Air Line Pilots Association and Women in Aviation Hold Roundtable Event

By: David Naftzger

HORIZONS

Members of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) ACE club along with ERAU’s Women in Aviation International (WAI) chapter recently got the opportunity to network with companies in the aviation industry.

ERAU’s ALPA ACE club and WAI chapter hosted their second annual aviation networking roundtable event on March 23, 2017, in the Lower Hangar.

Companies in attendance were Southwest Airlines, Idaho Division of Aeronautics, FedEx Express, Alaska ACE Cargo, STA Jets, SkyWest Airlines, Arizona Air National Guard, Papillon Helicopters and the FBI Flight Division.

Students got the opportunity to visit three tables for 20 minutes each to discuss the company located at the table and ask any questions to their potential future employers.

Captain Katherine Wallace from Southwest Airlines talked about company internships in Dallas as well as transitioning from her flight training in New Zealand to falling in love with flying in the U.S.

Prescott campus alumni and former flight instructor Shelby King, who now flies for a corporate company called Zetta Jet, out of California, talked about the transition of flying a single engine Cessna 172 to flying a Bombardier Global Express corporate jet around the world.

Another guest to the roundtable was Lt. Col. Eric Wichman who flies a KC-135 for Arizona National Guard along with a Boeing 747 for United Airlines.

He talked to students about flying for both the National Guard and a civilian airline as well as some of the perks of doing both types of flying.

Current president of the ALPA ACE club and Aeronautical Science senior Christian Lambert said regarding the event: “This is our second annual roundtable event we’ve done with Women in Aviation, and we were very happy with the turnout this year.”

Not only did the event take months of planning from both WAI and ALPA ACE, but much work was also done by Merrie Heath in Career Services and the College of Aviation.

Embry-Riddle WAI chapter president and Aeronautical Science senior Claire Schindler said, “Last year Tanner Novak, who is the former president of ALPA ACE, got together along with Merrie Heath in Career Services, and we wanted to throw an event that showed all aspects of the aviation industry besides airlines.

So Tanner and I reached out to people we knew, which is what Christian and I did this year and I think we had a very good turnout of guests.”

Schindler went on to say: “Women in Aviation is an international group which has chapters all over the world and promotes women in the aviation field and help women with their careers. They do a lot of scholarships along with community service events at least once a month.”

The ALPA ACE club at ERAU provides students with the opportunity to meet and network with industry professionals from around the country through regular trips and monthly meetings that expose them to all aspects of aviation.

This year’s roundtable event was a great opportunity for students to learn more about the aviation industry and meet industry professionals on a personal level. Joining either of these organizations on campus is easy through Control Tower on ERNIE!

 

Final Approach Opinions Opinions

Students debate costs, benefits of Affordable Care Act

Fixes to healthcare important, should reflect desires of the people

By: Jake Delinger
HORIZONS

Whether this country likes it or not, the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, must budge.

After almost a decade since its implementation, there is a national understanding that many of the bill’s more expansive policies are not working, despite the success of some policies within it.

While it might indeed be tempting to weigh the benefits of a Ship-of-Theseus-style approach, in which the act is changed piece by piece into a more sustainable and economical bill, it raises a key question: If the end goal is a new bill, one that tackles the key difficulties of the present bill’s structure, then why the piecemeal, incremental change?

If the health and financial security of every American is on the line, this would be a case in which the band-aid approach of a complete overhaul is in order.

When the United States realized separate-but-equal was inherently unequal, their approach wasn’t to target the hiring, then the financing, then so on and so on until the problem was addressed.

When the Court reached its decision, its orders were firm; proceed with “all deliberate speed”.

As it stands, the American Health Care Act as proposed by House Republicans so far fails to meet these standards, opting instead for a plan that either keeps some Obamacare policies temporarily, or leaves many of the original propositions, such as pre-existing conditions and mandatory health benefits insurers must provide, entirely intact!

Regardless of political alignment or personal beliefs on the matter, neither party should support a half-baked bill of any sort.

Trying to keep together a bill already strained at the seams from years of partisan fighting and budgetary grandstanding will only serve to prevent real and very much needed reform from taking place.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that as it stands, this bill, labeled ironically as “Obamacare Lite” would actually result in more people losing coverage than under a straight-to-the-point repeal of Obamacare as proposed in 2016 (23 million from full repeal to 24 million from AHCA).

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue in the matter; the nation deserves an honest talk on the pros and cons of Obamacare and a dialogue on how the United States proceeds with fixing numerous embedded problems in its system.

Whether this takes the form of single-payer systems such as those in many European countries and in the early drafts of the original bill or takes the form of nationwide competition-based markets proposed by several Republican senators and representatives in Congress, the political landscape of the United States presents to us a simple fact: the longer we straddle the fence arguing over this, the more we pay for it in time, money, capital, and lives.

It is with this in mind that I argue that the United States can’t afford the systematic approach when it is the very system that is broken.

Repealing and replacing, as a legislative tool, forces this country to come up with something, anything to address the broken system we have now. Cut your losses, put on your working boots, and let’s get serious about making a real fix decades overdue.

ACA issues are what the American peoples pays for

By: John Mills
HORIZONS

American health care is dead, long live the American health care. Within twenty four hours of the writing of this article, the House of Representatives will vote on whether to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), often known as Obamacare.

The ACA has been the subject of countless tirades, think pieces, and an ever-present object of argument since its passage in 2010. With the election of President Trump, the repeal of the ACA has been looming, given that such action was a focal point of Trump’s campaign.

However, people opposed the Republican-alternative American Health Care Act (AHCA)—from congress members and legislators to health insurance experts across the spectrum—have essentially agreed that the bill is unworkable and catastrophic.

Nonetheless, the Republicans are determined on repealing Obamacare, even without a working solution.

Republicans within the coming days are poised to repeal ACA, so unless the House Democrats can pull out a miracle, millions of Americans are going to lose their healthcare coverage.

At its peak, the ACA brought the rate of those without health insurance down to an estimated 11.0% in one Gallup poll.

Other statisticians showed the uninsured rate nationally as low as 9.8%. What is known for sure is that the uninsured rate fell across every congressional district in the United States.

The ACA also optionally expanded Medicaid, which led to people getting preventive care that reduced emergency room visits.

A Harvard University professor of health economics conducted a study in 2016 that found that residents of Arkansas and Kentucky, which both accepted the Medicaid expansion, had lower rates of emergency room visits and fewer instances of difficulty with medical bills than residents in Texas, which did not accept the expansion.

It has been proven that access to preventative health care reduces emergency room visits, which are often more expensive to both the patient and taxpayer.

The healthcare debate is extremely complicated and multifaceted. There’s no two ways about it, especially given the almost organic way the U.S.-health insurance developed in the post-WWII world.

The way the AHCA has been rushed into completion, with Sean Spicer famously bragging that the reduced size of the bill meant reduced government, is dangerous. The ACA wasn’t perfect.

Not counting the mess of its roll-out, it raised average health insurance prices for some people who needed them to be reduced, didn’t cover everyone with what they needed; however, there was no way it was going to be perfect for the estimated 242 million adults in the U.S.

Instead of ripping out some of the most critical aspects of the ACA, such as the individual and employer mandates that saw the numbers of uninsured Americans fall to historic lows recently, the Republicans should have striven to replace the parts that were ineffectual or actually harmful to the American public.

Instead the rushed, broken solution they are jamming through the legislative branch is bound to create more problems and hurt more people than Obamacare did. It will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow over the next four years.

Final Approach Opinions Opinions

Top 10 People to Watch in Washington

By: Wesley Stine

HORIZONS

The election of last November left most Americans quite fed up with politics, and certainly many of us are quite happy to be thinking about it less.

But for those who are the exceptions, and those who just want to know what the future holds, it’s important to know who to watch in Washington.

Here’s the list, quick and dirty: the ten men and women who will have the most to say about the future of our country.

  1. President Donald Trump

He is the oldest and wealthiest U.S. president. He is the only one who never worked in government before. He is the first Republican since Reagan to win the Upper Midwest. And, if his words can be taken at face value, he is going to drain the swamp and make America great again.

  1. Senator Chuck Schumer

After Harry Reid’s retirement, Senator Schumer of New York assumed the mantle of leadership for Senate Democrats. Numbering 46, they are the biggest impediment to Donald Trump’s forces. In the House, minorities have no power; in the Senate, things are different.

If Schumer plays his cards well, the country will get a seriously watered-down version of the Trump reforms, changing the future of taxes, health care, industrial regulations, and the makeup of the Supreme Court. In the unfolding drama in Washington, Trump and Schumer are the captains of the opposing hosts.

  1. Judge Neil Gorsuch

The young judge from Colorado is the son of Anne Gorsuch Burford, Ronald Reagan’s Environmental Protection Agency chief who presided over a great era of deregulation.

Now about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch will be in a strong position to realize his philosophy of government.

Skeptical of regulatory and executive power and favoring a small federal government and strict interpretation of the Constitution, the new justice will prove instrumental in shaping the future of American government.

  1. Justice Anthony Kennedy

Kennedy is the longest serving justice on the Supreme Court, and the crucial swing vote, nearly always getting his way.

For the last 25 years, the law on abortion, capital punishment, gun rights, corporate speech, and same-sex marriage has been whatever Kennedy said it was, earning him the nickname “the King of America.”

But even the mightiest king cannot remain in power beyond the confines of his mortal life, and Kennedy is now 80 years old. Whether, and when, he chooses to retire will determine who gets to pick his successor, and the next quarter-century of American law will be up for grabs.

  1. Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by President Bush in 2005, is regarded by many conservatives as a turncoat. The ire is ill-deserved; he has only broken with conservative orthodoxy on one big issue: when he voted to uphold the individual mandate out of a principled belief in judicial restraint.

On all other issues, such as abortion, gun rights, corporate speech, and same-sex marriage, Roberts has been a champion of the right.

Still, he is the most moderate of the conservatives, so if Trump appoints a few more originalists like Gorsuch, it will be Roberts who determines how far to the right the Court goes. The future of affirmative action, religious liberty, and the Tenth Amendment is at stake.

  1. Senator Mitch McConnell

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has the difficult job of getting the Republican agenda through the filibuster-prone, narrowly split Senate. With just 52 Senators, he will have a tough time getting his way.

Conservative legislation on things such as defunding Planned Parenthood, repealing Obamacare, or splitting the Ninth Circuit can pass the House quite easily; it will be Mitch McConnell’s proficiency in the endless game of cat-herding that determines whether it gets through the Senate.

  1. House Speaker Paul Ryan

In the Senate power is spread out pretty evenly – that’s why the minority leader is important, and why it’s so hard to get controversial bills through. The House is different. It is almost as if Speaker Ryan is the House.

Without the filibuster to force the involvement of the minority, Speaker Ryan can get an affirmative vote on any legislation the Republicans can be sold on.

But managing his own party is becoming increasingly harder, and whether the Trump reforms are large or small will depend largely on what sort of compromises Ryan can work about between moderate Republicans and the Liberty and Freedom Caucuses.

  1. Secretary of Defense James Mattis

Mattis, a former Marine General, is different from other Secretaries of Defense. He has devoted his life toward studying and applying the art of war, summed up in his maxim: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to “cut off the head of ISIS,” “bomb the hell out of ISIS,” and “take away the oil.” James Mattis’ job is to work out the details.

  1. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos

Betsy DeVos has devoted her life to education reform. Her support for school choice, vouchers, and charter schools is all part of a broad push to make it so that parents, not bureaucrats, have the biggest say in how a child is educated.

She was confirmed by the narrowest margin of any Trump appointee, scraping by on the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Mike Pence. The special interests, full of wrath, are arrayed against her. The outcome of the fight could determine the future of educational freedom in America.

  1. Vice President Mike Pence

The vice-president isn’t usually a powerful person. His job is to break ties in the Senate, and take over if the president dies. But Donald Trump is no ordinary president. As a man with no prior experience in government, he is especially likely to lean on the advice of others.

Pence, chosen for his executive experience as governor of Indiana, is one of the most influential men around. Trump’s advanced age means Pence might ascend to the presidency, and when the Trump years are over, he will have the best chance of succeeding him.

Final Approach Opinions Opinions

A Happy Family

By: Meaghan Moeller

HORIZONS

Lily was playing with her dolls again. Georgia shook her head and redirected her attention away from her daughter and back to the dishes she was cleaning.

There were more dishes than she would have expected two adults and a three-year-old were capable of dirtying in a single day.

Nevertheless, she wiped and scrubbed the dishes every night before putting Lily to bed.

On the other side of the kitchen, Lily was swinging her three dolls back and forth two at a time, babbling half in English, half in gibberish.

Even though all of her dolls were distinctly human, one of them was currently a dragon attacking the other two, and one was a knight who would slay the dragon.

In the dining room, Thomas chuckled at the adorable roaring sounds that were currently emanating from his beautiful daughter before turning back to his nightly exercise: the household budget.

He sometimes took his page of calculations into the kitchen to ask Georgia’s opinion on where to cut back to better pay off their loans, but often there was little more they could sacrifice.

Tonight was fairly good, as Georgia finished the dishes early and got a chance to cuddle and play with Lily before it was her bedtime.

Thomas decided that because both he and Georgia had recently worked much overtime, there were no cuts needed this week, and, in fact, he could afford to take his family out for dinner on Saturday.

Georgia’s face lit up at the news from her husband and Lily giggled in delight at seeing her parents so very happy. She soon became impatient though, as Georgia had stopped playing the dragon.

Thomas leapt from his chair with a lizard-like roar and scooped Lily up into his arms, who in turn shrieked with joy as she began hitting her dad’s head with the knight-doll.

When bedtime came, Lily was tired enough to go to sleep almost as soon as being tucked in and her parents sighed in relief. And yet a couple of hours later, when they went to bed as well, Lily crawled in between them only a few minutes after.

Thomas smiled to himself, despite knowing he would likely be kicked awake multiple times during the night. Georgia kissed Lily’s forehead, who had already fallen asleep again, and adjusted her daughter’s position so that her head would not get stuck under the covers. The three of them slept soundly through the night.

Featured Final Approach Opinions Opinions Short Story

Editorial: A Radical Shift in Our SGA Council and I Love It

By: Anonymous

Special to Horizons

I’ll come out and say it: I voted for Zoe Crain for Student Government Association (SGA) President. I also voted for Joshua Abbott, the well-spoken military veteran with the awesome facial hair.

My vote was also cast for Jerome Lim and Steven Harvey—both great guys in their own right. And, judging from their victory at the polls, a fair portion of campus supports these candidates as well.

Also, none of them are Greek (to my knowledge, anyway). And despite being Greek, I couldn’t be happier. During my first few years at Embry-Riddle, SGA couldn’t have been further from my mind.

By the time I became a junior, however, I recognized how Greeks dominated SGA and the whole organization was operated with an air of mystery surrounding it (with an SGA budget approaching $240,000, why did my organization get barely a quarter of our budget request when we wanted to attend a leadership conference?).

Wasn’t it convenient how the organizations who were directly represented by SGA always seemed to get a majority of their funding requests, while the rest of us were left out to dry?

SGA went from an organization no one really cared about to one that saw public derision and ridicule.

For those on the social media platform Yik Yak (what I consider a fairly reliable “finger on the pulse” of the school’s temperament on many issues), the last few weeks have been an interesting ride indeed with regards to SGA.

There were allegations of corruption, disrespect, and favoritism thrown about with reckless abandon.

People remarked the relative shadiness of our outgoing SGA president Corey DeJac’s rise to power (allegations of looking over shoulders at the polling booth is questionable at best, my good sir!) and compared it to his fraternity brother Gleb Liashedko’s grab for the presidency (allegations of looking over shoulders again—now with eyewitnesses? C’mon, guys, you’re better than that!)

And it would appear that our fair student body has finally had enough.

We all saw the email—well, some of us still read campus emails, I would imagine—that proudly touted the record percent of student participation in our voting process.

Our votes have begun the process of rolling back Greek influence within SGA: the 2016-2017 board has six of the eleven members claiming membership in a social Greek society, who happen to represent only four of the nine social Greek chapters on campus.

Our 2017-2018 board only has four Greeks, now representing three of the nine campus chapters.

And now, we have an SGA president who has already demonstrated a willingness to go out of her way to talk to the clubs who have might have previously felt disenfranchised by a Greek-dominated SGA and the mysterious SGA Budget Committee.

From speaking with her personally, she shows no signs of slowing down—next year should answer a lot of the questions we have had about the inner workings of SGA and where our SGA fee goes to each semester.

Remember last year, when SGA tried to subtly threaten Horizons newspaper out of its funding when the newspaper published a critique of SGA and its operations? Those days are hopefully a thing of the past.

Remember how a large portion of clubs would walk away from the SGA budget meetings with downtrodden faces as they were burdened with the responsibility of telling their club that, no, they won’t be going to a national conference after all? Those days are hopefully a thing of the past.

Make no mistake—I’ll be as critical of SGA as I’ve ever been, and perhaps even more so. I’m just now much more optimistic for the future of our campus and the organizations who call Embry-Riddle home.

Final Approach Opinions Opinions

R-E-S-P-E-C-T in the Library

By: Duran Delgadillo

Special to Horizons

Since the library moved to its current building in March 2008, the staff have worked hard to make sure it remains an open collaboration area where students can relax and grab coffee, talk as a group about an upcoming project and collaborate on current projects while simultaneously making sure the library functions as any other regular library.

Students can check out books, DVDs, and most importantly, study in quiet areas. If you’re like me, you’ve probably noticed a sharp decline in the respect that students have for their fellow students, as well as a sharp increase in the overall noise in the library.

I know that two other staff members have: Sarah Thomas, our Library Director who has been with with the library for 36 years and Laura Pope Robbins, our Associate Director for Access Services, who just joined us last fall.

After interviewing Sarah, it became apparent that her main concern was the students and how she can best tailor the library to fit the needs of all students.

When the new library opened in 2008, she personally ensured and fought to make sure it became a learning center where students can do homework, study, eat, and collaborate, instead of the traditional library which barely lets you whisper and allows for no drinking, eating, or collaboration.

While she got a lot of push back from the faculty, she pressed forward because a learning center was what the students wanted and needed. Another thing that was instituted at the request of the students were the “Quiet Zones” that you now see in the library.

The Quiet Zones are located downstairs in the book stacks, the Worthington Reading Room, and in Room 123 (when a class is not in session).

Upstairs the Quiet Zones are located in the Testing Center and along the south wall by the Kalusa Collection.

While the Quiet Zones have worked out great, they are beginning to be ignored which is angering many students. The library’s intent is to be an open place where collaboration, studying, and fun can meet, but we ask that you keep your fellow students and their needs in mind.

You or your group are not the only ones using the library. Even if students that are being bothered say something to the loud group, the loud group often ignores their concerns and become louder only out of spite.

This is no way to treat fellow students, who probably wouldn’t treat you the same way. Laura, one of our newest staff members, believes that those groups and individuals being loud are not self-aware enough and need to be more aware of how they’re acting and how it’s affecting other students.

Be the change in noise you wish to see. If you see someone or some group being loud, approach them and ask them kindly to keep it down.

We understand for some people this may be difficult, but the library staff will support you if the individual or group continues to be rude.

It may be uncomfortable at first, but you’ll be saving yourself a lot of discomfort when these people are being disruptive, and you’re trying to study for your upcoming test or get some reading done.

If you think you or your group are being disruptive, Laura offers a great tip to find out: “Be aware of where you are in the library and look up from your group every once in a while.

If you see people staring at you or giving you dirty looks, you’re probably being too loud.” Remember, if you think you might be loud or need to have a group meeting, reserve any one of our upstairs study rooms through the Hazy Library website.

The library has placed placards on tables and computers reminding students about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. As students, we pay a lot to be at the school, some may even say we pay too much.

Whatever the case may be, it is important to make sure every student gets their tuition’s worth by respecting the noise levels in the library and allowing them to study without being constantly disrupted.

While we encourage study breaks, please go outside or to the student union if you think you might get loud and disruptive during your study break.

Sometimes you do just need to let loose and get it out and we invite it, but not in the library at the expense of those working hard to study and getting assignments done.

Final Approach Opinions Opinions

The Failures of Colleges

By: Ian Brubaker

HORIZONS

Students’ minds should be nourished to think rationally during their matriculation in university but instead these institutions promote a modern philosophy that rejects a reality and promotes collective, ambiguous thought.

They are instead told that they can’t really know anything for sure (except death and taxes), that ideas are not true because of how we understand reality, but because a large enough group thinks it is true, and that if you fail your duty to society, then you fail as a member of society.

By this, they are being told to subscribe to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant: the same philosophy that allowed the rise of the Nazi Party. The situation we face is alarming and the destructive ideology of Kant has infiltrated our culture in our very roots: the universities.

Kant professed that the group, the collection of individuals in the essence of a collective mind, is the only means of knowledge and the only justification for existence.

Therefore, he demanded that what was right is only that which is completely separated from the self. Kant went so far as to demand that selfless duty be the moral standard.

Selfless duty is to be at no gain to the person acting to fulfill his duty. He must have no interest or influence in why he is doing it and must do it without cause for the action to be moral.

The parallels of this idea in politics is Marxism. The most evil political party to adopt this ideology was the Nazi Party. The only thing that was modified was that the state was now the group and the class struggle of Marxism was replaced by a racial struggle.

If you have ever listened to Hitler’s speeches, they all preach what Kant did: sacrifice everything, without individual consideration, but only for the collective, and the collective is the only true moral that guides the nation.

This is the most extreme implementation of a Kantian philosophy in our history, with Soviet Russia not far behind. Although the Nazi Party has long since vanished, the fundamental principles of Kant remain.

One need not look further than your mainstream newspaper, your nightly newscast, or even the humanities class you may be taking right now. Sadly, colleges are still the foreground of such a destructive philosophy.

Kant is (and perhaps has been and will continue to be) required reading for some of the values and ethics classes taught right here at Embry-Riddle.

It is not only required to read parts of his books, but to understand his ideas and take them as truth, with the only justification being “but you can’t really know for sure”.

The ideas of Kant and the sense of sacrificial duty plague much of the humanities that are taught not only in this college, but of those across the world.

The result is what is seen in the world today: destruction, pragmatism (in every branch of philosophy), and the massive need to escape from reality with drugs or suicide because in a Kantian society “the hallmark of the moral man is to suffer” (The Ominous Parallels, 82).

None are more to blame than the universities themselves, because the newscaster, the politician, the philosopher, the journalist, and the professors themselves have all been taught by the universities.

Final Approach Opinions Opinions