Grassroots environmental movement crucial under Trump

A large display created by the Geneseo Environmental Organization recently appeared in the lobby of the MacVittie College Union. The display consists of two stacks of garbage cans—one representing the waste produced by the average American who doesn’t recycle or compost, while the other signifies the waste produced by someone who does recycle and compost.

The difference is stark. A person who does not recycle or compost on average produces 384 gallons of waste annually. Americans who do compost and recycle reduce their waste output to 128 gallons—two-thirds less than if they did not. 

This display is appreciated and valued, because as college students we should be aware of how much waste we produce on our campus.

The colossal amount of waste that Americans produce every year is simply unacceptable. We are easily the most wasteful country in the world. 

This is an avoidable waste of reusable resources, such as plastics, metals and paper, and a disaster for both aquatic and terrestrial life who must live with our often-dangerous refuse. 

Although climate change has largely become the focal point of environmental activism, waste reduction is critical to maintaining healthy ecosystems and to creating a more sustainable world. 

Additionally, you can reduce the amount of waste you produce dramatically without having to do much work. Buying reusable mugs and shopping bags, recycling the paper and plastics you use and not buying frivolous, wasteful things all help to reduce unnecessary waste. 

Constantly, I walk around campus and see plastic bottles in trash bins right next to recycling bins, or dozens of paper coffee cups stacked up in a trash bin. It is incredibly frustrating to see people not take even the most minor steps to improve sustainability on campus. 

Young people need to be the ones leading on these issues and it is not overly demanding to ask that people take these basic steps to reduce their environmental impact.

We now face a presidential administration that is actively hostile to environmental regulations, climate science and all logic and reason. Recently, President Donald Trump and the unqualified Oklahoma lawyer appointed to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, announced their plans to roll back as much of the Obama era climate policy as legally possible. 

With the federal government now abandoning the global effort to prevent environmental disaster, it’s up to our generation to prevent and eventually to correct the disastrous decisions currently being made by the Trump administration.

If you feel strongly about these issues, I recommend getting involved on campus, where there are several organizations actively working on these issues. For example, there is GEO, which works to promote sustainable practices on campus and to raise awareness for environmental issues. 

Additionally, FORCES is another great organization that takes weekly trips to Letchworth State Park and other sites to do invasive species monitoring, cleanups or just recreational hikes. 

There is also a new organization on campus called the Climate Reality Project, which is associated with a national organization of the same name. The group’s goal is to pressure colleges across the country to commit to using 100 percent renewable energy to power their schools. 

These organizations are excellent ways to get involved and make a difference on campus—but there are many ways that everyone can lend a hand. 

Every bit of help counts, especially during these times of such grotesque environmental policy from the current administration.

Government checks and balances useless against executive orders

View fullsize

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks during a press conference in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday Jan. 31. President Donald Trump’s recent use of executive orders threatens the checks and balances system necessary for the United States government, which needs to be improved. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

America’s founding fathers intentionally designed the position of president to be weak and dependent on the approval of the United States Congress. The executive branch was given considerable control over military and foreign matters, yet domestically the president could not pass laws or make any drastic changes to policy without administrative consent.

Over time, the president has gained considerable power—mostly obtained during times of emergency. From Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln and even to Barack Obama, the presidency has gained extended ability to accomplish more than what was originally intended.

The American government carries on with the hopes and expectations that the American people will always elect a president who is responsible enough to handle the immense power of the presidency. 

The American people elected a president with no prior government or political experience, a fickle and immature temperament and little respect for our country’s history or norms of governance in November. Coinciding with President Donald Trump’s rise to power is the increase in party polarization and in subsequent ineffectiveness of Congress. 

Additionally, the power of executive orders has been expanded by recent presidents, as the Bush administration created secret surveillance programs and the Obama administration worked around a gridlocked Congress. Trump is now using the broad power of executive actions to quickly push through his agenda without addressing the checks and balances function of American government. 

This is no way to govern, and Trump is fulfilling the promises he made throughout his campaign. In his dark, fiery Republican National Convention speech, he infamously laid out his nightmarish view of America and proclaimed that, “I alone can fix it.” 

This is classic strongman demagoguery that has clear parallels in other presidential systems corrupted by dictatorial figures. We are now faced with a reckless president with immense power and a feckless Congress unable or unwilling to stop him.

Where Trump’s presidency will lead, I don’t have the faintest idea, but by the time it is over, there must be a significant reduction in the power of the president. Regardless of political party or ideological leaning, the idea of investing this much power in one person can lead to disaster. 

A crucial issue is how the president has almost unilateral control over the nuclear arsenal. This may sound alarmist, but if we imagine Trump during an event akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis, can we be confident that it will be addressed rationally and safely?

One of the main obstacles in reducing the power of the president is the American people’s fascination with the presidency. Often we tend to be attached to iconic figures in politics who we believe can fix all our country’s problems. At the same time, we’re wholly disinterested in local and state politics that likely have larger impacts on our lives directly.

If we’re serious about fixing the problems in our country—and about diffusing the great tension between opposing political groups—we must believe in and rely on ourselves, not just one politician.

Entertaining Trump’s propaganda gives him undeserved legitimacy

In response to critics, many supporters of President Donald Trump justify his exaggerations and blatant lies by stressing that Trump should be taken seriously—but not literally. 

The argument claims that Trump is a loose cannon and that his off-the-cuff remarks should not always be taken as his literal stance on an issue. Instead, focus should be concentrated on the sentiment of his remarks.

This, in many ways, is an absurd argument. The president of the United States should be held accountable to what he says regardless of his tendency to be characterized as a “loose cannon.” 

Those are rules for a normal presidency, however, and Trump is not a normal president. Trump is a known pathological liar and media manipulator who purposely gives misleading information to distract his opponents.

This being the case, taking Trump at face value only helps him to manipulate the public. This is a man who can—and repeatedly has—dominated the news cycle with a single tweet. 

When Trump’s words are taken at face value, his words are given value—value that they often don’t deserve. That does not mean that Trump’s statements or tweets should be ignored, though; rather, they should be viewed in the context of a man who can expertly misguide the media and deceive the public.

It is in this way that we should take him seriously and not literally. For example, in a December 2016 tweet Trump said, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” 

This prompted a major outrage over the thought of nuclear weapon expansion in both the media and public opinion. It was an understandable outrage—but one that allowed Trump to avoid more publicity over his conflicts of interest or his controversial cabinet nominations.

Even if one assumes that Trump has no intention of misleading the public, he changes his policy positions so frequently that it is unrealistic to take anything he says as his word. He has shifted positions on abortion, taxes and healthcare policy—just to name a few.

To take Trump seriously is to assume that he has legitimate causes to say and do everything he does. In other words, he’s unintelligent, but he’s not dumb. Every tweet and every statement has its purpose, whether you agree with it or not. To take him literally gives credibility to his constant falsehoods and lies. 

In addition, this is not just a Trump phenomenon; his advisers and press team have followed his lead. 

Trump’s former campaign manager and counselor to the president, Kellyanne Conway consistently gives misleading answers and evades tough questions on many television programs on which she appears. Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer recently claimed that Trump’s inauguration speech was the most attended and highest watched in history—which is an obvious and clumsy lie.

The media are finally starting to catch on, as they are now covering Trump and his administration’s statements with more carefully worded titles. Instead of simply repeating what Trump said and using it as a headline, some news organizations—such as The New York Times—are fact-checking Trump’s words directly in headlines.

Under this new administration, it is necessary to craft new strategies to make these lies clear to the public. It appears, unfortunately, that we are heading into a period in which each side of the electorate operates on their own set of facts—making it unclear as to how this problem of dishonesty from the president can be alleviated.

This article is part of the Face Off series. To read the responding article, click here.

Social media activism ineffective without physical, inspired effort

With the election of President-elect Donald Trump, the ongoing conflict over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the plethora of other social issues occurring, many young people are feeling frustrated about how to create change in this country. Social media posts and online petitions are some of the most prevalent ways our generation is trying to make our voices heard, and while these methods can be useful, they are mostly ineffective at bringing about real change. Social media is a great platform for spreading awareness, but awareness alone will rarely ever solve a problem. Crucial issues require a lot more time and effort to make change happen. The problem with social media activism is that it often makes people feel as if they’ve done something substantial to help, when in reality they’ve done very little.

Most politicians do not pay much attention to social media protests. Signing an online petition may feel a little more significant for making your voice heard, but this does very little to actually persuade anyone in power.

Politicians pay attention when a large group of people sacrifices their time, energy and money for an issue. Pro-gun lobbyists—led by the National Rifle Association—have successfully lobbied for pro-gun legislation for decades. They may not reflect the majority of Americans who favor stricter gun laws, but they are a fiercely politically active and well-funded group––and therefore, an influential one.

That is the level of organization and commitment that is required to make major changes in the government. Ultimately, our government is biased toward the status quo; unless they are pushed into doing something, they’re unlikely to do it.

Many young people today are highly aware of social and political issues plaguing society, but have a hard time getting their voices heard in government. One of the reasons for this is that American citizens aged 18-34 vote at much lower rates than other age groups, with Americans aged 65 and older voting at higher rates than all other age groups, according to the United States Census Bureau.

Voting is a civic duty and privilege that contributes to a well-functioning democracy—yet, many of us fail to do this simple task. More than half of the 112 anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland failed to vote or to even register to vote, according to USA Today. Politicians must ultimately answer to their voters; if they feel that a specific group mostly isn’t going to vote, then they don’t have to answer to the group’s wishes.

Voting is just one component of enacting social change. Historically, large-scale change has come from grassroots movements of people and not from the government. These movements require a clear purpose, organizational strength and strong political involvement.

It’s critical that our generation focuses less on social media and more on active involvement for the issues they care about. This involves calling your representatives at the state and federal level and getting more involved in local politics. Furthermore, volunteering for organizations that fight for issues is also another way to actively fight for change.

It may be easy to feel as if your singular act of volunteering, donating or calling a representative may not matter, but that mentality is what keeps real progress from occurring. If everyone who wants to bring about change puts in time and effort that can’t be done on a computer, nationwide change can occur.

Greek Tree vandalism violates freedom of speech

T he Geneseo College Republicans recently painted the Greek Tree in Sturges Quad, a famed Geneseo tradition often used to advertise campus organizations.

They painted the letters “GOP” and a checked box next to former Republican presidential candidate John Kasich’s name, signaling their dissatisfaction with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as the head of their party’s ticket.

The paint had barely dried, however, before someone subsequently spray painted over the tree the next night—not to advertise their organization, but instead to simply tarnish the former group’s work. The tree was covered in black spray paint and some crudely drawn faces. Not only is this immature behavior, but it is also damaging to our campus environment—an environment that should be promoting freedom of speech and thought.

I am not a Republican, but I am horrified and dismayed at the candidacy of Trump and the Republican Party’s complacency in letting him take control of their party. The GCR, however, have not endorsed Trump and are equally as appalled at his candidacy, as they expressed in their Thursday Nov. 3 Lamron article “Clinton, Trump both unworthy candidates for endorsement.”

Free speech is a right that must be protected, whether or not someone disagrees with it. The GCR are an on-campus organization that has a right to advertise their organization on the Greek Tree.

Some may argue that the Greek Tree should only be painted by Greek Life organizations, or that the tree should be apolitical—but that’s an irrelevant argument.

It’s critical for our generation to accept the fact that people who disagree with each other have a right to voice their opposing opinions without being attacked. There’s a tendency among many young liberals to shame and attack someone for having a dissenting opinion instead of simply having open conversation about differences.

American colleges have long been a place of free thought and new ideas, and a place where young people debate on what path our country and society should take. While great ideas still permeate our college campuses, free and open debate seem to have stalled. Those with unpopular opinions are often afraid of being shamed for their beliefs and decide not to speak out on what they believe in.

We are not going to progress as a country if we decide that only certain beliefs are valid, or that only some ideas are worth hearing. There are, of course, legitimate examples of hateful, discriminatory speech that has no place on our campus, but common free and open discussion should be encouraged.

Personally, I like a lot of things about our campus culture and much of the things we’ve done to foster an inclusive community here at Geneseo. But we still need to offer that same inclusivity to people with whom we disagree. It’s not productive to publicly shame someone for a difference in opinion or a lack of understanding of a new cultural concept.

We should all make an honest attempt to understand the point of view of people who disagree with us instead of shutting them out of the discussion. Tearing down someone else’s right to freely express their beliefs is not a statement or an expression of an argument.

This behavior is cowardly and has no place on our campus.

Partisan rivalries block crucial policy decisions

Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is still leading in most national polls, prompting Republican politicians to brace for another four years of opposition party control of the White House. Rather than crafting new policy proposals to appeal to more voters—or to create more effective ways of compromising with the other side—Republican leaders appear ready to continue with more of the same inaction that has characterized our government for the past several years.

Many Republicans in the United States Senate and House of Representatives have signaled—or outright declared—that they are prepared to hunker down and prevent Clinton from accomplishing anything in her time in office if she is elected. This is essentially a continuation of the current Republican strategy of attempting to undermine President Barack Obama and any major piece of legislation he advocates. The level of partisan backlash a Clinton administration may experience, however, could be unprecedented in nature.

The last six years of Obama’s presidency were filled with partisan gridlock and turmoil. Aside from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s highly criticized filibusters, the government maintained its functionality. That may not be the case in a Clinton administration.

One of the most important constitutional responsibilities of a president is to appoint new Supreme Court judges. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February, the role has been left unfilled as Senate Republicans have refused to even consider Obama’s moderate nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

The highest court in America has been hindered by an even number of justices for eight months due to the Republican claim that a Supreme Court position should not be filled in the last year of a president’s term. This unprecedented inaction by the Senate may go on even longer under a Clinton administration.

When Arizona Sen. John McCain was asked about the prospect of a Clinton Supreme Court nominee, he responded, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” according to The Washington Post. McCain’s office later retracted this statement, but McCain’s words are a frightening example of how party loyalty has overshadowed democratic duty.

In the House of Representatives—where Republicans are likely to keep a majority—more gridlock and partisan chaos seem likely to develop. Utah Congressman and head of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz said he is willing to use his powerful position to investigate Clinton’s past for years to come.

This level of partisan backlash is unsustainable if we wish to maintain a functioning system of government. Disagreements on issues of policy are natural in a democracy, but what the Republican Party has done—and is preparing to do—goes well beyond policy disagreements. Their actions, whether they realize it or not, are hurting the nation as a whole. It took Congress seven months just to approve funding to fight Zika virus because of Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.

I do not want to suggest that Republicans are the sole reason for these partisan divides, as politicians from across the board often put party interests over the good of the country. Nonetheless, it is incredibly disturbing to witness nearly an entire political party deliberately hindering the government's ability to function just to damage the opposing party.

If this partisan divide is not healed, we may be heading toward a constitutional crisis.

Sugar industry’s paid scientific studies cover up health risks

A s Halloween approaches, children across America prepare to eat a ridiculous amount of candy.

The average American consumes approximately 150-170 pounds of refined sugars each year, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. America’s obsession with sugar is more than just a fad—it is one of the leading causes of our current public health crisis surrounding obesity and heart disease. It is corrupt and immoral that major corporations have manipulated science in the name of preserving their dangerously unhealthy products.

Many studies have shown a direct link between sugar consumption and rates of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. This was an obvious conclusion to most in the scientific community for decades, but—through the wealth and influence of the sugar industry—their work was denigrated and ignored. Today, large soft-drink companies and sugar industry giants continue to fund pro-sugar research to minimize sugar’s deadly effects in an abhorrent attempt to mislead the public and protect their own greed.

When researchers were trying to determine the cause of America's skyrocketing rates of coronary heart disease in the 1960s, they focused on fats and sugars. Many scientists and health experts pointed to an increase in sugar consumption as a likely cause of the increase in health diseases. At the same time, other scientists—such as Dr. Mark Hegsted—focused on fats and saturated fats as the primary threat to Americans’ health.

Hegsted and two other Harvard University scientists were paid about $50,000 by today’s financial equivalent by the Sugar Research Foundation trade group for a study that downplayed the health risks of sugar, according to The New York Times.

The sugar industry has been muddying the scientific waters on this issue for decades. Millions of dollars have been spent to fund studies that minimize the health risks of sugar consumption, a practice that continues today. Many more millions are then spent on public relations campaigns championing this research and lobbying the government to be certain that sugar has a good reputation on the USDA dietary guidelines.

The New York Times reported in 2015 that the Coca-Cola Corporation has been funding campaigns that claim—falsely—that the key to losing weight is exercise, not a healthy diet. The Associated Press also found that an association representing top candy manufacturers largely funded a study that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less.

This ethically perverse method of promoting sugar-friendly science—while refusing to accept the obvious harms of sugar—has successfully delayed action on these pressing health crises for decades. While the scientific community and the public are finally starting to rally around the obvious conclusion that the amount of sugar we eat is literally killing us, the sugar industry has not let up in its propaganda campaign.

So, this Halloween, indulge yourself a little, but think first before you go to buy a soda or candy bar from the vending machine. Not only is it terrible for your health, but also you will likely be funding a corporation who actively promotes faulty science to mislead the public on the dangers of its own product.

International legislation needed for addressing climate change

After months of deliberation, representatives from over 170 nations reached an agreement on Saturday Oct. 15 to phase out the use of the potent greenhouse gas hydrofluorocarbon as a coolant in appliances and machinery. This agreement should be seen as the gold standard of environmental legislation, as opposed to the Paris Climate Agreement that failed to significantly address taking real action against climate change.

According to The New York Times, HFCs are chemicals used as coolants in many air-conditioners and refrigerators. Once thought to be safe, scientific studies now show that they are a greenhouse gas 1,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Scientists warn that these long-lasting atmospheric chemicals could result in the Earth’s warming by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. That may not seem like much, but it makes a huge difference to our fragile global ecosystem.

World leaders have finally heeded scientists’ warnings and agreed to mandate the United States and other wealthy nations to cease production of HFCs by 2018, and nations in warmer climates such as India and Pakistan to cease production by 2028. Overall, the agreement is a robust, ambitious and—most importantly—legally binding plan to tackle a major cause of global warming. This is the kind of forceful, decisive action needed to take place to prevent global warming disasters.

This policy is in stark contrast to the supposedly monumental 2015 Paris Agreement, which set forth recommendations for countries around the world to reduce their carbon emissions in the coming decades.

The agreement set up a plan for each nation to reduce their carbon output, while recognizing that poorer nations would have a slower transition to more expensive renewable energies. It’s a great plan in theory, but it is not enforceable—nor does it propose a bold enough solution fit for the immensity of the environmental problems we face.

The Paris Agreement was an important first step for getting the world on the same page when it comes to climate change, but it did little to solve any real problems. With no incentives for nations to transition to a renewable energy economy—compared to massive economic incentives for using inexpensive fossil fuels—there is little possibility that the world will move to a green economy without explicit legislation.

We need leaders to bring forth serious, binding agreements similar to the HFC policy to stop the planet from reaching a dangerously warm temperature. It’s undoubtedly going to be difficult and expensive to move away from fossil fuels, but the cost of global warming is far greater when one considers coastal property loss due to flooding, crop failures due to droughts and a host of other environmental consequences. Of course, those economic losses pale in comparison to the level of human suffering climate change could create.

Most of the world now recognizes the serious threat climate change poses to humanity but are hesitant to act firmly to stop it. Dire consequences are at stake for a planet already on the brink of a major ecological collapse. World leaders took an important step in phasing out HFCs, and now we must demand them to take similar action to phase out fossil fuels for good.

Johnson unsatisfactory alternative for liberal voters

In the midst of an election featuring two of, arguably, the most disliked presidential candidates in recent history, many voters are turning to libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. While I am sympathetic to many of Johnson’s policy positions, I believe his radical positions on deregulation and his lack of foreign policy knowledge make him an unfit candidate for president. Johnson—a two-term former governor of New Mexico—is in his second bout for the presidency after gaining nearly 1 percent of the popular vote in 2012. He has gained a much larger following in 2016, now consistently polled at 6-10 percent. His voting base appears to be largely made up of moderate republicans and liberal democrats who are dissatisfied with their respective party’s candidates. Johnson supporters also admire his hands-off approach to government and his belief that the government causes more problems than it fixes.

Young, liberal voters are perhaps most intrigued by Johnson, as he believes in many liberal policies, such as ending mass incarceration and defending a woman’s right to have an abortion. Beyond a few positions, however, I don’t see the broad appeal for Johnson.

His hands-off approach to government also includes abolishing the minimum wage, opposing any gun control legislation and continuing to allow corporations and political action committees to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. In regard to the environment, Johnson opposes any government action on climate change; his party’s platform states, “Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.”

Johnson’s small government approach may be attractive on some issues, but his desire to deregulate the economy and environmental regulation would be a disaster. He would happily abolish the Internal Revenue Service and other regulatory agencies—the last safeguards against corruption and monopolization in the economy. The Johnson administration’s economy would find corruption, greed and pollution running rampant.

He also seems to be lacking in foreign policy experience or knowledge. Aside from his multiple on-air television gaffes, Johnson appears to misunderstand the role of America in the world. He argues that the United States military is too interventionist and that our role in global affairs should be diminished. This is an important conversation to be had, but he goes too far when he suggests that America should not intervene when preventable atrocities are being committed in a foreign land.

It’s also worth noting that Johnson is in fact a serious moderate in the libertarian party. Their party platform calls for not only the abolishment of the IRS, but also “all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.” Those programs include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps.

Johnson is not as extreme as some members of his own party, but he is certainly not the candidate that we need to move our country forward. Johnson supporters should not be misled to believe that he is a typical moderate or a champion of liberal policies.

Surge in biased media threatens public knowledge

The media sources we use to observe the news are inevitably going to have some effect on how we interpret the world around us. The news programs we watch, newspapers we read and social media accounts we follow can all impact our opinions on current events.

Americans today get their news from a multitude of sources across an entire spectrum of political views and ideologies. The increase in available news platforms and diversity of opinions in the news may seem beneficial to our society and our politics, but it is actually dividing the nation. We naturally search for others who share our views of the world in order to gain affirmation and validation of those beliefs. In effect, this creates a human echo chamber full of people with similar beliefs, thus confirming our own opinions.

This is a dangerous phenomenon that leads people to become out of touch with reality and each other. Our nation has undoubtedly become more polarized on issues of politics, society and even race relations.

We cannot seem to find common ground on nearly anything—and the United States Congress is stuck in its worst gridlock in generations. It seems that the public and our leaders in government have become entrenched in their own ideological bubbles, seemingly incapable of working with others.

Our national news organizations have fed into this disturbing trend. For example, Fox News is an organization that arguably twists the news for a biased conservative audience. According to the Pew Research Center, 47 percent of self-identified conservatives identify Fox News as their primary news source.

Regardless of one’s opinion on the integrity of Fox, that’s a huge number of people tuning in to a singular channel to get their understanding of current events. This can lead to a mob mentality in which people simply go along with whatever their peers or trusted news personalities believe.

This phenomenon is not limited to just Fox or conservative populations. College campuses today are often overwhelmingly liberal and out of touch with much of our society in many ways. Liberal populations also need to recognize the biases they have and make honest attempts to understand people with whom they disagree.

In a fierce, seemingly never-ending election season, America’s divisions have never felt so intense and distinctly present. Our disagreements on politics and societal issues have become filled with vitriol and a lack of empathy for others’ opinions.

These are natural trends that form over time, but our politicians and news media have been incredibly irresponsible in their encouragement of this divide. These societal rifts produce strong emotional responses from people—perfect for click-bait headlines looking to rile up supporters.

In an age of a polarized media landscape, we can’t fall for these deceitful tactics. It’s crucial for our country that we all get out of our personal echo chambers and make an honest effort to understand each other’s point of view.

WikiLeaks threatens legitimacy of U.S. election, breaches security

The United States presidential race has tightened up once again, and it will likely stay a close race until the end. The candidates’ performance in the last few weeks of the campaign will be crucial to their success—but there is one man who may have the power to decide the whole thing for himself. Julian Assange—who is currently pent up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London avoiding criminal charges of sexual assault and rape in Sweden—is the notorious hacker and founder of the media organization WikiLeaks. Founded in 2006, WikiLeaks has since revealed massive amounts of government documents and secrets never intended for public knowledge. The organization infamously released information about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and thousands of documents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most recently, the organization released thousands of emails from employees of the Democratic National Committee. These emails contained evidence of collusion with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Assange claims that WikiLeaks contains even more damning emails about the Clinton campaign, something that could potentially change the course of the entire election.

This release of private information is harmful to our political society. Regardless of political affiliation, a foreign hacking organization meddling in a U.S. presidential election is a disturbing occurrence. Combine that with recent rumors that Russian hackers—possibly working for the Russian government—were behind the hacking of DNC servers and the plausibility of a tampered election becomes even more frightening.

WikiLeaks and other similar organizations do serve an important role by providing certain checks on the power of governments and corporations that often hide information from the public. In a hyper-connected world, governments have the power to monitor anyone and hide almost anything from the public’s eye. There must be major government oversight to ensure that important information is not withheld. As our government fails to conduct this rigorous oversight upon itself, WikiLeaks and other organizations help inform the public.

This oversight, however, comes at a cost. WikiLeaks is far from a perfect organization. Time after time, they release highly sensitive documents that put national security at risk with no apparent benefit to the public.

Edward Snowden—the infamous National Security Agency whistleblower currently in exile in Moscow—tweeted in July, “Democratizing information has never been more vital, and WikiLeaks has helped. But the hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.” Mass releases of information to the public with little attention paid to legitimate privacy and security concerns is a dangerous, misguided way of informing the public.

WikiLeaks seems to be causing more harm than good with its intervention in the U.S. presidential election. While organizations like it are important when exposing cases of corruption and cover-ups, they have become reckless and politically motivated in their dissemination of this information. It’s imperative that we condemn these actions from WikiLeaks in its attempts to undermine the American political system.u

Supreme Court decision supports voter suppression

Former United States President Lyndon B. Johnson signed one of the most ground breaking pieces of legislation into law on Aug. 6, 1965: The Voting Rights Act of 1965. It outlawed racial discrimination at the polls, which had effectively prevented African Americans from voting in a number of southern states. The law had a significant impact—after just three years, more than half of African Americans under its jurisdiction were registered to vote. American democracy seemed to be starting to reach its full potential. The Supreme Court, however, surprisingly struck down a key VRA provision in 2013, which prevented states with a history of racial discrimination to enact voting laws without federal approval. Chief Justice John Roberts—writing for the majority opinion—defended the decision and stated, “The conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.” He argues that because the VRA has been so successful, it no longer requires the strict enforcement it once received. This argument, however, seems self-defeating in nature.

The fact that a law has worked well for several decades should be evidence as to why it should remain intact. The VRA is a vital tool used to stamp out racial discrimination at the ballot box––this decision dangerously weakens that tool. In the wake of the court’s decision, state after state has passed new voting laws that make it increasingly difficult for people to vote.

A recent example comes from North Carolina, where in 2013 the state passed a new voter identification law that requires all voters to present some form of ID. The law also shortened early voting, ended same-day registration and eliminated a program that allowed high school students to register to vote before their 18th birthday. Republican lawmakers justified the law as a common-sense measure to prevent voter fraud in the state.

According to The New York Times, the U.S. Department of Justice found that Republican lawmakers in the state were intentionally trying to restrict African Americans’ ability to vote by using data on voting methods by race. While this legislation is most likely motivated by politics rather than racism, it is no less abhorrent and no less of a blatant offense to democracy.

It is time to stop playing politics with people’s ability to vote. Free and easy access to voting is essential to our democracy—it ensures that everyone’s voice can be heard. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to weaken the VRA, this essential freedom faces even more threats than before. It is critical that we see these new voting laws for what they really are—intentional discrimination—and pressure our politicians to end these cynical attempts to disenfranchise millions of people.u

Effects of global warming overlooked by media

We’ve seen many critical conversations ignored and underappreciated by the media and collective public during this election year. One of these discussions––one of the most important—is the impending catastrophe of man-made global warming. Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced in August that July 2016 was the hottest month ever recorded since 1880 when data collection first began. Combined with lingering El Niño conditions, the steady increase of global temperatures produced the hottest month ever. This startling fact, however, received minimal media coverage or public acknowledgment.

Our society has reached a point where news about climate change is no longer shocking. Although July 2016 is now the warmest month on record, we also received the same news in July 2015 and July 2011—July 2016 was the 15th consecutive month of record-breaking monthly temperatures. Climate change has lost all of its shock value; it has become mundane.

The planet is heating up quickly and we are simply not as terrified as we need to be. Our planet is getting closer and closer to hitting the so-called “tipping point” from the enormous amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. In essence, with the constant heating of the environment, we are on track to start a feedback loop, causing more warming and leading to a catastrophically hotter planet.

According to the International Energy Agency, the worst-case scenario predicts an approximate 11 degree Fahrenheit increase in warmth by 2100. The best-case scenario predicts an approximate 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase that would cause Long Island, New York to completely flood over—possibly before the turn of the next century. The devastating effects of climate change will be felt across the globe, disproportionately affecting the world’s poorest.

News outlets today—especially cable news channels or websites—thrive on shock value and anger-inducing stories. This is especially true in a year with a fierce presidential race characterized by insults, drama and immature disagreements. Mainstream news sources have become reckless and irresponsible in their obsession with presidential politics, and climate change is one of many issues that have taken a back seat to election coverage this year.

It’s time for the media to turn away from the relentless political gossip and discuss the issue that could potentially have the largest impact of all: global warming.