Shortly after Winter break, I got the chance to attend the annual Luchinsky lecture hosted by the Schreyer Honors College and presented by Dr. Ainissa Ramirez. This presentation was titled “Igniting Curiosity: Empowering Future Leaders and Global Citizens” and touched on a lot of ideas and facts presented from her book “The Alchemy of Us.” This event was hosted at State Theater and had a lot of Schreyer faculty, students, and alumni attending, along with being broadcast to other online viewers.

Going into this event, I didn’t know what to expect. I saw that the tickets were free and figured I didn’t have much to lose by not going. After the event I can confidently say that I am happy I went! Dr. Ramirez talked about various intentions and events in our history that shaped our culture and how we live today. It was really interesting to see how these inventions altered the culture of an entire nation and brought into question what invention(s) would next change who we are as people and as a human race. A specific one I remember was the example of the telephone and how that altered our society. Obviously, the telephone was a life-changing invention, but it was interesting to hear how it changed society and the way of life so drastically.

In a time and age where new inventions are somewhat plateauing, it is interesting to think about what will be the next big life-altering invention. I personally believe that it will be AI. It has been an insane past few months watching the development of AI and the capabilities it is accumulating. With such fast progression, it is just a matter of time before it is able to do things we never imagined it would be able to. It is both scary and exciting, and if we can moderate it and keep it under control, I believe it could be one of the greatest inventions man has ever made. We just have to be careful not to prioritize it over human lives and real connections. I think that as it evolves, employers will start to utilize AI over humans, and it may even get to the point where people turn to AI for friendship/communication. Only time will tell, however.

Overall, I really enjoyed this event and will be attending next year’s lecture as well. The questions it answered were just as crucial as the questions it proposed, and I look forward to applying this way of thinking in my future research/idealogy. I thank Schreyer for offering opportunities like this to the student of Penn State.

For the final “Personal is Political,” I really did not know what I wanted to cover. I feel that during this semester, I covered many of my experiences with politics and law. I had a good time reflecting on some of these experiences. With all of this reflection in mind, I wanted to talk about the future of what I hope to do with these experiences in mind. 

As I have stated personally, I do not think that I personally want to be a politician. From what I have observed, the stress and time commitment of this role is just something I do not think I like. I would say that I am a pretty outgoing person most of the time, and I still believe it takes someone REALLY outgoing to be a politician. Your life and the lives of those who are near you are always in the spotlight, and you just have to live with it. Politicians are needed, but it takes a select person I currently don’t feel that I am. With this said, I still could see myself working in politics if that makes sense. Working for one, or just in the general process, is not something I have disqualified from my feature (current disqualified categories are biology, engineering, and anything with math, hah). I have always found politics interesting and highly important to our everyday life. I really would like a job that makes a genuine change in the world, and in a field that affects everyone every day, there are plenty of opportunities for this.

As of right now I plan to go to law school after my undergrad, and plan to work in some field of law. I don’t know which yet, but I don’t need to decide that any time soon. This summer I am going to intern for a local district attorney, so maybe this will give me a better gauge of what I want to do in the law field. Lawyers get a bad rap most of the time, I feel (I have heard some people say, “All lawyers go to hell”). I can understand that people might not like that they are getting paid to defend people they know are guilty of possibly heinous crimes, but in a society based on justice and fairness, they are needed whether you like it or not. The day that we “do away” with lawyers for people we “know” are guilty is the day basic human rights and privileges we have as Americans will begin to erode as well. 

In conclusion, although I have an idea of what I like and do not like for possible career options, I ultimately have no clue. I feel that a lot of people are in the same boat as me, unsure of what exactly they want to do, but just know that that is totally fine. Honestly, I would be more worries for someone who knew exactly what they wanted to do with the rest of their life at the age of 19. We change with time, and to lock yourself into a career path this early would be unwise. I thank you for reading these blogs and have appreciated your guys’ insight in each comment. 

As we come to an end here, I have realized that now things are set in stone with the candidates and primaries, that there isn’t too much to cover anymore. At this point, it feels like a waiting game to just wait and see what happens. As I covered in my previous blog, it has pretty much been decided that Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the two main candidates for the 2024 presidential election. This may be shocking to some, but I doubt it, as many major outlets expected it since the time both of them declared that they were running.

Since this has all been known and stated previously, I won’t bore you with what you already know. Instead, I will talk a bit about what is to come. It is too early yet to get a good feel for who is going to win this election, and as we saw in the 2020 election between the exact same two candidates, it was pretty down to the wire there. I don’t think polls will be able to accurately depict the outcome of the election, but they may be able to give us an insight into possible demographic changes in voting patterns. While researching some recent news regarding the election, I found an ABC article (which, if you are interested, I will include below) that predicts that there may be possible changes in the voting habits of various demographics. With such unique circumstances and candidates in this election, it is possible that certain groups that tend to vote one way or another might actually alter their habits in hopes of seeing change. 

Depending on how these demographics change, it could decide the election. In this article, they ran a simulation if various things were to change, for example, if older white voters voted for Biden more often than Trump (which many tend not to), along with various other things. What they found is that each of these possible switches played a key part in deciding such a close election, and often when one of these demographics switched to a certain side, the side they switched to won in the simulation. If this is stuff you are interested in, I would recommend checking this article out!

The current polls that have been done have been pretty divided and don’t tell us too much yet, but in the coming months, these polls will be key to seeing some important factors in this election. I personally think the turnout for this election may be some of the highest we have seen yet. With the pandemic gone and tensions at an all-time high, people should show up in the masses to vote (which is good, in my opinion). I just hope that with emotions so high, whichever side were not to get their way would not act like what we saw on January 6th. Again, just my opinion, and if you disagree, that is totally fine. Either way, I encourage you to get out and vote this year!

https://abcnews.go.com/538/demographic-swings-impact-2024-election/story?id=108700434

For this week’s personal is political, I wanted to talk briefly about gun control and gun violence, especially in Pennsylvania. I am actually covering this topic in my issue brief, as it is something I feel is very important to our generation (myself included). 

For preference, my extended family are pretty big gun advocates, and if we are being honest, most people in Pennsylvania are. Despite being a swing state, the culture here of hunting and farming calls for less strict control on the purchase of guns, and this can be seen all over the place with various “farm and gun shows.” If you are a resident of PA, I am sure you have had an interaction with, or heard of these HUGE “outdoor shows where they showcase a variety of things, from tractors to AR-15s. What I bet you were unaware of, however, is that the private sellers at this show, and all over PA, are not required to run background checks on the sales of long rifles (Wikipedia defines this category as “shotguns, personal defense weapons, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, designated marksman rifles, sniper rifles, anti-material rifles, light machine guns, medium machine guns, and heavy machine guns.”) This is probably frightening to many, as I found it quite worrying. A national statistic says that roughly 40% of guns are sold without a background check because of this! This is worrying news to just about anyone, I would think. I have seen this firsthand when actually attending one of these “outdoor” shows. I remember, as a kid, going there with one of my uncles only to see tons of vendors and hundreds of people checking out gun stands and just buying them there right on the spot. In good news at least, sidearms (pistols and whatnot) are required to have a background check. Why this doesn’t apply to both confuses me, but that’s the way it is.

Another key thing I would like to highlight actually just passed in the PA House a few days ago! “Ghost guns” are another huge problem in the United States and PA. These “guns” aren’t actually sold as finished guns; instead, they are sold as gun kits that contain all the parts of a gun but are disassembled and lacking serial numbers and identifiable features. Naturally, having a gun that is practically impossible to trace and hard to identify is good news for nobody. It is good, in my opinion, that the PA Govt. is making an effort to fix this, as I feel like this is a pretty nonpartisan issue. It will be interesting to see if this actually makes it through the Senate, however, as they are regarded as more Republican than the current makeup of the House. 

I could sit here for much longer and tell you some of the problems I have both researched and noticed about the current gun control problems we have here in PA, but we would be here for a while… It is good to see that the government is making somewhat of an effort, and we will have to hope that they continue to do so! I would like to hear how you guys feel about this as well.

NOTE: I forgot to press upload on this before last week; my apologies!

For this week’s personal is political, I wanted to talk a bit about my experiences helping people sign in to vote for my local municipality. Ever since I turned 18, I have attempted to help on various election days with whatever I can. Whether that is signing people in or standing outside welcoming people in and helping to hand out the various “I voted” stickers that are infamous on election day. The experiences here are typically pretty positive, with most people are happy and excited to break their ordinary schedule to come vote for something they are passionate about.

These people are what you see most often, and when working the polls or standing out front promoting a candidate are the ones you hope you’ll deal with most of the time. Naturally, there are also people who aren’t as kind when it comes to election day and supporting their candidates. I have seen plenty of people who feel so angry at the other people in an opposing party that they will publically call them names and slander them just for supporting said candidate. One time, while promoting a politician I know outside of a voting location, an older man came to vote and saw that we were promoting said candidate/political party. This older gentleman was not very happy about this and felt hostility towards us for whatever reason. He began to curse us out for our support of this person/party and stormed by into the building, all while telling us how “ignorant and stupid” we were.

In such a polarized nation, it is not a surprise that this is commonplace all over the country. I am positive this probably happens all over the country, with people from every party. If it happens often in my little town of Lititz, PA I am sure it could only be worse in NYC or other much larger diverse areas. Events like this show the route America is on currently and display just how divided we are becoming. Sure, politics have always been a divisive agent, however, in recent years (especially following the 2020 election and pandemic), they have been hotter than ever. It is scary to see just how angry people are getting towards people who don’t agree with their opinions, especially in a nation founded on freedom of speech, expression, and beliefs.

Working the polls has opened my eyes to this time and time again. I am not here to scare everybody and act like doomsday is around the corner, but times like this make me reflect on just how worried I am about the future. There are plenty of good things that come out of working these events, though, like seeing people who want genuine good change come and exercise their rights or watching children join their parents and go do something “kinda” fun. I think it is crucial to exercise your right to vote, as it affects all of us whether you like it or not. By not voting, you’re actively not taking action in things that affect you every day!

Anyone who has lived in Pennsylvania understands the importance of firearms in our culture; from hunting to competition shooting, many argue that they are a part of many people’s day-to-day lives. What many people do not understand, however, is the damage they wreak on our commonwealth, with roughly 1,600 Pennsylvanians dead and 3,000 injured yearly to firearms. (1) On top of this, according to a 2020 statistic, a mass shooting (categorized as 4 or more injured/killed by gunfire) occurred once every 10 days. (2)  

In Pennsylvania, many argue it is extremely easy to acquire a firearm, with the current “PA Instant Check System” being the only real line of defense between a potential perpetrator and a firearm (3). Although the “PICS” system is regarded as one of the better background check systems in the nation, it contains critical flaws that only require private sellers to implement background checks in the sale of handguns, not long riffles. This leads to hundreds of long rifles (which are typically viewed as much more lethal than a handgun) being sold to just about anyone at outdoor shows and other similar events.

On top of this, the system fails to provide checks on multiple factors that play into these 1,600 deaths yearly, such as mental health screenings or proper gun handling knowledge. This system needs to be changed not only to prevent people from taking the lives of others but for take their own lives, with a reported 900 suicide deaths resulting from gunshot wounds. By adding both a more in-depth mental health screening along a proper gun usage course, we can ensure the safety of many of these lives, eliminating many of the countless lives taken yearly in PA.

From this point, I will go more in-depth into the following:

• First, into how we should mandate private sellers to utilize the PICS system in the sales of long rifles
• Second, the benefit and need for mental health screenings
• And lastly, into the need/benefits of gun training, comparing it to something like a driver’s test.

https://www.ceasefirepa.org/issues/gun-violence-in-pa/

https://www.ceasefirepa.org/issues/gun-violence-in-pa/

https://www.psp.pa.gov/firearms-information/Pages/Firearms%20Records.aspx#:~:text=The%20Division%20operates%20the%20Pennsylvania,background%20records%20on%20a%20person

https://www.everytown.org/report/background-checks-and-pennsylvania

Anyone who has lived in Pennsylvania understands the importance of firearms in our culture; from hunting to competition shooting, many argue that they are a part of many peoples day-to-day lives. What many people do not understand, however, is the damage they wreak on our commonwealth, with roughly 1,600 Pennsylvanians dead and 3,000 injured yearly to firearms. (1) In Pennsylvania, many argue it is extremely easy to acquire a firearm, with the current “PA Instant Check System” being the only real line of defense between a potential perpetrator and a firearm (2). The word “instant” in this title shows the gleaming problem of this; people are able to acquire firearms in just a few minutes if there are no data-based concerns under their name, such as criminal status. This system fails to provide checks on multiple factors that play into these 1,600 deaths yearly, such as mental health screenings or proper gun handling knowledge. This system needs to be changed not only to prevent people from taking the lives of others but for take their own lives, with a reported 900 suicide deaths resulting from gunshot wounds. By adding both a more in-depth mental health screening along a proper gun usage course, we can ensure the safety of many of these lives, eliminating many of the countless lives taken yearly in PA.

https://www.ceasefirepa.org/issues/gun-violence-in-pa/

https://www.psp.pa.gov/firearms-information/Pages/Firearms%20Records.aspx#:~:text=The%20Division%20operates%20the%20Pennsylvania,background%20records%20on%20a%20person.

Well, it seems we have pretty much hit the end of the road for this primary process. A lot has happened since my last blog and as many of you may have seen, the two candidates are already decided at this point. I think for future blogs I will most likely discuss updates involving these two candidates. But, I’ll stop delaying the actual results and jump right in. 

As many of us expected (and as the numbers were hinting at), we are pretty much going to have a repeat of the 2020 election. Super Tuesday was the deciding blow many suspected, and in this, Nicki Haley suffered a pretty crushing defeat that ultimately led to her dropping out of the race entirely. She is quoted saying, “I have no regrets,” shortly after her resignation. Since she was the only other Republican running, that left only Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee for the 2024 ballot. As of the time of writing this, he is well over the necessary delegate count for the nomination, with roughly 1,615 delegated when he needed only 1,215. 

As for Democratic candidates, also much like everyone expected, Joe Biden appears to be the presumptive nominee for the Democratic candidate for this year’s presidential election. Much like Trump, Biden has well over the necessary amount of delegates needed for the nomination. As of thai time of writing this, he has 2,464 delegates with a necessary 1,968 delegates for the nomination. Biden really did not have any competition for this spot, so this is not a surprise, given he is the incumbent. 

For some, this may be great, and for others, this may be the worst news imaginable. The 2020 election was one of the most divisive elections America has ever seen and the results of this election have had lasting tears on our society, whether you like to admit it or not. No matter what side wins here there are bound to be many people upset. I personally hope it is not as bad as it was in 2020, but with the emotions surrounding these two candidates, I doubt much good will happen. America is already the most polarized it has ever been, and I personally believe this is going to make that more prevalent regardless of which side you support. 

I am interested to hear what you guys think about this. Do you believe that this was bound to happen? Are you happy with these candidates? I am also curious about how you all would feel about a potential independent candidate like RFK Jr. I do not know how feasible it is that in this climate, an independent could accomplish much, but would someone like that be exactly what America needs to come back together?

Overall, this year’s election is bound to be interesting, and the results of Super Tuesday amplified that fact tenfold. My recommendation would be to do your research and pick a candidate that best aligns with your morals and principles! But above all else, make ensure you get out to vote!

For this week’s Personal Is Political, I wanted to briefly talk about the time my dad ran for a local magisterial judge position in my home town as I feel not a lot of people know someone personally who has run for office locally. From this experience, I learned a lot about the process, and that it is super stressful for all involved.

After roughly 20 years of serving as a law enforcement officer for a nearby locality my dad chose to retire from his position as police chief to run for magisterial district judge. This position serves a 6-year term and is the lowest level judge for a given locality. They do things such as search warrants, oversee arraignments, set bail, and hold criminal preliminary hearings. My dad has a background in law and a degree in criminal justice, however, for this position, ZERO background in any sort of law is needed. 

When running for a position like this, you typically need the endorsement of the local political party you wish to run for. This process is a bit strange, as they pretty much just have all potential candidates meet at the town hall and give a brief blurb about why they are the best choice. Luckily, they endorsed my dad, which was helpful for a few reasons. You technically do not need an endorsement to run; however, it helps with things like the cost of the campaign and whatnot. 

After getting endorsed, you aren’t automatically the candidate that appears registered for said political party, you must actually go out and get 100 signatures from people in the same political party. This process is made simpler due to things like public voter registration and signing events hosted by various political parties. The hard part is if you wish to “cross-file.” “Cross-filing” is when you wish to appear on the primary ballot for either political party. In order to do this you need the 100 signatures from your original political party plus an additional 100 from the opposing political party. My dad chose to go this route, and getting 100 signatures from people of the opposite party of you is easier said than done. Many of these people straight up refused to talk despite the postion being a rather impartial thing. It took roughly 5x the amount of time to get these signatures. 

After finally getting all of these signatures, it was time for the primary, and luckily, my dad won the nomination for the original political party he was endorsed by. A few months after this was the actual election, where he also luckily won and successfully obtained the position. Obviously, this would be a big stress off of anyone’s shoulders, and my dad claims it was one of the most stressful processes of his life. 

As I stated earlier, no background is needed for this position, and the reasoning for this is because of the mandatory “judge school” you are required to goto after obtaining your positions. This “school” runs for 6 weeks and is held in Harrisburg. After the 6 weeks, you take a test that is roughly 5 hours long and consists of writing multiple essays. After this, you are good to go!

I hope in writing this, a little bit of insight can be gained into what a local election process looks like! It was for sure an interesting time of my life and not something I would want to do personally.

For this week’s personal political blog, I wanted to talk about the concept of electoralism. This concept has multiple meanings, but the one I wish to discuss is the one that states that politicians are always thinking of the next election, regardless of how far it may be. It could be directly after an election, and more often than not, the politician will already be planning their next election. There are some factors that play into this, however, such as the position they are running for or if they plan to retire. Naturally, if they aren’t planning on running again this doesn’t apply, but otherwise, their time in office is largely spent planning for the election cycle. The position also plays into this. If the politician is running for a senate position, they may not immediately worry about their own reelection as they serve 6-year terms; however, it has been seen that house representatives will immediately begin to start their reelection campaign. The reason I find this as important is because it may prove to be a possible problem with the way our government is structured. If a politician is only worried about getting into office and not as worried about actually accomplishing anything in their position, what’s the point of them holding office? It is not uncommon to see a congressperson who hasn’t accomplished much in their time in office and yet has been reelected on multiple occasions due to their focus being purely on reelection. Not many people look into what a politician has done while in office, and that is why some of these people may get away with not actually forming any new laws/bills. This obviously doesn’t apply to every congressperson, but during my time interacting with various politicians I have noticed this to be true. I do not know how you guys feel about this, but I personally think their reelection should be judged on what they did in office as opposed to the amount of time and money put into their reelection campaign. I first noticed this phenomenon when I interned for a House of Representatives congressman and noticed that 90% of the work I did for them was related to their reelection and public outreach. I know that the intern probably wouldn’t do most of the work relating to bill forming and whatnot, but I did notice that most of his time was spent at various local events and hosting community outreach initiatives. My work mostly revolved around setting up and attending these events, and I got to see their speeches time and time again. These speeches always talked about what they WILL do as opposed to what they HAVE done. Also worth noting is the stuff that they do say the accomplished (typically) is various earmarks or porkbarrel legislation. Which is funding or parts of a bill that a congressperson adds to make themselves look better to their home constituency. These things they add are small and are typically hidden in larger bills, but they make it look as if they have done more. I would like to hear your guys’ ideas on this and whether you agree or not!