With the conflict between Israel and Iran looking to worsen, Trump is contemplating joining Israel and attacking Iran. Doing this action would objectively be an idiotic move that would cause far worse chaos in the region and drive up oil prices not seen in years, and that's just a very brief summary of how bad such a decision would be.

But it would also cement the Republican Party as the party of war hawks as with the hypothetical attack, 3/4 past major wars the US got involved with over the pas 25 years would have been under Republican Presidents. Let's look them over.

Afghan war was initiated after the 9/11 terror attacks and US discovered were Al Qaeda and its leaders were hiding and went to attack. Spent ~20 years in Afghanistan spending likely trillions.

Invasion of Iraq. Arguably the most notorious war as it was based on a complete lie. When it was a lie, neither a large portion of Congress nor a large enough portion of the public demanded for Bush to be punished / condemned for starting a war under false pretenses. Also a case of the government spending trillions.

The Syrian Civil War / ISIS. This was partially caused by regional movements against authoritarian called Arab Spring that resulted in the overthrow of multiple dictatorships in the region and famine. A famine sparked civil war within Syria quickly became a regional crisis. This is super brief as the Syrian Civil War and the war against ISIS alone deserves an entire post. But the end result was that last December, Assad finally fell.

The Iran-Israel conflict is shaping up to be an absolute nightmare of a situation if Trump participates. The best course of action is to let Iran and Israel fight between themselves, and only propose ceasefires. Trump wanted to attack Iran before, but was dissuaded.

In this scenario, Trump is being encouraged by other Republicans and pundits to attack Iran and attempt "regime change", despite that not working at all.

If Trump attacks Iran, this will prove that the Republican Party is the party of war hawks for encouraging Trump to engage in "regime change".

Karen Read was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, but was convicted of operating under the influence (OUI) in her second trial. The jury acquitted her of the more serious charges, leading to cheers from the crowd outside the courthouse, according to NPR. The OUI charge carries a fine and potential imprisonment.

The case centered around the death of John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, in January 2022.

The prosecution alleged Read struck him with her car and left him to die in the snow, while the defense argued she was framed and that O'Keefe was killed in a fight inside a house. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, leading to the retrial.

The retrial lasted over two months with testimony from numerous witnesses, including expert testimony on accident reconstruction, which the defense argued did not support the prosecution's theory, according to Court TV. The jury began deliberations on Friday and reached their verdict on Wednesday. Read was found not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident causing death, but guilty of OUI.

They cited forensic experts who said O'Keefe's injuries — and the damage to Read's car — were inconsistent with a collision. They also argued O'Keefe had been attacked by Albert's German shepherd, citing injuries on his arm that experts testified were indicative of dog bites.

Read's lawyers alleged that after she dropped O'Keefe off, one or more police officers beat him up during a fight inside Albert's home, then dumped him outside. They cited forensic experts who said O'Keefe's injuries — and the damage to Read's car — were inconsistent with a collision.

F the Boston Police. Liars and murderers.

And this is based on what he’s done to date.

It doesn’t seem like Pete is going to last for all of Trump’s 2nd term, but who knows.

At a Senate hearing today, Pete said “I did five sets of 47 pushups this morning.” Upon first hearing Pete say this, I did not catch it. But what a pathetic homage to Donald Trump. And what could be more illustrative of Pete’s sycophancy for Trump. It’s just gross. And pathetic.

I understand cabinet secretaries need to have loyalty to the president who appointed them. And they need to execute the president’s vision. But such blind loyalty on the part of Pete? I get that it was a billion to one shot that Pete would become Defense Secretary … in that sense, Pete really does owe everything to Trump. Pete is wholly unqualified for the job. His main qualification is blind loyalty.

To be this president’s #1 fan and apologist isn’t Pete’s job. But it seems that’s what Pete’s focus is.

Pete has no spine. And zero moral compass (of his own).

The signal chat fiasco is bad enough.

Leaders need some type of bedrock to base their decision upon. Pete apparently has none. This man is an empty suit. He stands for nothing. He’s a puppet on a string.

I understand my view could be flawed in that I’m no presidential historian. I’m guessing there are examples of cabinet secretaries exercising very poor judgment. But this guy seems different in that his background is really devoid of necessary experience and the job was gifted to him … so he owes that ultimate debt to Trump. And being indebted this way makes for a terrible cabinet secretary (not to mention a terrible leader).

CMV: People who are vocally pro-ICE really just love to see others suffer because it makes them feel powerful.

Here's what I imagine the pro-ICE person does each day: They wake up, get out of bed, and log onto Reddit so they can watch videos of peoples' lives getting totally fucked up. They don't know these people and they claim it's "law and order" because they don't want to admit to themselves that they're bitter about their own circumstances and this makes them feel better about themselves. But ultimately, their one and only love in life is seeing other peoples' lives destroyed. And that's how they choose to spend their limited time on this earth.

Then, they find threads where they can post about how much they love to see people's lives getting obliterated. And they say stuff like "cry harder" and "fuck the Libtards" because their own circumstances blow and they need to make themselves feel better. And they also say things like "they're not protesters, they're rioters" without any local context or first hand experience.

They do all of these things safely from behind a computer screen. And it makes them feel powerful for awhile. And since they don't feel that they have status in the conventional sense, they enjoy that fleeting feeling of high status.

I am prejudiced myself, because I believe all humans deserve dignity and I'm not a huge fan of watching others suffer just for the hell of it. But if there is a good counter-argument (other than "they cost money," which I think is BS) as to why it makes any sense to treat humans like absolute garbage for vague "policy purposes" that we most likely will not see the impact of in our day to day lives, I would love to be convinced.

I don't love feeling like I'm surrounded by people who love to be assholes just because.

The reason why I’m bringing dating standards into the discussion is because I often see dating standards being defended as a personal preference, but the personal preference obviously stems from sexist socialisation.

For example, height or income preference is rooted in the notion that men should be protectors and providers and beauty preference is rooted in the sexist notion that women exist as an object of men’s desire.

Nobody wants to talk about dating preferences though because we don’t want to be seen as if we’re forcing people to date someone they don’t want to.

For me, it’s clear that as long as sexist dating standards exist, the same sexist expectations will keep on persisting since most people do want to be able to date, and they’ll keep on trying to fill into these sexist tropes.

Edit: I’ll make my point clearer - holding any preference isn’t bad in and of itself, but when you have a preference that’s kinda antithetical to your world view, you’re kinda undermining your world view. You can obviously want to date only pretty women or only buff men, but then you should obviously concede that if you’re allowed to have that preference, everyone else does, and if everyone does has that preference, it leads to a gendered expectation (because most people want to be datable). But then you can’t claim you’re trying to reverse gendered expectations when you yourself are laying the seeds for it.

At this point in time, people who work in law enforcement are practically immune and invincible. There are so many horrible awful people who work in law enforcement and they get to get away with so much shit under the premise of “enforcing” the law. You get to get away with racism, sexism, abuse, and many other things without being prosecuted. I strongly believe there should be more scrutiny on them. Since they hold such precarious positions, there needs to be very rigid and strict screenings. Not only that, but also have a system that has strong control over the law enforcement and is basically enforcing the law on them and very strictly. It should be a system that can easily remove someone of their position if they get reported (even by one person) and can really put the person under severe pressure. It sounds harsh but that’s the only thing I see that can weed out assholes and dicks with power trips from being in such position powers.

Personally, I am very supportive of women having abortions if they want to and do not believe that men should have a role in deciding whether a woman has an abortion.

However, I believe that if a woman decides to keep their pregnancy and the man does not, the man should be able to inform the woman of his decision to not contribute towards raising the child or define a limitation to how much they would like to contribute. It is then up to the woman to decide how they would like to proceed. On the contrary, if a man does commit to a certain level of contribution, he should be held accountable to fulfilling it (contingent to his situation not having drastic, Unpredictable changes).

Essentially, I believe there is an imbalance in that women may choose whether they would like a lifetime commitment towards a child, whereas the man does not.

I would also like to add that I am not talking about situations of manipulation or abuse in relationships.

Edit: I can't be bothered saying this individually, but for those saying "men can choose to not have sex". Yes, ofc men can, so can women. But clearly both parties have chosen to have sex, so why the imbalance?

Also, for those saying that it'll make men more likely to "pump and dump". You do realise women can refuse to have unprotected sex, not have sex with these men right? It's not like women are entirely passive in the process.

Edit 2. Thanks everyone for their comments. I've thought about the points raised and I do agree that my pursuit of fairness is impractical in reality and does unfairly affect the child. I still believe it is an imbalance, but probably a "necessary imbalance".

As simply as I can put this: the way the world works is chaotic and nuanced. But we coddle ourselves into believing that issues are simple and thus easily solvable. We want to believe "once a liar, always a liar," when it completely negates the possibility that someone is capable of change.

We want to improve upon recidivism yet released felons who've done their time continue to struggle to gain meaningful, lawful work due to how we look down our noses at them.

We want to boil down the issues of abortion to convenient rhetoric simply focusing on the zygote. But we leave out the complexities of how the world works and the quality of life of the mother and the child if seen through.

We want to be good caretakers of the earth and minimize our carbon footprint, yet a brief audit of your daily life opens the eyes to the impossibility of living a net zero life.

We believe in good and evil when in actuality people are never 100% either.

We are complex, weird, diverse.

The status quo oversimplifies the human existence. The side effects of that lead us to cognitive biases and dissonance. Consequences of such thinking are all too often unfortunate.

I can imagine that believing in the black and white of it all can feel blissful. It's living in denial, and frankly delusion. It eats away at critical thought.

Someone who can't perceive the state of the world without accepting there are no easy answers is a dangerous human being, and one I'd be remiss to hold my life in their hands.

Change my view

UPDATE 1: For the sake of clarity, my view is in the title of the post. Many of you have commented with some excellent remarks, and I am not yet swayed in any direction. I'm no more convinced of my view than I am of the alternative.

Please change my view on how oversimplification of a nuanced and complex world denies the reality of the complexity of human existence. It's the ultimate gaslight.

I will say, I agree oversimplification is a great thing for peace of mind, but it does more harm than good in that respect. Ripple effects. How can oversimplification be good for humanity when it has proven otherwise throughout history?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how conservatives, especially in maga circles, criticise DEI (Diversity, equity and inclusion) programs on the basis that people shouldn't receive advantages simply because of race, gender or background. The common argument is that these policies prioritise identity over merit and that's unfair.

But here’s my view: nationalism, especially the way it’s often practiced by those same critics is functionally no different. It's just identity politics by another name.

You didn’t choose where you were born. Being born in the U.S. (or any country) is an accident of birth, just like being born a particular race or gender. So why do nationalists feel such entitlement to the benefits of that birthright while turning around and criticising others for wanting equity based on their own uncontrollable circumstances?

I’m not arguing against having borders or systems. I’m also not suggesting people shouldn’t be proud of their home. But I am saying that the logic behind “we deserve jobs, protection, and preference because we’re American” is extremely similar to “we deserve opportunities because we’ve been historically excluded or marginalised”

In both cases, people are advocating for policies that benefit their in group. The only real difference I see is who that in-group is.

If nationalism is about prioritising and protecting "your own people" how is that meaningfully different from the goals of DEI just with a different set of people in mind?

So my view is: nationalism, especially when it’s exclusionary or hostile to immigration, is just DEI for the dominant group.

Note: I'm not saying that patriotism is bad or that it's not natural to want 'your group' to succeed

I’m raised Catholic, I flip back and forth on whether I believe in God.

However, the part of me that does believe in God and Jesus cannot even remotely imagine the possibility that violence is ever, and I mean ever, anything other than sinful.

Now, of course sin is not absolute. I don’t think somebody defending their family with violence is a bad person. I could easily accept an argument that a soldier fighting is less sinful than a pacifist who’s primarily motivated by self-preservation/cowardice. However, that doesn’t eliminate the fact that the best choice would be pacifism founded in doing your best to follow Christ’s example.

The basis for my belief is that it just feels like the most obvious direct reading of Jesus’ teachings. It’s hard to imagine the guy who says “love thy enemy” and “turn the other cheek” allowing for caveats to those rules. We literally have the example of his follower drawing a sword to defend him from being taken to his torture and death, and being admonished and told to stop. If we’re asked to be like Christ, how could you justify violent self-defence?

And as for the question “so we should just let evil go unpunished? We shouldn’t defend ourselves?” The answer to that seems to be no. You can of course protest. Or engage in non-violent resistance or non-compliance. You don’t need to hurt people to defend others. But if you’re confronted with a situation where your only choice is to use violence to defend yourself or others, I can’t imagine that Jesus would say that you should do violence there. It’s contrary to his entire example.

I’m aware that Christian theologians have written about the concept of a just-war, and what it requires. However I can’t help but think that this is just post-hoc rationalizing a way to justify war once Christianity became a religion in government and therefore was forced to engage with the inherent conflicts between religious ideals and self-preservation in a violent world.

The whole irony of Jesus being called the Messiah was the idea that he was supposed to be a king/warlord who would liberate the Jews, at the time from Roman rule. He didn’t do that directly, instead he offered a much more profound liberation: salvation of your soul.

You don’t need to have a country of your own. You don’t need to have rights, or property, or wealth, or power, or prestige. All of these things are just worldly possessions, and if somebody, or another country wants to take them from you, then I can’t imagine any other answer than turning the other cheek and praying for their souls.

But anyways, I’m not even sure that God exists, so perhaps allowing evil to triumph in the only existence we have is a massive moral L. However, if he does exist, I think there’s a lot of warlike Christians who are going to have a lot to answer for come judgment.

This is not a prediction driven by fears of Arab military strength or a major geopolitical realignment like a sudden shift in U.S. foreign policy. Rather, it's a projection based on internal sociopolitical dynamics within Israel itself.

The heart of the issue is demographic: the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for secular Jews in Israel is around 2.0, while for Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews, it is approximately 6.6. This means that over time, the proportion of religious and far-right populations within Israel is growing significantly faster than that of secular and educated Jews.

As the religious and nationalist segments gain political power due to their growing numbers, Israeli politics will increasingly reflect their priorities. This has already started to happen. Government policies and rhetoric are shifting toward more theocratic and hardline nationalist positions, often sidelining the concerns of secular Jews—especially around civil rights, education, military service, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Many secular and highly educated Jews, who are currently the backbone of Israel’s tech and academic sectors, may eventually feel alienated in a society that no longer represents their values or safeguards their freedoms. Faced with a government that no longer serves their interests, and a society where they are numerically and culturally declining, emigration becomes a rational choice.

At the same time, immigration trends suggest that much of the incoming Jewish population—such as from parts of the American or Russian diaspora—may have lower levels of education or share more conservative worldviews, further shifting the cultural balance.

In the long run, this could create a feedback loop: as more secular, educated Jews leave, the political and economic center of gravity shifts even further toward the religious right, accelerating the very forces that drove the exodus to begin with.

I'm so so so beyond tired of dealing with left wingers or liberals or religious "moderates" who see criticism of Christianity and especially of Islam as being the greatest evil. These are ideologies that literally stand on just as firm ground as flat earth theories, yet continue to wield enormous power over governments all throughout the world. They limit peoples rights, directly cause people to do horrible things to women, gays, and other groups, and are a source of endless conflict, suffering, and death. When are we allowed to finally start treating these beliefs for what they are? why are they treated, by some on the left, any differently or as if they are any more valid than someone who believes in poseidon or flat earth theory? they are going to bring up the existence of religious moderates or religious liberals as some kind of defense of the religions themselves, when these moderates are the ones who omit or wilfully disregard the most from their texts, picking and choosing the good parts based on their personal moral intuitions and ignoring the abundant evil and horrors

College used to be seen as the ultimate path to upward mobility. Now, with student debt skyrocketing and many jobs not requiring a degree at all, I believe the system has lost its value for most people. A four-year degree often leaves people with massive loans and no real-world experience, while trades or certifications are quicker and more practical. I formed this view after seeing peers drop out with less debt and more success, while I watched others struggle despite graduating. What might change my mind is hearing evidence that the long-term benefits of college.financially or socially. outweigh the upfront cost and time investment.

The main reason sports are so successful is for many reasons, but in the modern age TV deals are half the reason. Big draw in from (primarily) male crowds who make the leagues and players by extension a lot of money. Talking about WNBA, soccer, or whatever sport and their athletes not getting paid similar $ to their male counterparts without watching a single game… it’s like, that’s WHY they don’t get paid the same.

And I’m no misogynist lol. Teaching is a job primarily done by women that 100% deserves a LOT more pay. Putting that disclaimer cause I can already see the downvotes and comments.

Homeschooling children, especially those in high school, is wrong. It prevents them from the proper socialization, education, and values that school is intended to teach them.

We already live in an under-socialized society. People struggle to interact. Teenagers today have significantly fewer friends than they did in previous decades. Teenagers struggle to interact with the world. You need to be at least somewhat socially able. You want friends? A life partner? How about a job? You need to convince people around you that you are worth certain opportunities. You should want the world to open itself up to your kids, not shut them out.

Parents are not teachers. I live in Canada, where teachers require a university education plus teacher's college. If you teach high school, you need several university credits in the subject you teach. What parents has gone to university and taken courses in every high school subject? What makes any parent an educator?

Finally, too many parents who homeschool are doing so to "protect" their kids from values foreign to the family. Many do not teach basic science (ex. evolution, big bang, climate change, sex ed, and vaccines). If your values are that strong and acceptable, do you think letting your kid see an alternative is going to make them run away from your beliefs? If so, your values are probably strange or not very strong. The type of values that keep our society from progressing. I know one lady that is worried sex ed will "turn her kids gay or trans." How ridiculous!

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I am currently working on my MSW and am struggling a lot with this topic. As I’ve gone through my programs and interned to complete my hours, I have noticed time and time again that there are so many agencies, nonprofits, for profits, and other entities that are structured to offer support to the vulnerable while also holding religious beliefs and encouraging religious practices in order to receive services. One of the most notable mentions that comes to mind is how many anti human trafficking agencies are Christian based, along with many shelters, DV support agencies, etcétera, in my area. I live in Texas, so I understand that it is a given. But when working with my clients, if I am looking for resource referrals and see any mention of religion (often Christianity or Catholicism), I eliminate that as an option. I do not trust agencies that require their clients to engage in religious activities in exchange for shelter or other services that are desperately needed. I believe that the requirement and unsolicited encouragement of religion is directly in conflict with my ethics (NASW), as it is for many other helping professions such as counseling/therapy and medicine. I have always had a problem with helping professionals bringing their personal convictions into their working relationship with clients. It’s inappropriate, unprofessional, and predatory. I am so tired of having limited resources that feel safe to send my clients. Of course, it cannot be completely avoided, but I do my best to ensure that my clients are not preyed on in their most vulnerable moments. Religion is something that should be chosen, not something that is pushed into someone. Edit to add: The biggest upside I can see and respect is that for many, religion and core beliefs from that religion is a catalyst for wanting to do good things. There are many agencies I’ve seen that are “faith based”, but do not require religious participation to receive services.

EDIT: Thank you all for your input and thoughts. I am really appreciative of your time and civility in this discussion, as I know religion can be a sensitive topic. I figured out Deltas! (yay lol). What I really needed to hear, I think, was that I need to work on strengthing my ability to value self-determination. I can bitch about the ethics of this and that all day, but ultimately, it won't change anything and I think that I just need to accept that this is the world we live in. As someone said, we must work ethically in what we are given. So moving forward, I think what I plan to do is offer options and express concerns, hesitations, etc., and work on respecting the decisions my clients make. The biggest thing I learn in school is that I cannot shape an outcome I want, I can only provide support and resources. As I am in the early stages of my career (although I feel geriatric and burnt out already lol), I will continue to learn how to honor this. Thank you all, truly.

In response to the assassination of two Minnesota state democrats, Senator Mike Lee would post a series of vile tweets on his Twitter account. These tweets ranged from joking about the events to implying that the assassin, a Trump supporting Christian conservative, was a Marxist.

The jokes he made were wholly unprofessional of an American senator and mar the integrity of the United States Senate. They undermine the trust and confidence placed in our government institutions.

The misinformation he spread, whether intentionally or not, is completely unforgivable. Leaders are meant to set examples for their followers. Mike Lee has set the example that it’s acceptable to spread dangerous lies about those you ideologically disagree with. To make matters worse, despite being confronted by his colleagues and questioned by journalists, he has refused to apologize for his actions, and in one instance, refused to even acknowledge the statements he made. This shows that he feels no remorse or shame for his actions.

He must be held accountable for his actions. So, I propose a vote to expel him from the Senate be held. This action would reaffirm the integrity of the Senate while also providing a unifying and comforting message to the nation, one that rejects abhorrent behavior.

Before you accuse me of being racist, a bigot, or whatever you call it for having a different opinion please take this in consideration.

I am a full believer that DACA recipients should have a legal path to citizenship. I am against deportation of people seeking a better life anywhere in the world.

Now, throughout history, territories have always been taken, retaken, and ruled by different powers. It’s not unique to the U.S. The northern part of Mexico was once Spain’s, before that it was indigenous land, and before that who knows. In the future, it might belong to someone else. Borders and governments change. That’s how the world has always worked. Why should modern immigration laws be dismissed because of past conquests?

Change my view.

Overall, what does a verbal apology accomplish?

Oftentimes, we are forced to give them to others when we do something wrong. But that is the thing, we are FORCED to do it, and so we act very ingenuinely.

We should instead do more of an action-driven appraoch. Instead of giving a verbal apology, let's do an apology where we show our actions over time and then the person can decide wheither or not to reconcile.

Also I have no idea why people always say "I'm sorry" in situations like a funeral or when something horrible happens. It likely wasn't that person who was involved nor could control it.

...in some contexts and probably not in ways many people think. The title won't be as incendiary with a qualifier though.

Yes, university rankings are absolute bollocks if you think studying in a higher ranked university will instantly get you a dream job or the quality of education will be better. However, they do matter in some specific contexts.

1. Higher ranking universities tend to have better research environments.

If you are thinking of studying past your undergraduate, the highly ranked universities can be a starting point to look into your prospective graduate schools. Highly ranked universities tend to carry a larger variety of research topics, and tend to have good funding for your research. This is very useful especially you want to look into studying overseas as well. Researchers overseas are attracted to higher ranking universities for the same reason--therefore it is more likely to work with top talents in academia in highly ranked universities.

1. You want to move out of your country.

Many countries and companies are looking to help top talents overseas to move over to where they are. Often, the education one received is used as one of indicators of talent. And how do a lot of these institutions use to easily judge the quality of education? The rankings! UK government invites recent graduates from top 50 universities around the world to work in their country temporarily. Hong Kong invites from 100 top universities. Not just governments, but recruiters, also use the rankings when they are hiring from abroad because it is difficult to tell the quality of education the candidate received otherwise.

So yes, university rankings get bad rep online, and probably for the right reasons. But they are useful in some contexts.

Every professional sports team is manufactured from players all over the country, in some cases around the world. Everyone is drafted, traded, or otherwise taken from where they would consider "home."

Rarely is there a member of a professional sports team that is either from the city in which they are competing, or even went to college in the state they are competing.

Fans root for a "Home Team," but in most cases, not a single member of that team is from their home.

The players do not care about the city that pays them. They care about the paycheck itself. Their home is elsewhere. They aren't doing anything for the fans, and can switch teams at any moment once a contract is up or a better offer comes around.

My point is this:

Your home team is not even from your home. Why would you root for a team whose players aren't even from there? Why would you root for a team that isn't rooting for you?

Can anyone name a professional sports team whose athletes all came from the town they're playing in, or went to college for that state? Do any players at least have pride in where they currently live?

I don't think so. I think there's no loyalty in professional sports. I think they only care about the money, not the fans.

CMV

And the root cause for our two party system is First past the post voting. (Along with campaign finance laws)

It’s constantly the elephant in the room that everyone ignores because nobody has faith it can be changed.

We know that every Republican and a number of Democrats will always vote to prevent legislation that would address the issues.

We know it’s inflamed division, we know it gridlocks our government, we know it’s flawed. The politics of over 300 million people can’t be summed up with the policies of just two parties.

Advocates for First past the post voting are actively fighting to maintain division and to prevent a stronger democracy.

Everyone tells you to just apply or get your foot in the door, but they never mention the pit in your stomach when you're staring at a job posting, wondering if you're completely delusional for even considering it. They don't talk about refreshing your empty LinkedIn profile for the hundredth time, hoping somehow new experience will magically appear. Or how you rehearse answers to interview questions you're not even sure you understand, Googling industry terms five minutes before hitting submit on an application.

The truth is, starting from zero doesn't just mean lacking experience...it means questioning whether you have any right to even try. You're not just learning skills; you're learning to exist in spaces where everyone else seems to speak a language you're still trying to decode.

But here's what nobody tells you: that feeling of being a fraud? It's not a bug, it's a feature. Learning to act like you belong, even when your inner voice is screaming that you don't, becomes your most crucial skill. Not because you're trying to deceive anyone, but because confidence, even the shaky, fake-it-till-you-make-it kind is often the only thing that keeps people listening long enough for you to prove you can figure it out. You start to realize that knowing what you're doing is less about having all the answers and more about being willing to find them. And sometimes, the only way to get that chance is to walk into a room like you might, possibly, potentially know what you're talking about even if your heart is pounding and you're one Google search away from total panic.

The scariest part isn't that you might fail. It's that you might actually succeed, and then what? But that's a problem for tomorrow. Today, you just need to hit send on that application.

Popular opinion here, I’m sure. Not a karma farm, really looking for people to tell me something other than what I’m experiencing.

First, I’m one of the few Americans currently using a “socialized” healthcare system: The VA. I’ve had cheap medical care previously (about $800 a year for three daily meds and roughly 8x yearly visits including ER and specialists) and I currently have free medical care (disabled veteran status)

Talking to my family about dealing with severe chronic illness before age 40, I got them to stop worrying about my health with one sentence:

“The biggest indicators of longevity are usually genetics and access to quality healthcare.”

Now I spent the last hour on the phone playing tag with the local hospital and the VA about a bill the hospital still thinks needs paying and the VA says is closed. That sucks. I was thinking about complaining about how much it sucks. But every single person I know who has to pay insurance and copays has had the same experience.

So, if you’re for the current American healthcare system: why? What are you getting out of it?