THE EXCHANGED

The Not-So-Nice Truth About Santa

1/16/2026

0 Comments

Santa Claus, the beloved white-bearded, red-suited old fat man, wasn’t always a staple of Christmas culture. Hundreds of years before him, the Dutch invented their own gift-bearing character named Sinterklaas, modeled after the priest Saint Nicholas. Then, around the 16th or 17th century, tales emerged about “Father Christmas,” a figure who embodied the Christmas essence. Americans eventually combined these stories to create Santa Claus, our current holiday superstar. Most know him and love him. I don’t. There is a problem with the Santa Claus tradition: instead of enjoying Santa Claus as a fantastical myth, modern parents tell their children that the jolly old plump man is in fact a real, living person who judges their very nature. These parents are making a terrible decision; they’re instilling misguided values in their children while losing sight of Christmas’s true meaning.
The most obvious problem with Santa Claus is that parents are simply lying to their children. They set a dishonest example by breaking the trust essential to parent-child relationships. But perhaps more troublesome than its dishonesty is the tradition’s “naughty-or-nice” system, which tells children that they will only receive presents as reward for their good behavior. Parents promote this concept because it encourages children to behave well. The problem is, it doesn’t work. Parents will put gifts under the Christmas tree each year no matter how “naughty” their kids may be. Their kids are a lot smarter than the parents might think; at least subconsciously, they learn that those presents aren’t ever going away, and they stop pursuing virtuousness so rigorously. Children observe their actions’ consequences—or the lack thereof.
Even if this system didn’t operate on a faulty premise, it wouldn’t do its job in the long term. A study conducted by the University of Alberta found that children promised with a reward for their good deeds assumed a decreased intrinsic motivation to perform those actions when no reward was on the line. In other words, once children inevitably realize that the truth about the red-dressed legend means their benevolence is not earning them presents, they will be left with a weaker moral compass than they’d have if they’d never believed in Santa Claus to begin with. These children aren’t being “good for goodness’ sake” as instructed in the song “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”; they’re being good for materialism’s sake.
If I still haven’t convinced you with all this social science, consider that “naughty-or-nice” reinforces another system: elitism. Rich kids get rich-kid presents, and poor kids get poor-kid presents, and snot-nosed little Timmy who got a Playstation 5 isn’t “nicer” than little Oliver who only got a pair of socks just because Timmy’s parents work in private equity whereas Oliver’s parents struggle to make ends meet. According to the “naughty-or-nice” system that both of these kids’ parents instilled into them, their moral value is tied to what their parents got them for Christmas.
But the main problem with forcing belief in Santa Claus isn’t the lying, or the didactic shortcomings, or the classism (though those problems, especially the last, are not trivial)—it’s that the whole concept of Santa Claus undermines the spirit of Christmas. The notion of receiving one’s deserved gifts from Santa Claus puts Christmas day’s emphasis on receiving. We forget what Christmas should be about: giving. Christmas, originally a Christian holiday, was inspired by God’s ultimate gift to humanity in his son, Jesus. This gift was undeserved; it didn’t come because of people’s “niceness”; God’s gift was an act of pure grace. So this Christmas, instead of lying to their children about a made-up fat guy in a red suit, parents should ditch the fable of Santa Claus and remind their children what Christmas is really all about.

0 Comments

Words are not Violence and Neither is Silence

1/15/2026

0 Comments

Silence is not violence. Silence can be cowardly and irresponsible, but it is not violence. Words have power, words can persuade and influence, they can hurt, but they are not violence. This distinction has to be made by American higher education to the greater American public. Author, political commentator, and podcast host, Konstantin Kisin on Bari Weiss’s podcast supported the claim that “…once you say words are violence, or once you say that silence is violence, well, historically speaking, our understanding of violence is that if you are violent towards me, I'm entitled to be violent back towards you… And one of them is that there is a big difference between words and violence… just because your feelings are hurt or just because someone has a different political opinion to you, you're not entitled to punch people.” Essentially, our generation has been taught to interpret anything that makes us feel bad or uncomfortable as a violent personal attack, and therefore we feel obligated to act defensively and sometimes, even violently.
The consequences of this mindset is often observed when someone, through violent or defensive means, acts on an impulse that emerges from brash outrage as a result of disagreement or “problematic”/different opinions. Two fatal examples that immediately come to mind are the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk. In a way, our education has included classes that teach us students to have certain “correct” opinions, to think a certain way, and to be offended about certain things. This by default vilifies differing opinions and because this “right way of thinking” has been both promoted and exercised by higher education, it labels differing opinions as “wrong” or "uneducated ways of thinking”. Not only does this environment isolate people who might not agree with the opinions being taught to them, but it discourages an exchange of ideas in fear of ostracization by teachers and peers who are unable to endure differing opinions or perspectives.
This fear is unacceptable. In fact, According to FIRE’s (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) 2024 rankings, 56% of students expressed worry about damaging their reputation because of something they said or did being misunderstood. In 2025 another FIRE report noted that 34% of very conservative students reported self-censoring "very" or "fairly" often, compared to 15% of very liberal students. In 2025, “17% of students said they feel like they cannot express their opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. This is a bit of positive news, since last year this percentage was 20%, and in 2022 it was 22%.” These statistics are terrifying, and I’ve found peers who just like me feel this playing out in our school. The most horrifying realization to me is that this rigid-thinking culture extends to most elite universities where many of us dream of continuing our education. Maya Sulkin warns: “You know, FIRE just released a survey and it says 34% of college students think it's acceptable to use violence to stop someone from speaking on a college campus… At Yale last week, there was a debate on whether violence or on whether political violence was a just means to an end and that vote passed.”
Having different opinions and voicing them is integral to learning. It exposes new ways of thinking, confronting issues, strengthens empathy, devises well rounded ideas, and prevents group thinking. Today, it seems as if we are drifting into group thinking, and still, the shadow of hostility dominates classroom and day to day discussions. As Konstantin Kisin powerfully admits: “Words are not violence. Silence is not violence. Violence is violence and it's completely unacceptable. And it has to end. But that, I think, is a generational project because, as I say, we have been miseducating our young people for a long time.”

Sources:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000726412886&r=4815

0 Comments

The Washington Commanders Moving to...Washington?

1/15/2026

0 Comments

Since 1932, the Commanders, formerly the Redskins, have represented Washington D.C in the NFL. However, for almost thirty years, they have called Maryland home. The Northwest Stadium is five miles east of DC, and was built in 1997 to house the team. For most, only one downside to the venue glares-it’s not RFK.
   In our current political climate, RFK may conjure a different image than in decades past. Actually, the late sports stadium atop 180 acres of Washington real estate was initially called Washington Stadium, only to be renamed in honor of Robert F. Kennedy (senior) in 1969. Formerly home to the Washington Redskins, Washington Senators, and DC United, RFK Stadium has a fabled history; the promising era of Jayden Daniels’ Commanders today pales in comparison to the RFK stadium Redskin’s domination in the 1980s and 90s. Its glory days are long over though, and for the past couple of years it has remained empty, the swampy DC environment slowly overtaking the deteriorating stone structure.
   Given its sprawling location along the banks of Anacostia, many in DC have protested the stadium’s neglect. Unfortunately, the property is federal land, impeding on possible revitalization projects and acting as yet another reminder of District legislators’ lack of autonomy. In this way, the crumbling arena is a symbol of DC’s ongoing fight against federal obtrusion. Take the property as a sign of hope though, because late last December, Congress finally handed RFK over, in many ways thanks to the political savvy of mayor Muriel Bowser, who, through conversations and commitments with many congresspeople, ensured the passing of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act.
   With the 180 acres finally in local hands, Mayor Bowser handed decision-making to the DC council, who struggled with the best use of the land. While most wanted to bring the Commanders back to home turf, some were concerned that building a new stadium would take away from opportunities to build low-income housing and build more public recreational facilities in DC. This was an especially worthwhile debate considering the arena’s location in Southeast DC, which has long faced poverty and a lack of resources and infrastructure. Ultimately, the council agreed to return the Commanders to RFK, with the terms that 6,000 new homes and a large youth sports facility are to be built and indigenous trees preserved.
   Finally, the Commanders return to Washington! Many longtime fans celebrate this as a return to their “spiritual home”. The franchise itself is in a significant period of change: the name change from Redskins to Washington Football Team to Commanders has not been well received by everyone, especially not lifelong fans, but the team’s excellent recent season has restored any doubts. Politically, the revitalization of the RFK property signifies the strong reasoning, positive decision-making, and determination of the local DC government. The federal government’s release of RFK allowed council members to formulate conditions with the Commanders based on their wards’ needs and priorities. For example, council member Wendell Felder (Ward-7) amended the deal with the Commanders to direct a portion of funds from the project to rental assistance and small business loans for low-income areas in Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8. He was always a supporter of the new stadium, but the agency of the council in the deal allowed him to also provide for his ward and other underfunded wards. Therefore, the RFK stadium deal is a big win for DC as an independent body and exciting for all Washington fans as the Commanders head into another promising season. However, the effort and persistence needed from DC legislators to even obtain the rights to the RFK property signifies the still limited and constrained independence of the District.

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/09/17/dc-commanders-rfk-stadium-council-vote/

0 Comments

The Most Political Pair of Pants

1/15/2026

0 Comments

Lately, you’d expect the topic of politics to be stirred by the usual crises: death, war, and corruption.
   But would you ever think that politics could be woven into pants?
   While Back-To-School is in season, so is clothing. Most students would know that August and September are the prime months for retail stores to launch new campaigns as customers refresh their closets for fall.
   And one of the biggest fall essentials? Jeans.
   During the close of summer, on July 23rd, American Eagle introduced a new promotion to advertise a jeans collaboration with the actress Sydney Sweeney. Yet, this initially well-thought advertising idea provided more pushback than excitement.
   Sydney Sweeney is a successful actress who grew an audience from her role as Cassie in the show Euphoria, and a few years later, her production and performance in the film Immaculate. Outside of the film industry, she has appeared as the face of various advertisements, such as a Dr. Squatch advertisement that gained similar attention online. This ad reflected a tone like that of her later collaboration with American Eagle, shaping how viewers perceived the public image Sydney cultivates online.
   American Eagle’s new initiative entailed promotional videos that played with intersection between the words “jeans” and “genes”, and ending all of them with the text “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans”. However, the ads convey an undertone that goes beyond just selling the pants. One of the videos includes Sydney walking slowly across the screen, while explaining that the jeans “make your butt look amazing”, and the camera focuses on her lower body as she moves. This theme continues, with the next video beginning with Sydney lying down and zipping up her fly, while defining the word “genes”. In both videos, Sydney utilizes a slow, suggestive tone as the camera focuses on different parts of her body.
   With these details, the advertisements quickly gained controversy, as viewers argued that the videos suggested not only a desire for jeans but also for Sydney’s “genes”, or beauty. Critics accused the ads for promoting a traditional and objectifying view on women’s bodies, as well as an attempt to revive eugenics and stereotypical beauty standards–blonde hair and blue eyes.
   Amid the controversy and in perfect timing, GAP released its own denim campaign about four weeks later, featuring KATSEYE. KATSEYE is a new global girl group with a K-pop background with a mission to “bridge cultures”, which is evident as their members span from different backgrounds. Their name comes from a cat's eye gemstone, known for reflecting multiple colors, symbolizing the individuality and uniqueness of each member.
   GAP’s marketing focused on a short video of the KATSEYE members dancing to “Milkshake” by Kelis. Viewers speculated that the song choice was intentional through the lyrics “better than yours”, indicating a petty response to America Eagle. Additionally, the promotion stayed true to GAP’s typical marketing style: upbeat dance videos spotlighting rising and diverse music artists, with past ones including Tyla and Troye Sivan.
  Now how do these controversial pieces of denim tie into politics?
Sydney Sweeney’s ad soon garnered defense from a right-wing audience, even with President Donald Trump commenting that it was the “HOTTEST ad out there”. Although American Eagle released a statement claiming that the ad was “always about the jeans”, the overall interpretation of their campaign was an attempt at the return of conservative beauty standards. In contrast to the tone of Sydney Sweeney’s performance, some viewers claimed that KATSEYE’s ad provided a different look at advertising jeans for the new year. Fans explain that KATSEYE showed individuality and reflected the importance of representation in light of American Eagle’s message.
   Due to the intersection of the timelines for both campaigns, the videos not only clashed, but harnessed attention for both brands. With the assistance of social media, the “Denim Ad War” popularized both sets of jeans, and served as a warning for how advertising strategies can be spun into spectacle.

Watch Sydney Sweeney’s ads here.
Watch KATSEYE’s ad here.

0 Comments

Trump is not a Conservative

1/15/2026

0 Comments

If limited government, free trade, and belief in the democratic process define a conservative, then Donald Trump is a conservative only in name. Though he’s been known as a far-right figure since his political debut in 2016, a closer look at his policies tells a different story.
Limited government has been a pillar of conservative belief since the birth of America. The debate over the size of the central government was one of the major points of contention that led to the establishment of the two original political parties during the birth of America. Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government, a national bank, and a powerful industrial sector. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, championed small government and strict constitutional interpretation. This divide contributed to the two party system, the republican party . Until Donald Trump. Though he calls himself a conservative, limiting the scope of the central government’s power is not high on Trump’s list of priorities. In fact, Trump has actually attempted to expand the powers of the government numerous times in the first two hundred days of his term. Trump has been repeatedly blocked by federal judges for overstepping the boundaries set by the constitution: in February, for example, Trump attempted to end birthright citizenship (protected by the 14th amendment), an act judges called “blatantly unconstitutional.” More recently, Trump issued an executive order to deploy the national guard in Washington, DC, to combat what he called a “crime emergency.” Despite DC’s crime being at a 30-year low, the national guard was deployed, costing an estimated $154 million. The move received mass public criticism, with analysts calling it a blatant power grab and stretch of presidential power.
   Free trade is another important tenet of conservatism, and another tenet that Trump has spurned since taking office. His 10% baseline tariffs are a move that hasn't been seen since 1930 with the Smoot-Hawley act (which failed miserably). Trump threatened allies and enemies alike, using tariffs as blackmail to get what he wanted. He threatened the EU with 30% tariffs, brought down to 15% only when they purchased $750B in U.S. energy. We see a similar story in Japan, a country Trump threatened with 25% tariffs, only lowered once the nation invested $550B into the U.S. While potentially beneficial for the US economy, this use of tariff and trade restrictions as a weapon is very un-conservative, even frowned upon by many hardline conservatives. Senator Ted Cruz, a staunch conservative, said on his podcast that Trump's tariffs will “hurt jobs and hurt America.” (Texas Tribune). In a similar statement, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul criticized Trump's use of emergency power to impose tariffs, calling it a “terrible mistake.” While Cruz and Paul both have supported Trump on most issues in the past, the beginnings of a rift have appeared with Trump's deviation from conservative norms. Trump’s stance on free trade comes as no surprise, as his ideological fluidity often dictates his desire for personal gain than moral conviction.
   When Barry Goldwater, architect of the modern conservative movement, lost the presidential election in 1964, his concession speech included phrases such as “the election is over and the will of the people must be respected” and “let the laws be obeyed.” Donald Trump, on the other hand, in his 2020 post-election remarks delivered lines such as“we will never concede” and urged his supporters to “fight like hell” (National Archives). These comments, in addition to Trump urging supporters to “walk down to the capitol,” triggered the infamous Jan. 6 riot, which marked the first time in modern U.S. history that a mob attacked the Capitol itself to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power. In the past, respect for democracy and the constitution has always been placed above all else, conservatives and liberals alike. However, conservatives particularly pride themselves on this issue, with some conservative writers such as Charles C.W. Cooke calling Trump’s recent statements “batsh*t nonsense” (Atlanta Black Star). Trump’s stark departure from conservative norms has alienated prominent conservative voices, prompting many of Trump’s supporters to reconsider their positions.
You might be wondering: If Trump isn't a traditional conservative, how did he manage to win the election? Unlike the usual two-party dynamic, there are now three sides competing for a presidency. This past election, Kamala Harris represented the liberal side, Mike Pence represented the conservative side, and Donald Trump represented the newborn MAGA group. Ultimately, the distinction boils down to allegiance: MAGA follows Trump, Conservatives follow their beliefs.

0 Comments

Politics of the Present: Nepalese Gen Z

1/15/2026

0 Comments

Gen Z is no longer the future of politics— they are the present. In fact, the “zoomers” have already written a new chapter in the political history of Nepal. On September 8th 2025, Gen Z emerged onto Nepal’s streets in protest. The reason was the abrupt move by the government to close all the major social media platforms on September 4th, a decision which immediately escalated into nationwide mass anti-corruption processions. The demonstrations cost lives, brought down a prime minister, and put a new face to the prime position—all within two weeks.
On September 4th 2025, the government of Nepal ordered officials to close down 26 social media platforms for failing a deadline to register with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. Among the social media platforms banned were Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and YouTube: all platforms used by millions of individuals nationwide. But the government had invoked the ban in the name of stemming misinformation and hate speech. To Gen Z, which relies so heavily on social media for almost everything, this was censorship. Young people marched out against what they perceived as the government’s authoritarian shift. On September 5, there was a protest in Kathmandu. University students marched out in front of Parliament, holding “No Ban, No Lies” placards and chanting anti-corruption slogans by the government. Demonstrations also erupted within days in the cities of Pokhara, Butwal, and Bharatpur, proving how dissatisfied the population was outside the capital. Although the early protests were about returning to online freedom, later crowds demonstrated collective outrage at youth losing jobs and the wasting of public funds by the government. On September 8, incidents began to get out of hand when security forces engaged in violent clashes with protesters. Police used tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets against protesters. At least 19 people were killed, and more than 100 were injured.
Instead of crushing the movement, this crackdown only united it further, with many thousands more pouring onto the streets in anger. The government, under intense pressure, lifted the social media ban on September 9. But it was too late. Demonstrations demanded that Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli resign, not just for the ban, but for what Nepal’s Gen Z perceived to be three decades of corruption scandals and widening inequality. Oli stepped down on September 10, accepting that he had lost the case. Protests did not cease, though. Rather, rallies were subsequently held in support of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki becoming prime minister. Karki, who was inaugurated as the first and only female chief justice of Nepal in July 2016, remaining until June 2017, was highly respected for her impartiality and untainted judicial record. A few days afterward, she became caretaker prime minister, making her the first female prime minister in Nepalese history.
All this aside, the outcome of protests has been deadly. Collateral damage totals $21 billion, around half of Nepal's GDP, and the protests have rendered nearly 10,000 Nepalis jobless overnight, with the tourism sector losing $178 million. Additionally, approximately 72 individuals lost their lives in the course of the protests. Nepal’s Gen Z did not just protest change—instead, they made it. They were able to reverse a government policy, topple a prime minister, and replace him with one of their own, all within two weeks. The revolution in Nepal is a telling detail of larger geopolitical trends regarding Gen Z. The youth uprising in Nepal shows that when silenced, Gen Z will push back. When their future is threatened, they will fight to reclaim it.

0 Comments

Is AI Art Actually Art?

1/15/2026

0 Comments

   I like to draw. While such a statement usually elicits images of detailed landscapes and portraits, I actually like to draw cartoons. They are perhaps not as breathtaking as what most museums have on display, but drawing cartoons requires a particular appreciation for what it means to put a pen to paper. So much artwork that attempts to depict human beings realistically looks flat and foreign, but a cartoonist has to be able to visualise the same person from all possible angles, portraying all possible emotions, and in all possible positions. That is, a cartoonist has to understand the art.
   This idea is why art generated by artificial intelligence is so troubling. While a human has to enter a prompt to create AI art, no drawing is required. The AI can quickly produce an image resembling what the prompt suggested, with slightly different results each time. There are many arguments against AI art, but above all, its mere existence presents a reality that I cannot say is beneficial or detrimental regarding the future.
   The most basic argument against AI art is that it is technically not created by humans. In multiple instances, including rulings from 2023 and 2025, United States courts ruled that art purely generated by AI was ineligible for copyright. The U.S. copyright office cited the need for “sufficient human authorship”, but what actually is “sufficient?”
   The most prominent argument in support of these rulings is that AI is entirely derivative. All image generators are trained on preexisting, often copyrighted material, not only creating legal issues but also indicating that anything created by AI is, in essence, a regurgitation of something that came before. Do AI images actually count as something original? If they did not necessarily originate in someone’s mind, did they come from anywhere? Today, AI is now at the point that it is trained using images that it previously created itself. The first AI images were based on work created by humans, but are these new images actually based on anything? All art is arguably “derivative” to a degree. Virtually everything created by humans is inspired by something else but not necessarily in the same way in which most consider AI to be entirely derivative.
    There is a concrete difference between the actual appearance of art and its content and meaning with regards to its originality. For example, Italian Brainrot, a relatively new internet meme, has become a staple of pop culture. The characters are AI generated, but they are indeed original, even if they are entirely nonsensical. A simple solution for someone wishing to avoid AI is to simply draw these characters traditionally, but the question of originality goes deeper than any single drawing. Italian Brainrot is the first piece of pop culture to not have spawned from an idea, been developed over time, and been perfected to the preferences of an artist, and whether that makes it work that we accept is a critical question. Art has the ability to profoundly influence a person’s identity, but the influence that Italian Brainrot, if it can be considered art, is having is not of the ideas, passion, or vision of a human. I do not know if we should accept that.
   Not all art necessarily has meaning. Skibidi Toilet was created by a human. Still, it is unclear whether any AI art employs perhaps the most critical aspect of all art up to this point, the simple act of intent. While every piece created by AI is derived from an idea created and typed by a human, every little stroke and detail present in them is one that the human generating the piece never foresaw. Most AI art pieces appear as though a human could have created them, but looking at the finer details of many pieces, especially words and intricate, preexisting designs, reveals incoherent nonsense. These details make up my greatest concern about AI art.
    Disregarding the previous arguments, AI art reveals that the average person is perfectly content with art simply looking “good enough”. If AI produced artwork of a duck, which appears garbled and unnatural when up close but can still be recognised as a duck, then most people will accept it. This idea is evidenced by the most common use of AI at the moment, insignificant pieces like signs and posters that someone who lacks any interest in drawing can create in seconds. There is AI art on the walls of St. Albans for this exact purpose. What I fear is the precedent such art could set. As AI continues to evolve using its own creations, how unrecognizable does art have to become before the average person can no longer tolerate it?
Still, there is potential for AI to be an excellent tool to aid in traditional artwork. Additionally, it is possible that AI art will only cause traditional art to evolve. The same evolution occurred when photographs superseded realistic paintings, causing art to become more abstract throughout the twentieth century.
AI art probably is real art. Calling AI art “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of creative objects” is a perfectly reasonable statement. Most arguments against AI art assume that the ways in which art has always been created will remain the same, which simply is not the case. However, I still worry because AI may not even be the problem. It is possible that people themselves are forgetting why most art exists in the first place. AI art can now recreate specific artstyles, which became popular this year with AI models that are tailored to the styles of popular films. I am sure that most people who used these models did so out of their love for these films, but it indicates that the average person is more concerned with the aesthetics of art than its messaging. So much of the media that we consume capitalises upon nostalgia, often regarding time periods that we never lived in. The only films that can turn a profit today are usually about ideas so basic that audiences do not have to pay attention. If they are anything else, they are sequels that attempt to replicate films from the past without addressing the messages that underpin them, only trying to remind audiences of what already appeals to them. This is what has caused so many styles, which were the styles of individuals, styles that reflected their interpretation of the world and human beings, to become commodified. AI may just be the next phase of this shift. Art has always had a message. It is not only appealing on the outside, but it tells a story that can change people. But I suppose that AI art is “good enough”.

0 Comments

What Do We Know About the New Schedule?

1/15/2026

0 Comments

While the new school year is starting with our normal old schedule, I think everyone has heard about the schedule change coming next year. With this change piling on top of the domain change and the switch to Google (for NCS, we know you’re lucky, STA) it feels like everything is changing, so I went on a mission (using my student ambassador connections) to put together what we know about it so far. Although it’s not yet finalized, I was able to get a pretty good picture.
    Firstly, why is it changing? The new schedule mostly aims to allow students more “breathing room” and to reduce the burden of taking an art or other sixth class. It is also supposed to make the timing simpler by reducing the number of oddly timed periods (looking at you, C days).
    So, what are some of the actual changes? First of all, while we are keeping our seven day rotation, our six class periods are switching to seven instead. This means there will no longer be an ensembles block, because those classes will fit into a normal block. This seven class schedule means that each class will meet only four times a rotation; however, each class will meet for 60 minutes twice and 85 minutes twice. This actually means that each class will meet for less total time per rotation, with a current 325 minutes to a future 290. Ensembles classes will meet more per rotation, moving from 150 minutes to 290 as well.
The schedule will also be standardized, meaning after the first period every day, there will be a block of community time, to be used for various activities depending on the day, and then three other classes at consistent times.. Another aim of the schedule is to prevent any classes from being back to back, as, for example, the first two periods of A day are in the current schedule. This means that in addition to the community time after the first class, there will be either lunch or flex periods (whose purpose is yet to be determined exactly) between all classes each day.
   Whether this will all work out, and whether the schools will like it remains to be seen, but I’ll be long gone by then, so all I can say is best of luck for next year!

0 Comments

A Brief Recap of Prominent News: September

1/15/2026

0 Comments

In the last month or so that we have been back at school, a lot has happened in the political landscape from nearby D.C. to across the entire country, so here’s a quick reminder of some of the most prominent news stories. Through August, we have seen the rollout of the executive order to place D.C’s metropolitan police under federal jurisdiction, a plan formulated to combat crime. Trump has also been actively restructuring many government public policies and departments, with some examples being his attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the department of Federal Reserves, continuing to manage an increased implementation of ICE raids in metropolitan areas across the country, and regulating an array of foreign affairs. Also a part of his new immigration policy implementation is an end to TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for Syrian Refugees in the U.S.
In terms of foreign affairs, the administration has made several economic changes, such as a reduction of Eurozone auto tariffs to 15%, and taken strong political stances in the wake of a U.N. meeting to discuss international affairs and global conflicts. This falls in line with the reallocation of foreign aid funds to the “America First” movement.
Perhaps most salient in the minds of students right now is the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a huge presence for conservatism, especially on social media. Discourse following his death brings up implications and outcomes for free speech, gun rights, and political violence. One direct consequence of his assination was Trump’s designation of Antifa as a terrorist group in an executive order. Another outcome of his death was the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, a talk show host, after his remarks about Kirk were deemed insensitive and were punished with (temporary) cancellation of his show, as they were classified as a form of unprotected speech.This mirrors a sentiment felt by many Americans who either feared for or lost their their jobs or other privileges over their reactions to Kirk’s death, most often in online spaces.
This is a brief and certainly not exhaustive list of news, but it captures a snapshot of the current political contexts to serve as a reminder before reading the rest of the politics articles in this edition.

0 Comments

Revitalizing the U.S. Military: A Humble Proposal

1/15/2026

0 Comments

The U.S. military is in a weakened state. Two and a half decades of “peace dividends” and low-intensity conflicts have reduced our power. The doctrine used to be that the military should aspirationally be able to fight 2.5 major wars—fend off a Soviet invasion of Europe, fight a DPRK or PRC invasion, and handle a minor brushfire somewhere. That was always an impossibly aspirational goal, but its effect was that the U.S. could, in the event of a peer war, bring such overwhelming force that our adversaries designed their strategies around slowing us down, not stopping us. For example, Russia’s entire naval doctrine was to destroy enough U.S. carriers at the start of a war with heavy cruise missiles to delay U.S. naval dominance. Today, we can fight a peer war and maybe one or two brushfires. But we face a world in which American adversaries are unified, and we easily face 2.5 wars. Here is how I, a humble observer, propose to fix the military. If I don’t reach 95 theses, believe me, I could write that many if anyone would listen.

   1. Pass tax breaks for companies with profitable civilian sectors. Only one major shipyard, one major aerospace company, and one major space contractor, to name a few domains, have a profitable civilian sector. General Mills used to make both cereal and artillery shells; Texas Instruments used to make 2,000-pound bombs; and the U.S. used to make over half of the world’s commercial ships. An essential part of war is who can make more units of better gear, and having civilian industries—like calculator manufacturers or cereal mills—that can readily fabricate guidance chips or artillery shells is integral.
2. End Goldwater-Nichols, an act with the admirable goal of preventing the branches from buying different things for the same job, but which has led to everything being a joint project. Branches have specialized needs, and adopting a one-size-fits-all posture leads to problems, such as with the F-35, which is not suited for naval combat due to its limited range and lack of a second engine’s redundancy.
   3. Spend more on warfighting and on the DoD in general. It’s overly optimistic to say that 50% of the defense budget goes toward warfighting. We simply do not spend enough on critical tasks like shipbuilding, procuring munitions, or providing soldiers with livable housing on bases. Some funding can come from the DOGE cuts, which aim to slash the equivalent of a half-year’s worth of defense spending from the budget over the decade. But that is not enough. Congress must write the DoD a bigger check. We used to spend 5% of our GDP on defense; it has fallen to around 3.2%.
   4. Get NATO Europe to pay their fair share and reduce U.S. conventional presence. NATO Europe has leaned on the U.S. defense umbrella to fund welfare states, straining their economies. With a GDP ~13 times Russia’s ($20 trillion vs. $1.8 trillion) and a population nearly 3.5 times larger (~500 million vs. 144 million), it’s hard to justify their reliance on us. If U.S. forces left tomorrow, Eastern European nations like Poland would hold strong, but Western Europe—Germany, France, others—is underprepared due to underinvestment. NATO’s 2% GDP defense pledges are often padded with creative accounting. A phased reduction of U.S. troops and tanks would push allies to bolster defenses. This isn’t isolationism—Europe stays under our nuclear umbrella as key allies, but they must carry their weight.
   5. Prioritize the good enough now and in large numbers over the few perfect in a millennium. The platforms being built by the U.S. today are costly and slow to develop but are unmatched in quality. We must continue working on them while recognizing that “you go to war with the [military] you have, not the military you might want” (Rumsfeld). The Constellation-class frigate will be the most capable frigate ever built—an exceptional platform, practically a small destroyer by global standards. Yet no Constellation-class hulls have been launched, and none will be operational until 2029. In the meantime, we should license, lease, buy, or acquire capable, proven designs from Japan, South Korea, Italy, or the United Kingdom. Ditto for fighter jets or other programs.
   6. Invest in the Golden Dome air defense network. Yes, the name is questionable, and it feels like a vanity project. But a nationwide air defense blanket would offer strategic and tactical benefits, and at minimum, it boosts production of missile interceptors critical to protecting our forces.
   7. Heavily promote sales to our allies. The math of mass production is simple—the more you build, the cheaper it gets. If we incentivize allies to invest in major U.S. projects, our costs decrease, and in times of need, we could borrow their equipment, as we did in WWII with an aircraft carrier. Britain once had a strategic bomber force, now gone, and the U.S. is developing the B-21 bomber. If tariffs on Britain were lowered in exchange for buying a half-dozen B-21s, they’d likely seize the opportunity. France’s strategic force, centered on indigenous production, would be complemented by heavy bombers. And it doesn’t have to be big-ticket items. Poland’s purchase of American tanks makes it Europe’s strongest land army, and incentives for buying more shells would likely be welcomed.

   These are some of the most readily actionable items that could be implemented. Fundamentally, having a strong military that never needs to fight is a lot better than a somewhat strong one that does.

0 Comments

<<Previous

The exchanged is back issue

The Not-So-Nice Truth About Santa

Words are not Violence and Neither is Silence

The Washington Commanders Moving to...Washington?

The Most Political Pair of Pants

Trump is not a Conservative

Politics of the Present: Nepalese Gen Z

Is AI Art Actually Art?

What Do We Know About the New Schedule?

A Brief Recap of Prominent News: September

Revitalizing the U.S. Military: A Humble Proposal

Archives

Categories