The Francis Scott Key Bridge, known as the Baltimore Bridge, spans across the Patapsco River in Baltimore, Maryland. Completed in 1977, it serves as a vital transportation link connecting the Baltimore metropolitan area with the eastern suburbs. Named after Francis Scott Key, the author of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” the bridge is an iconic landmark in Baltimore and a symbol of the city’s connectivity and infrastructure.

Unfortunately, on Tuesday March 26, the Baltimore Key Bridge collapsed, with a couple factors that led to this event. Mainly, a massive cargo ship carrying many shipping containers striked into one of the bridge’s support columns. Additionally, initial investigations suggest a power issue reported by the ship’s crew just before the collision. Furthermore, experts indicate that the bridge’s design was not intended to withstand such a massive impact.

The collapse of the bridge carries profound implications. It disrupts transportation networks, leading to potential traffic congestion and delays for commuters and businesses. Additionally, the closure disrupts the flow of goods and services, particularly affecting the operations of the Port of Baltimore, a critical economic lifeline for the region. The incident also raises serious safety concerns, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive infrastructure inspections and maintenance to prevent similar disasters. Many individuals working and driving on the bridge are still lost, with their bodies remain unfound.

To address the aftermath bridge collapse, there are a few possible public policy approaches that could be made. This includes increasing infrastructure investment to prevent future collapses, enhancing bridge inspections to ensure safety, improving emergency response planning for swift action in such events, raising public awareness about bridge safety measures, implementing regulatory reforms to strengthen oversight, and integrating resilience planning into infrastructure development to withstand potential hazards.

Through history, Haiti has faced significant challenges with gang violence, particularly in urban centers like Port-au-Prince. Gangs in Haiti have been involved in various criminal activities, including drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, and violent clashes with security forces. These gangs often operate in marginalized communities, exacerbating issues of poverty, social inequality, and political instability. Weak governance, corruption, and inadequate law enforcement have allowed gangs to flourish at times, posing serious threats to public safety and hindering efforts towards socioeconomic development. The history of gang violence in Haiti underscores the complexities of addressing security and social issues in the country.

These issues are continuing to affect Haiti in this day and age, being referred as a Cataclysmic Situation. A Cataclysmic Situation is described as an event or circumstance of immense and often disastrous proportions, resulting in widespread upheaval, destruction, or significant changes to the affected area or population. This phrase often refers to natural disasters, demonstrating the severity of gangs in Haiti right now.

In this year alone, more than 1500 individuals have lost their life and more than 800 have been wounded because of this violence. Along with the known gangs, there is also widespread, deadly vigilantism, with community groups — some calling themselves “self-defense brigades” — attacking people suspected of petty crime or gang affiliation. This further contributes to the loss that Haiti is facing. Tens of thousands of civilians are being forced to flee their homes. Armed gangs now dominate much of Port-au-Prince, wreaking havoc by attacking police stations and government offices, looting banks and hospitals, and killings and kidnapping many, eventually causing Prime Minister Ariel Henry to resign from office.

To battle this conflict, many foreign influences ( The United States, Germany, and EU embassies) are offering support. They are evacuating personnel from Haiti, sending military, and attempting to maintain order and security in Haiti.

These current policy approaches are important and effective for the people suffering in Haiti. However, a few more possible policy approaches could be supplying food to those in Haiti. The World Food Program said this week that Haiti was now suffering its worst levels of food insecurity on record. For those that cannot be evacuated, these foreign influences could work to provide them security with their basic necessities.

The topic of abortion rights has maintained controversy throughout United States history, especially with the recent overturning of Roe vs Wade in 2022. Since then, abortion had not been a constitutional right on a federal level, and states had full choice in legalizing abortion in their borders. The abortion rights debate centers on two main viewpoints: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” Pro-choice advocates support a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy, emphasizing reproductive autonomy. Pro-life advocates believe in protecting the rights of the unborn fetus, viewing abortion as morally wrong and advocating for legal restrictions.

Since 2000, medication abortion has been an option in the United States following the approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of mifepristone for early abortion. Unlike surgical abortion, medication abortion doesn’t require a clinical setting; individuals can take the pills—first mifepristone, followed by misoprostol—in the comfort of their own home. This medication is quite prevalent and is used in more than 60% of US abortions.

Because of this pill, many pro-life supporters are in favor of removing access to Mifepristone, and this case is being heard by the Supreme Court right now. Currently, the SCOTUS is leaning towards not limiting access to the pill. However, they can still change their decision, and there are many implications for both sides. Banning the pill would deepen divisions between pro-life and pro-choice groups, escalating the debate over abortion rights and access. Pro-life advocates might celebrate it as a potential decrease in abortions, but concerns would arise about unsafe alternatives. Pro-choice supporters would see it as a violation of women’s autonomy and a threat to access to safe procedures. If the pill remains available, it would maintain existing divides between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, upholding the ongoing debate. Pro-life supporters might worry about increased abortion rates, while pro-choice advocates would see it as a win for women’s autonomy and access to safe procedures.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision on limiting access to Mifepristone carries significant implications for abortion rights in the United States. While current leanings suggest maintaining access, the final verdict remains uncertain. The outcome will profoundly impact the ongoing debate between pro-choice and pro-life advocates, potentially shaping reproductive rights and access to safe procedures for years to come. Only time will reveal the ramifications of this pivotal decision on the landscape of abortion rights in the United States.

History has demonstrated that public protests in Cuba are quite rare. There are a variety of reasons, such as a tight government control, a history of repression, limited political freedoms, social controls, and economic hardships. Under the one-party Communist system, dissent is met with harsh measures, including arrests and censorship, creating a sense of fear and discouraging open opposition. Despite economic challenges and occasional bursts of dissent, the Cuban government’s tight grip on power has historically limited the frequency and scale of public protests. However, current protests seem to break this historic pattern.

Currently, Cuba is undergoing hours-long power cuts, an increase in food insecurity, and shortage of medicine since the pandemic. This has caused many Cubans to travel to the United States, while those that have not left are forming demonstrations across Cuba. In at least four major cities, there are a few demonstrations with chants of “Patria y Vida,” which means fatherland and life in Spanish and is a reference to the popular anti-government anthem. Santiago de Cuba, a city known as the birth of Fidel Castro’s communist revolution, is facing hundreds of people protesting the style of government.

These protests contribute to the already present crisis in Cuba, an economic crisis. Inflation is surging across Cuba, with instant devaluations in the currency. Many state salaries are now worth less than the cost of a carton of eggs. Soon, Cuban government is planning to raise the price of fuel by more than 500%.

Many of these protests have seemed to naturally decrease through heavy police presence, introducing arrests as well, and many Cubans were put on trial and convicted. However, the United States is urging Cubans to “respect the human rights of the protestors and address the legitimate needs of the Cuban people” to hopefully prevent further challenges to Cuban society.

In response to the current situation, there are a few public policy approaches that could be made. First, Cuba could make actions towards Strengthening social safety nets to provide support for vulnerable populations impacted by economic challenges. This could involve expanding access to healthcare, education, and social assistance programs, as well as promoting inclusive economic growth to reduce inequality and improve living standards for all citizens. Another possible approach could be addressing underlying structural issues in the economy to promote sustainable development and inclusive growth. This might involve reforms to enhance productivity, encourage entrepreneurship, and foster innovation, as well as initiatives to promote equitable access to resources and opportunities across society.

The proposed policy approaches are in line with any style of government principles as they focus on addressing social inequalities and promoting collective well-being without requiring a complete overhaul of the political or economic system. These approaches aim to improve the well-being of all citizens and promote social equality while operating within the existing communist framework in Cuba.

On my last blog about Trump being removed off the ballot, we explored how some states are pushing efforts to remove Trump from the primary election for the presidential nomination of the United States for many reasons. One of those reasons being that Trump incited a riot, an act of insurrection, can read more information in another one of my recent blogs.

In response to states like Colorado and Maine taking steps through their state Supreme Court to remove Trump, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently reviewed this case to set precedent. In a 9-0 ruling, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that states don’t have the ability to bar Trump — or any other federal candidates — from the ballot under a rarely-used constitutional provision that prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. This was the first case ever taken in regard to the Insurrection Clause of the 14th amendment, which to refresh states that those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States are banned from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. This ruling by the SCOTUS effectively overturns Colorado and Maine’s efforts to remove Trump but also the efforts by any other state such as Illinois.

Critics of this ruling continue to argue that Trump’s actions are in complete defiance to United States’ principles and beliefs. These critics also feel that the events of January 6th were clearly an insurrection, and for that reason, Trump shouldn’t be eligible. Critics also fear that if Trump is allowed to be on the ballot, is anyone who commits crimes against the US allowed to run for president too? Fears like this are paired with fears about the SCOTUS ruling and its ability to overreach rulings in the future. Critics also fear that this decision decision — with its emphasis on congressional action — could limit the judicial branch’s power to interpret the 14th Amendment.

However, supporters argue that this ruling protects the integrity of our electoral process and reaffirms our republic’s foundational principles, particularly the principle of Federalism. Federalism is all about the sharing of power between states and federal government, with the federal government having more power. Supporters like the idea that the federal government was able to overturn all propositions by these few state governments.

Another argument being posed by supporters about this situation is in regards to the time when this amendment was written. This amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, was designed to disqualify individuals from holding office if they had previously supported the Confederacy after swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution. Supporters feel that this situation with Trump is significantly different than when the amendment was passed, therefore not having relevance.

With more cases heading Trump’s way such as allegedly falsifying business records to pay hush money to an adult film actress during the 2016 presidential campaign (which is scheduled to start in New York later this month), his fate of candidacy for the president position is unsure.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable trend among colleges and universities towards making standardized testing optional for admissions. However, a shift is now occurring, with some schools going back to mandatory testing requirements. Coincidingly, standardized testing itself is evolving with a notable transition to digital formats. As such, the landscape of standardized testing is dynamic, marked by fluctuations in testing policies and the ongoing debate surrounding their use in evaluating student readiness for higher education.

At first, many schools went test-optional, so they could be more inclusive to people of all backgrounds. This was because it was seen that students of color statistically score lower than white students on standardized testing. However, many schools are returning to mandatory testing requirements because of a recent study conducted by Dartmouth College. The Dartmouth study went into the effects of eliminating standardized test requirements on the diversity of applicants. This discovered that the absence of test requirements didn’t lead to a more diverse applicant pool, going in an opposite nature than expected. The research highlighted the role of standardized test scores in identifying high-achieving students from various socioeconomic backgrounds. Dartmouth’s decision to reintroduce test requirements was based on this revelation, underlining the significance of standardized tests in predicting academic success compared to GPA alone. Additionally, the study noted that test-optional policies might unintentionally disadvantage underprivileged applicants who could benefit from submitting their scores.

Moreover, many schools because of this recent study, including Dartmouth, now feel that making test scores a requirement “will improve—not detract from—their ability to bring the most promising and diverse students to our campus.” Schools like Yale, Brown, and MIT are already taking steps to requiring these test scores.

As colleges reevaluate standardized testing policies, the return to mandatory requirements signals a renewed emphasis on equity and fairness in admissions practices. Dartmouth’s study underscored the role of standardized tests in identifying high-achieving students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, highlighting the potential of such assessments to mitigate social injustices in admissions. This shift represents a proactive step towards creating a more level playing field for all applicants, ensuring that access to higher education is not disproportionately hindered by socioeconomic factors. As institutions continue to navigate these changes, the broader implications for promoting equality and diversity in higher education remain to be seen.