Assault reflects discrimination of disabled people of color

A recent assault on a minor in Rochester on Oct. 14 has sparked conversations about the continuous racial profiling and blatant racism that harms people of color—including children and teenagers—all over the United States. Chase Coleman, a 15-year-old high school cross country runner from Syracuse, is a nearly-nonverbal autistic child. Coleman was running in a meet with his cross-country team near Cobb’s Hill Park in Rochester when his mother realized he was lost along the course, according to The Washington Post. Coleman’s mother usually prepares for meets ahead of time, as he often wanders off.

While off the course, Coleman was running in the street when 57-year-old Pittsford resident Martin MacDonald exited his car and approached Coleman while yelling and pushed him onto the ground.

MacDonald claimed he was acting in self-defense, as he believed Coleman would attempt to rob his wife. MacDonald explained that “black youths” had recently broken into his car, which justified his attack on the seemingly “suspicious” Coleman. Although Coleman was a quiet young teenager dressed in an identifiable cross-country uniform and number, MacDonald acted on his blatantly racist and violent assumptions.

Rochester City Court Judge Caroline Morrison initially denied a requested arrest warrant charging MacDonald for second-degree harassment, according to Syracuse.com. In response, Syracuse city councilor Susan Boyle wrote a letter to Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley, condemning the “racist, aggressive, unprovoked attack on a disabled African American minor with absolutely no consequences.”

Associated Press noted that the Rochester police renewed an investigation of the assault on Monday Oct. 31.

This incident exemplifies the societal struggles of not only people of color, but of disabled people of color. The intersection of race and disability can evoke specific experiences or incidents of discrimination that relate to the connection of both identities.

While it is deplorable and shameful that Coleman was assaulted in what could arguably be defined as a hate crime, the weak reaction from Rochester authorities is also extremely disappointing. This situation shows that discriminatory incidents are not properly understood by law enforcement.

Able-bodied people and law enforcement often see people with mental disabilities as a threat because they lack understanding of certain disabilities. When police taser or shoot unarmed disabled men—or a passerby assaults an innocent autistic child—we must identify and attempt to eradicate these examples of aggressive ignorance.

Coleman and his family deserve to receive justice for this incident. Hopefully authorities will be motivated to increase training and education about how to engage with and handle similar discriminatory situations.

Clinton’s experience prepares her to become first female president

The Geneseo College Democrats formally endorse former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election. With over 30 years in public office, she has proven herself to be well educated and dedicated to serving the American people. All things considered, we do not ignore her shortcoming and mistakes, yet we realize that she has done good things throughout her time holding public office.

The desire to serve the American people—no matter how diverse their background—is an important quality in a government official. In Republican nominee Donald Trump’s United States, he would be serving to the loud few and giving into ideas that may not be fact, adding fuel to the fire in many situations. That is not the America we want and not how we envision our country’s future.

To discuss Trump would be to discuss the paranoia—and somewhat closed-mindedness—of his speeches and the language that draws in fear to the surface. With time, this will only intensify.

Trump’s unprofessional attitude during debates has driven American politics to a circus. It might be entertaining, but this is not what our political system should look like. If that is how Trump will act when discussing international affairs with other countries, he should not represent the U.S.

Clinton is professional, strong and qualified to make difficult decisions. This is not to say she is the perfect politician or that she’s never made a mistake, but she can and will compromise in order to do what needs to be done. As the next president, she would have the important privilege of choosing new members of the Supreme Court, which will impact American politics long after four years.

In response to people’s argument that Clinton “flip-flops” on positions, it is worth noting that a lot has changed over the decades since she first started her career in politics. Changes of position—whether you agree with her current opinions or not—are normal to do when in public office for as long as she has been. Events happen and evidence is drawn up that could possibly change people’s minds.

Clinton is an extremely confident and powerful woman who has earned our respect for joining what was—and largely still is—a man’s club and making it her own. Some voters do not trust her, but to say she does not have the skills to take over as president is foolish.

Whether you vote for Clinton, Trump or a third party candidate, the power of the vote and the act of participating is extremely important. Dig deep, do some soul-searching and please, visit the polls on Tuesday Nov. 8 to use your small but powerful voice to change our country’s future.

Clinton, Trump both unworthy candidates for endorsement

The Geneseo College Republicans refuse to endorse a candidate in this year’s presidential election. The current election is the most polarizing in modern American history. Both candidates are deeply unpopular among the American electorate and have significant moral and political shortcomings. Our organization cannot in good faith endorse either candidate because both candidates maintain beliefs fundamentally incompatible with the values of the Republican Party.

First, it would seem appropriate to address our refusal to endorse our party’s nominee, Donald Trump. It is our view that Trump is quite simply not a Republican. Throughout much of his professional life, Trump has espoused liberal views—he was even an active supporter of former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008.

Trump has waffled his positions on a multitude of issues, so much so that determining what he advocates for on just about anything is nearly impossible. His current proposals to deport 11 million people, target family members of suspected terrorists and renegotiate the United States government’s commitment to pay back its foreign debt reflect not only a glaring lack of policy knowledge, but also a complete unawareness of the law, American values and basic international economics.

Perhaps what is most troubling about Trump is his vicious anti-intellectualism and despicable campaign style. Trump has not engaged in any serious or substantive discussion of any kind since he commenced his campaign. His campaign is based on stereotypes, mudslinging and a bullying response to all of his competitors that is befitting of a second-grader.

Trump has mocked disabled people, consistently demeaned women, attacked a Gold Star family because of their religious faith and launched racial attacks against an American judge. The recent revelations of his bragging about sexual assault—and his response—are particularly disturbing. He has no interest in serving this country or its people, and for this reason we do not endorse his candidacy.

Unfortunately, Clinton is not an adequate alternative to Trump. Beyond her completely insufficient—and extremely inconsistent—policy stances, her lack of ethics is shameful.

Clinton has been running for president for decades, and a cloud of corruption and immorality has followed her. The Whitewater controversy, her legal defense of a child rapist, seeming lack of concern over the Benghazi incident, flagrant disregard of confidentiality at the highest level with her emails and pay-to-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation highlight just a few of her ethical concerns.

We believe Clinton is a warmonger, a liar and nothing more than a pawn of the elite class that has funded her since the very beginning. As much as we love Frank Underwood in “House of Cards,” the American people do not need that type of ruthlessness in the Oval Office.

Disdain for either candidate—no matter how strong—is no reason to vote for the other. The American people should be ashamed and embarrassed of Trump and Clinton, who together make for the least popular American presidential nominees ever.

Threats to Hong Kong democracy echoed in American election

Hong Kong’s Legislative Council blocked Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching—two newly elected pro-independence lawmakers—from taking oath and assuming office on Wednesday Oct. 19 until the completion of a judicial review of their qualification for office. The first time the two had taken their oaths, they swore allegiance to a “Hong-Kong nation” and mentioned “Shina” instead of “China.” This offended many individuals, and caused the government to declare their oaths invalid. This week, the two were prevented from entering the chamber during session.

As our election season reaches its climax, taking the partisan conflicts of other countries seriously is becoming difficult. This confrontation, however, knocked me out of my Americentrism for a moment.

Tensions have been high between the pro-democracy faction and the Beijing loyalists ever since the 2014 Umbrella Revolution. The loyalists see these legislators’ actions as an insult to China and the nationalism they cherish, while democratic activists see their interests being ground to dust under the heel of the Beijing Politburo.

Still, while both sides can disagree about the interpretation, something objectively serious is happening in this situation: the Hong Kong government—backed undoubtedly by Beijing—is violating the separation of powers and blatantly attempting to prevent its elected political opponents from assuming office.

Since its reacquisition by China in 1997, Hong Kong has been placed on a path away from democracy, but its death is far from inevitable. With every shock like this, they have to wonder if their democracy is ruined. This puts some of the dire warnings about the United States into context—and offers some comparisons to similar threats to democracy.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has refused to say that he would concede the results of our presidential election if he were to lose. He has also promised to, as president, use the legal system to jail his political opponent.

Critics say that these comments constitute an attack on our democracy. They overlook the fact that—like much about Trump—these statements are bluster and he has committed no actions on this front. Not actively being a dictator, however, does not get him off the hook. Trump’s statements may be just the specter of authoritarianism, but the fact that such political stunts actually take place regularly in other parts of the world—such as Hong Kong—make his statements an even more serious offense.

American democracy has survived exactly by avoiding such in-fighting and by trusting in its institutions. President Barack Obama has faced some of the worst partisanship in modern American political history, yet when there was a problem with his 2008 oath, he was allowed to retake it in 2009.

American history is not perfect, of course. We have not always been completely faithful to all the institutions of our government, either. President Abraham Lincoln once had the entire legislature of Maryland arrested and suspended their right to habeas corpus in order to prevent Maryland from seceding from the Union.

The Hong Kong Legislative Council’s move to block pro-independence legislators was similarly a shallowly justified political maneuver. Yet, American democracy survived this encroachment of partisanship on its governing apparatus. If there’s hope for us, there’s still hope for Hong Kong.

Sugar industry’s paid scientific studies cover up health risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton’s political past, actions deem her unfit for presidency

The current presidential election cycle so far has largely focused on the indiscretions of Republican candidate Donald Trump. This is understandable, since Trump is a sexist, racist and alarmingly unintelligent man. Former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has major flaws as well. The media, however, have hidden Clinton’s transgressions from our view with a never-ending stream of Trump criticism.

Two weeks before the election, I would like to make the case for why voters should not vote for Clinton.

Clinton has been involved in so many different scandals that it is difficult to know where to begin. Most voters are familiar with her use of a private email server, which she most likely knew violated various national security guidelines.

The Clinton Foundation is also a popular topic of discussion, as Clinton promised to step back from the foundation in order to keep it separate from her being Secretary of State, according to The Washington Post—but she did not.

As Secretary of State, Clinton accepted foreign donations from both Russian nuclear corporations and Saudi Arabia. Shortly after Clinton approved a business deal involving a transfer of Uranium from a United States corporation to a Russian Uranium corporation, the Clinton Foundation began receiving donations from the very same Russian corporation, according to The New York Times.

This is clear, documented evidence that Clinton staffers set up a pay-to-play list prioritizing donor nations and corporations over others in official State Department business. The only reason why Clinton isn’t in prison right now is because she’s a part of the Clinton family and is above the law.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia has donated between $10-25 million to the Clinton Foundation since its inception. This is a conflict of interest, as the Secretary of State should not accept million-dollar donations from a known illiberal state.

Many LGBTQ+ rights advocates support Clinton because she supposedly supports LGBTQ+ issues. The Clintons, however, took millions of dollars from both Qatar and Saudi Arabia. For example, representatives from Qatar offered President Bill Clinton a $1 million check for his birthday, according to The New York Times. Saudi Arabia, however, is a nation that punishes the “crime” of homosexuality with death.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia also rejects basic human rights for women. Women in Saudi Arabia do not have the right to get an abortion, speak their minds or even go outside without a male escort.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders—the former popular choice among young voters—was known for taking a hard stance against Wall Street corruption. Sanders was adored for his honesty and common sense on these issues.

Clinton, on the other hand, has been paid millions for giving speeches to investment banks and law firms. It’s perplexing how supporters of Sanders could vote for a candidate that has received the backing of some Wall Street bankers.

Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street investors because they help fund her campaign. Political Action Committees and individuals from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have made donations nearing $1 million to Clinton campaigns. Again, Clinton has one position on Wall Street that is public and one that she hides from the American people at all costs.

It is a dangerous precedent to elect Clinton as president. Her agenda is buried deep in the thousands of emails that her staff deleted while under a congressional subpoena.

Before you vote, think: does Clinton really have your back on the issues you hold dear? Geneseo, do America a favor: vote your conscience and don’t vote Clinton.

Presidential campaigns neglect threat of international war

The biggest issue in the 2016 presidential election is the one least discussed: the threat of a world war between nuclear-armed powers. Whether former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump wins the election, the United States is nevertheless being drawn into a confrontation in the Middle East that threatens to spiral out of control.

The U.S. is currently directing a brutal assault on Mosul—one of Iraq’s largest cities—while hypocritically accusing Russia of war crimes in its air campaign backing the Syrian government. With the U.S. supporting Islamist “rebels” in Syria, this situation threatens war between the world’s preeminent nuclear powers.

Clinton and U.S. intelligence agencies are accusing Russia—without providing any evidence—of intervening in the U.S. elections and exposing emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign. Between this and Trump’s misogyny and alleged sexual assaults, crucial issues are being overlooked this election season.

Many people pointed out that the threat of climate change was not discussed in any of the three presidential debates. Less discussed was the fact that Clinton refused to answer moderator Chris Wallace’s question: “If you impose a no-fly zone [in Syria] and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”

Clinton outflanks Trump from the right, claims that he has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and would be unsuited to wage a war with Russia. This neo-McCarthyite campaign has brought back the worst anti-Russian fervor since the end of the Cold War. Democratic Representative Charles Rangel even called Putin “a communist leader that’s a potential enemy” even though Putin leads the capitalist Russian Federation.

Even as the threat of war with Russia surges, the candidates barely mention it. Instead, they focus on mutual mudslinging. When the threat of war is discussed, the consequences are ignored—as exemplified by Clinton’s answers in the third debate.

There is great opposition to war, yet no avenue for its expression in America’s increasingly rigid political system. As masses of people—especially young people—move to the left, the political establishment is preparing for war and provoking right-wing tendencies. Trump’s fascistic populism—which channels discontent into xenophobia, nationalism and racism—is the most obvious expression of this. Clinton’s McCarthyite rhetoric plays a role as well.

At Geneseo, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality unequivocally opposes the drive to war, which threatens the destruction of humanity. In this, the IYSSE supports the candidates of the Socialist Equality Party––Jerry White and Niles Niemuth––who are running in this election to build an anti-war movement based on socialist principles.

I encourage students interested in opposing the potential war plans of Clinton and Trump to research White and Niemuth’s platforms and to educate themselves about third party candidates.

Criticism of pink-washing undermines successful charities

Every October, businesses and organizations across the United States show their support for National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Geneseo Colleges Against Cancer supported the cause by coordinating “The Breast Week Ever” in the MacVittie College Union the week of Oct. 17. In addition, many students attended the Making Strides of Rochester walk on Oct. 16, which raised over $294,000 for the American Cancer Society.

Despite the general widespread success of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, however, many are brutally critical of its nature. The arguments made are not only extremely insensitive to the millions of people whose lives have been affected or lost by breast cancer, but also many times hold little factual value.

Article and blog headlines such as “I hate Breast Cancer ‘Awareness’ Month” and “Why breast cancer awareness month is bullshit” show how people are missing the entire point.

The main criticism is that Breast Cancer Awareness Month is simply a marketing ploy to sell more “pink” products by large companies who participate––most notably nonprofit Susan G. Komen of For the Cure. In fact, in her Huffington Post article “Why I Am Anti-Komen,” Lara Huffman writes that breast cancer is a “pink elephant on a rampage, mowing down innocents in the street” and she claims she was “assaulted by crap with pink ribbons” throughout October.

Due to the widespread popularity of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, some consumers like Huffman have become irritated by the noticeable amount of pink shown because of the event. In her Jezebel article “Breast Cancer Is A Disease, Not A Marketing Opportunity,” Kate Harding writes, “It looks like a four-year-old interior decorator named Emily got a contract to do the whole country. It's a little much.”

This complaint made by Harding and many others seems to be self-centered and egotistical. The fact that the excess of pink products bothers you during the month of October seems irrelevant if you look at the startling statistics from BreastCancer.org—for instance, that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime.

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and can be treated if detected early. This is why the obvious goal of Breast Cancer Awareness Month is the most important: to make people more aware.

The excessive publicity that breast cancer receives in October due to businesses creating pink products aids in the spreading of awareness that can save lives. The American Cancer Society works to educate men and women on the signs and symptoms of breast cancer, to provide instructions on how to perform self-examinations and also to promote the use of mammograms.

While I encourage consumers to be educated on where their money is going when they purchase breast cancer-related products, criticisms of a cancer awareness month should not be based on your frustrations with personal consumerism.

One of the goals of the American Cancer Society is to “help raise funds for groundbreaking breast cancer research … and critical patient services.”  This is an extremely commendable cause, and the money raised by official events such as the Making Strides walks can change lives.

As someone who has had a relative suffer from breast cancer, it is absolutely devastating to hear people nit-pick something that has helped so many people. Breast Cancer Awareness Month provides an opportunity for those battling the disease to feel the support of others, for survivors to acknowledge their feats and for everyone to join and fight an awful disease.

Although Breast Cancer Awareness Month is often over-sensationalized, this is the entire purpose of the event. Getting the word out about breast cancer, early detection and prevention is imperative. The success of Breast Cancer Awareness Month and its positive influence cannot be understated.

During this time, I encourage everyone to focus on the true meaning of Breast Cancer Awareness Month and refrain from allowing negativity to diminish both the struggle and accomplishments of past, current and future survivors.

Dangerous Main Street intersection needs traffic light

While Geneseo’s Main Street is a symbol of small-town familiarity, community and comfort, it hosts a lot of dangerous traffic on a daily basis. Drivers on Main Street often violate basic common sense rules for safe driving, such as refusing to stop for pedestrians at a crosswalk, quickly backing out of parking spaces while ignoring incoming traffic and even crashing their vehicles into the iconic bear fountain.

Many Geneseo upperclassmen live off campus, and the walk to class is often filled with anxiety and hesitation when faced with busy traffic and negligent drivers—especially during the morning rush hour.

A major catalyst for unsafe driving on Main Street is the four-way intersection of Main Street, Court Street, North Street and Avon Road. The intersection—located in front of the courthouse—is monitored by a few stop signs and a flashing yellow traffic light. Many drivers and pedestrians alike reluctantly approach the intersection or avoid it altogether, as its insufficient traffic regulation motivates some drivers to make unintelligent and dangerous driving decisions.

Political science major junior Noah Koven recently created an online petition—aimed at the New York State Department of Transportation—in favor of adding a proper traffic light to the intersection. Five hundred and nineteen people out of the 500 signatures needed have signed the petition as of Wednesday Oct. 26.

The petition argues that—especially at night with low visibility—pedestrians are at a risk of being hit by careless drivers. Additionally, many Geneseo students and residents have experienced near-accidents at the intersection. Both students and residents shared their stories about danger at the intersection on the petition’s webpage.

This petition exemplifies how political efficacy and local bureaucracy can actually be used to benefit a community when approached properly. It is exciting to see students and Geneseo residents come together to advocate for a local cause that could only bring positive results if put in practice.

As students who have had some unfortunate experiences at this dangerous intersection, we fully support and encourage students and community members to sign the petition.

Engaging in local red tape or bureaucracy often seems boring and not worth the effort. But as students who are temporary Geneseo residents, we should take strides to better the community for others and ourselves. This petition is simple, but can be very effective.

Hillary Clinton is qualified, practical choice for president

In reaction to the final presidential debate of this unorthodox and historically significant election, The Lamron editorial board has decided to endorse a candidate for president. This past year, the 2016 election exploded with countless controversies, viral videos and frustrating arguments between stubborn voters. The popularity of democratic socialist primary candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders set a precedent for the Democratic party, and the nomination of a businessman––with no political experience––on the Republican side is monumental as well. Even third party candidates are receiving more media attention than ever before.

Through the unfamiliarity and tension of this election, The Lamron editorial board endorses former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president of the United States.

It is a given that Clinton is the most qualified candidate out of the remaining four. Her experience as an attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the U.S., U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State has provided her with an unmatchable skill set. Her main opponent Republican nominee Donald Trump—who can be criticized in countless other ways—has never held a political office.

The Lamron editorial board believes everyone’s voices should be heard and all citizens should vote for the candidate they support despite our country’s stubborn bipartisanship. We also believe, however, that third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are unlikely to win against the two main party candidates. While we believe U.S. politics need reform and only two parties should not dominate an election, it is unrealistic to expect a third party to win in this election.

In addition, Clinton’s platform highlights progressive—and most importantly feasible—environmental, economic and foreign policies. Even though we do not agree with her on all fronts, her strategy best exemplifies what The Lamron editorial board would like to see in the future of our country.

Compared to all other candidates, Clinton has the right mentality and composure for such a demanding and influential job. The Lamron editorial board hopes to see Clinton as the first woman president of the U.S.

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.

International legislation needed for addressing climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing room bill supports modern parenting lifestyles

Although his time in the White House is coming to an end, President Barack Obama is still pushing to enact progressive legislation. Obama signed the Bathrooms Accessible in Every Situation Act—also known as the BABIES Act––on Oct. 7. The BABIES Act requires “diaper-changing facilities in male and female restrooms in public federal buildings such as Social Security offices, courthouses and post offices,” according to CNN. With recent political debate regarding gendered bathrooms, this was a monumental move by Obama and will perhaps play a large role in defining the end of his presidency.

Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline first brought the bill to Congress in April, according to The Huffington Post. Cicilline argued, “No mom or dad should ever have to worry about finding a safe, sanitary place to change their baby—least of all in federal buildings [that are] paid for by taxpayers.”

This progressive bill draws attention to the struggles many men face when simply taking their infants out in public. The BABIES Act successfully illuminates and works to end fathers’ fears regarding being unable to properly tend to their children’s bathroom needs in a private, safe place.

This important issue was previously neglected by politics and the media, but has undeniably caused anxiety for fathers of infants. It is simply appalling to think that before this legislation, public institutions were not mandated to provide child-friendly bathrooms to both mothers and fathers. Although the bill cannot require private businesses to comply, it calls on public places, which, in turn, will hopefully raise standards for all establishments.

Not only does this bill alleviate apprehension about children’s bathroom needs, but it also helps to keep infants safe. Due to the lack of proper changing stations in men’s bathrooms, many fathers have been forced to use unconventional surfaces to change their children. Cicilline argued that this was both unsafe for the child being changed, but also for the rest of the public who would use the restroom in the future.

Actor and father Ashton Kutcher was one of the main supporters that helped evoke this legislative change. Kutcher “famously lamented the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms and launched a Change.org campaign to call for businesses to implement them,” as noted by The Huffington Post.

Kutcher also claimed that this lack of childcare equality in bathrooms was indicative of society’s sexist views on parenting. In the 21st century, it is imperative that public places acknowledge the positive ways in which parenting has evolved. Women are no longer the sole gender caring for children; in fact, some children do not even have mothers.

Kutcher makes a strong claim by pointing out that, “Dads, like myself, want to participate equally in the child care process, and our society should support that.”

Obama’s signing of the BABIES Act is a monumental victory for all fathers and for all current and prospective parents. This legislation is a commendable step toward fighting the social insensitivity to the evolution of parenting. The bill has also created opportunities for continued conversation regarding changing the way society improperly views parenting as a strictly female duty.u

Voting is crucial strategy for millennials to enact change

Young people set the agenda for American politics in the 1960s. From the civil rights movement to protesting the Vietnam War, young people made their voices heard and achieved their political goals. In order for our generation to have the same impact, young people have to vote. Political commentators have been deriding young voters throughout this election cycle. First, young peoples’ support for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s was deemed “unrealistic,” and now young people are accused of potentially costing former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton the election by voting for third party candidates. While this claim has been shown to be overblown, our generation could still hand Republican nominee Donald Trump the presidency by failing to turn out to vote.

I want everyone to vote in this election—even my Trump-supporting friends. The reason is simple: by voting, we as young people claim political power as a demographic. Under the current status quo, our concerns don’t really matter that much to any politician who can do high school level math. Only 46 percent of millennials voted in the presidential election in 2012, according to the Pew Research Center. When we stay home, we allow the political establishment to continue ignoring us.

There is clear evidence that we can make major changes in the political system. This year, the Democratic Party passed the most progressive agenda in at least 60 years. Clinton supporters didn’t cause this—it was caused by the 12 million votes cast by Sanders supporters in the primaries, two million of which came from millennials. The impact we’ve had so far is stunning. In order to match the political values of former Sanders supporters, Clinton pivoted so fast that by the end of the primaries, her pantsuit was practically on backward.

From the 2016 primaries, we can see the effects of young people’s participation on the political process—and that was with most of us not voting at all. We are not even close to maximizing our possible political power, as millennials now constitute roughly 31 percent of the possible electorate in the United States. If we all voted, the political agenda in America would be far different.

If more young people voted, issues that are important to us would become important to the greater political conversation in America. For example, consider the legal drinking age. Most voters do not bear the costs of this policy, and repealing it is currently a political non-starter. But there are 13 million voters between the ages of 18 and 21 today—if we all voted, suddenly politicians and pollsters would start looking at the issues that affect us, and repealing the National Drinking Age Minimum Act could be put on the table.

We have seen the ugly side of older voters’ derision right here in Geneseo. There was a polling site on campus in 2008 and there will be one for this election, but the Geneseo Village Board got rid of it for the 2012 election.

According to March 2016 Lamron article “On student candidates’ campaigns for Village Board,” former Board Trustee Bob Wilcox suggested that students shouldn’t vote in local elections because we don’t pay property taxes. At what point does this disdain become voter suppression?

The American political system is imperfect and this election has shown us exactly how deep the discontent with the establishment runs. But the issues our country faces are more our issues than anyone else’s—we are the people who will serve if our next president takes this country to war, and we are the people who can least afford a candidate who doesn’t believe in climate change.

But the greatest issue of all is the future of our body politic. A country with 46 percent millennial voter participation isn’t a democracy. The political participation of our generation has to go beyond protesting and roasting the establishment on social media and into the realm of voting or else we will say goodbye to the freedom our founding fathers––once young people themselves––won for us.

Halloween encourages expression of graphic violence

After observing a Long Island home that was decorated with bodies hung by their necks on tree branches during October break, I was reminded about how desensitized our society is to violence and death. If a neighbor constructed a grueling massacre scene in his yard during April, there would be probable cause for suspicion and alarm. But it is acceptable—and encouraged—in October to display blood, gore and scenes of brutal death right on one’s own front lawn. These decorations bring a dark meaning to the word “festive.”

Halloween themes can arguably be defined in three broad categories: innocent autumn fun, supernatural legends and bodily horror. Innocent autumn fun celebrates the fall harvest with jack-o-lanterns, bobbing for apples and homemade costumes, while supernatural legends entertain the existence of witches, demons and ghosts. Bodily horror brings Halloween traditions to uncomfortable and disturbing heights with depictions of death, torture and disfigurement.

This is not necessarily an argument against contemporary Halloween’s portrayal of violence. Rather, it is a critical analysis of how—and why—people can celebrate this imagery for one special month out of the year without recognizing the implications of their behavior.

The cherishment of Halloween and horror films suggests that our society has a fascination with death. Experiencing loss in our lives impacts our physical, mental and emotional wellbeing, and what happens to a person’s consciousness after they die is one of the few phenomena we are still scientifically—and religiously—unsure about. To soothe the cognitive dissonance of facing one’s mortality and unknown afterlife, death is cultivated into a form of entertainment.

The popularity—and consequent media controversies—of crime documentaries such as “Making a Murderer” and “The Killing of JonBenet” exemplify the easiness with which we can blur horrible reality with callous entertainment. This entertainment goes even further with haunted house attractions, as some—such as McKamey Manor in San Diego, California—require a signed waiver in order to physically assault, mentally abuse and traumatize guests all in good fun and in the spirit of Halloween.

During Halloween, we subject ourselves to explicitly violent imagery that we often forget is a reflection of true events—and true loss. And these depictions can have an emotional impact on those who do not wish to participate in them.

Fascination with death is not necessarily a bad thing, but we can be critical of how this fascination is executed during Halloween festivities. We should question when and at what point is displaying and cultivating graphic violence an appropriate expression of this fascination. This behavior borderlines appreciation for and celebration of brutality and murder, rather than of an innocent pagan holiday marketed toward children.

Halloween isn’t the sole reason our society is desensitized to violence. Simply watching the news and witnessing war and tragedy from all over the world contributes to lessening our sensitivity. Halloween, however, is the unique time when we outwardly—and very publicly—express this desensitization on a large scale.

The juxtaposition of people mourning local and global tragedies one day—and then engaging in simulated brutality for entertainment the next day—is particularly troubling. It seems as though we are not self-aware of our own actions and behaviors during Halloween and how they reflect our beliefs and morals.

Having a colorful imagination and being festive during this time of year isn’t inherently wrong. But we might want to think twice before scattering fake amputated limbs on our porches and splattering blood on our driveways. This imagery is rooted in real violence, and those who do not wish to experience Halloween in such a disturbing way are barely able to avoid it.

Societal pressures reflect lack of political engagement

It is imperative for United States citizens to be knowledgeable about our political processes—but the pressure placed upon us to be constantly opinionated and informed is gravely hurting this nation’s citizens. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel hosts a popular video segment called “Lie Witness News” in which his staff asks people on the streets or at events their opinions about ridiculous, made-up scenarios. The people featured in these videos typically feel compelled to be dishonest with the interviewer in order to avoid looking ignorant on that specific topic.

The most recent video “Lie Witness News - Presidential Debate Edition”—which aired on Sept. 27—asked American citizens their thoughts on the presidential debate between Republican nominee Donald Trump and former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton the day before the debate occurred.

Every single person in the video lied about his or her thoughts, since the debate hadn’t even happened yet. In doing so, they prove themselves to be ignorant—though they don’t want to look it—as they agree with everything the interviewer referenced about the “presidential debate.”

Some notably ridiculous material the video features are made-up scenarios, such as Trump saying to Clinton, “Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire,” the candidates having a pull-up contest and each giving the other a “peck on the lips” at the close of the debate.

The video—although funny to watch—is extremely unsettling. It highlights the direct effects of the condescending way politics are talked about within the U.S. This is a serious issue because so many citizens are afraid to come across as ignorant when it comes to politics; they are willing to pretend they understand what is going on instead of actively learning about it.

In our society, it is seemingly unacceptable to say, “I don’t know” or “I don’t really have an opinion” when it comes to talking about politics. This is what causes so many people to get into irrelevant arguments, to lie about their knowledge on important subjects and to essentially become easily persuaded by other people’s opinions.

It should not be so acceptable to turn a blind eye to politics because being informed about elections is imperative to our nation’s future. Fostering an environment of honesty and inclusion when discussing politics in the public sphere, however, is needed to nourish this political engagement.

If more people were forthright with themselves, acknowledged how much they actually know about the upcoming election and were motivated to educate themselves, satirical videos such as Kimmel’s “Lie Witness News” would not exist.

It should be socially acceptable to admit that you haven’t had a chance to watch the debate or to read up on a candidate’s specific stance on an issue. Admitting this aloud—or at least just to ourselves—might encourage us to continue to learn about politics. Ultimately, our conversations about politics will become much more thought provoking and honest as a result.

U.S. food system reevaluation needed to combat health risks

An article published in The New Yorker on Sept. 28 claimed that President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have “done more than any other First Couple to confront the problems that plague the American food system.” Perhaps this assertion is not so impressive in a country that has seen its adult obesity rate rise from around 13 percent in 1962 to 36.5 percent today, but some progress has certainly been made.

With support from the president, Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” campaign led to successful changes in nutritional guidelines and nutritional information panels.

The campaign also helped pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which made the National School Lunch program more nutritious and banned the sale of sugar, fat and sodium-heavy snacks in schools.

While these have been admirable changes, the United States food system remains damaged. The next administration needs to propose reforms to begin to rescue our society from the environmental and public health catastrophe that is our food system.

The government should end or seriously reform the “checkoff programs” that exist for most agricultural commodities. In checkoff programs, producers of a product all contribute money toward the research and promotion of that product, with the goal being to boost sales across the board.

Checkoffs are quite profitable for producers, generating up to $38 in sales per dollar spent on the program. These programs are not so good, however, for consumers. They cause us to consume a lot more of some foods than we otherwise would—and when these commodities are beef, dairy and potatoes, what’s at stake isn’t so much the profitability of farming as is the health of our entire country.

The second thing that has to change regards the U.S. Department of Agriculture and how it needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up—it would probably benefit from being split into two or more organizations. Under its current structure, the agency is responsible for both “promoting agriculture production” and administering most of the major government nutritional guidelines and programs such as the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program.

This is a clear conflict of interest, and the reality is that the agriculture industry has the USDA pretty deep in its pocket. The USDA committee that recently set new nutritional guidelines contained nine members with ties to the animal agriculture industry out of a panel of 13. Their problematic loyalties can be seen in their advice to children to drink more milk, despite rising childhood obesity rates and evidence that milk can contribute to weight gain.

The last reform is the most important and will be the most difficult. The current subsidy structure of the U.S. agriculture industry needs to be entirely revamped. It currently favors products like corn, soy, beef and dairy, all of which are used heavily in high glycemic and fatty foods. The total subsidies paid by all levels in American government total $57.3 billion per year—a combination of USDA budget subsidies of $30.8 billion and $26.5 billion in state irrigation subsidies from 2013.

Partly because of this—and partly because of the rise of factory farming—the relative price of eating healthy has risen considerably for consumers. Over the past three decades, the cost of vegetables rose by 41 percent. When faced with expensive choices at the supermarket, Americans will be influenced into making harmful decisions for their health and the environment.

Americans face many problems, but few hit closer to home than our food crisis. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in history—it should be eating that way, too.

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.

Johnson unsatisfactory alternative for liberal voters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asylum attraction stigmatizes treatment of mental illness

Halloween-centric movies and attractions designed to induce fear––and generate profit––often incorporate harmful stereotypes of “the insane” and “the insane asylum.” This plays off age-old tropes of mentally ill individuals being irrationally violent and horrifying and psychiatric institutions being nothing more than oppressive holding cells that are littered with these kinds of dangerous, dehumanized figures. One such attraction at California amusement park Knott’s Berry Farm––FearVR: 5150––was recently––and rightfully––shut down after protests from mental health advocates condemned the attraction’s exploitation of mental illness as a means of entertainment.

According to The Los Angeles Times, the description of the virtual reality attraction invited participants to “enter the mysterious Meadowbrook Institute and witness the abnormal case of a terrifyingly unusual patient named Katie.” In addition, the 5150 number referenced in the name of the attraction is the police code for a mentally ill person who is a danger to themselves or others who can then be placed in a temporary, involuntary psychiatric hold.

In addition to members of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the first individuals to openly criticize the attraction was former Orange County sheriff’s deputy Ron Thomas, whose schizophrenic and homeless son, Kelly Thomas, was brutally killed by police officers in 2011. Ron Thomas described the attraction as “insensitive,” further noting that, “The mentally ill are people. They’re human beings. They’re suffering. They have illnesses, and we have to do something to help them––not demonize them.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Thomas and the other individuals who expressed their concerns about FearVR: 5150. While certainly not the only attraction to do so, FearVR: 5150 positing this narrative of psychiatric patients as animalistic and out of control is incredibly hurtful––not only to individuals suffering from mental illness themselves, but to the public’s perception of mental illness and psychiatric facilities. In addition, it serves to undermine and ignore actual, documented horrors and abuse that many patients have endured throughout the history of psychiatric commitment.

Knott’s closing the attraction in response to legitimate concerns is undeniably positive; there still lies the glaring problem, however, in the organization’s claim that “the attraction’s story and presentation were never intended to portray mental illness.” Looking at the description of the attraction and the inclusion of the 5150 code, I would beg to differ.

By making a conscious choice to use a psychiatric facility and patients as fear-inducing spectacles––and then denying any implications of mental illness being portrayed––the organization expressed a disheartening ignorance and lack of empathy toward the very real problem of trivializing mental illness.

When combining Knott’s Berry Farm’s attraction and the company’s statement, the act serves as a sobering reminder about the continued ignorance and stigmatization of mental illness and psychiatric treatment that endures today. Whether meant to be cruel or not, narratives that only serve to degrade and stereotype mental illness have no place in our society––whether at Halloween or any other time.