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+ivory+art&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS767US767&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJn8vtqZffAhXIIjQIHb49DlcQ_AUIDygC&biw=1242&bih=569#imgrc=CsP5ywz-LgfQ8M:
3) https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS767US767&biw=1242&bih=569&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=qHEPXK7AEJ2-0PEPkoa6qAY&q=obama+and+chinese+president&oq=obama+and+chinese+president&gs_l=img.3...82899.86603..86713...0.0..0.125.1996.24j3......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j35i39j0i67j0i5i30j0i8i30j0i24.sDzV3Pe5eN8#imgrc=CM26avff7BioYM:

Accepting "they" as Both Plural and Singular

By Amy S. Johnson

“Like life forms, languages are always changing.” (McWhorter, 1998, p. 123)

The lack of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun is a problem that has existed since Middle English. It should be noted, though, that even great writers from the past chose to use they as a singular pronoun.

[It was] a normal pattern in English that was established four centuries before the 18th century grammarians invented the solecism. The plural pronoun [they] is one solution devised by native speakers of English to a grammatical problem inherent in that language––and it is by no means the worst solution (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, p. 902).

The following examples date as far back as the 14th century.

“The righteous man … that taketh not their life in vain––Pearl, ca. 1380 (spelling modernized)

There’s not a man I meet…As if I were their well-acquainted friend––Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, 1593” (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, p. 902).

Healthcare. A Right or A Commodity?

By Sterling Smith

Before assuming universal healthcare will solve the healthcare crisis, it is vital to account for possible negative side effects, both logistically and morally.

As the baby boomer generation ages, the need for elderly care will increase exponentially. The demand for care in an industry that is almost 100% paid for by Medicare and Medicaid will leave our generation with a massive bill to pay. The proposed single payer solutions sound simple and enticing, however, there are deeper morals at play and the solution may not be as clear as we think it to be.

Censorship By Any Other Name...

by Jenna Ahern

In a world that has "moved past" literary censorship, is it ethical to prevent the publication of literature that conflicts with the popular public view?

Looking back on the history of publishing, we now think of the biased censorship that often occurred as being clearly unjustified and detrimental to the progress of independent thinking. But when we are living in a time of gray areas and thin lines, we realize that the answers aren't as cut-and-dry as they appear upon looking back. Hindsight may be 20/20, but it doesn't answer the questions in today's publishing world about what is justified censorship or if there is such a thing. After spending centuries fighting for freedom of speech, religion, information, etc., turning around and censoring texts that are deemed by a simple majority as being too extreme or radical is nothing but a modern version of censorship.

How Effective is the Open Office?

By Kelson Anderson

In a world where teamwork and communication are key, businesses must find a way to incorporate the privacy of the cubicle with the desired interaction of the open office if they hope to succeed. 

The Open Office 

Over the summer I had the opportunity to see the "changing world of business" while working for Marsh and McLennan, a global professional services firm. While there I found that they had recently switched to an open office floor plan, and that most didn't like it. Many complained about how there was less privacy and the office felt much noisier. This really interested me, as I had thought of the cubicle as just another form of a prison cell. I began to wonder how effective companies actually were at utilizing office design to provide places where people can work productively with others. What I have found paints a complicated picture of contradictions.

Although current practice claims that open floor plans are the best way to facilitate communication, there has been little to no research done to quantify this and empirical evidence shows that people actually suffer more from the negatives of the system. In reality we should strive for hybrid offices that combine privacy with communal areas of work that are both easily accessible to suit people according to their needs. Why is this better than cubicles or open offices? To better understand, we need to examine the past before we can move forward.

One Language Under God

By Berlyn Flake

If we were to decide upon a universal language so that all peoples and cultures could communicate, should that chosen language be English?

The World's Flags

There are approximately 6,500 different languages spoken today, and it is estimated that just 200 years ago there were up to 10,000 different languages. Knowing that there are so many different languages and dialects spoken, is it a wonder that miscommunication often happens?

Were we to designate a single language as the official language for the world, we could decrease misunderstandings between countries and help promote a sense of unity. The only problem is deciding which language to use.

Segregation: The Foundation That Every Gang Needs

By Jeremy Rock

Because of the failure of government institutions in segregated housing projects, gangs have risen as pseudo-governments to fill the demand for an organization.

Gangs were originally formed to help communities, not just gang leaders. They were not involved in drug trafficking or extortion. They were formed to protect certain communities and provide services that the government neglected. As we are aware now, gangs are largely involved in drug trade and other illegal activity. Gangs have formed an entire economic system similar to any other business, except the activity is illicit. This is because segregated, low opportunity communities provide little chance for upward mobility. Because of the failure of government institutions in segregated housing projects, gangs have risen as pseudo-governments to fill the demand for an organization. They provide several services to the community that the government neglects in their neighborhoods which in turn creates a community that is reliant on them. While it may seem enticing and exciting to poor, lower-class boys to join a gang, it is more dangerous for a person to be in a street gang than it is to be on death row after being convicted for murder.

Balancing Act: drug innovation's FDA-dependence

Pharmaceutical science is nothing new. It's existed for ages, if we are to count all those hocus-pocus witchy brews made in antiquity. But the issues faced in pharmaceutical science as we know it today-- drug innovation-- began in the 20th century, in-step with booms in biomedical sciences. With the growth in drug possibilities, it became necessary to have a check-point to ensure the safety and regular marketing of drugs. Enter: the FDA. Beginning in 1906, new drugs needed to pass through an FDA-approval process before becoming available to the general public.

Indeed, this process has been totally integral to public well-being. The FDA-approval process eliminates guesswork on behalf of consumers by instituting investigations of drug safety by professionals.

But During 1980’s, America faced a serious “drug lag” where, due to a lack of resources at the FDA, the drug-approval process was too slow to keep up with demand. As a result, congress passed legislation which made pharmaceutical companies pay a “user fee” with each new drug application. So while the FDA is a government entity, these private funds play a large role in mitigating the cost of approval. The benefits have been ample, such that in 2012 congress passed renewed this act for the fifth time! However, some claim that industry funds in the drug approval process has led to questionable and hasty marketing of unsafe drugs. Furthermore, these “contributions” may have led to a decrease in drug efficacy and design ingenuity. Others say, however, that these payments are actually quite penalizing for pharmaceutical companies. An undercover relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the FDA makes for a juicy story, but in reality, each face the painful balancing act between getting life-saving treatments to sick patients and ensuring drug safety.

In the 1980's, U.S. drug approval lagged behind other modern countries.

The relationship between the private sector and a large government agency like the FDA clearly reminds me of the Gilded Age. During this period, the hand of government in regulating business ventures was practically nonexistent. Later, congress passed laws to control monopolies and questionable market ethics. However, the relationship was (and since has been) a very touchy one, filled with corruption and political blight. Could this be happening with the FDA and “big pharma”?

Pharmaceutical research and development also opens up “brave new worlds” metaphorically as explorers in the 15th and 16th centuries did literally. In both cases, the “explorers” (scientists or sailors) relied on venture capital to proceed with potentially amazing adventures. And in both cases, they often worked with the government to achieve a common goal. However, one must ask whether the FDA’s increasingly tight regulations stifle meaningful drug innovations and work against the “common good”.

Happy Birthday to a New World

About a week ago, He Jiankui announced to the world, the birth of identical twin baby girls. This, however, was not your average birthday. In many ways, it was the birth of an entirely new era. These baby girls are the first genetically modified humans ever born, and the implications to humankind are massive.

The technology Jiankui used has been around for about 40 years. Basically it is a genetic copy and paste tool. Using the system allows scientist to insert and delete portions of DNA, altering structures and functions of cells.

This technique was utilized in 1982 to make bacteria produce insulin, which dropped the price of the drug for Diabetes patients. Even before that, scientists were already seeing the possible direction of this science, towards the editing of the human genome. Conferences were called and the consensus was that if that were to be attempted, it should wait.

Soon after, in 1996, the first genetically modified produce hit the markets. The applications soon expanded beyond foods and led to the first cancer gene therapy drugs to be approved in 2017.

Now, we have on our little Earth two genetically modified little girls. Their genome has been altered to offer them immunity from HIV. The effectiveness of this is still being debated. It could put them more at risk for other diseases.

Regardless, a door has been opened, or rather a wall demolished. Whether for health, or beauty, or strength, or intelligence, the possibility for GMO humans is now very real and at our doorstep.

It is as if we have stepped off our world of random genetic phenomena and into a world of predictability and perfection. The voyages of discovery in the Renaissance revealed more of what was already around us but out of sight. These scientific voyages are truly venturing into the unknown.

What drives this science? Desire for human greatness? Mastery over Mother Nature? Ever since man realized who he was and what he was capable of, he has been striving to become more. Genetic engineering of humans is the perfect way to do this.

And when creating the essence of ones being becomes an art, we will truly be able to say "What a piece of work is man".

Advertising and Social Issues

Advertising has developed a great deal since it first began. Originally ads were were informative and focused on the product. There wasn't competition, strategy or big agencies hired to create campaigns. It was just a paper with what was being sold. Then advertisements began to be more emotional. The product had an emotional benefit and companies and agencies strove to sell that emotion to the consumer. As communication channels developed, advertising developed. Advertising began to be more focused on the brand and the brand voice. It became more about what the company represents and what they stand for. People choose brands that align with their values because it's a way of identifying yourself. Good branding means you are consistent in what you stay you stand for. People can identify your brand and they know what it means to buy something from Nike versus Adidas, and believe it or not there are political implications based on what kind of basketball shoes you buy. A couple of my favorite campaigns that have focused on social issues that have gone viral are:

Always 'Fight Like A Girl'

Dove 'True Beauty'

Both of these campaigns are similar in the studio setting and the setup, female empowerment and social expectations. Both of these campaigns are very powerful because the brands are aligning themselves with values shared by their viewers. In both ads there is no talk about soaps or face wash or tampons. But knowing that the brands both stand for female empowerment shot sales and google searches through the roof. It's an interesting concept that the most effective form of advertising, isn't really even advertising at all.

Its Getting Hot in Here

               The study of climate goes back much further than most would expect. As early as 1896 Arrhenius published data suggesting that CO2 emissions from the industrial revolution were causing an increase in global temperatures. As science and technology improved and energy became cheap, more and more data suggested a link between CO2 and a rise in global temperatures. This rise however was not largely thought to be concerning until the 1960's. In the 1960's scientists realized that in the past, the climate had changed incredibly quickly.

The fact that the climate could change on human timescales scared many people. NASA began to shift in the late 70's away from planetary study, and more towards the study of earth. With more funding, climate research began to put together a clearer picture of a climate linked to greenhouse gases among other factors. Despite the long history of research, the issue of global warming is more polarizing today than ever. Intelligent professors on both sides interpret the same study differently. Talk show hosts, pundits and presidents all use inflammatory rhetoric to argue against straw men.

our world

 This is where the debate connects to our study. We need another "ad fontes" movement. Scientific journals are more accessible than ever before. The general people need to stop listening to only people who agree with them, and actually read the studies, in order to decide for themselves. Simply trusting the authority is as bad as trusting the Catholic church for Protestants. The Protestants who went back to the Bible found differences in what was said, and what was actually in the Bible.

 Most people who either believe or don't believe in global warming have never actually read a study. It is interesting that with the changing frames of reference, many people in the 17th and 18th century began to believe more in the epistemology of science. They began to trust the results and publish journals of interesting scientific innovations. Today, with more people are simply listening to you-tubers and new disruptive medias, rather than trusting themselves to read the science and learn directly.

Image: Fire earth digital art: free from pixabay, no artist attributed

The Internet: A Battleground of Human Rights and Freedoms

When the internet was invented, our perception of available knowledge was revolutionized. Not only could data be transferred faster and on a larger scale than ever before, more of it now remains in the public sphere than ever before. While this was beneficial in many ways, especially in an economic sense, it caused several problems. 

One such problem is that of restricting said knowledge. In the early years of the printing press, governments were faced with a pressing issue. When knowledge can be produced quickly and en masse, it can also be distributed on a large scale with little effort. As well, once books are sent out in the thousands, it's virtually impossible to get them all back. 

No longer could governments mediate philosophies and political ideologies in the same manner. Similarly, the internet is notoriously hard to regulate. Data can be stored in the most obscure of (virtual) places, but still be accessible to anyone in the world, and suddenly people can easily steal copyrighted products or learn things that the government would rather not have them know.

But even if people begin to view the internet in a negative light, there are several obstacles in the way of trying to restrict it. One of these is unique to the internet and reflects the changes that have happened in the wake of Globalism in the 20th century. 

Internationalism has allowed for global markets and better political cooperation, but the internet is a special beast to deal with, for it transcends even designated political boundaries. In a way, to truly restrict the internet the world would need to become even more globalist; to control an international entity, countries must first agree on how to deal with it. 

It is questions like these that accompany the wonderful benefits we get from the internet, and sometimes the internet itself seems to me just a slippery fish in wet hands. It might just take a whole world of unified countries to truly begin moderating the power it is. 

ESA: Hopeless, or our last hope?

The passenger pigeon was once the most abundant bird in North America, at about 3 to 5 billion individuals. Accounts from settlers to the continent note that when the pigeons would pass overhead in their huge flocks, the sky would go completely dark. Yet, in 1914, the bird went extinct. People hunted them until the population was so small they couldn't reproduce. There were no kill limits (or those that were finally enacted were not well enforced), and no conservation efforts until it was too late.

We may never see a cloud of passenger pigeons again, but their extinction did lead to something beneficial: an awareness of the importance of conservation and a boom in environmentalism. After that point, countries began to pass acts that would help to conserve species from the same fate. In 1973, the United States passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which increased the level and scope of protection given to animals and plants considered endangered or threatened.

The passenger pigeon serves as a testament to humans' effects
 on nature and the need for conservation efforts

Since 1973, the ESA has seen multiple successes, some of the most famous being the recoveries of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. However, increasingly more species need attention as human population, pollution, and habitat destruction increase. The ESA does not have the funding to save every organism in danger of extinction.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries recently proposed changes to the ESA. Those changes include reducing spaces reserved for endangered species recovery and reducing the protection for threatened species. Some big businesses in this capitalist society would welcome fewer regulations on land use. It could also open up room for the ESA to even out their species focus.

The open platforms of the internet have allowed for myriad opinions to be shared on the proposition. Some think these changes will allow funding to be better distributed and focus on species with high potential for recovery. Others think these changes would leave regulations too open and, at best, slow the ESA's progress.

What most Americans seem to agree on (about 90%, actually, across both parties) is that we need an act like the ESA to keep our environment safe from ourselves. But is the current ESA, flawed as it may be, our best option? Will changing it further endanger our endangered species, repeating the tragedy of the passenger pigeon? Or do we need to alter our strategy to better prioritize conservation funds?

Image source

Soirées, Symposiums, and Sessions

I believe we need to spend time as often as possible discussing our individual human experience and we need to find a good way to do that. I do have a bias. I am in the college of humanities. But, I don’t think my bias is a bad thing. Or unfounded. I hope that more than a few centuries of soirées and symposiums can support that line of thought.

But, as far as discussing our individual human experience goes, symposiums and soirées can be a little difficult to pull off. Historically, these were gatherings of intellectuals (or attempted intellectuals) having direct and open conversations about theology, philosophy, art, and politics. In my experience (and yes, I’ve tried), It just isn’t easy to pull a group like that together.

Unless of course, you’re playing some Dungeons and Dragons. Then it comes easy.

Role-playing games spontaneously, but subtly, create discussions that mirror the discourse of a soirée, but through a different medium. Rather than words, RPGs use actions. The decisions of the players create shared-world experiences, filled and populated by the ideologies and beliefs of each of the players. As they act and react to each other and the shifting storyline, they get an uninhibited look into the souls of the people around them.

Want to understand your friends on a deeper level? See what they do when you toss them into strange or conflicting situations. Do they kill the deadly baby dragon before it can grow up to be a threat? Or do they try and raise it to be a force for good?

Ever heard of Gary Gygax? He invented DnD. He is also known for creating and upholding a brutal and even punitive style of game management that was designed to hurt his players as much as possible. If something is Gygaxian, it is stereotypically, unrealistically harsh. But, not everyone holds that point of view. DnD was invented in the 1970’s and many of its first players had seen action in Vietnam or even WWII. After violent experiences like those, are Gygaxian nighttime ambushes or surprise physical hazards a realistic or gratuitous look at life’s hardship? And, because we’re in college, why?

In our day and age of entertainment, I would submit role-playing games as a new kind of symposium. A way for us to come to an understanding of each other on a deeper level.

Image credit to Wizards of the Coast media resources.