Media solidarity crucial in light of recent political climate

In the age of President Donald Trump’s media-denouncing administration, it is particularly important that media outlets commit to reporting accurate news and to supporting the right of free press.

On Friday Feb. 24, Trump barred news outlets such as CNN, the New York Times, Politico and the Los Angeles Times from attending an informal, non-televised White House briefing. 

More conservative outlets—such as Fox and Breitbart News—and more moderate outlets—such as CBS, the Wall Street Journal and Time—however, were welcomed without incident. 

By picking and choosing which media outlets to exclude—including outlets that were publicly critical of Trump—our current political climate shows how the relationship between media and politics can be divisive and petty.

With this in mind, it is crucial that we the media continue to uphold standards that emphasize a practice of ethical, unbiased journalism. 

Social media has, in recent years, become a crucial tool for the marketing and branding of all kinds of businesses. It isn’t uncommon for media outlets to get caught up in negative publicity or social media attention, because national and local media are essential and have an influence on Americans’ lives. 

Recently, local media outlets were distracted by social media arguments that contributed unnecessary drama and distractions to the real task at hand: providing citizens with important, genuine content. 

The function of media outlets as watchdogs of our society and government is more important than comparing one’s reputation or financial success to another’s, for example.

From national media like the New York Times to local outlets such as the Genesee Sun and Livingston County News, it is the responsibility of the press to serve their respective communities with factual, dignified reporting. 

Competition within media outlets is inevitable, but at a time when journalists are under fire, it is encouraged that the media maintain solidarity to report the truth.

Regretful Trump supporters do not deserve sympathy from liberals

View fullsize

Demonstrators protest against President Donald Trump in Salt Lake City, Utah on Monday Feb. 20. Recently, Trump voters who are disappointed with Trump’s presidency accuse anti-Trump leftists of bullying and discriminating against them. (Rick Bowmer/AP Photo)

After the recent presidential election, there is certainly tension between the political left and the political right. A recent New York Times article by Sabrina Tavernise explored the ways in which Trump voters feel increasingly alienated by liberal rhetoric. 

The article argued that the anger and “name-calling” from the left is furthering President Donald Trump’s agenda by attacking conservatives and by making them feel unwelcome.

To this, I say: too bad. Bad decisions warrant negative consequences, and it is not the left’s issue to make people feel comfortable now that they wish they had voted differently. There was no shortage of warning signs that voting for Trump was dangerous and incredibly harmful—signs that some voters chose to ignore. 

Those who regret voting for Trump should not feel that they need an invitation to be part of the anti-Trump movement. They will not receive sympathy because they do not deserve it. If they disavow the decisions Trump has made thus far, then they must take action on their own. 

People whose basic human rights are being threatened do not have the responsibility to make anyone feel included. 

The article quoted one man who felt that the left is “complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people.” 

It is astounding that people feel that getting their feelings hurt is at all equivalent to the misogynistic and racist-hate speech of Trump, which furthers actual systematic oppression and violates human rights.

Trump voters are not oppressed just because people are mad at their political decision. Those voters who are now realizing the danger of Trump’s presidency need to be held accountable for these actions and need to help the people they endangered, rather than continue to put their feelings first and expect sympathy.

Yes, it is always important to try and educate people who are receptive to criticism—but to expect blind kindness and acceptance from those continually targeted by Trump’s agenda is selfish. 

Another woman stated, “I love Meryl Streep, but you know, she robbed me of that wonderful feeling when I go to the movies to be entertained.” 

Being “robbed” of the ability to watch The Devil Wears Prada is not the same as being banned from the country, as losing reproductive rights or as facing hateful speech and actions based on your religion. 

Casting a vote for Trump was a choice. Trump voters are being criticized for their active decision to ignore countless warning signs and to choose to vote this man into office. This is not even remotely similar to being attacked for something such as one’s race or religion. 

If it weren’t so horrifying, it would be almost laughable to try and sympathize with Trump voters who feel attacked, considering the number of people whose lives they put at risk with their vote. 

Just days after Trump’s election, racist hate crimes increased. There were over 200 hate crime complaints reported just four days after Trump was elected, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama.

With this spike in hate crimes and with threats on the safety of marginalized groups, the last people that need our protection are those who put Trump in office. These people who feel they are being attacked are those who are most protected by Trump’s presidency. 

Hurt feelings are not the same as genuine oppression. It is their responsibility to use this privilege to put their pride aside, to accept the mistake they made and to do everything they can to protect the people who are suffering the consequences. 

If you don’t support everything Trump is doing, prove it by taking action, rather than by waiting for an invitation—or an undeserving apology.

American Girl’s first male doll challenges harmful gender stereotypes

The popular children’s toy brand American Girl recently stirred up some attention with the release of their first male doll—named Logan Everett—on Feb. 16. While the introduction of a male doll into the brand’s products may not seem like groundbreaking news to some, this will have a profound effect on children. 

The American Girl brand is committed to, as stated on their website, “[celebrating] girls and all that they can be. That's why we develop products and experiences that help girls grow up in a wholesome way, while encouraging them to enjoy girlhood through fun and enchanting play.”

American Girl is committed to not only creating dolls, but also to educating young individuals about different cultures, ethnicities and time periods. They do so by including a book with each doll that tells that specific doll’s story. These books serve to foster inclusion and acceptance of all individuals at a young age.

“When the line was introduced in 1986, it became a huge hit for its historically accurate clothing and furniture, and stories told through the doll’s eyes of escaping slavery or living through the depression,” The New York Times said.  

Since then, American Girl has introduced more contemporary dolls; they still aim, however, to help their customers learn something with each new doll. 

The brand represents a range of races, economic statuses, cultures, professions and, now, genders. 

The introduction of a male doll is just another way American Girl is fostering inclusion in their brand. It is imperative that this continues so that future generations of children have the choice to play with dolls, trucks or blocks—no matter what their gender is.

Having more gender-neutral toys will allow children to explore interests that they enjoy and to express their true selves.

Further, American Girl is encouraging all children to learn about inspiring young women through their literature. They are suggesting that their dolls’ stories should not be limited to young girls; it is important for all children, in general, to learn about those different from themselves.

American Girl, however, has not received universal positive feedback. Reverend Keith Ogden claims that the release of the male doll is, “nothing more than a trick of the enemy to (emasculate little boys) and confuse their role to become men,” according to The Washington Post. 

These types of attitudes and gender binaries limit the youth of this nation and create a dangerous political atmosphere for generations to come. 

Although Ogden is not alone in his distaste for the new American Girl doll and in redefining the toy industry to be more tolerant and accepting, it is important to hear their concerns—their words remind us that not only is the creation of Logan Everett as a male doll commendable, but also necessary because of the negative opinions it brought out.

Future generations of children deserve to play with toys that they like—not toys that they are prescribed to use based on their gender. Any steps taken toward creating a safe place for children to explore themselves and to have fun should be celebrated.

Vegan students with compulsory meal plans should be better accommodated

Since elementary school, we have been told how important it is to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables to stay healthy. Schools across the nation have been required to give students more vegetables and healthier food options for lunch since 2010 due to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.  

That is why I was so surprised when I arrived at Geneseo in the fall and found it extremely difficult to find readily available vegetables and healthy food options on campus.

I knew that no dining hall was going to be as good as home cooked food, but I couldn’t believe how few vegetables and vegetarian options there are available at Geneseo.  

While there are a few salad bars across the campus, there are very few places—the exception being all-you-can-eat buffets—where you can order a side of vegetables such as broccoli, zucchini or green beans with a meal. Rather, we have the option of ordering a side of fries and onion-rings. 

As someone who not only wants the nutrition that vegetables provide, but also sees the struggle that my vegetarian and vegan friends have finding multiple options for them to eat on campus, I strongly believe that there needs to be a change in the food options provided. 

Many students on campus are required to pay for a meal plan and then end up having to spend even more money at grocery stores off-campus because the campus does not provide the healthier options they desire. 

While there are fresh vegetables for sale on campus in Fusion, they are very expensive compared to the ones at the store. Some students may not want to spend extra money on these items. 

Their required meal plan is going to waste, and money that they should be saving for other school-related costs are used for groceries because the campus does not provide what these students need. 

Another issue that many students face is the lack of dairy-alternative products on campus. The only non-dairy milks that can be purchased on campus are a la cart in a small, juice-box form. 

While Starbucks has non-dairy milk alternatives for their drinks, students are at a loss when it comes to actual food items and meals. If the school is going to require students to purchase a meal plan, they must be required to provide all students with the food options they need—and not just as an add-on or specialty item.

Students should always have the option of ordering a side of vegetables with their meal, and the vegetables they have provided to them need to be affordably priced.  

Another change the school needs to make is to provide alternative dairy products readily available on campus for those students who are lactose intolerant and vegan.

If the school can make these few changes, eating on campus would be much easier and healthier for many students.

Trump moves to rescind fiduciary rule, threatens consumer protection

View fullsize

President Donald Trump signed an executive order rescinding President Barack Obama’s crucial fiduciary rule that requires the government to protect consumers from corrupt or suspicious behavior on part of businesses. This order proves that Trump values wealthy corporations over the wellbeing of American consumers. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo)

When most people think of President Barack Obama’s legacy, the fiduciary rule is doubtfully the first thing to come to mind. That might be a mistake, however—although healthcare reform was the rallying cry of his first term, the entire Obama presidency was defined in many important ways by the issue of financial regulation. 

A financial sector run amok bequeathed to him an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment and enough brewing social discontent to spark both the Occupy movement and the Bernie Sanders candidacy. 

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act aimed to curb the risky lending and betting practices that were the causes of the 2008 financial crash, but the legislation was rushed. While the rules it lays out are important, it remains an imperfect piece of legislation. 

More important than any single piece of legislation is the attitude that the government should protect consumers from any predatory behavior on the part of big businesses, in general, and the financial services sector in particular. That’s where the fiduciary rule comes in.

In 2010, consumer activists proposed the fiduciary rule during the discussions surrounding the Dodd-Frank Act. The objective of the rule is simple: it requires investment brokers who manage 401(k) retirement accounts to give financial advice that is in their client’s best interests. 

Without the rule, retirement account managers are free to serve their own interests by urging clients to invest in funds or companies that give that manager kickbacks. 

Such abuses were much more common than one might think; the Department of Labor estimates losses of $17 billion per year to consumers as a result of intentionally misleading financial advice.

The reasons investment managers might not act in their clients’ best interests are complicated; the rule that tries to prevent them from doing so is also complicated.     

The Department of Labor spent six years working to issue and to enact a full version of the fiduciary rule. Now President Donald Trump stands poised to rescind it. 

He issued an executive order instructing the Department of Labor to explore eliminating the rule on Feb. 3.

While Dodd-Frank is a piece of legislation that requires input, compromise and consensus from many parties, the fiduciary rule directly reflects the commitment of the current administration to the principle of consumer protection. Trump’s executive order shows the flimsiness of his commitment, despite the populist overtones of his campaign.

A sophisticated financial system is as necessary to a modern economy, but that does not mean that consumers should be expected to understand its ins and outs so well that they can protect themselves from exploitation. 

On the contrary, the complexity of modern finance makes it necessary for the government to intervene in the market at times to protect its citizens from financial sophisticates who often have every incentive to exploit them.

While it sounds boring, the fiduciary rule brings up questions that are at the heart of many of the struggles currently engulfing our society: what is the purpose of an economy? What is the purpose of a financial services sector? If we want each of these things to serve our needs, they must be actively shaped.

If the only thing keeping the greed of the financial services sector in check is Trump’s commitment to protecting innocent people, I’d say anyone who ever plans to retire someday has cause to get politically active.

Feminist play should include intersectional monologues

The annual spring performance of “The Vagina Monologues” wrapped up on Sunday Feb. 19. Often hailed as a feminist play among the campus community and noted as a form of “sexual revolution” by some reviewers, the fact that this play relies purely on vaginas to represent femininity was deemed close-minded.

After participating in Geneseo’s performance of “The Vagina Monologues” for the third year in a row, I think it’s important to note the complex social issues we face today in relation to the play. 

“The Vagina Monologues” was a fantastic play for the time it was published. The Stanford Review notes that the 1990s w a time of masculinity and Eve Ensler—the creator of the play—wanted to use art to end violence against women and to break the taboo against talking about vaginas. 

She even established V-Day on Valentine’s Day, a day meant to spread awareness regarding violence against women, which often culminates in a performance of the show.

The play’s individual stories stand alone from one another, however, and this key aspect could provide an opportunity to update the inclusivity of the play.

There is only one monologue regarding transgender women in the show. This inclusion is wonderful and tells the true story of some transgender women—but it is also controversial. The duo in “They Beat the Girl Out of My Boy” are unable to see themselves as women until they get vaginas at the end of the monologue. It’s a form of completion for them. 

Though this is the narrative for some trans women and it should not be completely shunned, not all women or trans women have or desire to have vaginas. Not all women need to have a vagina to see themselves as women. 

Without the inclusion of a monologue addressing the gender spectrum, it reinforces the idea that women are only women if they have a vagina.

“The Vagina Monologues” says what it’s about right in the title: vaginas. The stories are true tales from the women Ensler interviewed, but they all deal with aspects of having a vagina and are not necessarily what it means to be a woman. 

Asking us to change these monologues is not an option; they’re powerful and have paved the way for countless viewers to open their eyes to the violence that women experience. Ensler defended her work in Time, saying, “I never defined a woman as a person with a vagina,” but she added the monologue “They Beat the Girl Out of My Boy” after a group of trans women performed her play. 

If she has added monologues in the past, I don’t understand why she can’t add more in the future to create a more inclusive play. 

Today, we need more support for all women rather than just women who specifically have vaginas. While her play was a beacon of hope in the 90s and has done incredible work for bringing awareness to violence against women, Ensler’s message should be expanded to present a more diverse story that will give hope to a new generation of women and girls.

Trump’s executive border wall plan threatens indigenous tribe

President Donald Trump’s proposed plan to build a wall on the border of Mexico and the United States is, unfortunately, not just an empty campaign promise used to gain voter support: the current plan for the 1,000-mile-long wall is shaping up to be concerning—as expected—for American tax-payers, Mexican citizens and indigenous communities.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 25, officially ordering the construction of the wall—estimated to cost $21.6 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. With Mexico’s rightful refusal to pay for the construction, American tax-payers—including Trump voters—will foot the bill.

In addition to his disrespect of Mexico and immigrants that fuel his construction plans, Trump is also threatening indigenous communities. The Tohono O’odham Nation of southern Arizona and Mexico owns 75 miles of tribal land on the border, and face destruction and division of their ancestral community.

Because of their location on the American-Mexican border, the Tohono O’odham actively patrol the border to treat dehydrated migrants and to investigate drug trafficking. Regardless of this responsibility, the American side of the tribe—including members’ families—will be cut off from its Mexican equivalent. 

Citing the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Tohono O’odham members vowed they would act against government intervention to protect their community from construction and displacement.

Indigenous peoples’ rights have been violated ever since this hemisphere was first colonized—and despite recent grassroots movements and activism they are still dangerously vulnerable to both conservative and liberal administrations. 

It is not surprising that Trump’s wall construction plan will negatively impact, displace and burden many groups of people. While many of his campaign promises were taken at face value—and often mocked for their frivolity—it is important to acknowledge that he now has the power to execute his ideas. 

While there is still an opportunity for the American public to resist and to protest the border wall, it is going to be a long and challenging fight.

Katy Perry comments disrespect real issue of celebrity mental health

View fullsize

Katy Perry attended the 59th Annual Grammy Awards on Sunday Feb. 12. Perry made numerous insensitive and joking comments in reference to Britney Spears’ 2007 public mental health breakdown. Perry’s comments contribute to stigmatization of mental illness, especially in regard to celebrities who are constantly in the public eye. (Willy Sanjuan/AP Photo)

It would be an understatement to say that the Grammys were eventful this year. Whether you were celebrating unsigned artist Chance the Rapper’s three wins or agonizing over the fact that Beyoncé was, quite frankly, robbed of album of the year—there was no shortage of discussion.

Beyoncé’s loss had a lot of people outraged about the obvious diversity issues at the Grammys. Outside of this, it was Katy Perry and her comments that further proved how the mainstream media have a lot to learn about intersectionality.

On the red carpet, when asked about her three-year break from music, Perry responded, “That’s called taking care of your mental health … I haven’t shaved my head yet.” 

Later that night, when asked about her hair color, she said, “It's like the last color in the spectrum that I can do … I’ve done all of them and the only thing left to do is shave my head, which I'm really saving for a public breakdown.” 

These head-shaving remarks are references to Britney Spears’ highly publicized mental breakdown in 2007 when she infamously shaved her head. Spears was rumored to have been dealing with severe substance abuse issues and other undisclosed mental health issues. 

Aside from being unoriginal and making remarkably unfunny jokes, mocking Spears’ actions in 2007 is highly dangerous to people struggling with mental illness.

While the exact cause of Spears’ infamous head-shaving incident is unknown, any rumors or tabloid stories over the years have attributed it to serious substance abuse in combination with undiagnosed bipolar disorder. Either way, a neuro-typical person mocking someone’s mental health is upsetting and—unfortunately—common.

Perry’s remarks are indicative of the serious lack of regard for mental illness in our society. We love watching celebrities suffer. Substance abuse, eating disorders and any kind of behavior outside of the norm will sell. Perry’s jab, however, couldn’t come at a worse time, as the current political climate has many people with disabilities fearful for their lives. 

The current presidential administration has already proven to be extremely harmful toward many marginalized groups. The disabled, however, are a group that are almost always overlooked. This could be attributed to the number of ways that disabilities can present themselves, but both mental and physical health are being ignored—and famously mocked—by President Donald Trump. 

As Trump is in the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act, millions of people will be stripped of their healthcare. A key component of the ACA is that it offers coverage for mental health and substance abuse treatment. 

Repealing this act would mean that private insurers would not have to include coverage for mental health treatment. This can all be attributed to the fact that mental health issues are still largely stigmatized and often viewed as individual weaknesses rather than legitimate disabilities.

While Perry’s comment may seem completely removed from this vast, overarching issue, words matter. By mocking Spears’ actions, she is downplaying a serious mental health crisis at a time when the availability of psychiatric health care is at risk. 

Not only is she continuing to remind the public of an extremely dark time for Spears after her years of recovery, Perry is suggesting that Spears’ actions were easily avoidable and controllable. 

These are ideas that need to be actively combatted and critiqued, as people with mental illness continue to struggle to find legitimate and comprehensive treatment.

Greek life should expand mental health support, accommodations

With bids weekend at an end and the chaos of recruitment finally settling down, Geneseo’s Greek life has a slew of new members eager to make friends and to become a part of a new family. 

Mental health, however, is one of the biggest challenges someone may face during their college career—and it is a challenge that is not necessarily addressed or considered within the Greek life system. 

One out of 20 Americans over the age of 12 experience depression, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention study, as done in 2005-06. In fact, Psychology Today highlights that between one quarter and one third of students meet criteria for an anxiety or depressive illness.

So how does this tie into Greek life? Many factors associated with depression and anxiety can be alleviated, or at least mitigated, with the help of a solid support system. 

Though those with a mental health issue may be using every tool in their arsenal to get out of bed in the morning, the added benefit of a welcoming community can give someone something to look forward to. 

Many college fraternities and sororities require library hours to study, have meetings dedicated to bonding, participate in volunteer events and provide a shared space of safety. 

Geneseo’s requirements for Greek life are as follows: college freshman need 12 credits hours—usually one full semester—and a GPA of a 2.0 to receive a bid to a Greek organization. For transfer students and those over the age of 21, these students need 12 post-high school credits and a GPA of 3.25. 

Although these requirements were presumably made to allow time for the student to acclimate to Geneseo life, the social aspects of college can often exacerbate mental health issues brought on by those who don’t have a support system established in a new place. 

A student who may be struggling academically because of these issues may not be allowed to join Greek life, thus further preventing the student from finding a support system. 

Everyone experiences mental health in different ways. Some may choose to seek professional help, while others lean on friends to help them get them through tougher times. Though there may be special circumstances to allow students that have a lower GPA due to mental illness to participate in the rushing process, it’s important to focus on possible repercussions for the individuals who may not get accepted. For the same reasons these individuals seek out the organization, the feelings of solitude they experience from getting rejected by the group can persist—thus allowing the cycle to continue. 

There is a range of options that can be established to ensure the quality of college life for an individual experiencing a mental health issue. A set action plan regarding students with mental illness to join Greek life should be considered, especially in regard to the coping process following their experience. Whether or not one gets accepted, and despite the wonderful opportunities joining an organization can bring, both options necessitate struggles that the individual has to go through.

Relay for Life hosted by dedicated, trustworthy charity organization

View fullsize

Geneseo hosts the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life every spring semester. The ACS often receives undeserved accusations of not using donations for charity purposes. The organization, however, is honest and transparent about its budget and functions. (Jake Wade/Staff Photographer)

The American Cancer Society was created in 1913, and today—in 2017—is still one of the most well-known charities internationally. The American Cancer Society, however, continues to be insulted as a non-profit organization despite their amazing work and financial transparency. 

Individuals often become hostile or angry when asserting their negative opinions regarding the ACS; this type of attitude is not only lacking factual evidence, but is also largely inconsiderate. Bashing an organization that has no ulterior motive—that is dedicated to helping people and to eradicating a horrific disease—seems counterproductive and pointless.

One in three people with cancer will die within a year of diagnosis, according to MacMillan Research—meaning a large ratio of people in our country know someone who has died of cancer. It seems deliberately disrespectful to openly speak negatively about a non-profit organization that is trying to combat a horrific disease that affects many people. 

Although insulting the ACS is intended to call into question the organization itself, it personally offends those who have had cancer or who have watched a loved one battle with the disease. Throwing insults at the ACS demeans cancer patients’ struggles as well as an organization that has saved lives for over 100 years.

Further, the claims made by those who discredit the ACS are invalid. The main argument made is that “not all money goes to cancer research,” which is correct—but not in the way critics mean.

 The ACS’s mission is to “save lives, celebrate lives and lead the fight for a world without cancer.” The scope of their charity does not just cover research and finding a cure to cancer—it also focuses on survivor outreach, cancer prevention and general population education.

The ACS is extremely transparent when it comes to where they spend their money. They published on their website that in 2015, $151 million was spent on cancer research, $348 million was spent on patient support, $123 million was spent on prevention information and education programs and $87 million was spent on cancer detection and treatment programs. 

While, clearly, not all this money is used for research grants, the ACS does this intentionally to embody a well-rounded non-profit goal. 

Here, the Geneseo Colleges Against Cancer student organization plans Relay for Life and receives much of the same criticism. This is disappointing, as Relay for Life not only raises money for cancer, but it also helps to create a supportive campus community. The Relay for Life event on campus provides hope for students struggling with a cancer-related issue and reminds us all to count our blessings.

In addition, Geneseo’s Relay for Life dictates exactly where the money raised goes within the ACS. The goal for this year’s event is $180,000, which is $5,000 higher than 2016.

If this money is raised, it will be divided accordingly: $90,000 for one research grant, $36,500 to provide cancer patients 365 overnight accommodations during treatment at the Hope Lodge, $50,000 to purchase 200 wigs for cancer patients and $3,500 to provide 350 rides for cancer patients to and from treatment.

It is always important to question where donation money goes and to remain educated; individuals should never stop researching and holding charities to a high standard. 

It does seem, however, that those who speak up are unaware of the financial transparency and different cancer initiatives that Relay for Life and the ACS provide.

American voters responsible for being informed about politics

Accurate news reporting in the age of President Donald Trump’s administration is as necessary as ever—and, it seems particularly difficult to find. As Trump continues his ongoing cabinet appointments and meetings with international leaders, staying informed about current events is so important under this difficult and unpredictable administration.

While finding completely unbiased news is difficult, it is not too difficult to regularly research and to check up on daily political news and events just to stay casually informed about what is going on in our government. 

Since I don’t have too much time during the day to sit down and to read in-depth about the news, Twitter notifications from the Associated Press and other similar news organizations allow me to stay somewhat informed about current politics while navigating school and work every day.

This influx of notifications, however—and the ongoing discourse surrounding the quality of journalism and certain news outlets—is overwhelming, to say the least. While it is extremely important to stay informed about current events under Trump’s administration, it is tempting to want to step off the grid and separate oneself from the dizzying Internet news world.

I believe that despite some people’s desire to keep politics out of their personal lives, it is harmful and ignorant to be passive about politics. It is a privilege to be able to stay out of political discussions or to stay uninformed, as this shows that one may be in a comfortable position where some crucial political decisions—such as the defunding of Planned Parenthood or the immigration ban—will not affect oneself or one’s family.

Although it is tiring and stressful—both mentally and emotionally—to engage oneself in disappointing and frustrating politics on a regular basis, it keeps us citizens on our toes and ready to keep our government and politicians accountable for their actions. 

Dozens of notifications about Trump’s scandals with Russian officials and Senate members are not the most uplifting things to read in the morning—but to choose ignorance over information harms society in the long run.

Trump’s grievances about corrupt news outlets are a ploy to further build Americans’ distrust of the media. While criticism of the media is a valid viewpoint, we must retaliate by reading as much diverse media as possible—instead of just ignoring it and blaming bias.

Giving yourself a break from reading or watching disheartening and frightening political news is absolutely welcomed. But for those who are privileged, we cannot let our discomfort and cognitive dissonance move us toward a side of ignorance and neutrality against oppressors. 

The best weapon a citizen has against the government is knowledge. The more we know about what is going on behind closed doors in the White House, the better chance we have of making positive differences in local government and in future federal administrations.

Grammys ignores artistic quality, political significance of music

We can’t deny that the next few years are crucial for politics and political efficacy—especially in mainstream media and in public view. It is unsurprising, then, that awards shows like the Golden Globes and the Grammys are criticized and praised for displaying people and artists who use their platforms to vocalize political opinions.

Awards shows are no strangers to politics, as television, film and music nominees usually take risks in their genre and are culturally influential to some extent. The 59th Annual Grammy Awards on Sunday Feb. 12 faced controversy over the way politics are—assumingly—disapproved of or unworthy to win top titles in some major categories. Additionally, the continuation of dialogue over race issues in the music industry resurfaced in the battle between popularity and artistic quality.

The biggest upset of the Grammy’s was Adele’s win over Beyoncé in the most-anticipated top category, Album of the Year. Beyoncé’s album Lemonade was an overwhelming favorite, as it celebrated black womanhood and discussed themes of race politics. Lemonade was also a visual album, including over an hour’s worth of artistically impressive and inspirational music videos.

While Lemonade won for Best Urban Contemporary Album, its iconic cultural influence was not enough to win the biggest award of the night. Many believe Beyoncé lost to Adele because her album celebrated blackness—and, in recent years, the Album of the Year category has been overwhelmingly white. 

The last black woman to win the category was Lauryn Hill in 1999—and in the past five years, black artists who released popular and critically-acclaimed albums lost to white artists that arguably did not meet the same artistic standards.

The influence and artistry of Lemonade cannot be ignored, and even Adele herself admitted she did not deserve to win over the visual album. While accepting her award, Adele said through tears, “I can’t possibly accept this award, and I’m very humbled and I’m very grateful and gracious, but my artist of my life is Beyoncé. This album, to me, the Lemonade album, was so monumental.”

The trend of white artists or actors winning awards over, debatably, more qualified or talented black artists is not new. The Grammys—as much as they are treated with prestige by the media—are not particularly significant or relevant anymore. It adheres to standards of music popularity and album sales, rather than artistic quality and cultural significance. 

Perhaps they do not adhere to those later standards because Beyoncé would, in those circumstances, win every single year.

Trump’s Black History speech disrespects American culture

View fullsize

President Donald Trump gave a speech on Feb. 1 about Black History Month. The speech, however, was riddled with irrelevant grievances about the media and about Trump’s election. It is insulting that an important event was executed with such disrespect and carelessness. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

By now most of us are a little too familiar with President Donald Trump’s obsession with both himself and how he is portrayed in the media. He consistently discusses his poll numbers, the “fake news” about himself and how his opponents are nothing compared to him.

While I am aware of our current president’s incessant narcissism, I was still completely shocked when I read the transcription of his remarks regarding Black History Month. They had very little to do with African American history—and everything to do with himself.

It is more than a little strange when a speech that is supposed to honor African American history begins with a statement about a white man’s hopes for himself. Trump did not even bother to start his speech with something even remotely pertaining to black history. Instead, he said, “Well, the election, it came out really well. Next time we’ll triple the number or quadruple it. We want to get it over 51, right? At least 51.”

Trump failed to bring up any specific details about the history of African Americans in the United States, causing me to question if he even knows any of those specific details. How can the president of a nation fail to address such a crucial part of its history in a speech that’s sole purpose is to address it?  

Throughout his speech, he mentioned names of many prominent African American civil rights activists throughout history. He barely moved beyond mentioning their names, however, before he began to talk about himself again. “Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact,” Trump said. 

It sounded as if he did a Google search of “African Americans in history” and simply wrote down the first few names that came up after the search.

Trump never mentions the danger that Tubman put herself in time and time again to free hundreds of slaves. He does, however, find a way to mention how he “doesn’t watch CNN because he doesn’t like fake news” and that “Fox News has treated him very nice.” 

He does not once elaborate on the very brief statements he makes about African American history. 

It is disgraceful that the president of the U.S. has such little regard for the history of African Americans. There are plenty of opportunities for him to discuss himself and the details of his election at any other press conference or event. His speech discussing Black History Month was not one of those opportunities.

The man who was elected to lead our country has so little respect for the people who live here and its peoples’ history. I can only hope that upon review, he realizes the error of his ways and next year tries to rightfully honor Black History Month and to show respect for the people of this country.

Kardashian weight-loss show perpetuates body image insecurity

Khloé Kardashian’s new show “Revenge Body” has recently garnered attention and—like many of the Kardashian’s commercial endeavors—conflict. In the show, contestants are selected to undergo a complete physical makeover with the hopes of getting “revenge” on their old lifestyles. 

Kardashian became the face of the “revenge body” movement after her split with Lamar Odom. As someone who somewhat shamelessly follows the lives of the Kardashians, I watched her transformation occur right on my Instagram feed. Her social media accounts were flooded with workout tips, gym selfies and motivational quotes. She became the poster girl for how to “win” a breakup. 

Kardashian lost a lot of weight and dyed her hair blonde, and people took notice. Her hope in creating “Revenge Body” is to allow non-celebrities to undergo the same miraculous transformation as she did.

There is a lot to unpack when looking at the problematic aspects of “Revenge Body,” such as the clear issues of putting white, patriarchal norms as the standard of beauty to which everyone should aspire or even the suggestion that self-worth and happiness are contingent upon weight loss. 

The Kardashians are no strangers to promoting similar unhealthy values. They quite literally promote these values on their social media, advertising products such as “Skinny Teas,” waist trainers and diet pills. “Revenge Body,” however, may be their most nefarious act so far.

The trailer for the show begins with a relatively positive message as Kardashian discusses her previously toxic relationship with food that left her unhappy and unhealthy, which she overcame through healthy eating and exercise. 

This quickly becomes dangerous, however, as it suggests that weight loss was the only factor in Kardashian’s newfound happiness—that her self-worth is contingent about thinness and her “obsession” with exercise.

The premise of the show is not supposed to be explicitly about revenge after a breakup, but rather “the life that you once had,” as Kardashian states on the season one trailer. Moments after this, however, contestants are asked to list who their revenge body is for. Some responses included an ex-fiancé, their mothers and their friends. 

The suggestion that problems with interpersonal relationships, self-esteem issues and unhealthy mindsets can be fixed with gym sessions, haircuts and laser hair removal is absurd and dangerous. 

Oddly enough, these physically exhausting and often painful processes can offer contestants an easier solution than looking inward and addressing the deeper emotional issues that create these feelings of inadequacy. 

It’s natural to desire change when we feel like we are unhappy with the trajectory of our lives. Channeling self-loathing and sadness into obsessive weight loss, however, is not the same as, say, getting a haircut, learning to knit or adopting a puppy.

“It’s not about a weight number, it’s how you feel,” Kardashian said in a trailer for the show. 

This is subsequently followed by clips of trainers barking orders at contestants who work themselves to exhaustion and look miserable as they stand on a scale. It may be unwarranted to expect a deeper understanding of harmful Western beauty ideals—such as body hair removal and spray tanning from a Kardashian sister—but these obvious displays of fat-shaming and harsh judgment take these issues to a new level. 

The bigger issues come into play when filming ends. The excessive amount of training and time commitment Kardashian promotes are simply unsustainable in everyday life. After reaching the short-term goal of weight loss, it may be hard for contestants to grapple with the fact that long-term issues persist—even if they drop three dress sizes.

Circumcision should be delayed to adulthood for informed consent

The conversation regarding whether babies born with male genitalia should be circumcised has resurfaced recently with more urgency due to the renewed public vigor about personal bodily autonomy and consent. 

It is expected that parents make most decisions regarding their child’s health and happiness during infancy. While babies are limited to crying to communicate their needs, parents are left to make major life decisions for the child that bypass the usual realm of what they should wear or what they should eat. 

A parent piercing their child’s ears so they look “pretty,” for example, is a contested issue. This issue pales in comparison, however, to the irreversible practice of penile circumcision. Many are starting to see circumcision as a question of bodily autonomy and as a form of bodily mutilation. At the very least, information about the concerns of circumcision should be available to parents.

Because a child cannot give a form of consent on a permanent cosmetic procedure, the practice of penis circumcision in infancy or in childhood should be stopped. 

Penile circumcision is often a religious or cultural practice in the Jewish and Islamic faiths, and is also seen in aboriginal tribes in Australia and Africa, according to the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic also lists positive factors for circumcision, including ease of cleaning, decreased risk of urinary tract infections and the possibility that it might decrease the risk of penile cancer. It is also thought that circumcision does not detract from nor enhance sexual pleasure. 

The “aesthetic” factor to circumcise children is the most worrisome argument for penile circumcision. As they grow older and start having sex, many people worry that their penis won’t be attractive unless it looks a certain way. An article by the New York Post quotes a matchmaker, saying, “Women find it disgusting to be intimate with a man who’s not circumcised.”

Another interview with a urologist stated that over half of adult patients that opt for penile surgery do so because of cosmetic reasons. 

Like with any surgery, the Mayo Clinic details the risk of complication if the foreskin is not completely removed. It may reattach, fail to heal properly, become infected or remain too long or too short on the penis. 

Because this procedure is irreversible and is done primarily for cosmetic reasons, the practice of circumcising the penis should be publicly questioned. The choice to not circumcise should also be destigmatized and given validity as a personal decision.

Making a permanent, cosmetic decision for another individual based on one’s parents’ beliefs is selfish. Worrying that a penis won’t be sexually attractive within a social context is an issue people must face themselves—and make their own informed decision about. Unless there is a serious medical reason to get the procedure done, surgery should be delayed until the child can make his/her own choice regarding permanent changes to his/her body. 

It is up to the masses to realize that a penis is a penis, whether or not it is circumcised. No one should feel pressured to make their body look a certain way—especially if surgery is involved.

Yiannopoulos protest protects students against hatred, abuse

View fullsize

Students at University of California, Berkeley protest the arrival of speaker and Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos to campus for an event hosted by the Berkeley College Republicans. The protest escalated to a riot which resulted in a cancellation of the event. Even though dissenters were criticized for rioting, it was worth it to protect vulnerable student communities on campus. (Ben Margot/AP Photo)

On Groundhog Day, Thursday Feb. 2, a far-right provocateur stuck his head out from his underground movement and discovered that the winter of liberal discontent is far from over.

Milo Yiannopoulos, the senior editor for Breitbart News, was invited to speak at the University of California, Berkeley by the Berkeley College Republicans. 

A peaceful protest of the event by over 1,500 students was disrupted by 150 masked agitators who became violent, burned vehicles, smashed windows and caused around $100,000 worth of damage to the campus. University police cancelled the event.

Yiannopoulos has made himself famous by essentially being an Internet troll. As a self-termed “free-speech fundamentalist,” he has written Breitbart articles with titles such as, “Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?” and “Here’s Why There Ought To Be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths.” These pieces are composed with the express purpose of getting a rise out of the left, and like so many in the Trump movement, Yiannopoulos thrives on the attention this generates. 

His appearance in Berkeley was part of a national tour called “Dangerous Faggot”—Yiannopoulos is openly gay and a British immigrant to boot, which just goes to show that in America you can grow up to be anyone you want to be.

His speaking engagement on Berkeley’s campus does not rise to a level that justifies property violence. Right wing pundits such as Tomi Lahren, however, were quick to blame the left without any real evidence that the black bloc protesters are part of any movement aligned with the left. 

Events like the riot that erupted against Yiannopoulos play directly into his hands politically—he would like nothing more than a chance to complain about the “intolerance” of the left and pose as a free speech martyr. Some argue that because of this dynamic, it would be more effective to ignore Yiannopoulos completely than to protest him.

These arguments might be more convincing if all Yiannopoulos had done was publish a few incendiary articles online. In fact, however, that didn’t seem to generate enough attention for him, and he has used his tour to abuse individual students.

At the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Yiannopoulos gave his typical mockery of the feminist criticism of the phrase “man up,” when all of a sudden he pulled up a picture of a transgender student on the projector screen. 

“I’ll tell you one UW-Milwaukee student that does not need to man up,” he said of the transgender woman. “This quote unquote nonbinary trans woman forced his way into the women’s locker rooms this year … I have known some passing trannies in my life …The way that you know he’s failing is I’d almost still bang him.”

The student was in the audience, and after the speech she withdrew from college over displeasure with how the administration handled of the situation. 

Fifty percent of transgender youth struggle with depression, and they attempt suicide three times as often as their cisgender peers. It doesn’t matter whether Yiannopoulos’s abuse was rooted in bigotry or a desire for attention—it is sickening either way. It says a lot about the alt-right movement that so much of their platform is based deeply in a desire to make people suffer. This shows that Yiannopoulos is a pathetic bully.

Officials at UC Berkeley should have precluded the entire mess by canceling Yiannopoulos’ speaking engagement despite the protestations of the radical right. Let them squeal. If it saves one transgender student from violence so abhorrent she felt induced to give up her education, then it will have been more than justified.

Sexual assault in TV should be portrayed responsibly

It is imperative that society holds television shows and films accountable for the way they—as influential media outlets—portray sex. The way that sex is portrayed in mainstream media can, and will, affect the way young women view themselves and the way they believe they should be treated in sexual scenarios.

While it is important that media content depicts a healthy sex life to its audience, it can also be helpful to highlight the opposite. This can only be effective, however, if the content is clearly and skillfully created with the intention of making individuals aware that certain behaviors are unacceptable.

This issue was recently brought to the public eye when the HBO series “Girls,” starring Lena Dunham, received criticism for a sex scene featured in the ninth episode of the second season. In one scene, Adam Driver’s character forcibly has sex with his new girlfriend, played by guest star Shiri Appleby, after she clearly says, “No.”

Joe Flint of the Los Angeles Times said that the episode was, “graphic even for those fans used to seeing creator and star Lena Dunham's no-holds-barred approach to story-telling.” Further, he said that it was a “jarring end to a violent and hard-to-watch scene. Even theatrical movies with sexually explicit material and adult pay-per-view channels typically steer clear of such displays.”

The violent sex scene played without warning to viewers, which could have been a trigger for any sexual assault and rape victims who were watching. In addition, the show failed to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and did not discuss why the character’s actions were not only unacceptable, but also criminal.

In the process of the “Girls” creators defending this scene, their responses made the situation worse and highlighted their ignorance. “Girls” executive producer Jenni Konner responded to criticism of the scene by saying, “To me, that was a fully consensual bummer of a sex scene.” 

In addition, Dunham commented on accusations that the scene portrayed rape and said, "Oh, I've been raped, and that's not what it feels like … That scene was very much based on an interaction I had with someone whom I continued to feel very loving feelings toward for a long time after that, because human sexuality is so complicated."

Not only are Konner and Dunham’s responses insulting on many fronts, but they are also blatantly ignorant of what makes sex consensual. Dunham also manages to pigeonhole all experiences of sexual assault to the way she felt, ignoring the fact that every individual responds to traumatic experiences differently. 

The way “Girls” handled the portrayal of a sexual encounter—as well as the creator’s response to a scene that clearly depicts sexual assault—is unacceptable. If the media continue to be lenient when clarifying issues of consent, it will affect the way society views these things as well. 

It is important that individuals understand that the type of sex portrayed in that scene is unacceptable. The fact that “Girls” is unwilling to own up to this makes the need for a higher media standard even more immediate.

DeVos confirmation exemplifies need for government reform

The Senate confirmation of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education on Tuesday Feb. 7 is a clear example of how bribery, favoritism and general corruption runs our nation’s government.

DeVos—who infamously has no experience in public education and is actively against it—was confirmed 51-50 by the Senate with a rare tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence. Two Republican senators crossed party lines and voted against DeVos, yet the confirmation only requires a simple majority to pass.

DeVos’ shocking lack of qualification for this position of education secretary has been important news and a current topic of discussion. It is inherently problematic that the position can be confirmed with one mere tie-breaking vote. Like a hung jury, a Senate in a complete 50-50 disagreement on a cabinet position should reconsider the nominee and address the vote again on a later date.

DeVos’ inexperience alone should be enough to warrant a unanimous rejection—not to mention her financial ties and donor relationships with Republicans. Many suggest her wealthy status and influence was enough for her to gain the position despite the common sense red flags. 

Her history with the Republican party is suspicious as well. In 1997, she wrote in Roll Call, “My family is the biggest contributor of soft money to the Republican National Committee. I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return.”

The blatant disregard for the significance of the education secretary position—and its influence on the future of education in the United States, arguably one of the most important federal programs—leaves DeVos’ critics at a loss for words. It seems that when money is involved, logic and responsibility are nowhere to be found in our government.

The overwhelming criticism of DeVos on part of the public and half of all senators will hopefully survive to prevent and extinguish any future policy or budget cuts that may severely damage public education. Our government system has failed us once again, and we owe it to future generations to fix these mounting mistakes.

EPA media blackout incites viral, rebellious social media response

Supporters of the Environmental Protection Agency recently launched a form of academic assault on President Donald Trump’s claims against climate change as backlash against the censorship enacted during his first week in office.

Trump’s administration has, “instituted a media blackout at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, removed references to climate change on the White House website and posted an energy plan that calls for increasing our use of fossil fuels,” according to CNN.

Global warming activity has been highlighted in scientific research, and is widely considered to be factual by scientific experts. Trump, on the other hand, publicly denounces climate change and hopes that the use of fossil fuels will “Make America Great Again.” 

The use of fossil fuels, however, has put the future of the Earth in jeopardy. The actions committed by Trump that ignore climate change have inspired a backlash in the scientific community—one that utilizes direct discourse with the public.

Through Twitter, scientists, celebrities, journalists and students recently tweeted the hashtag “#ClimateFacts” to promote awareness about climate change. Some environmental agencies have even gone rogue and posted about climate change in direct opposition to Trump’s implementation of a blackout of EPA social media accounts.

The official Badlands National Park’s Twitter account was compromised by a vigilante attempting to post about climate change amid the crisis. The posts were deleted due to claims from the National Park Service that a “former employee” was not “currently authorized to use the park’s account,” according to CNN. 

The Park Service claimed they censored the posts due to the account having been compromised and that they will continue to post about safety and park information while staying away from national policy issues. 

Park information and safety, however, is far from comparable to the intent of the compromised account’s rebellious climate change tweets. Following Trump’s censorship of the social media accounts, this does not help to sustain the future for our parks and ecosystems. 

It seems that there is a bias surrounding the “legitimacy” of a press conference versus the conversations had on social media. The argument arises regarding the necessary tools used to portray information to the public. Should we have a serious political discourse on social media outlets like Twitter or Facebook? 

Some might counter and say that unless the information is verified and scheduled in an academic or governmental setting, then it’s unlikely that we will find accurate information from those involved on social media. We’re supposed to be content with reading news articles, rather than actively communicating with politicians via Twitter.

The beauty of social media resides in its availability to millions of people—not just the ones that seek out articles on their own. Not only can one see what one has subscribed to on social media, one can see what his friends have liked, shared and retweeted. This expands the horizon of an individual’s views and interests simply by seeing what their friends are up to. 

The usage of social media and environmental politics should be a way to inform the public on the state of climate change. Blacking out discourse on climate change—which the Trump administration is shamelessly advocating for—is unforgivable. 

Climate change is happening, no matter how hard the government tries to conceal it.

Government checks and balances useless against executive orders

View fullsize

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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