The first article I ever wrote was published in the Observer on October 18, 2017. The shortest of my portfolio, it nonetheless banished any doubt in my mind about my path and what I was setting out to accomplish.  I want to write, and I want to publish my work. Now, as time crunches in the last weeks of spring, and my classes wrap up for finals, my turn at the helm of this tenured and proud publication also draws to a close. Working as a correspondent, editor, and editor-in-chief have been proving grounds of my practice, and the end result is a portfolio that I am proud of and experiences that will stay with me for the rest of my life. I have found my professional  passion in opinion and editorial writing, which I will no doubt pursue wherever I next find myself. To explore and attempt to understand difficult social and political questions has been a driving goal of mine for a long time, but as I have delved into the issues facing our culture and the challenges that must be overcome, there has been a focusing of my explorations. In research, article and presentation I have focused on and addressed severe social ills from demonized masculinity to fake hate crimes that have divided American culture and led to the downward purity spiral that is rooted in a biased and ulteriorly motivated mass media.

As I part from this publication, I leave with this message for all newsprint, be it digital, broadcasted, or old-fashioned paper. The Truth is a loyal mistress, but also unforgiving. For the correspondent, editor, and publication that adheres as closely as possible to what is true and defensible, and makes amends to mistakes and breaches of practice, their credibility and reputations will grow with time. The Truth will prove to be their best defense against inevitable criticism. But for the gatekeeping mass media, wading in scandals and yellow journalism, their lost credibility cannot be regained. Once damned in the public eye, there is little hope for reclamation. One need only look to the social media presences of the old guard firms to see what crop they reap on the web. On CNN’s Youtube page, the very first video presented, as of the date of publication, has seven and a half thousand likes to fourteen thousand dislikes.

But this is not, as these same outlets claim, an attack on the free press. Rather, I firmly believe it to be the end of an era. The practice of Journalism being confined to a handful of multinational firms is being swept away by a tide of citizen journalists unlike the world has ever seen. There are a great many bold individuals the world over who are engaged in journalism at its finest, on the ground with camera in hand. From the Arab Spring, to Brexit, to the Berkeley Riots, it is private individuals sharing their own recorded content to the internet that are documenting and providing commentary on the events that affect themselves and others. The press has been returned to the free market, and publications will once again succeed or fail by their merits. As a result of this, network television channels are suddenly on a level playing field with every and any other publication. The seemingly perpetual downvoting and criticism are not a concerted effort of a single actor or party, but rather a grassroots rebellion against infotainment, stained and sullied that it is.

Even with this industry revolution underway, the state of Journalism can appear quite grim. While this may be so, nothing brings greater reassurance than my work done at the Observer. I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with and reading the contributions of many of my classmates, both editors and correspondents. The Observer has become a crew of vastly different perspectives, a balanced team able to write engaging and pertinent pieces across a wide range of topics. This honest and engaging environment extends beyond the newsroom as well.

Before attending NECC, I wondered what state of free speech I would find on campus. Would the college’s environment be receptive to challenging ideas and complex, difficult conversations? Two years later, I can safely say that NECC has proven not only to respect the principles of freedom of speech and expression, but to hold them in high regard. Events like the recent Speechapalooza reflect this respect for the principles that pushes culture forward, and to participate in and witness the passion and enthusiasm with which the event is received is in no small way refreshing.  The academic flame burns bright at this College, and I am glad and proud to have lent my work to it.

What comes next, I am not sure of yet. But these few years have been a growing experience in ways I could never have anticipated. But above all, I am proud to have worked for the Observer, and am glad for my editors, correspondents, and readers. Thank you. 

The rise of social media may prove to have one of the largest impacts on politics of our age. Though rallies and advertisements continue to be staples of campaigning, and are not likely to become outmoded any time soon, the Internet has become a priceless means of engagement with both the voting public and between candidates and activists, their support and opposition. What is a meme? It may sound like a silly question to someone born and raised with access to social media, but what constitutes a meme is actually quite broad and open to interpretation. Oxford dictionary lists two definitions of the word, the more commonly understood being: “An image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, often with slight variations.”

While this definition fits best with the common practice of political memes, that is to say images that either give support to or mock a candidate, group, or platform, memes as propaganda may be best described using the Oxford Dictionary’s primary definition of the phrase: “An element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means.” There are three tiers of political social media engagement which will be explored and discussed here. They are the interpersonal, the organizational, and the public figure tiers.

At the interpersonal level, memes are shared between individuals, or a private person shares a meme with their friends or followers. While a great many of these are confined to particular subcultures or communities, which can and do become insular to a degree, there is an ever-expanding library of relatively universal memes which circulate social media. Such characters as Wojak, Pepe the Frog, and Doge have become templates for messages of every variety, from the wholesome and tame to extreme to intentionally ridiculous.

Just emerging at the time of this article is a meme that has yet to take on a single name, being a variant of Pepe the Frog. Known as Honk Honk, or Clown Pepe, which features a poorly drawn Pepe wearing a rainbow wig and large red nose. This cartoon character seems to mostly represent a nihilistic attitude of amused indifference. “The world has devolved into a parody of itself, so all that’s left is to laugh.” Though not as explicit in its politics as many memes, the Clown Pepe does carry a tone of dissociation and mockery of perceived runaway Social Justice. It is a single image or format such as this that becomes part of a shared vocabulary and subculture across social media platforms, expanded upon and messed with by individuals. Above all else, the image must be shared between friends and social circles to promulgate it. This drive to be spread means that memes can end up being created and shared within almost any community.

Making memes has been, and is still by vast majority, simply an endeavor of enjoyment or distraction, by its nature not usually serious or with a specific goal in mind.  However, the concept of Information Warfare has entered the public consciousness. Since the cultural chaos of the “Great Meme War of ‘16,” it is difficult to imagine a campaign season without a firestorm of clever, stupid, or just plain bizarre memes for and against every candidate. There is evidence that some campaigns are even taking this a step further.

The second tier of memes in politics is the intentional use and manipulation of meme culture for a specific cause. Hence comes the curious case of the #yanggang. Begun as a nickname for supporters of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, the meme largely revolved around his proposed Universal Basic Income, which would allot $1,000 a month to every citizen.

Ironically, many of the memes to come from #yanggang were similar in their message to Honk Honk, in that they were often nihilistic, and largely sarcastic in their support for Yang, serving more as a vehicle for a disillusioned sect of the right to criticize Trump. “The choice is now between losing the culture war, or losing the culture war and getting $1,000 bucks a month from the Government.” Though the meme did catch on and have a fair amount of organic growth, the #yanggang lost it’s thunder in wider social media almost as quickly as it appeared.

This was due to two primary reasons. The first, being that because Yang’s campaign embraced the title and the hashtag, Yang had to specifically address the politically edgy and intentionally offensive and provocative content creators, telling them that “for anyone with this agenda, we don’t want your support… You are not welcome in this campaign.” While sensible and likely inevitable an action, this caused much of Yang’s soft support and indifferent or ironic meme creators to drift off to find something else to post about. The second reason is that a thread posted to 4chan’s /politically incorrect/ board claimed that #yanggang had been an orchestrated “shilling” (misinformation and/or demoralization) campaign against Donald Trump’s online support base. True or not, there is reason to believe this accusation played a part in taking the wind out of #yanggang’s sails.

The third tier of memes in politics is involvement by and of social figures. On April 4th, President Donald Trump shared a satirical edit of Joe Biden’s statement in which the former VP smells his own hair, parodying his “odd” behavior around women on stage. This tweet garnered mixed reactions from his support. Some believing it unprofessional and unbecoming of the President, while others were amused by what many have simply come to accept as Trump being Trump. Such instances are not uncommon, as public figures now have access to a near endless fount of material with which to support their friends, deride their naysayers and mock their opponents. President Trump has proven himself fond of sharing memes created by supporters.

As outlandish as the President’s twitter habits may seem, he may well simply be ahead of the curve. While his tweets demonstrate a sense of humor and manner of wit that strikes a chord with some, his past opponents have done much of the work for him in displaying how out of touch they are with the fledgling online culture.  2016’s election was filled with candidate Hillary Clinton’s woefully fake-sounding attempts at appearing hip, which itself became something of a running joke throughout the election. “More like Chillary Clinton amirite?” and “Tell us how you feel about college debt in three emojis or less” were basically pre-packaged parodies of someone trying to sound like they know social media.

This is the double edged sword that is politicians, and celebrities in general, trying to engage with internet culture. If done well, it can be a potent tool to mock opponents and call them out in a way they cannot easily rebut, but if done poorly the politician posting can quickly become the punchline, much to their own detriment.  Internet culture is in its formative years still, and it remains to be seen what the lasting implications in politics and culture will be, but if one thing is sure, it’s that the candidates of the future will have to either be Social Media savvy themselves, or have people close at hand who are.

The recent staged hate crime organized by Jussie Smollett is but the latest symptom of a disturbing trend in the current cultural and political environment. Disproportionately experiencing these fake hate crimes are college campuses around the country.  The BBC reports that a “Chicago judge has said that if true, the actions of Smollett are ‘utterly outrageous’ and ‘despicable’” Certainly, the public reaction to learning of Smollett’s hoax was at least as strong as their initial response to his claim. The idea that someone would manufacture a politically-charged incident to garner sympathy or even just attention might seem outlandish and prone enough to backfire to be a very rare occurrence. But, it’s not as rare as it should be.

In December of 2014, The New York Times reported that a young Muslim woman from New York, Yasmin Seweid, was charged with filing a false report. Miss Seweid had claimed a mob of white men had attacked her while yelling support for Donald Trump, and pulled off her hijab. She recanted the story and admitted she made it up due to “family problems.” At the University of Michigan in 2016, a student admitted to fabricating a story about her face being scratched as part of a hate crime, the New York Daily reports. Not a year later in 2017, The College Fix reported that a student had faked a threat and slur-filled letter she reported at St. Olaf College. To explain her actions, the young woman claimed it had been to “draw attention to concerns about the campus climate.”

It cannot be overstated how counterproductive it is to engineer racial and political incidents to try to address a college campus climate. One need only look to the response that Mr. Smollett’s staged attack garnered to see the wages of engineering hate.  The student from St. Olaf was not alone in her explanation though, it appears that “concerns about racism/islamophobia/etc” is a common justification for fabricating hate crimes, albeit retroactive justification since the guilty party will, of course, only admit to forgery if they are caught.

This is unacceptable behavior. Not only for the clear and obvious reason that faking a racially motivated crime is reprehensible on it’s own. Beyond that, such incidents expose a severe witch hunt mentality. In what reasonable mind is it concluded that “there hasn’t been a good hate crime to protest in awhile?” It is not enough, it seems, to address the legitimate and visceral cultural and political divides that already cuts down the center of our culture. Nor will it do to engage the right in measured and informed discussion. Instead, this recurring boogeyman caricature of the white man in a MAGA hat must be proliferated, for the sake of browbeating and moral grandstanding against those whose political positions the “victim” of a staged attack finds disagreeable.

I can think of few better ways to destroy any shred of goodwill that persist between the political camps, and to halt dialogue before it begins. What common ground is there to be had with a mindset that, lacking an enemy vicious enough to justify retaliation, will create it. It is not difficult for even the most sensible on the right to look at such incidents and come to the conclusion that the entrenched left in academia has already decided they are two-dimensional creatures of evil, and that discussion is pointless.

But I would argue that it is not only the right that loses in this scenario. Fake hate is a downward spiral for those who perpetrate it, and those who buy into it. Political disagreement does not have to be vitriolic, someone with a different position to one’s own is not necessarily cause to hate and fear them. But in this downward spiral, the feedback loop of propaganda staining reality, suddenly a populist, patriot, or even classical liberal becomes persona non grata.

Not to mention the extra scrutiny any report of a hate crime must now undergo, beyond what a sensible investigation would have done anyway. That well has been poisoned. What was once legitimate intention of stopping some of the worst crimes, was turned into a politicized mallet with which to batter the opposition until its original intent was lost entirely and its credibility was exhausted in the court of public opinion. Faking hate crimes hurts hate crime victims. Not people who commit hate crimes.  But these incidents show some are not satisfied with meeting their opponents on the grounds of policy or even worldview, it must be moral. Their political counterparts are not being reprehensible enough for them to hate, so they will make them so. Consequences be damned.

The second great contributor to this moral panic is without question the 24 hour news cycle. Infamously, the mainstream media dogpiled kids from the Covington Catholic School after short clips and photographs were taken that appeared, emphasis on appeared, to show the children taunting and jeering at Native American demonstrators. This was more a story written from a photo than a photo to accompany a story, and for days major outlets ran with it, dragging the names of high school children through the mud. Several walkbacks, half-retractions and a lot of lawsuits later, that battle continues.

The Covington incident pairs perfectly with Smollett’s fake crime in that major networks dropped the ball on these stories and dropped it hard. Rather than reserving judgement and looking for the various testimonies and other video that explained the situation at the Lincoln memorial, and exploring inconsistencies and problems in Smollett’s story further, partisan media took what was needed for the narrative and let it ride until those chickens came home to roost. 

Fake hate crimes are ultimately damaging to all involved, and does more to discredit actual victims than achieving any kind of discussion. As a political weapon, it is a disingenuous strategy of perpetuating stereotypes and character assassination by association.  The divides in this country, in the west in general, are very real and getting deeper every day. Vitriolic exchanges have become the order of the day. A worldwide clash of polar opposite philosophies, there are riots and elections and more frothing-mouthed rhetoric than anyone can stomach. But for better or worse we must deal with people as they are. Not as they ought to be to suit a narrative.

But I wonder if painting the right as jackbooted serial killers is a coping mechanism of sorts. To be able to say all one’s opposition are simply the epitome of evil makes the struggle simple and straightforward. But when they are people, real people with real families to feed and legitimate concerns about the state of our nation, that is scary. It is safe and easy to attack the faceless stereotype one assumes their opponent to be. Sitting down across the table from someone as different as night and day to you is terrifying because there’s a chance you might be wrong.

Not once, but a few times bellows of “USA USA” echoed across the floor of Congress, at times with voices from both sides of the aisle. While this bipartisan jubilance might easily be mistaken for a conciliatory moment, the State of the Union Address was the setting of the scene for a year of campaigning and highlighted conflicts that are sure to cut at the heart of campaigns on both sides.   

Such an article as this ought open with a caveat, I personally have supported the President, and still do. Now that my personal opinion and bias is stated and obvious, my analysis of the Address will be, to the best of my ability, divorced from personal political opinion. This is about how the President performed, and what I believe he is seeking to accomplish, and how this speech will impact the looming election season.

President Trump’s speech was much longer than I expected. Despite not being an exceptionally eloquent orator, the address was well written and prepared. Given the speaker, off the cuff moments were probably inevitable and certainly discernible, but not too long or frequent to be cumbersome or distracting.

[pullquote]

…”the State of the Union Address was the setting of the scene for a year of campaigning and highlighted conflicts that are sure to cut at the heart of campaigns on both sides. “

[/pullquote]

The President did make several overtures of unity, cooperation and bipartisanship, though not necessarily to appeal to his opposition. Rather, I believe the President’s aim was  to show both the undecided center and unconvinced or disillusioned Republicans that he is able and willing to present a more diplomatic and political figure to the American people than his Twitter feed portrays. This political positioning is President Trump looking to claim the role of the outstretched hand at the beginning of the election season. Many would consider this gesture long overdue, and even too late for more centrist Republicans, those not as entertained, perhaps, by the Twitter wars as Trump’s younger meme-making populist support. No matter if genuine or purely political, or what opinion receives this message, it is a solid perception tactic, and may do much to unite the Republicans behind a single message and candidate.

For all talk of bipartisan cooperation, Trump did not hold any punches against his far-left opposition. In no uncertain terms he declared to the Republican’s roaring approval that “America will never be a socialist country.” Consistent with strategy that served him well during 2016,  the President echoed his base as he stated that he did not believe these activists and politicians would have to live with the consequences of socialist economics and open-borders policy the way the working class would.  In employing the language and arguments of the layman, the president created an image of solidarity with the blue-collar voter, which is sure to be effective with a large segment of his voter base.

I have heard it many times stated that Trump is “a money President,” and he was sure to capitalize on this label by focusing intensely on economic successes of his administration thus far. In addition to the generation and return of manufacturing jobs and a recent boom in investment, Trump was sure to point out record female and minority employment, in order to turn the mainstream media narrative of his administration on its head.

The President left the issue of late term abortions to the end, a topic which has been a consistent battleground between the further contingent of both wings of the political spectrum for a long time. The President’s appeal was strongly worded and far from equally received across the aisle, leading me to speculate that topic will be a keystone subject for both sides going forward.

Astonishingly, a CBS viewer poll rated 76% viewer approval of the speech, a decisive optics victory for the Republicans, and a thunderous opening salvo of the 2020 election.

This optics win arrives amidst a storm of controversy in the Democratic camp. I don’t want to stray too far from the topic of this piece, but an aside is important to place this speech and it’s reception in context. Virginia’s political establishment is in freefall as controversies mount, potentially threatening to flip the state red once ballots are cast. Candidate Elizabeth Warren’s nagging heritage controversy is a spectre that will hang over her for the whole of the campaign, and will hamper and drive criticism of the entirety of the party should she win the DNC primary. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is already exceedingly divisive, and may well be the crack in the ice that will cause Democratic schism.   

The State of the Union Address is a powerful tool to set the agenda and parade achievement before the American voter, and President Trump delivered an effective speech that invigorated his existing support, and made a strong display of his administration’s successes and strengths to the American public at large.

The Address was well received even by mainstream media viewers.

Should the Republicans congeal around President Trump and present a common front, with a unifying message and popular platform, they will prove a fearsome opponent for an embattled and increasingly fragmented Democratic party.

In rapid fire sequence, the words “bullying,” “metoo,” and “toxic masculinity” are rattled off as news reports play in the background. From a filmmaking standpoint, this opening is an effective and concise summary of the message of Gillette’s controversial advert “The best a man can be,” but it also betrays the skewed perspective and condemning nature with which it is presented. 

These misrepresentations and accusations against men as a homogeny have been lorded over the millennial generation since early childhood, and are now being pressed in turn on their sons. Bullying is a recurring theme throughout the commercial, from a crowd of older boys chasing a younger one, to another boy’s living room as he clings to his mother. 

Rough-housing is presented as two young boys squabble in the grass under the indifferent gaze of older men parroting the axiom “boys will be boys.”  A shot of a sitcom stage shows the father character mime grabbing a maid as the audience chuckles at the implication.  These are, in the minds that conceived the commercial, and by association at least some at Gillette, masculinity.

[pullquote]

“There are three things wise men fear, the sea in  a storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man” – Patrick Rothfuss

[/pullquote]

While the second half of the commercial is definitely intended to be an uplifting and encouraging declaration that men can be better, I didn’t buy their appeal for a moment. The proposed solutions seemed little more than a showcase of a more cowed man, of little will and even less volition. Of particular note, the final scene in the play fighting sequence shows one of the fathers present breaking the boys up and telling them “that’s not how we treat each other, okay?” This is simply not representative of reality.

According to Eileen Kennedy-Moore in her article for psychologytoday.com, “Do boys need rough and tumble play?” Sixty percent of elementary school boys have play-fought, and less than one percent of playfights devolve into actual fights. Kennedy-Moore further states that boys enjoy rough play as it is both an outlet for energy and a way to challenge themselves and one another. Play Fighting can help develop a sense of restraint and self control, as well as helping young boys understand how to be a gracious winner, or loser.

Boys like to fight, and men like to fight. This is not a defect to be taught out of them, rather it is a disposition that can, and ought to be, cultivated in such a way as to help young men be confident, assertive, and equipping them with self control. In studying martial arts for over a decade, never once did someone tell me learning how to fight is  free license to employ the lessons for no reason, and definitely not on people who cannot fight back. Instead, it is a skill that develops dedication, discipline, and confidence.

Confidence which can help a young boy overcome fear, and confront and stop bullying. Another major mistake of Gillette’s ad is displaying an adult breaking up bullies from their victim. Once more, I can say from experience, that man did nothing to improve the boy’s long term situation. No matter how many rallies a school holds, no matter the programs, posters, or number of times a teacher or parent intervenes, nothing stops bullying in its tracks like the victim developing confidence.

Never once did I have to fight my bullies, but once I had developed confidence, and did not rise to their provocation, they got bored and left.  Children develop hierarchies, and for young boys especially, not being able to stand up for themselves is like rock tied to their feet, and will surely drag them to the bottom. But in this is found one of the core failings of Gillette’s message, as well as the error of the wider narrative of Toxic Masculinity in general. Toxic masculinity is not presented as a specific kind of masculinity, it is not a perversion or corruption of a noble, traditional masculinity. Toxic masculinity is a statement that masculinity itself is toxic, as opposed to an idealized femininity. The theory driving this short film is that masculinity is something to be fixed. Men, therefore, are dysfunctional by nature.

What is missing from young boy’s lives is an understanding of honor, and a distinct feeling of responsibility. The feeling that they ought to do right, because if not them, who? When a young man is dedicated to being noble, strong, happy, and skilled, and is praised and guided in doing so by a male role model, he won’t fear being toxic. He will learn to be respectful and upstanding, and the likes of the “metoo” perpetrators will evoke disgust, contempt and anger, not fear and guilt.

Instead of raising boys under the assumption that they are defective and prone to reprehensible behavior, we should guide them toward an ideal. Set before them examples of great and upstanding men of the past. Stories of mythic heroes and paragons inspire a love of honor for sure, but especially men of their own family. Regale sons with stories about how their great grandfathers made a new life for their families, how their grandfathers served their country, how their fathers came to own their own businesses. Stories like these are probably not as grand as Alexander or Leonidas, but they are real and tangible examples to live up to. Such personal stories ground the ideal of masculinity in reality.   

Masculinity is not toxic. Masculinity embodies the natural disposition of men, and those features and traits that set them apart from women. Masculinity is a toolset men are born with. Like a hammer, it can build a house or break a window. It depends on the man, and as Gillette so eloquently points out, the boys of today are the men of tomorrow.

The end of the semester is here. After many sleepless nights, last-minute scrambles and outstanding pieces of writing and presentation, we can all take a deep breath. As the semester ends, and the next one comes into focus, it’s time to rest, take stock, and prepare to overcome whatever challenges lay ahead i the next semester. In order to become as effective a possible, to be as much an asset to our own interests as possible, there is a single change that will make all the rest so much easier.

Planning is only the first step, and overplanning can sometimes be more of a hindrance than help. As it has been said, no plan survives contact with opposition. Staying on task and committing to meet deadlines is essential, but even with this done the work can wear even the hardest worker down. The repetition of work, the process by which we find achievement has been dubbed “the grind,” with the understanding that it is a difficult and tiring endeavor. The single best way to overcome the grind is to love it.

This is not just a platitude for motivational posters, to be posted in bold print over a picture of a mountain. Instead, understand that no matter the situation that arises in front of you, it is an opportunity to overcome it and achieve a goal. A last minute assignment is a terrible thing to recieve, until it is accepted as a dare of sorts, as a way to prove one’s studiousness and versatility. Overcoming the problem, finishing the assignment, and receiving high marks stimulates the brain’s reward impulse, encouraging the development of studiousness and versatility. Even in the event the assignment is not finished in time, the downward push can either be seen as a crushing defeat, or an opportunity to improve and come back stronger for it. We already seek challenge and success in our entertainment in the form of video games and other interactive media, and it is not a massive shift to apply the same mindset.

I enjoy video games as much as the next twenty year old, and I know an avid player of a game like the Dark Souls franchise (infamous for it’s overpowered enemies and difficult gameplay,) will say the difficulty is the whole idea of the game. To figure out the challenging opponents and perfecting a playstyle gives a sense of achievement and mastery. When inexperienced players complain how difficult it is, the tongue-in-cheek response from more seasoned players is short, not-so-sweet and to the point, “git gud.”

Why do we not apply the same line of thinking to academics, or anything else? Taking up an instrument, beginning a sport or a new job, all of these can become all the more fulfilling and enjoyable from a change in perspective.

To accept that some tasks and undertakings are going to challenge us, and to begin to look for this challenge and enjoy figuring out how to overcome it can completely flip our mental narrative.  Viewing tough situations and failures as a challenge takes these difficulties from being an end to being a beginning. It is all too easy to become disheartened in the face of a failed paper or a bad day at work. It is healthy and okay to feel upset about something like this, and to deal with it in our own ways. There is no one quick fix to make sure we never feel bad again. But to understand that situation as a chance to start again and do it right allows those feelings to fade and be replaced by a sense of purpose.

This sense of purpose does not have to be where you wish to be in five years, that’s a quick way to overwhelm yourself and is far too much to be tackled all at once, especially in the middle of a time of duress. Let the purpose be as simple as possible, to accomplish the present task, to the best of your ability. Once that task is done, to accomplish the next task to the best of your ability, and so on. 

There is nothing to be gained from checking out when things get difficult, in fact it almost guarantees the situation will get much worse. Misery loves company, and shunning work or falling behind will only make getting back up to speed that much harder. Addressing the problem as soon as possible, with a clear head and goal in mind, can become an automatic, conditioned response just as well as giving up can. Once this mindset becomes ingrained, it will extend into other areas of life. Aristotle explains as much in his quote, “…Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit.”

The work may not get easier, the page counts are the same, the topics as challenging as ever. Readings, essays, speeches and experiments, let them come. Once we are equipped with the right mindset and some forethought, planning, and practice, pages are written and papers completed, experiments are successful and deadlines met with time to spare.

To accept that some tasks and undertakings are going to challenge us, and to begin to look for this challenge and enjoy figuring out how to overcome it can completely flip our mental narrative.

At the heart of being an effective student, in my experience, is three words, which are Focus, Prioritize, Accomplish. While this credo might be a bit simplistic for some more complicated situations, at very least I’ve found these rules to be a useful place to start when I find myself well and truly stuck.

When a lot of work has to be done in a short amount of time, the first thing that has to go is distraction. Cell phones especially, but even books, instruments, and the ever-present social media has to be shelved. Out of sight, out of mind. It is not difficult to let even an hour at a time go by scrolling mindlessly on Instagram or Facebook, and more than a few projects had been seriously set back by those sorts of distractions. 

Around the end of the semester, when the workload seems to double and the due dates come up quicker than ever, even the smallest mistake or delay can go from a mild annoyance to a severe holdup. From assignments, to projects, to presentations and essays, it can feel like everyone needs everything at once. All this stress comes hand in hand with non-academic worries that begin around the same time of year with the onset of the holiday season. Southern Methodist University Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Steven Currall is quoted on the SMU page as saying “The stretch from Thanksgiving to the end of finals is ‘ a time of significant stress for many members of our community.’”

[pullquote]

Choose the most difficult, intensive, or grade-impacting projects to prioritise.

[/pullquote]

But even at this busiest of junctures, a few minutes of organization can make all the difference. If you don’t have a planner or calendar, I adamantly suggest finding one. But in a pinch, even a scrap of notebook paper or the back of a syllabus will do. On this piece of paper, write out everything that has to be done. Don’t worry about order or importance yet, just dump it all out so it’s not jostled in a busy mind any more. Take a minute or two to simply breathe, relax your shoulders and let your thoughts quiet down. Give yourself a moment of peace and quiet.

Once this is done, organize by urgency. I say urgency rather than due date, because while some projects might be due sooner than others, they might also be simpler or something you are more comfortable doing. Choose the most difficult, intensive, or grade-impacting projects to prioritize. Once this list is made, the hard part can start.

Once the distractions have been shelved, and the set of priorities established, settling to do the work itself doesn’t have to be as uncomfortable or stressful as it might be.

The single most impactful way to make the work easier is to give yourself ample time. This advice comes not from someone who always does, rather someone who has had to scramble to finish a paper or project more that I’d like to admit. It cannot be said enough, and bears repeating, that enough time makes lighter work.

In addition, think about what you can do for yourself to make the work go easier. Dressing comfortably, having a favorite drink or snack on hand, or background music that is soft enough to not become a distraction, I personally do all three of these. 

Being well rested also makes work go by much easier, According to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, young adults need between seven and a half to eight hours of sleep a night. Missing sleep, according to the Foundation, causes decreased attention, memory and alertness. All of these are serious handicaps on the quality of a project. Having a well-rounded meal can also help you feel awake, alert and able. Starches and carbs are the body’s energy source while vitamins found in fruits and vegetables can help everything from memory retention to improving mood.

Taking short breaks have definitely helped me to clear my head and reorient myself on task. When I get writers block, or can’t decide how to proceed in a certain project, or simply feel drained or out of steam, a short workout or walk serves to get the blood moving, and lets my head relax for a few minutes. Even taking ten minutes to play some music, read a good book or chat with a family member can suffice.

The important distinction here is that these are mentally active forms of rest. Video games, social media or surfing the web are not activities that continue to stimulate the brain in different ways, rather they generate inaction and lethargy that is tempting to give in to.

Playing an instrument, reading, or talking keep the mind active, simply in a different way than hard work at the keyboard does. In this way, the brain can rest while remaining awake and aware.

Once these steps are taken and advice tailored to your own preference, you’re ready to blaze through the toughest part of the semester and finish strong! Good luck.

On Monday the 29th of October, CNN anchor Don Lemon sparked an outrage when he made comments on air that asserted that the greatest terror threat in the country is white men. According to the Washington Post, the comment in question was “… we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men…”

Lemon has since doubled down on this position, and CNN has not condemned his comments.

Though this level of rhetoric is not common on the Mainstream television circuit, anti-white sentiments are not uncommon on various internet outlets, even among some notable historic and established publications. When opinion writer Sarah Jeong was hired by the New York Times, many critics pointed out her blatant and vitriolic posts against white people on Twitter. In as many words, the Times chalked up her tweets to her personal opinion, and thus not their remit to control or criticize.

To this, I can only say that I agree heartily, New York Times. In the case of both Lemon and Jeong, I couldn’t care less about their personal biases or positions.

The issue is the common acceptance and even apologetics concerning anti-white bigotry in academia and the media, and the ferocious double-standard that accompanies it.

It is one thing to form theories about the interplay of race, sex, et cetera and discuss them.

But where the extreme left elements of the media and academia have erred is in treating the concept of white privilege as carte blanche to lambaste, blame, and villainize a massive swathe of the voting population.

From an article that appeared in the Guardian in may of 2017, titled “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race.” to Buzzfeed’s 2014 piece “22 reasons why straight white boys are actually the worst,” in the socialite circles of the United States, it has been chic for a few years to denounce straight white men and boys. 

It is not difficult to see that the narrative has been entirely derailed. Whatever serious discussion might have been had concerning race is being drowned in the one sided mess of lowball humor and stereotypes, which coincidentally enough is precisely what these same outlets proclaim to be engaging in resistance against.

This became coupled with extended campaigns of censorship by the gilded halls of Silicon Valley conglomerates like Apple, Facebook and Google against political and cultural opponents and a ruthless pursuit of anything that could be construed as hate speech.

There could not have been a better catchphrase for this blatant doublethink than Lemon’s quote: “… we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men…”

There is no break, no “but,” no attempt to create an exception. This despite the sentence doing a complete about-face halfway through. Which one is it? The fact an anchor on a major news network was able to make this sentence and be dead serious says more about the state of affairs than any number of articles could.

The United States has undergone several moral panics in the past, including two Red Scares in the 1920’s and 1950’s, the Satanic Panic of the late 90’s, the moral panic of the 2010’s will probably go down as the Social Justice or Intersectional Panic.

When elite, cloistered and out of touch circles of intelligentsia were so determined to combat systemic racism and sexism that they began preaching racism and sexism.

It is not difficult to see that the narrative has been entirely derailed. Whatever serious discussion might have been had concerning race is being drowned in the one sided mess of lowball humor and stereotypes

The midterm elections are fast approaching, and candidates, celebrities and businesses alike are taking part in a nationwide push to energize the youth to become politically involved in the ballot box.

Though, in the turbulent social and political environment, perhaps more than ever, the young vote is disheartened, disgusted or disinterested in politics at all levels.

From a mass media so consumed with partisan trash talk and outrage mongering, to politicians turning to literal name-calling and twitter duels between world leaders, the political process can seem like a joke that isn’t funny anymore.

There is very little pertaining to government or politics that has not been so consumed and divided by party and ideological loyalties as to become unrecognizable.  But the foundation, the dispersing of power to the citizenry is the essential component of the American Experiment, and the Enlightenment values which inspired it.

[pullquote]

The Constitutional Republic inverted the system. No longer was the law subject to the whim of the ruler, the leadership was to be constrained by the tenets of the law.

– Brennan Cooney

[/pullquote]

The American system of government was, in its time, a radical new path of statehood. Birthed in the age of Empires, Kingdoms, and Principalities, The Constitutional Republic inverted the system. No longer was the law subject to the whim of the ruler, the leadership was to be constrained by the tenets of the law. A document, living and able to evolve as society did, to progress alongside its people, written with the expressed and clear intent of protecting the inalienable rights of the Citizen.

But, the Constitution does not rule in a vacuum, and there are many legitimate criticisms of our political process, and it is worth exploring and weighing these concerns to determine the worth of political engagement.

Some would consider abstaining from the vote as a form of civil disobedience.

To refuse to engage with a system which is bloated and corrupt beyond measure. There is value in civil disobedience and certainly a valid reason to disengage from party politics in particular.

Although, the greatest merit of the Constitutional Republic is the sovereignty vested in the individual. To actively avoid the vote, even for political cause, is to voluntarily submit to the will of those who remain active.

Still more simply do not vote because it is not important to them. Policy, laws, taxes, it’s enough to put someone to sleep, once the talking heads on TV stop yelling at each other. Especially for someone harried by responsibilities, be they work, school, or family obligation. It is difficult to make someone see the value of something they’ve had since birth. The vote might seem pointless, and unimportant.

To this I can only say, it was important to the suffragettes. It was important enough to them to be arrested, and undergo hunger strikes and other acts of disobedience to make their voices heard.   It was important to the Civil Rights movement, who endured persecution and violence and decades of supression to achieve the vote. It was important to the French people, so much as to overthrow a centuries-old dynasty and rewrite their entire society from the ground up. Representation in government was important enough to our national forefathers, that they, farmers and dock workers, smiths and tanners, launched an insurrection against the most powerful military in the western world and enlisted foreign allies to break free of the yoke of Monarchy.

This is a political article, but there is no concern for who you decide to vote for, or why. The question I would leave you with is simply,

Would you care about your vote if someone ripped it away from you? If you don’t vote, they don’t have to.