Trump flag burning comments show disregard for basic rights

With roughly seven weeks until President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, Americans have seen the appointment of Cabinet members, a campaign-style trail of rallies and several controversial tweets. Trump’s use of social media in suggesting presidential policies, though, is probably not the best way for him to do it, with many Americans expressing outrage over Trump’s Nov. 26 tweet threatening citizenship loss or imprisonment over the burning of the American flag in protest. This move—while carrying no legal weight—is unfounded legally and overtly un-American in value. Indeed, it appears Trump needs a lesson in history and Supreme Court rulings.

While many citizens may not agree with the use of flag burning as protest, that doesn’t remove the legal right to do so. Citizens may feel that destruction of our flag has no purpose under freedom of speech; judicially, however, it is indeed protected.

Outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in protest of President Ronald Reagan’s policies, according to United States Courts. Johnson was immediately arrested and charged with “desecration of a venerated object,” which violated a Texas statute.

Johnson appealed and in the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court had a 5-4 ruling that declared that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment as a form of “symbolic speech.” The justices reasoned that while the protest of flag burning may be offensive to society, it is not society’s outrage alone that is worth suppressing free speech.

Trump tweeted that, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag—if they do, there must be consequences—perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” Unless major political developments occur, the act of flag burning is indeed protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Not only would Trump attempting to jail individuals for burning the flag be unconstitutional, but so would be removing citizenship for the act. The only causes for denaturalization are falsification or concealment of facts during the naturalization process, refusal to testify before Congress, membership in subversive groups and dishonorable discharge from the military, according to FindLaw.

These legal causes for denaturalization apply to an extremely small minority of Americans—and certainly do not apply to those expressing their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. The day when we practice our right to speak freely and are punished for it—especially when our citizenship is on the line—is an incredibly unpatriotic day for America.

Trump’s statement is not just about flag burning—it is about his inability to separate the law from what he wants to do. The policy impulsively suggested by Trump may break strides with his party’s ideals, but it is just another technique of gathering support through “us vs. them” rhetoric.

This blurring of what is actually illegal and what is disliked can be seen with Trump’s senior communication advisor Jason Miller as well, who responded to CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s statement that flag burning is legal by saying, “But Chris, it’s completely ridiculous.”

By simply brewing distrust in the government and the media—and clearly setting a punishment line between those who support him and those who do not—Trump creates a toxic political environment now and for our future.

Trump election empassions European right-wing groups

W hile the 2016 presidential election results have certainly generated mixed emotions, social divisions and protests within the United States, one must not forget to consider the reaction from the international community. Perhaps an even more pressing issue is how our election directly impacts international politics.

Both moderate and extremist right-wing movements have been growing in Europe. Politicians have successfully obtained office through these populist movements, capitalizing on widespread frustration with large immigration increases, increased globalization, economic failures of the European Union and a feeling of disconnect from their government. With the poll-defying successful campaign of President-elect Donald Trump, the right-wing populist movements have surged and rallied in Europe. Trump will now have the chance to validate past efforts of right-wing populism in Europe.

France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen praised Trump and the right-wing movements on Twitter after the U.S. election, tweeting, “A new world is emerging, the global balance of power is being redefined because of Trump’s election.”

Le Pen’s right wing National Front is expected to perform well in the coming 2017 French presidential election. The negative effects of this movement are already present in France. Since the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks, reported hate crimes against Muslims have tripled, according to France’s National Human Rights Commission. In 2015 alone, more than 400 assaults, incidents of harassment and criminal damage against the Islamic community were reported.

The infamous “burkini ban” in 30 French towns—though overturned in the court system—was another form of discrimination faced by the French-Muslim population. When Trump was elected—and if some of his stated measures are performed, such as a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.—our nation was and will be validating not only domestic Islamophobia, but Islamophobia abroad, as well.

Le Pen’s movement in France is paralleled in the Netherlands through the Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders, who tweeted on Nov. 9, “We will make the Netherlands great again. I will give the Netherlands back to the Dutch.” This ideal was legally solidified in neighboring Denmark after their government passed a bill in Jan. 2016, which stated any capital exceeding $1,450 would be seized from refugees. If we try to identify the source of this legislation, we find again a right-wing populist party: the Danish People’s Party.

A third example can be found in England. Metropolitan Police statistics reported a 70 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims in London in 2015. Moreover, from 2010-2014, the number of Muslims who claimed British government policies discriminated against them rose from 34 percent to 59 percent, according to the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Specifically in Europe, many anti-immigration sentiments are present within these groups. Of course, “Brexit” comes to mind when one thinks of European right-wing politics––many have even likened the event to the American election.

Often, political leaders who head these groups support the statements, “Britain for Brits or France for the French.” In addition, Muslim refugees are often targeted in policies that state people cannot display obvious religious symbols.

While all the stated effects of governments under right-wing control are somewhat hypothetical, it is important to note the existence of growing anti-Islam rhetoric, anti-globalization practices and successful office-grabbing taking place.

Though the election results have certainly caused social and political strife here in the U.S., it is of great importance that we remember that we are being watched. Our allies are working with paralleled right-wing movements and they, too, will observe how the Trump administration behaves. The ways in which we accept or deny developments in our country certainly have an impact on counterparts in Europe.

Congressional elections crucial for future of marijuana policies

Congressional elections are arguably more important than the presidential election this year. With a total of 469 seats in the United States Congress available to change party power, it marks an incredibly powerful political moment. This election could mean a retaking of Congress for the Democratic party or it could continue to hold with a Republican majority. Despite the intense focus on the president, many issues important to Americans fall in the hands of Congress. If voters wish for their elected officials to represent them on current issues, more emphasis needs to be on the Congressional elections. One issue that remains of high priority in many Americans’ eyes––especially among young voters like us––is the legalization of marijuana and the national end to the War on Drugs.

While medical marijuana is currently legal in 25 states, only a few have successfully made recreational use of marijuana legal. Colorado, Alaska, Oregon and Washington have made the jump to legalize recreational marijuana use and are under continuous scrutiny from other state governments. Voters in California, Massachusetts and Nevada, however, have also decided that recreational marijuana use should be legal. The official results for both Maine and Arizona have yet to come in, too.

Colorado has shown voters the economic benefits of opening up to this new industry as the state created more than 18,000 full-time jobs and generated nearly $2.4 billion in revenue, according to the Marijuana Policy Group. MPG also noted that Colorado’s second-largest excise revenue source was cannabis sales at $121 million—raising more than three times the amount than alcohol tax revenue.

Today, these findings greatly impacted the decisions of voters in California, Massachusetts, Maine, Arizona and Nevada, who had the legalization of recreational use on their ballots on Nov. 8. All of these states have regulations if the drug becomes legal—only those 21 years or older can purchase a certain amount at once. In addition, some states have legal boundaries between purchases and schools and, of course, an excise tax on the drug. This begs us to ask how other states are moving toward or against legalization.

The bottom line is that states must move slowly on the issue. The Drug Policy Alliance states, “Marijuana should be removed from the criminal justice system and regulated like tobacco and alcohol,” yet they are met with little support from government agencies. Marijuana has been federally illegalized since 1937, largely due to the efforts of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, who were propelled by personal, racial and economic motivations.

Essentially, the pair saw marijuana as an economic threat, as did the Dupont industry—the patent owners of nylon—and all three made it their effort to illegalize this perceived threat.

Unfortunately for American voters today, this illegalization has remained for decades, despite numerous studies that show that this illegalization and the “War on Drugs” is nothing but a costly, fear-inducing failure.

Gallup Polls released an August poll that showed that the number of adults who smoked marijuana has almost doubled in the past three years. In addition, the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use showed that marijuana is the number one used illicit drug.

The power to shape the future of marijuana in this nation remains in the hands of voters. This election cycle can be pivotal for progressing the legalization of marijuana and moving it toward reasonable regulation or legalization.

With the power of the voters, maybe the failed War on Drugs can finally come to a close.

Columbus Day opposition recognizes indigenous rights

Current issues facing the Native American community have fallen quiet as the annual discussion regarding our nation’s celebration of Columbus Day ensued once again on Oct. 10, featuring individuals debating whether or not we should commemorate the explorer’s actions today. This argument is consistently brought up on social media, in politics and historical discussions; all while the descendants of Natives face conflicts both old and new. With economic, health and societal conflicts plaguing Native American reservations, Americans and their representatives need to consider what will help this group the most.

Critics believe that the holiday ignores the Spanish-commissioned captain’s horrific treatment of indigenous people and that it is wrong to celebrate the holiday.

Our historical knowledge about Columbus increases every year. When United States president Benjamin Harrison first recognized the 400-year anniversary of Columbus’ landing in 1892, little was actually known about the explorations.

Now, however, many of the arguments reformists make are based on researched historical facts. Columbus treated indigenous people inhumanely and later, Spanish conquistadors enslaved and eradicated South American natives. Columbus took these behaviors to the extreme when he landed in the Caribbean islands.

Columbus’ own sailors said he was, “self-centered, ruthless, avaricious and a racist,” according to USHistory.com. This quote paints us a clear picture of the explorer sent to the New World. Not even accounting for the diseases, murder and inevitable enslavement he brought to indigenous civilizations, one of Columbus’ biggest follies is that he did not even discover the Americas.

Perhaps Columbus was the first to land in the Caribbean, but historian Christopher Klein and countless other professionals believe Nordic explorer Leif Eriksson touched North America almost 500 years before Columbus was even born. Despite this historical fact, we still choose to honor Columbus.

Discrediting Columbus is not enough to best honor indigenous people, however, as Native Americans in the U.S. face a multitude of conflicts regarding poverty, insufficiently funded education and governmental land rights. For example, nearly one out of three Native Americans are uninsured—meaning health care in these communities is difficult to acquire—according to the Indian Health Services.

Additionally, the ongoing North Dakota Pipeline protests have brought attention to an oil pipeline that will be built through traditional Standing Rock Sioux land. Not only would the pipeline disturb sacred land, but it also could potentially pollute local water systems. There have been multiple arrests of demonstrators and journalists at the protests, and with little media coverage, it seems as though we care more about changing the name of a holiday than protecting the rights of indigenous people.

With so much weight and focus on the name of a holiday, one would think that the focus on poverty, high-school dropout statistics or drug use in indigenous communities would be even greater. Changing the name of Columbus Day would best represent history, but it won’t solve the larger issue of how indigenous people are treated in the U.S.

If we truly want to make a positive impact on the indigenous community, we need to protest for and legislate to help them—lest history sees us as bystanders to a hurting community.

Wells Fargo scandal exemplifies corruption of financial elites

It was revealed on Sept. 8 that financial giant Wells Fargo fired over 5,000 employees for covertly creating almost two million fake bank accounts since 2011. Essentially, employees reported that they were pressured to take customer’s information and use it to create multiple accounts. While this practice is immoral—and definitely illegal—employees at fault were simply fired from the company without further consequence. Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf spoke before the United States Senate and House in a hearing, and the U.S. Labor Department is also investigating the firm. Executives at Wells Fargo, however, are not being punished for their actions as much as they should.

Banks earn profit on account fees, which clients pay on legitimate and open accounts. Victims of the Wells Fargo scandal paid multiple fees from additional accounts they were not even aware they had.

The financial giant could use these extra fees to increase their revenue and sales figures. “Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray said, according to CNN. This practice is highly illegal and has earned the company multiple judicial punishments.

In a hearing led by the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, both partiers berated the actions of Wells Fargo and the lack of moral response from Stumpf. Politicians emphasized how, though low-level employees had been fired, it appeared that none of the executives faced appropriate retribution.

While the company has agreed to pay $185 million in fines as well as $5 million in refunds to clients, these numbers do not even trip up the Wall Street giant.

The Board of Executives at Wells Fargo announced that Stumpf faces a $41 million claw back on his stock earnings—but Stumpf will also receive $200 million in stocks and bonuses related to Wells Fargo. Stumpf has not even resigned from his position and has denied multiple times that the scandal was planned from the top down. He claimed the scandal was the actions of rogue employees.

This supposed unawareness sparked incredible bipartisanship. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren commented, “You squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket.”

Perhaps we should congratulate the white-collar criminal executives at Wells Fargo for uniting a divided Congress and eliciting similar responses from both campaigns. As interesting as that may be, however, it does not warrant the illegal actions.

This situation exemplifies the growing distrust in Wall Street and the condemnation of the wealthy exploiting the misfortunes of customers and employees.

First debate reaffirms skepticism, concern about candidates

The first official presidential debate aired on Monday Sept. 26 from Hofstra University and was wholly indicative of voters’ frustrations, polarized viewpoints and discontent with the current state of the nation. This presidential campaign is unique because of the tenacity with which we defend or attack the candidates––both current and eliminated. The campaign trail has been littered with harsh comments, political mud-raking, Twitter fights and behavior that is unfit for anyone on the road to the White House. Our only hope was that the official start of the presidential race would somehow clean up that road.

Solidifying our skepticism, it took less than half an hour for each candidate to mention economic policies without explaining concrete plans. Republican nominee Donald Trump mentioned former United States president Ronald Reagan’s administration policies which—according to multiple studies done by the Mises Institute of Economics and The New York Times—had side effects including sparking a brief recession and massively increasing the value of the dollar.

Trump inevitably lashed out at former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about her email scandal, who formally admitted it was a mistake. Trump also challenged Clinton’s legitimacy regarding her experience and claimed to have endorsements from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement—which is not legally possible. The businessman fell right into his abrasive and factless routine, interrupting his opponent an absurd number of times.

On the Democratic side, Clinton briefly mentioned holding the wealthy financially responsible, but she never specified how she would do so besides raising their taxes. To most this may sound similar to pandering without true specifics.

Clinton also made statements regarding foreign policy, such as maintaining our sovereignty while assisting allies and increasing our domestic jobs. This is where Clinton has not entirely succeeded—her appeasements, generalizations and incredibly rehearsed phrases leave voters happy but with no definitive policy.

Overall, we should be terribly disappointed to be American voters after Monday night’s debate. It’s generally expected that these events are filled to the brim with historical allusions and terrible generalizations, but this debate was even below that regular standard.

Both candidates failed to break free of their molds. Trump didn’t last long before he started to rely on his usual aggressive statements and interruptions, and Clinton was hardly any less bureaucratic-leaning and pandering than usual.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves for allowing our elections, our elected officials and our political ideologies to become so bitter and polarized. The only assuring thing that came out of that debate was watching my peers’ overall disgust—which shows that the need for change haunts this election.

Heroin epidemic calls for legislative attention

New York State has recently seen a dramatic increase in heroin and other opioid-related overdoses. From New York City and Long Island to upstate, the epidemic has spread rapidly. In the midst of this public health issue, political leaders such as Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state police forces are giving their best efforts to keep the drugs off the streets. Even with increased attention directed at heroin abuse, the rates of overdoses, addicts and drug availability continue to rise. This issue is not one political parties can—or should—disagree on, and the epidemic is not one to be politicized. There needs to be a greater focus on combatting the heroin epidemic, and the forces responsible need to enact specific measures to address target problems.

Citing data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 10,574 reported deaths from heroin overdoses in 2014 alone. A decade ago, statistics showed that there were only approximately 2,000 heroin deaths in 2004. Numbers like these prove the drastic increase in heroin overdoses as of late.

This skyrocketing data of heroin-related deaths has prompted not only state politicians to work on the issue, but national leaders as well. After requesting $1.1 billion from Congress for a new drug treatment plan earlier this year, the Obama administration urged Congress to approve the funds. In addition, this week was declared Prescription Opioid and Heroin Epidemic Awareness Week on Monday Sept. 19.

With regard to more regional efforts, Cuomo introduced the Heroin Task Force in May in order to “build upon the state’s previous efforts and develop a comprehensive statewide plan to break the cycle of opioid addiction in New York.” Additionally, the 2016-2017 budget allocated more than $1.4 billion for drug prevention and recovery programs in the NYS Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services. Even here in Geneseo, Geneseo First Responders are now taught how to administer the overdose-reversing drug Naloxone––commonly known as Narcan.

Although these efforts are admirable, the epidemic persists. Many New Yorkers wonder why rehabilitation isn’t more widely available or used—which leads to one of the biggest Achilles’ heels in helping to treat heroin addicts.

According to Rehabs.com, standard rehab centers cost anywhere between $10,000 to $20,000 a month. Luxury rehab centers, on the other hand, have the highest-rated patient care, but can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $80,000 a month. When you take into account that addicts do not receive an income during treatment and many do not have any savings or health insurance, it is clear why entering rehabilitation can be considered impossible.

We need to make rehabilitation services more readily available while improving other areas that allow heroin to become so accessible. For instance, Canada just passed legislation during the week of Sept. 11 allowing healthcare professionals to apply for access to medical heroin and to prescribe it to addicts who have been unsuccessful with other treatments.

This specific kind of medical heroin is less dangerous than the true opioid and helps addicts to focus on their treatment instead of their need for illegal drugs. Although this technique in treatment is extremely new, it does look promising and is a model that the United States should look into.

The ongoing epidemic of heroin addiction and death is present every day within our communities, whether we see the effects firsthand or not. Inner-city, suburb and even upper-middle class areas face tragic overdoses daily—which is why this terrible spread of heroin must be addressed immediately or the entire public will continue to be plagued.u

North Korean nuclear test warrants active U.S. response

One of the international community’s largest grievances made its most significant gesture in recent months on Saturday Sept. 10. North Korea successfully constructed and then tested its most powerful nuclear weapon to date, which is a clear violation of United Nations sanctions placed on the state and a push in the wrong direction for a stable Korean peninsula. In terms of the weapon’s destructive capability, this one is unmatched. According to CNN, it is the fifth nuclear weapon North Korea has tested and had an estimated 10 kilotons of force. Connect this with the statement that North Korean officials made months ago—stating their capability to attach these weapons onto ballistic missiles—and the result is not only a pressured South Korea and Japan, but also a tense international community.

The U.N. Security Council responded with a denouncement of the test and emphasized its ongoing economic sanctions against North Korea. These sanctions include a strict ban on all natural resource exports, mandated investigations on all planes and ships leaving the country and illegalization of all sales of small arms to the authoritarian regime.

None of these sanctions are new, however, and those who are remotely concerned with the rogue state ask ourselves how effective these statements and sanctions are. It is easy to be pessimistic and even frustrated with the U.N. when their immediate response to this controversy is the statement that “this is a clear threat to international peace and security.” As an individual who does not want to live through a nuclear incident, hearing this statement each time a relentless dictator progresses war-like actions is exasperating.

The sanctions regarding trade with North Korea are as pointless as they are ineffective. The Index of Economic Freedom labels the state as a “hermit kingdom” with complete isolation from the global economy. Putting economic pressure on a state that readily pressures its own citizens and is disconnected from the global market is simply futile.

According to the 2013 CIA World Fact Book, however, North Korea’s biggest trading partner is China—the country imported 67 percent of North Korea’s exports in 2011. Simple—and vastly more effective—U.N. economic sanctions then should come between the two nations’ trade deals. The most efficient way to cripple North Korea’s state-run economy is to weaken its economic relationship with China, not to threaten nearly nonexistent relations with international trade.

Within the realms of military or humanitarian ideals, North Korea is a nightmare. The state openly threatens both the United States and our ally South Korea. Adding new economic sanctions isn’t enough to curb its threats.

The most meaningful way to deal with these aggressors is through quick, forceful responses. Perhaps not full-scale war—but if history has taught us anything, it is that appeasing aggressive leaders and waiting idly produces nothing more than escalating conflict.

Two-party system prevents political diversity, change

With Election Day quickly approaching, politics will become even more present in our lives than they already are. This cycle’s campaigns have been interesting to say the least—it can and should be accepted that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties have walked away from their campaigns and debates unscathed. Both major party candidates have been in the media’s crosshairs, receiving backlash and a surprising amount of criticism within their respective parties. Many Americans are researching third party candidates––including former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party––in response to dissatisfaction with both major parties. This ongoing election season makes us question how the two-party system became so powerful and if there is a way to revise it.

Consistently, Americans state their overall dissatisfaction with their party’s candidates. The Pew Research Center for United States Politics and Policy reported that, after conventions, only 43 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans are satisfied with this election’s candidates. If a large percentage of Americans are not satisfied with the two major party candidates, we shouldn’t be following the same frustrating political system.

Political scientists answer the faults of the two-party system and how we can avoid them with Duverger’s Law. Named for French sociologist Maurice Duverger, the principle states that elections with “winner-takes-all” mechanisms favor two-party systems. Additionally, it states that the fusion of parties is unavoidable in a two-party system—one of the two major parties will act as an amorphous blob, absorbing any successful policy a third party may develop. This is unfortunate for voters because the policy they support may become tied to a larger party that they do not support.

Duverger also found that voters have a tendency to desert third party candidates on the idea that their success rates are minimal. As reported by The Fiscal Times, in a year when the Democratic National Convention had a budget of $84 million, you can see how easy it is for the two major parties to outpace their third party competitors. Align that with little government involvement in party finances and you can be assured that the Republican and Democratic parties have a good chance of dominating other presidential hopefuls.

Many now question if it is even worth it to get a third party candidate on the ballot—an action that might shake up the entrenched two-party plague. Stein or Johnson would need to earn a support rating of 15 percent or higher to get on the ballot and into the debates.

As noted in The New York Times, Johnson has reached double-digit support ratings in the polls, while Stein is lagging behind. When Vermont Sen. and former presidential nominee Bernie Sanders was asked about the threshold on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said that 15 percent is “probably too high” and should be lowered by the Commission on Presidential Debates, as it discourages third party competition. If this standard was lowered, it would allow third party candidates such as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to enter the race earlier, debate earlier and become a reasonable option for the American people. Simply because this support standard is so high and any third party runner is financially outpaced, we may never see them on the campaign trail.

During this election season, voters are scrambling on both sides—the classic two-party system is no longer our ally. While the system offers more stability, clarity and quicker processes, there are smaller chances for other policy options to come to public attention; two parties gain total political power and control over voter support.

Although our current political system has survived for decades, perhaps now we are finally seeing the true, frustrating and brutal facets of it.

On Oregon militia takeover

Amidst media coverage of the upcoming presidential election, an important event seems to have slipped through the cracks: an armed militia took over a government building. The militia takeover—an event stereotypically associated with the Middle East or Latin America—is going on in rural Oregon. The dispute stems from two ranchers: Dwight Hammond, Jr. and his son Steven Hammond. Together, they ranch on a large space of land adjacent to land publically owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The two committed arson in 2001, which led to the destruction of 139 acres of BLM’s property. According to the United States Department of Justice, the two set the fire in order to mask their illegal deer hunt, though the two claimed it was to destroy invasive species on their land. Additionally, a second fire was started in 2006 during a “burn ban”—all firefighters in the area were fighting a large blaze, and controlled fires were not allowed to be set during that time.

Dwight Hammond eventually served three months in prison and his son served 366 days in 2013. Federal law, however, holds that fires that cause damage to public property but result in no injury or death are domestic terrorism. The domestic terrorism charge carries a minimum sentence of five years—a big difference from the sentences the pair originally served.

Ironically, a Republican Congress enacted the law used to prosecute the Hammonds after the Oklahoma bombings, pushed forward by the same right-wing ideals that the militiamen hold. The harshness of the Hammond’s punishment that is being protested by those militias is one their political ancestors fought for.

In response to this sentencing, a group of protestors led by Ammon Bundy—the son of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher known for instigating an armed standoff with government officials in 2014 over his refusal to remove cattle from government land—took over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Jan. 2, the headquarters of this federal land.

Although federal law enforcement has jurisdiction on the matter, no federal or local law enforcement approached the building until Tuesday Jan. 26. The most recent development showed that Bundy and his militia were on the move toward another Oregon city and planned to make an appearance at an anti-government rally. Officers arrested the group after exchanging gunshots resulting in one militia member being killed and one officer injured. According to Katu News, the seven members are facing charges of “conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties, through the use of force, intimidation or threats.” For a politically charged event like this, it is interesting to think whether the militiamen would have been seized earlier or if media coverage would’ve increased if they were of a minority group.

It may be difficult for citizens in the Northwest to understand such passion for land, but it isn’t hard for us to understand the difference between lawful protest and radical takeover. It is a disgrace to see lawful American political protest overwhelmed by those fighting against “federal tyranny.” If we refer back to any of the protests in Baltimore or Ferguson, Missouri we saw military equipment used and curfews set in place very soon after the protests began.

The law enforcement-discrimination debate is one used sparingly, but it is interesting that this hostile takeover went on for this long without any swift action. It is frightening to see Americans abandon lawful and civil discourse so willingly in exchange for violent and anarchical means.

Waters: College sports categorization emphasizes team hierarchy

At Geneseo’s Student Organization Expo on Sept. 16, hundreds of clubs and groups advertised and collected interested students’ emails and phone numbers. Some of these groups were labeled as “club sports” while others were labeled as “intramural sports.” Geneseo’s official athletic teams did not even make an appearance. It seems that Geneseo’s athletic groups are in need of further organization and questioning of the hierarchy of college sports. On the Geneseo Athletic Department website there are “Men’s Teams,” “Women’s Teams” and “Intramural” tabs on the page. There is more or less some equality between the number of offerings for male students and female students.

To begin, intramural sports are considered recreational and are governed by the National Intramural Sports Association. Some intramural sports include soccer, volleyball and badminton.

Club sports, on the other hand, are considered recreational but are not governed under the NIRSA. Here at Geneseo, there are 27 registered club sports teams—some co-ed and others strictly single-gender. Club sports include cheerleading, fencing and karate among others.

Sifting through the multiple levels of official, unofficial, intramural and club sports can be overwhelming. Some club sports may be perceived as lesser sports, while intramurals are seen as more legitimate sports. Some students may respect only official National Collegiate Athletic Association teams as sports, but a student who plays a club sport may disagree.

It could be said that it’s simply our society that defines which sports are “real” sports and which sports are simply recreational play. Indisputably, football in the United States will never be topped in popularity by racquetball or quidditch. A general, unspoken consensus could determine whether or not an activity needs to be raised to a higher level simply based on its societal impact based on popularity.

There was a time when baseball was America’s pastime, but it has been ostensibly surpassed by football at the collegiate level. Perhaps society’s attention to an activity determines what we say is a sport and what is not. Perhaps in a few years we could see Geneseo’s quidditch or broomball excel to football’s popularity, but only if they are treated as legitimate sports.

For us here at Geneseo, a sport should be what we choose to make a sport. We should be able to make fencing go intramural or higher if there is the interest. Someday, students should be able to earn college scholarships because of their impressive skills on the quidditch field.

A sport can be any competitive physical activity we love doing together and Geneseo should re-evaluate its internal rankings of the superiority of sports

Waters: Proactivity, empathy are crucial for addressing campus gun violence

Another American college campus endured a frightening and tragic active shooter situation on Monday Sept. 14 when an assailant fatally shot Delta State University professor Ethan Schmidt in Cleveland, Mississippi.

Delta State professor Shannon Lamb has been named as a suspect. He had not been seen since he reported a murder on the morning that Delta State’s campus was placed on lockdown. Law enforcement officials suggest that Lamb’s motive may have been a triangular connection between Schmidt and Lamb’s girlfriend, 41-year old Amy Prentiss. Lamb shot her dead earlier that day in their home in Gautier, Mississippi—nearly 300 miles away from campus.

Delta State has roughly 3,500 undergraduate students and its campus is 112 acres larger than Geneseo’s. We may be wrapped up in the small-town feel of Geneseo; a feeling we know and love. Like Delta State students, we may think of these halls as a bastion of safety and knowledge—somewhere where the thought of a tragedy such as this occurring seem impossible. But the scary reality is that it is possible for horrific events like this to occur, even at smaller universities.

The University at Buffalo also had a potential threat in its student union the very same day. Students at UB received alerts as an unconfirmed gunman dropped a weapon in the union, placed it back out of sight and quickly exited the building.

When thinking about gun violence on college campuses, one thing should remain clear: fear mongering is not the goal, but change is.

It is unclear what specific type of gun was used at Delta State, but we can determine that it must have been highly concealable. New York State is already known to be relatively strict on firearms through their ammunition limitations on handguns and their restrictions on assault weapons under the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement––SAFE—Act. There are no restrictions, however, on possessing or purchasing a long gun—nor must one have a hunting license to do so.

Students may not be able to do much about gun laws right now, but we must look into the safety of our campuses and discuss how to actively and effectively prevent these tragedies before they occur. Perhaps this means more blue emergency lights or more law enforcement agents on campus.

It could also be suggested that we as college students should be more reactive to tragedies such as this—we could meet these awful events with emotions and motivations that other groups may not feel. These awful, recurring events need to end.

We need to support each and every student, professor and staff member here at Geneseo. Our college is renowned for its supportive, friendly and incredibly involved community. We need to take this involvement and drive and use it to make positive changes in the face of this gun violence epidemic on college campuses.