#newspolitics

80 Seconds with Hobert C- (4-15-2020) Protesting the Shutdowns

Obama inspired me to become passionate about politics, Obama is the reason I followed Prop. 8 with such diligence, and continue to be passionate about social justice. He inspired me to want to make a change, he inspired to be a Political Communication Major. And I hope that someday, I can inspire a sixth grader in a classroom someday to find something they’re passionate about, and inspire them to make a change.

America. Just the word conjures a scruffy man with the American flag in one hand, an automatic rifle in the other, and the bill of rights projecting from his poaching red, white, and blue eyes. Land of liberty, free from tyranny of any sort or stature. Bipartisan by respectful, honorable individuals since 1776, united by the common goal to uphold America as America The Great. This has been the America recognized, defended, and deployed to assist domestic and foreign concerns across the globe as a leading world super power. However, currently there are powers greater than any nation. Tyrants that rule and permeate all sectors of modern civilization. Society has reached the point where tyrants are no longer political positions occupied by individual rulers; now they are virtual applications administered by global conglomerates. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, the list continues. Social networks purposed for international social interaction are now utilized as political weapons and perception manipulators. Americans have exchanged their flags, their colors, their arms for devices capable of contriving multiple identities, painting matters in skewed shades, and endangering far more than an individual’s or a group’s life; these devices have the power to determine the future. With the 2016 presidential race rapidly heating toward an election between a powerful woman portrayed as simply America’s not-so cool mom and a delusional megalomaniac attired as a humorous clown, the future of America and the world is treated as the punchline to a far too facetious joke. The future is not a joke, nor is it serious anymore; due to the pop culture and entertaining display of the current presidential race, the future is grave. It is only proper to speak on behalf of the future if the precedent is established first. Reality is virtual now. Yes, of course, reality is the physical world and is technically separate from the cyberspace. Though is it really? With the rapid spread and growth of the Internet, they have appeared some social phenomena such as cyberbullying, internet pornography, grooming through social networks, cybersuicide, Internet addiction and social isolation, racism on the web… Social networks (1) are characterized as online services that allow individuals to create a public profile within an entrenched net system… Social networks are a set of interactions and relationships. In summation, according to Marianna Diomidous in her review “Social and Psychological Effects of the Internet Use,” people, more importantly adolescents, tend to their virtual lives to such an extent that their cyber-reality affects their physical reality to detrimental extents. Thus, the virtual reality is positioned as the highest priority. The most affecting impacts are those resulting from online interactions. Therefore, any physical interaction or experience is not only second to its virtual counterpart, but nearly irrelevant. The results of Diomidous’ review are not only deserving of immediate acknowledgement, but even more so immediate intervention: The spread of the Internet and the growing influence of it to such an extent as to constitute a dominant element in the lives of users, led to the exploration of the consequences that may cause the frequent usage of the internet in the physical and mental development of both young people and adults. Among the multitude of parameters that make up this new and constantly evolving situation are the exposure of users to propaganda and racist ideas. Additionally, Internet may offer inappropriate material and misleading ideas. The Internet and its content transcend influence and is better categorized as molding. The conception of individuals, especially adolescents, is malleable, therefore what they invest their time and attention into will shape their disposition and, ultimately, their realities. What people see and interact with online matters; it matters the most. “Bullying…Racism…Inappropriate material and misleading ideas,” do these all sound frighteningly familiar? Do these qualities conjure the image of a particular individual? Is that individual a presidential candidate? Not even O.J. Simpson’s lawyer could refute these terms possessing direct associations with 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump. This person not only pre-existed as a powerful figure, he could likely be one of the few people appointed the position allotted command of the world’s strongest military, contributors to the global economy, and the nuclear launch codes that would result in global annihilation. If this sounds a bit extreme, it is because it is. Yet only few individuals and communities perceive it to be. Sensibly so too: who would suspect a frivolous clown to ravage a country and decimate a planet? Donald trump is only a clown because his opposition paints him so with social networks as the canvas and social media as the brushes. The mockery extends to the other candidates as well. Bernie Sanders is portrayed as some cute, cool-guy underdog who deserves a pat on the head, Hilary Clinton as, well, his opposite, and the other republican candidates’ depiction matches Trumps. It is understandable why this portrayal exists. It is humorous. It garners attention, fondness, or opposition toward particular candidates and the one who posted the meme, gif, video, or comment. And these forms of media are typically frivolous and harmless. But that’s where the potential problem lies. Since the candidates, one of whom will be the president of the United States and have control over all its powers, are displayed in a format that is defined the platform for passive, reductive humor, the candidates are interpreted as such too. The consequences of this interpretation, especially with the current presidential candidates are terrifying. Terrifying not because the wrong people are gaining support and attention, but because the attention is directed at mocking the opposition rather than considering how they could likely become president while, in the background, their chances and number of supporters increase. Trump can be mocked all the Internet wants, but the current state of blind ignorance cannot resume. The future of America and the world further and further approaches critical condition while those who are capable of impeding tyrannical terror sit idly by, obstructing themselves from the reality with their dangerous jokes. Using social networks as the platform, however, is not all bad. Though the content and psychological effects of using social media to discuss the presidential candidates are dangerous, the spread of information and quantity of participants has never been higher. People across the world of all ages are now included. The moment an individual sees some media content on a presidential candidate while scrolling through their newsfeed, they are involved. They may not be engaged, nor an active contributor, though they have a general sense of the current situation and who supports each party and candidate. This awareness is valuable in its own right, however, it is more important that it has potential to be advantageous. If the right celebrity or figure supports a candidate, or a polarizing incident occurs, one of those who are simply aware could possibly become involved. Although, this circumstance can be equally detrimental if that involvement and support leans toward a candidate likely to cause havoc. The Internet’s ability to spread information and reap awareness is powerful; it is best for that not to be forgotten. Ultimately, here’s the point: the longer we perpetuate the facetious portrayal of these presidential candidates, the more likely the future will be dangerous. We need to stop masquerading these malignant tumors as just beauty marks; they are not pretty, nor are their repercussions. What people experience and interact with dictates their perception. It does not matter if that is through cyberspace or reality; the virtual plane has become the reality. Considering how most individuals spend nearly all their time and attention on social media, their lives are now more dependent on the Internet space rather than physical reality. Saturating social networks with rudimentary depictions of the 2016 presidential candidates is not only detrimental, it is disastrous. There is an unintentional indoctrination occurring where people view the candidates as small quips rather than serious figures. Racism, sexism, discrimination, moral impotence, humiliation, and instigation are not qualities of even the worst president; but they are possible. If the cancer is not severed, it will only strew and fester beyond restraint or repair. The production and exhibition of this content cannot simply be deactivated or banned. That would cause outrage and, frankly, yield worse implications. Instead, the very same platform and mediums should be used to promote the objective and informative representations of the 2016 presidential candidates. Not only would this mitigate the perception of the candidates being frivolous, it would replace the space with the accurate view. This cannot be done over night, nor by any ordinary individual. This must be executed by those who amass the most popularity, attention, and political humor content. Celebrity endorsements, social networking implementations such as the addition of a factual newsfeed or section to view the candidacy objectively, and those who produce these dooming presidential portrayals necessitating this reform, are the most effective contributors to an informed, safe future. The spread of this content does overwhelmingly extend the reach of information and generate exponentially more awareness, however, this quality currently leads to more tribulation. It is time to swap out the dooming frivolity for serious information. When it comes to games and jokes, sure, present it in any manner. But when it comes to factors determining the future, be appropriate. Be responsible. And be informative. All traits that counter a maniac with his prearranged clown foot far in the door wide red smirk making his opposition laugh and his supporters cheer. Trump the humor; make America sane again.

The definition of feminism is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”. It doesn’t seem that difficult to grasp in this straightforward statement, and yet everyone seems to have a different interpretation, which is ridiculous. Apparently there are different levels of feminism, ie being a radical feminist. But it’s ridiculous to be anything but a feminist, because once people start adding adjectives to feminist, they stray from the true definition: equality. It seems every self-proclaimed feminist slips up now and then, even the famous ones. Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem have recently received backlash over some statements they made on the presidential primaries. Albright, while at a presidential candidacy rally in New Hampshire for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was quoted saying “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” referring to women who are voting for the other Democratic runner Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (or any of the Republican candidates (even Carly Fiorina)). In an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem said “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,” basically stating that the only reason a young woman would vote for Bernie is because that’s what the young men are doing. The women have since apologized, and many young feminists have been left with holes in their hearts.  And the question on everyone’s mind is: what made them say that? I feel in order to properly critique what these women said, we have to look into their pasts and really define what they stand for. Gloria Steinem was born March 25, 1934, in Toledo, Ohio, became a freelance writer after attending Smith College, helped pioneer New York and Ms. magazines, and helped form the National Women’s Political Caucus. Throughout her long life, she has advocated for women’s rights in all aspects. She’s the one who coined the phrase “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”, and has also been recorded saying “Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.” Similarly, Madeleine Albright is a strong-willed feminist, although her contributions are more involved with politics. Madeleine Albright was born May 15th, 1937 in Prague (later moving as a child to the United States), entered politics after attending Wellesley College and Columbia University, became American Ambassador to the UN in 1993, and was the first female Secretary of State. Being the first female Secretary of State, she paved the way for many women in politics and is seen as a proper role model to all young women. Some famous quotes of hers are “Women have to be active listeners and interrupters - but when you interrupt, you have to know what you are talking about,” and of course “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” Why would women who have encouraged young women to pursue their dreams condemn them for voting for who they think is right? At first glance, Hillary as a candidate would be ideal to vote for against all of the other white men in the race. But obviously, not everyone is convinced. Jetta Darrow, a female voter from the state of New Hampshire, actually voted for Hillary in the 2008 election. She felt at the time that she was more qualified and Hillary represented the issues she wanted. But this time around, she’s casting her vote for Bernie, but for the same reason. She feels he’s better equipped with the issues she stands for. Darrow clarifies and states “It’s not about gender. It’s about empathy.“ Even Lena Dunham, an avid Hillary supporter, says, “Nothing gets me angrier than when somebody implies that I’m voting for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman. It’s not like we have some feminist version of beer goggles called ‘estrogen lens’ that just causes us to go walking up to the nearest vagina and vote for them.” But she doesn’t completely ignore it (I mean how can you). Dunham also stated,  “While Hillary Clinton’s anatomy is not the reason I’m voting for her, there’s nothing that would send a stronger message to this country, and to the world at large than sending a competent, strong, essential woman to the highest office.” Democratic women all over the country have probably thought about voting for Hillary because she’s a woman. This is frustrating, but I don’t blame them. Part of the platform she’s running on is that she’d be the first female president. When Barack Obama ran for president, he didn’t run on the fact that he’d be the first black president- he ran on his ideas. Hillary’s been quoted saying “Who can be more of an outsider than a woman President?” and wants our country to be a place “where a father can tell his daughter, ‘You can be anything you want to be, including the President of the United States of America.’” These are obviously great ideas, but it seems like she’s constantly pointing out that she’s a woman. I am a woman who voted for Bernie when the primary came around to my state (Vermont, go figure). I strongly believe that every of-age American should go and vote for whom they think should lead our country for the next four to eight years. It’s their duty as American citizens to take action in their own system. It honestly really hurt me when Steinem and Albright made the comments that they did. I even questioned, for a second, why I was voting for Bernie and not for Hillary. “Am I not a feminist?” flashed across my mind. It made me self conscious about my vote, because a vote is a very powerful thing (I mean look at Donald Trump for peat’s sake, the only reason he’s doing so well is because people are actually voting for him). This is my first Presidential election, and I want my vote to count, to mean something to me. I don’t want to be the stereotype the older generations have put on the millennials and just not vote. I’ve done my research, I’ve picked my candidate, and now you’re going to tell me I’m wrong? That I’m voting for Bernie because that’s what the boys are doing and I don’t have a mind of my own and I just follow whatever they’re doing? I would love to have a female president, I just want to wait for the right one. If Steinem and Albright’s only concerns for the president are being female, then what about Carly Fiorina? She’s a woman! Obviously, I’m over exaggerating because Fiorina does not have very many feminist values, but you get the idea. It’s not fair to condemn the women in this country for voting for who they think best represents them, whether it’s Bernie or Hillary. Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem were wrong to say the things they did. And yes, they did apologize. I’m working on forgiving them, because we all say stupid things we regret later on accounts of hurting someone. I’ve grown up in a society where women constantly hate on other women. It’s a vicious, seemingly never ending cycle that at this point I’m used to. Yes, we need to support each other. But by supporting each other, don’t unsupported others because they’re not voting for the same person you are. Support the person you’re going to vote for, but support those people who choose not to follow in your steps. We should be kind and fair to everyone, and we should all believe in political, economic, and social equality of all people. Otherwise, what in the world are we even voting for?

        The affair also says a lot about relationship dynamics and proves that sexism is still widely prevalent. It tends to be a running theme that the powerful wealthy man strays from his wife to find a more attractive younger woman. This affair cliché brings to light the sexism that still pervades within relationships. Women are expected to age gracefully and keep up with women much younger than them, which are only encouraged by the availability of breast implants and face-lifts. I feel that this perpetuates the mindset that women are to stay beautiful and men are to stay rich and if this is tipped off balance then its time to run off and find someone to fill the void. Just comparing Broadwell to Petraeus’ wife, the disparity in age is quite obvious, but Petraeus does not exactly look like the youngest of lads. This blatant inequality when it comes to outer appearances has always baffled me, and the Petraeus mess illustrates this problem.