As various states start voting in the democratic primaries, a terrifying question arises: who will you vote for? Trump, Sanders, Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, Gabbard, Steyer? With so many names, it is very easy to get confused. If you are like me, you probably recognized two, maybe three, of the names. Here is a comprehensive index of three of the hottest topics—climate change, health care and immigration—and where each of the democratic presidential candidates stand on each of the issues. 

   First is climate change and nuclear energy. Will these presidents make strides to solve these issues, and if so, how? This is an important issue that we need to focus on. With temperatures rising, we need to be active in saving the planet if we want to prevent disaster. Second is health care. Are they promoting health care for all, or some? Perhaps they want to eliminate government-supported health care all together. This is an issue that will inevitably affect everyone. If they want health care for all, taxes will rise, but everyone will be covered. If they don’t, then perhaps you will not be covered in the case of an emergency. Last is immigration. During Trump’s presidency, he has  started building the wall on the Southern border and cracking down on undocumented immigration. Where do each of these candidates stand? Do they support him or directly oppose his policies? These issues have included some of Trump’s strongest stances, and whoever takes over from him will have to decide how they want to move forward. They cannot remain neutral on this issue. The ways each of these three issues are handled will change the way that America functions and will change our individual lives. Now these three policies do not encompass anywhere near all of the issues being discussed or explain the candidates’ entire platforms, but it is a good starting point. Without further ado, let’s start with Joe Biden.

Joe Biden

-For climate change, Biden’s main goal is to make the US economy run entirely on clean energy with no carbon emissions by 2050. He has a plan to accomplish this. As an alternative, he would like to use nuclear power plants. 

-For government health care, he wants to expand Medicare to cover more people, specifically those without coverage, but does not want it to cover everyone.

-He supports the DREAM Act, which is a program where children brought into the country undocumented can pursue legal citizenship. However, he wishes to keep the immigration system nearly the same.

Michael Bloomberg

-He thinks that America should work with other countries to solve climate change. He is also trying to close coal plants.

-He takes a slightly more moderate approach to health care than Biden. He would expand it, but not for all.

-In immigration, he works to prevent families from getting separated at the border. He supports the DREAM Act as well.

Pete Buttigieg 

-Buttigieg wants to tax carbon emissions, as well as crack down on all emissions, so that we can have zero emissions by 2050.

-He wants to redo the entire Medicare system, specifically by reducing drug prices and expanding Medicare, while still keeping the private ones for those who want that.

-He supports the DREAM Act, but he also wants to decriminalize crossing the border to provide immigrants with an easier and safer way to enter the country.

Tulsi Gabbard

-She wants to cut fossil fuels entirely and move to renewable energy. However, she wants to close down nuclear plants.

-She is an advocate for Medicare for all but has a plan to slowly take small steps to get there.

-She is one of the strongest advocates for the DREAM Act but hasn’t taken a strong stance on any other immigration issue.

Amy Klobuchar

-To prevent climate change, Klobuchar wants to place government regulations on carbon emissions, while using nuclear energy as a new energy source. 

-She wants to reduce the price of medications to make them more affordable. While she does want to expand Medicare coverage, she is far more moderate on this issue than most candidates.

-She supports the DREAM Act and argues for more leniency in the immigration process.

Tom Steyer

-He works hard for green energy. He pushes to transition toward sustainability and alternative forms of energy

-He wants anyone to be able to enroll in government health care if they wish but does not want it to be required.

-He criticized the Trump administration’s border patrol, and how they treat people with cruelty. He wants to decriminalize crossing the border.

Bernie Sanders

-He wants to close down the nuclear centers and  impose government restrictions on carbon emissions to prevent climate change and protect the environment.

-He wants Medicare for all, which he says will be funded by taxing the upper class and the super rich. 

-He has some of the most extreme beliefs on immigration. He wants to “decriminalize immigration and demilitarize our border.”

Elizabeth Warren

-She stands with Sanders, wanting to impose restrictions on carbon emissions. But she would also ban fracking which draws the oil up from the ground, creating problems.

-She argues for Medicare for all, no matter the circumstance.

-She also supports making immigration legal, pushing the more extreme beliefs.

  Both Sanders and Warren fall on the more liberal end of the spectrum. However, the main difference between them arises in economics. Sanders is democratic socialist and tends to push those ideas, whereas Warren is a self-proclaimed capitalist through and through. Buttigieg is somewhere  in the middle, more liberal, but not nearly as much as Sanders or Warren. Finally, on the more moderate edge are Biden, Bloomberg and Klobuchar. The democratic primaries for Missouri will be held on Mar. 10. Your vote matters because whoever makes it past the primaries will be one step closer to becoming president and changing the world we live in. America is a place where your voice can be heard. We are unique in this way, where we can speak out. Your vote matters.

As I am writing this, the closing statements have been made in the Senate. As I am writing, the final arguments for and against Trump have been made. The world (or at least America) holds its breath as we wait for the final vote on whether the Senate will remove Trump from office or not. Finally, after months of debate, we have the results.  For those who have lost track of what is happening, here is a quick recap.

• Starting in Sept. 2019, the House of Representatives began to investigate Trump to see if he had committed impeachable offenses. What qualifies for impeachment in the Constitution is treason, bribery or any other “high” crime or misdemeanor such as abusing his power.
• He was accused of  abusing his power to gain a political advantage, and obstructing Congress. Both are high crimes viable for impeachment
• The House impeached him. In January, the Senate started their debates over whether to remove Trump from office.

For those not aware, the House is comprised of a majority of Democrats. The Senate, however, is majority Republican. Typical ofpartisan politics, the Democrats want to remove Trump from office, while the Republicans do not want this. From this knowledge, it makes sense that the House would impeach him, and the Senate would be harder to convince. This proved true when the Democrats requested to bring in new witnesses for the trials. The senate voted and with a vote of 51 to 49, it was declined. It is important to note that the Democrats had around 17 new witnesses or pieces of evidence, while the Republicans had none. The final vote occurred on Wednesday, and to remove him from office, the Democrats need a vote of at least 67 out of 100 (two-thirds majority). The final vote followed party lines, for the first offense the final vote was 52 to 48, and the second was 53 to 47. Therefore, neither of the charges stuck and he was not removed from office.

No matter what your stance on Trump is, whether you like him or not, believe him or not, this trial has illuminated a bigger issue. While a good portion of  the arguments and discussions surrounding this event are about whether Trump is guilty or not, nearly every article, subtly or blatantly, has discussed the partisan politics at play. Whether Trump is actually guilty or not starts to take a  back seat as people pick their party and side. 

There are far less shades of gray as you are either a Republican or Democrat. The senators will likely vote for their own party, whether that is right or not. Party loyalty is starting to take the place of individual beliefs. Sure, you can disagree on the small things, but you better agree with your party on the important votes. Political scientist Howard Levine discusses the psychology of it, saying, “What many people are doing is identifying with a party first… more and more, people are sticking with the team. Their higher priority becomes ‘beating’ the other team, which is the other party.” It is important to know whether Trump was planning on using Ukraine against Biden, but there is a greater underlying war at play. The Democrats wish to remove Trump from office to try to take back power.  The Republicans want the exact opposite. 

This struggle will go on, each group vying for a little more power, a little more control. But neither group can win, and eventually everyone will lose. Thinking that there are only two options, and forcing that opinion on others, denies people the complexity of politics. The true loss will come when we have to choose yes or no, instead of discussing the case, considering alternatives and listening to other points of views. Without discussion and polite debates, we will grow more and more close minded, convinced that our party’s beliefs are the truth and therefore the other side must be wrong. By being defined by one group or the other, we lose the the gift that democracy gives us—the ability to stand by our own opinions, independent of those in power, and to disagree with someone but still debate civilly. 

Whether you agree with Trump or not, as the Senate trials come to a close and the 2020 elections draw closer, I urge everyone to engage in a civil conversation about this with someone that may have different views than you. We can learn from this event. We can learn about party and international politics. We can learn the dangers of choosing a party over a policy. As we watch Trump and the trials, we can use this for voting in the 2020 elections.

Discuss the impeachment with people different from you and your perspective and understanding will grow. Learn from them, and perhaps they can learn from you. It will no longer appear as a black or white issue to you, but it never truly was. Grow, learn and make an intelligent informed decision in this year’s presidential election. 

“Dear Evan Hansen, today is going to be a good day and here’s why. Because today, you’re you.” This is the closing line of the Broadway musical, “Dear Evan Hansen.” While it might sound a little cliché, the musical itself is anything but. It was performed at the Fox Theatre these past few weeks. It was a fantastically produced musical that tackled many themes often avoided in society. The main character, Evan Hansen, is a teenage boy with severe social anxiety. He is tasked by his psychologist to write letters to himself about why that day will be a good day. Within the first few minutes of the musical, they directly address mental illness and the negative effects it can have. Later in the musical, another character takes his own life, further accentuating this point. Another theme that plays throughout the musical is loneliness and its effect on teenagers in today’s society. According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, for 2015, there are, on average, 121 suicides per day in America. “Dear Evan Hansen” addresses mental illness and loneliness in a visceral and personal way, proving that society needs to take greater action in it’s handling of the rising mental illness and suicide rates among teens. 

    Within the first few minutes of the musical, before even the first musical number, the main character, Evan Hansen, is shown to have crippling social anxiety, takes medication for it and consistently goes to counseling. This shows that he is doing everything “right.” He is trying to get better, and yet he still has severe anxiety. The second musical number, “Waving Through a Window,” displays this. As someone with anxiety, this song almost made me cry. Evan hates himself and he hates that no one really wants to be friends with him. He hides the worst parts of himself, or at least tries to. The beauty of the musical is that they refuse to dance around the issues of mental illness, specifically anxiety. While society attempts to hide those who feel this way, and make it seem unnatural and irregular, “Dear Evan Hansen,” refused to listen to the status quo. While mental illness is by no means an easy subject to tackle, by discussing it, the musical makes it a little less taboo.  It refuses to flinch, deciding instead to stand firm and make a strong statement about mental illness. It says, we, as a community, need to take notice of those who are struggling. 

    High school is a prime example of people struggling, and yet people choose to look away. Many teenagers go through high school feeling isolated and alone, just like Hansen. We try to hide what we consider the worst parts of ourselves, but that just inevitably leads to greater isolation. While so many people dance around to try to avoid the issue, this play decides to attempt to tackle this issue and give a solution to such a giant problem. They show that even when you feel alone, no one is ever truly alone, and it will be okay. 

   They normalize this feeling of loneliness and hopelessness, so that people watching it know that they are not alone and they will survive. In the song, “You Will be Found,” one of the singers says, “Every time you call out, you’re a little less alone.” And she could not be more correct. Every time someone stands up and admits to feeling lonely or anxious, everyone feels a little less lost. By creating a conversation about these issues, the shame that normally follows these issues fades. This allows for people to gain courage in themselves and know that they are not alone or broken because of these feelings. “Dear Evan Hansen” created a platform for people to start discussing isolation and mental illness in a way that doesn’t shame those who have been affected by it. Starting this conversation is the first step in creating a community that gives mental health the same validity as physical health.

  Last semester, I met with my academic advisor about my classes for the fall. When asked what language class I wanted to take for my core requirements, I replied, American Sign Language. My academic advisor informed me that it wasn’t technically a language class, so unless we could get special clearance from the head of the Social Work Program, it would not count. Thankfully, we emailed the head and I was allowed to take it. However, this pointed out to me a flaw in SLU’s language program. Why wasn’t sign language considered a language credit? While it was categorized under communication sciences and disorders, it should still count as a language. The deaf community is a thriving culture in the world. By not counting ASL as a language in SLU’s department, they are undermining the existence of a community that has already struggled long enough to be recognized. 

   The deaf community is a vibrant culture that over the years has developed its own traditions, phrases and jokes. It is a real language and a real culture. It has grown and developed over time. Deaf culture is its own culture. However, we live in a hearing-dominated world, and this means that many people are under the impression that the deaf community is a poor imitation of hearing culture. This follows a similar train of thought that leads to the belief that the cochlear implant resolves any issues for deaf people. This simply isn’t true. The cochlear implant doesn’t resolve all hearing issues, and deaf culture is its own culture. ASL is a complete language that allows people to have deep conversations, it has syntax and grammar and everything else that another language has. It takes as long to learn ASL and become proficient in it as any other language. Simply because it is sign language, people are apt to believe that it is simply an imitation of English, but it is not. 

   Unfortunately, SLU does not share this same belief. ASL 1 and 2 are classified under communication sciences and disorders. While this logically makes sense, they also refuse to allow some students to take it as a language credit. I was lucky and managed to get approval. But why should I have to fight to take a language simply because it is not a “typical” language? I interviewed the teacher of both basic sign language and advanced sign language, Sally Backer; I asked her thoughts on SLU and making ASL a three-credit class and count for language credit. She said, “I think a school of this size, Saint Louis University or otherwise, should have a sign language class that counts for language credit.” 

   Among other things, she mentioned how Saint Louis has two very nationally known schools for the deaf. When they graduate, if they chose to stay in St. Louis, they should be able to communicate with their neighbors. The fact that SLU does not regularly offer ASL as a three-credit class or a language credit shows that they do not value ASL as much as Spanish or French. But it could be just as useful, perhaps even more so, to college students, while slowly destigmatizing the deaf community. There is already plenty of stigma and ableism surrounding the deaf community. Perhaps if we could show that deaf people have their own culture and ways of communication and humor, we could break down that barrier leading the way to a more diverse and accepting world. 

This weekend, Saint Louis University’s theatre department performed Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” and exceeded all expectations. With performances running from Friday, Oct. 10 through the 13th, the department put on quite a show. “Twelfth Night” is a play about miscommunication, identity and love. It is a comedy and. admittedly, my favorite of Shakespeare’s plays. The plot follows a girl, Viola, played by Reed Mclean, as she gets shipwrecked and disguises herself as a man to serve the Duke Orsino, played by Ross Rubright. While there, she falls in love with the duke, who in turn is in love with the Lady Olivia, portrayed by Ellie Hill. When Orsino sends Viola to woo Olivia for him, Olivia falls for the disguised Viola. In the midst of the craziness, Viola’s twin brother shows up, whom she thought dead, leading to further escapades. A side plot follows the servants of Olivia’s court as they prank one of the rude servants. While immensely amusing and comedic, it also portrayed the themes of loss, love and bittersweet life. 

Over the course of the play, there were two main sets: Orsino’s court and Olivia’s. They achieved this by having two low balconies on opposing sides of the stage. Depending on which court they were in, it would focus on a different side of the stage. However, they managed to never make the scene feel cramped or off-center. Instead of setting the play in 16th-century England, they set it in the 1930s on the beachfront. By doing so, they were able to play up to the comedy that Shakespeare wrote into the script. 

While I have seen several productions of “Twelfth Night,” this one really blew me out of the water. All the actors and actresses were phenomenal. One of the things that really made this play stand out from the others was its use of music. Almost every scene had some song or music in it to add to the feeling of the scene but to also develop the characters and connections. Whether it was Feste, played by Michael Lanham, playing the piano, or the actors singing together, it helped develop the scenes. Some of the songs made me laugh, such as the ones about drunken revelry, and others made me cry, like the one where McLean and Rubright sang and danced together. However, the ending really pulled at my heartstrings. As the last scene closed, Lanham started playing the piano and a fellow actor, Andre Eslamian, joined him. They started singing together, and as the song progressed, all of the actors slowly came on stage, dancing out certain scenes from the play. As the song came to a close, all of the actors joined in singing, “That’s all one, our play is done.”  It was a beautifully choreographed scene that flowed and fit in perfectly with the themes that had been portrayed throughout the play. 

All of the actors did a fantastic job of transporting the audience to a different world. Shakespeare can be difficult to act out smoothly, but this troupe performed it perfectly and made me forget that it even was Shakespeare. They were clear and easy to follow. However, the real star of the show was Michael Lanham, who portrayed Feste the clown. We were informed before the show started that he had broken his ankle a week ago and would, therefore, have crutches. But he did not let this dissuade him from performing spectacularly. He managed to make the crutches feel like a natural, intended part of the act, while also using them to aid in humor. His witty comebacks and smart replies stole the show and had everyone laughing. 

Over all, this was a fantastic show that I would have seen 10 more times if possible. Saint Louis University Theatre hasn’t disappointed me yet, and I don’t think it will. The passion of all the directors, actors and crew was tangible in the air as the play progressed. Congratulations to all those involved in putting together such a fantastic play.

At the start of the semester, my creative writing professor challenged our class to put aside all technology three times a week for 10 to 15 minutes until midterms. He wanted us to just exist in the space we were in without the distraction of technology, social media and music. At first, I made many excuses to not do it; it wasn’t ‘quiet’ enough, I had homework, I wanted a nap. But as I slowly worked it into my schedule, I realized that perhaps it was healthy to set aside technology to simply exist in the world. As technology gets increasingly advanced and integrated within society, many have questioned whether its existence has created isolation or connects us on a greater, global scale?

   The answer, of course, is not nearly as straightforward as the question. While a fair amount of teenagers spend a lot of time on their phones, some parents attempt to stop that by setting screen-time limitations. Several parents feel like the phone aids in preventing deep conversations and gives kids a way out of any conversation. However, when I moved 2,000 miles away for college, I found myself relying on my phone to keep in contact with my friends from back home. By following them on social media and texting them occasionally, I was able to keep these connections strong until I could visit home. Without technology, these friendships wouldn’t be nearly as strong anymore. 

   However, as the school year went on, I noticed myself staring at my phone for hours. I would scroll through Facebook for hours while laying in bed, completely ignoring the mountain of homework sitting right next to me. When people would get lunch with me, I would check my phone every three minutes just to make sure my friends back home weren’t left on read. By doing this, I created a world where my phone had first priority and my new friends at SLU had second. My phone distracted me from completing homework, getting out of my room and doing other things that probably would’ve been beneficial. While social media distracted me from the short-term stresses, it also made them so much worse and created more problems than it solved in the long term. 

   As my freshman year came to a close, I would put off studying to check up on my friends, scroll through Instagram for hours and watch Netflix. Technology inhibited my ability to focus. Now, I’ve heard those helicopter parents raving about how technology is ruining our generation and that we should just get rid of all of it. I want to be clear, that is not what I’m saying. Like most things, social media is good in moderation. I love lying in bed for an hour and mindlessly scrolling through Instagram. However, it becomes a problem when this enjoyment outweighs your desire to exist in the real world. When we are unable to put our phones down to study or even get out of bed, we are allowing ourselves to exist primarily in a digital world, not the physical one. I also love getting texts from my high-school friends. But when I cannot stop glancing at my phone during conversations, I am sending a subtle message to the person I am with that they are not as important as whatever is on that screen. Technology is an amazing gift, and used wisely, it can help connect the world together. 

   With midterms happening, it is important to remember to put down the phone or computer for a few minutes. When my teacher first assigned this challenge, I was skeptical, and the first few times I did it, I felt incredibly awkward and out of place. However, as I continued it, I found it peaceful and destressing to simply experience the world with no interruptions. When midterms or finals hit hard, I encourage everyone to turn their phones off or even leave them at home. Go for a walk, alone or with a friend. Sit in a hammock and enjoy the fall weather. Take a break, take a breath and simply enjoy existing in the space you occupy.

I am an Aries, born in the year of the Snake. Buzzfeed says that I am the princess Jasmine and a pumpkin spice latte. The Myers-Briggs personality test says that I am extroverted, intuitive, feeling and perceiving. Perhaps you have heard about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI. It has gained a lot of popularity over the past 15 years. Career counselors use them to help indicate what jobs might be suitable for their students, and companies use them to help with job interviews. 

If you are unfamiliar with the MBTI, it is a test that will fit your personality into one of 16 different types based on a combination of attributes. It determines whether you are introverted, meaning you draw energy from being alone, or extraverted, meaning you draw energy from being around others. It also tells you whether you are intuitive, meaning you rely on instinct, or sensing, you draw conclusions from the world around you. The third category is whether you are feeling, you make decisions based on emotion, or thinking, based on logic. Finally, the last category is perceiving, you tend to go with the flow, versus judging, which means you like order and structure. The end result is a combination of four terms that “determine” your personality, such as ENFP (Extraverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, and Perceiving) or ISTJ (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging). There are 16 different combinations and, thus, different categories of personality. 

This test gained a lot of traction and attention for being accurate and helping with career planning. However, it is not actually that dependable. It is about as reliable as a Buzzfeed quiz for which Disney princess you are. According to Psychology Today, Adam Grant, Ph.D., discusses his experience with the MBTI, given that he took it on two separate occasions and got two very different results. He argues that “a test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources … As my inconsistent scores foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability.” If the MBTI gives unpredictable results, how can we rely on it for professional or personal use? While it might give you some insight into your behavior, it can only take you so far. This applies to many other personality determiners. Your zodiac sign might tell you that you are adventurous, and perhaps that is true. However, you should not allow that to become your whole identity or base your career on it. 

This test was created in an attempt to create boxes to put humans in. By categorizing personalities, we create neat little groups that simplify things for us. David Pittenger, Chair of the Department of Psychology at Marietta College, discusses this in his academic journal, Measuring the MBTI… And Coming Up Shortsaying, “MBTI attempts to force the complexities of human personality into an artificial and limiting classification scheme. The focus on the ‘typing’ of people reduces the attention paid to the unique qualities and potential of each individual.” What Pittenger is saying is that attempting to organize people into 16 neat little groups will never work well. People and personalities are complex, and by attempting to force them into these categories, you limit their potential. Personalities are so unique and different that it is nearly impossible to categorize them as the MBTI attempts to do. 

This is not to say that the MBTI has no purpose. If you enjoy taking such tests, continue to do so. For some people, the vague categorization can help them find themselves. However, it is important to remember that allowing such tests to define your identity will limit your potential. Each person is so much more than four letters, and basing your life on such letters will not lead to fulfillment. So according to Myers-Briggs, I am an ENFP; however, I am also a writer, a college student and a donut lover. What are you?