Domestic abusers: Should they really be allowed to own guns?

The United States Supreme Court agreed to review existing gun bans for domestic violence convictions on Oct. 2. In 1996, a federal ban prohibited gun possession by those with histories of domestic abuse, particularly with the use or attempted use of physical force. James Castleman was charged with misdemeanor domestic assault and was later arrested for selling guns on the black market. Due to the federal ban, he was charged with two counts of possession. He said that, since his conviction was for assault and not for violence, it could have been a “minor injury” that would not qualify as violent physical force.

Debate the legalese all you want; domestic abusers should not be able to own guns.

The main argument is whether or not misdemeanor-level offenses should prohibit someone from owning a gun. Since Castleman was charged with domestic assault and not domestic violence, he said that this conviction should not preclude him from owning a gun.

Castleman also said that the ban should not include threats or coercion. If he were to win the case, domestic violence gun bans would be essentially useless. Those defending Castleman fail to realize that domestic violence can extend far beyond physical force.

The Department of Justice defines domestic violence as patterns of abusive behavior, which can be physical, sexual (including marital rape), economic, emotional or psychological. Violence that does not result in bruises or scratches is often seen as a “lesser” sort of domestic violence. In reality, that is simply not true.

Emotional abuse and psychological abuse are often not thought of as domestic violence, but both can be equally terrorizing. For example, psychological abuse includes a person’s threat of physical harm or destruction to themselves or others. Though not physical, it carries the same weight of long-term damage to the victim, or in the case of families, to the children.

Statements like “I would die for you” are usually seen as romantic, but partners threatening to kill themselves if broken up with are emotionally manipulative and terrorizing. Would you trust that person with a gun?

According to the Violence Policy Center, prior domestic violence and having at least one gun in a household makes a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of homicide. While domestic violence does not occur exclusively between men and women, women account for 85 percent of victims and men, 15 percent.

In regard to Castleman, the appeals court said that his conviction could have been based on a “minor injury.” Often, domestic violence can escalate over time whether or not it begins with a minor injury or another type of abuse.

The Supreme Court ought to have the insight to realize the implications of letting abusers own guns; Castleman was not subjected to background checks by purchasing guns illegally and neither were the people who purchased guns illegally from him. Why should the Supreme Court make it easier for criminals to have access to guns?

Guns and domestic violence are a deadly combination. Any sort of violence, coercion or intimidation should not be tolerated. Furthermore, given the startling increase in suicide and homicide with guns in the home, why should people with a history of domestic violence be allowed to possess a gun? It is illogical to believe that any sort of abuser should be allowed to possess a gun.

Ted Cruz's lame attempt to stymie Obamacare

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz held the floor of the Senate on Sept. 24 for 21 hours and 19 minutes in support of defunding the Affordable Care Act. During the fourth-longest Senate speech in history, Cruz discussed pressing topics such as health care, Nazis, Star Wars, Dr. Seuss and the soundtrack to Freddy vs. Jason. Clearly, Cruz’s main interest lies in bolstering his own reputation rather than adding anything of substance to the health care debate.

“I intend to speak in support of defunding Obamacare until I am not longer able to stand," Cruz said.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has voted to repeal Obamacare 42 times since it became a law. A Democrat-majority Senate stops any repeal of Obamacare. So what is the Affordable Care Act, and why is it so controversial?

The Affordable Care Act is a complex law, intended to fix the problems in our healthcare system by funding health insurance, which is believed to be inflating costs. Everyone is required to buy insurance unless it would cost more than 9.5 percent of their income, and businesses with more than 50 full-time employees are required to give their employees health insurance.

To make it affordable, exchanges are set up on websites in every state to push transparent competition between insurers, and premiums are subsidized on a sliding scale for lower incomes. To pay for this, some reforms are made the way that Medicare payments are made.

Republicans do not necessarily oppose these ideas specifically; it is more of an opposition of political ideology. Republicans typically believe in smaller government in which individuals look out for themselves. It is for that reason that Republicans try to lower taxes, so that the individual can spend their own money the way they want.

Cruz then went on to help us understand his wisdom by making a connection to a similar time in history.

“If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany – we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that's not our problem. Let’s appease them,’” Cruz said.

So in this case, Obamacare is the Nazis, Neville Chamberlain is the Democrats and I guess that would make Cruz Winston Churchill.

But what exactly is the point of this speech? Political commentators on both sides have typically agreed that it accomplished nothing. Sen. John McCain criticized the speech and specifically the Nazi comparison.

McCain said, “The allegation, in my view, does a great disservice to those brave Americans.”

McCain said he has come to the conclusion that “the people spoke” when they re-elected President Barack Obama and that fellow lawmakers shouldn’t “give up our efforts to repair Obamacare,” but he says it is not worth shutting down the government.

McCain is right. Obamacare is here to stay. Rather than waste time trying to get rid of it, we should work to improve the law.

Whether Cruz was trying to make a point or just get media attention, he was wasting time. Cruz said that it is a flawed system in which insurance companies handle pre-existing conditions.

“My view on pre-existing conditions is we ought to reform the market to deal with that problem,” Cruz said.

Newsflash: Bloviating comparisons to Nazis will not accomplish that. One can only hope that, in the future, the democratic process will weed out these unfortunate wastes of time.

Misinformation pervades in coverage of Dahl's departure

Geneseo President Christopher Dahl will soon step down from his post to take a nine-month leave before his tenure as college president officially ends in June 2014. This move has drawn criticism from some students, who are upset that Dahl is receiving a full year’s pay to essentially go on a vacation. In reality, Dahl’s time away from Geneseo will be anything but a vacation. Dahl is slated to work on three “work assignments” over the course of the next nine months. He will be advising Interim President Carol Long and SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher as well as completing advancement projects with alumni and donor networks. On top of that, he will embark on three separate scholarly projects related to his work in the English department – not exactly a vacation in the traditional sense of the term.

If students were more aware of what Dahl’s leave entailed – which is not a sabbatical to begin with; more on that later – they might not be so quick to criticize this move. Bob Lonsberry posted a story on WHAM 1180’s website denouncing Dahl’s leave as irresponsible, incorrectly referring to the leave as a sabbatical and calling it a “$300,000 parting gift.”

Lonsberry’s piece is not just factually incorrect; it is recklessly poor journalism. The facts about Dahl’s leave are available to those who seek them out. If Lonsberry had even a modicum of journalistic integrity, he would have talked to Dahl directly before writing such a blatantly false article.

Because of Lonsberry’s misreporting, students have been putting Dahl on blast across social media. Students were quick to judge the editorial without considering the veracity. But ultimately, it is not the students’ fault for their appropriate reactions. If what he had reported was true, students would have every reason to be upset.

It probably did not help that school administrators referred to Dahl’s leave of absence as a sabbatical either, since the initial announcement in March. Under the definition put forth by the State University of New York Board of Trustees, employees must return for one full year following the completion of their sabbatical.

Rather, Dahl’s leave of absence is classified as a Title F Leave, which does not require his return upon completion. This type of leave is granted for professional development or other projects “consistent with the needs and interests of the University.”

With Dahl advising Long and Zimpher, not to mention working side by side with alumni and donor networks, we recognize that he will be doing plenty to serve Geneseo, despite his absence from campus.

‘I Love Boobies!’: charity with a healthy dose of sexism

Remember when “I Love Boobies!” bracelets were popular a few years ago? Everyone knew a 13-year-old boy who had one and insisted that it was for a good cause and that all funds go to breast cancer research. Spoiler: they don’t. We will inevitably encounter similar messages in October, which is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Whether you choose to buy an “I Love Boobies!” bracelet or a similarly “pink-washed” item, make sure that you know what you are representing and contributing to.

“I Love Boobies!” is Keep a Breast’s signature brand as well as a leader in objectifying women in the name of breast cancer awareness. I found it difficult to find comprehensive financial information about a where 13-year-old boys’ allowances go.

First, I found a large bubbly infographic with no numbers but mentioned ambiguous “expenses” and “research.” I dug further and found financial information for 2011. The total income was close to $3,700,000. Interestingly, Keep a Breast only gave $150,000 in research grants, and 86.5 percent went to programs surrounding “awareness” about the importance of boobies – I mean, women.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women; one in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer in their lives. It is commonly known that the most significant risk factor is simply to be a woman.

Naturally, this is an opportunity for corporations to bombard women with images of other smiling women clad in pink telling us to buy pink makeup, teddy bears and yogurt for a good cause. Breast cancer is one of the only illnesses that has cultivated a multimillion-dollar saccharine brand and culture that serves to exploit women.

Superficially, messages of pink positivity seem empowering, good natured and helpful when, in fact, they detract from the seriousness of the disease. “Breast cancer culture” has been written about extensively, particularly by sociologist Gayle A. Sulik.

Sulik draws attention to the “she-ro,” the idealized patient who is optimistic and assertive yet retains her femininity and is ultimately transformed. It sets up unrealistic standards for women. The she-ro who achieves the mandatory cure and fully regains her femininity via breast reconstruction is celebrated. This culture disregards women who are less than eternally positive and fearless. Furthermore, it does not represent women who are dying or have died.

Angelina Jolie strayed from this archetype when she announced that she had received a preventative double mastectomy. Social media, as always, kept its priorities straight, with fans mourning her breasts when she could have potentially lost her life.

Pink ribbon culture, particularly campaigns that focus on breasts instead of women, relies on society’s obsession with breasts. It undermines women’s health and contributes to corporate greed instead of contributing to progress in research.

It is also important to remember that the pink ribbon is not copyrighted or regulated. Think Before You Pink advises consumers to know exactly where their money is going. Anyone can use the pink ribbon, or there is often a cap on how much money a company will donate and the rest goes directly to the company. Worse yet, the product may contain toxins that actually contribute to breast cancer.

Ultimately, ensure that you know where the money is going and how it will be spent; we already know there is an epidemic. “I Love Boobies!” and similar campaigns are essentially useless if there is no plan for action or meaningful research on risk factors and preventative measures.

Women’s issues have been trivialized enough. Rather than basking in pink ribbons, we need to demand both facts and action.

Following election, renewed optimism for Iranian diplomacy

Since the election of President Hassan Rouhani, Iran has become much less isolated from the West, paving the way for renewed diplomacy between the United States and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, said that the U.S. should remain wary of Rouhani’s seemingly good intentions. It is going to take President Barack Obama’s administration a high degree of diplomatic poise and grace to find a safe position within the maze of conflicting interests that are Iranian-Israeli relations.

Beginning in August, Rouhani’s presidency may be best characterized thus far by amicable interactions with the West, a stark contrast to Iran’s former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his anti-West policies.

Rouhani, in a recent interview with CNN, acknowledged the Holocaust as an historical event. Throughout his presidency, Ahmadinejad repeatedly referred to the Holocaust as Zionist propaganda. To further separate himself from his predecessor, Rouhani said that the Holocaust was a “crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews, as well as non-Jewish people” and that it was “reprehensible and condemnable.”

Furthermore, Obama and Rouhani spoke over the phone recently, a breakthrough that signified the first time that the leaders of each nation directly communicated with each other since 1979, when sanctions were first imposed on Iran. The sanctions were strengthened in 1995 and 2006 and have been the root of the U.S.’s Iran-related policies until Obama and Rouhani’s phone conversation. Despite Rouhani’s gains in foreign diplomacy, though, he has had a difficult time maintaining peace and support from his hard-line constituents, some of whom still refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust and also refer to the U.S. as “the Great Satan.”

Rouhani must walk a thin line between progressive foreign policy and appeasing the more extreme Iranian citizens, which may be why he purposefully avoided a handshake with Obama at the U.N. General Assembly, which opened Sept. 17, in New York. Evading a handshake may not have been done so much so to shun Obama as much as to calm aggressions in Iran, where angry protesters threw eggs and a shoe at Rouhani as he arrived home on Saturday Sept. 28.

Regardless of Rouhani’s appeasements to the West, Netanyahu still ardently said that the U.S. should not get too comfortable with Iran. According to Netanyahu, Rouhani’s reasonable demeanor may be means to abate suspicion in order to more quietly develop nuclear arms, around which the U.S. should draw a red line.

Given Israel’s past with Iran and Rouhani’s assertion of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, Netanyahu has good reason to be distrustful. But calling for the U.S. to draw a “red line” may just be the result of Netanyahu’s paranoia – not to mention, red lines have not exactly worked out well for Obama.

Israel has been an important ally to the U.S., and Iran has the potential to become one. Both Israel and Iran, based on their positions in the Middle East, are important to U.S. foreign policy as well. The U.S., ideally, should find a way to facilitate peaceful relations with each nation. Iran’s past does suggest strong reasons for the U.S. to heed Israel’s warnings, yet giving Iran a chance to integrate itself into the Western world may potentially be well worth the risk.

What happens to hospitals if we continue disregard the importance of mental health services?

September is National Suicide Prevention Month. Sagamore Children’s Psychiatric Center the last children’s state psychiatric hospital on Long Island is pending closure in July 2014. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, one in four adults will suffer from a mental disorder in a given year. Scientific American states that only 3 to 5 percent of violent crimes are committed by severely mentally ill people. Yet, we still commonly refer to violent criminals as “crazy” or “psychotic.” Placing such a stigma on mentally ill people is seriously harmful to their well being and prospects for treatment.

Yes, it is difficult to fathom what drives someone to commit a heinous crime, but attributing crimes to mental illness is counterproductive. Such attributions lessen the perpetrator’s accountability and contribute to the idea that all mentally ill people are violent, which may prevent those who need help from seeking help.

Politicians perpetuate stigma by ignoring the necessity of inpatient treatment. John Javis, director of special projects for the Mental Health Association of Nassau County, said that community-based treatment would be preferable to “locking people away for the rest of their lives.” Unrealistic representations of psychiatric hospitals in the media are, presumably, what informed Javis’ comment. Most children stay in treatment between three and four months. Contrary to being “locked up,” children, once stabilized, are offered day or weekend passes.

The Save Sagamore campaign has been underway to stop the closure of the last children’s hospital on Long Island. One of the most important arguments for keeping it open is the importance of familial support in resiliency. Parents would be faced with the decision to send their child 90 miles away or more for inpatient treatment or to settle for vague and less intensive “community-based” treatment. With an influx of patients, this presents the likelihood of inadequate treatment and thus a serious risk for repeated hospitalizations.

What if physical illnesses were treated like mental illnesses? We would explain to someone with diabetes that “this too shall pass” and they should “just snap out of it” or “get a job like the rest of us.” Maybe we would avoid eye contact in fear that the person with a broken leg might start acting out; we would whisper in hushed tones about “how those people get.” If someone started complaining about chest pains and heart palpitations, we might ignore them since they’re “probably looking for attention.”

These comments are absurd when paired with physical illnesses, yet they are all too familiar to those who suffer from mental illness.

National Suicide Prevention Month enables an honest discussion about stigma. Mental illnesses are just as valid as physical illnesses; they result from heredity, chemical imbalances in the brain, negative or traumatic life experiences or a combination. Mental illness can often be treated with a combination of talk therapy and/or medication; some patients are able to reach remission with short-term treatment, but for other disorders, treatment can be long-term or lifelong.

Ultimately, cutting mental health services when this would likely never be considered for a hospital treating physical health is a worrying result of the widespread stigma surrounding mental illness. Even when we accuse mentally ill people of seeking attention, we are actively silencing them. Because mental illness is an invisible illness, it is easy to make assumptions about why someone “looks fine” despite being out of work or school. Given the complex and personal nature of any illness, we should not make assumptions based solely on appearances.

Miss America backlash illuminates underlying racial ignorance

On Sunday Sept. 15, Nina Davuluri became the first woman of Indian descent to be crowned Miss America. Instantly, she became the target of vitriolic backlash on social media sites because of her ethnic – or “nonwhite” – background. Numerous people decrying her victory incorrectly referred to her as an Arab. Many who did get her ethnicity correct were still unhappy, repeating the theme, “This is America, not India.” Would anyone question Davuluri’s “American-ness” if she was not named Miss America? Save for a few horrible racists, probably not. The answer seems to be that whiteness is still perceived by many to be inextricably bound to American-ness.

Putting aside the fact that immigrants founded America, the United States has been multiracial longer than it has been a country. Though whites have long comprised the majority of the U.S. population, even that is starting to change. Projections based on census data indicate that by 2043, whites will be a minority in the U.S.

While the U.S. markets itself in the international arena as the melting pot of the world, there remains an unspoken and unresolved social tension between members of the white and nonwhite communities.

Focusing on Geneseo and college campuses across the U.S., we see a showcase of increasing “diversity” among the student body, also known as more “multicultural” or “nonwhite” students. It’s a very ambiguous statistic that immediately pinpoints students of color as the one, singular “other.”

It characterizes white students as the norm in a recognition that problematically generalizes hundreds of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In a supposedly pluralistic society, why is white the default skin color?

What we are seeing is a manifestation of white supremacy. It may not be the white-robe brand you are familiar with, but instead a subtler version that pits whiteness as the standard against which all other skin colors are judged. Anything that deviates from the “norm” is met with hostility and confusion.

By lumping all nonwhite ethnicities together, we get the type of ignorance directed at Davuluri. At the root of this ignorance is a lack of awareness for cultures that are not traditionally white. It would behoove all members of the world community to educate themselves about cultures beyond their own and to understand the similarities and differences that exist between people worldwide.

Deconstructing the myth of America as a white nation is a major step to dismantling white supremacy throughout society. True racial equality is unattainable as long as ignorance such as that directed toward Miss America continues to exist.