“War. War never changes… In the year 2077, after millennia of armed conflict, the destructive nature of man could sustain itself no longer. The world was plunged into an abyss of nuclear fire and radiation. But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world. Instead, the apocalypse was simply the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history. For man had succeeded in destroying the world — but war, war never changes”. This quote from a famous video game titled “Fallout 3”, which takes place in post-apocalyptic Washington D.C. after a nuclear war between China and the United States. Here, the main character must survive against monsters, crazed citizens, and the nuclear radiation that permeates the atmosphere. Even though this is just a video game made for us to have fun, the setting can indeed happen today, long before the year 2077 even comes close to us. As tensions increase between the United States and North Korea over nuclear missile testing and national and global protection, the imminent threat of nuclear warfare comes ever closer. Luckily, the United States have been deploying two different strategies from two different U.S. presidencies to defend us from the nuclear threat: strategic patience under the Obama administration in 2008 and strategic uncertainty under the Trump administration which we are using today. Both strategies have their own strength and benefits, however, both are found in either ends of extremes. Just like a libra scale, putting too much weight at a single side will only result in a toppled system. Finding the middle road between both strategics will be the best method in handling North Korea and the nuclear threat.

Origin Of The Nuclear Threat

Before we talk about strategic patience and strategic uncertainty, it is best to explain what is the nuclear threat and why North Korea has been threatening us with ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and nuclear warheads. According to GALE research, North Korea announces its first nuclear missiles testing in October 2006, much to the shock of the world. North Korea eventually withdrew from any form of negotiations or talks in 2009 and has continued its nuclear testing all the way until 3 September 2017, their latest nuclear test. North Korea has finally developed missiles capable of striking the west coast of the United States and since then has threatened to strike us if the Trump administration tries to do anything suspicious. Imagine, we became paranoia with nuclear warheads for over eleven years, questioning ourselves if today is our last day to live. We would wonder to ourselves if our current methods have been enough to stop the ICBM from coming.

Why Would North Korea Threaten Us?

Most scholars would disagree with each other about the true reason why North Korea has been experimenting with nuclear warheads and threatening us with them. Some scholars believe that North Korea is trying to ensure their survival as a political regime. Denny Roy, senior fellow at East-West Center specializing in Asia-Pacific issues, stated that “Pyongyang [capital of North Korea], which has, for decades, consistently and ruthlessly implemented policies that prioritize the goal of maintaining regime security (even at the expense, arguably, of state security)”. If North Korea truly desires regime security over other priorities, then it would be suffering terribly from internal issues such as starvation and civil unhappiness. This would make them very vulnerable to invasion from external forces. A strong weapon such as a nuke can be considered the greatest form of defense, so why wouldn’t you want to be nukes to defend yourself? All powerful countries are powerful because they have nuclear missiles, so why can’t we have them too? However, this point has a glaring issue, a issue about China. Since China is North Korea’s only ally, countries invading North Korea would have to face the onslaught of China. They would ultimately face their own demise so there would be no need for nuclear warheads as a form of defense. Clearly, there must be another reason.

Other scholars, including myself, believe that ultimately North Korea has been building nuclear warheads as a “deterrent” against the United States. Evans J.R. Revere, senior fellow at Foreign Policy, proclaims that North Korea “asserts that the United States must now live with a nuclear-armed North Korea and accept its demand to negotiate a peace treaty to replace the Korean War armistice agreement and conduct U.S.-DPRK arms control talks. The goal of these talks, they declare, would be to remove the U.S. threat.” Yes, this could be treated as a form of blackmail, that as long as the United States stays out of North Korea’s way, then they would not have to suffer the catastrophe of nuclear warfare. It is a shift of power, a small, weak country trying to force the bigger country to kneel down before them. Thus, the United States has no other option but to leave North Korea as it is, and the paranoia continues to grow.

Strategic Patience vs. Strategic Uncertainty

However, just like our American pride, we will not back down and will try all means to diffuse the situation. To deal with North Korean nuclear threat, the Trump administration has considered using strategic uncertainty, or what Leif-Eric Easley (assistant professor in the Division of International Studies at Ewha Womans University) has described as extolling “unpredictability as a virtue” and displaying “willingness to ratchet up pressure, but also sudden flexibility to strike a deal, on occasion discussing the possibility of meeting with Kim Jong-un”. This would meant that by applying unprecedented amounts of pressure on Kim Jong-un’s regime, we can force them to comply with our standards and our sanctions set by our United States government. It is similar to an artillery barrage causing constant mayhem until the enemy finally surrenders and bends to our will. Here, our actions can have direct results in North Korea.

The direct opposite of strategic uncertainty, strategic patience is a strategy described as “careful observance”. It involves patiently watching North Korea at a distance, hoping to see rising internal issues evolving within the regime. Once North Korea starts to cripple to the point of collapsing, then we can approach to strike a deal with them. We act as the loan shark and when Pyongyang comes asking for help, then we can set the price that will benefit us more than it will benefit them. This strategy helped us survive the Cold War era, where the U.S. waited patiently for the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Both strategies, strategic patience and strategic uncertainty, can be considered valid methods in fighting international threats. However, with our current situation with North Korea, each of these strategies WILL NOT EFFECTIVELY WORK on their own. Despite its flaws, North Korea is showing no signs of any immediate collapsing. If we use the strategic patience approach, nothing is stopping North Korea from building nuclear warheads. We can give an official statement condemning Pyongyang of their actions, but a nagging mother can hardly change a child’s behavior. On the other hand, if we approach the strategic uncertainty method, it will be impossible to predict predict North Korea’s actions against us. Instead, it would only infuriate them, give them more reason to threaten us, and cause more paranoia for ourselves. Senator John McCain stated that the only thing threats both America and North will do is “bring us closer to some kind of serious confrontation”. Choosing either two extremes will bring us no closer to our goal of ending the nuclear threat. Actually, it would only worsen the problem and get us into a serious fight. If we as United States citizens want to end the problem and live in peace, we must choose the middle road and not stray from it. But, how can we walk the middle road if it is not clearly defined? Before we can enact the good aspects of each strategy into one combination, we must first define those components and understand how they can possibly help us.

Military Engagement

Strategic patience and strategic uncertainty are vastly different when comparing the two in terms of military presence and military engagement, perhaps the largest difference between the two methods. Strategic patience avoids all possible conflict as much as possible, believing that negotiations can come peacefully in time and within the right minds. On the other hand, strategic uncertainty requires the use of military presence to force a negotiation with North Korea, stating that we would even go to war and strike first if needed so. Delury explains that the U.S. has three different methods to potentially strike North Korea, that they can approach a “symbolic military strike intended to intimidate the North Korean leaders into halting their development of nuclear ICBMs”, a “surgical strike from the air (most likely employing cruise missiles) on key North Korean nuclear-weapons and missile infrastructure”, or a “total war against North Korea with the objective of removing the Kim regime and unifying the Peninsula under the Seoul government”, involving both America and South Korea. Each of these options can instill fear in Pyongyang and bend their will to us. Striking them when they least expect it could potentially help us a lot.

However, in actuality, striking North Korea will be the worst thing we can ever do to end the nuclear threat. Kim Jong-un’s regime, already dealing with paranoia, will see these strikes as an all-out attack against North Korea and will completely retaliate using missile barrages against South Korea, particularly in Seoul with a popular of over 25 million people living right near the 38th parallel. Just the thought of all those innocent civilians, families, friends, and children suffering and dying will mark this event as a human tragedy and a genocide of all Koreans at best. The damage done will far outweigh any nuclear strike from North Korea. Military strikes are completely off the table and should NEVER be taken out of the refrigerator. If we want to live freely and peaceful without any guilt in the world, we must keep the pacifist aspect of strategic patience over brutish strategic uncertainty.

Talks of Freezing Before Complete Denuclearization

Some scholars have argued that re-engaging North Korea in diplomatic talks can lead to a potential freeze of Pyongyang’s nuclear research and open a gateway towards denuclearization. Revere stated that this “situation encouraged the view that one way of reducing the possibility of North Korean provocations was to get Pyongyang “invested” in a dialogue process that could yield significant benefits and make clear to the DPRK what it would lose if it carried out new attacks”. Meaning, if we as the United States gives the right incentives to North Korea such as food, international aid, reduced sanctions, North Korea can be persuaded to freeze their nuclear program realizing that it would be best for the survival of their regime.

However, this can only work if both sides are willing to commit to starting these talks and keeping the commitments made during these talks. History has shown that North Korea has not been keeping its commitments. Both Revere and Wendy Sherman, under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2011 to 2015, proclaimed that “North Korea agreed to several freezes of its nuclear-weapons program but still found ways to violate the deals, and when caught refused international monitoring and verification”. Based on this thought, strategic patience would then have too much of a difficulty to be utilized efficiently because of its coherent passiveness. When North Korea shows it signs of non-commitment, strategic patience will back away because it is too afraid of any potential conflicts to may result from continuing this talks. Strategic uncertainty is more bold, so keeping up with commitments will be easier on both sides, however, the only problem will be if uncertainty is willing to talk with Pyongyang before trying to force terms on them before those talks have even started. In this aspect, taking the boldness of willingness to commit in all circumstances of strategic uncertainty would be the best, but only if we invite the willing North Korea to the table instead of dragging them there in the first place.

Declaring North Korea a Nuclear State

Both strategic patience and strategic uncertainty lose in the issue of declaring North Korea a nuclear state, mainly because many countries, not just the United States, would never want to accept North Korea, a communist and dictatorship regime, as a nuclear power. Revere declared that by “doing so would reverse decades of U.S. policy. It would damage, perhaps fatally, the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and emasculate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). It would shake the confidence of America’s South Korean and Japanese allies, who refuse to accept Pyongyang’s nuclear status”. If that were the case, we can see why advocates of both strategies would like to dismiss this aspect entirely.

However, I disagree with this notion. I believe that declaring North Korea a nuclear state will be one of our best options yet. You see, North Korea WILL NOT STOP trying to become a nuclear power if we don’t currently acknowledge them as one as of this moment. Our efforts in the past has shown that they will not stop because they feel that they are not respected for their regime whether or not the world sees it as legit or not. We want to find a better path towards ending the threat, we must let go of refusing North Korea’s status from both strategic patience and strategic uncertainty for it is beating a dead horse at this point. When we do so, we can earn more diplomatic respect from North Korea and focus more on nuclear sanctions to prevent North Korea from using nuclear warheads as an immediate solution to their regime’s problems.

Using China

Both of our conflicting strategies have a different perspective on China, North Korea’s only ally and trade partner, and whether or not China can help us achieve our goal of ending the nuclear threat. Strategic patience believes that the United States alone can achieve peace with North Korea through diplomatic means. We would not need help from China if that were the case. On the other hand, strategic uncertainty actually blames China on the Korean nuclear issue, believing that China should put more effort into helping us or that China alone should solve this issue. Victor Cha, director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council from 2004 to 2007, states that “U.S. economic sanctions against North Korea have proved ineffective as long as China continued to fund the regime through back channels, and allowed its companies and banks to deal with North Korea” and “has largely ignored the international counter-proliferation financing regime, which is designed to sanction North Korean entities that are funneling cash to its weapons of mass destruction programs”. Here, we may formulate an idea that China is secretly fueling the nuclear problem as an attempt to undermine the United States and our global presence in the world.

However, this is absolutely not the case. The truth is China “opposes placing Pyongyang under pressure strong enough that it might indirectly topple the regime”, according to Roy. This would make perfect sense because if North Korea were to collapse, thousands of North Korean refugee will go flooding China. While already shouldering the weight of over billions of citizens, China may eventually deplete their resources to fully support everyone and thus risk their own potential collapse. This would only create another problem for the us, especially when we have so many trade connections with China. Also, if North Korea were to collapse, the Seoul government will reclaim the Korean Peninsula and since South Korea are American allies, China will have to face more American influence in the North Pacific, something they would absolutely despise.

China can be a powerful solution to thwarting the nuclear threat, however, we must negotiate and work with them somehow. This could mean moving some air bases farther from mainland China or more trade negotiations. In this case, adopting this aspect from strategic uncertainty and trying to utilize China more in our efforts against North Korea would fit best with our middle road approach to fighting against the nuclear threat.

Our Middle Road to Salvation

Now that we understand the individual aspects of what we can do to fight against North Korea with their nuclear threat, we can formulate a more superior strategy that comprises both strategic patience and strategic uncertainty. We would like to take strategic patience’s approach towards avoiding actual military conflict. We will use strategic uncertainty’s boldness in trying to negotiate with Pyongyang and keeping commitments for both sides. We will also take its consideration of China in order to bolster the negotiations. Also, we would take declaration of North Korea as a nuclear state into account despite both strategies foregoing it. There are many other aspects we can cover, however the main point we must understand is that, in the words of both Sherman and Revere, that “no U.S. Administration, working with regional leaders and the inter­national community, has ever arrayed all its tools and advantages simultaneously and over­whelmingly to end North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program, forcing the regime to choose between nuclear weapons and regime survival”. We have to use all of our tools and advantages at our disposal in the right proportions with the help of the international community if we want to achieve peace with North Korea. If we only put only certain eggs into our basket, we will only get half-baked results. Thus, we must take the best of what we have and go with it.

Conclusion

The North Korean nuclear threat is a very delicate issue to resolve. In our past, we tried our best to handle this issue and establish a peaceful relationship with Pyongyang. However, those efforts are enough in today’s situation and standard. Both strategic patience have their shortcomings; therefore, a combination of the two and more would be the best solution to our problems. With this middle-road approach, we can finally under our paranoia of nuclear warfare. We never have to bother if war changed or not, because by then war would no longer be needed, but peace.

Works Cited

1. Baker, Peter, and Choe Sang-Hun. “Trump Threatens ‘Fire and Fury’ Against North Korea if It Endangers U.S.” The New York Times, 8 Aug. 2017, Trump Threatens ‘Fire and Fury’ Against North Korea if It Endangers U.S.
2. Delury, John. “Trump and North Korea.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 96, no. 2, Mar. 2017. History Reference Center [EBSCO], North Korea Trumpp. 46.
3. Easley, Leif-Eric. “FROM STRATEGIC PATIENCE TO STRATEGIC UNCERTAINTY: Trump, North Korea, and South Koreas New President.” World Affairs, vol. 180, no. 2, 2017, pp. 7–31, https://search-lib-byu-edu.erl.lib.byu.edu/byu/record/edsbyu.aph.125667837.
4. “North Korea.” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2017. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999110/OVIC?u=byuprovo&xid=baecb8e4. Accessed 15 Nov. 2017.
5. Revere, Evans J.R. “Talks with the United States Could Reduce the North Korean Nuclear Threat.” North and South Korea, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010243273/OVIC?u=byuprovo&xid=20e5cefd. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017. Originally published as “Re-Engaging North Korea After Kim Jong-il’s Death: Last, Best Hope or Dialogue to Nowhere?” The Brookings Institution, no. 29, Jan. 2012.
6. ROY, DENNY. “Misunderstanding North Korea.” Asiapacific Issues, no. 133, 15 Aug. 2017, pp. 1–8. EBSCOhost, www.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/remoteauth.pl?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=124867490&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
7. Sherman, Wendy, et al. North Korea: How to Stop Kim Jong Un. vol. 189, , 2017, https://search-lib-byu-edu.erl.lib.byu.edu/byu/record/edsbyu.mih.122014264.

I have to admit, we rely on fossil fuels too much. We depend on it so much that we often reject other, better alternatives. It’s like ordering the same burger at McDonalds everyday and refusing to try something new like the Sriracha Burger, and that burger is actually surprisingly good, trust me. It makes complete sense why we depend on it so much however. Fossil fuels have been around for millions of years long before we came to be and it just happens to be very convenient to use, like Netflix. We sit in our soft, comfy cars, fill, and chill. Some have rumored that fossil fuels are made from dinosaurs who have lived long before us today, and who doesn’t love dinosaurs as a child. However, just like the dinosaurs, fossil fuels won’t last forever. Fossil fuels aren’t reusable like tupperware; the more we use them the faster it will run out until there is none of it. And sadly, this outlook is just around the corner. Hermann Scheer, PhD, states that “Every thinking person understands that oil, gas, coal and uranium reserves are finite: but not everyone yet understands that production capacity is very likely to be already declining today — while demand continues to soar. This inexorably results in spiralling energy prices, supply shortages in many national economies…” Holding unto fossil fuels will only hurt us in the long run. So, we need to treat our fossil fuels like our hand-me-downs we have kept for too long and put them in a box and throw them out to be never seen again. We need to treat fossil fuels like a first-gen iPhone in need of replacement for the newest model we have been saving up for. We need to treat fossil fuels like a bad first date; don’t go back for a second round. Only then can we put outdated fossil energies behind us and use renewable energies that will always be around in our time of need.

Opponents of alternative energies will often respond saying that alternative energies are just way too expensive for us to rely on, it’s just better to stick with fossil fuels until either alternative energy becomes cheaper or until we just, well, run out of fossil fuels. Basically, don’t fix it if it ain’t broken. David B. Barber, nuclear engineer at Idaho National Laboratory, stated that “…renewable are more of a headache than a resource for a grid manager. Electricity storage tools are expensive. Very expensive. Too expensive to justify on their own or at societal scale”. Yes, alternative energies may be more expensive than fossil fuels at this particular moment and I cannot and will not lie about that to all of you. However, just like that new 2017 model car that you have been saving up, the investment into renewable alternative energies will definitely pay off in the long run, no doubt about that. Richard Schiffman, environmental journalist, states that “however difficult and expensive it may be at the outset to green the U.S. power system, it won’t take long before our initial investment begins to pay off in lower electric bills…”. It won’t be long till our investments in alternative energies will eventually pay us in the end. This is an investment of a lifetime.

The fact that alternative energies can pay us in the end is very true and can benefit anyone including you and me. Some years ago, my neighbor purchased and installed solar panels on roofing of their home. At first, the overall process was a little costly when they paid a couple thousand dollars to set up the entire operation. However, in only a couple of months, the solar panels began to pay for themselves as their energy bill began to decrease in price until there was no bill to pay for. They are getting free, clean energy just like it was Oprah. They were able to save hundreds of dollars per month just because they switched to more cleaner energy, and who doesn’t like that? They saved so much money that they finally went on an Alaskan cruise during their honeymoon period that they were hoping to go since they were married. They, just ordinary millennials like you and I, received so many benefits by switching to alternative energies from obsolete fossil fuels and we too can reap from those benefits and go on Alaskan cruises or Caribbean cruises or just about any kind of cruise. By switching now, we can save a lot more money than we ever have and bolster the local and global economy. From that, we can better sustain ourselves, our families, and finally our future in this day and age.

While having an unlimited supply of energy at a nice and low cost is as awesome as ever, the primary benefit of overthrowing our use of fossil fuels and honor in the new king is to help our little, green planet Earth become even more greener and healthier than it was before. Through the burning of fossil fuels, dangerous products such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and more scary sounding scientific words are being released into the atmosphere according to College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at Penn State. Because of these products, according to NASA, global temperatures have increased by two percent, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are losing 150 kilometers of ice, glaciers in the Alps, Himalayas, and Andes are retreating, sea levels are rising by twice the rate than it was only a century ago. Our Earth that provided a place for us to stay and live is being drowned in toxic exhaust fumes and muddy sea water. Our Earth that provided us food and nourishment is getting polluted by waste and other garbage that we ourselves have created and released into the wild. Our Earth that provided us happiness and inspiration is becoming a dump unsettling and disgusting. We will never treat ourselves like that, so we should the earth like that as well. We should be shameful of ourselves if we allow fossil fuels to destroy the earth that we cherish since childbirth. It is our moral responsiblilty to protect it like it was our child straight out of birth.

No matter what the cost is for changing our prehistoric ways or how much time and effort it would take to do so, we must and immediate replace fossil fuels into renewable alternative energies that will not harm our planet. In his article, Richard Schiffman continues to state that “the price argument is also fallacious because we have never paid the real price for the power we use, which includes the cost to the environment and human health of the carbon pollution that fossil-fuel mining and burning generates… We should be supporting technologies that help us to put the brake on destructive climate change, rather than feeding the unsustainable fossil-fuel habit that is driving it.” The price for alternative is priceless, the benefits for ourselves outweigh the benefits of using fossil fuels for fossil fuels are like a dull double-edged sword: in the end of all this we will only the only one who was cut. We must switch to alternative energies as soon as possible if we want to save our planet from the ongoing destruction fossil fuels have started.

You can now see how destructive fossil fuels can be and how beneficial alternative energies can be. However, you may now feel a bit overwhelmed over the subject, wondering how can YOU make a difference in this issue. How can you as an individual make a difference for your planet? How can you help make earth a better place to live? How can you improve the your own life as well as the lives of others? You see, most of the biggest changes in society started with the little things. YOU can start making differences with the little things. You can start conserving the use of fossil fuels within your own home and life. You can use public transportation more often if available. You can get a more eco-friendly car; electric car manufacturers are finding methods upon methods of reducing their car prices. You can try using alternative energies as much as possible like installing solar panels like my neighbor for example. If any of these options seem too hard for you, you may still do one thing: raise awareness in the lives of others. Once people understand more and more about alternative energies and fossil fuels, they have a higher chance of doing more good in the world. These aren’t the only options in dealing with fossil fuels. I suggest you do your own research and explore the unlimited potential you can make in life.

The events portrayed in The Lorax are very real and can happen it real life. Science has proven that this is the case. Prolonging use of fossil fuels and other pollutants will continue to inflict damage to our planet’s atmosphere. It will continue to have painstaking effects on our economy and in our homes in the long run. It will continue to have us addicted to it until it will eventually run out and like addicts suffering from withdrawal, it will hurt us and hurt us bad. Only when we forgo fossil fuels and turn over to alternative energies which will come to us like like an endless stream of fresh, delicious water, we can truly help our planet return to its natural beauty and save quite a few dollars while we are at it. The Lorax can definitely happen; however, we have the power to stop. You must decide from this point onward what will you do; I cannot make that the decision for you. You can make a difference. You do not need to sleep under the smoke-smuggered stars tonight.

Yes, I want one of these things as a pet too. In July 2017, Lucasfilms released behind-the-scenes footage for the upcoming movie Star Wars: The Last Jed. Within this footage was the first showcasing of the Porgs, the native creatures of the planet Ahch-To. And omg, these bird creatures some of the cutest things I have ever since. According to Lucasfilms story group’s Pablo Hidalgo, Porgs are “the Star Wars version of puffins”, which can be found in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean. Since then, these creatures have taken the Internet by storm, finding themselves all over Twitter and most importantly, they are found in memes. Look at this one for example:

Their cuteness levels are off the charts! So cute, they have starting to taken over BB-8’s throne of the cutest thing found in the Star Wars franchise. Now, while I do love that rolling ball to death, I just can’t wait to see these things in action when the movie hits theaters in December. That is probably the best gift Santa can ever give to the children, and adults like myself as well.

Not all the love for the porgs have been universal. Many think it’s all just a marketing ploy to sell more Star Wars merchandise. While believe that they will become the new Ewoks, creatures that have divided the Star Wars fanbase for years. Whatever the outcome may be, I would gladly accept them as new characters in the Star Wars Universe. Enjoy the movie when it comes in this Christmas season!

Yet, the question is, why we as humans who are on the top of the food chain, perhaps the most intelligent and strongest of all creatures, who honestly have the power to dominate all who stand against our way, have such fragile hearts? Anything could shatter our glass hearts into tiny little pieces. A person who won’t give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation anymore? Shattered into pieces. Someone decided to start a sleeping marathon and won’t stop? Shattered into pieces. No longer have enough to watch over little monsters and their breeder? Shattered into pieces. No matter what we do, it seems that we will always have shattered glass hearts. Why can’t we also have cool hearts such as animals?

Here is what can be seen as serious message. These message written in pretty chalks states that we should probably spend less focus on our phones and spend more time with friends and families. In my opinion, that’s a great opinion. However, can one spot the irony in this picture? Hint: Look at the bottom left corner. Over there, you can see a shadow of myself taking that picture with…guess what…my phone! The thing is, I was heading back to my dorm room with a friend till the moment this message caught my eye. We walked past it, but I just had this thought to take a picture of it. So, I told my friend that he can go on without me; I proceeded to walk towards the message, whipped out my phone from my back pocket, and took a picture. Do you understand the situation here? I basically ignored my friend, grabbed my phone, and took a picture of a message that told me to not ignore my friends and ignore my phone instead. A serious message just became a funny message to me. Here is just one example that we have the power to make just about everything funny, no matter what the subject matter is. People can see us as crazy, awkward, weird, or weird, but we will eventually laugh at anything.

In the light of recent events that happened in Charlottesville, Virginia, America started to drift away from the “heroism” of Confederate leaders of the Civil War in the past. Leaders and mayors of many cities started the process of taking down monuments of these Confederate leaders, stating that these statues were promoting segregation, racism, slavery, and other horrific acts. Picture this. We in the past, we used to CELEBRATE these kinds of things. We almost worshipped these leaders who were promoting these acts. We honored the fact that things existed and wished that these things continue and will never be taken away from us. But now we don’t.

This reminds of Columbus Day, an American holiday where we celebrated the fact the Columbus was one of the first few people to discover and land in America. However, after further research and examination, we learned of the horrific acts that Columbus had done against the Native Americans. Nowadays, Columbus Day isn’t as respected anymore.

The point I am trying to make is that we used to celebrate bad things, things that most people, especially in the light of other cultures, isn’t worth celebrating over. We loved that fact, and even party hard to that fact. Now thinking to myself, what other holidays and traditions that we honor and respect may be considered bad? What do you think?

For example, I just read Martin Luther King Jr.’s so called “I Have a Dream Speech” and this speech contains chock full of repetition. Starting from the fifth paragraph of his speech, King starts to repeat the phrase “Now it is the time…”. This isn’t just a broken record playing. Here, King is focusing on the urgency of his message, that “now it is the time” to finally address the abhorrent issues of racial discrimination that ran rampant in America during the 60’s and 70’s. More famous than this, he repeats “I have a dream” and while relating to the American dream, he focuses on his dream, or rather, the dreams of all who wanted this kind of future for themselves. His dream is the dream for all. Repetition sucks you in and helps you see what truly matters at that moment. That dream was definitely drilled into the heads of all of us.