Feb 19, 2021 | Editorial, Noah Bergam
By Noah Bergam (VI)
A gentle chorus of crackling leaves caught my attention on a midday walk. It was a curious, contradictory sound, a fractal hum of tiny collisions. I walked across the curb, took three steps into the edge of the icy forest, and looked for the culprit in the autumn detritus. Nothing. I tried to blink away the quarantine eye strain. Still nothing, yet the hum intensified. When I turned back to the street, I saw the pavement dancing with miniscule ice pellets, white crystals popping in and out of solid existence.
I smiled. The clouds caught me by surprise with their absurdity. I wanted revenge. A childish urge brought me back to the curb, in search of a sizable piece of hail. Drivers passed me by with confused looks as I patiently combed the cold asphalt for something worthy. Searching, searching––jackpot!
I showed it to my mother. It was a beautiful crystal, about a centimeter in diameter, chiseled like a true polyhedron. It was incredible how slow it was melting. Come to think of it, it didn’t really melt at all.
This isn’t ice, she told me. It’s road salt.
It took her about five seconds to notice the discrepancy. Meanwhile, I held the crystal for about five minutes in my glove, with the firm belief that it was ice.
Nature: 2. Noah: 0. In this dramatic turn of events, I wasn’t quite sure how to feel. I wanted to laugh it off, but I also felt a dire need to understand the mental glitch which led me to this moment. I felt a tinge of that self-correcting hysteria that every Pingry student knows so well: the pain of the stupid mistake. The arithmetic error, the glaring typo, the misread question. In the craft of perfection, from 1600s to 36s to A+s, stupid mistakes must be rooted out ruthlessly. They cannot be treated as inevitable, even as every stupid mistake inevitably stems from the same essential quality: stubborn conviction.
Of course, when it comes to career paths like airplane pilots and police officers, the mindset of perfectionism is not just admirable but societally necessary. However, in the context of academics and pedagogy, when ideas and curiosity are at stake rather than people’s lives, I think it’s important to lighten up on our approach to stupid mistakes. It’s healthier for students to expect to incur stupid mistakes in their educational careers, to value original conviction more than painstaking perfection. Of course, the way most curricula are structured––at Pingry and beyond––this is not a reasonable expectation. Test-taking is a fundamentally perfectionist pursuit, designed to help us strangle our stupid mistakes and fit our thinking to the model laid out in front of us. If we want to encourage students to think for themselves and adopt strong opinions with a healthy mindset, we ought to transition to more research-oriented, discussion-based models. Critical essays in particular ought to extend beyond English class. I’d like to see more math students reading and writing research rather than spitting back formulas––perhaps one of them might come across the Hairy Ball Theorem, which I think offers us a particularly nice illustration of this entire discussion. The theorem states that a sphere covered with hair cannot be entirely combed down; that a planet with wind must have a point on its surface where the air is not moving. So too is any person with an opinion going to have tufts and wrinkles in the fabric of their reasoning. It’s up to them to seek out those logical inconsistencies, to actively smoothen them out while understanding that the topology of ideas is never perfect.
Stubborn conviction is a fundamental part of our humanity and our intellectual legacies as scholars. It’s what gives us the passion to voice political opinions and invest time into civil discourse. It’s what gives us the courage to propose new theorems and theories. It’s what imbues a dreary January hail storm with an air of youthful adventure.
Feb 19, 2021 | Andrew Wong, Investigative
By Andrew Wong (V)
The Wall Street Bets Reddit Community, affectionately referred to as r/WallStreetBets, proudly describes itself as “like 4Chan found a Bloomberg Terminal.” So-called YOLO (“You Only Live Once”) trades are the order of the day on this subreddit, with users dumping thousands of dollars into high-risk, high-volatility trades that essentially treat the stock market like a massive casino. Upon visiting the board for the first time, users are greeted with posts on dozens of these potential YOLO trades that have the potential to either make you a millionaire, or absolutely rob you––usually the latter. Yet even as these YOLO trades go bust, many of the Redditors take pride in their massive losses, posting pictures of hundreds of thousands of dollars lost on high-risk options and trades.
However, when these trades do go right, one can become a millionaire practically overnight. This was the case with Gamestop (GME), a YOLO trade started by a user u/DeepF——Value, a 34-year-old financial educator from Massachusetts named Keith Gill, who mostly posts cat memes on Twitter and Reddit. Gill originally placed $54,000 on GME in September of 2020, when GME traded at roughly $8.50 a share. The bet soon gained momentum on r/WallStreetBets when Gill posted an update on January 11, 2021. Users started buying the stock en masse, sending the price to about $65 a share by January 22.
Wall Street hedge funds soon took notice of this sudden uptick in GME’s stock price, and immediately saw an opportunity to make some quick money. GME’s stock price was indeed heavily overvalued: the company itself was not expected to turn a profit until 2024, and with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was in severe financial distress. Expecting the stock to nosedive owing to Gamestop’s precarious financial situation and poor fundamentals, investors short sold the stock. By January 22, 140% of GME’s public float had been shorted, making it the most shorted stock on the market.
Seeing how GME had been extremely shorted by Wall Street hedge funds, members of r/WallStreetBets soon found themselves with a golden opportunity. If they could get users on the board to buy more shares of GME (which would increase the stock price), hedge funds would have to buy back the stock to cover, which would further increase the stock price and cause a short squeeze, thus sending the stock price soaring.
On January 25, the plan was put into motion. Swathes of users bought GME (nearly 175 million shares were traded that day), pledging to send “Gamestop to the Moon!” The internet soon took notice and “GME to the Moon” was trending on multiple social media platforms that day. Influencers hoping to make a quick buck posted screenshots of their positions and asked their followers to buy into the stock. Millennial college students looking to pay off their college debts hopped on the trend, dumping their stimulus checks and whatever savings they could scrape together into GME. Gen-Zers, many of whom had never even touched the stock market before, started accounts on free trading platforms such as Robinhood to hop on the GME rocket and become part of history. Never before in stock market history had so many people been united together in a singular goal to buy a stock.
This sudden influx of people buying GME caused the stock’s price to rise sharply, as expected. A gamma squeeze was also triggered by traders scrambling to buy options in order to hedge their short positions and protect themselves from further risk, which further increased the stock price. By the time the market closed on January 26, GME had risen 92.71% to a price of $147.98 per share. During after-hours trading, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter and posted a link to the r/WallStreetBets subreddit with the caption “Gamestonk!”, sending the price of the stock to $200. By the time the market closed the next day on the 27, GME was trading at $483 a share, an increase of almost 750% from its stock price just a week prior, and an increase of more than 1000% for the entire year.
In the span of two days, Redditors and YOLO investors who had placed thousands of dollars into GME found themselves with millions of dollars in newly acquired wealth. Meanwhile, hedge funds who had dumped billions of dollars into short positions on GME found themselves losing their entire position to the short squeeze. Morgan Stanley reported that it had seen some of the largest de-grossing actions in nearly 10 years, meaning hedge funds worked to cover their short positions and to sell stock in other companies in order to limit their volatility exposure as GME’s stock price took off. Other funds, who had bet big on the GME short, simply couldn’t cover their losses. Among the biggest of these losers would be Melvin Capital, a $12 billion hedge fund who had staked out a multibillion dollar short position on GME. In the wake of the short squeeze, Melvin found itself losing nearly 30% of its value on its failed GME short, necessitating a $2.75 billion buyout from Citadel and Point72 Asset Management in order to prevent the fund from going under.
As of the time of writing, GME is now trading at roughly $58, thanks to a combination of brokerages restricting trading of GME, short ladders by hedge funds in order to force a selloff, and a loss of interest from retail traders. Wall Street itself has been reminded that retail traders, ordinary people, are still very much a force on the market, and they too, have as much of a right and ability as do those working in multi-billion dollar hedge funds. This event, when a group of retail investors, redditors, millennials and Gen-Zers all came together and managed to upset Wall Street, will certainly go down as an event to remember, an event that will help to define the Millennial and Gen-Z generations.
Feb 19, 2021 | Emma Drzala, Front Page News, School News
By Emma Drzala (V)
As we approach the end of the winter trimester, the Pingry community finds that it is once again time for the annual Robert H. LeBow ‘58 Oratorical Competition. The contest was founded by the Pingry Class of 1958 (LeBow’s graduating class) and William Hetfield (‘58), in honor of their classmate, Robert LeBow. Featuring six student speakers with four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half minute speeches, the assembly is consistently deemed a favorite among the school community. This year, the competition was organized by Ms. Judy Lebowitz, and was open to students from both the sophomore and junior classes. From a pool of 26 students in the preliminary round, the top six advanced to the finals: Martine Bigos (V), Elspeth Campbell (V), Caleb Park (V), Milenka Men (IV), Sophia Lewis (V), and Israel Billups (V). They will be judged by a diverse panel of teachers and administrators, as well as the past two winners of the LeBow Competition: Cal Mahoney (VI) and Noah Bergam (VI).
Of the contestants, Martine Bigos was the only one who qualified for the finals last year. This year, she wrote a speech entitled “All That’s Left.” In it, Bigos expresses her concern about our actions as high school students, and how everything we do seems to be for an end goal, rather than for our enjoyment or the betterment of society. She also discusses dishonesty in today’s world, and how the majority of students are looking for ways to “win”—whether that be getting into college, or winning a competition—rather than truly caring about what they are doing. Rather than writing about something that she did not have a passion for just because she felt the judges would appreciate it, Bigos decided to write about the need for winning in society today. There is a beauty in her speech that cannot be replicated, and Pingry students will surely be able to relate to the message of it.
Elspeth Campbell (V) wrote a speech entitled “We, the Politicians.” Her idea came about after reading a compendium of internet conspiracy theories in the New York Times. Confounded by the juxtaposition between baseless theories and factual journalism, Campbell began writing a speech about the dangerous effects of factionalism on social media. She initially believed that the exponents of such ideologies were only harming themselves. However, she soon realized that her speech seemed both prescient and naïve, and was enlightened on how misinformation is able to prevail so easily today. Campbell confronted the obvious hypocrisy of her argument wondering, “How could I, someone who was too nervous to speak in class, let alone share my political beliefs, encourage others to participate in political discussions?” Her speech became an exercise in introspection, designed to empower both herself and her peers.
The next finalist is Caleb Park (IV), with “My Dark, Beautiful, Twisted Isolation.” Park’s speech analyzes isolation during quarantine; he believes that sometimes, isolation can lead to a masterpiece, citing both Kanye West and Ludwig van Beethoven as examples of this theory. He mentions that although on a surface level, isolation appears to be a pain to us, but it actually gave us an opportunity to explore ourselves and to make time for personal growth and realization. Park also talks about his first encounter with isolation and that is where his inspiration for his speech came about. His speech is captivating in that everyone can think back to their quarantine experience and wonder if a “masterpiece” came from it.
Milenka Men’s (IV) “We’ve Kept the Mountains and Lost the Grass” is a speech about social interaction during COVID-19, and how quarantine has affected our social psyche as a community. She describes her speech as something that has “evolved into a discussion of how the structure of our social lives has been altered as a whole.” Her inspiration behind the speech came from her own personal experience with quarantine; when quarantine began, Men initially enjoyed the break and the time it gave to her. She was able to explore herself, which allowed her to realize her introverted nature. Similar to Caleb Park, Milenka takes on the difficult subject of quarantine and what it meant to her.
Next is Sophia Lewis (V) with “Self Care [sic] Isn’t Caring for Me Anymore.” Lewis’s speech discusses her frustration with self-care. She felt that recently, self-care has dwindled down to becoming superficial, which she believes is unacceptable. In her speech, she discusses self-care and what it means to her, as well as how it has come to affect her.
The final speech is “The Velocity of Fear.” Written by Izzy Billups (V), the speech is centered around the magnitude of fear in society today. Billups discusses how fear is what leads to the destruction of embracing personal thoughts and ideals. She aims to communicate that we should not fear being different, but rather embrace the idea of breaking out of the box that society has set up for us. Finally, she notes that no two people are the same, so in turn, we as a community should not conform to the pressures of society. Billups drew inspiration from a mere conversation with her sister, proving that universal truths can come to us at any moment. After realizing that both she and her sister have been making decisions based on how they would be perceived in society, Izzy decided to write a speech to combat the mentality of fear controlling so many people, thereby naming it “The Velocity of Fear.”
The competition will be held on February 19 in Hauser Auditorium. Good luck, finalists!
Feb 16, 2021 | Columns, Emily Shen
By Emily Shen (V)
March 6th, 2020: the last day that Pingry students, faculty, and staff were on campus before the implementation of masks and social distancing measures, and the last day of school as we knew it. As students shared their plans for spring break and discussed the possibility of the break being extended, no one could have predicted that COVID-19 would affect their lives as much as it did. The pandemic has disrupted the globe both economically and socially, drastically altering how people interact and how corporations operate. We watched as an event found more often in history textbooks than real life unfolded right before our eyes.
Millions of Americans have been infected with COVID-19 since last spring, and as of January 24th, more than 417,000 people have died in the U.S alone. The pandemic’s social and economic consequences — such as the loss of precious lives, the spiking unemployment rate, and necessary adjustments and sacrifices made to stop the virus’s spread — continue to heavily impact every individual and every family. Emotional consequences, therefore, tend to seem trivial in comparison and are often overlooked.
During the pandemic, many people with mental illnesses have been significantly affected and require more support. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, before COVID-19, nearly one in every five U.S. adults reported having a mental illness, with eleven million of those adults having or previously having a serious mental illness that impaired their life in some way. In these unprecedented times, the number of those needing mental health services has only increased. As a result of the social, economic, and personal stress induced by the pandemic, more than one in three adults have reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder during the pandemic, compared to the one in ten reported in 2019 prior to COVID-19. Substance abuse has also become a bigger problem during the pandemic, and without external interference, the problem has only been exacerbated over time.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S.’s mental health care system was failing to meet people’s needs, especially for people of color and of marginalized gender identities. Systematically oppressed people are arguably more in need of mental health services as they statistically face disproportionately higher rates of poverty, criminalization, employment discrimination, and homelessness. As the U.S. and many other countries reallocated funding to focus on doing damage control for the pandemic itself, the issue of already-insufficient funding for mental health services only worsened. According to the World Health Organization, over 60% of countries worldwide reported disruptions to mental health services for vulnerable people. Some of the most notable groups that experienced disruptions include children and adolescents (reported at 72%), older adults (reported at 70%), and women requiring antenatal or postnatal services (reported at 61%). Although WHO has recommended that countries increase their funding to cover mental health services, the cost of resolving other pandemic-related medical issues cannot be neglected. National leaders are in a challenging position as they try to balance the effects of the pandemic as a whole.
On a positive note, national and international health organizations recognize the growing significance of people’s mental and emotional health and are taking actions to ensure that individuals can take care of themselves during this time of uncertainty. For example, the Centers for Disease Control has shared information and recommendations regarding stress coping mechanisms on their online resources page. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has also provided resources to address the pressing issue of mental and emotional wellbeing during the pandemic. More accessible mental health care via telemedicine and teletherapy — where individuals can seek help from professionals over the phone or remotely — alleviates the stress caused by social isolation and provides patients with hope for a better tomorrow. Members of the Pingry community have been working together over the past year and supporting each other through difficult times. If you are struggling with your emotional and mental health, please seek help from your family, friends, or a trusted adult. Visit “Wellness and Support” on the Pingry website where you can find counselors and resources to address your needs. We are here for each other, and nothing is more important than staying safe and connected!
Feb 16, 2021 | Columns
By Vared Shmuler (IV) and Cayden Barrison (IV)
On January 13th, the NBA community was shocked by one of the most remarkable trades in recent basketball history. The disgruntled James Harden was traded from the Houston Rockets to the Brooklyn Nets in a historic four-team trade. The Houston Rockets received four first-round picks, four pick swaps, Victor Oladipo, and two role players. The Indiana Pacers received the solid 26-year-old Caris Levert and a second-round selection. The Cleveland Cavaliers were able to obtain the 4th year center Jarrett Allen and forward Taurean Prince. However, this trade’s main focus was the 8x All-Star, 3x Scoring Champion, and former MVP James Harden. He reunites with former teammate and MVP Kevin Durant and 6x All-Star Kyrie Irving in Brooklyn to possibly create one of the best NBA trios in basketball history.
For a while, it had become apparent that James Harden was not satisfied with the Houston Rockets after years of playoff disappointment. In a recent attempt to satisfy the superstar, the Rockets’ general manager traded for the point guard and former All-Star, John Wall, but it was to no avail. Harden went as far as failing to attend practice and continuously criticizing the rest of the team for the Rockets’ misfortune. He made it very apparent that he had no intentions of continuing his career with the Houston organization. Nets general manager Sean Marks ultimately made the trade happen despite the massive haul in talent and draft capital required.
While this trade seems excellent on paper, it has caused some problems that the Nets will now have to deal with soon. With their newly acquired player, the Nets will now have three ball-dominant superstars in Brooklyn, which will end up granting fewer shots to each player. Having come from an offense built entirely around him for over eight years, Harden will now have to transition into a more balanced offense, which leaves the NBA followers to ask: will the three superstars be able to adapt to their new positions? The uncertainty around this question will heavily depend on Kyrie Irving, the point guard of the Brooklyn Nets. Irving is known for creating messy situations when he does not get his way, which is reflected in his short stint with the Boston Celtics. Not only is he known for creating controversy, but Irving reportedly does not have a great relationship with the head coach, Steve Nash, and often makes odd comments and controversial decisions off the court. Irving’s rash choices pose a huge problem that needs to be addressed for the Nets to make a championship run this season. Another primary concern for the team is defense. The Nets, while being offensively stacked, may have a tough team keeping opposing teams from scoring at will. The Nets may have to also address this to solidify their playoff contention.
So, how will this trade affect the Nets franchise as well as the rest of the NBA? Although the Nets acquired James Harden, they will have difficulties adding some younger talent to their roster in years to come. By trading away several picks and Caris Levert and Jarrett Allen, the Nets relinquished an abundance of young talent. With their starting lineup at an average age of about 30, the Nets will struggle to play on par with the younger generation of basketball players in the coming years. Not only will the team face problems within their team, but they will also have other teams such as the Miami Heat, Milwaukee Bucks, and Philadelphia 76ers standing in their path to the NBA Finals. The Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Conference could also thwart Brooklyn’s chance for their first championship in over 40 years. For now, NBA fans can only sit back and watch greatness unfold.
Feb 16, 2021 | Columns, Fashion
By Grace Fernicola (III)
Let me take you to a simpler time. Your alarm clock rings, you drag yourself out of bed, and the daily ritual of getting dressed commences. Students might have designed their outfit for that day around an event at Pingry, plans after school, or even something as cavalier as their mood that particular morning. But now, after almost a year of living with COVID-19, morning routines have dwindled down to throwing a sweatshirt over a pajama top, sliding our feet into the fluffy slippers next to the bed, and, if there is time, a quick comb through the hair—comfort we never could have imagined before the dress code was relaxed.
This style is neither limited to Pingry students or 2020. For years, American fashion has been trending towards more comfortable, casual clothes. Pre-pandemic sales of “leisure wear” had already been increasing due to people of all ages becoming more interested in comfortable workout clothes, rather than stuffy business clothes. As such, with the onset of the pandemic, sales of “leisure wear” at companies like Lululemon and Nike have skyrocketed.
Fashion forecasters are now saying that comfortable clothes may be here to stay post-pandemic. So don’t fret. We will most likely not have to throw our sweats to the back of our closets as the world slowly returns to normal. Pingry may even make the current relaxed dress code permanent, so we can all enjoy our day in pajama pants and hoodies for school years to come. Great news, right? Well, maybe not.
Despite the benefits of our current quick and low-maintenance dress routines, wearing sweats all day might have some unforeseen negative consequences. Psychologist Carolyn Mair stresses that wearing certain clothes can affect people’s moods and confidence. Mair stated that “clothing is fundamental in how we are perceived. In turn, this affects our sense of self-worth and ultimately, how we see ourselves compared with others, our self-esteem.” A prime example of this is the effect of wearing baggy clothes. Baggy clothes are often associated with sadness or depression, and dressing the same way every day for months on end can make you feel bored and unmotivated. By continuously making the same dreary, drab clothing choices, the days become indistinguishable, especially in the already blurred time of remote learning.
As we start to move forward this year, I would suggest getting out of bed and dressing in something different than what you wore the day before, as even doing something this small and simple can actually help break the monotonous routine of our days, even going so far as to make us feel more put-together and productive. Psychologist De’Von Patterson said, “Some people may have an easier time being productive if they recreate the cues associated with their productivity. If they’re getting dressed, that puts them in the mindset to work or study.” Brightly colored clothes or a pre-pandemic outfit choice once in a while might lift our moods and help us focus as we sit down and prepare ourselves for online classes.
How we dress is a form of self-expression, and it is a way to present ourselves to the world in our own unique way. Many people think of clothing as an important part of their individuality, especially with there being multiple style variations in society today. “We live in a very visual world,” says Susan Swimmer, Creative Director of Evie Marques jewelry and a former fashion editor and TV commentator. “Clothes are your instant messaging system. They reflect how you feel and how you project that to the world.” The common leisure-wear outfits we now see so often in our school halls have become an unofficial uniform, leaving little room for individuality. Some students may be missing the opportunity for the creativity that we had each morning before the pandemic. The loss of the opportunity to control the way we present ourselves to others at a time when we cannot control so much of what is happening in the world around us can cause more stress and sadness, whether we realize it or not.
When you wake up tomorrow morning, do not be afraid to switch up your clothing choices for the day. Small steps like these might be the first steps in returning to the normalcy that we all crave, even behind your mask and plexiglass.
Feb 16, 2021 | Opinion
By Vared Shmuler
COVID-19 has had a two-faced effect on the American economy. On one hand, many small businesses and franchises have had to temporarily or permanently close their doors to their clientele; on the other, the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for an array of investment opportunities, particularly in securities and real estate. The U.S. stock market ended 2020 at an all-time high. Even the S&P 500 stock index, one of the most widely-watched gauges for the market, finished the year up more than 16 percent. Investors in the stock market have benefited significantly from the sudden surge, but homeowners and real estate investors have also benefited from the continuous low interest rates implemented by the Federal Reserve.
With the stock market enduring initial volatility during the beginning of the pandemic and finishing up 2020 as a clear bull market, we are left to consider: What about 2021? Will the economy flourish and continue on this unforeseen path, or will a bubble burst, leading the U.S. to reach negative growth and further continue the state of uncertainty?
Anticipating the future requires a deep understanding of the present state of our nation. The United States is still very much plagued by COVID-19. Even after undergoing ten months of a global crisis, we are still at a great risk of a prolonged second wave which will cause the economy to suffer. This could mean a first quarter with negative output growth, which signifies a recession on the horizon. However, due to the recent development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, the course of 2021 will likely look more positive. Most states will soon be able to provide the vaccine to the general public, following the decisions made by the governments of Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Only after these events will the economy begin to recover.
Here’s my prediction: With the rising number of cases and the vaccine only open to a select few, the GDP, which measures the total value of economic output in the country, will decrease. However, after more vaccines are distributed and more people are able to receive treatment, the economy will stabilize, but not completely revert to its pre-pandemic state. Even as regulations are relaxed, industries such as hospitality, dining, and cinema have potentially been changed forever. The redistribution of economic power towards other industries, like technology and automobiles, will lead to a “new normal” for the foreseeable future. In summary, due to the recent spike in coronavirus cases counterbalanced by the distribution of vaccines, we should expect an economic dip followed by a recovery.
Feb 16, 2021 | Opinion
By Caleb Park (IV)
So far, the COVID-19 vaccine distribution in New Jersey has been a complete mess. While some people are being denied their vaccines, others have been registered twice due to system errors. Distribution centers are running out of vaccines, hotlines are being overwhelmed, and one hospital in Flemington even gave out vaccines to high-paying donors. With the amount of resources that the American medical and pharmaceutical industries have, how did we get in such a perilous situation?
Along with the chaos that comes with state-level organization, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has not handled the situation well, to say the least. Instead of focusing on the thousands of deaths, Murphy has prioritized marijuana legalization and clean energy. Although “100% clean energy by 2050” is a nice goal, there are more pressing issues that need to be handled.
The current rollout strategy for the vaccine distribution uses the covid19.nj.gov website to direct people to different resources and register for the vaccine. Patients then receive doses at specified locations. The website and the distribution infrastructure have failed several times due to website issues, human error, and resource management. Unsurprisingly, many senior citizens have been unable to navigate the small-text and cluttered website, with more than twenty links on the home page. The people eligible to receive the vaccine are separated into “phases,” with people who have more urgent work and health situations being placed into early phases. Phases 1A and 1B consist of healthcare workers and high-risk patients. But where are the teachers?
Let’s make this clear: teachers are essential workers. They guide and teach kids despite the challenges of the COVID crisis. However, teachers are in a very unique position. They have arguably one of the most high-risk jobs out of all essential workers. Contrary to delivery drivers or agricultural workers, who might interact directly with only a few people every day, in-person teachers are constantly interacting with students and other faculty members. This argument is not to discredit the huge risks that other essential workers are making, but teachers definitely have a higher risk of exposure to COVID. Although the Murphy administration has plans to accommodate essential workers in the next phase of vaccine distribution (Phase 1C), there is no planned date or finalized method of action. Teachers and school faculty should be accommodated into the current phase of COVID vaccine rollout, or at least implemented into the distribution system as soon as possible.
Vaccinating teachers would not only allow their risky situation to be put to rest, but it would also allow schools to function more smoothly. First off, students would have less risk of exposure to COVID. Although students probably have more exposure to other students than their teachers, teachers are constantly shifting between classes and groups, making it easier for the virus to spread in-between classes. Teachers also interact with students individually, making it easier for them to be a liaison for the virus to spread. Although Pingry has done an excellent job at trying to prevent the spread of COVID as much as possible, it is not completely foolproof. Also, other schools are definitely not as fortunate when it comes to exposure prevention. Vaccinated teachers would also allow more teachers to be present at school, making for a much more productive school environment and making a step towards a fully in-person school once again.
With all the effort put into developing and producing large amounts of the vaccine, the last step should be to successfully vaccinate the right people in order to finally flatten the curve. In such a high risk environment that is school, it is only logical that teachers and faculty should be vaccinated as soon as possible in order to stop exposure to students and their families.
Feb 16, 2021 | Columns
Andrew Wong (V)
The Wall Street Bets Reddit Community, affectionately referred to as r/WallStreetBets, proudly describes itself as “like 4Chan found a Bloomberg Terminal.” So-called YOLO (“You Only Live Once”) trades are the order of the day on this subreddit, with users dumping thousands of dollars into high-risk, high-volatility trades that essentially treat the stock market like a massive casino. Upon visiting the board for the first time, users are greeted with posts on dozens of these potential YOLO trades that have the potential to either make you a millionaire, or absolutely rob you––usually the latter. Yet even as these YOLO trades go bust, many of the Redditors take pride in their massive losses, posting pictures of hundreds of thousands of dollars lost on high-risk options and trades.
However, when these trades do go right, one can become a millionaire practically overnight. This was the case with Gamestop (GME), a YOLO trade started by a user u/DeepF——Value, a 34-year-old financial educator from Massachusetts named Keith Gill, who mostly posts cat memes on Twitter and Reddit. Gill originally placed $54,000 on GME in September of 2020, when GME traded at roughly $8.50 a share. The bet soon gained momentum on r/WallStreetBets when Gill posted an update on January 11, 2021. Users started buying the stock en masse, sending the price to about $65 a share by January 22.
Wall Street hedge funds soon took notice of this sudden uptick in GME’s stock price, and immediately saw an opportunity to make some quick money. GME’s stock price was indeed heavily overvalued: the company itself was not expected to turn a profit until 2024, and with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was in severe financial distress. Expecting the stock to nosedive owing to Gamestop’s precarious financial situation and poor fundamentals, investors short sold the stock. By January 22, 140% of GME’s public float had been shorted, making it the most shorted stock on the market.
Seeing how GME had been extremely shorted by Wall Street hedge funds, members of r/WallStreetBets soon found themselves with a golden opportunity. If they could get users on the board to buy more shares of GME (which would increase the stock price), hedge funds would have to buy back the stock to cover, which would further increase the stock price and cause a short squeeze, thus sending the stock price soaring.
On January 25, the plan was put into motion. Swathes of users bought GME (nearly 175 million shares were traded that day), pledging to send “Gamestop to the Moon!” The internet soon took notice and “GME to the Moon” was trending on multiple social media platforms that day. Influencers hoping to make a quick buck posted screenshots of their positions and asked their followers to buy into the stock. Millennial college students looking to pay off their college debts hopped on the trend, dumping their stimulus checks and whatever savings they could scrape together into GME. Gen-Zers, many of whom had never even touched the stock market before, started accounts on free trading platforms such as Robinhood to hop on the GME rocket and become part of history. Never before in stock market history had so many people been united together in a singular goal to buy a stock.
This sudden influx of people buying GME caused the stock’s price to rise sharply, as expected. A gamma squeeze was also triggered by traders scrambling to buy options in order to hedge their short positions and protect themselves from further risk, which further increased the stock price. By the time the market closed on January 26, GME had risen 92.71% to a price of $147.98 per share. During after-hours trading, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter and posted a link to the r/WallStreetBets subreddit with the caption “Gamestonk!”, sending the price of the stock to $200. By the time the market closed the next day on the 27, GME was trading at $483 a share, an increase of almost 750% from its stock price just a week prior, and an increase of more than 1000% for the entire year.
In the span of two days, Redditors and YOLO investors who had placed thousands of dollars into GME found themselves with millions of dollars in newly acquired wealth. Meanwhile, hedge funds who had dumped billions of dollars into short positions on GME found themselves losing their entire position to the short squeeze. Morgan Stanley reported that it had seen some of the largest de-grossing actions in nearly 10 years, meaning hedge funds worked to cover their short positions and to sell stock in other companies in order to limit their volatility exposure as GME’s stock price took off. Other funds, who had bet big on the GME short, simply couldn’t cover their losses. Among the biggest of these losers would be Melvin Capital, a $12 billion hedge fund who had staked out a multibillion dollar short position on GME. In the wake of the short squeeze, Melvin found itself losing nearly 30% of its value on its failed GME short, necessitating a $2.75 billion buyout from Citadel and Point72 Asset Management in order to prevent the fund from going under.
As of the time of writing, GME is now trading at roughly $58, thanks to a combination of brokerages restricting trading of GME, short ladders by hedge funds in order to force a selloff, and a loss of interest from retail traders. Wall Street itself has been reminded that retail traders, ordinary people, are still very much a force on the market, and they too, have as much of a right and ability as do those working in multi-billion dollar hedge funds. This event, when a group of retail investors, redditors, millennials and Gen-Zers all came together and managed to upset Wall Street, will certainly go down as an event to remember, an event that will help to define the Millennial and Gen-Z generations.
Feb 16, 2021 | Opinion, Sarah Kloss
By Sarah Kloss (V)
When reminiscing about a time before masks and social distancing, I think back to the Model UN trip right before lockdown. Actions like packing 30 kids into an elevator or gathering in groups to discuss resolutions seem almost unimaginable nearly a year later. The possibility of students from all over the country and the world coming together at a convention now feels shocking and is a reminder of how much the world has changed. Even before the trip, the virus had already begun to have an enormous impact on my life. A couple of days before I went to New York for the trip, I learned that the French exchange program that I planned on attending was canceled because of positive COVID-19 cases in Lyon, France. I was surprised and confused because I didn’t think that the virus was serious or dangerous enough to warrant the program’s cancelation. Disappointed but yet to grasp the severity of COVID-19, I continued to enjoy the weekend in New York. It wasn’t until the first week of spring break that I finally understood the full impact of the virus. While I was excitedly packing for a vacation, I learned that New Jersey had declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19 cases. Not long after, we received an email from the school announcing its transition to remote learning. At that point, I was scared and concerned for the future, but what followed in the next few months has completely altered my outlook on the world.
There are many life lessons that I learned from the pandemic. First, I now understand that family and friends are the most crucial things in my life. Before the pandemic, it was hard to find time to spend together as a family, as a result of our busy lives. Now, through having much more time with my family, I learned to cherish the moments we have with each other. Additionally, I now value the interactions I have with my friends more than I did before. During the shutdown, it was difficult for me not to see any of my friends in person, and although we would still text and FaceTime each other, it was nowhere near the same experience. Being back in-person for school, I have grown to appreciate every moment I spend with my friends. I have also discovered how to adapt to changes and become more flexible. Not everything will go the way we want it to, but we can still make the best out of the situation. Although my global program to France was canceled, I had the opportunity to participate in a virtual global program about the Balkans during winter break. While I was disappointed that the Model Congress trips were canceled this year, I was still fortunate enough to participate in the Virtual Model Congress held for the first time. Also, I learned how to cherish the small things in life and not take anything for granted. When New Jersey was in lockdown, the one thing I missed the most was playing tennis. All the tennis courts were closed and I missed the routine of playing. Because of this, when the tennis courts finally reopened, I valued being on the court much more.
I am incredibly grateful for what Pingry did over the summer, from installing the filtration system to putting up PlexiGlass dividers, so that we could come back to school for in-person learning in the fall. I could finally see my friends and teachers again, and I could play tennis for the school (something that I wasn’t sure would happen). Looking at the graph of the new COVID-19 cases both in New Jersey and the United States, I am incredibly grateful that the vaccine has come out and cases are now trending downwards. Even when the pandemic is over, I will always remember the lessons it taught me, and I look forward to squeezing in an elevator with 30 kids again.
Feb 16, 2021 | Andrew Wong, Opinion
By Andrew Wong (V)
Over the summer, like many of my friends at Pingry, I watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix, a documentary exposing the inner workings and dangers of social media and surveillance capitalism. Perhaps I was naïve at the time, but after watching the show, I still felt that social media was not a clear and present danger to our freedoms in this country. A negative social influence? Perhaps. Issues with user data and security? Certainly. But not a serious threat to society and civil rights.
However, in the wake of Capitol violence motivated by online actors, former President Donald Trump’s ban from every single social media platform on allegations of “incitement,” and thousands of other bans being handed out to conservative influencers, it is clear that the issue of social media needs to be addressed. Social media can be a force for good, helping to connect people from all over the world and allowing for immense information sharing that human history has never seen before. But on the flip side, it can also be used to facilitate illegal activities, share illicit material and content, curb free speech, or change the minds of millions with misinformation and propaganda. So how should social media be regulated in order to continue being a force for good, while also protecting our right to free speech and keeping unwanted actors out?
Presently, all social media in the United States is regulated under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230(c)1 grants social media companies legal immunity from whatever content is posted on their platforms, and makes it so that social media companies cannot be held liable for what is said and done by users, even if said actions are illegal. The second portion of the law, Section 230(c)2 provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable”, as long as they act “in good faith” in this action. In essence, platforms cannot be held liable for violating the free speech of users by removing content.
However, while Section 230 has allowed social media companies to expand and flourish without fear of legal repercussions for moderating what is posted on their platforms, it’s also presented many moral questions. For example, should illicit material or content that inspires violence or terrorism be allowed to be harbored on social media platforms with no repercussions whatsoever? Or what about the flip side of the coin, in that we’ve essentially given so-called “Big Tech” a free hand to play judge, juror, and executioner when it comes to free speech in the twenty-first century public square?
How should Section 230 be changed to try and remedy these issues? Democrats and Republicans have proposed several solutions. Democrats, most notably President Joe Biden, have supported weakening Section 230(c)1 protections, having stated in a January 2020 interview with The New York Times that “[Facebook] is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false”, and that the U.S. needed to “[set] standards” for what content is and is not allowed on social media. Republicans, led by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), have proposed legislation limiting Section 230(c)2 protections, clarifying what it means when a platform takes down content in “good faith”, and stripping away immunity for content takedowns, thus allowing users to sue companies over content moderation policies.
Ultimately, effective regulation must address issues regarding illicit content and free speech. Such regulation must establish that content promoting illicit activities (such as child abuse, human trafficking, terrorism, and cyber-stalking, among others), are illegal on the internet, just like it is in the real world, and platforms will have their immunity stripped if they promote these activites. However, such regulation must also have adequate protections on free speech. This could be accomplished through clarifying the “good faith” clause with specific language, or perhaps writing specific legislation that only allows platforms to take down content when it is blatantly illegal, rather than letting platforms take down content they don’t like to see.
Social media is the public square of the 21st century, and ultimately, everyone should be able to have access to this public square, in keeping with our values of free speech. It is in the interest of everyone that the internet remains a free and open space, but also a safe space where illegal actions are not allowed to persist. Effective and smart regulation, accomplished via updating Section 230, would be an easy way to create an open and safe environment on all social platforms.
Feb 16, 2021 | Columns
By Kristin Osika (V)
In almost every aspect of our lives, data plays a central role in decision-making. Categorical rankings determine our college lists, polls sway our political leanings, and the latest COVID-19 case statistics determine whether or not we deem it safe to venture outside of the house. With modern technology facilitating the collection and communication of data, facts are at our fingertips: social media, news networks, and search engines provide easy, efficient access to necessary information, and, as a result, we have the opportunity to learn and know more about the world and each other than ever before.
While this superabundance of data has innumerable benefits, it can also blind us from the truth. In favor of convenience, we sometimes fail to question the integrity of the source we gather our information from. Accordingly, with the rise of our data-focused culture, there has been an increase in misinformation, which, given the ongoing pandemic, is arguably the most topical in science. Because authentic scientific research papers can be exceedingly difficult for the average person to comprehend, we rely almost solely on secondary sources for coherent interpretations, especially for information about COVID-19. Think about the most recent statistic you’ve heard about the pandemic. Do you know the source of that statistic? Chances are, you heard it on the news, read it in an infographic on social media, or heard it from a murmur in the hallways. These are the places almost all of us receive our information. When we are inundated with graphs, tables, percentages, comparisons, and daunting figures, we turn to the most coherent, visually-appealing interpretation, in order to make sense of the “information overload.” It’s only natural.
Unfortunately, the data presented to us may not always be accurate; both the creator and consumer of research-based sources can perpetuate misinformation. In a time of widespread uncertainty and unease, the validated, scientific truth can be uncomfortable and inconvenient, and creators are aware of this. Even unconsciously, some creators on platforms, such as Instagram or Facebook, might misrepresent data to conform to a specific political agenda, incite or quell fears about current events, or promote or degrade a product or lifestyle. It is surprisingly easy to portray accurate, scientific data out of context and thus push forward an idea that may not be based in fact.
Given the increasing amount of misinformation circulating in the media, how do we know what to believe? To answer this question, we need to return to science. When viewed with a critical eye, authentic research provides an infallible information source.
While primary sources provide the most direct information, specific secondary sources can also be helpful and significantly more efficient to read. Several indicators can determine how reliable a secondary source is:
Source Citations. The inclusion of proper citations is critical to a secondary source’s integrity, as long as the references accurately support the ideas espoused in the source’s body.
Author credentials. Ask yourself: who is the person communicating this information? Do they have expertise? Are they educated on the subject matter? Authors who have spent significant time researching and studying a topic are much more likely to convey accurate information to the reader than those without such expertise, who may instead be providing an opinionated narrative.
Mode of publication. Well-established journals, news networks, and websites are more likely to be reliable than random blog sites or social media posts; often, the former have thorough review processes that vet articles for clarity and accuracy before releasing them to the public.
Bias, specific agendas, and convenience saturate our media and can impede our understanding of the truth; however, not all publications perpetuate misinformation. Like FYI Sci, several evidence-based information sources can provide you with current, accurate, and easy-to-understand reviews of primary literature, as long as they meet each of the indicators above. Though our world may be apt for the spread of misinformation, if we continuously question our sources and maintain a healthy degree of skepticism, we can discern fact from fallacy to arrive at the truth.
Feb 16, 2021 | Sidebar News, Uncategorized
Hansen Zhang (III)
After two weeks of Winter Break, a remote-learning week, a week-long delay in school activities, and plenty of asynchronous workouts, Pingry athletes are ready to return to the fields, courts, mats, and slopes. The Squash, Basketball, Ski, Hockey, and Fencing teams have all resumed practice and played their first games. Swimming and Winter Track began to practice on February 1st, and Wrestling starts on March 1st. All sports, regardless of the start time, have a competitive season of approximately one month.
Although Winter sports are back, they still bring a great deal of uncertainty. Ms. Carter Abbot, the Director of Athletics and Community Wellness, said, “Sports are operating from week to week as we’re evaluating the situation based on our testing, the state’s testing, and the different counties that we play sports in.” So then, how would athletics operate if there was an influx of COVID cases, causing Pingry to shut down for a long period of time?
Well, the situation is pretty complicated: athletics can either resume after school as they did in early November of 2020, or they can be completely canceled due to a high case count, which happened during the second remote week after Winter Break. The main reason why Fall sports were able to resume when Pingry went remote was that they were all outdoor sports. On the other hand, all Winter sports are indoors (with the exception of Winter Track). According to the CDC’s Youth Sports resource page, “indoor activities pose more risk than outdoor activities.”
In addition to considering the possible effect that a shutdown may have on athletics, it’s important to consider whether sports are important enough to be continued during the pandemic. A similar question was the subject of a Word in the Halls in the last issue of the Record. When asked again, JP Salvatore (IV) remained adamant on his opinion that sports should be resumed. He explained, “My opinion on this really hasn’t changed much. I will continue to say sports are essential to keep kids active, to give opportunities to kids dependent on their sport, and to maintain school spirit. I understand indoor sports are more of a concern, but without an audience the risk is limited.” But, some would argue against that, especially after COVID cases surged after the new year. In a telephone survey of 1,065 adults by NPR between December 1st and December 6th of 2020, thirty-six percent of those surveyed thought indoor sports should continue, fifty-eight percent thought indoor sports shouldn’t continue, and the final five percent were unsure. For many, the pros of having sports outways the cons of potentially contracting COVID. According to a Harvard Health article, exercise can “boost memory and thinking indirectly by improving mood and sleep, and by reducing stress and anxiety.” Sports may be even more crucial for remote students, as it could help with “Zoom fatigue”: the exhaustion that occurs after staring at a computer screen for long periods of time.
In summary, although there is no doubt that sports are beneficial for students, one must still consider their possible consequences. For the time being, however, it is important that athletes wear masks whenever possible, and we look forward to a future where people can once again play sports without pandemic-era concerns.
Feb 16, 2021 | Aneesh Karuppur, Columns, Technology
By Aneesh Karuppur (VI)
First, an update from the Pingry Student Technology Committee (STC) and its subsidiary projects. Starting this February, the Code Team, in which students program solutions to Pingry issues, is running a weekly workshop on different fundamental tools, from GitHub version control to Python-Flask web design. Moreover, the Apple Certified Mac Technician (ACMT) training group has started their comprehensive regimen on laptop repairs. After the ACMTs pass their final exams from Apple, they will be able to diagnose and repair Apple computers owned by the School and members of the Pingry community. STC team meetings have lately been occupied with weekly presentations from different project groups, including the 3D Printing Team, the Communications Team, and the Tech-Ed Team. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, STC Help Desk has been open for some time now! Now that we have a regular schedule of in-person school, the friendly, qualified STC Team Members who staff each flex and CP Helpdesk shift are here to assist you with any of your tech needs. Whether it’s a new application, like Zoom, or an old “friend” like the printer or Google Docs, STC Help Desk in the Tech Office is the place to go to receive quick tips and pointers. Be sure to stop by if you need anything tech-related!
From January 11 to 14, the 2021 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) was in full swing. Traditionally an in-person event, CES pivoted to a fully virtual setup this year to accommodate for the pandemic. LG hinted at the impending launch of their rollable phone. Unlike folding phones (which are on the market if you’re willing to pay the princely price tags), LG’s device would not suffer from the durability and practical difficulties of opening and closing a massive phone like a book. Instead, according to patent information, it could simply extend one edge of the device and unfurl a wider display in the process. As usual, several PC makers including HP and Acer revealed new updates to their laptop lineups. Finally there were a few one-off products, like the tech-enabled N95 masks from gaming hardware-maker Razer. These clear masks feature active ventilation. LED lights, and self-sanitization functionality. Adding on to products that nobody asked for but seem pretty cool, Cadillac hinted at an electric air taxi drone-car mashup, Samsung invented a robot butler, and the Infinity Game Table converted classic board games into a tabletop touchscreen.
Finally, let’s turn to the issue of social media. There has been renewed scrutiny into social media networks as a result of misinformation and plans for violence in recent months. Platforms have been banning and suspending the accounts of individuals with dangerous or objectionable content. In an age where seemingly everything happens on social media, lawmakers have been grappling with whether privately-owned social media platforms can be defined as public fora with free speech protections. Furthermore, laws that provide digital platforms with immunity from hosted content, such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, have come under scrutiny for a variety of reasons. Interestingly, print media publications do not afford those same protections. More important than the individual details is the glaring need for tech literacy in American society and policy. Congressional lawmakers have oftentimes demonstrated a woefully limited understanding of the internet and its platforms, so it’s important that the public involvement of the next generation of Americans is well-informed.
Thanks for dropping by on this Tech Column! Hopefully the weather will be a tad warmer when we return for the next issue.
Feb 16, 2021 | Andrew Wong, Columns
By Andrew Wong (V)
On January 20, in a deserted Washington D.C. guarded by more than 25,000 National Guard soldiers, Joe Biden took the Oath of Office to become the 46th President of the United States.
President Biden takes the reins of the nation in an extremely tumultuous time. Never before in American history has the population been so polarized. According to Pew Research Center, both Democrats and Republicans now lean further to the political left and right, respectively, than at any other point in American history. The reasoning behind this shift may not even be grounded in changing ideals over policy, but rather, in hatred for the other side. A recent study conducted by a group of political scientists from Northwestern, NYU, Stanford, and Harvard which looked at political sectarianism in America concluded that a majority of Republican and Democrat voters today are united not by their love of their own party’s policy, but rather by a hatred of the opposition. As a result, both parties end up moving towards their political extremes as they seek to counter everything the other party stands for––a self-fulfilling prophecy that only widens the gap between Democrat and Republican.
Perhaps the best example of this great disunity in our nation comes in the form of the violence on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, when a group of right-wing extremists and anarchist agitators broke into the Capitol Building to try and stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. This tragedy shows us that American society faces two major issues:
- Americans are losing faith in the democratic system.
- Some Americans unfortunately believe that the outlets for them to express their grievances with the government have failed to the point where violence becomes acceptable
The loss of faith in our democratic system can be found directly in the fallout surrounding the 2020 election and the general anger towards a gridlocked Congress. Polls show that more than 74 percent of Republicans and over 42 percent of Independents believed Joe Biden was elected by illegitimate means: a dangerous proposition in a country built on the democratic process. The refusal of election authorities to even listen to this bloc of voters and seriously look into irregularities surrounding the election only exacerbated this situation and only served to assuage fears that something was afoot.
One can argue about what right these voters had to challenge the results of the election and the validity of their evidence, but nonetheless, the lack of an independent investigation into these election concerns, even if they were built upon shaky evidence, only further damaged voters’ faith in the democratic process. Such an investigation would not have been unusual. Keep in mind, after the 2016 Presidential Election, Democrats pursued a two-year-long investigation into “Russian collusion with the Trump campaign” under the Mueller probe, which was eventually shown to be built on its own mound of shoddy evidence. An independent investigation to debunk theories surrounding fraud in the 2020 election would have gone a long way in preventing what had happened at the Capitol. Even if the investigation were as fruitless and frivolous as the Mueller probe, it would have at least let the people know they were being listened to.
The second ingredient in creating the explosion at the Capitol was extreme distrust of the government. Americans are tired of seeing the constant gridlock of Congress and the inability of Republican and Democratic caucuses to even compromise on basic legislation. Perhaps the most glaring example of this incompetence and deadlock has been the general failure of Congress to pass meaningful coronavirus relief legislation, even after months of debate. When these two factors of mistrust in the electoral process and anger at the government were combined, it created a ticking time bomb.
Political scientists define pressure release valves in a democracy as means for the public to voice their discontent with the government. Such valves include elections for representatives, a media that values free speech, and civil disobedience and protest. However, with a sizable portion of the American electorate believing the election was rigged, in conjunction with a gridlocked Congress, and months-long COVID-related lockdowns brought down on the people by the government, many of the pressure release valves in American society failed. It was only a matter of time before all the pressure and anger over a questionable election, ineffective legislative branch, and crippling lockdowns exploded and ordinary citizens took matters into their own hands. Let me be clear: violence is inexcusable in all forms, and I wholly condemn the actions of these extremists at the Capitol. Nonetheless, history clearly shows us that when the government fails to fix the pressure release valves, shuts down opinions and ignores requests for change, people will resort to extreme means to make a point. We saw it last spring in Minneapolis and Portland in the context of racial unrest, and we saw it happen again on January 6.
In his inaugural address, President Biden promised to be a “President for all Americans” and “end the uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.” As America picks up the pieces and looks towards the future, President Biden must accomplish two things if he wishes to unite this nation. One, he must win back Americans’ trust in the federal government and Congress. The second task is to fix the pressure release systems of the nation, and make it clear to citizens that their government can hear them, and cares about them. While there is no cut-and-dry method to accomplish this, certain tasks, such as passing stronger coronavirus relief bills and safely reopening the economy, would go a long way in helping heal a wounded nation. Biden’s ability to be a successful president is contingent upon him figuring out how to solve these two problems in a way that is beneficial for all Americans. If these problems are allowed to persist, they will only continue to strain the bonds between us.
