Category: In the News

1 How to Beat a Bully

December 14, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

When I was a wee lad, only in preschool, I had a bully. Not only did I have a bully but the entire class had one. The bully did the normal bully things: stealing toys, pushing people, stabbing kids in the ear with a Play-Doh knife. You know, the usual. My mom told me I was not allowed to be bullied. If this little punk – who will not be named, but I remember you so you’d better hope you never see me in a dark alley – ever accosted me again I was to hit him back and say, “Dylan don’t play dat!” To my chagrin, the phrase still comes up at family gatherings. Fortunately, I survived this brief period without having to say it myself.

Fast forward to elementary school. I was never bullied, but one day I got in a fight which started a long line of troubles with a single individual. My mom was not satisfied with the “boys will be boys” reasoning I used to shrug off the situation and told me if that little punk ever tried to pick on me again I was to hit him and say, “Dylan don’t play dat!” or some variation thereof. As boys will be boys, the issue soon resolved itself without further conflict and to this day I can say I’ve never punched a person in anger. Ok, I haven’t punched someone who isn’t family in anger – sorry Connie, but I’m sure you deserved it. Bitch.

The rest of my schooldays were bully and incident free. I believed everything was so good I went as far as to tell my mom I had never witnessed bullying in action while in high school. It was sometime during my undergrad years when I had my “oh shit” moment. I realized with the swooping feeling of both regret and disgust that I had been a witness to bullying. Not just stuff you in the locker bullying, but pressure you into a fight so we can say you agreed to getting beat up. Then we can hold you down and have someone rub their ass on your face. I witnessed this and did nothing. Called it hazing, boys will be boys after all. Even worse, I forgot about it and had the audacity to say I had never witnessed any bullying at all. Ever.

I was never a “cool kid” but I also was never someone who was picked on. I don’t know what I could have done at the time and, even looking back on it I think about the social grief it would have caused me to step in; especially to help someone who I honestly didn’t like either. In a world of wolves, sheepdogs, and sheep I was the latter. Even though I was raised by a woman who was against bullies and not opposed to violence to stop them, I did nothing.

This week saw the video with Keaton pop up. The Tennessean youngster who tearfully asked his mom why would anyone be a bully? Why would anyone take time out of their day to pick on someone? Well I just want people who are or have been bullied to know it’s not because of who you are or what you do. It’s not for your failings that you suffer, but those of the bully and those who stand by and watch. Don’t be like me, don’t be a sheep. If you see someone getting bullied step in, with violent intent if necessary. Don’t worry about any social costs because they will be far outweighed by the reward of doing the right thing. I can only say this after looking back with regret of my own inaction.

0 22KILL

November 11, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Here on this day of veteran’s I’m going to plug an organization fighting their leading cause of death: suicide. In fact, 22 veterans die by suicide every day on average. After this shocking statistic came out from a VA study in 2012, the social media movement #22KILL was born. You may have seen videos on your social-media feed of someone doing the 22-push-up challenge and wondered why they were showing off their chest and triceps strength. Maybe you knew they were raising awareness that 22 veterans on average commit suicide every day and didn’t know what else you could do except bust out some push-ups yourself. Well, I’m here to tell you there are organizations combating veteran suicide you can donate to. My personal choice is 22KILL.

22KILL became a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization shortly after the social-media movement began, and its mission is to raise awareness of and combat this epidemic. 22KILL provides a network of support for veterans in need of mental health treatment or reintegration into a society where they often feel they lack purpose. The goal is one day “22” will become “0”. Unfortunately, this can’t be achieved simply by enough people doing push-ups on Facebook. Like any nonprofit they require support in the form of volunteers or dollars.

If you’re like me and don’t have a lot of free time to donate, you can always donate cold hard cash or buy from their online shop. My purchase of choice is the Honor Ring. It is black and worn on your index finger with a plain or engraved external surface. Regardless of the design, once you wear one you are immediately recognizable as a member of the 22Kill Tribe. Furthermore, it is a way to introduce people to the topic. People will inevitably ask why you’re wearing a ring on your index finger allowing you to make them aware of the fact on average 22 veterans commit suicide every day. Maybe they’ll want to join the tribe and make their own donation.

I encourage everyone volunteer or donate to an organization for veterans be it 22KILL, Mission 22, or any organization listed in the VA directory. Our servicemen and women volunteered to fight for freedom overseas; let’s help them win the fight at home.

0 Can We Regulate Away Death?

November 2, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Often in the gun debate those in opposition of the 2nd Amendment fall back on several arguments: the founders did not intend for people to have semi-automatic weapons, more guns means more gun violence, and guns aren’t necessary in a civilized society. I would like to take a moment to talk about why these arguments are incorrect, ill-informed, and ineffective.

More guns means more gun violence.

This is wholly untrue. In fact, today more people own guns than ever yet the rate of gun violence has steadily trended down. This is not to support the claim more guns means less violence, simply to say the opposite is not true.

The founders wrote the second amendment when everyone had muskets.

This is used to illustrate the supposed fallacy of the 2nd amendment defending the use of semi-automatic weapons. The intent of the 2nd Amendment however, is not just that citizens be armed, but that they are armed enough to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. If citizens were armed only with muskets, they could not stand against a small-town police force, much less the federal government at large. While the need to be able to stand against a government may seem conspiratorial and outdated let me ask, which side of the aisle claims to be the “Resistance”? Which side of the aisle supports Antifa’s violence against our elected “fascist” leader?

No one needs guns!

This is generally used when you point out gun violence causes fewer deaths than car crashes. In fact, when you remove suicide and law enforcement related deaths, firearm related deaths in 2014 were 11,744 while vehicle related deaths were 33,736. Don’t get me wrong, I think cars are necessary, but are all of them?

Take motorcycles for instance. In 2014 motorcycle deaths per mile traveled were 27 times greater than cars, accounting for 4,594 deaths. Sports cars, like motorcycles, are built for high performance and are generally associated with unsafe driving. They have an average death rate of 54.6 per million per year compared to an average of 30 per million per year for all vehicles in 2014. This according to the IIHS. Mini cars don’t stand a chance in an accident with anything with a mass greater than the common grey squirrel. Their average death rate is 88.8. The fact of the matter is, if you qualified everything by safety and utility you would be left with luxury cars, pickups, and SUVs. It’s not so difficult a proposition; if motorcycles, sports cars, and mini cars’ are the least safe vehicular options, why shouldn’t they be regulated in the same manner people want firearms to be? If there are other, more safe modes of transport shouldn’t we eliminate those deadly machines?

The question is, can we make government big enough to prevent unnecessary death? Every state requires some form of driver’s education yet every year over 30,000 people die in car accidents compared to 461 accidental deaths from firearms. Every day 28 people die in car accidents involving an alcohol-impaired driver even though the combination is illegal. The null effect of making firearms illegal is on display in Chicago where 58 people, the same as were killed in the Vegas shooting, die from gun violence in the span of a month.

The reality we must face is no government can prevent all unnecessary death and we should not rely on the government to protect us from such spontaneous acts as occurred in Las Vegas. The government cannot identify every terrorist before they send shrapnel into a crowd with pressure cookers, or shoot up a nightclub or music festival. The responsibility lies on the individual and the community to help the mentally ill and defend against those who wish to do us harm – be they individual actors or our own government.

0 The Trouble with Socialism

October 19, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

In a true free market society there is one basic premise: any input gets an equal output, meaning you get paid for your contributions. The trouble with capitalism is everyone needs to put something in to get something out. This becomes a problem if you don’t have as much to give as your neighbor. The argument against a capitalistic system is just that, it’s not fair there is a disparity in outcomes.

A few times every generation a leader comes along and promises to solve this disparity by making everyone equal. You will not want for food or healthcare; a socialist paradise. This can be seen with Cuba, the USSR, and most recently Venezuela. When pointing out these failed states the response you get is, “that’s not real socialism!” The Socialist Party of Great Britain takes it as far as saying real socialism has never been done. Here is what they claim to be true socialism and, in short, why theirs and everyone else’s version of Marxist utopia is absolute nonsense.

1) Socialism is a class-free society. This is referring to economic class, ignoring social and hierarchical classes that arise in every community in nature. A firefighter will be treated with more respect than a janitor not because a janitor is not valued as a person, but because a firefighter has a more impactful effect on the community as it is potentially life-saving. That is a rational scaling of societal values. We are anything but rational creatures and we value people based not necessarily on financial worth but on natural talents or gifts. People don’t value Lebron James for how much money he makes, they are simply in awe of his athletic abilities. The same goes for actors and artists; we admire them for their beauty and glamour and try to exemplify them. If we are all in the same economic class, society will still divide by these lines. Worse, there may be more strife due to the fact we all have the same means but not the same status or, in other words, no equality of outcome.

2) People will work jobs they actually enjoy for only about 10 hours per week.Sounds great except when you consider labor demands. Take for example physicians. They go through 20 years of school, a residency, and continuing education. Physicians work on average around 50 hours per week. If they were to only work 10 hours a week we would need to increase the number of doctors by 400%. Medicine is a competitive field because we want the most capable people to solve our health problems. So how do we meet this new demand? Do we lower our standards or are there five times as many people willing to put in the years of extra study without monetary reward? Or do physicians just have to work more than others making it a system of equality where some are more equal than others?

A physician at least enjoys being a respected member of a community for their contribution, but who would actually enjoy stocking shelves? Who would actually enjoy cleaning septic tanks? Who would actually enjoy picking up trash? And, no matter what the profession, what a full-time employee would accomplish in a 40-hour work week would require three additional employees. The response by the Socialist Party to concerns of an imminent labor shortage would be with the elimination of currency, many careers would no longer be necessary so former accountants or cashiers, for example, could fill these roles. This is great unless the job you actually enjoyed dealt in finance. They also claim automation as our savior because the current profit-driven system doesn’t encourage the replacement of wage earning employees with machines.

3) Socialism is a state-free society. As a libertarian-leaning individual myself, I don’t find this an appalling idea. However, who will force people to do the jobs no one wants to do without incentive? (Because yes those will still exist.) Who will make sure everyone remains equal and no one takes more than their fair share of the now-free goods? Who will control the handling of property? Without a state there is no police, so can I take whatever land I want? Do I get to keep the property I currently own? The job of the government is specifically to protect our inalienable rights; we could certainly survive without their protection, but would we in a system where equality of outcome outweighs quality of input?

The issue with socialism is it ignores human nature. People don’t want to work menial jobs. Today, people are paid relatively large amounts of money for low or no-skill jobs and still many are lazy asses. Do you think if you remove monetary or other incentives they will do a better job?

4) A majority is required to make socialism occur. If the majority is less than 100% there will need to be an intermediary state in which assets are forcibly centralized so they can be turned over to the proletariat. As we’ve seen with the 5-year plan in Soviet Russia and other unfulfilled promises of communist utopia, once an entity receives power, no matter its original good intent, it will never give it up. So sure, Socialist Party, I’ll grant true socialism has never been done, but it is certainly not for a lack of trying.

In an ideal world where everyone accepted their role and never strove for more a socialist system would work. The trouble is we’re human. We want excess, we want glamour, we want iPhones and expensive jeans with premade holes. We need a system that allows us to capture our desires as much as our needs. If it weren’t for human nature, math, and logic, socialism would fulfill this role. As it is, capitalism is the best we have.

1 This is Antifa

October 10, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Following the murder of female counter-protester, Heather Heyer at the hands of a white supremacist, President Trump caught flack for saying there is violence on both sides. While the timing of the statement may be distasteful to some, it has no bearing on its accuracy. The same weekend of white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Antifa protesters were rioting in the streets of Seattle.

Antifa fancies themselves as anti-fascists. If you know the definition of the term fascism, this should be ironic. The dictionary definition of fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. The root of fascistic evil is authoritarianism, a forcing of strict obedience to authority. So who is more authoritarian: the people holding free speech rallies or these people? If you answered the group of people who want everyone to bow down to their ideas or face violence then you are correct, and this is Antifa.

Antifa and the Alt-Right play off each other; support for the Alt-Right grew after riots shut down Milo Yiannopoulis and Ann Coulter at Berkeley while Antifa support grew after the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville. The two groups would like to pit people against each other so they must choose a side. The Alt-Right is accurately labelled a white nationalist movement, but what is Antifa if not anti-fascist?

This is, of course, the great irony; how can you say you’re against “anti-fascists” without being a fascist yourself? The knee-jerk reaction of any questioned Antifa protester is to say you are a racist/fascist just for the fact you voted for Trump, are a police horse, or question them to begin with. To avoid this, let them expose themselves. It’s not hard to see they’re the instigators in most rallies-turned-riots that they attend. Take a look at the Matt Labash article A Beating in Berkeley or the undercover video done by Louder with Crowder.

Unfortunately, both the media and politicians look to demonize conservative event coordinators calling them Alt-Right and white supremacists without reason; this even when Patriot Prayer creator Joey Gibson went out of his way to denounce white supremacists and political violence. Until recently, swarming Antifa protesters hurling bottles of urine at police and swinging bike locks at unsuspecting rally-goers were being compared to soldiers storming Normandy during WWII. I’m not making that up; the people who wear masks and yell at and assault veterans and shout at people for wearing American and Israeli flags are being compared to the men who risked their lives to free Europe from actual Nazis.

I don’t recommend violence against Antifa, even in self-defense. At a Berkeley free speech rally in April, the attendees were not allowed anything that could be used as a weapon or even protection. When Antifa arrived and violence ensued, those people who may have been fighting in self-defense were still labelled as the agitators. Cracks are beginning to form in the media-manufactured façade, however. They are now being forced to acknowledge Antifa as nothing but a bunch of thugs and hoodlums. The radicalization from discourse to violence is anathema to progress. Disregarding an opinion you don’t like as fascist does nothing to prove it is fascist or challenge its premise. The swaying of opinions is not done by swinging bike locks, but exchanging ideas and putting them into practice. So don’t be an idiot. Don’t be Antifa.

3 Who the Hell is the Alt-Right

August 30, 2017
by Connie Morgan
· In the News

After marching in Charlottesville, Va. in a now notorious rally the Alt-Right, KKK and white supremacists have been getting a lot of attention by the media. This is unfortunate as I’d rather not see this vile group of people get any attention from anyone ever. But because these groups are kinda relevant I thought I’d dig a little to see what kind of threat these folks are or aren’t.

Alt-Right
This term is used everyone from disenfranchised Republicans to Nazis to people who simply hate the PC culture. Jake Tapper, a left leaning reporter for CNN was even accused of being a member of the alt-right. Before his fall from grace, Milo Yiannopoulos was sort of the poster child for the alt-right. They are often described by the media as having “far right views” and are commonly seen as a sect of conservatism. Lumping the Alt-Right in with Republicans would be a mistake. When you look at what these people actually believe in, they are closer to the American left than they are the American right.

First of all, true conservatives have the utmost respect for the United States Constitution. What I mean by this is that conservatives don’t believe the Constitution is a living breathing document to be interpreted and changed willy nilly. In the conservative viewpoint, the Constitution should be upheld no matter what, it is the law of the land and that is not up for debate. Constitutionalists are an actual sect of conservatism. The Alt-Right however, doesn’t believe in the Constitution. They make fun of conservatives by making memes, saying things like “But Muh Principles!” In fact, they aren’t traditional at all and would prefer to see American politics completely revolutionized.

Their disregard for the Constitution sets up the Alt-Right to disagree with actual conservatives on just about everything as the Constitution is the root of all conservative philosophy. The Alt-Right doesn’t believe in free markets and small government. Yiannopoulos co-wrote the manifesto for the Alt-Right calling establishment Republicans belief in the free market “overriding” and those who believe in free market capitalism, “cuckservatives.”

The Alt-Right is not a religious group either. Richard Spencer, a filthy human who is a leader of the Alt-Right and is a white nationalist calls himself a “cultural Christian” meaning he believes the 10 Commandments are a good idea but God as a literal force is not a reality…well, I’d argue we’re all at least culturally Christian. Most people agree the 10 Commandments are some good rules to live by. The Alt-Right is anti-semitic and unlike most conservatives (especially religious conservatives) do not believe all men are created equal. This is how they justify white nationalism. It’s important to note that white nationalism is not the same as Trump’s American nationalism but this is probably where the Alt-Right was most drawn to Trump. That and his wall to prevent illegal immigration, which contrary to popular belief is what Trump and mainstream Republicans want to prevent whereas the Alt-Right is against any kind of immigration, legal or not.

Pro-Big Government, anti-free market, anti-religion, and anti-Constitution… does that sound like conservatism to you? The language has gotten so confusing that some have suggested conservatives start calling themselves Constitutionalists to avoid this confusion. The Alt-Right is a stupid group of people, true, but are they actually on the right? No.

KKK/White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis
These guys are sick humans who think one’s ethnicity equates to their worth. While not all members of the Alt-Right are racist, most Neo-Nazi, KKK etc folk would consider themselves to be members of the Alt-Right. These are the David Dukes and Chris Cantwells of the world. I don’t need to really dig into what they believe because I think we all know. And I think we all know they are scum. But let’s get into the actual numbers. Are the KKK and those like them a huge threat to our society?

As of June 2017 there were 42 active KKK groups across 22 states. So these idiots aren’t even active in half of the states. Today it is estimated that there are between 5,000 and 8,000 registered klan members. None of these members hold any real position of power. The Klan represent .002% of the population. The Poodle Club of America has more members than the Klan, it’s not even close.

It’s shocking and alarming to see these people carrying lit torches and chanting obscene things. But keep in mind, these people represent a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. They are poorly organized and have no real power in this country. The only power they have is the power we give them when we talk incessantly about their gatherings and respond to them violently as Antifa did.

Look, I am one of their targets. I am the result of white mixing with black, their worst nightmare. But I honestly don’t care if someone has racist ideas. I won’t seek out their friendship or hire them to be my plumber but as long as they aren’t literally hurting anyone I don’t care what they do. The way to handle these people is not to punch them or hit them with sticks but to ignore them and when you come into contact with them have a civil conversation. Never fight a bad idea with violence.

While a little unnerving and thoroughly stupid, the Alt-Right and the KKK don’t reflect the majority of Americans. What’s more is that these groups didn’t just suddenly appear. The Alt-Right is a new term but white nationalism has existed for centuries. In the last 10 years, the KKK’s peak in America was 2010 and then they were mostly ignored. This proved to be a good strategy because the KKK hit a 15 year low in 2014. There was an uptick in KKK membership in 2016 but it still represents a tiny portion of the American population and 2016 still had lower numbers for the KKK than 2010.

Be honest about who the Alt-Right is and fight them with non-violent conversation and a civil battle of ideas. Be weary of the KKK but right now there’s no reason for them to keep you up at night. If you meet a Klansman try to talk to them but keep in mind sometimes you can’t cure stupid.

0 How to Avoid Cavities

August 25, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Here in the States we put a large emphasis on teeth. This is for good reason as most everything you put in your body passes through your mouth, so we should probably keep it clean. Let me give you some tips to keep those chompers healthy.

Contrary to what some toothpaste commercials would have you believe, bacteria do not drill holes in your teeth. Cavities are created when bacteria generate acid after they consume sugars left in your mouth from your most recent meals. It is this lower pH that leads to demineralization of your enamel. This allows for bacteria to spread into the tooth and, if unchecked, the juicy center where your nerve is. This is a recipe for some major discomfort. The steps to preventing this situation are quite simple and come down to one point: keep the pH neutral.

As noted above, bacteria create an acidic environment by consuming your… leftovers. Don’t give those bugs any help by feeding them sugary or acidic foods and drinks. Sadly, this includes favorites like candy, Coke (pH ~2.5), and Red Bull (pH ~3.3).

Now I know what you’re thinking, ‘I’ll just brush my teeth after eating that giant bag of cotton candy!’ Wrong. Don’t do that. After meals or drinking acidic beverages, when your mouth is in an acidic state, it’s best not to rub a toothbrush over weakened enamel. If you can’t avoid naughty foods, rinse your mouth with some water which usually has a pH ~7. Note some bottled water has a lower pH but anything greater than 6 is beneficial in protecting your enamel, which demineralizes at pH ~5.5. After eating, drinking, or even throwing up, you want to wait about 30-45 minutes before brushing to let the pH increase enough to allow your enamel to re-mineralize. This is also why, for oral health, it is recommended to only eat three meals a day so your mouth isn’t constantly inundated with sugars for bacteria to feast upon.

While brushing twice a day (at least 30 minutes after meals) helps a lot to remove food debris and plaque buildup, it is also important to floss to clean between your teeth. It is nigh impossible for your toothbrush to reach this area, much less adequately clean it, so flossing is essential for maintaining healthy teeth. The most common place for cavities is between teeth where only floss can get, so don’t listen to the reports claiming flossing hasn’t been proven effective unless you want to experience its worth firsthand.

While there is certainly more you can do to minimize the risk of cavities – using an alcohol-based mouthwash and an electric toothbrush, drinking water throughout the day, and visiting the dentist twice a year to name a few – controlling the pH of your mouth will go a long way in keeping your teeth healthy and strong.

0 Hooah

August 16, 2017
by Connie Morgan
· In the News

So, I joined the Army…I know it’s a little shocking. Well, I didn’t think it was that shocking but from the reactions I have gotten the past couple months I guess it is. This sort of makes sense as I am 25 years old, in a career track, bought some property and seemed generally happy with my life as it was so let me explain.

First of all, what exactly did I join? I applied for and received a slot for Officer Candidate School in the United States Army. An OCS slot is a lot like applying for college, in fact you need a college degree to even apply, which is what separates enlisted from officers. Some enlisted folks have degrees but officers must have degrees. I had to submit my transcripts, resume, get letters of recommendation, there was an interview and I even had to show my high school diploma. A little different from college applications, I had to get a military physical, pass the Army Physical Fitness Test and score a minimum of 110 on the ASVAB.

So I turned in all my stuff, did the physical, took the PFT, and did the interview. I felt pretty good after the interview. Ok, I felt like I had it in the bag after the interview, nevertheless I squealed when I got the call that I was awarded a slot. I was at work though so I had to play it cool even though I was jumping up and down on the inside.

Getting a slot is great but it doesn’t guarantee anything. As an Army officer candidate, I first must go to basic training. The Army is the only branch that requires their officer candidates to attend basic training before OCS. The other branches essentially wrap their basic training and OCS into one. So first I have to get through basic without any issues. I leave for Basic on September 18th and that will last for 9 weeks.

Assuming I get through Basic with no issues, then I leave for OCS. OCS is 14 weeks. It’s essentially a mini-military school in that you’re in the classroom learning things like military history, leadership skills, land navigation etc., while maintaining a level of physical fitness.

OCS is where I’ll learn what my job will be. That’s right, my job of choice is not guaranteed. At OCS they immediately start ranking all the candidates based on your leadership abilities, PFT scores and in-class test scores. The ranking goes on throughout your time there. Your job assignment is based on your rank. So whoever is ranked first gets first choice at what job they want and so on. If there are three infantry spots available you better be ranked in the top three if you want to guarantee you get infantry. The number of officers needed for each branch of the Army change from class to class. The class before me could’ve taken five infantry officers but my class might take 15 infantry officers. I would like to branch Military Intelligence but that is one of the most sought after branches, meaning I will have to be ranked very high to secure a Military Intelligence slot. Basically there’s a good chance I won’t get the job I want.

Once I get through with OCS and get my job I will commision as a 2nd Lieutenant and go to another school specific to my job called BOLC or Basic Officer Leadership Course (technically OCS is classified as BOLC as well, it’s just the first phase). I chose Army specifically because it is the biggest branch of the military meaning the most opportunity for a wide variety of experience.

So why did I join the military at all?

I don’t know.

Just kidding.

For a handful of reasons. Reason number one is principle. I feel everyone should serve in some way. Doesn’t have to be military but as a healthy, young, single person this seemed like the best fit for me. If you know me you know I care deeply about veterans and military issues in general. A part of me has always felt a little hypocritical for having these views given that I have never served.

Reason number two plays off reason number one. I love America. I’m proud to live here. I’m proud of our constitution, a document I believe is one of the greatest ever written. I love the people that live here. I love our story. It’s not always perfect, but we aren’t the perfect guys, we are re the good guys though. I believe free nations around the world are safer because of the power combined with the principles of the American Military. The clearest signal to me that this is truly a great nation is that with our military strength we have the power to take over, I mean literally take over any nation we want and re-name that nation America 2.0, yet we don’t. This country, the constitution, your children; They’re worth protecting. They’re worth dying for. And I shouldn’t put that job on someone else when I am perfectly capable of contributing myself.

Reason number three is the most selfish. There are some great benefits to being a member of the Army. The health care, the traveling opportunities, the pension. None of that is bad.

Reason number four is for myself. I want a new challenge. I want to develop new skills. I want to open more doors for myself. I want to meet new people from all over the country. No, I don’t have an interest in politics, no I am not really trying to set up a career path that leads to the CIA. The worst part of all this is that I will now work for the government. If you’ve read any of my other stuff you probably have figured out that I don’t trust the government and prefer to keep them out of my life as much as possible. Unfortunately, it’s something I will have to compromise on in order to live up to my principles listed above.

Why didn’t I just join the Reserves? Well, that was originally the plan. I met with a recruiter for the first time last August with the intention of joining the Reserves. It wasn’t until February that I decided to switch to an active duty application. A couple reasons for the switch. Building my tiny home turned out to be way more of a headache than I thought it would be. I couldn’t actually build the home the way I wanted because of minimum square footage county code. I knew this going into it and was willing to compromise on size but then my plans still got rejected, and for petty reasons. For instance, the key not being in the right place. Did I mention I dislike the government?

On top of problems with building my home, (I dug a well on the property, then sold it by the way) I was feeling a little stagnant in my job. I loved going to work but felt my contributions to the company weren’t as obvious as they once were.

I also want the full military experience. Starting out in the Reserves won’t really give me that and when I inquired about possibly switching to active duty down the road I was told the process can be difficult and isn’t guaranteed. It’s much easier to go from active to reserves than it is to go from reserves to active. So I signed a 3.5 year contract.

I’ve talked the talk and it’s time for me to walk to walk. Thank you to everyone who has supported me, written letters for me and given advice. Hopefully I don’t regret this decision for the rest of my life.

0 Trouble Shoot

August 11, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

I take issue with the use of the phrase, “trigger warning.” If you are unfamiliar, trigger warning is a term used before someone makes a statement which could be offensive to a demographic. For instance, one might say, “trigger warning: I like milk.” This is, of course, offensive to (trigger warning) Black people as it turns out milk isn’t as healthy for them as it is their White counterparts. While the attempt to warn (trigger warning) Blacks of this approaching insult is honorable, it does not consider one specific thing; people of color are statistically more likely to be involved in gun violence and therefore more likely to be put off by the term “trigger.”

There needs to be a term before “trigger warning” to alert people the use of the word trigger is imminent. I suggest we use “incoming.” For instance, “incoming, trigger warning: I like milk.” This, however, could (incoming) trigger the veteran population who have received actual indirect fire. Because we don’t want a warning leading to men and women (incoming, trigger warning) hitting the deck, we need another means of notification. How about (incoming, trigger warning) Black lives matter. Now you could say, “Black lives matter, incoming, trigger warning: I like milk.” If you are (Black lives matter, incoming) triggered by the term (Black lives matter, incoming, trigger warning) “Black lives matter” you are clearly a racist and your opinion doesn’t matter.

There does, however, remain a problem. What if you are not offended? Say someone is about to address you and they say, “Black lives matter, incoming, trigger warning: I like milk.” Because you are an intelligent person who is not bothered by the personal preferences of others, you are offended at the notion a statement of (Black lives matter, incoming, trigger warning) fact could (Black lives matter, incoming) trigger you at all.

Now your attempt to avoid triggering someone has backfired. It may seem necessary to add another warning term to protect against the possibility they may not be triggered in the first place. I say, since you can in no way prevent everyone from being triggered, maybe we should not use warning terms. If someone says something you disagree with, challenge their ideas or go about your day. Otherwise, we will lose entirely that most sacred right to (Black lives matter, incoming, trigger warning) free speech.

0 Share the Ride

July 19, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

In the 1920’s and 1930’s, cities were faced with an issue. As unemployment increased, more people turned to taxi driving to make a living, and the taxi market became flooded with new drivers vying for riders’ business. With free market competition, drivers cut prices in order to attract riders and, subsequently, corners were cut to keep the operating costs low and profit margins high. This meant an increase in unsafe cars and unsafe driving. In New York, the answer to this problem was the Haas Act, which created the medallion system still used in New York and many other large U.S. cities. In cities with this system, the government sells “medallions” which are mandatory to operate a taxi. This allows cities to control the number of taxis, keeping supply low and decreasing competition among drivers. Within this system, the government also has control over the fares a taxi can charge.

Initially, the sale price of a medallion in New York was $10. However, over time as this limited supply of medallions were traded in the secondary market, prices increased exponentially averaging $5,000 by 1950 and selling for up to $1 million as recently as two years ago. How can a taxi driver afford to pay $1 million for the right to drive? Typically, they can’t and must either take out a loan similar to a mortgage to purchase a medallion or rent from a larger conglomerate that owns multiple medallions. The cost in either case is a significant overhead expense for the driver. While the medallion system’s apparent intent was to protect consumers, it also generated revenue for and granted increased powers to the local government while pricing out many individual drivers or forcing them to work for a larger company e.g. Yellow Cab.

In recent years, however, with the advent of technology and the innovation of rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft, people are now able to avoid the medallion costs and use their personal vehicles to provide a service for monetary benefit. While this is good for consumers, who now have more options, and good for Uber and Lyft drivers, who can now monetize their personal vehicles and time, this has not been beneficial for the taxi industry. Taxi usage has been declining significantly: in April 2016, taxis accounted for 65% of trips by hired drivers versus 84% in April of the previous year. This hurts taxi drivers who have already purchased a medallion (for as much as $1 million) but it does benefit individuals currently looking to become taxi drivers as the cost to enter the market (the cost of a medallion) has been decreasing rapidly to as low as $320,000.

This has understandably raised the ire of taxi drivers who are forced to live with upside-down loans on their medallions. Some drivers have brought lawsuits against NYC and taxi regulators for regulating them out of competition with rideshares. Others have written to NY Governor Andrew Cuomo asking for relief plans and a temporary moratorium on medallion foreclosures. Current drivers have already seen help in the way of reduction of regulations; owners of single medallion can now sell to a fleet or independent owner, and are not required to drive their taxi a certain number of hours per year. So again, the competition introduced by rideshare benefits the highly regulated taxi market.

The rideshare movement does, in fact, go against the explicit intent of the Haas Act as it allows for more commercial drivers on the road; increasing competition among paid drivers. One anti-rideshare argument is that this will decrease the safety of the populace, as it did in the 1920’s and 1930’s. So let’s look at existing regulations that protect riders and compare the safety standards of rideshare versus taxis.

As an example, we’ll focus on New York and their regulations impacting for hire vehicles (FHV). To be any form of FHV driver in New York, you require a license from the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). To acquire and keep said license, you must follow their regulations. For both a taxi and a rideshare vehicle this includes three inspections per year for emissions and safety.

So if the safety of the vehicle isn’t a problem, where does the issue with rideshare companies emerge? On a purely moral standing, one would assume someone has the right to offer their driving service to anyone for cash. However, other concerns come to the fore when people are driving an increased amount. Anyone is allowed to drive however much they want, but more time on the road means higher chances of an accident. So let’s look at how drivers and passengers are protected.

The TLC requires vehicles carrying 1-8 passengers to have a minimum coverage of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per occurrence, and $200,000 personal injury protection. Rideshare companies such as Lyft and Uber exceed this regulation, allowing $1 million in liability coverage per incident including for uninsured and underinsured motorists. Both companies also provide contingent collision and comprehensive coverage supplemental to the driver’s personal insurance to protect the owner of the vehicle up to the vehicle’s cost. Furthermore, when a driver’s app is on, their personal insurance is supplemented up to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident for bodily injury and up to $25,000 per accident for property damage in the event personal coverage does not cover the costs of damages. In this respect, all parties are equally covered in accordance with the law – drivers, riders, and pedestrians alike.

If taxis and rideshare vehicles both protect riders and drivers, what is the argument against rideshare? This comes back to the difference in costs to enter the market for one versus the other. As you remember, taxi drivers spend a considerable amount of money on a medallion – a barrier to entry of the taxi market. With the advent of any new technology, a market is influenced and irreparably altered. In this case, rideshare companies have devalued the medallion, once viewed as the beacon of safe transportation. It is now upon taxi companies and individuals who have purchased medallions to compete with rideshare companies. In the end, the outlet who provides the best service for the consumer as well as employment satisfaction for the driver will win. No one argues the Pony Express should have been maintained to keep jobs for riders at the sacrifice of convenience. Why then would anyone argue a more accessible program be halted to save a medallion system that prices out many independent drivers and allows larger companies and conglomerates to corner the market?

There will be areas of contention which need to be addressed as rideshare apps develop and change to meet demand. However, there is no reason to prevent technology from improving rider and driver experiences. Ask yourself, why should I, after going through all of the government-mandated hoops to legally drive a car, be forced to pay an exorbitant amount just for the right to be a hired driver? With rideshare markets busting through the government-generated oligopoly, the answer is and should remain: you shouldn’t and you don’t.

By Arianna Rose and Dylan Morgan

Page 3 of 9