The many misapplications of eating disorder awareness

Every year at the end of February, National Eating Disorder Awareness Week sparks conversation and dialogue surrounding the murky waters of eating disorders – it is taboo. There is a stigma, but a week for awareness gets people talking. While I admire this, more awareness should be devoted to challenging the dominant narrative. When we think of eating disorders, we think of young, white, educated, middle-class women. Additionally, we think of this concept primarily in the context of anorexia nervosa and secondarily with bulimia nervosa. Cumulatively, the proliferation of this limited perspective is damaging in more ways than one and excludes a wide variety of groups.

Take, for example, Geneseo’s own athletic center. There are two rooms: one with treadmills and weight lifting where men predominantly work out and another with stationary bikes, elliptical trainers and other cardio equipment where women predominantly work out. The latter, however, is where a larger number of posters about eating disorders are present.

The idea of directing eating disorder awareness mainly toward women is common; however, it is flawed. According to the National Eating Disorder Association, while men are generally happier with their bodies, 10 percent of those seeking professional eating disorder treatment are men.

Within this population, gay men are overrepresented; despite only representing 5 percent of the population, 42 percent of men with eating disorders are gay. This may be due largely to distress associated with experiencing homophobia on top of cultural pressures to be thin in the LGBTQ-plus community.

Additionally, NEDA reports that Asian-American, African-American, Latina and Native American women and girls may experience higher rates of body dissatisfaction and eating problems as compared to white women and girls.

The media often remains silent on minorities with eating disorders – indeed, it is usually the traditionally perceived narrative that is described, even during such awareness weeks. Representation makes a difference; those who do not see themselves represented may be less likely to seek help.

There is a disproportionate amount of attention on anorexia and bulimia. Both are serious mental illnesses and come with severe health consequences, but representation is imperative. Those who suffer from disordered eating in any capacity may be more hesitant to look for treatment if they believe they are “not sick enough.”

Eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS) is diagnosed when someone does not meet the criteria for anorexia or bulimia, which may be something as negligible as being a few pounds away from the required weight or showing a combination of symptoms.

This does not detract from the seriousness of EDNOS. With a 5.2 percent mortality rate – higher than that of anorexia or bulimia – EDNOS is the deadliest eating disorder. Arguably, the lack of representation and awareness may contribute to the mortality rate. If the discussion surrounds anorexia and bulimia, perhaps individuals are not seeking treatment because they believe they are not at risk or that it is not as serious.

After National Eating Disorder Awareness Week is over and the tables in the College Union have gone, remember the importance of representation. Awareness is not truly awareness if we are only speaking to a portion of those with eating disorders and if we are not representing the diversity of those afflicted.

Eating disorders are mental illnesses first and foremost; the physical effects are the symptoms. Weight neither defines a person’s worth nor the severity of an eating disorder. There are resources available for those suffering from disordered eating at any weight. Whether or not someone’s story follows the dominant narrative, there is life after an eating disorder.

Dunn Trial reiterates the abuses of Stand Your Ground laws

The Dunn Trial may introduce another devastating example of how Stand Your Ground self-defense laws continue to fail people of color in Florida. In November 2012, Michael Dunn killed Jordan Davis and attempted to kill three of Davis’ friends. Following a lengthy deliberation last week, the jury agreed to convict Dunn of three counts of attempted murder. The jurors did not conclude whether to convict or acquit him of first-degree murder, however.

The short version is this: Dunn heard what he described as loud “thug” music coming from the teenagers’ SUV and demanded that they turn it down. When Davis ignored his request, Dunn became enraged. He proceeded to fire 10 bullets at the teenagers’ vehicle, killing 17-year-old Davis in the process. More disturbingly, Dunn went to a hotel after the incident with his fiancée and ordered pizza. Dunn didn’t demonstrate self-defense but rather complete disregard for human life.

Dunn allegedly shot at the teenagers in an effort to protect himself, claiming Davis had a shotgun. Police said there was no evidence of any weapons, however; witnesses never saw a gun, and even though Dunn shot 10 times, the teens never shot back.

This conjures up memories of the George Zimmerman trial in which Zimmerman, a white man, was acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, black 17-year-old who was killed out of “self-defense.” Unlike Zimmerman, however, Dunn will face at least 60 years in prison for attempted murder.

This trial and Dunn’s attitude toward Davis are indicative of much larger systemic issues. Dunn testified that, “[his] intent was to stop the attack, not necessarily end a life. It just worked out that way.” This is grossly misleading, especially next to other racially charged remarks he has made.

Dunn wrote letters from jail in which he stated that black inmates “act like thugs.” He then proceeded to literally endorse ruthless, racist murders so blacks “may take the hint and change their behavior.”

Black people should change what behavior, exactly? Is playing loud music and refusing to heed to a white man worthy of murder? Does refusal to turn down music merit a reasonable fear for one’s life – that is, the major tenet of Florida self-defense laws?

Mary Anne Franks, an associate law professor at the University of Miami, stated, “Once you have a situation that someone white and male feels threatened by a group of young black men, is it possible that he sees a gun where there was no gun?”

Dunn shot at the car 10 times, continuing to shoot even while the teenagers attempted to drive away – he was not trying to defend himself. He claims he is “a victim” and had the audacity to compare his position to that of rape victims blamed for their clothing choice. In his case, he believes he was blamed for asking the music to be turned down. Dunn is alive, however, and called himself a “victor,” showing no remorse for his murder out of the devaluation of black bodies. Who is the real victim here?

Last week’s trial has been declared a mistrial, and a new trial will take place later this year to determine whether or not Dunn was guilty of the first-degree murder of Davis. Dunn’s remarks indicate a much graver problem: the belief that white people need to “reasonably” defend themselves against innocent and unarmed black bodies.

Proposed Kansas law threatens basic equality

How far will red states go in the name of religious freedom? Just one day after the United States Department of Justice granted equal protection to same-sex couples in the federal court, Kansas passed a law that allows businesses to turn away gay couples in the name of religious freedom. In other words, if a business decides that its services will benefit a same-sex marriage, a civil union or even a gay couple, it can turn them away. This also protects employers from anti-discrimination lawsuits. This is a horrifying prospect for LGBTQ-plus people everywhere.

But this has nothing to do with the LGBTQ-plus community, of course – the Republican Party utilizes the façade of protecting religious freedom, and accordingly, Kentucky quickly passed a bill that could literally enforce anti-gay segregation. Unlike Kansas, this would extend to any private business, government entity, individual, public servant or group.

What does this mean? Gay couples – and potentially individuals – could be kicked out of hotels, restaurants and theaters. A hospital could refuse to accept a gay patient. A police officer could refuse to help a gay citizen if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. This applies for any state system – parks, pools, hospitals and even public schools as long as they “believe” their services will benefit gay couples.

How will they know it might be related to the celebration of a same-sex marriage or a civil union? As long as they “believe” it is – if they suspect someone of being gay, or helping someone who is, they can refuse to provide services.

Kansas Rep. Mark Kahrs  makes the ridiculous comparison of “protecting a lesbian photographer who wanted to refuse to work for a Catholic wedding.” There is no comparison here; straight people are not being targeted and killed on the basis of their sexuality.

In a dark-red state, it would be absurd to consider that people will be denied ambulatory services, goods, protection under the law or even education. For those who deny services to LGBTQ-plus individuals crying “religious liberty,” there are no repercussions.

Thankfully, the Kansas Senate has refused to pass it. It called for a revision, particularly to revise how state and government employees could potentially refuse police or fire protection for gay couples. Some still hope to protect “religious liberties” in the revision, however, while maintaining “the dignity of gay and lesbian couples across the state,” according to Thomas Witt, executive director of Equality Kansas.

Regardless of whether the bill passes, the fact that the Kansas House of Representatives proposed and overwhelmingly supported it is a terrifying notion. This is a giant leap backward for our nation.

The contempt for one “sin” over hundreds of other sins is not merely religious extremism. Why homosexuality and not greed or disobedience? This is an act of total contempt that essentially legalizes discrimination against the LGBTQ-plus community.

It is no coincidence that the media emphasizes Russia’s anti-gay policies – it serves as a convenient juxtaposition to our own nation, which also falls short in protecting its LGBTQ-plus citizens. Rather than turning our noses up at other “reactionary” nations, perhaps we ought to look at our own issues first.

Piers Morgan’s disastrous interview: How the media fail trans people

Last week, Piers Morgan interviewed Janet Mock, a transgender woman and activist, about her experiences and her new book Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & So Much More. What seemed like a cordial interview was, in reality, riddled with offensive misgendering. Fans of Morgan rushed to support him as an alleged advocate of trans rights. While this may be true, there are certainly lessons to be learned in examining how Morgan dealt with subsequent criticism.

The initial interview went seemingly well – Morgan did indeed portray Mock’s story as inspiring and important – but Morgan’s most offensive error was repeatedly reinforcing the idea that as a trans woman, she was “born a boy and at the age 18 … [became] the woman she is today.” Likewise, he referenced Mock’s dead name, or the name she was assigned at birth. Many believe these statements to be innocuous, but these people are misinformed.

These comments neglect the nuance involved with gender identity: Mock is a woman and has always been a woman, despite being assigned male at birth. Further, he insists that she was not a woman until she received gender reassignment surgery. Gender is not genitalia, and conflating the two is dehumanizing.

Additionally, referring to her dead name is extremely offensive. As a major news network, CNN ought to have better practice than that.

Following the interview, there were several Twitter exchanges between Mock and Morgan. Mock took issue with CNN’s caption “Was a boy until age 18,” and rightly so.

Likewise, she responded to a promotional tweet from @PiersMorganLive that asked, “How would you feel if you found out the woman you are dating was formerly a man?” Mock appropriately called out this comment on Twitter as “sensationalizing [her] life and misgendering trans women.”

Morgan did not take this lightly, believing he was being ridiculed in spite of supporting her. Additionally, he responded to the criticism from the trans community with an apology not for his actions but for its “ignorance.”

Mock eloquently addressed this on Feb. 5 when she reappeared with Morgan to settle the online confrontation on air. Morgan claimed she should have brought the idea up during the initial interview and that she had referred to herself as being “born a boy” in Marie Claire. She had not, however, and she discussed the issue in her book, which evidently he had not read, in the first 10 pages.

Morgan felt vilified by the unfair “abuse” he received as an ally for trans rights, repeatedly emphasizing his kindness. Succinctly, Mock noted in the interview, “Being offensive and being kind are not mutually exclusive things.”

Mock emphasized that her criticism was directed at the framework of the show. She courageously admitted that she did not mention it because she was scared, as it was her first large interview – something we can surely sympathize with.

Sometimes, allies like Morgan believe that by virtue of their support, they are exempt from criticism. On the contrary, the best way to be an ally is to listen to those you are supporting above all.

Morgan responded to criticism by placing himself on a pedestal for being an “ally” as he degraded and spoke over those he claims to support. By comparing his hurt feelings to the one in 12 transgender people murdered in America, he showed nothing but his disturbing ignorance.

From this exchange between Mock and Morgan, we can certainly take away the lesson of how not to be an ally.

Sexual assault task force a good start, but falls short

On Jan. 22, the White House established the Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. Among a larger call for action from the White House Council on Women and Girls, this specific task force hopes to target campus sexual assault as a much-needed initiative to address a nationwide problem. The report specifically addresses an appeal to men; however, it may not be extensive enough given the appeal to herd mentality. The report addresses military and prison rape and additionally draws attention to the groups that are disproportionately affected: the LGBTQ-plus community, women of color and disabled women. As a result, the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized last year in order to protect the LGBTQ-plus community, Native Americans and immigrant women.

The White House should be applauded for releasing such an initiative as well as focusing on the unique difficulties faced by groups other than white women, especially when the media disproportionately reports and represents white women as rape victims. Indeed, the report also addresses the unique difficulties faced by male survivors as well as the implications of military and prison rape.

In regard to sexual assault on college campuses, the task force reported that one in five women are sexually assaulted on college campuses. Despite these chilling statistics, only 12 percent of victims actually report, often due to police bias against rape victims.

Accordingly, the task force is calling for prosecution reforms, increased resources for rape survivors, a “change of culture” and additional government transparency in enforcing Title IX. In particular, the report focuses on men as allies, enforcing school’s compliance with federal laws and supporting survivors, especially those facing mental health issues.

The report states that 98 percent of perpetrators are male. There is a clear focus on working with men in order to change social norms, citing that men and boys overestimate their peers’ acceptance of sexually aggressive behavior. As a result, men are less likely to intervene as bystanders.

The report encourages seeking men as allies rather than labeling them as would-be perpetrators. Thus, it calls for wider discussion and training which will encourage men to speak out against abuse and rape acceptance myths – for example, “she was asking for it.”

While recruiting men to fight against sexual assault is important, appeals to masculinity and herd mentality will inhibit the possibility of men identifying other men – especially their friends – as potential rapists. Among other myths surrounding sexual assaults, there is the misconception that one can simply “tell” when someone is a rapist.

The report promises prevention training that will work with coaches, boys and men, but what will this consist of? Seeking to change social norms, especially among men, is important to creating larger changes in sexual assault awareness. Among a more modernized definition of rape implemented last year, all people ought to be educated about the implications of consent beyond “no.”

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 48.8 percent of college women who met the study’s definition of rape did not believe they had been raped. Consent can be demonstrated through body language, what one says or what one does not say. Educating all people about the implications of nonverbal consent is imperative.

If we ensure that this information is common knowledge, it will be conducive to men being more self-aware of what rape is or isn’t. Additionally, ensuring that we are all aware that anyone can be a rapist will allow these implications to become well known and reduce the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses.

In Texas, a law threatens bodily autonomy

On Sunday Jan. 26, Marlise Munoz, a Texas woman who was pregnant and subsequently pronounced brain dead, was taken off life support. After weeks of controversy surrounding both her rights as well as ethics surrounding the circumstances, a judge correctly ruled that the hospital was indeed misapplying state law.According to Texas law, “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment . . . from a pregnant patient.” While several states have this law in place, it is unsurprising considering Texas’ poor track record in reproductive health. The National Abortion Rights Action League gave Texas a grade of F in its 2014 reproductive rights report card, with the United States receiving an embarrassing D overall. For context, Munoz was 33 years old when her husband found her unconscious. Both she and her husband were paramedics, and her family was aware of her wish to cease life-sustaining treatment in the case of brain death. Indeed, Munoz has been medically and legally brain dead since Nov. 28, two days after she experienced what may have been a blood clot. According to her wishes as well as her family’s wishes, life-sustaining treatment should have been ceased immediately. Due to Texas’ law prohibiting the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, however, a living will as opposed to verbal wishes would not have overridden this. Munoz was already 14 weeks pregnant when she was pronounced brain dead. Between a lack of oxygen and life-sustaining treatment, it was initially unknown how much damage was done to the fetus. By the time her fetus was believed to be at 22 weeks, the fetus was pronounced “distinctly abnormal” and unviable outside of the womb. Arthur Caplan, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, makes an important distinction surrounding the semantics of “life support.” Certainly, according to Caplan, no one wants to end what is known as “life support,” when it is actually quite the contrary. This misconception is likely due to a common belief that brain death accompanied by a beating heart – from “life support” – indicates a hope of recovery. Brain death requires an element of irreversibility, according to federal and Texas state law. Much of the controversy involves the question of whether or not a miracle is possible, but with the legal and medical requirement of irreversibility, that is unfortunately not the case. Remaining cognizant of Munoz’s irreversible brain death, the unviable fetus and the total disregard of Munoz’s wishes as well as those of her family, it is important to consider what “life” was truly being sustained. Certainly, the judge agreed that the hospital was misinterpreting the state law. I agree with Caplan that this law – or the misreading of this law – imposes the state’s ideas surrounding personhood above her own informed and autonomous choice for her body. Since Munoz is irreversibly dead, it is not her life that was being supported. Rather, her fetus was being barely sustained at the expense of her grieving family. Though her body was being “sustained” for her fetus, I believe that it does not matter whether or not the fetus would have been viable outside of the womb. This supports the argument against life-sustaining treatment, but I do not think that is the most important aspect of this debate. Above all, Munoz’s wishes and her family’s wishes ought to be honored before her fetus, for which her body was only being “sustained” as a host at the expense of her bodily autonomy.

German intersex patients subject to harmful procedures

A new law in Germany allows babies to be identified as a third gender if they are born with a body that is neither wholly male nor female; this is referred to as intersex. The Intersex Society of North America estimates that as many as 1 in 1,500 to 2,000 babies internationally are born as intersex.

Typically, if babies are born as intersex, they will undergo surgical and hormonal sex reassignment, misleadingly called “normalization.” With the new law in place, which allows an X instead of M or F on legal documents, parents have time to decide the sex of their child. Germany is the first European country to allow such a designation.

While Germany has been praised for this law, it is far less progressive than it appears. Children can only be entered as male or female once they have undergone “normalizing” genital surgeries. This law seems to allow parents and their children the choice to decide on M, F or X, but X is meant to be a temporary designation.

Even though plenty of people are content identifying as intersex and other countries have taken steps to make X a legitimate gender, those who do not opt for dangerous and often unnecessary surgeries will face hurdles and discrimination later in life.

According to the Intersex Society of North America, there is no evidence of psychological damage for intersex children who do not receive “normalizing” surgeries. The biggest harm of being intersex is the shame unnecessarily imposed by the medical community. Or, rather, by those who are uncomfortable with questioning their presumptions of what “normal” means and, further, why they care so much about the appearance of someone else’s genitalia.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has condemned such “normalizing” surgeries. An international group of endocrine societies have also elaborated on the dangers of these procedures.

While ambiguous genitalia rarely pose health risks, the irreversible – and primarily cosmetic – surgery and involuntary sterilization certainly can pose risks. Such surgeries are often done even without the parents’ consent.

According to the SRT, risks could render a potentially healthy adult with irreversible infertility, a permanent loss of sensation, scarring, incontinence and psychological harm. This damaging obligation is all in the name of reinforcing the restrictive binaries of M and F.

Aside from the disturbing effects of mandatory sex reassignment surgery, the third gender option is an illusion that there is a choice in the matter. Being that X is present on official documents such as licenses and passports, intersex children could face even more discrimination and vulnerability. This puts further pressure on parents to opt for surgery as soon as possible.

Even if someone chose to keep X designation into adulthood, marriage rights and basic health insurance are currently denied to intersex people in Germany, which again would make surgical reassignment mandatory even it was not medically necessary.

Rather than a law creating an illusion of choice, Germany ought to have such a third gender designation for those who choose so in adulthood, similar to laws in Australia, which encompass anyone who falls outside binary labels.

If an intersex child wishes to lead a life like those with an M or F designation, parents are practically forced to choose dangerous surgery before the child can even consent to such a decision.

Ultimately, the choice – the legitimate and informed choice – of whether or not to receive sex reassignment surgery should be up to the intersex individual, not a society which values binaries over human well-being.

The lingering power of derogatory language

Actor Alec Baldwin was recently caught on camera referring to a photographer with a horrific slur meant to demean the LGBTQ-plus community. This is nothing new for Baldwin, who has a history of using homophobic language. For those familiar with the actor’s politics, it is a puzzling scenario. Baldwin is one of the most outspoken advocates of same-sex marriage in Hollywood. Everything but his language would suggest that he is a friend to the LGBTQ-plus community.

As with most derogatory terms targeted at specific groups, gay slurs have become commonplace insults that have little meaning to the people using them. What is most damaging about these empty signifiers is the legacy and cycle of marginalization that they perpetuate.

The term Baldwin used conjures images of hateful messages spread by groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sadly, these are not images of a bygone era. Though it is far more stigmatized, the term Baldwin used is still actively used to subjugate the LGBTQ-plus community.

When Baldwin used this slur, he may not have been reflecting his personal feelings for the LGBTQ-plus community. By using that term in a derogatory context, however, he reinforced centuries-old stereotypes.

Language reflects the cultural zeitgeist. The slur Baldwin used comes from a time when it was commonplace to think of the LGBTQ-plus community as weak or “soft.” That slur was borne of a culture that deemed the community unfit for society. It wasn’t until 1974 that homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Using that word today harks back to a far less enlightened time.

That is why it isn’t enough if you support same-sex marriage or if you have a gay friend who’s totally cool with you saying gay slurs. When you use words crafted to subjugate a population in a derogatory context, you are endorsing that subjugation. There is really no room for irony or subversion. These are words that have no place in modern society.

Think about the world one hundred years ago. Racial slurs were as prevalent and accepted as any other word. Today we wonder how that was ever acceptable. We have to realize that terms like the one used by Baldwin must be treated with the same indignation.

Baldwin does not get a “pass” for his words because of what he has done to support the LGBTQ-plus community. He only displayed his ignorance of the power that language carries.

Rather than offer a proper apology, Baldwin has cowardly said that he actually said “fathead.” He, and others, would be behooved to listen and try to correct their problematic behavior rather than offer lame rationalizations.

Lily Allen's not-so feminist anthem

When I heard that Lily Allen was making a comeback after a four-year hiatus with a music video that has been regarded as an uber-catchy feminist anthem, I was elated. Allen and feminism sounds awesome, right?

Then I watched it. It’s a great feminist anthem if you only care about white educated women. Allen, like many feminists, is eager to fight sexism yet is complicit in racism.

If you haven’t heard Allen’s “Hard Out Here,” the song denounces the double standards women face in society – “If I told you ‘bout my sex life, you’d call me a slut / When boys be talking about their bitches, no one’s making a fuss,” Allen sings.

The video opens with doctors operating on Allen and then shows her, fully clothed, dancing in front of a car. The background dancers are primarily black, except for two, and they are clad in bikinis and leotards as compared to shorts and jackets. Allen’s manager periodically comes in to encourage her to dance like them. She fails and continues to exalt what she believes is proper feminism.

There is a clear contrast between Allen – clothed and prim – and the black dancers who are ultimately used as props. They are the only ones who twerk and pour champagne on one another, which brings in Allen’s racist critique of consumerism.

At first glance, this could appear satirical of videos like “Blurred Lines.” With lyrics like, “I won’t be bragging ‘bout my cars or talking ‘bout my chains / Don’t need to shake my ass for you ‘cause I’ve got a brain,” followed by a black woman twerking in slow-motion next to a fully-clothed Allen, her irony becomes questionable.

Hip-hop culture is historically associated with people of color. Thus, Allen’s critique of hip-hop culture as anti-feminist is inherently critical of women of color who choose to participate in it.

Particularly, when “Hard Out Here” deems all women who shake their asses stupid, we have a problem. In doing so, Allen is elevated as the pinnacle of what all women should be.

Allen’s video represents a much larger problem with mainstream feminism. Allen has responded to accusations of racism with several points. On Twitter, Allen said that she was not looking for specific ethnicities and was too insecure to dance in a bikini.

The most worrisome response, however, was when Allen said, “It has nothing to do with race, at all.”

Whether Allen intended her music video to be racist or not – and I do not think it was her intention – it does not matter.

Whether the racism came before or after the casting, Allen’s satire does not parody what she mocks but rather recreates it. It lauds “white feminism” as what women ought to strive to. Sure, there are aspects of hip-hop culture that are derogatory toward women, but Allen’s video mocks hip-hop as inherently derogatory.

Yet, other famous celebrities of color – including women – have managed to embrace hip-hop as empowering and have made a name from it. Allen has not. Especially as a white woman, this is not a valid reason to critique hip-hop.

Mainstream media have a serious problem with how they present feminism. Certainly, Allen’s feminist ideal does not represent all women, but rather, an extremely narrow ideal. Criticizing a culture as inherently misogynistic marginalizes entire groups of women.

Women are more often than not presented with feminism that values white, educated, middle-class women – it is imperative to critique the culture that values this narrow brand of feminism. Though criticizing “Hard Out Here” is only a microcosm of this societal flaw, it is certainly a start.

The ignored victims of ‘stand your ground’

It is 2:30 a.m. on a Saturday. You just got in a car accident in a suburban neighborhood. You have a dead phone battery. What do you do? Knock on a resident’s door? Wrong answer, especially if you are a black woman in a predominately white neighborhood. For 19-year-old Detroit resident Renisha McBride, this is exactly how she lost her life.

It is 2:30 a.m. on a Saturday. You wake up to someone knocking at your door – wait, why the hell is anyone knocking at your door at this time?

Do you ignore it and hope they leave? Call the police if you’re scared? Or do you shoot them and then fail to call 911?

This isn’t the most logical thing to do if there is no sign that you or your home is in danger, unless, of course, you’re in a state with “stand your ground” laws.

The homeowner said he shot McBride in “self-defense.” Curiously, Dearborn Heights, Mich. police initially told a different story in which McBride’s body was dumped near the home, relinquishing the homeowner of any responsibility.

The Wayne County Prosecutor’s office has thus far refused to issue an arrest warrant until further information is collected. Police have also refused to identify the homeowner who shot her, which is rather suspicious. Who are they trying to protect?

Journalist Rania Khalek said that “stand your ground” laws encourage “self-defense” in the case of “perceived” threats. In a racist society, obvious or not, we can never assume that our perceptions are unbiased.

In McBride’s case, she was unarmed. She knocked at the door for help and was shot. There were no broken windows or any clear sign of danger reported from the homeowner. For McBride, however, the danger lay in knocking on doors in a neighborhood that is 86 percent white.

Unfortunately, the law will likely hold the homeowner unaccountable for slaying McBride since Michigan is a “stand your ground” state. Often, such laws protect murders in which race plays a factor.

According to an analysis by MetroTrends, in “stand your ground” killings, white-on-black murders are far more likely to be found justified than in non-“stand your ground” states. Even in the states without such laws, white-on-black homicides are still more likely to be found justified. It’s difficult to argue that there isn’t an implicit bias in such scenarios.

Does this sound familiar? George Zimmerman was found innocent for the murder of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager. Racists came out of the woodwork to call Martin a “thug,” imposing their prejudices onto a child.

“Stand your ground” laws are the reason Zimmerman was found innocent. It would be unsurprising if these same laws motivate officers to keep the homeowner’s identity protected.

There are prejudices that influence the police’s decisions, and certainly, the laws in place are inherently prejudiced, given the statistics. We can only hope that the shooter will not only be revealed to the public – as should always be the case – but also brought to justice for the coldblooded slaying of McBride.

After LAX shooting, calls to arm TSA agents are misguided

The shooting at Los Angeles International Airport on Nov. 1 was rattling, to say the least. Alleged shooter Paul Ciancia specifically targeted Transportation Security Administration agents, successfully killing one and wounding two others and a passenger. The shooting brings new life to post-9/11 concerns regarding airport security. According to CNN, TSA officials are considering arming the roughly 50,000 agents that monitor airport security.

The very notion of adding more guns to the equation is entirely irrational and counterintuitive to reaching the goal of improved security provisions beyond the terminals.

This incident shows that the area between the outside curb and the terminals is still relatively danger-prone. Most airports have minimal security oversight in these areas by TSA agents. Typically, a small local police presence surveys the area for threats. Meanwhile, the vast majority of security is positioned to protect the planes.

This shooting highlights the shortcomings of the TSA when it comes to protecting the actual airport – not just the planes that come and go. One major issue is that TSA agents do not have the power to make arrests. When an issue arises, agents must seek out one of the few police officers in the area. Giving TSA agents the power to arrest is a dangerous move, but it is much preferable to arming them.

Arming TSA agents effectively adds 50,000 firearms to our nation’s airports. With the TSA operating at over 450 airports in the United States, according to the TSA website, that is an average of 111 new guns at each location, which is a brash and short-term solution to a much larger problem.

The pre-terminal areas in many airports operate similarly to shopping malls. There are shops and restaurants, which facilitate a great deal of pedestrian traffic. If TSA agents found a reason to discharge their weapons, there would be high risk for civilian casualties. Not to mention violence could quickly escalate once the numerous armed agents saw a potential issue unfold.

It is also important to examine incidents involved with armed pilots. Pilots became armed shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks under the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. There was a case in which a firearm accidentally discharged in the cockpit of an airbus in 2010. In addition, a civilian accidentally grabbed a pilot’s bag that contained a firearm in 2011 in a post-terminal inspection.

If TSA agents are armed, there must be heavy consideration in regard to how these kinds of situations will be avoided. With so many guns on the ground, it would be difficult to monitor them entirely, and accidents would likely happen more often.

Police officers are a more dependable source of armed security, as many officers are well versed in the dangers of discharging weapons. It cannot be expected that TSA agents would go through the same rigorous arms training as police officers do.

Increasing the number of local officers deployed to airports is a cheaper and more efficient alternative to arming TSA agents. While the security concerns for airports need to be addressed beyond the security of airplanes, adding more guns to the ground is not the answer. The accompanying dangers are far too great.

Recent NSA scandals paint U.S. in negative light to international community

The National Security Agency has been under heavy scrutiny throughout 2013 as a result of documents leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, which indicate that the agency is spying on United States citizens. The NSA’s reputation took another hit when documents revealed that not only is the agency spying on our enemies and U.S. citizens, but it is also intercepting the communications information of our allies.

At a time when the U.S. should seek to strengthen our international alliances, this is an unfortunate blow to our reputation in terms of transparency with our allies.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said, “To me from where I sit, it doesn’t seem like a good idea or it doesn’t seem to advance diplomacy for us to be spying on our allies.”

The governments of Germany, Spain, France and Brazil have voiced their outrage recently at the excessive electronic surveillance the NSA conducts across international borders.

Germany and Brazil were incensed enough to draft a resolution for the United Nations that said they are “deeply concerned at human rights violations and abuses that may result from the conduct of any surveillance of communications.”

The most recent high-profile victim of the U.S.’ information obsession is German Chancellor Angela Merkel. According to The New York Times, Merkel’s cellphone was under surveillance for 10 years as part of a broad-reaching NSA program.

German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said, “If the Americans intercepted cellphones in Germany, they broke German law on German soil,” according to the Associated Press. He went on to say that he felt those responsible should be held accountable.

Quite frankly, I agree. But in a situation like this, knowing who exactly is responsible is no easy task.

As a result of the government’s J. Edgar Hoover-like desire to collect any information it can on anyone and everyone, the NSA has become so large and so powerful that it is difficult to determine who is calling the shots. In a way, the agency is a case of being too big to fail.

According to The Washington Post, U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers said, “We need to focus on who the bad guys are. And the bad guys, candidly, are not U.S. intelligence agencies. They’re the good guys at the end of the day.”

The irony is that, in its quest to find the ever-present “bad guys,” the NSA has turned everyone into a potential “bad guy.” Its entire method of collecting data is indicative of a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. As a result, many are growing tired of the agency’s tendency to overstep legal boundaries and violate Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is another of our allies who has recently demanded an explanation for the NSA’s activities abroad. Spanish newspapers El Mundo and El País reported that the U.S. collected data relating to about 60 million Spanish phone calls.

American ambassador to Spain James Costos issued a statement saying, “Ultimately, the U.S. needs to balance the important role that these programs play in protecting our national security and protecting the security of our allies with legitimate privacy concerns.”

But despite the U.S.’ efforts to justify our intelligence activities abroad, our allies seem to have one unified opinion: As Rajoy said at a news conference, “Spying activities aren’t proper among partner countries and allies.”

Abortion restrictions infringe on reproductive rights

It has been a hectic week for reproductive rights. One day prior to restrictive abortion laws in Texas, Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the admittance of privilege provisions is unconstitutional on Oct. 28. Pro-abortion rights activists everywhere rejoiced; we take small victories as they come.

Those victories, however, are fleeting. First, a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy officially took place in Texas on Oct. 29. According to the Guttmacher Institute, less than 2 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks. Therefore, it will not affect most women who seek abortions.

For those 2 percent of women, it will be particularly devastating, as those who seek abortions after 20 weeks usually deal with serious medical circumstances. Furthermore, medication abortion restrictions – which were found safe, albeit “off-label” – were also ruled unconstitutional unless the mother’s life is seriously in danger, which is a start.

But more bad news: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Yeakel’s conclusion and said that, “such [an admitting privilege] requirement would assist in preventing patient abandonment by the physician who performed the abortion then left the patient to her own devices to obtain care if complications developed.”

In other words, women should go directly to their physicians since neither women nor abortion providers should be trusted. The Fifth Circuit has a bad reputation among pro-abortion rights activists for a reason.

And it gets worse. Due to the admitting privileges requirement, which allegedly does not place a burden upon women seeking abortions, 12 abortion clinics have closed.

This restriction forces women to travel considerable distances in order to have abortions and heavily affects women who cannot afford to travel – Texas is a huge state.

To put this into perspective, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, 22,000 women will not have access to abortion clinics. For women in 24 counties in the Rio Grande Valley, the closest abortion clinic is 150 miles away.

Requiring abortion providers to have local admitting privileges is almost understandable, until you examine how restrictive it truly is. Admitting privilege laws are Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws.

Because it is extremely difficult to make abortion wholly unconstitutional, many anti-abortion politicians choose to make abortions extremely difficult to obtain or, rather, close as many clinics as possible.

Yeakel said that often, anti-abortion harassment drives abortion providers away. Protests outside of general hospitals are obviously undesirable, and often, admitting privileges are not granted for that reason.

Additionally, many abortion providers are flown in from out of state in order to avoid that same harassment, stalking and violence that general hospitals might be subjected to.

Furthermore, if there are only Catholic hospitals in your area, then you’re out of luck.

The lengths that protestors and politicians will go to in order to ensure women are kept from bodily autonomy are truly astounding.

Of course, I speak generally; not every person who seeks an abortion identifies as a woman because transgender men can get pregnant as well. Yet it is, more often than not, cisgender men – men who will never have uteri – who impose these restrictions upon those who seek abortions.

As anti-abortion Republicans continue to find any loophole possible to restrict women, it is most often poor or underprivileged women who are hurt the most.

Republicans encourage all fetuses to be carried to term in spite of medical complications, financial instability or other devastating circumstances. But really, we know Republicans are only anti-abortion until a mother needs welfare to support the child she was forced to have.

Student participation vital to local election

People are sort of funny. We, as part of a sovereign nation, are in control of whom we elect into political office and then we, the people, complain about those whom we elect into those offices. Make sense? The only time when people seem to go to the booths is during the presidential elections, and even then the numbers are not great. In 2012, only 58.2 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote. “We the people,” or at least those who don’t vote, have no right to complain.

The numbers in years without a presidential election are even lower. According to the United States Election Project, only 41 percent of eligible voters casted a ballot in 2010. In New York specifically, the number shrank to 35.5 percent.

As students, we may have an excuse, since most of us are outside of our constituencies, but we are just the beginning of the problem. Very few people vote in local elections, which is somewhat counterintuitive.

Our votes at the local level carry much more weight than they do at the national scale. Still, we neglect to carry out our civic duty as drawn up by the Constitution. Locally elected officials make the decisions that immediately impact our lives.

Take student housing, for instance. Zoning laws restrict students to live in certain areas. Other local laws control leasing and the types of contracts that can be agreed upon. Local government also influences municipal court, public transportation – and the list goes on.

The problem lies in the availability of information. Presidential elections are impossible to avoid. Candidates’ platforms plague the media in presidential election years but are nowhere to be found otherwise.

Signs litter every street intersection, but what do we know beyond the local candidates’ names and political party affiliation? The constituents, the candidates and the media are all largely insufficient in providing information to students about local elections. For that reason, we must take it upon ourselves to become active participants in local elections.

Of course, it would help if there were greater student outreach on the part of the candidates. But the reason they do not campaign to students is because we do not vote in the first place. If we went into the voting booth in greater numbers, then they would see that we comprise a significant voting bloc, and they would do more to appeal to us as students.

So, if you would like to see more local policies that are friendly to students, there is a very simple solution. Go out and show local politicians that you have something to offer them: your vote.

Barneys incident puts spotlight on racial profiling

Despite a federal judge ruling New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy as unconstitutional in August, racial profiling persists, and we are far from a post-racial America. On April 29, 19-year-old engineering student Trayon Christian purchased a $349 designer belt from Barneys in New York City. After he purchased the belt, Barneys reported a criminal act to the New York Police Department.

Immediately after leaving the store, he was handcuffed and detained.

According to Reuters, police inquired “as to how a young black man such as himself could afford to purchase such an expensive belt.”

The police went on to accuse him of using a fake debit card. Christian was only released once Chase confirmed that the card was indeed his.

Christian is pursuing a discrimination lawsuit against Barneys and the NYPD for unspecified damages. Barneys has said that it defends its “zero tolerance [policy] for any form of discrimination” on Facebook, but the store has not offered an apology to Christian.

Those who are defensive of Barneys might argue that it was simply a mistake; they might say that the same could happen to a white person if a debit card looked suspicious, so it could have happened to anyone. This argument, however, ignores the subtle albeit pervasive racism that exists today.

The Barneys incident is just a microcosm of the larger racist attitudes that permeate our culture. Racism did not die with slavery. Microaggressions exist even in the most innocuous circumstances and often are a result of implicit biases.

A racial microaggression could include stopping someone in an airport, blatantly ignoring or becoming more defensive around people of color. In other words, it is a way in which people of color are made to feel like the “other.” Microaggressions can apply to any marginalized group.

Often, those performing microaggressions are unaware that they are doing so. Yet these seemingly innocent acts that society accepts as normal contribute to further racial injustices. In particular, racial microaggression is closely related to racial profiling.

According to Crime Doctor, a website hosted by security consultant and private investigator Chris McGoey, in one major department store, 90 percent of those apprehended for shoplifting were people of color. Yet store demographics showed only a 15 percent customer minority base. These absurd figures are eerily reminiscent of the similarly skewed stop-and-frisk statistics.

According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, from 2002 to 2012, almost 90 percent of those stopped were black or Latino, and 88 percent of all stopped were innocent. The implicit biases held by those in power are damaging and hurtful, regardless of how well meaning perpetrators of such microaggressions believe themselves to be.

First, it is wrong to assume anything about a person’s bank account or motives based on skin color or dress. Second, we cannot pretend that the accusation of Christian was a mere coincidence.

In considering statistics of those profiled, stopped or apprehended, it is clear that there is a problem. The problem is not with people of color committing higher rates of crime but rather society’s racist attitudes surrounding people of color.

As uncomfortable as it is for whites to confront ourselves as part of the culture that benefits from racial profiling, it is imperative to address how culture and media perpetuate racism through microaggressions, beginning with us.

Monetary policy exacerbates wealth disparity

Monetary policy is a necessary tool for correcting business cycle downturns and boosting employment, but despite its importance in fostering growth, monetary policy frequently widens inequality. For those readers who typically associate economics with masochism, under the program of Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve makes a monthly purchase of $85 billion in bonds and securities.

Through QE, the Fed stimulates asset markets, such as the stock market. The link between Fed policy and stock market prices was seen in June. The Fed hinted at slowing down QE in the near future and the S&P, a commonly used stock market index, responded by falling nearly 6 percent, according to Bloomberg.com.

Economic theory posits that, through the wealth effect, a rise in these asset prices will cause people to go out and spend more money because the increased value of their investment portfolio makes them feel richer. On paper this sounds awesome; you get rich and celebrate by making it rain, leading businesses to hire more workers who subsequently use their paychecks to make it rain.

But how often has your housemate walked through the door with a bottle of Grey Goose, instead of the usual plastic handle of Odesse, because of a late-day market rally? I will venture to say never.

If you are not one of America’s wealthiest, you probably have not even noticed the improved performance of asset markets because the benefits of inflated asset prices are asymmetrically reaped. The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans own 81 to 94 percent of the nation’s stocks, bonds, trust funds and business equities, according to G. William Domhoff, professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Trickle-down advocates see the rebound in stock prices as a tide that raises all boats. But, according to a June Pew Center Report, during the recovery, the wealth of the richest 7 percent of households climbed by 28 percent on average, while the rest of the population lost 4 percent of its wealth.

It is true that the entirety of this divergence in wealth is not solely caused by monetary policy, but the St. Louis Fed found that 62 percent of the wealth recovery through the end of 2012 has been the result of rising stock markets. This means that, indirectly, the Fed is at the heart of the wealth divergence problem.

This augmentation of existing inequality, along with being socially undesirable, leads to the reduced efficacy of current and future monetary policy. As inequity increases, financial assets become more highly concentrated in the hands of the fewer and the richer. The smaller the proportion of Americans owning financial assets, the less rising asset value will be linked to increases in consumption.

Think of it this way: If you make Warren Buffett richer, he would still consume the same amount of goods and services. But if America’s poorest were made even slightly wealthier, you would immediately have consumption spending and its multiplied effect injected into the economy.

The reduced potency of monetary policy will only get worse. As we have seen, the richest regained their wealth at a faster rate than the rest of the population during the recovery. Thus, asset ownership becomes increasingly concentrated among the wealthy, diminishing the Fed’s future ability to strengthen consumption and leading to slower and more painful recoveries.

The solution is not to tighten monetary conditions; this will only harm the fragile labor market. Rather, the stabilization of QE’s redistributive tendencies requires incisive fiscal policy, aimed at keeping the wealth gap from spreading during economic recoveries.

Ohio University incident underscores importance of verbal consent

An Ohio University student reported on Oct. 13 that she had been raped the previous night outside of a bank. She was made aware of her assault from a video on Instagram and then by a stream of her fellow students “live tweeting” the assault on Twitter. Vance Blanc, a freshman at OU, posted one of the pictures. Around him, over two-dozen students stood taking pictures and videos while this was happening. Talk about diffusion of responsibility.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Blanc said that everyone was “at ease” since there was, according to him, no struggle. The caveat?

Blanc said to the The Huffington Post, “It was obvious that both the man and woman were very, very drunk.”

Isn’t it rather disturbing that the students truly believe that filming two people having sex is OK simply because they assume it is consensual? Isn’t it even more disturbing that students believe drunken sex is inherently consensual as long as the woman is not protesting?

Blanc said that he regrets putting the picture up. He said that it had “shock factor” and was “never meant to embarrass or harm anyone.”

Never meant to embarrass anyone? Truthfully, what other motives might Blanc have had for filming drunken sex other than to embarrass them? Personally, I cannot think of many.

I digress; the personal violation of privacy, in this case, is secondary to the confusion behind the meaning of consent. Incapacitated people cannot legally consent to sex. Furthermore, consent, or lack thereof, is not always as obvious as shouting, “No,” pushing someone away or screaming for help.

Rape is a lack of legal consent rather than a melodramatic struggle depicted in movies and television. Due to this misconception, we see victim-blaming attitudes toward anyone who is not approached in a dark alley.

Days after another sexual assault case hit the news, Slate’s Emily Yoffe said that women ought not to drink if they want to avoid being raped. She said that yes, the perpetrator should get the blame, but no, a woman should not render herself defenseless to avoid the blame.

On the surface, her argument means well, and it is uncomfortably reminiscent of the “don’t wear short skirts” argument. Yoffe said, however, that that “a common denominator” of rape is alcohol.

While it may be a common denominator in college rape cases, the only “common denominator” in every rape is rapists. So why does our society love to shift the blame to the victims – whether because of what they are wearing or how much they have been drinking – rather than perpetrators?

I think it is due to a serious misunderstanding of what consent means paired with misogynistic attitudes toward female victims. Consent, in almost every state, is defined as a fully conscious and enthusiastic understanding of what a person consents to.

Rape is, more often than not, trivialized when there is no clear struggle or screams. The victim at OU, however, was clearly intoxicated. The lack of fully conscious understanding is imperative to understanding why this case was sexual assault. Intoxication does not give anyone the right to rape just as leaving your door unlocked does not give anyone the right to rob.

Furthermore, consent must be immediate and clear. Even if the woman was not drunk, hesitation is not immediate and enthusiastic consent. Persuasion into “yes” is not necessarily consent. Communication surrounding sexual activity, even between partners, should not be vague. Strive for an understanding of consent that is both conscious and enthusiastic.

The grad school question: Is it worth it?

On Tuesday Oct. 22, Geneseo held the Graduate School Fair in the College Union Ballroom. Representatives for various grad schools talked to students interested in continuing their education after they graduate from Geneseo. The conventional wisdom today is that you will not be able to find gainful employment after graduation without going to graduate school. Students may make up their minds to attend graduate school even if their desired careers do not require any advanced degrees. Using graduate school as a fallback, or simply pursuing it to avoid joining the workforce out of college, is a reckless and financially irresponsible course of action.

Of course, education beyond an undergraduate degree is a necessity for some college students. For those who want to become doctors, there is no getting out of medical school. If your dream is to be a lawyer, you are going to law school.

There are plenty of students who enter college not knowing what they want to do professionally. The idea that you would figure out what you want to do in graduate school is a false premise. You should go to graduate school because you know what you want to do.

Even more so than an undergraduate degree, a graduate degree is an investment. You will likely incur a great amount of debt paying for your degree. By aimlessly entering grad school right after graduating college, you are not only risking wasting your time; you are risking putting yourself into potential financial ruin.

The job market for recent college graduates is a rough one, no question there. No one wants to graduate and just loaf around in a minimum-wage job. There are other things you can do to make yourself stand out to employers, though.

With such stiff competition for employment, the best thing you can do is set yourself apart from the competition. Take advantage of internship opportunities and other experiences to become a well-rounded candidate. If everyone has the same idea to get an advanced degree and thinks that it will make them more qualified, then it will have the opposite effect.

This is especially true for the communication majors out there hoping to enter the media field. Rather than entering journalism school after graduation, since a master’s degree in journalism could take decades to pay off, you should spend time developing your writing ability and looking for ways to innovate the changing media landscape.

Employers will invariably be more attracted to a candidate with exciting ideas than someone with two degrees instead of one; in fact, some may even be turned off by the stylistic limitations a journalism school may foster in one’s writing.

Getting a job out of college today is a vastly different process than the one our parents went through. Rather than wasting time and money in graduate school, however, the onus to adapt to the changing landscape falls squarely on us.

What President Obama could learn from a 16-year-old girl

President Barack Obama met with 16-year-old Malala Yousafzai on Oct. 11 in the Oval Office. This meeting came one year after the Taliban attempted to assassinate her. Yousafzai is a prominent advocate for education in rural areas of Pakistan, where the Taliban has brutally suppressed women’s right to receive an education. For her efforts, she was awarded a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Had she won, she would have become the youngest winner in history.

During her meeting with the president, Yousafzai said that she was critical of the United States’ use of drones, particularly in Pakistan, her home country. On this issue, Yousafzai is far more progressive than Obama.

Regarding her meeting with the president, Yousafzai said, “I expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.”

Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. It says a lot when the person who did not receive the award tells the person who did that killing is not a moral course of action.

Yousafzai made a good point when she said that drones cause resentment among Pakistani people. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has widely criticized America’s use of drones.

Speaking in front of the United Nations, he said, “I have urged the U.S. to cease these strikes, so that we could avert further casualties and suffering.”

Relations between Pakistan and the U.S. have weakened after countless civilian casualties due to drones. Only recently has diplomacy between the two countries returned, albeit in a weakened form.

Drones are intended for spying and killing terrorist leaders. Estimates say that around 3,000 people have been killed by drone strikes, according to The Huffington Post. The New America Foundation estimates that between 261 and 305 Pakistani civilians have been killed by drones.

Realistically, the true number is probably far higher. The Obama administration defines all military-age males in a strike zone as militant combatants.

According to a Gallup poll, 92 percent of Pakistani people disapprove of the U.S. government. In the U.S., however, 65 percent of people support drone usage overseas, but only 25 percent support using drones to target terrorists on American soil. It seems that Americans are only willing to embrace this dangerous technology as long as it is not in their own backyards.

Yousafzai’s perspective on the issue of drone strikes is one that must be heard loud and clear. The region she formerly lived in is subject to frequent and random drone attacks that kill innocent people. This is not counterterrorism; it engenders terrorism.

Americans tolerate drone strikes because of how quiet and clandestine they are. We do not feel their devastating effect, so how can we possibly cast an accurate judgment on their morality?

Given her position on this highly contentious topic, not to mention her work advocating education in Pakistan, Yousafzai appears to be a much more deserving candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize than President Obama.

For Dems and Republicans, tax confusion permeates parties

In a comical instance of political irony, data from the 2010 Census and the Internal Revenue Service show that conservative “red” states receive more federal aid than their liberal “blue” counterparts. To anyone familiar with the Republican Party’s firm, anti-tax stance, this data should be quite confounding.

According to MotherJones, red states in the 2008 presidential election received a significantly larger sum of federal aid than blue states. According to 2010 Census and IRS data, red states received $1.46 for every dollar paid in federal taxes, whereas blue states received only $1.16.

So then why would red states so feverishly oppose federal taxation when they reap the most benefit from it? Further, why do those states receive more tax dollars in the first place? Ultimately, it comes down to misguided perceptions in regards to where tax dollars go on both ends of the political spectrum.

One conclusion suggests that the difference is due to a larger urban population in blue states as opposed that of more rural red states. Rural states received about 81 percent more federal spending than they paid in taxes, while urban states, with larger populations, receive only 44 percent of what they paid.

Red states tend to have lower median incomes than blue states and, due to a progressive federal income tax, their residents end up paying less in federal taxes than residents of blue states. For this reason, the federal spending that is pumped back into the state systems becomes unevenly distributed among states that need more aid yet cannot necessarily pay more taxes.

Admittedly, this explanation still ignores the seeming inconsistencies of conservatives who demand smaller government but receive a larger amount of government assistance and of liberals who pay more into a tax system from which they reap relatively little benefit.

A possible reason for that paradox may be widespread misinformation among voters. According to Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, “The people who benefit the most from federal spending simply don’t understand how much money they receive; they assume that their tax dollars are subsidizing others when in fact they are the ones being subsidized.”

Ironically, conservatives in red states that receive more handouts are under the wrong impression that their taxes are pooled in other states, so that they are paying for another’s subsidies.

As for more liberal citizens in blue states, Rugy said that they “may assume they are the ones who get the most subsidies. In turn, they vote for big government politicians, thinking that welfare spending will ease social frictions in big cities.”

Again, the voter is misled by faulty information into voting for the wrong candidate – with good intentions, however.

“Ultimately, everyone is wrong,” Rugy said.

Interestingly, either side of the spectrum, whether urban-liberal or rural-conservative, proves a lack of understanding in the direction that taxes take once paid. Both parties thus advocate for causes counterproductive to their own political needs.

Whatever the case, voters on either end should take heed of the disconnect between their political views and their actual voting interests.