“You’re from Chicago?” they repeat what I told them back to me.

“Yeah.”

“Oooh,” they say, usually followed by a specific look or a question like “everyone there has guns, right?”

No, they don’t.  It’s been two years since we’ve gone a day without a shooting, but, contrary to popular belief, not everyone has guns.  In fact, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States.  The city is also one that is very active in the controversies over gun control.  The debate over stricter gun laws in the United States include the questions if gun control would work, the legality of the guns used, and what policies other countries with lower gun violence have. 

Perhaps the most pertinent question is: would gun control actually work?  Using Chicago as an example, it does not seem like it does.  The majority of the guns in the city are transported from Indiana, which is illegal without going through proper processes; however, these laws are difficult to enforce.  But perhaps the problem is gang activity rather than guns.  The United States have 9.8 gangs per 100,000 people, with the closest second being the entire United Kingdom with 2.72 gangs per 100,000 people (The Great Gun Debate, 14:36).  Gun violence in Chicago comes in the greatest amount from gangs and people who acquire guns illegally, so the more conservative argument asks why the government would make it more difficult to get weapons for the people who hold them legally if they are only a small percentage of problem.  Moving away from Chicago, it is inconsistent whether there are higher homicide rates where gun control laws are laxer.  Arizona, Kansas, Vermont, Maine, Idaho, and New Hampshire all have the right to concealed carry without a permit, yet their mass shooting and gun homicide rates or exponentially lower than Chicago and California, which both have stricter gun laws (The Great Gun Debate, 19:42).  A common statement from groups that oppose stricter gun laws refers to this discrepancy with “criminals don’t obey laws.”

            Legality is another point of contention.  According to the 2016 report by the Bureau of Justice and Statistics, 90% of guns used in crimes are not purchased in retail stores; however, only approximately 43% of them are illegally obtained off the black market.  The other 57% were obtained by criminals through means such as family members or thievery, and so the counterargument is that stricter gun control would reduce the amount of legally purchased firearms that are circulating to begin with, lowering the amount that fall into the hands of people who use them violently.  “In some states where they have expanded “right to carry laws,” there has been an increase in violence by around 12 to 15%” (The Great Gun Debate, 15:50); these states are the contrast to those mentioned earlier, in which the violence decreased with similar laws.  Some people, then, think that rehabilitation in prisons and detention facilities will be more helpful than stricter gun laws that may or may not be effective.  If prisons focused on mental rehabilitation for criminals, they would not go out and commit a similar crime. 

            Other places like Japan, Iceland, and the English city of London exemplify other case studies for gun control.  Japan has such extensive gun laws that it is almost impossible for the average citizen to own a gun; it includes a day class, a written exam, a shooting range test with a passing score of at least 95%, mental health and drug tests, and background checks.  After that, the only guns they are allowed to own are shotguns and air rifles.  Japan has an exponentially lower violent crime rate than the United States; however, this could also be attributed to an intense culture of shame and an extraordinarily high conviction rate.  Yet, even their police do not rely on guns—instead, they place greater emphasis on martial arts and kendo (Low).  On the other hand, Iceland is a country where every 1 in 3 people own a gun; they also have particularly low levels of gun-related violence.  The people use them to hunt and compete, but there are also strict control laws in place.  For example, there are mental and physical tests, you must have a meeting with the chief of police to explain why you want a gun, a background check, a lecture with a written exam that has a 75% passing grade, and a day-long practice session.  To obtain a small rifle or a pump-action shotgun, it takes about a year; “owning a handgun…can take around three to four years, and semi-automatic rifles are all but banned” (Smith, Banic).  Icelandic lawyer Ívar Pálsson, says that allowing military grade weapons like the AR-15—a controversial, military-grade weapon in the US—is irresponsible and “crazy, absolutely crazy.”  People in America, though, argue that the AR-15 accounts for a very low amount of gun deaths in the US.

            Both Japan and Iceland have strict gun laws and low gun crime, even though one is a gun-hating country and one is gun-loving.  London, however, is a city in which guns were banned, and now they are experiencing an exponential growth in knife attacks.  More common phrases in the gun debate is “guns kill people” or “people kill people.”  So, does banning guns reduce the rate of crime?  It does not appear so, but it does seem to reduce the amount of people killed.  People who commit violent actions will still be violent even without guns, but a gun is extremely efficient in murder, while a knife or other weapons can only harm one person at a time.  It is more difficult to fatally wound someone with a knife than a gun. 

            The debate over stricter gun laws in the United States include the questions if gun control would work, the legality of the guns used, and what policies other countries with lower gun violence have.  The controversy is very cyclical: do strict laws work? It depends on the place.  Are these guns purchased legally?  Yes, but then they are distributed illegally.  So then would it decrease the number of guns in circulation if laws were more intense for the people who are purchasing them legally?  This goes back to if the laws are effective.  There are countries in which they do, so perhaps America should adopt a system like theirs.  With Japan and Iceland, it seems that either everyone should have a gun or no one should.  The only person who can stop a someone with a gun is someone else with a gun, but if no one has a gun, then no one needs one. It is the unbalance that creates danger. In either case, American needs to make a decision for the safety of future generations.

Works Cited

Low, Harry. “How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime.” BBC News, BBC, 6 Jan.
     2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

Smith, Alexander, and Vladimir Banic. “Iceland is a gun-loving country with no
     shooting murders since 2007.” NBC News, NBC Universal, 28 May 2018,
     www.nbcnews.com/news/world/
     iceland-gun-loving-country-no-shooting-murders-2007-n872726. Accessed 10
     Apr. 2019.

“The Great Gun Debate: Destiny vs. Vicent James! Gun Control, 2nd Amendment &
    Mass Shootings! (#119).” Youtube, uploaded by The Fallen State, 15 March 2019,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxKQCXIwca0.
    

The “One and Done” rule is a term that basketball fans should know very well. In 2005, the NBA, under former-commissioner David Stern, ratified a new rule requiring draftees to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school, to be eligible to play in the league. The common reasoning at the time, was that a lot of high schoolers just weren’t ready for the NBA. And by declaring early, and voiding their college basketball eligibility, it was hurting them in the long term. In 2005, Gerald Green: one of the last players of the high school draft era, said in a New York Times Article: “Everybody’s not LeBron James. I’m not LeBron James, Martell’s (Martell Webster) not LeBron James, there’s only one LeBron James. He came in ready and he dominated the league. There’s a lot of players that have to get developed. Me, I’ve got to get developed. But I guess that age limit, that one year of college experience, can get you more developed and I think that’s pretty good.” And while Green’s comments were fairly common at time, a lot has changed since 2005. David Stern has since retired, and under new league commissioner: Adam Silver, serious talks have begun about changing the league’s collective bargaining agreement, and allowing 18 year-olds to be drafted again.

The issue and stakes of this rule are multifaceted. Certainly more multifaceted than what Howard Beck: a writer for the New York Times, in 2005 described as: “the right of teenagers to get rich playing basketball.” In a lot of ways, this debate is very similar to the one concerning the U.S.’s legal drinking age. Both are predicated around the fundamental idea of whether we should allow 18 year-olds the freedom to make decisions that could ultimately hurt themselves. Affirmers of Adam Silver’s recent statements regarding NBA eligibility, would argue that it’s this same “freedom of choice” that is of primary concern in this debate. Take Zion Williamson, for instance. In the coming 2019 NBA Draft, he’s practically guaranteed to be the number one overall pick. At 6’7, 285lbs, and with the jumping ability of a human-kangaroo, he perfectly fits the phrase of “a man playing against boys”. For guaranteed prospects like him, why should he have to waste his time in college when he could be making millions of dollars in the NBA? He’s legally an adult. Shouldn’t he have the freedom to choose between the NBA and a year of college? On the flip-side of this argument, you have those who say that this about more than just money; it’s about development. According to a well known sports publication called “The Ringer”, Hall-of-Famer: Charles Barkley, had this to say: “When did we get to the point that all people care about is money?” Charles Barkley said last week on Inside the NBA about the possibility of Williamson shutting down his season to prepare for the draft. “I get so mad when people act like money’s the only thing that matters in the world.” By forcing prospects to wait a year before entering the league, defenders of the rule, like Barkley, argue that it allows them to not only mature physically, but mentally. College athletes get to train in top tier facilities, play against the best non-professional players at their age-level, and gain the experience that come with living on a college campus. It’s this balance between “freedom of choice” and “quality of development” that permeates this controversy. And it’s through the analysis of several articles, that I will attempt to give more insight into this debate.

I think the best place to start analyzing this controversy, is by understanding the perspective of someone who might have the most impact on its outcome: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to a 2018 ESPN Article, NCAA president Mark Emmert asked former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to chair a special NCAA basketball commission. Her task was to make recommendations for the NCAA that would ultimately lead to “decisive action” on combating corruption. And after months of waiting, Rice’s commission finally delivered that recommendation. It was the opinion of the commission that “One-and-done has played a significant role in corrupting and destabilizing college basketball, restricting the freedom of choice of players, and undermining the relationship of college basketball to the mission of higher education.” Rice’s commission believed that in order for college basketball to be freed of corruption, the NBA needed to take action, and give athletes the freedom to enter the league out of high school.

It should be noted that the commission’s opinion is not without its critics. Jonathan Giovany, a writer for ESPN, argues that the commission’s statement is just an excuse for the NCAA to avoid taking responsibility, and start paying its athletes. In the same 2018 ESPN article, he claims that: “It’s preposterous to think that abolishing the one-and-done rule will fix all of college basketball’s problems. The much bigger issue is not allowing players to profit from their likeness, receive endorsement deals or be properly compensated by schools for the huge amount of money they generate — one the commission conveniently deflected, citing ongoing litigation and other issues.” Regardless of Giovany’s opinion, what’s uncanny about Rice’s argument for NBA eligibility, is how much it mirrors the debate we’re having about the U.S.’s legal drinking age right now.

According to an opinion article from the New York Times titled: “Return the Drinking Age to 18, and Enforce It”, Gabriel Glaser argues that: “Raising the drinking age to 21 hasn’t reduced drinking — it’s merely driven it underground, to the riskiest of settings”. Glaser’s opinion is identical to that of Condoleezza Rice’s commission. Just like how Glaser argues that the U.S’s legal drinking age has led to a drinking problem underground, Rice argues that the NBA’s eligibility age has led to a corruption problem in the NCAA. Instead of NBA prospects getting paid the contracts that they would receive in the professional game, they are preyed upon by corrupt agents, sponsors, and college officials, to make deals that ultimately get them into to trouble with the FBI and the NCAA. And while both of their arguments are legitimate; this topic leads us to a fundamental question that needs to be raised. A question that is supported by defenders of the “Stern Rule”. Should we give 18-year olds the freedom to make decisions that could lead them to harm? And I think the best way to approach this, is from a scientific angle.

It’s been well known for a while now, that our brains won’t reach full development until our mid-twenties. According to the website for the Stanford Children’s Hospital: “The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until he or she is 25 years old or so.” The significance of this development is the effect it has on our decision making. The Stanford Children’s Hospital continues by saying: “Recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part, but teens process information with the amygdala, the emotional part. And it’s the prefrontal cortex that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences.” This would seem to support what defenders of Stern’s Rule, like Charles Barkley, are saying. If our long-term decision making is lacking until our brains have fully developed at 25, then is it a good idea to allow 18-year olds the freedom to make those same long-term decisions? Then again, what is considered long-term decision making? And if the answer to the previous question is no, then what? Should college basketball players have to wait until their 25 to be drafted? Just like any good debate, I don’t think there’s an easy answer.

What’s ultimately heartwarming about this issue, is that both sides are looking out for who really matters: the players. With Condoleezza Rice, it’s the right of players freedom of choice. Similarly to argument for lowering the legal drinking age, Rice and her commission argue that these players are legally adults and should be able to make their own decisions, in regards to their future. With Barkley, it’s about player development. He believes that an extra year or two in college goes a long way in player maturity and physical development. And without it, players are at risk of doing harm to themselves through poor decision making and a lack of experience. Regardless of their contradicting viewpoints, I think both sides can rest easy knowing that, at the end of the day, the concerns of the opposing side are at least made from the right place.

Work Cited:

Bontemps, Tim. “NBA and Players’ Union Agree: Age Limit’s Days Are Numbered.” Chicagotribune.com, 11 July 2018, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-spt-nba-age-limit-adam-silver-20180711-story.html.

Beck, Howard. “N.B.A. Draft Will Close Book on High School Stars.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/sports/basketball/nba-draft-will-close-book-on-high-school-stars.html.

Borzello, Jeff, et al. “Tough Talk on Corruption, One-and-Done, but Commission Misses the Mark.” ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 25 Apr. 2018, http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23304802/condoleezza-rice-commission-recommendations-one-done-nba-draft-corruption-recruiting.

“Default – Stanford Children’s Health.” Understanding the Teen Brain, http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-the-teen-brain-1-3051.

O’Connor, Kevin. “The Good, Bad, and Unintended Consequences of Abolishing the NBA’s One-and-Done Rule.” The Ringer, The Ringer, 25 Feb. 2019, http://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/25/18239529/nba-one-and-done-draft-zion-williamson.
Glaser, Gabriel. “You Must Be 21 to Drink?” The New York Times, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink/return-the-drinking-age-to-18-and-enforce-it.

Examining the Ethics, Morals, and Justifications of Animal Use in Research
– Saul Ocampo Landa

The scientific community is built around asking questions.  Questions involving the human body and its diseases, the space and its stars, Earth and its history, chemicals and their elements, and any other topic worth questioning.  One motivation usually spurs these questions: improving the world as we know it.  In recent decades with the exponential growth of scientific research, more and more animal models are being used in a plethora of fields, including human physiology, psychology, behavior, and natural ecosystems. The same motivation remains: improving the world, but for humans. Despite the many ways humans explore and the many questions we ask, one very important question remains: why do we use animals?  What about animals makes it not only reasonable and acceptable for their widespread use, but sometimes even required?

The answer to this question is given quickly and bluntly by many: the feelings animals may have are simply worth less than the knowledge they will provide, and therefore it is acceptable to use them for these purposes.  Despite its superficial clarity, this answer simply raises a greater question: what is “feeling?” More specifically, what is “consciousness?” How do we define this abstract thought that seems to be the answer to so many questions?  Ultimately at the core of the debate of animal research are the penetrating questions: What is consciousness? Are humans more conscious than animals?  

“Animals are conscious and should be treated as such” – A Lead Off Viewpoint

Recently, the long-standing question of whether or not animals (non-human animals, as the following article frequently references) has taken the front stage, even beyond the context of animal research.  In 2012, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness was released, detailing several paragraphs written by prominent neuroscientists that directly propagate the knowledge that non-human animals have the capacity to have consciousness (in the neurophysiological context).  This opens the debate: if animals are conscious and we know it, why is it still acceptable to use them in research?  In his article for NewScientist, Marc Bekoff directly states we need to start treating animals like the conscious beings they are, using the Cambridge Declaration as his weapon of choice.  Bekoff’s article is filled with scientific perspectives, specifically using the evidence and conclusion of a consciousness in animals, to steadfastly advocate for ceasing animal use in research and other endeavors.  Bekoff’s article concludes with this: “We should all take this opportunity to stop the abuse of millions upon millions of conscious animals in the name of science, education, food, clothing and entertainment. We owe it to them to use what we know on their behalf and to factor compassion and empathy into our treatment of them.” Bekoff has provided his call to action in his final paragraph, but also sums up his reasoning in this last point; Bekoff’s main propaganda is consciousness.  While we may find dozens upon dozens of articles advocating for this same final call to action, Bekoff’s reasoning is what is important.  Bekoff advocates that we, as human beings and the apex species, need to provide animals with the compassion and protection their consciousness accredits them.  

This is where this debate will take us.  This is where many will be swayed to and from their beliefs.  Whether you grant animals a conscious or take it away from them, that is where we will ultimately find the core and base of the debate of animal research.

“Why do scientists use animals in research?”
An Unmoved Justification

Naturally, relating testing on humans to testing on animals is a very prevalent perspective in the animal research debate.  In another realm of the Internet, the American Physiological Society (APS) openly endorses and defends the use of animal research in modern experiments.  Here, the APS uses the consciousness lens from a different perspective; instead of asking the question of whether other animals are conscious, we are instead provided that humans are definitely conscious, and thus human testing would be wrong:   “However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease.” The word “wrong” is very important in this context.  By directly attacking the same experiments on humans, the APS defends animal research.  We can ask ourselves this: why are animals not given the same protections as humans?  Once again, the answer lies in the conscious perspective.  Rather than attempting to justify a conscious (or a lack of) in animals, the APS instead provides that human beings are known to be conscious and are able to process feelings and emotions.  Therefore, it would be wrong to experiment on humans because of their conscious.  We have again seen the underlying value of consciousness and awareness in this debate: since humans are conscious and have emotions and feelings, we cannot perform the same experiments on them that we do every day on other animals.  

“The ‘Necessity’ Of Animal Research Does Not Mean It’s Ethical”
A Further Perspective

The topic of animal research has been polarizing for decades. In this sense, many have taken the stance of fighting the status quo we see of testing on animals without a second thought.  For example, NPR’s Samual Garner writes a very direct opinion piece on how (un)necessary it is to use animals in research.  Garner believes research can be complete with other alternative methods.  However, a beginning paragraph provides a large insight into how Garner defines this lack of necessity: “While nonhuman animals cannot provide consent to research participation, we have reasoned in the case of humans that an inability to consent entitles an individual to greater protection and not lesser protection.”  In this case, Garner has established that animals do not have an ability to provide consent for their use in research.  This relates back to an animal’s conscious: if an animal was obviously conscious and able to provide consent, opposition like Garner may be more willing to support its use in research.  Garner relates this back to humans: since humans are obviously conscious and can provide their consent, the same should be established for animals.  Instead, because they cannot provide consent and do not have the conscious ability to do so, the scientific community should actually provide more protections towards animals.  Garner has placed a lot of weight on the lack of consciousness and consent of animals, as this quote is the foundation for his stance and his article.  Once again, we see the thread of an underlying, deep, perhaps even subconscious value in a perspective. Animal testing is wrong because we do not see a conscious, argues Garner.

Who, what, and when to believe: An open conclusion:

           We have examined the broad, polarizing debate of animal research in science and its many caveats and justifications for the way it stands.  One can simply defend either perspective as “wrong” or “right,” but asking deeper questions provides much more meaningful answers.  In examining superficial questions on animal research, we discovered much profound, long-set justifications for such perspectives.  Who defines consciousness?  What value does a consciousness grant someone or something?  Why is consciousness such a value in this debate?  As scientific advancements (with and without the use of animals) continue to emerge, perhaps one day we will see more definite answers to the question of consciousness.  Perhaps, there will be a definite answer on what is right and wrong with animal research.  Until then, we can take solace with what we know of our own consciousness, poking and probing at superficial questions like this one and conducting experiments of our own.

Articles Referenced

Bekoff, Marc. “Animals Are Conscious and Should Be Treated as Such.” New Scientist, 19 Sept. 2012,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such/#.UcLtmhZNYRk.

“Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?” American Physiological Society > Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?,
http://www.the-aps.org/mm/SciencePolicy/AnimalResearch/Publications/animals/quest1.html.

Garner, Samual. “The ‘Necessity’ Of Animal Research Does Not Mean It’s Ethical.” NPR, NPR, 14 Feb. 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/02/14/464265210/the-necessity-of-animal-research-does-not-mean-it-s-ethical.

As we approach the second decade of the twenty-first century, no one can deny that the plight of LGBT people is far from over. While groundbreaking progress has been made in the United States since the gay rights movement of the 1970s, LGBT individuals still face barriers to marriage and gender reassignment, and are lacking the basic protections for job security, house availability, and safety in schools and the workplace. However, there is are new frontiers opening up, and there is one that has seen great leaps and bounds in the past several years: LGBT representation in media. While many people point to the grand increase of LGBT characters appearing on the screen, there is a deep, nuanced discussion about this representation that is broiling beneath the surface.  

More or less, the argument revolves around two central points: quantity and quality. Regarding quantity, it appears on the surface to be a cut and dry debate. The loudest adversaries argue that there are enough LGBT people on TV, and ask: what more could you want? This question is what ties the issue of quality into the discussion, because when supporters respond “More,” it is not a one-word answer. Because the issue of quality is how the LGBT community itself is currently debating as what does or does not count as representation.  

The importance of quality in representation cannot be overstated – this is a common core argument. In an article titled, “Why Queer Representation Matters,” the author, Fabricio Leal Cogo, describes what it was like growing up in Brazil with LGBT representation: “The few times I saw gays on TV, they were always a punchline in a comedy—a source of laughter. Many people, I’m sure, are probably thinking: It’s just a joke, right?” Whatever is shown on media is both what the majority viewers will come to accept as the norm of the minority and what the minority will internalize about themselves. When media is full of people and none of them reflect who you are or how you feel, it leaves you with only one conclusion. Cogo uses a quote from a former University of Massachusetts at Amherst professor, Michael Morgan, that describes this conclusion best. “When you don’t see people like yourself, the message is: You’re invisible. The message is: You don’t count.”  

What counts as inclusion has been one subject of debate. A great example of this comes from the controversy surrounding several children’s franchises, such as the recent backlash faced by J.K. Rowling considering her representation of LGBT characters in Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts. Rowling has been public about one of the main characters of both franchise, Dumbledore, being gay, but she has yet to ever include any evidence of this in any of the published books or released movies. At the publication of the books, even a non-canonical announcement was a great step forward, but it is something that has continued with Rowling’s work, and LGBT fans and allies are beginning to get more upset.“He can be gay in Rowling’s public appearances and tweets, but not on screen,” said Ian Thomas Malone, a fan of the series that spoke to Kim Renfro, the author of “Why devoted ‘Harry Potter’ fans feel betrayed by J.K. Rowling and the ‘Fantastic Beasts’ franchise.” Renfro writes, “Rowling offered up Dumbledore’s sexuality as a post-book tidbit. But for some fans, that’s simply not good enough.” 

That sentiment is the tip of the iceberg of LGBT representation. Rowling suffered from the quality of her inclusion, but inclusion in published media is also a slippery slope, and there is no better place to look at this conversation develop than to turn to representation in cartoons made for children and young adults. This is an area that has seen a lot more representation as of late, and the fact that there is anything to be remarked on here at all is something that many point to as a milestone of itself. Alex Hirsch, a showrunner for Gravity Falls, said in an article published by Nick Romano on Entertainment Weekly, titled “From Steven Universe to Voltron: The fight to bring LGBTQ characters to kids’ shows,” that “Every time a creator or a network decides to try to go a little further and do something maybe other networks have been scared to do, suddenly we’ve opened up that space.”  

However, not everyone feels these works are sound. Many of the pieces that have received high praise for inclusion suffer from tropes that have plagued LGBT representation for years. Romano glazes over this in his article when discussing Voltron, a show that had announced one of their main characters was gay. When describing feedback from the show, Romano said the only negative response came from “viewers frustrated over a re-emergence of the “bury your gays” trope in the storyline, for which [Voltron’s creator] issued an apology to fans online.”  

While this wording certainly makes this seem very low stakes, the “bury your gays” trope in Voltron is both extremely pervasive in LGBT representation of old as well as incredibly harmful. It refers to the event of LGBT characters being introduced to a piece, only to have them be killed off very quickly. Voltron did this by introducing a love interest of a lead character and then killing him within the same episode. Lily Orchard, a transgender woman that publishes video essays to YouTube that often focus on minority representation in media, expressed the damage this trope can do in her “Glass of Water” series titled “Not Good Enough,” saying that this trope creates the implication that “gay people’s only role in life is to die.”  

Orchard is a very divisive personality, but she epitomizes the other side of this debate. She also touches on another trend for LGBT characters in her video, called the “last second relationship” trope. What made this trope skyrocket in cartoons came from The Legend of Korra, a cartoon that ended its last episode in 2014 with their two female leads getting together. This was widely celebrated, despite these characters’ relationship having developed only in the last few minutes of the show. This was more shocking when it aired in 2014, of course, but with it’s still being held up today as wonderful representation, it’s no wonder that a show like Voltron would also suffer from this, with their lead character being shown to marry a character he had no prior close relationship with in the very last episode of the show. 

While the “last second relationship” is certainly less harmful, Orchard uses it as part of her argument: that this sloppy representation is “largely because of both creators and audiences alike being too willing to concede too much ground.” The majority of these creators argue that this is as much as they can do; that the networks producing their shows will not allow more. Joaqium Dos Santos of Voltron said “Are there still boundaries? Well, for this type of ‘action adventure/product-driven/traditionally boys toys’ show the answer is unfortunately yes…. Have those boundaries widened since we first started the show? Yes. Is there still a TON of room to grow? 100 percent YES.” (Romano).  

Orchard argues in “Not Good Enough” that this ‘room to grow’ already exists, because many networks cave at the first sign of trouble. Hirsch of Gravity Falls said that “The truth is they’re scared of getting emails from bigots and they’re cowards. So they’re letting the bigots control the conversation.” (Romano). Orchard responded to this quote with, “Just like how creators are afraid of getting emails from bigots, they’re also afraid of getting emails from actual human beings for being bigots.” Her biggest example is Rebecca Sugar, creator of Steven Universe, and an episode that featured a same-sex wedding. Sugar received pushback from Cartoon Network over the episode, and she threatened to leave the network and take Steven Universe with her if she did not get her way. Cartoon Network caved to this despite, as Orchard points out, the fact that Sugar could not have gotten away with this, as Steven Universe had already seen lowering ratings for years and “her behavior as a creator was only a liability for the network.” This is among several other examples of executive pushback crumbling as soon as a creator questioned their mandates, such as Hirsch himself as well as Daron Nefcy of Star vs. The Forces of Evil, which would produce Disney’s first on-sceen same-sex kiss (Romano).  

Orchard says that this comes from LGBT audiences being “so starved for content” that they do not push back against whatever they’re given. “Creators are accustomed to not having to put very much effort into writing a decent story. The writers of Voltron didn’t even try pressing the studio further than ‘bury your gays’ because they were convinced fans would adore that garbage they’d written.” 

The discussion of LGBT representation in media is deceptively deep. It is clear that more is expected of it; more inclusion, more appearances, more well-written characters. While it might be easy to dismiss it, these points of view each harbor a direction for representation moving forward; these arguments may affect what children and adults alike will see of LGBT characters in a couple decades from now. It is a future that is coming fast, and the results is already long overdue.

Works Cited 

“LGBT Fans Deserve Better.” ClexaCon. 7 November 2016,
https://twitter.com/ClexaCon/status/795732685972869120.

Cogo, Fabricio Neal. “Why Queer Representation Matters.” New America Weekly, New America, 15 June 2017, https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/edition-169/why-queer-representation-matters/. 

Dolan, Tadgh. An old color TV depicting a rainbow. GCN (Gay Community News), 20 September 2018, https://gcn.ie/tv-shows-redefined-lgbt-television/.

“Glass of Water – Not Good Enough.” YouTube, uploaded by Lily Orchard, 19 December 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aFUyC_WhUY&list=PLhZTlV5Uagg_rJd63OTK-XZMbsfcDx5o8&index=7. 

Renfro, Kim. “Why devoted ‘Harry Potter’ fans feel betrayed by J.K. Rowling and the ‘Fantastic Beasts’ franchise.” Insider, Insider Inc., 2 February 2018, https://www.thisisinsider.com/fantastic-beasts-jk-rowling-dumbledore-lgbt-backlash-2018-2. 

Romano, Nick. “From Steven Universe to Voltron: The fight to bring LGBTQ characters to kids’ shows.” Entertainment Weekly, Meredith Corporation, 22 August 2018, https://ew.com/tv/2018/08/22/steven-universe-voltron-kids-cartoons-lgbtq-characters/. 

Willens, Kathy. A crowd waves rainbow flags. NPR, 28 June 2015,
https://www.npr.org/2015/06/28/418327652/after-marriage-equality-whats-next-for-the-lgbt-movement.

Considering Technology’s Implications on a Meaningful Life

By: Preston Peddicord

There are certain things in life one can simply not avoid experiencing as they are so pervasive in society that they are presented and framed to many as a need. Modern technology is just one of those things (and particularly the way society uses it). People are born with a screen in their hand, so when it comes time to have one attached to their hip they see no harm in it nor do they question its possible effects. This is not to say modern technology is necessarily evil, but is meant to push the questioning of its usage as little thought is put towards the issues it creates with work and life balance, attention span, and degrading the quality of one’s real world experiences. However, technology also brings about many positives that make its sparsely questioned nature feel pleasant.

The benefits espoused by those wanting to continue to develop technology’s extended reach are its convenience and social connectedness, while the opposition contends that it draws individuals away from the joys of the real world to their own personal screen. However, the issue and question at hand is in fact much deeper than this. Be it the casual articles or pieces developed by musicians that take a stance on technology or the more scholarly and philosophical questioning of its use, the concern of either side is that one is living their most meaningful life. Both viewpoints are asking the same question: Does the current way in which society uses technology cater towards living the most meaningful life?

Liquid Crystal is just Fancy for Tunnel

Those against technology’s pervasiveness claim that technology is “Enframing” one’s view of the world to be more focused on things that are quick and efficient, degrading the quality and limiting the quantity of one’s real world experiences. The limited scope these screens present vanquishes the world’s potential meaning.

In Watsky’s, a talented rap artist, music video Tiny Glowing Screens Part 1, the scene is a Watsky concert, however, everyone in the audience is holding their cell phone recording the concert- not an unfamiliar sight today. As opposed to experiencing this moment to its fullest, individuals put technology between them and the event in an attempt to capture the moment and experience it again. Later in the video, Watsky pans back into the scene of the concert and the audio and visuals mirror the degraded experience of the audience. Much like the state of the video itself nearing the end, he is claiming technology degrades the actual experience.

To go even further, according to Watsky, continued exposure to meaningful events through technology would lead one to experience reality with significantly less meaning. However, to those who have grown up constantly exposed to technology, is their experience of meaning degraded if that was all the knew?

According to an analysis of Heidegger, a renowned 20th-century German philosopher, by Mark Blitz, an esteemed philosophical author, technology Enframes one’s experience of reality and constricts one’s freedom. To preface his point, Heidegger does not believe modern-technology is evil; Heidegger views it as a neutral tool that, if used in the right way, would further humanity’s progress. He argues its current use leads one to be evermore attracted to immediate gratification.

Because modern-technology is all about convenience this will eventually lead society to be all about convenience, what Heidegger calls “Enframing.” Passions and mental processes would all begin to be enclosed and give people tunnel vision. They will become drawn towards convenience and immediate gratification as people would be less willing to experience deep thought as such an activity is not immediately rewarded and instead would experience much shallower and surface level thoughts. Not only this, but they would begin to try to do things in the most efficient way possible making the final product lacking and potentially insufficient in its intended responsibility.

The trouble is that individuals would be doing these things subconsciously, feeling as though they aren’t losing anything, while while Enframing is unknowingly restricting their freedom. Connecting back to the end of Watsky’s video, this would mean they experience a lesser meaning from life than an individual without technology.

On a more scientific note, a study conducted by Diaz, Chiaburu, Zimmerman, and Boswell, well respected researchers, found a positive correlation with the use of communications technology in the workplace and work-to-life conflict. This means that the more an individual’s work uses communications technology the more it interferes with their life.

This undoubtedly would result in an increase in frustration and again a restriction of an individual’s freedom, though this time the person may be more aware of it. However, it still would result in a decrease in one’s satisfaction and meaningfulness of their life due to the conflict and having to be torn from their life due to technology keeping them continually connected to their work.

This notion can be seen in Watsky’s music video near the beginning where a young girl is sitting at her dining table looking at her family as they have their heads buried in their mobile devices. Technology is taking them from a moment that is usually quite meaningful for a family. They are almost making themselves more alone by attempting to be more connected.

Liquid Crystal is a Similar Color to Rose

On the other side, they believe nearly the exact opposite; technology increases general satisfaction and expands one’s world view by keeping society connected. In his Article, The Upside to Technology? It’s Personal, Nick Bilton, a New York Times writer, highlights the importance of technology in connecting individuals even after their death, “Is he ever going to tweet again? No… Technology still connects us (me) to David.”

Bilton acknowledges the negatives of technology, however it brings more positive than it does negative. For many it is used in coping with loss of a friend who has been preserved digitally. Technology makes “us all feel a little more connected, and a little less alone.” This notion every individual could appreciate. Someone may feel rather lonely, but technology gives one access to millions of people, specifically those closest to them, and cultures all around the world.  

Being given a chance to more easily cope with a death of someone close to one and connecting one to the rest of the world for assistance in development would undoubtedly lead to a life with more meaning.

There is also scientific backing to suggest that a more meaningful life may be found from the usage of technology In the same study conducted by Diaz, Chiaburu, Zimmerman, and Boswell mentioned above, it was found that an increased use of communications technology resulted in an increase in work satisfaction. This means that an individual who is always connected to their work feels more satisfied.

This suggests that technology makes it convenient to do work thus reducing stress on an individual from their job. By finding more satisfaction in their job and experiencing less stress from it, an individual would feel as if their life carried more meaning with it as a significant portion of one’s life is spent at work.  

So Which Is It?

Does a liquid-crystal lens cause tunnel vision or allow one to view reality from a rose-colored view? Well, the answer is not so clear, but it is important to remember that both sides are asking the same question, how is the most meaningful life lived? The technology argument is merely a small portion of this and it is worth noting and regarding. However, the forest must not be lost among the trees. This is simply one question among many an individual should ask themselves in order to obtain the most meaningful life. The facts are the facts, but in grey areas, they only have so much weight in meaningfulness, and the rest must be left to one with the hope they make the decision they feel is right. Be it a tunnel or rose-colored, the decision stands by the user and may not be nearly as all-or-nothing as many people, even Heidegger, suggest.

Works Cited

Adams, Jackson, director. Tiny Glowing Screens Part 1. YouTube, YouTube, 12 May 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAqVmUciDSc.

Bilton, Nick. “The Upside to Technology? It’s Personal.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 30 Mar. 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/fashion/social-media-technology.html.

Blitz, Mark. “Understanding Heidegger on Technology.” The New Atlantis, The Center For the Study of Technology and Society, 2014, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology.

Diaz, Ismael, et al. “Communication Technology: Pros and Cons of Constant Connection to Work.” Science Direct, Elsevier Inc, 26 Aug. 2011, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000187911100114X.

Galdes, Andrew. “Person In Tunnel.” Agix Linux, Linux Support in Adelaide and Melbourne, 4 July 2018, http://www.agix.com.au/how-to-ssh-tunnel-access-resources-behind-a-firewall/.

Sabau, Adriana. “Looking Through Rose Colored Glasses.” Odyssey, Adriana Sabau Photography, 18 Nov. 2015, http://www.theodysseyonline.com/if-youve-ever-been-called-overly-emotional-or-too-sensitive-this-is-for-you.

Dunlapp, Jess. “Family at Dinner Focused on Technology.” Shards of Blue, ShardsOfBlue, 5 July 2014, http://www.shardsofblue.com/blog/2014/other-worlds/azelles-adventures-in-second-life/the-internet-is-real-life/.

When someone needs their hip replaced, they see an orthopedic surgeon; if someone has cancer, they might see an oncologist; if a woman is having a baby, she’ll probably go to an OB/GYN. This being said, contemporary views on healthcare are drastically different than how they used to be. As medicine and its practices are improving, the dissatisfaction of patients is rising from a plethora of issues. This frustration for people seeking the care they need generally doesn’t stem from doctors being inadequate in their respective field, but rather the lack of compassion in the physician-patient relationship. Explicitly, the cause of this apathy is not the fault of the doctors alone, but the healthcare institutions that breed from consumerism as well as physician manipulation and overhaul.

Bang For Your Buck

The simplest approach at which healthcare is discussed is the drive for profit. Today, many people prioritize their money over their health. In conjunction, so do hospitals in the idea that patients aren’t careseekers but that they are customers. Martyn Lewis would agree that, maybe unknowingly, patients are always just a buyer the hospital needs to sell for.

As a proclaimed behavioral economist, Martyn Lewis views hospitals simply as another revenue chain for maximizing profits and investments. He believes that while hospitals have the duty to serve those who are in need of medical attention, they also function as an underlying business. His key points are most people are uninterested in the products themselves, but rather the end-goal associated with said product and little things unrelated to the treatment are what build patient satisfaction. Claiming it as “the DNA of the buying journey,” Lewis supports his statements by describing a patient in need of a knee replacement (3:30). He says, “buyers actively do not want to buy surgery” due to fear and anxieties over possible complications or postoperative difficulties but eventually relent because they are focused on “what that purchase is going to enable them to do” (4:27 & 8:18). He goes on to explain that instead of giving advice and the run-down of a procedure in the first consultation, physicians should rather “actively navigate [the patient], support [the patient], and manage [the patient] through that journey” to target and secure the sales pitch (6:03). Furthermore, Lewis adds that little things like a receptionist with a nice demeanor or anesthetists giving patients better pillows is what triggers people to refer friends and/or family to see a certain doctor. He asserts that small triggers are what push people to return to a doctor which in turn helps the business.

The human mind is full of little quirks that take time and practice to acknowledge, recognize, and take advantage of. Much of healthcare today utilizes strategies like Martyn Lewis’s to exploit issues within patients and force them to feel pressured to fix. The idea of creating a pitch to someone actively avoiding an operation or treatment is taking advantage of patients who may not require anything at the moment. The heart of the pitch revolves around the desire “to be healthy… to be without pain” even when there isn’t enough pain to warrant an operation (8:54). In similar fashion, health officials often prey on small pieces of each operation that don’t affect patient outcome or well-being. For example, a nurse changing a pillow is what Martyn Lewis calls a trigger to trick a patient into becoming a referral system. This not only diminishes the jobs of hospital staff, but also diminishes the focus on the patient. Turning a blind eye from the patient’s long-term recovery and onto the mundane task of getting a better pillow is not only a nurse’s job already, but clouds the patient’s own opinion on how they feel their operation and recovery has gone. Despite this Lewis argues that while this business model can currently detract from a physician’s focus on the patient, it will help both doctor and patient decide on the best option for the patient’s health when the patient can be confident in the operation they purchase.

Integration of Technology in Medicine

Relatedly, as society expands further into technology-based workstyles, so do health institutions. Physicians now have electronic medical records (EMRs) compared to carrying binders with medical sheets. These EMRs improve many processes documentation of patients such as filling prescriptions, connecting doctors with updated records and allowing them easier access when collaborating, and make sure doctors get paid correctly. Although they are helpful in many ways they can slow down the workflow of physicians, says Rick Vaughn, the Chief Medical Information Officer of SSM.

The difficulties of integrating technology into the world of health is caused by multiple reasons, Vaughn asserts. He states that adaptation and comprehension of programs “is sort of a bell curve” in which some doctors are apt and others have severe challenges (4:40). In like manner, he says the technologies that are possible to integrate either don’t exist or can be inefficient themselves and makes the EMR the best choice to document patients at the moment. The development and use of the EMR, as Vaughn proclaims, “required excessive documentation—required physicians to do things that have nothing to do with taking care of the patient” (7:37). Moving forward, thoughts of utilizing artificial intelligence have become more of a reality now with increasing knowledge of AI technology. The hopes that “EMR must evolve into an intelligence agent that’s going to work hand-in-hand with the provider” are what Vaughn declares to be the ultimate goal for physicians to help focus their full attention towards the patient (9:23).

In some workplaces, technology can make an astounding difference in performance. The problem with incorporating electronics into a profession full of handwritten notes is that technology hasn’t evolved fast enough to efficiently service physicians. Provided that doctors are given technology that isn’t advanced enough anyways, they are forced to do the same job as they did before but learn the program, interface, and data systems in EMRs on top of added documentation for billing and coding. Equally, doctors are unhappy they are overburdened and forced to stay late to finish records and this can cause burnout that is visible to patients. For this reason, Vaughn positions himself on the side that until technology can improve, like AI working with the physician and patient, there will be very little advancement in the pairing of medicine and technology.

Privatized Equals Pain

To further doctor dissatisfaction, running a private facility for primary care, for instance, has become largely unavailable due to the fiscal risks a physician has to take. With high overhead costs and typically low reimbursement, the benefit is rarely worth the cost. In addition, hospitals have incentivized doctors to join their alliances which causes a further cycle of the hospital monopoly.

Many primary care physicians feel, like Gillian Griffith, O.B., that they “don’t think independent practice is really an option” anymore (Griffith). With 22% of medical residents saying they didn’t even plan to own or co-own a private facility in a 2016 study, insurance companies are often to blame for the lack of desire to own a practice (Johnson). Due to EMRs many insurance companies can search records to deny coverage. In the same fashion, being an administrator for an independent practice is an incredible burden financially and emotionally and is “a leading contributor to physician burnout” from bureaucratic paperwork (Johnson). However, the drive to open an independent care facility is being replaced with the option of joining an alliance in hospital. This allows doctors to keep in much better communication with others, as well as let them seek other paths in their careers. For example, hospitals allow doctors to further pursue education. In Anna Goldheim’s, M.D., case, she was able to earn her master’s degree in public health to “obtain the skills necessary to improve the health system in which [she] will deliver care, and to explore opportunities outside of clinical medicine, should [she] decide to balance clinical medicine with an allied job” (Goldheim). Similarly, Ishani Ganguli, M.D.,  can do research in healthcare policy while balancing clinical work and teaching at Harvard Medical School and asserts that “working for an institution enables her to wear multiple hats and ‘leads to greater mobility’” (Johnson & Ganguli). Correspondingly, many businesses are looking for physicians to give them credibility in the healthcare industry and this leads many doctors to follow non-traditional pathways in their careers.

As caregivers stray further from the norms of private practice, hospitals and corporations have created more opportunities for diversity in their careers. This being said, the problems within hospital capitalism will not change for the time being, and encouraging doctors to become more entrepreneurial further pushes the current status quo to create the highest profit. This circularity of the process leads to more capitalistic approaches in medicine that overall do not benefit the public. While private practices are not the most optimal pursuit for doctors today, they are shown to be a good option for the public because they have deeper patient connection and are more patient-health oriented.

Doctors are People Too

Healthcare is very heavily focused around the caretakers, but the caregivers can often go unnoticed. Physicians can often be seen as disconnected and cold to patients, but this is often not the fault of the physician. As noted by Angeliki Kerasidou and Ruth Horn, “the open expression of feelings is perceived as weakness,” and patients do not desire fragility from the person responsible for helping them overcome their own weakness (Kerasidou & Horn). This mentality forces doctors to lack empathy and neglect their own emotions in order to be medically and scientifically objective which causes “emotional exhaustion, burnout, depression or even attempt suicide.” Estimated per year, over 300 doctors commit suicide for a population of 100,000 compared to 40 people out of 100,000 in the general population (Kerasidou & Horn). These astronomical numbers are argued to stem from the mental duress physicians have to undertake on the daily, such as working 80 hours a week while balancing a family life, dealing with newly implemented systems, or simply being burned out from the lack of patient-wellness oriented care.

As has been noted, physician health is as important as patient health because health is a common theme central to all individuals. Their jobs are highly stressful alone, but adding other stimuli to deepen their hole causes a deprivation of emotion that is also deemed necessary by society. This apathy, in turn, increases the likelihood of doctors forming negative habits or mindsets that can ultimately lead to suicide. The importance of the argument made is not to preserve the number of doctors in the workforce but allow them to be patients as well, and seek help when they need it. The problem, however, is that the healthcare industry has put many roadblocks in their path of medicine that doctors often feel they are unable to do their true purpose: care for their patients.

How Does This Define Healthcare?

All things considered, there are many problems with healthcare, in general, resulting in the conclusion of patients who are often unhappy with the care they receive. On the superficial level, this can be attributed to the lack of doctors in the workforce, or even the lack of character amongst the staff. But when looked at a deeper level, the root of patient dissatisfaction arises from the pressure put on the doctors from their work environments. Hospitals have forced doctors to be a piston in the machine of hospital consumerism in order to sell treatments and operations and the argued solution for this is create a larger private sector for caregivers. This model is controversial because it is currently overtaxing for doctors, but once implemented smoothly it can help better inform the patient of their purchase and decision. At the same time, overhaul from bureaucracies and insurance companies deters the doctors from pursuing a privatized path of medicine in which they can control their own schedules and manners of patient care. Coupled with a physician’s inability to leave the hospital systems, technology’s adaptation into the medical field has been subpar by creating further complications in how doctors keep records and get paid. The argued solution to this is finding an improved form of voice recognition software or even AI to record and process data. Nonetheless, one of the most direct effects on which the patients view the quality of their care is the conduct of the doctor. Patients want their doctors to be confident yet personable, but the consequences of how administrators and technology affect not only their demeanor towards their career but their emotional well-being too. The added workload of the aforementioned EMRs and learning how to sell care is a large part of physician apathy and burnout. In brief, this cycle of monopoly to apathy is the underlying reason for patient complaints.

Works Cited

Pitt, Alan. “Why Don’t You Eat Your Vegetables. What Can We Learn From Sales?” Healthcare Pittstop, 6 Jan. 2019, healthcarepittstop.com/why-dont-you-eat-your-vegetables-what-can-we-learn-from-sales/.

Pitt, Alan. “‘We Have Plenty of Physicians- We Just Have to Stop Asking Them to Do Silly Things’ Rick Vaughn- Chief Medical Officer of SSM.” Healthcare Pittstop, 14 Sept. 2017, healthcarepittstop.com/plenty-physicians-just-stop-asking-silly-things-rick-vaugh-chief-medical-officer-ssm/.

Shea, Julie. “What’s Killing Private Practice? | Healthcare Careers.” Clinician Today, 4 Jan. 2017, cliniciantoday.com/whats-killing-private-practice/.

Johnson, Megan. “Young Doctors Want Jobs, Not Partnerships.” AthenaInsight, 1 Mar. 2018, www.athenahealth.com/insight/young-doctors-want-jobs-not-partnerships.

Kerasidou, Angeliki, and Ruth Horn. “Making Space for Empathy: Supporting Doctors in the Emotional Labour of Clinical Care.” BMC Medical Ethics, BioMed Central, 27 Jan. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728886/.

Farmer, Blake. “When Doctors Struggle With Suicide, Their Profession Often Fails Them.” NPR, NPR, 31 July 2018, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/07/31/634217947/to-prevent-doctor-suicides-medical-industry-rethinks-how-doctors-work.

“If you didn’t vote, you don’t get to complain,” and other variants of the phrase are common following a Presidential election. These phrases reflect a tension that rises around elections, not just between political rivals, but between those that vote and those that do not. The tension between the two groups is in part due to the vast differences in the perceived value of voting. While some people that refuse to vote are, as a large group of voters say, too lazy or unpatriotic. That would not explain why a such a large portion of people do not vote. According to the United States Census Bureau, only about 61% of potential voters voted in the 2016 election (File). Laziness and apathy would not explain why four out of ten eligible voters do not vote, and the issue of whether or not to vote is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides.

Arguments for voting

To many people voting is a responsibility. A Tallahassee Democrat article, “Voting is more than a right, it’s an obligation,” argues that voting is important because it is the primary way of purchasing policies. By using the analogy of votes as money, the article argues that one only gets what one votes for. Thus for those that don’t vote, they, “cannot or should not expect delivery of service in education, housing, health care, public safety, etc” (Simmonds). By not voting, one rejects the benefits gained and allows for potential injustices to occur as voting is not just for benefits, but to reduce potential harm. Because one’s vote, “coupled with scores, thousands, or even millions of others — can prevent a candidate from denying my human rights” (Simmonds). Voting is not only a source to put those in power that one desires to be in power, but as a way of stopping those that would abuse power. In this article voting is the core of stopping corruption and those that seek to harm rather than help. Voting by its nature is the multitudes’ voice against potential tyranny. Thus at its core the article holds that unified votes are critical because, “Your vote and mine has generational consequences. We must use it with a sense of commitment toward our children and grandchildren” (Simmonds).

In addition to voting being in one’s self interest, not voting, according to a Fortune article, “Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says,” is against one’s own interest. The article using a Pew Research Center study declares that, “nonvoters in 2016 had just as much to do with establishing the Trump presidency as actual voters” (Shoot). Because “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents made up a 55% majority of nonvoters,” the nonvoters gave power their less preferred candidate. The article is shows the importance of voting because it states that, “an increase in under-30 voters in key swing states could have cinched the election for popular vote winner Hillary Clinton” (Shoot). This article is attempting to push nonvoters into desiring to vote as the article is arguing against the idea of the individual vote having no impact. However, this article is only influencing a select group, nonvoters in swing states. Because certain states are unlikely to change who they vote for, this article ultimately undermines its own argument as it ends up focused on the potential of the states rather than the overall group of nonvoters.

Arguments for not voting

There are reasons not to vote. In a Washing Post Article, “On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting,” Ilya Somin argues that a reason not to vote is a lack of information. This lack of information isn’t due to the information not existing, but that time and energy needed to find all the information one should have before voting far exceeds the value of the vote itself. Quickly getting information through shortcuts do not fix the problem as “Shortcuts can help in some cases. But they can also be actively misleading, and often require considerate preexisting knowledge to use effectively” (Somin). At its core Somin’s argument is about how much does one need to know before one should act on one’s information. Learning everything is a higher cost with less potential benefits in respect to voting because voting is a collective action. In addition voting without knowledge is likely to harm the public’s own interests, and in most cases, “the average of the rest of the electorate will usually be better, or at least is unlikely to be worse” (Somin).

Not voting is also a way to vote. A New York Times article, “Should Everybody Vote?” argues that not voting is a valid vote as, “not voting, then, can be a protest against all the available candidates” (Gutting). By refusing to vote as a sign of protest, one is voicing their decision as one does by voting. The article recognises the main problem of nonvoting being misunderstood, and it offers a solution, “add as a ballot choice ‘No Acceptable Candidate’” (Gutting). This solution could partially work as it allows people that refuse to vote for either candidate to fully voice their opinion, but this idea pushes nonvoters to be voters and will not affect nonvoters that have a problem with the voting system.

In addition to nonvoting as a form of voting, The New York Times article introduces the idea that votes don’t affect specific policy that much. Political scientists, “looked at almost 1,800 cases of controversial policy issues in the United States and explained: ‘[T]he majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose’” (Gutting). While more research still needs to be done, this argues that votes have little precision in what is accomplished through them. This devalues voting. This reduction in the value of a vote makes it harder to justify spending more time deciding who to vote for. The article then adds, “Of course, the game is not entirely rigged. As long as we have free elections, our wealthy rulers do not have dictatorial power” (Gutting). This article is not trying to reduce faith in the American system of voting. By acknowledging that the research isn’t absolute and that there is still some worth in voting, it seeks to give people reasons why some might not vote and why those reasons aren’t absolute. The article is not trying to have either side of the voting debate reject the article outright. It is seeking to inform and not repulse readers.

Conclusion

Whether or not to vote is an individual choice, but voting itself is a group decision. The reasons not to vote are more individual reasons while the reasons to vote are closer to group reasons. Those that don’t vote appear to value individuality far more than unity, while those that vote seem to value the group effort over their own costs of voting. These clashing values cause a rift each voting season as voters see nonvoters breaking the unity of being responsible, American citizens.

Works Cited

File, Thom. “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election,” United States Census Bureau. 10 May 2017, www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html Accessed 8 April 2019.

Gutting, Gary, “Should Everybody Vote?” New York Times. 25 April 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html

Shoot, Brittany. “Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says,” Fortune 2 August 2019
http://fortune.com/2018/08/09/nonvoters-trump-presidency-pew-study/

Simmonds, Keith. “Voting is more than a right, it’s an obligation,”
Tallahassee Democrat. 21 August 2018,
www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/2018/08/21/voting-more-than-right-its-obligation-opinion/1050524002/ Accessed 8 April 2019.

Somin, Ilya. “On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting,” Washington Post 4 November 2014
www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/04/on-election-day-consider-abstaining-from-ignorant-voting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b19ec98296b