Category: Uncategorized

On March 20, 2020 a Chinese government official made a public statement addressing how the US had not fulfilled its promise to provide $100.00 million worth of aid to foreign nations including China. The implication of this statement was that the US’s position as a world leader in some way creates an obligation to help the rest of the world in a  humanitarian effort. The issue is whether China deserves any humanitarian aid under the current regime?

In a previous passion blog I addressed in depth how China has recently committed numerous aggressive displays towards neighboring Twain, and lied about the COVID-19 outbreak which has led to the extent of the crisis. But on top of all this China is currently interning over 1 million of its Muslim citizens primarily located in the Xijing province. A brief history of this humanitarian crisis: In early 2019 the Chinese government denied allegations of internment camps. As evidence gathered by academics and investigative journalists mounted, the Chinese government changed their story admitting that they had opened “reeducation centers” specifically for what they deem to be an extremist sect of the population consisting entirely of Uighur Muslims. Now there are numerous reasons why the Communist Party of China is motivated to do this from a growing energy dependence from the resources located in the Xijing region, the history of the people in Xijing trying to separate from the country and an increasing need to access the space as China expands its belt and road initiative but none of these things matter.

In reports from released Muslims the situation is described in horrifying terms. Prisoners are required to repeat Chinese communist slogans, denounce their religion and the religion of their family and friends and are forced to live in crowded unsanitary halls. More extreme reports include guard brutality and the murder of many of the less fortunate inmates.

The civic issue here is obvious, the humanitarian crisis and the Chinese government’s attempt to cover it up in the beginning is comparable to the Nazi regime. This raises the question, despite economic motivation for the US and other countries to collaborate with China, and the increasing need of many innocent Chinese citizens for medical in addition to increasing need in the population of Chinese citizens for medical supplies do you need a need of many Chinese citizens from -5 working on cooperation it has been Hope has been supplies does the country’s actions warrant any form of economic cooperation or assistance?

Although the US China trade war was intended to spur US economic growth, the recent pandemic has all but wiped down any potential upside the deal could cause. With this long list of recent transgressions should any major nation collaborate with China or should the entire world turn and pressure the country economically to change? Now of course these issues are much more complex than I have been able to provide background for, but the provoking question is still valid – is there a level of usurpation that a country like China can commit to warrant the rest of the world to react aggressively despite calls for humanitarian assistance? My opinion is yes, the country needs to be pressured to maintain form and if not their aggressive posture will continue to deteriorate.

Is free speech being threatened on college campuses? 

Although many consider places of higher education to be the safest place for free speech and the exchange of knowledge, the prevalence of this question across internet discussion blogs and individual testimonies of free speech being infringed makes one my think this a very serious concern or is it totally blown out of proportion?

In short, no I do not believe that free speech is presently threatened on college campuses but I fear the possibility that it becomes threatened, specifically with regard to digital freedom of speech and censorship. Today, I have the ability to express my opinions, in a civilized manner, in any accessible location without a second thought; exactly as it should be. The reason I, or anyone else, would be inclined to do so is reliant on the facilitating platforms used to public share ideals are available. I’m referring to the twitter account, instagrams, GroupMes, outlook threads, and countless others that facilitate both groups and individuals to express their ideals, in a permanent manner, on a platform that is easily accessible to the public. At a massive University such as Penn state, standing on the sidewalk with a poster is not an overwhelmingly influential nor effective means of expression. It’s through online platforms, bannering club names and their respective school affiliation, that allows for around the clock  access to represented ideals. Accordingly, these easily accessible digital platforms enables constant outreach for the publishing party. In this sense, free speech has not been infringed on college campuses. Yet in other places individuals and organisations are being stripped of their right to freely express their ideals in tune with the digital age. There appears to be a growing trend of ‘parent’ organizations ( ie. Companies, funding organisations, and possibly schools) using their leverage to restrict the expression of certain ideals due to the fear of potential association. This is the biggest threat I perceive to free speech on college campuses- the fear that Universities will use academic leverage to censor the publication of ideals the university does not want to champion. Having an internet platform readily available to the entire population of a school where you can digitize your ideals is crucial to effective free speech; if the effectiveness of free speech is restricted – it is no longer free speech.

 

at the center of the opioid epidemic sweeping the nation. The Sackler Family is the current owner of Purdue Pharma and worth right around 14 billion dollars. The Sacklers have been extremely generous with their wealth, endowing several academic chairs at universities across the country. These chairs allow research and opportunity to swell in these universities but the recent controversy surrounding the Sacklers has presented the universities with an ethical decision. In your opinion, what should the universities do with the money they have received from the Sackler family? 

Facing this moral dilemma, my initial thought process is to first strip away all of the moral implications and consider just the tangibles. There is a family who has made their wealth through the pharmaceutical industry and accordingly has donated quite generously to universities – that part is certain. The underlying implication that forms the dilemma is that the money was made through the knowing propagation of the opioid crisis. In order to act on this thinking there are some necessary assumptions we simply do not know. First, we don’t know the what the Company’s exact role was in the crisis, considering that industrialized drug pipeline must pass from developing companies to wholesalers to Pharmacy Benefit Managers to Pharmacies which is then funded by overseeing insurance agencies prevents one from knowing for certain the extent of Purdue Pharma’s transgressions. We also don’t know Purdue Pharam’s knowledge of the situation, litigation could reasonably be aimed at other members along the pipeline and received FDA approval of the treatments in addition to the formulary placement from Pharmacy Benefit Managers could have led the company to assume the drugs were not spreading the opioid crisis. Even if we assume the worst case scenario, that Produce Pharama knowingly spread the opioid crisis, we do not know the Slackers families knowledge or involvement – preventing us from reasonably being able to assume malicious intent. At the heart of the dilemma, the concern is that the donated money was made from the suffering of those victimized by the opioid crisis, but as previously mentioned, this thought process cannot be verified. For that reason, I would advocate that the money should be used to benefit the students as would any other endowment, with one major condition. With the understanding of the money’s origins – I would contest that a portion of the donations be used to create a fund to help current and future students suffering from opioid addiction on campus. Additionally, I would advise that some of that money would go to an endowment which would fund a scholarship for prospective students who have had a parent or guardian who suffered from an opioid addiction and accordingly may not have the financial support to afford a college education.

 With the recent developments in Congress regarding the development of an economic stimulus package in the face of the COVID-19 outbreak, many Republican lawmakers have significantly deviated from their conservative roots in crafting a policy, a situation which I have yet seen analysed in depth.

Consider for a moment the core conservative viewpoint on “government handouts”. The party’s base stance is essentially, “give Amanda fish feed him for a day and teach Amanda fish feed him for a lifetime”. Understandably the Coronavirus outbreak has caused many businesses to shut down for the foreseeable future stalling all income, and conservatives appear more than willing to give our government handouts for people who might be at risk of food insecurity over the coming weeks. In the GOP‘s original proposal they suggested supplying every American who makes between $40,000.00 and $75,000.00 a year a $1200.00 direct payment plus an additional $500.00 for each child in the household. Considering that this demographic makes up approximately 20.00% of all US households. That quickly adds up to a lot of taxpayer dollars, add on the $600.00 proposed to be directly wired to all individuals who make less than $40,000.00 a year and a decremented direct posit for individuals who make between $75,000.00 $9000.00 and it quickly becomes apparent that the conservatives appear all right with writing a check for billions of dollars in essentially government handouts

Building off of this observation, typically preferring a limited government, it is strange to see conservatives so willingly forcing a nationwide shut down of local businesses in the name of the common good. Although the situation we are currently in makes it a rational position, I am surprised that more conservatives haven’t encouraged people to make their own decisions on whether businesses should or should not stay open.

Following these recent developments it has become more clear that many conservatives are in fact willing to give government handouts and openly restrict free commerce and business if they believe that the welfare of the people are at a substantial risk. This, similar to my previous critical analysis, calls upon the argument of safety versus freedom. Although typically Democrats often champion the safety side of this philosophical argument, while conservatives hold more to the freedom side it appears that given enough pressure politicians are more willing to revert towards protecting the people’s safety then their freedoms.

Although no one would argue that it’s not the smarter decision to file the self Quarantine rules to protect yourselves and others from contracting this potentially dangerous illness it should be noted that being required to or even being encouraged by the US government is something that wouldn’t necessarily satisfy the constitutions outline of freedom.

So we see that politicians on both sides of the aisle or willing to revert towards their citizens’ safety instead of encouraging the typical freedom that they champion normally, the question then becomes what then for each of us individually qualifies a reversion to prioritizing the nations health and safety?

Across every major news channel, COVID-19 headlines have occupied a majority of the reporting cycle. Of all of the varying head lines I have seen, one in particular really stood out to me was “As the coronavirus pandemic grows, gun sales are surging in many states.”

Consider for a moment the motivations underlying these actions. Starting first with the typical gun control debate. The argument “against”, for lack of a better term, the second amendment is an appeal to safety. Owning a firearm is a right traditionally interpreted as a way for the people to protect themselves against a potentially tyrannical government. The argument against this is an appeal to safety, making the claim that the availability of lethal weapons to most people puts other citizens at risk. This has spurred the freedom vs safety debate which has raged on since the constitution was written.

This current head line indicates that the purchase of firearms has increased because of COVID-19, a situation which is not increasing the presence or the possibility of a tyrannical government. The logic would follow that people are actually buying guns in an attempt to increase their perception of personal safety, a unique inversion from the typical train of thought.

Consider for a moment what they are trying to feel safe from. It is reasonable to consider that some people fear the outbreak will lead to a societal collapse, a very drastic viewpoint but non the less conceivable. In this situation practicing one’s right to purchase a firearm would be a reaction to the fear of other people rioting and pillaging. A seemingly ridiculous outcome to the situation but a possibility. A similar stream of logic could lead an individual to fear a mass food shortage where they would need a firearm to hunt in the case that the nation’s consumer infrastructure breaks down. Although these seem very improbable they provide the same tangible need for a firearm that is suggested in most scholarly arguments for the second amendment. The idea that accessibility to firearms in the face of a physical threat or necessity validates the amendment.

What if the recent increase in gun sales is not actually driven by one of the motivations that political philosophers and constitution scholars would loftily argue exist for the second amendment. What if, despite lacking a practical application for a firearm, purchasing one just to put it in their closet simply makes people feel safer. This would imply that in a time of such uncertainty and social disruption people are willing to open themselves up to impractical motivations for the allusion of security leading them to buy a gun ~ interestingly enough the same core motivation against the second amendment.

 

Image

At first glance it’s easy to think this image is the handy work of advanced CGI belonging in some surreal special effects heavy movies, this is not the case. This is a photograph of a woman sewing together a fishing net in Phu Yen, Vietnam, a photo which won the CIWEM Environmental Photographer of the Year Award.

Diving into the message behind the photo, the lighting focal point is sitting right on top of the sewing machine with everything else in the image, including the women, seeming hunched and twisted around it. The implicit visual message from this focus is that all the importance is placed on the machinery, or symbolically, industry as a whole.The photo is so intensely focused on the means of production the people keeping the industrial machine running and the vast over production are left, literally, in the shadows. This strategic use of lighting and focus leads to the initial argument that the world is putting too much focus on growing and sustaining industry and not enough on the people and products these industries are affecting.

A second visual argument of the photograph is the coloration. In the person’s hands the  cloth most clearly looks like fishing net and has a light green color to it. As the masses of fishing net spread away for the machine and person sewing, the color gets ominously darker. Towards the very edge of the frame it is hard to tell that the fabric is fishing net at all but instead resembles dark green smoke. Playing off of the association that green represents evil or destruction (ie. witches, goblins, etc.) this leads to the impression that excessive amount of production spread around the women is actually harmful and menacing. Recalling that the fabric is literally fishing net one cannot help but imagine the amount of destruction such an excessive amount of fishing net will have on the ocean and environment as a whole. Leading to the second argument of the images that overproduction cause over consumption which directly harms the environment.

The third visual argument made by the image is conveyed through the posture and coloration of the women working at the sewing machine. Her cloths are mismatched a tattered and she appears to be uncomfortably hunched over the machine. This image leads to the impression that despite her physically demanding work she is still financially strained. Putting all of these arguments together the photo leaves the viewer with the sense that society puts too much emphasis on production and not its consequences which are in fact extremely detrimental to the world and the people who keep the machines running.

Speech: How to Bring Affordable, Sustainable Electricity to Africa            Speaker: Rose M. Mutiso

The main idea of the speech is that Africa is in desperate need of a greater electricity supply, which the world needs to pull together and help create. During her speech, Mutiso identifies and explains three reasons while this problem exists and how we can fix them. The first being that the world does not have a strong understanding of what energy poverty is, second government is avoiding the complex systems issue in exchange for quick fix solutions, and finally we are misdirecting concerns about climate changes. The first problem comes from the fact that 50 kw/hours a year is considered electrified. But in reality only being able to charge a phone and having a few lights is not truly sufficient. The second is that although there is a big push for “off grid solar”, theses clean energy alternatives are not a substitute for a uniform developed infrastructure. In other words, in order for these new tech methods to work there needs to be a government controlled electric grid with transportation cables and significant generations station through which “off grid solar” could improve. Finally, Africa provides  the world with a unique opportunity to start from scratch in terms of clean energy. Operations in the past have been expenses, inefficiency and extremely bad in terms of pollution. We should look to Africa as a way to try out new , high tech energy systems that can be replicated worldwide. The speech did a really great job of increasing my knowledge on the issue, an issue that is often overlooked in global conversations. The content was good but the delivery was lackluster. The speaker’s lack of movement and initially monotone delivery made her seem stiff and didn’t allow the audience to fall into her words as easily. But her message was still very effective seeing that her images and presentation over all created the connection with the audience that her delivery was slightly lacking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaRHgUS_49Q

 

In this video clip, 1:15 to 3:15, we see Jordan Belfort- played by Leonardo DiCaprio, we see Jordan turn a stupidly formally formal speech into an emotional diatribe which ends in him claiming he is not leaving his firm after all to the cheers and applause of his employees. Besides having content with intrinsic emotional effect (the story of him paying his worker a 25,000 dollar advance so she could pay rent and support her soon), the excellent delivery enhanced the speeches impact ten fold. First, and most obviously is the speakers control of his voice. During the dramatic low points, he just just spear softer, you can hear his voice cracking with emotion. This added effect helped to bring the audience into the speaker’s perspective and captive their attention emotions. The second really compelling factor of the speech is his use of movements. As he speaks he moves around the stage, holding the microphone closer to his mouth and moving his hands to draw attention to the person he was speaking to showed his personal attachment to the story and broke the barrier between himself and the audience, generating a greater connection with the listeners. The final major aspect that really set the speech at such a high level was his use of speed. Starting off very slow created a sense of monotony and focus, so as the increase his speed in culmination with an increase in volume, exaggerated his climax points and effectively gave his words a greater impact on the audience. The combination of volume control, movement and tempo lead to an excellent speech and a resounding message with the audience.

 

In order to properly identify a paradigm shift, one must first recognize a trait, habit, thought process, pattern, etc that existed and then changed over a period of time. In order to formulate this it is crucial that the starting state and endings state of a shift were actually phases and not just a misconception created by faulty research. For example, let’s consider the hypothetical that a study was conducted that should the year the I phone first came out teen social interaction reached all time lows and has since moved back higher. Looking at just this someone might come to the conclusion that there was a paradigm shift from using new tech as much as possible to forcing yourself to put the phone down and interact with others.

With the information given this is a reasonable assumption. Now let’s say that after further analysis we see that the original study did not include a lot of the interactions on the iPhone as social interacts since the college students filling out the study did not consider it that as much as the participants served 10 years later. The point is that in order to prove a phase shift the initial and ending phases need to be identified first.

If this identification step is done under some faulty psychological study and verified by other faulty psychological study using the same flawed context which may look good in academic research, then the phase shift itself is left meaningless. With my paradigm shift this shouldn’t be a problem seeing the increase in technology and the according increase in the number of people trading equities is fairly well recorded. Based on these numbers the demographics will provide a civic analysis leaving little room for  such “ faulty research” to get in the way.

Image Above

For the focus of my paradigm shift essay, I will be covering how technological advances have changed the way in which people invest. At the most basic level, the introduction of new technology, especially in the realm of communication, changed the accessibility of owning equity in a company. This came with both financial and social implications as people could essentially work for a state in a company which would subsequently earn them status (The previous alternative to getting this corporation related status was essentially who you knew).

 

 Additionally, through the changing means of placing buy and sell orders, the geography of where traders were located began to change and spread. This lead to a subsequent spread of wealth across the country which can lead to an interesting analysis of US wealth distribution over time, it is correlation to population dispersion.  Finally, the most content heavy analysis lies in the changing investment strategies brought about by these technological changes. The means of placing buy and sell orders evolving changed the cost of trading equity in a company . As accessibility increased, new means of investing were derived to fill growing consumer demand. 

 

People began to build instruments and baskets of funds through which they could sell to the masses, more formally known as the rise of mutual and index funds. Economists debated over which means were the best and the world watched the rise and fall of funds based off of different theories. You had the actively managed funds, index funds, the index tacking mutual funds, the highly leveraged funds, Momentum Funds,Exchange Traded Funds, and through the rise of the Data Science Era- Quantitative funds. 

 

All of these twists and turns through investing innovation were caused by core tech changes opening up new possibilities. All along the way billions were made and billions were lost. In summation, the paradigm shifts of US investing, catalyzed by technological advantages, shaped the global financial world we know today.