Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Innovating our way forward

Innovating our way forward
Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Each day, I’m reminded that, while I expect most systems to work seamlessly, they are no longer one-hundred percent reliable. When my internet goes down or my phone locks, I’m annoyed by the inconvenience. I feel anxious because words are weaponized; changing meanings almost overnight. Or how some words may have different meanings depending on the culture. I need to be better at acknowledging gender pronouns so I don’t accidentally cause offense. Through this change, I drift into nostalgia, remembering a past that wasn’t so personally hard to navigate or filled with seeming landmines. And I have compassion for those who have always been challenged to “code switch” for my comfort. I’m getting a small taste of what others have lived through.


While this time feels like a breaking down of the old, no-longer-effective systems, it also offers the potential to break through to a new culture that works for us all. We are currently in the uncomfortable place in between. We are seeking an innovative shift in our culture; one that is centered on humanity, and fulfilling the promise of our founding documents – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – for all people.

I have also been pondering the process of innovation and our willingness to let go of nostalgia since seeing a meme that stated:

“No amount of innovation applied to a candle would have produced a light bulb.”

The problem of illumination after the sun goes down has been solved by fire-based solutions for millennia. Yet, I would never trade the ease of flipping a light switch to go back to candles and lanterns. My nostalgia for candlelit dinners doesn’t mean I want to return to olden times.

Similarly, I wonder why are we holding onto our nostalgia for a more white/cis-centric society, that obviously doesn’t work for everyone? Is it the fear of the unknown? Is it an underlying racial bias? Is it the concern for the loss of power? Because it’s more comfortable for some of us? Better that we innovate a new society that works for all.

When inventing new illumination methods, scientists began by conducting experiments. Through this process, they learned what worked or didn’t work. There were gas-lighting (too fire-prone), electric arc lighting (too bright) and 23 other incandescent bulbs produced (too expensive) before Edison’s incandescent bulb. The effort, once begun, took more than 50 years to innovate a marketable solution and another 40 years for the infrastructure to be built that still supports the lightswitch flipping we take for granted today. And thus as technology evolves and takes time we must evolve and take the time to adapt and understand. Patience is obviously needed.

The inventors started with a human need for illumination after dark.

Using the aforementioned thought pattern as a guide, what is the human need within our communities today? Or in our nation? Having the right problem identified will allow us to experiment and iterate effectively, innovating as we go. Here are some quick ideas of what we need:

  • Opportunities for individuals to thrive.
  • Education about the opportunities available.
  • Responsibility by individuals to give back to the community.
  • Leaders who are responsive to their constituents.

What would you add?

Individually, we need to create conditions in which people can:

  • Feel and be safe.
  • Be able to provide for themselves and their families.
  • Feel a sense of belonging.
  • Contribute to something bigger than themselves.

You’ll notice that in addition to the material needs of food and shelter (providing for ourselves and family), most human needs are about a sense of security and belonging, which allows them to contribute back to the overall community. Our current systems do not provide for these immaterial needs, hence our society breaks down. Innovative solutions must and will address these human needs.

So much of our media and entertainment is focused on surviving a coming apocalypse. And in a sense, they are right that a way of life is ending. We have come to the end of an era; which is inevitably followed by a new era, necessitating we create the foundation for our next era interpersonally.

Let’s identify the unmet human needs and begin innovating to meet those needs. Perhaps then we will have a positive peace, based in liberty and justice for all.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less