Are you more likely to do something if someone you know asks you to do it? What if it’s someone you’ve worked closely with in the past? Someone who paid for your last lunch or lent you money in a time of need?

I don’t know about you, but I would certainly be more compelled to lend a hand to someone who has done the same for me in the past.

It is no foreign concept to return a favor, but it can lead down a dark road in the political sphere.

Obviously, this isn’t a one-to-one comparison. You probably wouldn’t feel as indebted to someone for buying you lunch as a politician would to someone who helped them gain their position or someone who has donated thousands — if not millions — of dollars to their campaign.

When their careers are over in the legislature, many politicians start work in the lobbying business.

Don’t believe that? Here are some numbers from just a couple of hot-button sectors and their lobbying expenditures: the defense sector accounts for $125 million in lobbying expenditures, with about 72% of their lobbyists being “revolvers,” or former politicians and government employees. The health sector spends about $725 million on lobbying and has a revolver rate of about 53%.

That’s just naming a few. I could go on, but I imagine that paragraph contained enough boring numbers to make my point. These industries spend a lot of money in the political sphere, which is worrisome to anyone that disagrees with profiting off of the suffering of others.

Maybe we shouldn’t allow corporate conglomerates to throw millions into politics and hire former politicians to butter up their old buddies. Just a thought.

“No one person should have greater influence than any other,” said Duff Conacher, the co-founder of Democracy Watch, which has been working to promote true democracy (which they describe as democracy uncorrupted by big money and corporate lobbying) in Canada for 30 years. “One person, one vote.”

Conacher argued one shouldn’t be able to use excess capital or prior relationships to gain more say in the political process. Doing so, he said, is an attack on democracy itself.

While Democracy Watch is primarily focused on Canadian issues, there is still plenty we could learn from them here in the U.S.

How do we stop our democracy from being manipulated by corruption and greed? To Conacher, the answer is fairly simple.

“The only way to stop big money is to stop big money donations,” Conacher said.

The median Canadian voter in 2020, according to Conacher, made a political donation of 75 Canadian dollars. Allowing donations above and beyond this number grants a greater political voice to those who can afford it, he said.

The general populace will never be able to compete with these large groups with vast amounts of capital. They shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they please at the expense of the rest of us.

In Canada, Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger is proposing a change in regulation that would reduce the amount of time required for someone to lobby a politician after working for their campaign from four years to one or two.

This, of course, is a bad idea. No one should ever be allowed to lobby someone they helped get elected, Conacher said.

You have to be kidding yourself to think that, just because some time passes, people forget how they got to where they are. Not to mention who might’ve pulled some strings to get them there in the first place.

If we want our system to work, we need to limit conflict of interest as much as possible. Those who are responsible for the function of our country and representing those who occupy it should be held to a higher standard than they are — a much higher standard.

That is a standard that should be strived for in the U.S. as well. Our democracy (or democratic republic, I’m sure someone is itching to point out) shouldn’t be subject to deep pockets and owed favors.

Hopefully more is done in the U.S. to restrict the power lobbyists and special interest groups have over our politicians.

Or not, and we can all just keep letting them run our country. We can grow complacent with medicine we can’t afford and wars that only serve oil tycoons and weapons manufacturers. If we haven’t already.

Artificial intelligence has been developing at an alarming rate. When a piece of AI-generated art won a competition last August, I spoke to University of Minnesota artists to gather their opinions.

At the time, I viewed AI as a technology still young in its lifespan — one that wouldn’t become especially popular or capable for years to come. While it is certainly early in its lifespan, I couldn’t have been more wrong about how quickly it would advance.

I’ve heard a lot about how AI was incapable of consistently producing human-looking hands in images. This was supposed to be a point of relief. So long as they can’t make hands, we can’t be tricked, right?

These days, I’m not so sure.

Plenty of people were tricked by AI-generated images of Pope Francis wearing a puffer jacket. This was an event of little consequence, and most were able to discern the AI origin of this image … eventually.

Most of these images containing AI-generated people give me that uncanny valley feeling, but I am beginning to wonder if that reaction is limited to the image content. When I see AI-generated people, it is usually on Twitter with a caption revealing their origin. If I just saw these images on their own, without the knowledge of their origin, I’d probably be none the wiser.

To be fair, when I first watched “The Adventures of TinTin,” there were times when I forgot whether the movie was animated (I was about eight, admittedly). If a movie from 2011 is enough to trick me, the potential for AI misinformation is a daunting one.

Even if it did, it won’t be long before the technology will get to that hyper-realistic level. With the release of ChatGPT 4 on March 13, we can see just how quickly this technology is developing.

ChatGPT 4 scored in the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam. It also scored a five (the highest score possible) on nine of the fifteen AP exams it was tested on. Of the other six, ChatGPT 4 received four fours and two twos. Funny how that works out.

AI seems to be at the precipice of advancement into widespread commercial use. It already outperforms most lawyers on the bar exam; where will it be a year from now? What about ten years?

As a lowly columnist myself, I fear what this technology means for the future of my profession. I’m sure some of you reading this have used ChatGPT 4 to write essays for you. How long until it becomes easier to give an AI some vague information on current events and let it push out an article for you?

I would like to add the two AP exams the AI scored lowest on were Language and Composition as well as Literature and Composition. At least my job is safe until ChatGPT 5 comes out.

However, AI is by no means progressing perfectly. There are a few hurdles that will have to be overcome for it to reach peak effectiveness.

“If I look at a blog online, I have to decide [whether] I trust it or not. The computer does not have the ability to make this distinction,” Maria Gini, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University, said.

With machine learning drawing information from all around the internet, not all of it is credible. This can lead to AI pulling information from random places and utilizing it as it would anything else. This was demonstrated on Twitch earlier this year when an AI-generated “Seinfeld” rip-off titled “Nothing Forever” was suspended for transphobic comments.

What a weird sentence that was. Still, if content moderation fails and AI takes information from anywhere and everywhere, one can only assume that incidents like this will continue.

Not to mention the ethical implications involved in how content should be moderated. What should AI know? What should it think?

Some think the best solution is to halt AI development to allow time to evaluate the possible ramifications of rapid AI development. This most likely will not occur, so those conversations need to happen now.

“Now there’s more awareness for making sure that, ethically, things are done properly,” Gini said. “So the complicated part now is [coming] up with regulations.”

These regulations should take into account the effects on the working population. The advent of the internet wasn’t followed by mass unemployment, but shifts in employment are inevitable. Many jobs that exist now may not in a few years, however, this means new occupations will rear their heads.

Though we probably need not worry about mass unemployment in favor of an AI workforce, exploitation is still a real possibility.

Some of the most advanced AI requires an extremely intense amount of computing power for operation and development, a very expensive amount of computing power, Gini said.

With a select few having the capital required for this, there is great potential for its use as a tool to further wealth inequality. This technology has the potential to drastically change the function of the world economy, much like the internet did. The most advanced AI being a tool for only the wealthiest of the wealthy is a disheartening thought.

On the other hand, the technology found in every cell phone on the planet once would’ve required entire buildings worth of computing power to operate.

AI is surrounded by a lot of unknowns, and we should be diligent in our analysis of it. However, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater before we truly know what it is capable of.

I doubt HAL 9000 or android Arnold Schwarzenegger are coming any time soon. For now, we should just remember that the Pope would never wear a puffer jacket.

The banking world has been in a state of uncertainty as of late. Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Signature Bank and Credit Suisse all collapsed over the last month, and many people have already begun drawing comparisons to the 2008 housing crisis.

Is this a valid concern? It’s hard to say, and we may not know until months — if not years — from now when we have a full view of the situation.

I’ll try and save you from the in-depth economic examination of the events of 2008, but, essentially, the Federal Reserve decreased interest rates on banks, allowing them to loan out greater amounts of money, even to “high-risk” or “sub-prime” customers.

Often, hundreds of these sub-prime customers were grouped as an odd sort of bond.

Many of these loans were used for purchasing, you guessed it, housing and general property. Housing prices went up, and many people were purchasing houses they couldn’t afford without these loans; as interest rates went up, people defaulted on loans, bonds lost value, loans on houses became more expensive than the houses themselves and banks started going under.

I feel no sympathy for these banks. They dealt in treacherous territory and wouldn’t look past their own noses, dragging everyone else down with them. Plus, they received a hefty bail-out (at the expense of taxpayers, of course), an olive branch not extended to the many contractors, homeowners and average Americans who were far more adversely affected.

The situation now is reminiscent, but not the same as 2008

Our current situation is slightly different. SVB had invested a lot of money into government bonds as interest rates were ridiculously low. Sound familiar? They also worked closely with venture capital firms and invested in fairly volatile industries like tech startups and cryptocurrency.

To combat inflation over the last year, the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates, causing those bonds to become a lot less valuable. These bonds represented a large portion of SVB capital, and their decline was lethal.

This loss in value caused a run on the bank (large waves of withdrawals, eventually exceeding their reserves) and, as SVB collapsed, stock in Signature Bank fell and the bank was shut down.

How was this able to happen? Are other banks soon to follow?

Not all banks are like SVB

The average commercial bank is in a much safer position.

“What I do in the Midwest here in Minneapolis and what [SVB does] are kind of apples and oranges,” said Trevor Bakken, commercial banker for 21st Century Bank.

Bakken deals more in what he refers to as “meat and potatoes” banking, like real estate, brick-and-mortar equipment and lines of credit for businesses.

These banks are by no means infallible, as demonstrated by the aforementioned housing crisis. However, when handled appropriately (as I am confident Bakken does) they are built on much safer markets.

“I’m surprised that more [banks like SVB] don’t go down because of the type of business they’re catering to,” Bakken said. “Tech, it can be volatile. It can be here today and gone tomorrow.”

There is a lot of money to be made in tech. Venture capital loves these startups, but they aren’t always built on concrete earnings.

“A lot of these tech companies don’t actually ever make a profit, or they’re worth billions of dollars and never make money,” Bakken said.

Bakken mentioned how many of these startups are built to find some sort of niche, garner users and sell themselves off to the highest bidder.

In dealing in business that is more abstract than physical buildings and the loans associated with them, banks like SVB expose themselves to a lot of risk.

If more banks in similar ventures start falling to a similar fate, who will be affected by it? How far-reaching will these consequences be?

“When you take a step back and understand all the factors that go into the housing market, you have title companies, you have mortgage people, you have plumbers, electricians, HVAC guys, cement guys, roofers, framers,” Bakken said.

If the tech industry sees some contraction, it appears a very different crowd will be affected. This is not to say that it is inconsequential; more 5 million people are employed in the tech sector and could stand to be majorly affected.

However, more 11 million people are employed in construction alone, not to mention the other aspects of the housing market.

An uncertain future

The ramifications of this will most likely not be as universal as the events of 2008, but it should not be taken lightly. Despite this being localized in the tech sector at the moment, there could be greater ramifications for all.

“I feel like we’re at this moment in time [where we’re wondering] are we in a recession? Are we going into a recession? It feels like we’re in a recession, but are we really in a recession? What do we not know? That’s around the corner,” Bakken said. “What are we not seeing today that a year from now, two years from now, you’re gonna look back with your buddies having a beer and go, ‘Man, how did we miss that?’”

Only time will tell.

“When everything’s going really well, it just keeps chugging along. The second there’s a chink in that armor or something derails just a little bit, the whole thing falls apart. And it falls apart quickly,” Bakken said.

Bakken mentioned that SVB exhibited rapid growth (probably too rapid) in a very short time frame. This involves taking some risks and shying away from more conservative, safe banking practices.

“The right way to do things [is] over a long period of time, it’s not sexy, it’s not going to make you front page of the finance section in any outlet in America,” Bakken said. “But you’re giving your shareholders a good return.”

Not to mention, when you get there more modestly, you probably won’t be found in the headlines of every news outlet in America when it all comes crashing down.

Pharmaceutical giants Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Eli Lilly recently announced they will be slashing insulin prices by upwards of 70% in coming months.

This is great news for anyone who relies on insulin, but why did it take this long? A 2022 study found more than 16% of Americans with diabetes took less insulin than they needed, the absurd costs of the drug being the leading cause.

Sixteen percent doesn’t sound like a huge amount. However, in a nation where more than 37 million people have diabetes, that number becomes an estimated six million Americans forgoing their life-saving medication.

That isn’t even taking into consideration the countless other medicines Americans rely on day-to-day that they can’t afford or find.

Drugs like Adderall are currently facing shortages due to issues of overprescription and “just in time production,” a practice that limits drug production to just enough to stock the shelves to reduce waste.

I don’t mean to be conspiratorial, but it stands to reason that “just in time production” might also have some popularity due to its propensity to drum up prices in cases like this where demand for the drug outweighs the supply. I should note this theory is merely based on the gut feeling of a cynical columnist, so take it with a grain of salt.

Joel Farley, a professor in pharmaceutical care and health systems at the University of Minnesota, said supply chain issues are a major contributor to shortages.

“There’s all kinds of things that lead to shortages,” Farley said. “Think back to the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a production center, so something like that can significantly disrupt production.”

Some progress is being made to remedy issues in the industry, primarily those in the cost realm. This is due in large part to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and general market pressures as well as efforts by philanthropists like billionaire Mark Cuban.

Cuban, of “Shark Tank” fame, started The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company because “every American should have access to safe, affordable medicines.”

Though I’m not necessarily a fan of the wordy, Cuban-focused name of the company, I must admit, I can think of worse business ventures for a billionaire to undertake.

Now, before you go around singing the praises of the free market and how once again a billionaire has come along to save us with his massive capital, it should be noted that prices on Cuban’s website are often still less affordable than those seen in pharmacies with the use of sites like GoodRX.

While it may not necessarily be all it’s cracked up to be, a new company garnering more than 2 million customers in just over a year might make the pharmaceutical heavyweights sweat enough to consider some price reduction.

As the heat turns up on pharmaceutical companies, the IRA has also been on the frontlines of lowering drug costs.

The average U.S. citizen spends far more on prescription drugs than citizens of comparable nations. One reason for this, Farley said, is a lack of price negotiation on the part of the U.S. government often seen in other countries.

“If you’re in England, for example, there’s this national health system there and all the drugs that get covered under the National Health Systems formulary go through an Economic Review,” Farley said. “If the drug is too expensive, they have an option of saying ‘We’re not going to actually list that drug and make it available for our population.’”

The prospect of a drug being kept from the public is worrying, but company profit incentives and a government’s need to provide for its people should incentivize swift compromise.

Then again, government and corporate stubbornness and incompetence have surprised me before.

The health care system in England has faced some struggles as of late, primarily in the form of striking health care workers pleading for higher wages amid rapid inflation, but that doesn’t take away from their superior mode of negotiation.

“Part of Biden’s upcoming proposal that he recently passed is that he’s going to allow for drug price negotiation in the Medicare program,” Farley said.

The IRA also stands to hit companies that raise drug prices above the inflation rate with rebates. Reduce list prices, avoid being slapped with penalties, Farley said.

This is all great to hear; that anything is being done to make medication more affordable in our country is a good thing. However, it’s easy to think that this change should’ve come a long time ago.

We are by no means out of the woods yet. We have yet to see the effectiveness of these ideas and policies in action within our country. We are heading generally in the right direction, but the U.S. still spends sufficiently more per person on health care than any other country without the results to match.

Sorting out the pharmaceutical industry is an important step, but it is simply the first of many necessary to reform our health care system.

Imagine, if you will, a world full of monkeys tripping on psychedelics, elephants getting drunk and rodents drifting away in the heroin sea of tranquility.

Or don’t. All of the above are already happening every day. Whether due to human intervention or natural availability, all kinds of animals are getting hammered, blitzed, blazed or otherwise stoned.

In terms of animals getting their noses powdered, “Cocaine Bear” has recently seen a theatrical release and made $23 million in its opening weekend.

The estate of the bear is probably not thrilled with her portrayal, however. Though “Cocaine Bear” is loosely based on a true story, in reality, the bear died shortly after it ingested more than 200 pounds of cocaine alone in the woods — no murderous rampage or Margot Martindale involved.

This comes as a relief, as a movie about a murderous bear snorting lines wouldn’t be as fun if it was built upon real human loss.

This film’s success has left the world (i.e. sleep-deprived columnists) wondering: what more can be derived from the seedy underbelly of the drug-riddled animal kingdom?

Moving on from cocaine, elephants and bears can often be seen on videos stumbling around or generally acting odd, the titles attributing this to the ingestion of rotten, fermenting fruit. This, of course, makes me imagine elephants utilizing their trunks as a beer bong, the acting frat boys of sub-Saharan Africa.

In reality, the amount of fermented fruit and the general disbelief that these animals would willingly eat rotten food make these claims seem far-fetched at best. Perhaps it has happened on occasion, but a lack of pledges may force Elephant-Zeta-Gamma into inactivity.

Into a more scientific sect of animals getting their fix is the wild world of animal testing. A 2019 study found rats prefer social interaction to meth and heroin. How interesting: if you leave an animal in virtual confinement with nothing to interact with but hard drugs, given the opportunity they will seek the comfort of another living being.

I am certain this revelation was deeply necessary to the advancement of science. Of course, we can’t lock a human being in a drugged-up existential nightmare and see how they react to seeing another human again. The rats simply must show us what happens.

I’m certainly no animal rights activist or PETA fanatic, but the thought of being locked alone in an enclosure spaced out on heroin, only to be forced by giants of a greater intelligence to choose between stemming withdrawal and interacting with another being is uniquely disturbing. That’s a level of cosmic horror rivaling H.P. Lovecraft.

On the flip side, researchers tested ayahuasca on some primates to see if it could treat depression. They measured cortisol levels, weight gain, social isolation and other behavioral parameters. In the two weeks after the drug was administered, most of the primates saw positive change in each of these categories.

It is important to note this study is from 2018 and has yet to be peer reviewed. I have written in the past about the potential of psychedelics, so I want to believe that this study may hold some weight.

Depression curing or not, it makes you wonder what exactly a primate envisions deep in a trip session. Outside of the lab, the Goeldi’s monkeys of South America have been known to rely heavily on mushrooms in their diet.

With plenty of psychoactive substances in their region, it’s not a stretch to think some mushrooms of the magic variety have found their way into their diet.

The world of drugs in the animal kingdom can be a dark, nightmarish place. It’s nice to think somewhere in South America there are some monkeys enjoying a tasty mushroom snack and taking it easy for the rest of us.

On Feb. 24, 2022, Russia began their invasion of Ukraine. A year later, worldwide tensions are bubbling. Given the increase in U.S. military presence in Taiwan and intelligence suggesting President Xi Jinping of China may provide military support for Russia, it is beginning to look like the stage is set for a second Cold War.

On Friday, China called for a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Ukraine. This came alongside a call to abandon the “Cold War mentality” and to begin “respecting the sovereignty of all countries.”

Regardless, the balloons have escalated tensions, Chinese in origin or otherwise, spotted and shot down in American and Canadian skies. 

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the balloon taken down off the coast of North Carolina earlier this month was equipped with surveillance equipment and that it “attempted to surveil sensitive military sites.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin asserted that it was simply a weather balloon – a claim that seems to be a falsehood, at least based on statements from Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. 

In wake of the balloon discovery, Blinken postponed a trip to Beijing, one of great importance for quelling the tension between the two nations. During their subsequent meeting in Munich, Wang offered no apology.  

The balloons taken down over Alaska, the Yukon and Lake Huron seem to be of no relation. These balloons, though generating an anxious nationwide dialogue, are believed to have been independent research balloons.

That didn’t stop the news cycle and general population from speculating about the potential Chinese origin of those balloons when they were first taken down and their potential threat.

When the first balloon was spotted, I recall a less informed friend of mine assuming that some local service outages were caused by said balloons. They went on to make some remark about turning China to glass, which I found distasteful at best.

“That balloon seems to have no connection to the three objects that were shot down over Canada and the United States,” said Tracey Blasenheim, a political science scholar who recently received a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. “Except for the fact that, according to U.S. officials, they were detected because the balloon incident put NORAD on higher alert about objects at particular altitudes.”

While the exact technology present in the balloon is unclear, Blasenheim said its purpose was less up in the air.

“It does pretty clearly seem to be an espionage balloon,” Blasenheim said. “Chinese protests aside.”

Without fully understanding the balloon’s design, it is hard to determine its exact importance. It could, potentially, have no greater intelligence-gathering capabilities than those demonstrated by Chinese satellites, which are already capable of procuring images of our military bases.

Based on the speed and altitude at which the balloon was traveling, it is hard to believe that China expected this balloon to go completely unnoticed, Blasenheim said. 

“So either this was a mistake,” he said. “Or, it was meant to be picked up.”

Now, this is no conspiratorial belief. Tensions between the U.S. and China have been coming to a boil for quite some time. Given U.S. General Mike Minihan’s leaked memo predicting a 2025 war with China and U.S. military support of Taiwan, it is likely the balloon could have been a response to what China views as U.S. aggression.

Perhaps this is what they meant by “respecting the sovereignty of all countries.”

“In my read, the balloon may have been a signal of significant Chinese dissatisfaction with U.S. actions,” Blasenheim said. “It put the ball in the U.S. court.”

He continued. “The Chinese didn’t want to be the ones to say that we walked away from diplomacy. They wanted the U.S. to make that move.”

If China does decide to send military equipment to Russia, or threaten to if the U.S. remains in Taiwan, we could see a relatively small infraction escalate far beyond what was necessary, Blasenheim said.

This serves as a grim reminder of how dangerous miscommunication can be in the posturing of world powers. Ronald Reagan (for all his faults) and his relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev were integral in the de-escalation of the Cold War.

Both the U.S. and China have an abundance of nuclear weapons and military power. An inability to communicate over a surveillance balloon that is possibly of little significance has already pushed much of our citizenry to near hysteria and into a retaliatory fervor. 

“The U.S. and Soviet Union remained, even enduring events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, in pretty good communication with one another,” Blasenheim said. “When the U.S. shot down the balloon over North Carolina or out just off the coast, as the Secretary of Defense called his counterpart in China…no one picked up on the Chinese end.”

Blasenheim explained that this isn’t necessarily a condemnation of China or some sort of refusal to communicate but rather a matter of differing norms and practices. The two nations seem to be on different pages in handling these circumstances.

But, these communication failures must be resolved, one way or another. The hoopla surrounding the balloon has already spiraled to a point of absurdity – what happens if there are more serious future transgressions?

Some are already preparing for World War III. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has already warned of as much if China decides to back Russia. Not to mention those like my friend who refuse to see the side of the Chinese and are hoping for hellfire.

Blasenheim shared a video with me of the first balloon being shot down, while someone behind the camera cheers and yells. “That’s my airforce right there, buddy,” the person behind the camera said.

It’s a funny clip but also frightening considering its implications. A nation, prone to acts of violent nationalism, riled up against a nation that poses a hypothetical ideological and existential threat is a worrying image. 

Politicians will most likely push for a more aggressive response to China in the future, whether to line their own pockets through military contracts or to ensure votes from their frightened and angry constituents. Much of our citizenry will agree with this and view China as some communist boogeyman out for the destruction of football, barbeque and everything else our nation holds dear (not to say either are of little importance).

Of course, a level of assertiveness is necessary here, but to do so without an attempt to communicate or find more civilized solutions could lead us down a path from which we may never return.

“There are plenty of opportunities to step off this course,” Blasenheim said. “The U.S. and China are not headed towards an inevitable conflict, in my opinion.” 

But, he continued, “It is worrying if something more serious than a balloon were to pop up and the level of communication and the norms of signaling are where they are. It could be much more difficult to prevent a similar event from really spiraling.”

No sport is as ingrained into our state as hockey. From the sea of fans at the Xcel Energy Center for every Wild game, the state-wide obsession with the high school hockey tournament to the fervor generated every year by Hockey Day in Minnesota, there is no question how we gained the moniker “The State of Hockey.”

Despite this, the barrier to entry to play the state sport, particularly at the youth level, has never been higher. Hockey sticks can cost more than $300, not to mention the cost of skates, knee pads, shoulder pads, helmets and all the other bits and pieces that stand as a prerequisite to step on the ice.

Just a few years ago, I remember a time when you could get a top of the line stick for $200. Now, that might only buy you a mid-tier stick. My dad often recounts the glory days of the 80’s and 90’s when you could get a quality wooden stick for $20 or $30.

The increase in prices for sticks and other equipment coincides with a change in materials, most notably the switch from wooden sticks to composite.

Composite sticks are lighter, add an extra snap to your shot and have proven to be by far the superior on-ice instrument. They’re also made out of expensive materials like carbon fiber.

However, this increase in technology has yet to grant any stick extreme durability. Stick breaks are a fairly common occurrence, particularly for older players who are larger and stronger. That is quite a bit of cash down the drain.

Some stores will offer 30-day warranties for brand new sticks. But, if it snaps on day 31, you better hope you have a very charitable pro-shop employee that day.

Don’t even get me started on goalie equipment, which can cost more than $2,000. Of course, there are more affordable options, but even those will run you a few hundred dollars. Even when you stop growing, you can only go so long until the padding of a glove breaks down or the cage of a mask bends in due to repeated puck impact.

These costs are just for the equipment required to play the sport. With gear needing to fit league regulations, and players naturally growing from year to year, these costs compound over the years and over time can reach the heights of a modest college education.

Again, this is just the cost of equipment. Registration fees and cost of ice time are often more than $1,000 a season, with costs only rising as kids enter higher playing levels.

So, how can a family that cannot afford the price of admission participate in the essential Minnesotan pastime?

Oftentimes, families can qualify for scholarships for reduced registration fees, said Cecilia Teeuwen, registrar for the Minneapolis Hockey Association. These can be partial or full scholarships, but the most important piece is that no one is turned away.

“We’ve never denied anyone,” Teeuwen said. “We want to give anyone who wants to play the opportunity to play.”

The Minneapolis Hockey Association has a number of programs to help those who may not be able to afford the cost of hockey, like gear drives where players can donate and swap equipment, Try Hockey for Free events and even season-long gear rentals for younger players for just $25.

They also have events for families whose children are interested in goaltending but don’t want to buy all of the equipment without knowing whether their child will really enjoy it. Kids are allowed to borrow goalie equipment to try out the position and see how they like it. Without this, the game would be missing out on a lot of potential puck-stopping prowess from those who might be initially put-off by the prohibitive price tag.

They have also partnered with the Minnesota Wild and the Little Wild Learn to Play Program, which includes four hours of ice time and a full set of equipment for kids who have never participated in organized hockey.

Past the financial barrier, hockey has also been a sport marred by a lack of diversity for most of its existence. One way the Minneapolis Hockey Association tries to combat this is by producing flyers for their program in Spanish as well as English.

Teeuwen, who is from Mexico City, speaks Spanish and has been able to assist Spanish-speaking families who would like to learn more about their hockey program.

It seems that far too often the game of hockey, which I have played and enjoyed since I could walk, is let down by those who don’t understand the great privilege it is to participate in the sport. Far too often, stories surface about racial discrimination inside locker rooms and even on the ice.

Lowering the barrier of entry and getting a more diverse pool of players is a great step forward.

If you know a kid out there who wants to get into hockey, contact your local association. Though the costs may look daunting, I’m sure they will find a way to get anyone who wants to skate on the ice that opportunity in no time.

Try to picture a motorcycle club. What comes to mind? Something like a group of overweight, leather-clad, bearded ruffians riding Harley-Davidsons and brandishing chains?

The portrayal of motorcycle clubs in media has been extremely negative for decades. This idea of the biker gang spawns primarily — deserved or not — from the Hells Angels and other one percenter motorcycle clubs.

The term one percenter comes from the aftermath of a 1947 riot in Hollister, California, that happened as a result of the American Motorcyclist Association’s (AMA) annual Gypsy Tour for the Fourth of July.

The small town was flooded with thousands of bikers, and, by the end of the weekend, 49 arrests were made — though they were mostly on non-violent charges like public intoxication and disorderly conduct. There were also some indecent exposure charges, which I imagine mostly came from intoxicated bikers not having the wherewithal to determine that taking a leak on a storefront would be a poor choice.

The subsequent press coverage was…negative, to no one’s surprise. The media ran with the term “riot” to describe the event, even though it seemed more like a party that got a bit out of hand, with little to no violence.

The story goes that the AMA — looking to maintain their image — claimed that at the event, 99% of all motorcyclists were law abiding citizens. So, the groups looking to push a rough and tough image took on the one percenter moniker.

While this story has been recited across plenty of biker forums and websites, whether this statement was ever actually made by the AMA is unclear. Despite this uncertainty, the name stuck.

I should make it clear the Hollister incident does not stand alone in creating the outlaw biker image. Groups like the Hells Angels have been marred by charges of drug trafficking and other, similarly serious, crimes. One percenter groups seem to be, unsurprisingly, fairly familiar with criminal acts and violence.

However, a fairly large number of these one percenters don’t fall into the criminal category — despite seeming to relish in their reputation as outlaws.

In fact, the Hells Angels of Minneapolis post fairly regularly on their Instagram account detailing their charitable clothing donations to the Salvation Army and have even raised money to help their members battling cancer.

That isn’t to say they’re softies, though. Their Instagram also features less gracious content, like photos of the confederate flag and a crass bumper sticker that, in so many words, warns you not to touch their bikes. So, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. (Though the bumper sticker is admittedly funny, in a backwards sort of way.)

This less-than-sanitary activity stands in stark contrast to the events hosted by the Twin Cities Motorcyclist Club (TCMC), a local group that has hosted more than 500 events for riders across the state since 2007.

“We’re a diverse group of people that get together to have fun together,” said Darron Morris, the social director of the TCMC.

The TCMC hosts regular potlucks, barbecues and other parties for their more than 300 members, as well as group rides ranging from 90 to 250 miles. They even host group riding classes for those just learning the art of the motorcycle.

Groups like the TCMC are among the aforementioned 99%. You don’t see members of the TCMC getting involved in criminal activity, and they even have a group of 30 members who are tasked with resolving any conflicts within their group in an impartial and fair way.

“We’re not on the same lines as the one percent motorcycle clubs in America. We’re the polar opposites,” Morris said. “Our motto is ‘enjoy the ride.’”

The Hells Angels of Minneapolis did not respond to a request for comment. I did manage to get on the phone with a member of the Iron Range Hells Angels, but they declined to comment, citing an organizational distrust of news media.

Their response was understandable, as just about everything you see about the Hells Angels is negative. To say this article isn’t critical would be to kid myself.

It’s clear the criminal reputation of the Hells Angels greatly overshadows their charitable acts. Media coverage of them may be critical, but they aren’t exactly doing themselves any favors.

Those who wish to wear their leather jackets and fly down the highways in their flocks of steel should be free to. But, if your biker group wants to take pride in being the one percent of outlaws, it should be expected that you will get lumped in with the bikers that actually follow through with that outlaw ideology.

There are plenty of groups like the TCMC that bring together people from all walks of life to ride in the open air and appreciate the majesty of the motorcycle. If you want to play desperado on your steel steed, go right ahead. Just remember that you might get grouped in with the ones who actually believe it.

The Myers-Briggs test is one of the most famous personality tests in the world. It assigns each test-taker a four-letter personality type, of which there are 16 different permutations.

Does that number seem a little low to capture the entire spectrum of personality? It certainly does to me.

These four-letter personality types are determined by how each test-taker scores in four categories: extraversion or introversion, sensing or intuiting, thinking or feeling and judging or perceiving. The first letter of each option (or second, in the case of intuiting) in combination makes up each personality type, leaving you with classifications like “ENFP” (extraversion, intuiting, feeling and perceiving) or “ISTJ” (introversion, sensing, thinking and judging).

I’m sure at some point you’ve taken a similar test: a series of questions where you choose between strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree and so forth.

I remember having to take the test for some meaningless class in high school and reporting back to the teacher with my results. I can’t remember my results in the slightest, but I do remember people in my class comparing theirs and talking about how it made so much sense why they did “x” because the test said they were “y.”

In all honesty, it drove me crazy. It seemed pointless then and even more so now. I can’t get back the hours I wasted in that class talking about a nothing-burger disguised as a personality test, but I can write this article.

Today, the Myers-Briggs is primarily used in workplaces, as is heavily marketed on the Myers-Briggs Company website, which explains how comfortable it is filing you into one box of 16.

It isn’t as alluring to the company paying for the official Myers-Briggs personality tests to tell their employees it gives a general measurement of your personality and tendencies compared to the average as it is to say it provides your distinct and concrete personality type.

“Even though it’s not a particularly good test from a scientific perspective,” Colin DeYoung said, “It still probably helps people [in the workplace] to start thinking about what they’re like and the way that they differ from the other people that they have to work with.”

DeYoung heads the DeYoung Personality Lab at the University of Minnesota, often using personality tests like the Big Five Aspect Scales in research, which is related to personality and cognitive ability. The Big Five personality aspects — which can be found linked on DeYoung’s website — consist of openness/intellect, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

Now, if you want to take the Myers-Briggs without emptying your pockets (individual tests are $50 on their website), 16personalities.com is where you should go. The 16 personalities test is essentially the Myers-Briggs test with a few of the categories modified slightly — sensing becomes observing, and perceiving becomes prospecting.

It also has a fifth category, assertive or turbulent, that is added onto the end. This technically makes it 32 personalities, but who’s counting? Other than me, that is.

When you finish taking the test, you can read about your strengths and weaknesses, how each part of your personality functions and which celebrities you share a personality type with (the part that everyone skips down to).

This is where I have a real problem with the test. Whittling down the entirety of personality to four or five categories with two definitive options apiece is already upsetting, but to do so only to find out whether you’re more like Bill Gates or Brad Pitt is a bit ridiculous. I’m sure it’s a fun exercise to take a silly test and be typecast with vague questions and inconsequential answers; it seems like a blast.

However, as an actual test, it fails miserably. The Big Five Aspect Scales has been around for decades and is well respected within the scientific community, in large part because it doesn’t attempt to label categorically.

“We know scientifically that there are no personality types,” DeYoung said. He went on to mention that personality type would assume concrete, categorical differences between different groups of people, which generally isn’t the case.

If you want to take the fun personality test and see what personality type you are and what celebrity you share a consciousness blueprint with, go right ahead. Just keep in mind that you’re essentially taking a BuzzFeed test determining which Hogwarts house you belong to, or which character on “Friends” you’re most like.

Do what you want. However, and I really want to make this clear, do not expect anyone to care that you and the Joker have the same personality type. It’s just weird.

If you’ve driven through downtown St. Paul in the last decade or so, you may have passed the local Church of Scientology. It is a large, eccentric building marked by the silver Scientology symbol — a stylized “S” threaded through a pair of triangles.

When I saw it for the first time a few months ago, I knew I had to get in.

I’ve only interacted with the world of Scientology through readings about the exploits of celebrities like Tom Cruise and the horror stories like the apparent disappearances of current Scientology leader David Miscavige and his wife, Shelly Miscavige.

Shelly hasn’t been seen publicly since 2007, and any comment on her whereabouts from the church seems vague to say the least. David, on the other hand, has disappeared more recently in wake of a civil child trafficking suit. David has been the leader of the church since the death of L. Ron Hubbard.

One often-told Scientology story is the mythos of Xenu, an ancient alien warlord who dropped hydrogen bombs into volcanoes, killing billions of ancient life forms.

If that seems like a ridiculous mockery and oversimplification of Scientologist beliefs, I can assure you that it is not. While the story of Xenu isn’t the be-all and end-all of Scientological belief, it plays a part, to say the least. Little more should be expected from a religion formed by a mediocre science fiction writer with a messiah complex.

“Xenu gets all of the attention because it’s so crazy,” Tony Ortega, a former editor of The Village Voice and a leading eye into the world of Scientology, said.

Ortega posits that there is more behind the scenes of Scientology than strange stories of ancient alien genocide. The basis of Scientology was formed from the book “Dianetics” written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1950. The book flaunts its content as “the modern science of mental health.”

Primarily, it focuses on a distinction between the reactive and analytical mind. According to “Dianetics,” the analytical mind is the rational portion of your consciousness that you can rely on for logical decision making and rational thought. It is responsible for your mind’s positive, intellectual functions.

On the other hand, the reactive mind works against us, and it is quick to lash out and form irrational assumptions. It is a remnant of our animalistic survival instincts. When discussing this, the people of the church have no problem talking distrustfully of medication and psychiatry for dealing with mental anguish.

Before I entered the church, I took the Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA) test, a personality test that is available for free online at scientology.org.

It seems to be a fairly innocuous personality test, ranking participants in 10 criteria: stability, happiness, composure, certainty, activity, aggressiveness, responsibility, correct estimation, appreciativeness and communication level. These are then scored on a graph where they can be labeled as an unacceptable, normal or desired state.

The test has some fairly cookie-cutter questions about your mental well-being. Think: “Have you felt down or hopeless in the last 30 days?” or “Are you often quick to anger?”

Then you face some more worrisome questions, like “Could you agree to strict discipline?”, “Would the idea of making a complete new start cause you much concern?” and “Would you administer corporal punishment to a 10 year old?”

I answered honestly for the most part, however, I did opt to check some boxes I thought would paint me in a way that might open some more interesting conversations.

My OCA results considered me to be in a largely unacceptable state, only activity being deemed normal and aggressiveness being deemed desirable, and I was prompted to schedule an appointment at the local church. I did so excitedly.

The whole building was very lavish. It was entirely orange and brown, with large indoor waterfalls, countless shelves of books written by Hubbard — all available for purchase in the bookstore, obviously — and large televisions with over-the-top control panels where a remote would’ve done just fine.

I was told by my guide that the choice in color was to match the beautiful Minnesota fall season. Plus, the church sees brown as a very subtle, dignified color.

Despite this exercise in excess, I only saw five other humans during my entire stay.

On those televisions, I was shown a video explaining that memories from your past are saved into your mind as engrams, weaponized forever by the reactive mind unless you achieve a clear, which can only be done through therapy sessions called “audits.”

“In Scientology, it’s all about you. You’re going to find out more about yourself. You’re going to find out more about your personality,” Ortega said.

At first, audits start at a relatively affordable price (I was offered 5 sessions for $125, the first free with the purchase of a copy of “Dianetics”), but, according to Ortega, these only rise in price as you extend deeper into the organization, and it never truly ends.

First, you are recalling memories of childhood. But, before long, you are asked to recall memories from your past lives from millions of years in the past, Ortega said.

And why not? Why worry about fleshing out the lore of your religion when you can let the people you suck in do it themselves?

Before I was given the final Scientology Life Improvement sales pitch and made my exit, I was allowed to try out the E-meter. I never got a straight answer on what the E-meter did, one of the great shames of my life. My guide claimed it was measuring my emotional response to stimuli within my mind, but he wouldn’t elaborate any further.

The E-meter is about the size of a small radio, with two cords running out of it to aluminum cylinders that you hold onto while you are asked questions about great struggles and triumphs within your life.

The readings were all over the place, with no rhyme or reason behind the swinging dial. I found it gave the best results when I started tapping my pinky on the side while my guide looked away.

He would later go on to explain that the failure of the meter was due to the emotional blockage indicated by my OCA results. Of course, he said, this could be remedied with a few audits and a purchase of “Dianetics.”

Scientology is dying. They have been able to live off of money from their members at higher levels, but with their terrible publicity and lack of new members, they don’t seem to have much of a future.

“Based on my ex-Scientologist sources who worked in that building, they said there’s probably 25 or so members in this church,” Joey Peters, a reporter for Sahan Journal, said.

Peters had visited the church roughly five years ago for a story and found the place was struggling to bring in new members and was ineffective at recruiting.

Unless I have a sudden change of heart and decide to drop $25 on the newest edition of “Dianetics,” I must concur.