I heard what happened in Paris. I watched the news coverage, and my heart broke again and again. But I wondered if changing my picture and adding #PrayforParis minimizes the terrible reality of what is happening in our world.
Each week, staff writer Rachel Wermager will capture stories of students on Drake’s campus Claire Franksen||...
OPINION BY ELLEN CONVERSE If you were like me, you were eagerly looking forward to Halloween. The costumes, the candy,...
COLUMN BY JOHN WINGERT Who won the Drake debate? The short answer is: not Clinton. The other two candidates had their...
COLUMN BY JOHN WINGERT
In one of his first weeks as host of The Late Show, Stephen Colbert played a game with his guest, Donald Trump, trying to pinpoint which of a list of ridiculous quotes Trump had said and which ones Stephen Colbert’s conservative character had said.
Complaints about sending billions to “Bongo Bongo Land,” saying opponents “have the charisma of a damp rag,” and asserting that “politics needs a bit of spicing up” are the sort of over-the-top Trumpian quotes that the United States has come to expect. The only problem is that Donald Trump did not say them. These quotes were all from Nigel Farage and the United Kingdom Independence Party.
As much as the United States has been reeling from Trump’s nativist, anti-globalization, populist message, these sorts of ideas have crystallized into political parties and movements throughout many other Western democracies.
Germany, for example, has the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands or the National Democratic Party of Germany. It has been the progenitor of such assertions as “due to the continued mass immigration and extraordinarily rising high birth rates especially of non-European populations, illegal foreigners living in Germany further burden the budget.”
Germany has had its share of problems with nationalists. The NDP alone has led protests against refugee houses this year in the wake of continued refugee immigration from the Arab world. They have also continued to say things like, “even now, foreigners are . . . committing felonies such as murder, manslaughter, and rape. The unstoppable Islamization makes this development more explosive.” In response to continuing problems with the NDP, many have tried to get the party banned on constitutional grounds, but it is a very difficult proposal that must be brought before 16 justices in Germany’s highest court.
The National Democratic Party is primarily concerned, first and foremost, with the “survival and continued existence of the German people.” The main way it sees of preserving this national identity is by expelling or prohibiting entry to immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. However, it is also important to remember that the NDP wants to strengthen many social welfare programs. They also support more protectionist trade policies to shield Germany from cheaper products that are imported from other countries.
The NDP has been able to gain representation in the provinces of Germany, especially in the northeast, and even in the European Parliament as representatives of Germany at the supranational level. In 1998, the National Democratic Party of Germany only got about 45,000 votes, but in Germany’s most recent national election in 2013, they received over 630,000 votes.
These economic policies combined with strong nativist, anti-immigration tendencies resist a standard right to left dynamic. Instead, most people have labeled these movements as populist. Populism is some sort of movement away from control by elites and instead toward the control of rural, small-town, wholesome peoples that represent their specific country. Populism also tends to support government intervention in some capacity to support specific industries and shield the country from invasive cultural or social values. They are also generally reactions to technological or cultural change.
However, Germany is not the only country in Europe to witness these sorts of populist, traditionalist backlashes. France has similarly experienced a populist movement with strong nativist twinges in its political system. This movement has been represented by the National Front, a party that supports solidarity amongst the “French civilization,” an expansion of social security and healthcare programs, as well as withdrawal from the European Union to foster protectionist policies for French businesses. Their manifesto argues that “ghettos, ethnic conflicts, community demands and politico-religious provocations are the direct consequences of mass immigration which is undermining our national identity and brings with it an increasingly apparent Islamization.”
In France, the National Front has gained representation in both the National Assembly and Senate. Twenty-three of the 74 representatives France sends to the European Parliament, about a third, are members of the National Front. Thousands of regional, general, and municipal council members are also members of France’s National Front party. In 2007, the National Front garnered a little over a million votes, but in their most recent election in 2012, the National Front received over three and a half million votes.
Another, though more tenuous, member of the European Union, Greece, has also seen this same sort of emergence of nationalist populism. The Golden Dawn party in Greece has tried to renew concerns of nationalism, nativism, and anti-globalization ideology. Sporting a jaunty new re-design of the swastika, the Golden Dawn professes, that “nationalism is the only absolute and true revolution because it seeks the birth of new ethical, spiritual, social and mental values.” It also argues that people should fight “exploitative wealth, either local or internationalist.” The Golden Dawn also remains strongly opposed “against the population distortion, because of the millions of illegal immigrants, and the dissolution of the Greek society.”
Like the National Democratic Party and the National Front, this nationalism and economic redistribution for the wholesome and worthy in a country has led the Golden Dawn to some notable successes. They currently have dozens of members in the national parliament and even more at the local level. They also comprise a seventh of Greece’s representation in the European Union’s European Parliament. Additionally, in 2009, the Golden Dawn received only about 20,000 votes and could not gain any representation, but by the most recent of Greece’s many emergency elections in 2015, the Golden Dawn had received almost 380,000 votes.
By now, some patterns should begin to emerge. These parties all share strong anti-immigrant stances and argue for the preservation of their country against foreign intrusions. This nativism does not just apply to wanting to keep out immigrants; it also means that they want to protect native industries by severing trade agreements and raising tariffs against foreign imports. Populist movements like the Golden Dawn, National Front, and NDP also want to strengthen government assistance and social welfare.
All across the Western world, these populist, nativist, anti-globalization movements are springing forth in response to the advancement and change of the new millennium.
Along with the aforementioned parties, are Jobbik in Hungary which desires what they see as the re-establishment of Hungarian nationalism against Gypsy, socialist, and capitalist incursions. There is also the Freedom Party of Austria which wants to “promptly stop immigration and protection [for refugees] instead of providing doors for all.” The Danish People’s Party argues, “Denmark is not a country of immigration and has never been. We will not accept a multi-ethnic transformation of country.” The Polish Law and Justice Party places a strong emphasis on the “Polish family” and rejecting “cultural unification.”
None of these parties are extreme outliers either. They have all done well enough to gain multiple representatives in their national parliament and at the European Parliament level. They are all now sizable political forces in their respective countries.
Now, this movement has crossed the Atlantic. Donald Trump has brought a unique mix of ideals. His comments about Mexican immigrants, building “the greatest wall you’ve ever seen,” and deporting 11 million individuals have become infamous and betray strong anti-immigration twinges in his rhetoric.
In spite of NAFTA and other free trade agreements, Donald Trump has proposed tariffs unheard of in modern times. One of his favorite, stump-speech stories is Ford Motors new plant in Mexico. Trump says, “every car, every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax — OK?” Trump’s refusal to abide by free trade agreements would likely cause a trade war and untold repercussions in international relations, but it also betrays this strong populist bent in his rhetoric.
Trump also wants to bolster social welfare programs, despite the departure of this position from the conservative mainstream. He said, “every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that.”
Donald Trump also says he will bring “winning” back to the presidency. In his pseudo-patriotic style, Trump has consistently emphasized the fact that the American people are good, but we have the misfortune of idiotic leadership. Trump always maintains that the country has the potential to be great again if it returns to some societal roots.
Polls seem to show that this is exactly what people want. It is not misguided conservatives lured into a cult of personality that vote for Trump. His policy proposals, however nascent and unsupported, are what the people want to hear.
Before Trump ever formally entered the political scene, the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was already leaning strongly toward populism. A Marist poll from 2011 found that 53% of people associating with the Tea Party wanted to raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 in an attempt to lower the national debt. The same poll also found that 70% of these supposedly stringent conservatives opposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
This idea of taxing the perceived paper-pushing elites to make room for benefits for the society at large has strong roots in populism. Donald Trump has said repeatedly, “The hedge fund people make a lot of money and they pay very little tax; I want to lower taxes for the middle class.” The same anger that fuels a populist outrage against leeches upon society, often personified in immigrants, produces the same suspicion of wealthy stock market nabobs who create money out of thin air in speculative markets without working to actually produce something.
America’s past can show us similar political movements. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a populist party formed in America. Calling itself the People’s Party, in 1892, it issued a call against “the two great classes—tramps and millionaires.” The party supported stronger support for agrarian communities and small towns. Although they had some concrete successes as a political party, they were more successful at influencing the other parties around them at the time. John Temple Graves, an editor for the Atlanta Constitution, wrote in 1896 that, “reforms for which the masses have been clamoring for years—whether it be silver or labor or income tax or popular rights or resistance to government by injunction—had never been written, and might never have been written, into a Democratic platform, until the Populist party, 1,800,000 strong, thundered in the ears of Democratic leaders.”
Donald Trump appeals to this ideal by saying that he will take back power from “special interests, lobbyists and donors.” At every turn, he re-emphasizes the need to turn government into an institution of “winners,” instead of allowing the so-called “losers” governing now to continue to lead Americans astray. He appeals to a select group whom he considers wholesome and good and promises them that the rich will pay more, their benefits will increase, the immigrants will disappear, and the good-natured, idyllic United States that they dream of will return.
In the meantime, Europeans look upon the Trump phenomenon with amusement and underlying concern. The German magazine, Der Spiegel, has called him an “idiot” and representative of “what is wrong with this [the American] system.” The French newspaper, Libération, called him an “American nightmare.” The British newspaper, The Observer, said Trump’s political ideas have “spewed from him like a ruptured sewer.”
Yet, all of these countries have had much more experience with populism at home. Although Donald Trump, in the words of French sociologist and author, Marie-Cécile Naves, is “someone who lets us feel a bit superior about being European,” the persistent laughter is nervous laughter. They may mock him in their publications, but it seems almost wholly due to a reflection of the anti-establishment, nationalist fervor which they know all too well.
Donald Trump may be a character without precedent in modern political memory, but throughout other Western democracies, the same sort of over-the-top, populist ideology asserts itself. In an era of rapid change, technologically and culturally, the backlash is being felt around the globe, and it is a backlash strong enough to bring the most resolute, political bodies to their knees. As much as we may want to, we should not laugh off everything that Donald Trump represents: a populist movement that is revivifying to unseat the most monolithic political traditions around the world.
OPINION BY ASHLEY KIRKLAND
All it took was a nine-second video on Facebook to shed light on a recent resource officer attack on a student last week in South Carolina.
On Oct. 26, a student refused to hand over her phone to her teacher. Resource officer Deputy Ben Fields was called to the scene to remove the student. When she refused to stand up and leave, Fields violently lifted and threw her on the ground to handle arrest.
STORY BY CHAMINDI WIJESINGHE
On Oct. 13, Metrojet Flight 9268 was on its way from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg.
Then, approximately 23 minutes into the flight, the plane dropped off the radar without any distress call.
COLUMN BY JOHN WINGERT
Almost every politician, if not every politician, has been known to gild a lily. The most recent criticisms of this kind have been directed at Dr. Ben Carson claiming that he has fudged not only facts on the campaign trail, but that he has also made up parts of his life story.
OPINION BY ERIC DEUTZ
Considering the expectations for “Bridge of Spies,” it truly is a remarkable feat.
Why all the buzz around Disney’s latest historical drama? Well, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past 30 years, I can explain all this hype to you in just two words: Spielberg. Hanks.
For those who have been living under a rock, welcome back, and let me introduce you to one of the most exciting director/actor collaborations of our era.
Director Steven Spielberg and actor Tom Hanks most famously collaborated in “Saving Private Ryan,” arguably the most important war epic of all time. What many may not know is that their relationship actually runs quite a bit deeper than that.
Aside from working as director/actor in “Catch Me if You Can” and “The Terminal,” Spielberg also produced “The Money Pit” and “Joe vs. the Volcano,” two of Tom Hanks’s earliest films, and the two of them co-produced two of the most successful miniseries of the 21st century: “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific.”
And now, they team up once again and surround themselves with a star-studded cast and crew to tell the true story of an insurance lawyer-turned-Cold War hero in “Bridge of Spies.”
In “Bridge of Spies,” Hanks (in a reliably solid and honest performance) plays James Donovan, a New York insurance lawyer who is asked to defend Rudolf Abel (recent Tony winner Mark Rylance), a man convicted of being a Russian spy. (This is 1957, obviously. Our country today is very much over the paranoia of other countries infiltrating our homeland with people who want to kill us. …Right?)
Defending Abel is really just a formality, as the evidence against him is overwhelming. But when Donovan does his job a little too well, Abel isn’t put to death and is instead offered up as trade material for an American POW—a trade that Donovan must conduct himself.
When I say this movie is loaded both in front of and behind the camera, I mean it. Amy Ryan and Alan Alda are along for the ride playing Donovan’s wife and boss. Those are very simple roles for such esteemed actors, but when Steven Spielberg wants you in his movie, I assume the answer is always yes.
Frequent collaborators Janusz Kaminski, a cinematographer, and Michael Kahn, editor, are both back and could each easily pick up yet another Oscar nomination for their gorgeous, subtle and poignant work here. And with music by Thomas Newman, a script co-written by the Coen brothers and production design by Adam Stockhausen, the production crew has between them are you ready for this at least 70 Oscar nominations and 17 Oscar wins. Let me be the first to say… whoa.
When you look at Spielberg’s last few works, ”War Horse,” “Lincoln” and now this film, he seems to be on some sort of “God Bless America” kick. This is perfectly fine, though it does start to show a little bit too prevalently here, especially in the climactic shot as we linger on Tom Hanks standing proudly in front of an American flag, knowing he’s just won the day for himself and his nation.
Oh, sorry, is that a spoiler? Well, not really. Because just like everything else in this movie, it’s exactly what you’d expect. There isn’t a single surprise. Normally, for a movie, that’s a very bad thing. But when all the pieces assembled are truly the very best in the business, doing what they do best, well, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
OPINION BY JENNIFER SCHALLMOSER
You can already smell the wonderful food: turkey and mashed potatoes, toast and jellybeans, or pizza and breadsticks. In three weeks, most of us will be home with our families and friends, very much ready to spend Thanksgiving together.
However, a lot can happen in three weeks, including tests and projects that need to be taken care of.
Yet, this post-midterm slump is holding a lot of us captive. So, we all need to help each other so that everyone can survive these next few weeks. Here are five ways that can help us make it through until the holiday.
The first way is to accept that it’s OK to take some time to yourself and a break from the schoolwork, especially to sleep.
In fact, sleep should be your very best friend during this time of the year. Not only does sleep provide the time for your brain to store all the information you need to know for your test next week, it also helps prevent you from getting sick. Just relaxing in general can also help you survive as well. So go ahead and treat yourself to that Thanksgiving special on TV and enjoy it. You deserve it!
The second way is to check in with the family leading up to your momentous homecoming.
Contacting your family lets them know what’s going on with you, but it also lets you listen to what’s going in their lives during these busy weeks leading up to the holiday. Sometimes only your family can help you stay focused and motivated to get all your work done before getting to see them.
The third way to help you survive school until break is to enjoy all the warm fall clothes that get to make their debut now that it’s getting a lot colder.
Sweater weather is definitely a popular time of the year, so take advantage of your warm sweaters because you’ll need them, and you’ll be so thankful you have them.
Scarves are going to help you survive in the sense that you won’t dread the walk to class as much anymore, which is a plus.
The fourth way is to go out and enjoy the fun fall activities that us Midwesterners love so much: corn mazes, hayrides and apple picking. Personally, I’m very excited for Starbucks holiday flavors, which came out Nov. 3! To name a few, Caramel Brûlée Latte, Chestnut Praline Latte, Christmas Cookie Latte and more are now available to order. Even though it’s not Christmas yet, these flavors can successfully help lift your spirits and keep you awake during those slow days that seem like they’ll never end.
The fifth and final way you can survive school until Thanksgiving break is motivating yourself to stay focused by thinking and planning on all the great times that are ahead of you. Soon it’ll be Thanksgiving, and before you know it, it’ll be Christmas. Although Thanksgiving break still seems pretty far away, I’m sure it’ll be here in no time. But in the meantime, I hope these ways help you out a little bit during the slow days. Good luck!
OPINION BY ANNA JENSEN
The bi-annual Drag Show, performed on Oct. 26, had a constant positive reaction from the audience, but behind the curtain of anonymity, negativity reared its ugly head.
All the money raised at the Drag Show was donated to Iowa Safe Schools, which promotes safe environments for LGBT students in Iowa schools. The problems addressed on the app Yik Yak were not against the organization, but against the expression of drag on a college campus.
On Yik Yak, the show was called “gross” and “disgusting,” along with other degrading comments and profane language. It is presumed from the Yaks that the people who posted these comments were not at the Drag Show, but instead saw Snapchats posted by others who were in attendance.
It is fine to have a strong, negative opinion on drag, but it is one that should more or less be kept to yourself. Hiding behind the anonymity of Yik Yak to say inappropriate and insulting things about people doing something they love is very shallow and unnecessary.
People began to react to these Yaks, commenting by either insulting the original poster, or agreeing with the degrading comments.
The point of the Drag Show was to promote an organization that is working hard to raise money for anti-bullying and to make society a safer place for children to feel comfortable with whom they are.
Whether or not drag is something you wish to watch or even advocate, the point of the show was not about promoting that kind of lifestyle—it is a form of entertainment performed by people who are passionate about what they do, while also donating to a cause in a similar realm.
Student Body President Kevin Maisto shared a picture of one of the Yaks on Facebook and commented that Drake’s campus still has a long way to go to be a safe and accepting community. It is something that students, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be striving for on a college campus.
I was not surprised to see this small war erupt over Yik Yak instead of other types of social media, such as Twitter or Facebook. On Twitter or Facebook, your name is directly linked to your comment. This is not the case on Yik Yak.
If you have something negative to say, a good place to write it down is in a journal, because it can be an outlet for your anger, and your comments won’t hurt the people who are simply doing something they love—and this goes for any type of expression you may disagree with.
As college students, we are being introduced to lifestyles we may not have seen as much in high school. With more freedom comes more individuality, and people have to be prepared to experience things they may not always like.
Drag is something that even I find a little out there, but it is something I support because I find happiness in seeing others happy. The people performing looked like they were truly at their happiest.
Even if you don’t find drag entertaining, that does not make it acceptable to degrade the people who do it. If you feel strongly that something needs to be said, have a little integrity and don’t hide behind a mask when you say it.
I think everyone has a right to his or her opinion, but I am also a firm believer that everyone deserves to be happy, and you shouldn’t put anyone down for doing what he or she loves.
STORY BY CHAMINDI WIJESINGHE
Countries in the Northern Hemisphere are turning their clocks back an hour to end six months of extra sunlight (May- October).
Daylight Saving Time (it’s officially singular, but often misspelled as Daylight Savings Time) was first implemented in Germany on April 30, 1916, where the hour hand on clocks sprung forward at 11:00pm. Although we attribute the origins of DST to Benjamin Franklin, George Hudson (who was mocked for proposing the idea in 1895 in Wellington), Germany or the farmers, surprisingly, a similar practice can be traced back to ancient civilizations.
However, why are we making a thing as simple as keeping track of time a debate?
The largest and most prominent argument demanding a cease in DST is the health risks brought about by the hour of sleep we lose in spring.
Multiple studies have found that the Monday following “spring ahead,” heart attacks and suicides surged, giving rise to the “Monday Cardiac Phenomenon.” Opponents claim that in a world where we are constantly bombarded by moments that contribute to a lack of sleep, DST is an extra monster.
Studies have further found out that “heart attacks decreased by 10 percent on the first Monday and Tuesday after clocks are switched back in the fall.” Sleep-deprived accidents also multiplied and work related injuries increased by 6 percent leading to an economic hit from the lack of productivity.
It is hard to believe that DST alone is causing all these repercussions. If we are aware of the fact that we lose an hour every single year, on the same day, at the same time, shouldn’t we get adjusted to it and be extra cautious that week?
The advertised origin of this practice was to save energy for the war during World War I and to encourage people to maximize the use of sunlight. There was an underlying assumption that when winter knocks at your door, you would rather stay inside glorifying DST for giving that extra hour during the rest of the year.
As reasons changed, more countries further away from the equator, experiencing the intensity of seasonal change adopted DST, preaching the concept of saving energy religiously. While it might have worked in the past and transcended generations, numerous studies question whether the major repercussions (and the simultaneous benefits) are worth the hassle.
Opponents argue that DST does all but reduce the electricity cost. Take air conditioning, for example, which makes unbearably hot summers moderately pleasant. Blasting on one air conditioner is equivalent to a dozen tungsten bulbs. One air conditioner turns to 50 in a building and the electricity bill keeps rising, cent by cent. the utopian, cool interior is never rejected. Watching television in the pleasant room is more appealing than the hot, humid, mosquito-infested outdoors.
Moreover, with the boom in technology, electricity is needed for other gadgets, like laptops and television. This perfect combination is an ingredient to the overall rising cost of energy bills.
The change in cost is only about $4 of saving or spending per household in a year. Would you suggest more sunlight to a resident in Arizona or Hawaii?
Arizona introduces us to the second headache that comes with DST: inconsistency. Arizona, Hawaii, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands don’t officially observe the time change each year. Yet, the Navajo Nation in Arizona observes the “cosmic courtesy” granted by Congress to its citizens.
Did you think that was it? Thereismoreconfusioncoming up. Inside the Navajo Nation, the Hopi reservation ignores DST. Inside the Hopi reservation is a part of Navajo Nation that observes DST, and inside the Navajo Nation is another Hopi reservation that ignores DST. OK— that’s all, folks! Driving across a 100-mile stretch could technically require seven clock changes.
While in the middle ages, you would simply shrug off this inconsistency, in the highly advanced and globalized village today, the inconvenience of different time zones-nationally and internationally—hits multinational corporations the hardest. Since countries enter or leave DST at different times, in the space of three weeks, three clock changes can happen on the global platform.
If we can keep up with the Kardashians, we can certainly keep up with the time change that happens twice a year. Fo all its negativity, we do love the extra hour that we gain at the end of the ordeal.
Each week, staff writer Rachel Wermager will capture stories of students on Drake’s campus
Queion Swift || Junior || Broadcast News & English
“My upbringing was kind of like a group project, and when you meet them (my family) you can tell what parts I got from who. My humor and wit is from my aunt, my upfront honesty and tell-it-like-it-is nature is from my mom, and then my “get things done” and organization side is definitely from my grandma. All of them have impacted me in some way or another.”
OPINION BY JOE HERBA AND VICTORIA TRAMP
JOE: It doesn’t matter if they are your best friend, your mortal enemy or just some random townie; adjusting to living with a roommate is difficult.
Last year, I decided to room with some random person, and it was one of the most interesting experiences of my life. The dynamic you have with your roommate can be the most unique relationship you’ll ever have. Coming in, I just assumed that you and your roommate became best friends and that was that. You did everything together because you lived together.
OPINION BY JACOB MCKAY
Lamar Odom is much more than who you think he is. He’s more than a reality television co- star, more than another athlete addendum to the Kardashian clan and more than just a former NBA player.
Lamar Odom is one of a kind.
As a basketball player, I remember Lamar Odom as an enigma. Incredibly tall at 6’10”, but incredibly lithe and deceptively quick, Odom would bring the ball all the way up the court and finish with his left hand, even though everyone in the league had to know he was left-handed.
For somebody his size, he had incredible ball-handling skills. Legendary coach Phil Jackson would often trust him to go one- on-one late in games when he played for the Lakers.
Winning NBA sixth man of the year in 2011 made what we already knew official: Lamar Odom could play. He helped the Lakers to two NBA titles, and helped secure Kobe Bryant’s legacy as one of the greatest players ever to touch a basketball.
But society doesn’t care. Society doesn’t recognize any
of Lamar Odom’s contributions to basketball. We also don’t respect him for them. He is simply another fallen celebrity. TMZ and others like them brought Odom down.
Lamar Odom is married to Khloe Kardashian, and what breaks my heart is that people only know him for being on a reality TV show.
The Kardashian family is notorious for adding new boyfriends to the spectacle of their lives frequently, but they are not always as well adjusted to constant paparazzi attention. Odom was drawn in to something that put him out of his element.
We live in a society that seeks to dehumanize celebrities, because we love to know when people are doing worse than we are. It is one of the worst parts of human nature.
Lamar Odom is a person who has experienced a great deal of loss in his life, and who has personal struggles that the public cannot fathom. When all we want out of our celebrities is another mistake, sometimes they give in.
Odom gave in, but we should not be so surprised. Indirectly, society wanted this to happen. Instead of watching somebody fail, and being surprised and disgusted and even heart broken about their situation, we should self-reflect.
Our society covertly promotes wanting to see people fail. When we see celebrities go through tough times, we need to ask ourselves how much longer we want to be bystanders in a culture that tears people apart.