Chicago, Gang Violence, and a Vehicle For Change

When I think of crime, I think first of motive. Motive drives an individual to act—sometimes violently, sometimes not—but always as the spark that turns thought into deed. The same concept applies to crime rates themselves: there are motives behind the trends, the rises and falls we see on charts and in headlines.

In recent months, crime has become a constant topic in national politics and media. The far right warns that crime is spiraling out of control in cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Shreveport. The left argues that crime has plateaued or is even trending downward. The challenge lies in cutting through the political noise to see what is actually happening. National data often hides the stark differences between neighborhoods, while city-level data can miss the bigger national picture. To complicate matters further, time-related variables—such as shifts in reporting practices, policing strategies, or even economic conditions—can skew interpretations.

I am not here to score political points. I want to examine the data we have, understand the roots of the problem, and explore realistic ways to address it. For that, I turn to one city that has become a symbol in this debate: Chicago.

The State of Crime in Chicago

Chicago’s crime story often dominates headlines, sometimes drawing speculation about federal intervention. While politics swirls around questions of authority and presidential powers, the facts on the ground tell a more nuanced tale.

Although homicides have declined in recent years, overall violent crime has risen. Aggravated assaults, robberies, and carjackings have all seen increases. According to a report by Illinois Policy (October 2023), there were more than 50,000 reports of theft, 40,000 reports of battery, and over 20,000 incidents of car theft and assault in 2023—figures reported in a city of 3.7 million residents. Meanwhile, only about 12% of reported crimes in 2022 led to arrests, raising serious questions about both enforcement capacity and community trust.

Gang violence remains a persistent factor. Since 2010, it has shaped much of the city’s violent crime statistics. Nearly one in five homicide victims in Chicago is suspected to have gang ties. Over the past two decades, more than 4,000 people have been killed in homicides believed to be connected to gangs. Most of this violence is concentrated geographically, disproportionately affecting the South Side and West Side neighborhoods. As of August 31, 2025, the city recorded 278 homicides, according to data released by the Chicago Police Department and cited by Mayor Brandon Johnson.

City Efforts and Community-Focused Solutions

In response, Mayor Johnson has emphasized community investment, youth employment, and violence-intervention programs. These initiatives aim to prevent crime at its roots by addressing the conditions that give rise to violence. As someone who has worked in low-income school districts, I have seen firsthand how education, job training, and meaningful extracurricular activities can redirect young people away from crime toward productive futures.

Keeping youth engaged—whether through school, sports, STEM programs, or job opportunities—builds long-term safety. Yet the challenge of gang violence remains formidable. It is not only about policing but also about environment and mindset. Children growing up amid poverty and gang presence often face a cycle that is difficult to break without significant intervention.

Two Perspectives on Reducing Crime

From a pragmatic perspective, the traditional response to rising crime is to deploy more law enforcement in the hardest-hit areas. This strategy can deter immediate violence but raises tough questions: how do we balance deterrence with civil rights, avoid racial profiling, and maintain fragile community trust? Over-reliance on policing risks deepening divisions between law enforcement and the very communities they serve.

From a progressive perspective, lasting reductions in crime come from addressing root causes: poverty, limited access to education, unemployment, and peer-driven pressures. Historical examples, such as the micro-lending work of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh, show that targeted social and economic programs can transform struggling communities. A similar strategy—educating families about business, supporting entrepreneurship, expanding youth programs, and fostering positive police-community partnerships—could gradually break the cycle in Chicago’s most affected neighborhoods.

Looking Forward

Simply sending in more police may reduce crime in the short term, but without broader reforms it risks civil-rights conflicts and long-term mistrust. To achieve real change, Chicago must combine enforcement with opportunity:

• Increased police presence that respects civil liberties.
• Robust youth education and job-training initiatives.
• Community-based violence-intervention efforts.
• Economic uplift and mentorship in neighborhoods historically marginalized.

In the end, we return to motive—the same force that opened this discussion. Whether it arises from desperation, peer influence, or a lack of opportunity, motive drives individuals toward or away from crime. To change Chicago’s future, we must change the motives that guide its most vulnerable citizens. Real safety grows not merely from arrests, but from hope, dignity, and the belief that a better path is possible.

 

Fentanyl, Bitcoin, and the Global Drug Trade

 As i sit here and ponder the nature, causes, and effects of fentanyl, bitcoin, and the global drug trade, it brings me back to the 1800’s and the elicit drug trade of opium by the British in China.  British sea trade companies were advantageous in illegally smuggling opium.  The effects were far reaching, causing millions of Chinese statesmen to become addicted to such a drug.  British merchants would stop off in India, grow the crop, then transport it into Canton, where it was sold and distributed despite upheaval by the Qing Dynasty, the ruling party in China at the time. Since China refused to buy foreign goods, British sea merchants found a way into Chinese markets by getting the population addicted to the drug.  As a result, British sea merchants and companies were able to siphon Chinese wealth out of the country and create a favorable trade balance with Chinese merchants and companies.   Although the goal of creating an unbalanced trade differential does not seem to be the goal today, what we see today in America as well as all over the world, is the modern day version of the Opium trade and Opium Wars.  

Before we can dive into the mix of Fentanyl, Bitcoin, and the global drug trade, we must first understand how fentanyl trafficking began.  After the crackdown on the pharmaceutical opioid crisis in America of the 2000’s, we have entered a new growing epidemic, one which is far greater and more deadly than that of the pharmaceutical drug epidemic.  Fentanyl drug trade began being tracked by the DEA amongst other federal bureaucratic agencies in 2019.  What they found is simply alarming.  Chinese chemical companies began producing pre-cursors, or material used to make fentanyl sometime around 2019 or even before.  These pre-cursors make their way to Mexico or through the shipping or mail service industries in the states.  In Mexico, cartel networks take the pre-cursors and make the illegal substance in clandestine labs where they are then packaged in powder or pill form, then shipped across the southern border illegally.  Once in the United States, they make their way across interstate systems through a network of drug traffickers to their final destination in the hands of local drug dealers and eventually into the hands of opiate users.  

Despite sanctions by the Treasury, indictments of Chinese and Mexican nationalists and individuals, as well as new scheduling laws and restrictions by the People’s Republic of China, fentanyl distribution still falls through the cracks of local, state, and federal executive enforcement agencies.  This happens due to vulnerabilities in supply chain economics.  For example, large chemical markets with legitimate trade make diversion to illicit use hard to detect.  By altering shipment labels and using heavy trafficked ports, fentanyl is able to make its way across the globe much easier than ever before despite efforts to crackdown on the trade.  In addition, financial levers are used to traffick drugs and money across international borders.  Through the use of shell companies, banks, and money services, companies, cartel networks, and individuals are able to to move money and chemicals much easier than ever before.  

In the wake of the crypto-currency revolution, individuals, cartel networks, and companies are able to send and receive payments without federal and state oversight.  Due to unregulated markets, crypto holders are able to circumvent executive agencies and regulation, making it easier to fulfill financial transactions between chemical suppliers, cartel networks, and individuals.  While further investigating this aspect of the drug trade, U.S. attorney generals have indicted 8 Chinese led companies and individuals within the company for illegally manufacturing the pre-cursors for fentanyl.  In all 8 indictments, it showed that Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies were used by individuals to send and receive money via these platforms.  As the world evolves much more rapidly than ever, it appears that individuals and networks are able to stay one step ahead of and hide financial transactions from law enforcement and government entities due to the highly unregulated and difficult to track crypto-currency industry.  This leads to questions over the future of crypto and its unregulated nature.  Should government agencies be able to track and seize crypto-currency holdings of known drug traffickers and their counterparts due to their illicit activities or should the government maintain a laissez faire approach to this new financial instrument altogether as it was envisioned?  Should a government be able to freeze an individual's crypto wallet and halt all transactions to and from that said individual in order to combat the global drug trade?  Finally, how can we keep the system from being compromised while protecting citizens from companies, networks, and individuals who wish to inflict harm on the general population through flooding our streets and neighborhoods with illicit drugs like fentanyl.  

As we continue this story, I want to highlight the successes of the federal government and local law enforcement, while at the same time highlighting the sheer volume at which global drug trade networks are producing fentanyl.  In 2024 alone, more than 60 million fentanyl laced pills as well as nearly 8,000 pounds of fentanyl was seized by the DEA alone.  As of September 22nd of 2025, the DEA reports, over 34 million pills and over 7,000 pounds of powder were confiscated by DEA agents at the border and throughout the country.  

This is not just a small political issue, but one that affects the geopolitical atmosphere of the entire globe.  As companies continue to produce pre-cursors and cartel networks in Mexico continue to use clandestine labs to produce fentanyl, we must act now to halt the production and sale of this illicit drug that kills tens of thousands of opiate users every year.  But how you may ask?  There is no simple fix to such a monumental task, but first we start with money.  Governments around the world must be able to go after the crypto-currency and exchanges that allow the flow of currency from companies, cartel networks, and individuals.  What governments do with the seizure of currency is a topic for another day, and so i continue.  Foreign governments must work together to hold those responsible for the manufacturing and smuggling of fentanyl in international court systems, showing solidarity and union despite geographic distances.  In my opinion, that starts with geopolitical relations between China and the United States.  In order to combat the drug trade, China and America must work together to shut down and eliminate the chemical manufacturing of fentanyl pre-cursors before they are able to be shipped abroad.  From there, the international community must play a watchful eye in the future moves of manufacturing elsewhere once it is completely shut down in China.  The creation of a global and domestic fentanyl task force of agents dedicated to the elimination of such drugs as fentanyl may be required.  In the end, I believe that going after the money and means of production is tantamount in curtailing the fentanyl drug trade.    

But what about the users themselves?  This is a trivial question to ask any individual or government entity.  To some, drug users may appear to be “doing it to themselves.”  Nevertheless, access to naloxone is the primary focus of medical officials and law enforcement officers as it pertains to fentanyl users.  Access to care is the most important aspect of rehabilitation.  Without it, it creates a vicious cycle of relapse, further straining resources and public opinion on drug use and fentanyl as a whole.  Simply jailing users is not the best option even though they are able to get clean and receive care inside the walls of the penitentiary.  In the end, opiate use disorder is a disease, and needs to be treated by medical professionals, law enforcement, and the general public as such.

Evergrande and The Downshift of China's Economy

 Real estate is something that has always interested me.  Understanding balance sheets, costs of production, equity, leverage and borrowing, and interest rates are a fascinating concept to wrap your head around.  China, over the last 20 years, has seen an economic boom.  Large scale city projects, a large population, and billions if not trillions of dollars to be made and invested in real estate development led this economic upturn in China’s real estate development market.  By 2020, real estate development accounted for nearly 30% of China’s GDP or gross domestic product.  Following 2020, China’s real estate market saw a quick, abrupt downshift in real estate development as a country and has had a far reaching effect on both Chinese and global economics and economic policy because of companies such as Evergrande. 

Evergrande or China Evergrande Group was founded by Xu Jiayin in Guagzhou, China in 1996.  By the 2000’s, it became one of China’s fastest growing residential developers, focusing on mass-market apartments in smaller cities.  In 2009, it was added to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, raising 722 million US dollars.  This optimism sparked even more economic expansion and diversification of the Evergrande portfolio of assets and industries it became a part of.  From 2010-2017, Evergrande began a business policy of massive land acquisitions fueled by debt borrowed both domestically and abroad.  As a result of the influx of debt capital, it began diversifying into electric cars, tourism and theme parks, health, bottled water, agriculture, even a soccer club known as the Guangzhou Evergrande. By the mid-2010’s, Evergrande was the 2nd largest property developer by sales.  

Between 2017-2019, Evergrande continued to borrow more and more capital to continue its expansion in land development and non-core business operations.  By the end of 2019, there were reports stating Evergrande’s liabilities, or what they owed to creditors, exceeded 300 billion dollars.  So what did China do, what was the turning point in this unsustainable growth and development?  In August of 2020, Beijing, the capital and host of the central government authority, introduced the “Three Red Lines” which was a debt control policy. China’s housing and real estate boom had fueled massive borrowing by developers.  The government worried about the financial risk of such borrowing as well as skyrocketing home prices, so the three red lines aimed to force companies to deleverage or reduce their debt to income ratio. The first policy or first red line restricted borrowing, saying that the liability to asset ratio must be less than or equal to 70%.  The second red line called the “Net gearing” ratio stated the company's net debt or total debt minus cash must not be more than the company’s equity.  The third red line, Cash to short term debt ratio, stated that the company must have at least enough cash to cover all debts due within a year.  Much to the dismay of the Chinese government and foreign creditors, Evergrande crossed all three lines, basically freezing new borrowing.  Without new borrowing, Evergrande could not remain solvent as a company, fueling speculation of default on its debt.  The government policy marked a turning point, after years of debt fueled expansion in a capitalist market, China’s property sector faced growing government regulation, falling home prices, and less access to new financing.  

By the summer of 2021, reports again surfaced that Evergrande was running out of cash, all the while protests erupted by citizens whose homes were not finished as well as suppliers who were not getting paid.  Attempts were made to restructure debt after the company missed interest payments and ratings agencies downgraded Evergrande’s credit to junk status.  By the end of 2021, Evergrande was forced to declare default on overseas debt.  In the following year, the company was taken off the stock exchange due to failures to file earnings reports.  In 2023, Evergrande filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection in U.S. courts. On January 29th of 2024, Hong Kong High Courts ordered them to liquidate all assets, citing failure to present a workable restructuring plan.  In May of that same year, Chinese regulators fined the main-shore company for financial misconduct, and finally in August of 2025, Evergrande was formally taken off the stock exchange after 15 years.  

So what are the repercussions of the bankruptcy of Evergrande Group in China and the world as a whole.  As previously stated, China went on a 20+ year boom of real estate development.  It saw widespread economic growth in home sales and home prices.  As a result of Evergrande amongst other real estate developers going insolvent without any government bail out in sight, it caused widespread panic in the home buying industry.  Millions of Chinese families delayed or canceled home purchases after seeing unfinished building projects.  As a result, home buyer confidence fell dramatically.  In addition, home sales dropped in many cities, causing a downshift on home prices and reducing new construction projects.  Families lost significant net worth because 60-70% of families net worth came directly from real estate holdings.  Subsequently, investors and banks pulled credit accessibility to the country and its real estate developers as investment seemed too risky to take.  In addition to loss of access to credit, many corporate firms and banks lost billions as a result of developer default.  In an industry that once made up 25-30% of GDP, the crash of the real estate market in China saw a slowing of China’s long standing economic growth.  Some economists estimate the real-estate downshift has caused a 1-2% decrease off of China’s annual GDP since 2021.  

Not only has the real estate downturn had an effect on home buyer and investor confidence, it has had a significant effect on local governments as well.  Since real estate developers bought land from local governments, it has had a spiraling effect on local government economics.  Local governments, who once relied on land deals as a source of income, have now become overleveraged themselves as a result of the absence of cash flow from land expenditures.  Subsequently, infrastructure and other budget cuts must take place to balance government budgets in the short term in order to maintain long term stability.  

What is the central government doing to protect its citizens in such an economic disaster?  Beijing’s top goal in all of this is to make sure homes purchased are delivered to consumers.  State run developers have come in to finish homes and deliver them to market.  The central government has also changed homebuying policies to make home ownership easier.  For example, the central authority lowered the required down payment ratios in many cities, relaxed mortgage interest rates, and reduced restrictions on who can buy second homes or invest in other cities.  Despite these steps, consumer confidence remains low.  

In the end, China has begun to shift its economic resources elsewhere in order to sustain long term economic growth and stability which is paramount to the central Authorities vision of success.  While the real estate market has cooled, China has continued to invest in manufacturing, green technology, semiconductors, and domestic consumption to spur economic growth towards its GDP.   Instead of looking at the short term picture, China has doubled down and has now begun to look at the long-term vision of the central government and private business to fuel another stepping stone towards growth and prosperity for the Chinese people. 

Citizens United vs. FEC: How it's Changed the Political Process In America?

 As I begin writing this article, it takes me back to a few weeks ago when I read an article about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  In the recent article he talks about how past cases are not legal gospel, meaning that past cases, in his opinion, are not grounds to rule on current cases being heard.  With this thought in mind, I began to ponder and research cases that I have seen in my lifetime, and my thoughts diverged on one case: Citizen’s United vs. FEC(2010).   As a result of this case, it has established legal precedent that no person, group, corporation, union or entity there within, has the ability to spend limitless funds to sway an election.   In my opinion, no other case has shaped geo-political arenas such that this case has done.  Under these circumstances, I believe the Supreme Court must overturn such measures and protect our democratic republic from falling to deaf ears from the ambitious and excessive political contributions from the self-interest of the few.

Upon first glance, it seems as though such measures by the Supreme Court might appear fictitious and untrue, but in 2010 the world of American politics changed forever.  Before we dive into such matters that culminated from the case, we must analyze the case from start to finish.  For background knowledge, Citizens United is a non-profit corporation who made a film called “Hillary: The Movie,” in 2008, criticizing then Senator Hillary Clinton during the Presidential Primaries.  Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, corporations and unions could not use their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications” within 30 days of the primary and 60 days of a general election.  The FEC classified the film as an electioneering communication and barred Citizens United from promoting nor distributing it through video-on-demand.  Subsequently, Citizens United sued the FEC, stating the law passed by Congress limits such expenditures and violates the First Amendment free speech clause.  As a result, a legal question arose, Does the government’s prohibition on corporate spending for independent political broadcasts during elections violate the First Amendment right to free speech?

In the majority decision(5-4), the court held that yes, the federal government law violates the First Amendment.  The ruling struck down the BCRA’s ban on corporate and union funding of independent political spending.  The key reasoning done by Justice Kennedy states, “Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” In another quote he states, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in Free Speech."  The court ruled that the government cannot suppress speech based on the speaker’s identity whether it be a corporation, union, or individual.  

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens warned, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought or sold.  Corporations are not actually members of the society…..They cannot vote or run for office…..and their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.”  The dissent argued that the decision gave disproportionate political power to corporations and wealthy interests, undermining the integrity of elections and public trust.  

This key Supreme Court case set legal precedence towards unlimited campaign contributions as long as they did not go directly towards the candidate themselves because money spent is effectively seen as free speech.  It fundamentally changed how the country's political elections and system functions entirely.  Citizens United vs. FEC directly led to the creation of Super PAC’s , which can spend and raise unlimited sums of money to advocate for or against any candidate as long as they don’t coordinate with campaigns.  

From the individual perspective, many moral and ethical violations come to mind.  This allows multi-national corporations, composed of individuals and entities both domestic and abroad to directly influence general elections.  To allow such means to take place, undermines the election and political process.  It also creates blurred lines between politicians and the corporate and private entities that support them.  Regardless of the legal jargon that is spouted, political coordination takes place between private and public entities and individual candidates in terms of ideology, planning, and fund raising.  It creates a widening gap between the representation of the masses and those of the financial elite due to the legal precedent set forth at the culmination of this Supreme Court Case.  In addition, it has created a society in which money has transformed our political system.  For example, in a Pennsylvania Congressional race, 550 million dollars was raised by both sides to fund their respective campaigns.  This disproportionate amount of wealth spent on one seat in Congress speaks volumes for how far corporate interests will go to win just one seat on Capital Hill.  

The ability for such a case to have such overreaching effects on the political system speaks volumes for the “give an inch, take a mile” perspective.  To give corporations such unchecked power in the political process is simply a disservice to the rightful citizens of the United States.  Free speech belongs to the individual, and to create such means that the individual is simply no more than a whisper in a room deafened by corporate finance is both morally and legally inapprehensible.  To turn a free speech case into unchecked power by multi-national corporations has led to the moral collapse of the nation and its political system.  As a result, we must do a service and due diligence to the people of this very nation and strike down corporate, union, and Super PAC unlimited spending in the election process.

Ethics and Diversity

 As I begin this article, I think back to the summer of 2018 and my Master’s class called Equity and Diversity.  I was in my second summer of my Master’s program in Secondary Education.  My mind draws near to a memory, a memory of an analogy once told to me about what true equity was.  In this analogy, there are three children at a sporting event standing at the wall beyond the field of play.  One student was tall enough to see over the wall, the second whose eye sight was just at the cusp of the wall, and the third child who was too short to see over the wall.  Equity is allowing or giving the two students who can’t see a boost, a platform to stand on to be able to see the field of play and the action of the game.  Although we live in a diverse society, equity and ethics is something we need to allow a level playing field for all to participate in economics, education, and society as a whole.  With equity and ethics, we create a platform for success for all walks of life to stand before and stand on to be heard and seen.

Ethics is a broad branch of philosophy that examines what is right or wrong, good or bad, and what is acceptable and unacceptable.  Our conscience navigates our way through ethical conduct or behavior, acting as a guiding force that determines what we do or don’t do.  A productive society weighs the ethics of its macro and microscopic decisions and behaviors and determines the direction of their moral compass.  Whether someone thinks, behaves, or makes decisions that are different than one’s own doesn’t necessarily make them an acceptable or unacceptable person, what truly defines the individual is what they do with their such means when they have a competitive advantage.  In sports, the winning team who displays the competitive advantage typically wins, but does society work the same as that of sport?  When a competitive advantage is displayed by an individual, group, or entity, from a utilitarian perspective, one should behave or act in a way that promotes the greater good of the whole or the greatest number of the whole.  Unfortunately, in American society, we have shied away from such utilitarian ethics.  

In a capitalistic society where the individual needs and interests come first, there is a clash between what is best for the whole and what is best for the individual.  The analogy that comes to mind is an individual on a tight rope, balancing the forces that work against them.  The individual uses experience, timing, and weight distribution to move slowly, but surely across the rope to make it to the other side.  The same can be said about each of us in society, we should think slowly and be less quick to react, learn from our mistakes, act and conduct ourselves in accordance to when the time is right rather than off anger or instinct, and distribute our weight whether it be money, intellect, or physical talents in accordance to what is ethically acceptable to the whole.  

The individual on the tight rope can also be seen as the government.  As we examine the scenario again, the rules slightly change for the entity on the tight rope.  A government must balance the external forces working against them whether they be economic or social, seeing them from all angles or perspectives to maintain their balance on the rope.  When one acts in their own self-interest, blind to the external forces that work against them, one simply falls off the tight rope  because they couldn’t see the gravity of the situation at hand.  Timing, like the individual on the rope, is a key player as well.  When the entity speaks or acts too quickly, they fall due to harsh rhetoric displayed outward all the while experiencing harsh criticism inward as they spoke too soon without thinking about the utilitarian ethics of the whole.  

Society falls apart when the external forces unglue the bonds that bonds it together like that of the strong force inside the atom that holds protons and neutrons together.  Commonality is the glue that holds all great societies together.  No matter what we think of the matter, what glues us together far outweighs what breaks us apart.  That commonality is the greater good.  When the individual feels isolated, alienated from the pack, it slowly breaks the bonds of society as a whole because we as individuals are greater than the sum of our parts when we work as one.  To maintain that differential, we must revert back to ethics: honesty, integrity, and thinking of the whole when making our individual decisions for it is these principles that bond, that glue our society together.  No matter what external force tries to tear away at those bonds, their energy falls short for we are greater than the sum of our parts. 

Business and government ethics have trickled down to the masses, we have created a cut throat world that displays less ethics than that of the rabid animal.  We point fingers, spue lies hoping that if told enough it becomes truth, and act to destroy rather than to understand.  Our society is falling apart because of the dissonance of the powers that be.  Dissonance is the inability for the individual to render their thoughts untrue even with a mountain of evidence against it.  I speak for neither left nor right, i speak for the common good of all, when I say that we must be slow to act, less quick to judge, to reason with ourselves and others through clear and reasonable dialogue that makes ethical decisions based on the needs of all parties, not just those that align with the self-interest of the individual and those they wish to prop up and collude with.  This country, if not this world, needs now more than ever, someone to think outside of themselves and their close counterparts, to make decisions that look towards the greater good of the whole rather than just a fraction of its parts.

As I continue this story, I wish to change lanes along the path of the road and arrive at the concept of diversity.  What gave me the inspiration to write about diversity was a sign I saw at an adjacent business to a Mexican restaurant I was going to.  One of the signs said “Diversity,” and the light bulb went off in my head and I felt such a profound urge to write about such a concept.  Diversity is or refers to the presence and recognition of differences among people or things in a group, environment, or society.  After I saw that sign last week, I was slow to write, allowing my mind to sit with the topic allowing it’s ingredients to marinate inside my mind before turning key to word on my computer.  When examining such a concept outside of human existence, I think about the biodiversity of life in ecosystems.  A healthy ecosystem has a biodiversity of life forms that allow it to grow and prosper.  Each living organism plays a role in their environment, and if there becomes an imbalance, the whole ecosystem is affected significantly.  The same can be said about society and human life.  Our society is a melting pot, mixing cultures, backgrounds, ages, experiences, and even though the list goes on in terms of the categorization of diversity, the precedent is set.  Our society would slow to a screeching halt if that tight knit web of balance was affected yet what we see is a society that juxtaposes that very concept of diversity.  To create an environment that puts one group, one line of reasoning, one experience before that of the whole, creates a breach in the diversity of life in America and the world as a whole.  When the powers that be begin to isolate, to alienate group from group, culture from culture, the very building blocks of society as a whole, it brings me to speak up and speak out against such tactics for we are greater than the sum of our parts.  To eliminate those building blocks of human society, would surely bring about its eventual collapse.  

Ethics and diversity go hand-in-hand.  It takes a group of individual perspectives that are guided by ethics to create a diverse, functional, and productive society.  A diverse society brings together many different experiences that help guide the whole down the right path.  The shortest distance between two points in space is a straight line, and we, the individual on the tight rope, must balance the needs of that diversity to stand tall and traverse the tight rope no matter the external forces weighing against us.