2
NEWS Student Lettings saves students thousands The Badger 31.10.2016
the
BADGER
Editor-in-Chief Freya Marshall Payne
badger@sussexstudent.com
Deputy Editor Glenn Houlihan Online Editor Remel Logan Crichlow badger@sussexstudent.com
The News Team Daniel Green Luke Richards Tom Robinson
badger-news@sussexstudent.com
The Arts Team Bianca Serafini badger-arts@sussexstudent.com
Miles Fagge thebadger.theatre@gmail.com
Rosie Dodds thebadger.culture@gmail.com
Lucie Andrau thebadger.culture@gmail.com
Monica Cherrie thebadger.film@gmail.com
Lauren Wade
Lauren Wade Music Editor Students saved a total of £44,030 on administration charges by using the Students’ Union letting agency. Sussex Student Lettings, a not-for-profit social enterprise, ensures that all extra money is put back into the running of the service. Sarah Gibbons, the Students’ Uniom Society and Citizenship Officer, said: “Not only is this a great reason for using our agency, but we also aim to provide a lot more support and guidance to students than they would receive from other letting agents, to make the whole renting process as smooth and easy as possible”. The agency provides a wide range of advice and support for students at the university who are searching for somewhere to live. The lettings agency has already housed 238 students so far this year. Ms Gibbons added: “Over the next year,
Sussex Student Lettings will continue and work to increase the advice, training and tools it provides to students. “The idea is to do things that empower students to handle common housing maintenance issues themselves which will mean problems can be resolved quicker and students have skills that will be useful for renting even after university.” Sussex Student Lettings does not charge administration fees, like other lettings agencies in Brighton. In addition, landlords used by the agency are all approved in order to protect students. Sussex Student Lettings is also a key partner in a city wide partnership called Rent Smart, a group of organisations working together to provide information on renting in Brighton & Hove. The Students’ Union will be holding housing talks in collaboration with the Housing Office throughout December and in the new year.
Sussex set for travel chaos on November 5th
badger-music@ussu.sussex.ac.uk
The Comment Team William Singh Devin Thomas
badger-opinion@sussexstudent.com
Letters Editor Fraser Coppin
badger-letters@sussexstudent.com
Features Editor Charlotte Tuxworth-Holden
badger-features@sussexstudent.com
Lifestyle Alex Carter badger-lifestyle@sussexstudent.com
Science Editors Duncan Michie Kate Dearling badger-science@sussexstudent.com
The Sports Team Aaron Stephen Daniel Parker badger-sport@sussexstudent.com
Events and Publicity Coordinator Sophie Clark
badger-publicity@sussexstudent.com
Proof Reader: Billie-Jean Johnson Front page headline image: Daniel Green All other images: Wikimedia Commons.
Sussex Students’ Union
Wikimedia Commons
Editorial:
Continued from front page ...Lewes for the festivities, meaning that many revelers heading into the town will face significant obstacles. RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said: “Our members are being forced to take industrial action in a bid to maintain a safe and secure service on Southern. “Govia Thameslink and the Government have made it clear that they have no interest in resolving this dispute.” Up to 80,000 spectators attend the Lewes Bonfire annually which commemmorates, not only the Gunpowder Plot, but also the memory of 17 Protestant martyrs killed during the Marian Persecutions in the 16th century.
Summer Dean, Sussex alumna and co-founder of the Association of British Commuters said: “[The strike action] will obviously be a huge inconvienience not only for people wishing to travel to Lewes Bonfire, but also for many students and non-students who live in the surrounding areas. “The trains will be running and passing through stations but simply not stopping. This will undoubtedly create more congestion and danger on the roads as many people will be forced to drive, get buses, cycle or walk.” Southern have said no replacement buses will run on November 5, and that customers should not rely on bus services as they will be very busy.
Why are we so fascinated by the US election?
Freya Marshall Payne With the American presidential elections looming for 8th November, this edition of The Badger is themed around all things American. Very few of us here at Sussex can actually vote in the elections yet they have been on almost everyone’s lips for months now. The elections have made headlines, caused uproar - this is a trend which can be seen around each American presidential election but in 2016 more than ever all eyes are on the US. It’s strange, unusual election: so maybe this is why we care so much. The treatment of women especially has been in the spotlight, and Sophie Clarke has explored this in Features. But that doesn’t explain the enduring significance of America and american politics for British people. Maybe it’s
because of our shared history, our shared language and the influences we have on each other’s cultures... Maybe it’s down to pure curiosity: America is in the news so often, how could we turn away and ignore the issues when they paralell our own concerns? In an age of increased separtaion between countries, evidenced by Britain’s departure from the European Union, surely it becomes more important to look to other countries, see our similarities and differences - and practise solidarity. The aim of this edition is to provide insight into the basics of the eection as well as the big issues. So in addition to our themed articles (spot the stripey America-coloured headlines!), we have a pull-out supplement: the Badger Guide to the American elections. We’ve collated all the information you’ll need to follow along on election
night, November 8th. The Badger is also hosting a presidential debate on 2nd November as part of our Big Debate Live series: Arts 2, 7pm-9pm. Free tickets can be booked on our facebook page. While all this is going on in America, take the time to look to Iceland, where another interesting and atypical election is taking place. Daniel Green explores the landscape of this other, less discussed but equally fascinating election in Comment. Whether you’re one of those alreday fascinated by the US election or you haven’t quite got the hype yet, we hope you enjoy this edition and find it useful!
Badger fact: In Japanese folklore, a type of shape-shifting demon which deceives humans is depicted as badgers. Their name is Mujina.
• Why the world will miss President Obama >> p10 • The treatment of women in the 2016 U.S. presidential election >> p15 • Trump and Clinton: the absurdity of modern politics >> p16 • Films to celebrate the American elections >> p16 * Presidential debate spoofs >> p17 • The experience of going to college in America >> p17 * Letters from and about America >> Themed content: • Interview with BBC journalist Justin p21 * NFL’s triumphant return to the UK Webb >>p5 >> p24 • The American candiadates >>p8
6
The Badger 31.10.2016
INTERVIEW
“Gun control is popular, there’s no question about it. Most Americans think it’s perfectly acceptable to limit the weapons that people have and the number of people who have them” Continued from page []... mainstream media.” I asked Webb is he could give me his predictions for November 8th. He laughed and warned me that had no more of an idea than anyone else. “It’s not an expert prediction, but at the moment I can’t see Trump winning. The local polls in key states where he has to win in order to be President, I don’t think he’ll get. My rather dull view is based on the evidence of how people vote, and I think Clinton will become President.”
“Unquestionably, ObamaCare is the President’s greatest political achievement” We couldn’t talk about Presidential candidates without talking about Barack Obama, who’s eight years in the Oval Office are coming to a close. Webb was living in Washington D.C. when Obama was first elected in 2008: a pivotal moment in American history. For many across the nation and the world, Obama was a symbol of great change, a symbol that United States voters had chosen to embrace the “one American family” that Obama promoted. With his Presidency in it’s last months, I asked Webb for reflections on Obama’s eight years as Commander in Chief. “Unquestionably, ObamaCare is his greatest political achievement. There were roughly 40 million Americans who weren’t insured, and roughly half of them now are.” Webb emphasises the importance of mak-
ing distinction between those who weren’t insured by choice, and those who previously couldn’t afford it: “a significant number of Americans needed insurance and now have it.” Webb stressed that the next President still needs to work to keep the policy strong. Although the Affordable Care Act is not reversible, it will need solidifying in years to come. Despite this, the policy is a great achievement for social progress in the US, and one that Obama will be remembered for. Next I asked Webb where Obama had gone wrong. He spoke about his approach to policies in the Middle East. “He stuck to George W. Bush’s timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq, and pulled them out too early,” he says. “Obama should have realised that Iraq was not, as he called it, a country with a sovereign, democratically elected government. He was fooling himself, and that was an initial mistake.” Webb then went on to discuss Obama’s actions in Syria, and his strategy for dealing with Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. “In 2013, he threatened to bomb Assad and then didn’t do it. There’s no doubt that has had an impact on American power.
“It seems extraordinary that a country such as Russia can bully the United States on the international stage”
President of Russia “It seems extraordinary that a country such as Russia – with an authoritarian leader and very little going for it economically – can bully the United States so hugely on the international stage,” he says. “There is a significant, legitimate question to be asked about whether Obama personally invited that.” I asked Webb about Obama’s continuing struggle to push through gun control, and what this can tell us about the workings of the American political system. “It’s a catastrophic mess because it’s so difficult to do things. Gun control is popular, there’s no ques-
tion about it. Most Americans think it’s perfectly acceptable to limit the weapons that people have and the number of people who have them – but it remains impossible to get through. “Part of it’s money and the ability of special interest groups. Both interfere with the democratic process. Gun control is just one example of how messed up the system is.” Finally, we discussed the future of the United States. How will things change in the coming years? I asked Webb about the role of religion in politics and culture, which seems much more significant than in the UK. “One of the really interesting social and political changes of the next decade will be the extent to which the Democratic Party is – to use a deliberately provocative phrase – captured by atheists. It’s increasingly the case that religion is not playing a part.
“This is probably the last election that could have been won by a super-served whiteappealing candidate” Flickr: Gage Skidmore
“I absolutely accept that religion plays an important part in American life. I don’t think it will stay that way
forever.” And how about politics – are Trump’s aggressively right-wing views a sign of things to come? “No. This is probably the last election that could have been won by a super-served white-appealing candidate – someone who only really appeals to white voters. “White people are on the way down, and the number of Latino people who are becoming registered to vote and reaching the voting age every year is huge. There’s nothing the poor white population can do about that.” Webb stressed the importance of immigration reform in order to create more of a relaxed view towards Mexico and South and Central America – he sees Clinton prioritising this if she wins the Presidency. November 8th will see the United States and the international community on the edge of their seats. No matter what the result, it seems the challenge ahead for future leaders will be creating a nation where the American people feel united rather than divided. Given the inconceivable space and huge diversity, who knows if this will ever be possible. THE BIG DEBATE Live: Trump vs. Hilary As a warm-up to election night, come along to The Badger’s Big Debate. Sussex students will be representing both candidates and battling for victory. November 2nd, ARTS A2 19:00-21:00
The Badger 31.10.2016
COMMENT
Icelandic election shows politics at its best Daniel Green News Editor Unless you have had your head buried in the sand for the last three months (and if you have, I can understand why!), you would have seen that the American election has been plastered over every newspaper and every news website in the country. However, in the cacophony of articles about what Donald Trump has said this week or what’s been revealed by WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton today, another quite significant election has been overlooked. It may not be as important or momentous as the vote to decide the leader of the free world, but the election close to our shores could shake up politics there in a way never seen before, and could potentially even impact Europe as a whole. I am, of course, talking about Iceland.
Sure, Iceland may be an island trapped between North America and Europe, and its population may be about the size of Milton Keynes, but the effect of the election that the media missed last week could have serious ramifications for the country and possibly for Europe too. Iceland’s political landscape has largely been dominated by one party, the centre-right Independence Party (no relation of UKIP), which has been the largest party for every year bar four since 1944. However, this is set to change as polls show that, by the time you read this, the largest party will not be the main opposition party (the left-wing ‘Alliance’), but the Pirates. If polling proves accurate on Election Day, the Pirate Party will be in a position to form a coalition government - something no other similar group has ever managed to accomplish. Formed only four years ago, the Pirate Party has thrived on the
same angst and cynicism that has seen the meteoric rise of parties such as UKIP, the Front National in France, and Podemos in Spain - a distrust of the major political parties. Both the governing right-wing coalition, and a left-wing one that preceded it, failed to effectively tackle the economic crisis, which saw three of Iceland’s leading banks collapse, and efforts to reform the
country’s Constitution have also been unsuccessful. However, it’s the Panama Papers which saw the Pirates soar to prominence. When the release of documents linking the Prime Minister to a company that dealt with Icelandic bank debt, more than 10 per cent of the population demanded he resign and fresh elections were called. And it was the Pirates that led that call. Combined with their fresh ap-
Wikimedia Commons
proach and their willingness to talk with and compromise other parties to form a coalition, polls had put their support as high as 43% at the peak of the crisis. For Europe, the significance comes from the Pirates’ willingness to restart talks to join the European Union and to put membership to a public vote, a move ruled out by the current eurosceptic government when taking office. Finally, Iceland’s election will act as a message to all that animosity towards the elite does not have to translate into scapegoating and nationalistic fervour. What the Pirates have proved, regardless of what the election result was on Saturday, is that wanting greater accountability and powers over decision making, calling for collaboration between those with different views and demanding something better can be a vote winner in today’s world, and at a time when left and right have become increasingly polarised, that is one shred of hope.
Why the world will miss President Obama William Singh Comment Editor In the midst of an election which has morphed into a farcical contest between ‘no change’ and backwards change, it’s hard not to wonder what happened to American progressivism. Eight years ago almost to the day, a young, fresh-faced, no-grey-hairs Barack Obama spoke to the crowds in Chicago, and declared that “change has come to America.” If it came, too many never saw it. It’s tempting, then, to see the current contest as a reaction to the failure of “the politics of hope”, that it reflects the hollowness of politicians’ vague promises and the electorate coming around to the need for pragmatism and realism. But amongst the mediocrity and universal dislike of the two candidates on offer this time around, it’s worth reflecting on the Obama years - with every passing scandal reminding America, and the world, what they’re going to lose when President Obama leaves office on January 20. Every since he appeared on the national political scene in 2004, through his primary campaign in 2007-08 and subsequent national presidential run, Obama has had hurled at him from all sides the criticism that he’s “just words”; he can give a good speech, sure, but he’s basically incapable of securing the practical change the country needs. I argue that’s unfair for two reasons: that the importance of communication in political life should not be undervalued; and that there have been serious real changes in Obama’s time in office that are reflective of a man much more competent and pragmatic
than critics give him credit for. The way politicians communicate to citizens is of vital importance because it has a real tangible impact on how a country does its politics, and therefore what policies it ends up with. Donald Trump legitimises bigotry, Clinton entrenches the cynicism of ‘politician-speak’, and the pair of them make a mockery of what should be a festival of democracy. JFK hailed the peaceful handover of power in America a “celebration of freedom”, but it’s hard to imagine election day or either candidate’s inauguration as anything other than a celebration of apathy. But Obama understood that the role of the President is not just policy-creation and pragmatism - far more so than most country’s leaders the US Presidency is “a place of moral leadership” (Franklin Roosevelt’s words). It sets the tone of debate and political discourse for a country of 350 million people, and then communicates the values and ideals of that people to the rest of the world. America throughout its history has been a ‘shining city on a hill’, a beacon of hope for believers in democracy, individual liberty and legitimate government for people all over the world. That position was threatened by Bill Clinton, imperilled by George W. Bush, and would be destroyed by Donald Trump. In that climate, and despite inheriting two wars, a disgusting torture regime and an economic meltdown, Barack Obama restored the United States to global respectability. That’s no small victory. Most important of all, we need to understand that politicians are products of their time - they emerge
at the whim of voters to articulate, and hopefully answer, the defining question of the moment. Obama in 2008 heralded a national soulsearching - willing to ask the hard questions about the place of America in the world. It’s easy to dismiss that as “just words” but it is a vital part of politics, and one that is conspicuously missing today. As he said in a speech commemerating the 50th anniversary of the Selma march: “What greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon
diverse strands of the national culture together and articulate its identity and its future. That’s what Obama did, and continues to do. The art of rhetoric is not just about flowery language or feel-good speeches, it’s about an articulation of the deepest held ideas of the nation. If a people can’t look at their leaders and find people they believe in, we are left with a technocratic professionalisation of politics. In a political age so often defined by apathy and low turnout, we should not be embarrassed to praise the greatest political communicator of our generation. On top of that, anyone who peddles
Flickr: Gage Skidmore our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?” ‘Politics’ is nothing more or less than a people coming together to resolve their differences and pursue their collective interests. In part, that means engineering and administering policies that make them prosperous, more secure and so on. But it also means having the rare ability to bring
the narrative that nothing really changed under Obama should try saying that to the millions of low-income Americans who have access to health insurance for the first time; to the undocumented immigrants who now see a path to citizenship; to the soldiers brought home from “dumb wars” in far-off lands; to the prisoners subjected to waterboarding and unspeakable abuse by the cruelty of the Bush administration;
and to the countless citizens around the world who saw their jobs, their mortgages, their life savings going down the drain, before the economic system was brought back from the brink of total collapse. When all is said and done, the Obama years are littered with historic achievements - from the Iran nuclear deal and restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, to appointing two of the four women justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court (who went on to vote for the groundbreaking ruling on marriage equality). Many reading this will nevertheless be disappointed: the rate of change has seemed frustratingly slow, and in some important senses the Obama administration has represented continuity far more than change. I sympathise with the sentiment, and am myself of the view that had Obama been all many voters thought he’d be, a candidate like Bernie Sanders (or for that matter Donald Trump) would not have been necessary. But with that said, and perhaps this is damning with faint praise, given a choice between Clinton, Trump and Obama I’d choose Obama by an incomprehensible margin. No mention of climate change in the debates, totally shallow discussion of every issue, and the essentially vapid personality-contest back-and-forth of insults is a far cry from the serious debates of 2008 and 2012. When that optimism, energy, quiet dignity, and long-sighted commitment to ‘hope and change’ is gone - we’ll notice. And it won’t be long before we all miss the days of a President who could so beautifully encapsulate the spirit of a people.
8
The Badger 31.10.2016
COMMENT The Big Debate is a regular Badger feature which brings the spirit of competitive debating to the printed page. Our writers tackle a contentious topic, representing polarised views. They might not agree with what they write - on this page, they represent a viewpoint, not an individual.
Institute to have cost over 2 million jobs in 2015 alone resulting in job losses in all 50 states. Hillary labelled the TPP as the “gold standard” for trade agreements but this is certainly not the case for many who have entered into the labour force. Trump offers a breath of fresh air by proposing to renegotiate or withdraw from trade deals that have had such disastrous consequences for Wikimedia Commons thousands of ordinary Americans. As President, he would be speaking for the people once again and won’t lie Freddie Russel, Christian Harvey and down while some of the most vulnerBryan Ricardo Vasquez able in society are ripped off and left behind by the political class. Donald Trump, a successful multiThe media has portrayed Trump as billionaire businessman and major totally against immigration, whereas public figure spanning three decades in what he actually envisions is shoring America, is this year’s Republican presidential nominee. In a campaign that has up the southern border against illegal immigration and stopping the flow been the centre of a media witch-hunt, of drugs. With the number of illegal he has pulled interest back into politics immigrants currently standing at 11-12 in a country with traditionally sub fifty million and with drug cartels taking per cent voter turnout. Although his in 18-36 billion dollars a year from controversial comments cannot be America, this approach cannot be recondoned, his straight talking rhetoric jected. Equally, a lot has been said about is resonating with ordinary Americans, and his policies would bring life back into Trump’s ban on Muslims entering the United States. On his official campaign American industry, making this year’s race a conflict between nationalistic val- website this is worded as ‘vet appliues and globalist-elitist agendas. We have cants to ensure they support American values’, which protects minorities from a candidate who offers Americans the cultures that are so incompatible with chance to reclaim politics from corrupt the West that they eschew any form of special interest groups in Washington, acceptance of equality for women and to run a “government of the people, by the LGBT community. This contrasts the people, for the people” as Abraham Clinton’s open border policies, which Lincoln envisioned. will ensure that America faces the same After thoroughly cheating her way to issues that have been ravaging Europe. the pledged delegate count and rigging Clinton has shown her contempt for primary after primary, Hillary is the emdemocracy throughout her campaign, bodiment of what’s wrong with the curinsulting entire demographics: referrent broken system of politics that has ring to millions of Trump supporters plagued America. Indeed it is a sad indictment of Hillary that she has received as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” the endorsement of the Bush family and while calling Bernie Sanders supporters ‘basement dwellers.’ If this is not other neo-conservatives who usurped enough, her campaign privately has the right and were hated by Democrats resorted to labelling African-Americans after the Iraq Invasion in 2003. Perhaps and Muslims as “professional never the most immediate threat a Clinton presidency would impose is her repeated do wells”; maybe her laughing at the predicament of a 12-year-old rape desire for a ‘no-fly zone’ in Syria, which victim on the radio might be enough would put the West in direct conflict for people to realise the un-American with nuclear superpower Russia. devil that she is. Working class Americans have been There is only one way to vote in left behind by damaging trade deals; this election, and if Americans want which under Hillary will only get worse. peace, prosperity and respect, they can Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted it is estimated to reclaim their government and hand it over to a man who has all the experihave cost one-third of American manuence he needs to change the American facturing jobs. Meanwhile, the mere shadow of the Trans-Pacific Partnership people’s lives for the better. is estimated by the Economic Policy
GARY JOHNSON
Wikimedia Commons
DONALD TRUMP Christian Sterling If Brexit taught us anything, it’s underestimate the power of the people at your peril. The political spheres, from Whitehall to Washington, have observed, ignored and abused voters for generations; now comes the time to unplug the machine and restart its software. Rid it of the viruses that have leeched off the working people, getting rich at everyone else’s expense. The gap between rich and poor has never been greater. Poverty is rampant, whilst Wall Street – absolved without consequence despite destroying the economy millions work tirelessly to sustain – licks its lips at the prospect of another Clinton presidency. Can somebody on the payroll of Goldman Sachs reform the banking system? I hardly think so either. She earnt upwards of $225,000 per speech; roughly five times the average annual salary of a hardworking American (six times that of the African-Americans she arrogantly assumes will vote her way). No wonder, as the Democratic nominee admitted in her own words, she feels “far removed” from the plight
of America’s stagnant middle class. How can she sympathise, when her 2015 tax return shows $10.6 million in income? It would only take that average hardworking American two hundred years to earn such a sum. Now Trump, he’s not perfect. He’s never claimed to be. But what he is, what he offers, is something the entrenched ‘establishment’ loathes. The word Obama flaunted with such knowing hollowness: hope. Something different, an alternative to the failing reality perpetually shaped by the privileged few. Donald Trump’s policy of ‘saying it how he sees it’ certainly grates with the suited drones who roam the halls of the White House. Hear them tremble as he shouts about ‘Making America Great Again’. Change is poison to the established elite. Watch the snakes slither in fear as another rally roars its approval. Hillary wishes she could conjure a tenth of the fervour Trump inspires. Trump understands that American exceptionalism is not yet dead; wounded, yes, but not beyond saving. He is committed to high standards. He knows success begins with education, and that hard work yields ample rewards. The American Dreams still exists while there are people to chase it. Those who
appreciate the value of self-determination, the innate spirit of resolve which every single American possesses. Trump cannot be bought like his Democratic rival. His campaign isn’t bankrolled by the very institutions he threatens to curb. He’ll be tough on ISIS, without preaching the mindless, warmongering, Clinton rhetoric. It doesn’t take long to trace the rise of the so-called Islamic State back to Washington. Her foreign policy record is an exhibition of ignorance. See her as the ‘safe’ candidate? Well then I doubt you’ve visited Mosul or Tripoli recently. While Clinton’s opinion changes with the wind – riding on populism with no regard for consistency – Trump doesn’t care about being outspoken; if there’s a problem that needs fixing then he’ll provide an answer. He might not be polite. He may well offend. But he’ll bring a wave of transparency the darkened halls of the White House are crying out for. Come November the 8th, you can think ‘safe’, think small, and re-elect the conceited elite who have a proven track record of failing America. Or you can think better, and think big. In Trump’s own words: “I like thinking big. If you’re thinking anything you might as well think big.”
THE BIG
How would
Fraser Coppin Letters Editor
record, Johnson was against the Iraq War, and has promised to exercise far more caution when intervening in Syria Do you think that this entire election is in the future. He is also highly supportive of the ridiculous, and that neither Trump nor Black Lives Matter movement, saying Hillary particularly appeal to you? Well you aren’t alone, in fact most Americans that “we’ve all had our heads in the sand and let’s wake up”, when asked about would probably agree with you! Don’t worry though, because there IS racial issues in America. He supports a third option. Enter Gary Johnson, the mandatory body cameras for police officers, as well as a huge shake up of the Libertarian party candidate. Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld are both criminal justice system. He is by far the best choice for Latino voters too, having successful Republican governors from spoken out against Trump’s outrageous highly Democratic states, and have therefore already proven to be pragmatic plan to deport millions of hard-working migrants; and is also highly supportive and popular leaders. Despite not being of equal marriage, legalizing marijuana allowed to speak in the TV debates and being offered almost no coverage by the and a woman’s right to choose. He is more “liberal” on these important issues mainstream media, Johnson has hit as than Hillary can ever claim to be. high as 17% in the national polls, and There are plenty who were disappointeven higher among younger voters and independents. Could he have a chance? ed with the primary on the Republican side as well. Those who backed moderYoung people across America were ates like Marco Rubio, or traditional hugely disappointed when Bernie conservatives like Ted Cruz, now find Sanders was beaten in the Democratic primaries by Hillary, who has very little themselves in the position where their of his principles and integrity, and is only party nominee is an orange-faced as progressive as she needs to be to win lunatic. If you’re one of these people, votes. Gary Johnson could actually be a Johnson has a lot to offer you too! Johnson is the only proper “fiscal great choice for disenfranchised Bernie supporters. In stark contrast to Clinton’s conservative” in the race, promising to
balance the federal budget. This would be achieved by cutting spending on unnecessary bureaucracy in Washington DC and devolving powers back to state government, as well as a long overdue slashing of America’s bloated military budget. While other candidates want to waste taxpayer’s money on silly things like giant walls, Gary Johnson will manage things responsibility, and even cut taxes for working people in the process. What’s not to like? Undoubtedly some will ask: why should I vote for him if he has no chance of actually winning the presidency? Sure it’s very unlikely, but it’s certainly not a waste of a vote. If the Libertarian party can win just one state (New Mexico where Johnson was governor is a strong possibility) then this could deprive either Clinton or Trump with the majority they need to win. In addition, if a third party candidate can gain 5% more of the vote, then this will grant them further funding, support and coverage next time around. The Republicans and Democrats have had their chance, it’s about time America gave someone else a shot.
9
The Badger 31.10.2016
COMMENT
HILLARY CLINTON Daniel Terrence
There isn’t really a choice in this election- Hillary Clinton must, and will, make it into office. While Donald Trump’s cult of personality is strong, his supporters avid, and his barbed rhetoric inarguably exciting to many, he has proven so many times he is unfit to lead it’s a wonder he’s still being taken seriously by anybody. On any given matter in the recent debates, he seemed uninformed and ignorant compared to Clinton. He has extremely limited experience in politics and apparently very little understanding of how it works, something that should be immediately clear to anybody who has read even a handful of the hundreds of recent headlines about the man. He has, during his short run as a presidential candidate, threatened to lock his opposition in prison, gaffed every potential opportunity to show any kind of respect for the female gender and stated that he could even murder someone and still be loved - a dictatorial sentiment that brings frighteningly to mind a potential
future America run dictatorially and featuring forced labour camps. Although this exaggeration is slightly reductive- Trump is not like Kim Jong Un, and not like Hitler, and so should not be seriously likened to them - it is true that, as a figure, Donald Trump represents a very scary, reactionary change in the American mood. The fact he is a serious enough contender to even warrant mentioning in the media is alarming. And on the other side, we have Hillary Clinton. Not currently going to trial for rape, not inciting violence at her rallies, and with a personality that doesn’t force her to rely on crushing with insults everything that poses a mild threat to her ego, Hillary is the adult there to apologise for but punish Donald’s childish behaviour. On top of this, she would be the first female president, providing a role model and a standard for achievement for young girls everywhere, whereas Trump would be an exemplary role model indicating what to avoid saying and doing. So why is the result even in question? There can’t be any argument
that Donald Trump is legitimately more equipped to lead a world superpower than his opponent. While Clinton might have signed off on some decisions it’s hard to agree with, told a few lies, and coughed on camera too many times for some people to believe she’s healthy, she does not build her politics on a foundation of racist, sexist, or any other kind of hate. For this she is immediately more respectable than Trump. The argument that there is little difference between the two candidates, and that Trump is the ‘lesser of two evils’ simply because he doesn’t bother trying to hide the fact that he’s an ignorant, spiteful megalomaniac as Hillary (some believe) does, is unfounded and ridiculous. The person making international agreements and forging the future of one of the most significant countries in the world should not be a hyper-aggressive manchild when his opponent, though not perfect, is competent, intelligent and empathetic. It is clear to anybody who can put aside politics of personality that the only choice available is to elect Hillary Clinton.
DEBATE you vote?
provide a viable and acceptable alternative. Does a third party candidate like Jill Stein present a real alternative? Jill Stein is the candidate for the Green party of the United States and like many other candidates now and in the past, have been shunted out of the debate, misrepresented or misunderstood and left with no chance of winning, though her policies actually represent the cry for real change in the U.S. and all over the world. Her main policy that differs from the other candidates is to create a ‘Green New Deal’, which is a transition to a 100% renewable economy by 2030, by investing in public transit, Wikimedia Commons services, health, but mainly emphasises Oliver Powell sustainable energy and agriculture. She As the most volatile and memorable U.S. has pledged to end destructive energy presidential election comes to an end, extraction such as fracking and the many are frightened about the outcome tar sands pipeline, and also to protect of the result as the two front runners, land for conservation efforts; create a being the Democratic party candidate $15/hour federal minimum wage, to Hillary Clinton and the Republican party definacialise the economy and support candidate Donald Trump, are seen as just development of worker and community as bad as each other. cooperatives and small businesses, and This election has presented the huge to implement a fairer tax system. Her flaw in the U.S. two party system where plans to create stronger trade unions, neither of two main candidates would democratically run public banks,
JILL STEIN
industries and utilities, and to abolish student debt are common sense and necesary, but totally ignored by the other candidates. She answers the call to demilitarise the police, end state brutality and mass incarceration; to defend racial, gender, religious, sexual and individual human rights. She also has plans to democratise the US political system with proportional representation and by creating equal access to politics. Her policies are not radical and far out, as claimed - they are actually very similar to the British Green party, Jeremy Corbyn’s, and Bernie Sanders’ policies, and they all receive a strong amount of public support. She even shares some views with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party candidate, who is ahead of her in the polls. The public see her negatively largely because they do not have full knowledge of her actual policies - such as claims she is anti-vaccination, even though she has publicly refuted this. Out of all of the other candidates, she is the real progressive alternative that the U.S. needs, wants and should support.
Wikimedia Commons
HILLARY CLINTON Davinder Baigent
It’s an often repeated criticism of Clinton that the only reason to vote for her is because she’s the ‘lesser of two evils’, that she represents no change at all to the established order, that she could only be preferable when the other candidate is an unelectable disaster. But while this is repeated seemingly in the hope that if you say something over and over again it will become true, it bears little resemblance to reality. Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate for the office of President in our lifetimes, and probably for a long time before that. With twenty years experience as Senator, Secretary of State and First Lady she already has the kind of experience of negotiation and time-pressed diplomatic decisions that are impossible to replicate. It’s often said that Presidents have to learn foreign policy ‘on the job’ - that was certainly true of Barack Obama, and Trump has shown not only a total ignorance of foreign policy but an unwillingness to even try to learn; Hillary will have that expertise when she walks through the doors of the Oval Office on day one. The position of President of the United States - leader of the free world - is not a reality show personality contest, the holder of that office needs to have genuine knowledge, competence and expertise. She has it, her opponent has precisely zero experience of governing at any level. Furthermore, the accusation that she will be the epitome of the establishment and not seek to bring in any change is disingenuous. Her plan to address student debt would make a real difference to young people’s lives, and in many ways is more progressive than Bernie Sanders’s plan was, while also being affordable and practical. On economic policy, America cannot afford to waste Obama’s progress by going back to tax cuts for the rich, low in-
vestment and cutting of welfare programmes. Hillary’s tax plan and economic approach may not be groundbreaking, but it is progressive, it will work to reduce the inequality between rich and poor, and it is far and away better than the alternative. On the Supreme Court, Hillary’s appointment will uphold abortion rights, protect marriage equality, the Voting Rights Act and civil rights, and support the common sense reforms to gun control the country has been crying out for for years. Trump’s nominees, on the other hand, have been promised to be along the lines of the late Justice Scalia. That guarantees another generation of conservative Court rulings on every law imaginable. In the long-run, countering that trend might be more meaningful than any direct action of the President within their term. On climate change, too, the choice is obvious. On the one hand, you have a candidate in Hillary Clinton who recognises the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, and is willing to apply international climate targets to domestic policy on energy, pollution, and investment priorities; on the other, a man who just four years ago claimed that climate change is a myth invented by China. In the primary campaigns, support for Bernie Sanders drove Hillary to the left. As President, she’ll know that if she wants to win re-election in 2020, and indeed avoid a primary challenge from her own party, she will need to keep those voters onside. That pressure will keep her strictly on the reform agenda. Voting for Hillary Clinton is not voting just for is the least worst option. She may not be many people’s ideal candidate, but politicians never are - you vote for the candidate who best encapsulates your views; and Hillary’s policies will be far more progressive than she is given credit for.
AMERICA VOTES THE BADGER’S GUIDE TO THE US ELECTION 2016
The US election from an American perspective
Bianca Serafini Arts Editor
Everyday, at least twice, the fact that I’m American is, in one way or another, brought up. Whether it’s mimicking my accent, asking me to pronounce something (in first year people’s favorites used to be Cheltenham, Edinburgh and Warwick) or absent-mindedly asking me if I own a gun, questions are always flying. As you all well know, some English people can’t stand Americans: they roll their eyes when I speak, they find me annoying or think I’m flat out stupid, while others find me endearing and ask me questions such as “What did you expect England was like?” or “Did you think everyone would be like the Queen?”. I don’t really mind any of these. All this renders the Presidential election all the more interesting, particularly from the perspective of someone living in a foreign country at a time of - dare I say it? - crisis. The vast majority of people in
England with whom I’ve talked about Trump found most alarming his social issues, e.g. his views on women and abortion, Muslims, Mexicans, African Americans, the LGBTQ+ community and just about anyone who publicly speaks up against him. Each day everyone seems to get more and more baffled, everything he does or says becomes the topic of conversation for at least a week. In the U.S. (especially in New York City) most of the people I spoke to – mostly Democrats – find far more dangerous his (hardly existing) fiscal and economic policies, his lack of foreign affairs experience, his reluctance to hand over his tax records (the hallmark of presidential elections), his estate failings in Atlantic City and his business ventures gone awry. Americans voting against Trump find him inadequate especially because he proclaims to be someone he isn’t. On the other hand, the majority of English people find Clinton’s policies absurd, her drone strike practice worrisome to say the least and her past as a
Explaining the Electoral College
page 2 >>
Secretary of State a complete failure. For these reasons many British people, I find, dislike her or find her unfit to hold office. Americans that most dislike her do so because she’s lied about her emails and she’s not “likeable” enough, not as charismatic as her husband or the Obamas, and to some extent, even Trump. It’s not surprising, then, that at first “the Donald” did well, banking on the fact that people in middle America wanted to be successful just like him and saw him as a role model of prosperity. But now that he so clearly isn’t what he’s made out to be, supporters are beginning to wane. An exchange student in my first year, Eni Mihili (from Michigan), told me she’s just hoping for a peaceful resolution: “Honestly, what I hope most of all is that after the president is chosen, there is a peaceful transition of power, and that the US uses this opportunity as a chance to learn and heal. “Only by going high can we stitch back the US and start to mend the
wounds of the election. We all live here; somehow, we have to coexist”, a concept that’s often heard in the States: we have to make the best out of whoever wins. Because so many Americans originally keen on Trump didn’t completely believe all the issues he was advocating about minorities, and at times simply despised Clinton, when I came to England I almost forgot that every Republican or Democratic candidate goes “extreme” during the presidential race, so I found myself to be far more disturbed than the rest of America as they had not forgotten. Don’t get me wrong, we’re all worried, particularly for the people who are such rampant supporters of Trump, people who feel that the system has failed them and in their search for the American Dream unleash their resentment on minorities, just like them. Trump is ridiculous, but don’t think other extremists in politics aren’t: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (appointed by none other than President George H.W. Bush) doesn’t
understand why race is such an issue in America and believes black people should stop “limiting themselves”, and Clarence Thomas is black. But due to the somewhat sane majority, let’s just say you Queenies are a bit more distraught, which brings me great joy because it shows us Americans that, for some reason, our cousins care. During the months when Hillary and Donald have been on the campaign trail I’ve found so much enthusiasm (or despair) amongst the English. Even just on Facebook I noticed more English people comment and post statuses on the election than the majority of my American friends, whether it be about Hillary or about Donald. I guess this is because deep down inside, no matter how many times we pronounce Cheltenham wrong, family is family. Or maybe because America is an immensely powerful country and you don’t want the world to go down the toilet. I prefer the former.
Your guide to Election Night
page 3 >>
2016 ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
ME - 4
NH -3
Vermont - 3
Massachusetts - 11
Alaska - 3
CT - 7 Wisconsin - 10
Minnesota - 10
RI - 4
New York - 29 Michigan - 16
Washington - 12
Pennsylvania - 20 New Jersey - 14
Iowa - 6
Idaho Oregon - 7 -4
Montana - 3
ND - 3
WY - 3
SD - 3
Nevada -6 Utah -6
Colorado - 9
Illinois - 20 Indiana - 11
NE - 5
Kansas -6 Oklahoma - 7
Maryland - 10 Delaware - 3
DC - 3
Missouri - 10 Arkansas -6
Ohio - 18
Kentucky - 8
Virginia - 13
Tennessee - 11 North Carolina - 15
New Arizona - 11 Mexico -5
Alabama -9 Texas - 38
Georgia - 16
South Carolina -9
California - 55
CLINTON 252 TRUMP 157
TOO CLOSE TO CALL 129 Louisiana - 8 Mississippi - 6
Hawaii - 4
Florida - 29
CT - Connecticut DC - District of Colombia ME - Maine ND - North Dakota NE - Nebraska NH - New Hampshire RI - Rhode Island SD - South Dakota WY - Wyoming
What exactly is the US Electoral College?
The Electoral College is the system the United States uses to elect its president every four years. In US elections, the president is not directly elected; instead, a number of electors are appointed to each state (and Washington D.C.) based on population, which pledge to vote for the candidate picked by voters in the election.
The number of electors per state ranges from three for sparsely populated states, such as Montana and North Dakota, to 55 for California - the most populated state in the US. Elections are run on a ‘winnertake-all basis in each state, meaning the candidate with the most votes in a state wins the support of all the
electors for it. The only exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska, which give two electors to the winner of the popular vote, and the rest to the winner of each ‘congressional district’. Maine has two of these and Nebraska has three. Although electors can pledge their support to a candidate other
than the popular vote winner in their state, this is incredibly rare in modern times. As there are a total of 538 across the country, a candidate must win 270 to win the presidency. In the last election in 2012, Democrat Barack Obama won with 332 electoral votes, with Republican Mitt Romney winning 206.
What are the key swing states this election? ARIZONA Despite having voted Republican every election since 1996, current polls suggest a tight race in Arizona. With voter registration up for Democrats, especially among the Hispanic community, a win for Clinton would be humiliating for Trump and the Republicans. FLORIDA Nicknamed the Sunshine State, Florida has been a crucial state in the presidential elections for decades, playing a decisive role in the election of President George W Bush in 2000. GEORGIA Like Arizona, this ‘Bible Belt’ state is
normally solidly Republican territory having not gone Democrat since 1992. The final result will depend on turnout among minority groups - high turnout could see this it switch sides. IOWA A traditional swing state, Iowa is leaning more Republican in current polls than in 2008 and 2012. However, polling inaccuracies and a high number of undecided voters could see this state once again go down to the wire. NEVADA Home to Las Vegas, Trump will be gambling that he can flip this once Republican state to win the presidency.
NORTH CAROLINA Barack Obama performed an amazing feat by winning this state in 2008; the first time a Democrat had won North Carolina since the 70s. Although it flipped back to the Republicans in 2012, polls this year show another toss-up. Can Clinton turn it blue once again? OHIO No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, making it a must-win for the Trump campaign. The state has mirrored the national outcome since 1960, and could well be a good indication of the final result, so keep an eye on it!
PENNSYLVANIA A Democratic safe state since 1992, Pennsylvania looks like an increasingly close race as we approach Novemeber 8. Trump has claimed that if he doesn’t win here, it is proof the election is rigged against him. UTAH Normally a solid Republican state, Utah’s large Mormon population have been turned off by Trump’s rhetoric. Recent polls have suggest a close race between the Republican and independent candidate and Mormon Evan McMullin. If McMullin wins, he would be the first third-party candidate to win a state since 1976.
Possible 2016 election results 1. CLINTON LANDSLIDE Clinton prevails, turning states such as Georgia, Arizona and even Texas blue. The Republicans’ key support among white college-educated people and women flee the party due to Trump’s rhetoric, with the businessman only gaining 40 per cent of the vote. 2. CLINTON’S ‘OBAMA’ VICTORY Clinton is elected by a similar margin to that of Obama in 2012. Although Trump wins Iowa and Ohio, the Democrats reclaim North Carolina and hold on to Florida, Pennsylvania and Nevada. 3. CLINTON NARROWLY WINS The Democrats win in a much closer race than expected, with only 278 electoral votes. Trump, who takes Florida, Ohio and Iowa, refuses to concede, which could throw the country into chaos. 4. TRUMP TRIUMPHS Polling underestimates the ‘shy Trump voter’ theory and the Republicans win in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Democrats win the popular vote but lose the presidency once again.
ELECTION NIGHT: YOUR GUIDE How we got here:
Candidates declare their interest to run
nominations accepted by chosen candidates
February 2016
Spring 2015
Hillary Clinton: 12th April Democrats
National convention:
Primaries Donald Trump: 16th June Republicans
Early voting starts:
oversees voters start in October 2016
TV debates:
3 televised debates between Democrat and Republican candidates
Election day 8th November 2016
Start of campaigning: Labor Day, 4th September
Inauguration of the 45th President of the United States
The night itself: 8th November. What’s the timetable, and when will we know who has won? Polling opens in all 50 states and Washington DC - across 6 time zones. 120m Americans are expected to vote
18:00 ET (23:00 GMT) Polling stations start to close; first state projections made based on exit polls
18:00 ET - 23:00 ET (23:00 GMT - 04:00 GMT) Results announced
01:00 ET (05:00 GMT) The final polling stations close at 04:00 GMT so the election can usually be “called” by 05:00 GMT
CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Represents the people of the whole US, responsible for introducing spending and tax bills. All 435 members up for election. Has been held by the Republicans since 2010, with a current majority of 59.
SENATE
Represents the states, responsible for oversight of the President in foreign policy. One third of seats up for election this year. Republican-controlled since 2014, with a majority of 9. Of the 34 seats up for election, 24 are held by Republicans, so there is plenty of room for Democratic gains.
Current polling predicts the Democrats will make gains in both the House and the Senate, but not enough to take control of either. Performing better than expected could be just as important as winning the Presidency.
Votes on legalising cannabis What if the race for president is a tie? Elections for president, the House of Representatives and the Senate are not the only votes taking place on November 8. California, Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada are also voting on whether to legalise recreational use of marijiuana. If approved in California, recreational cannabis use will be legal in all states on the west coast of America. Some states, including Florida
and Arkansas, will also be voting on whether to allow the medical use of cannabis in their states. Currently, five states allow recreational use of cannabis, with 21 states allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. 22 others prohibit any use or posession. Recent polls have shown that 57% of Americans support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use with 37% opposed.
As there are an even amount of electoral votes, a tie is possible. This would arise if, for example, Trump were to win states such as New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida and Nevada but fail to flip Virginia or Pennsylavania. In the event of a tie, the House of Representatives would break the tie by picking the president. Each state’s representatives cast one vote for their choice as presi-
dent and the candidate with the most votes wins. This could prove complicated, as each state sends different numbers of representatives to the House, each with different party allegancies. In another complicated twist, the Vice-President is chosen separately from the President, and is picked by the Senate. This could lead to the awkward
situation where the President is from one party and the Vice-President is from another. Also, as the number of representatives voiting in the House and the Senate are also even, ties could also spring up there, which could result in a political deadlock. Thankfully, such a scenario is incredibly rare in modern times and is unlikely to happen in this year’s election.
The Badger 31.10.2016
13
FEATURES
Porn or Pawn: the objectification and manipulation of women in the 2016 U.S. presidential election Sophie Clark Publicity and Events Manager
T
he 2016 Presidential Election has been arguably the most dramatic and astonishing US election in history. From Donald Trump’s insistence that the Mexican government would pay for his ludicrous wall, to Melania Trump plagiarising Michelle Obama’s speech, it seems that every day a news article appears that reasserts the idea that this election is actually a very bad joke that none of the population is in on. However, the sad fact is that Hillary Clinton doing some awful dancing on The Ellen Show should be the least of our concerns when it comes to the problems that have plagued this election. Instead, the rhetoric surrounding women and the grim, far-reaching misogyny of America that it demonstrates is the real issue at hand.
“It is hardly news that America has a serious issue with women and the way its media handles them” It is hardly news, or particularly shocking, to state that America, like most of the world, has a serious issue with women and the way its media handles them. But the fact that women have been treated so poorly throughout an event as huge and crucial as the election is appalling, and it is beyond disappointing that the levels of misogyny in politics have appeared to rise during the election campaign of the first female presidential candidate. While Clinton no doubt has her
flaws, and her fair share of anti-feminist skeletons in the closet, many hoped that this would be an election during which the power of women was wonderfully exemplified. Unfortunately, those hopes have been shattered by the conversation that has prevailed. During the election so far, women have served one of two purposes: either to be regarded as an object and nothing more, or to be used for someone else’s gain. For years, Donald Trump’s objectification of women has been clear. The man who once co-owned Miss Universe is hardly likely to be heralded as a feminist hero, and The Apprentice U.S. has been littered full of his remarks about female contestants’ appearances for years. However, over the past few months, Trump and his comments, as well as those from the past that have emerged, have taken an even more sickening turn. From degrading insults about women’s appearances such as “slob”, “ugly” and “fat”, to creepy perverted statements such as “joking” about dating his daughter, describing a 12-year-old Paris Hilton as “beautiful”, and, of course, that now infamous, “grabbing [women] by the p----” comment: Trump’s campaign has been one seeping with misogyny and blatant disrespect for women from its conception. The most concerning part, however, is not his individual views, but the fact that he still has a realistic chance of winning. Yes, his comments flare up in the media and outrage floods social media but then what? Most of the people expressing their disgust were never Trump supporters anyway. Have comments about dating his daughter and fondling pageant queens been the final straw for any previous supporters? The concern is that Trump and his sexism is fanning the flame of the anti-female sentiment that has always existed in America. The fear is not of
Wikipedia
Flickr: Marc Nozell the individual saying such things but the number of people voting for him because these comments and values reflect what they believe in. One person expressing views against women (as well as a lot of other things) is bad, but millions of people agreeing with them is downright terrifying, especially in an age where women’s rights have come so far. One would think that a person running to hold one of the most powerful positions in the world would be above such degradation but, it turns out, if that candidate happens to be a woman, they are just as easy a target of objectification as the next lady.
“It is a bad state of affairs when people know more about Hillary Clinton’s array of pant suits than her policies” Rigorous analysis of their appearance has plagued any woman who has delved into politics for decades. What shoes they wear, how their make-up looks, the extent to which they’ve aged. The way a woman looks is under constant scrutiny within politics, because heaven forbid a woman leads a country while wearing bad shoes, however good her political acumen may be. Hillary Clinton is no exception to this – it is a bad state of affairs when people know more about her array of pant suits than her policies. When women are not being objectified during the election, they are being manipulated in other ways. Would Trump be so quick to demonise Clinton if she were a man?
We will never know for certain, but his apparent outlook towards women suggests not. The ultimate demonstration of female exploitation within this election comes from Trump, unsurprisingly. His complete disregard for women as humans and his willingness to stretch to any length for his own gain was exemplified by his sickening parade of Bill Clinton’s accusers at the second presidential debate. After hosting a press conference with them, Trump invited Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathy Shelton to the debate, all of whom have sexual assault cases relating to the Clintons. They were sitting in the audience as an audacious reminder of the Clintons’ past, a move that not only was unnecessary but completely insensitive. Given his past comments, and the numerous allegations of sexual assault against Trump himself, it is safe to suggest that he does not care about what the women have been through, but instead what he can gain from pretending to be their ally. Recently, Trump declared that “nobody has more respect for women than I do”. Of course, social media erupted with amusement at the statement and – as funny as it initially is – on reflection, it is more terrifying than funny. Does this man genuinely believe that he treats women as they should be treated? Does he honestly think that women in America would be respected if he came into power? More worryingly, are there people who believe this statement? The cynicism that grows as this election progresses suggests yes. After that notorious comment about where exactly to grab women, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan condemned what was said by Trump:
“I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified.” While this may be lovely to hear, Ryan still endorses Trump – demonstrating how Trump can say the most disgusting, dehumanising things, and he will still have support, even from people who should know much better. Ryan’s comments also shed some light on how women are seen by many male politicians: they know that it is socially unacceptable to publicly objectify and disrespect women, but it does not stop them from doing so behind closed doors. When Hillary Clinton was announced as the Democratic presidential candidate, many people were quick to herald the era of feminism that we were about to enter.
“The election that unfolded was anything but feminist. Manipulation and objectification have prevailed” However, it is clear that the election that unfolded was anything but feminist. Manipulation and objectification have prevailed – arguably more than in any presidential election in decades – and women have been relegated to either objects of pornography, or pawns for male use. For women’s sake, one can hope that Clinton comes into power, not for what she brings to the table, but to protect females, and other marginalised groups, against the misogyny and tyranny of Trump.
14
ARTS
The Badger 17.10.2016
The Absurdity of Modern Politics
Miles Fagge Theatre Editor It is fair to say that we are living in troubled times. Not only troubled though, they are becoming increasingly absurd, this absurdity personified by Donald Trump and his ridiculous assertion that he will build a wall and that will somehow “Make America Great Again”. Clearly my opening statement is always applicable, and it is Western arrogance to assume that because things are going well within the confines of your own borders all is well, but recently even this false sense of stability has seemed to slip away. Some are optimistically labelling this precarious state of affairs as LateCapitalism (we can but hope), and this is showing itself in part through the polarisation of political opinion and the breakdown of the supposedly centre ground. In Britain UKIP have become a significant political force, and although they currently appear on the point of imploding they have had a large enough effect on the political system to have pushed an already right-wing Conservative Party even further to the right. On the left the Labour Party have the first truly socialist leader of a major political party since Michael Foot, and the right-wing of the party have spent every moment since his first election trying to undermine and remove him. This political upheaval has been
6 Films to Celebrate The American Election So both candidates for the election are deplorable and you want to escape from the coming election of the president of the so called “free world” - well, we have just the films to help you do so.
Sony PIctures Classics
somewhat mirrored and magnified across the Atlantic in the US, where Bernie Sanders harnessed a progressive social movement to push for a forward-thinking and relatively radical agenda, although was ultimately beaten by the far more conservative politics of Hillary Clinton. The biggest shockwaves to come from the US though clearly stem from Donald Trump, a racist misogynist who brags of sexual assault and uses explicitly fascist rhetoric, yet has the real possibility of becoming President.
Wikipedia Samuel Beckett, a pioneer of Theatre of the Absurd from the 1950’s
It can feel at times as if politics has lost all touch with reality, and this is evident in the recent presidential
Paramount PIctures Election (1999) Election is a film detailing the events surrounding Hillary Clinton’s high school years. No, not really – but it may as well be. A high school teacher’s personal life becomes complicated as he works with students during the school elections, particularly with an obsessive overachiever determined to become student body president.
No (2012) ‘No’ is a Spanish language film that follows the true story of a 1988 marketing campaign that sparked a revolution in Chile. After 15 years of dictatorship, General Augusto Pinochet faced increasing international pressure to legitimise his regime. The government called for a referendum, where the people would vote “yes” or “no” to keep Pinochet in power.
Paramount Pictures Napoleon Dynamite (2004) In small-town Preston, Idaho, awkward teen Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) has trouble fitting in. After his grandmother is injured in an
debates, where so many words get spoken but so little is said. The critic Martin Esslin coined the term ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ in his 1960 essay of the same title, and he described it as a form that “attacks the comfortable certainties of religious or political orthodoxy”, and it is clear to see that the political orthodoxy is in danger of collapse. One of the key texts in the formation for Theatre of the Absurd was Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”, a masterpiece of theatre about going nowhere and talking about it endlessly, and it is hard not see parallels of this in modern political discourse. Endless rhetorical bluster without any true depth and a million miles from true intentions or any kind of action. The recent Presidential Debates play like some grand performance in which the actors play their parts, but the substance is entirely lacking. There belies a deep problem though, because whilst the election seems to have lost touch with reality, the outcome will have very real effects, and the rhetorical bluster of performance also has insidious effects of its own. Here in Britain we have seen a horrible rise in hate crime since the divisive Leave campaign and the increasingly toxic language from this government, and clearly the prospect of Trump winning is a terrifying one that will have very real and horrible effects. accident, his life is made even worse when his strangely nostalgic uncle, Rico (Jon Gries), shows up to keep an eye on him. With no safe haven at home or at school, Napoleon befriends the new kid, Pedro (Efren Ramirez), a morose Hispanic boy who speaks little English. Together the two launch a campaign to run for class president.
Paramount Pictures The Manchurian Candate (2004) The Manchurian Candidate is a 2004 American science fiction politicalthriller film directed by Jonathan Demme. The film stars Denzel Washington as Bennett Marco, a tenacious, virtuous soldier; Liev Schreiber as Raymond Shaw, a U.S. Representative from New York, manipulated into becoming a vice-presidential candidate; Jon Voight as U.S. Senator Tom Jordan, a challenger for vice president; and Meryl Streep as Eleanor Prentiss Shaw, also a U.S. Senator and the manipulative,
Esslin said of Theatre of the Absurd “the challenge behind the message is anything but one of despair. It is a challenge to accept the human condition as it is… The shedding of easy solutions, of comforting illusions, may be painful but it leaves behind a sense of freedom and relief.” That is where the theoretical take of theatre and the reality of the current political situation part ways.
“The departure from reality of modern politics will have very real outcomes and they will cause suffering for those far removed from the bizarre political machine.” The rhetoric of the Conservative government, of the right-wing press and on a larger scale of Donald Trump is precisely the message of despair. It is the hunt for easy (and wrong) solutions to complicated problems and the encouragement of division to generate support for them. The departure from reality of modern politics will have very real outcomes and they will cause suffering for those far removed from the bizarre political
machine. Esslin continued by stating “the Theatre of the Absurd does not provoke tears of despair but the laughter of liberation.” Watching Donald Trump may inspire laughter of disbelief and scorn, but the tears of despair are already falling as the result of this continuing shift to the right and escalating dangerous rhetoric, and will only increase if people do not see past the hatred being thrust upon us and look to build something better, rather than continue in this absurd race to the bottom.
Miles Still Needs Friends... Contact the Theatre Editor at thebadger. theatre@gmail.com for any reviews/ opinions/rants you may have on a play!
ruthless mother of Raymond Shaw.
Focus Features
Wildwood Enterprises
Milk (2008)
All the President’s Men (1976)
Milk is a 2008 American biographical film based on the life of gay rights activist and politician Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Directed by Gus Van Sant and written by Dustin Lance Black, the film stars Sean Penn as Milk and Josh Brolin as Dan White, a city supervisor who assassinated Milk and Mayor George Moscone. The film was released to much acclaim and earned numerous accolades from film critics and guilds. Ultimately, it received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, winning two for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Penn and Best Original Screenplay for Black.
All the President’s men is an American political thriller film directed by Alan J. Pakula. The film follows teh story of the two journalists investigating the Watergate scandal for The Washington Post. The film starred Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein, respectively; it was produced by Walter Coblenz for Redford’s Wildwood Enterprises. A must see for consiracy theory enthusiasts and aspiring journalists.
Write to me, love me Contact our Film Editor at thebadger.film@gmail. com for reviews and comments
15
The Badger 17.10.2016
ARTS
Culture
Presidetial Debate Spoofs
Bianca Serafini Arts Editor Every Presidential election gets a lot of media coverage, but this time around viewers actually broke audience records. The first Republican debate on August 4th — starring the one and only, Donald Trump — had about 24 million viewers. In total, over 164 million people have tuned into at least one of the 12 election debates, both Republican debates being in the top three most watched. With all these viewers, comedy shows’ kings of presidential spoofs such as Saturday Night Live, South Park and Family Guy have a lot of content to work on. Some even find that SNL is only funny during these debates; as the longest running show out of the three it has the most established reputation for its debate spoofs, and a lot of its “presidential” content is also watched abroad. With its notorious “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!” the show has replicated a number of important debates until the present day episodes with just Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Whether you find political satire funny or not, it’s hard to not be amused by SNL’s content, ranging from silly to explicitly worrisome. SNL has managed to get more pulp out of the debates via the spoofs than via the actual live ones. Hillary (played by Kate McKinnon, an SNL regular) was most depicted as being robotic, made of steel, heartless and thankful that her opposition is someone as ridiculous as Donald. “The Hillary Clinton my team and I created, she’s warm but strong, flawed but perfect, relaxed but racing full speed towards the White House the T-1000 from Terminator,” said McKinnon. Bernie Sanders was viewed
as a Seinfeld-ish communist character portrayed by no other then Larry David himself, seeking a revolution and maybe a sandwich (as he starts off his first debate with, “I’m good but I’m hungry, I’m good.”), promising he’s exactly what America is missing: “I don’t own a Super Pac, I don’t even own a backpack! […] I have one pair of underwear; Billionaires have three or four pairs. Who do you want as president? One of those Washington insiders or a guy who has one pair of clean underwear dried on a radiator?”
die. Mothers are putting their kids on buses and those buses are being driven off cliffs by terrorists. Today in our great country one in three babies born is already in ISIS,” and finishing with “Bon Jovie forever!” (a somewhat decent but conventional New Jersey artist). And of course Donald Trump, (played by Alec Baldwin and occasionally Darrell Hammond) as being … Donald Trump. Saying things like “I love kids so much I’d marry them,” or “Hillary Clinton has committed so many crimes she’s basically a black.”
NBC It’s no surprise that the most viewed debates — the GOP — were the ones with the best spoofs, depicting New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (played by Bobby Moynihan, another SNL regular) as a psychotic war lover (not too far from the truth): “I’d like to answer that question with a list of fear mongering statements: we are under attack! We are all gonna
Family Guy and South Park give it their own distinctive twist, the latter illustrating Donald and Hillary as being a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich with real debate voiceovers of their bickering. The former applies the presidential principles to the fictional town of Quahog, where Lowis Griffin is running against Mayor West. West is an absurd character,
he’s shown as being weird and “honest”, likable and thus electable; in the crowd during their debate people cheer “I’d like to have a beer with him!”
“it sheds light on the flaws within democracy and on some problems in our country, all while having a laugh” This resonates a lot with our realtime elections, how the American people seem to always want an overly charismatic and “cool” president that they can relate to (something that is in practice, impossible). When Brian tells Lowis to give short answers that people want to hear, things start turning up for her, “what do you plan on doing about crime in our town?” “A lot ‘cuz that’s what Jesus wants,” she replies, and “what are your plans for cleaning our the environment?” “9/11!” and again “what about our traffic problem?” “9/11!”. In a way depicting the sad reality of how people cast their vote. Some shows are realistic, some are absurd and some are maybe in between, but in their own way, these spoofs give us a great understanding of the ludicrous ways our system elects candidates, it sheds light on the flaws within democracy and on some problems in our country, all while having a laugh. Which arguably, isn’t very funny.
WATCH THE PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS
On the 8th of November head on over to Eastslope on campus to watch the results of 2016 Presidential Crisis.
Here in the UK Sky and the BBC are covering the event live. Online, American news outlets including NBC, PBS, FOX will live stream the debates on YouTube!
U.S. Colleges: Student Utopias or Microcosms of a Troubled Nation? Felix Thompson From first-hand experience, I can tell you it’s true, it’s all true. It’s just like in the movies. The American college experience really is all beer pong and kegs (so naturally keg stands), and they refuse to drink out of any cup that’s not red and plastic. It’s a crime to use anything else. At least this was the case in California, in Santa Barbara, a beach side student utopia, where surfers roll through the streets on skateboards, board under arm, and frat bros and sorority chicks wander in their hoards to one another’s parties every weekend. Yet, under the veneer of paradise, several rank truths lie. Reflecting back on my time in the states, I’ve come to realise, particularly with the U.S election and potential Trump-
ageddon looming, that perhaps American colleges can serve as a metaphor for America itself, as a bizarre microcosm of the nation, where all the amazing qualities of the American people – their frenetic friendliness, their enterprise (who else would have thought to combine beer and ping pong balls?), their massive confidence in anything they do – are juxtaposed with the worst aspects.
“The nation as a whole mirrors a discrepancy between narrative and reality” Take my college UCSB, for instance, which claims the mantle of being a Hispanic Serving Institution.
This HSI status is defined by a dedication to a minimum of 25% enrollment for Hispanic students, which seemingly proves a status of racial inclusivity and harmony. Yet, considering that in the last few years the Hispanic population overtook that of whites in the state of California, a dedication to 25% enrollment should be a given, and not some cause for unwarranted celebration. The nation as a whole mirrors this discrepancy between narrative and reality. Obama’s election in 2008 led to many in America to assert that a “post-racial era” had been ushered in. Now, it was put, that any black man, women, or child could achieve their dreams, if they would only try. Yet the reality, that Black men’s average hourly wages went from being 22.2% lower in 1979 to 31.0% lower in 2015, only serves to prove the fallacy in contem-
porary attitudes. This is not to mention further evidence rooted in police shootings, life expectancy, housing, education. So with both college and country, there is a gulf in the racial narrative and the reality. Much like with racial disparity, gender inequality has been an ever present issue in the lead up to the debates, with many questioning Trump’s credentials as a proponent of equal rights for both men and women, particularly since the “grab her by the pussy” video was leaked. Many Republicans have dismissed the nauseating gaff as “locker room talk”. Yet, for many, Trump’s sexist joshing is symptomatic of a rape culture which “plagues campuses across America.” Indeed, it is hard to dissociate the rhetoric of certain frats – seen in the chant of one Yale University Frat, “no means yes, yes
means anal” – from the horrifying statistic that men who join fraternities are three times more likely to commit rape. In colleges, and all the way up to the race for president, sexist attitudes are not only visible, but celebrated and encouraged. Ultimately, perhaps, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that colleges serve as microcosms for the nation as a whole, given that college campuses are hardly separate from the outside world. Deemed as safe spaces, they are unavoidably exposed to the hypocrisies and crises of the nation. Yet, worryingly, it seems that universities play an important role in the propagation of many of America’s flaws, encouraging and reinforcing aged attitudes, rather than dispelling them.
16
The Badger 24.10.2016
ARTS
Reviews Film Edward Snowden Documentary Olek Młyński Edward Snowden is perhaps one of the most controversial figures in contemporary America. Thus, his biography seems to have been destined for Oliver Stone, director whose hallmark were always politically engaged movies and contended topics. A lot of controversies were surrounding Snowden. It wasn’t screened at Cannes Festival, as later producers explained that they had postponed the premiere in order to locate the movie during the awards season. In interviews preceding the release of his newest biopic Stone admitted that many studios, due to self-censorship, decided not to finance his project. Perhaps it only emphasises how heated and debatable is the topic in general. The whole movie is shot in a docudrama convention just like Stone’s earlier JFK or Nixon. Director’s aim is rather simple. He attempts to glorify the american whistleblower by presenting him in a one sided, subjective manner. It will obviously polarise the reception among viewers. Snowden’s supporters will be undoubtedly satisfied, whereas his opponents will argue that Stone went a tad too far. Politics aside, though, and consider Snowden as Spotlight-like movie about a journalist investigation. We follow whistleblower’s career spanned over ten years from 2004, when he decides to enlist for the army during the patriotic surge after the 9/11, until 2013 when he decides to disclose documents of the NSA to the public. The main protagonist is faithfully interpreted (or, should I say imitated?) by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He is both a sensi-
Music Kings of Leon WALLS
tive, introverted geek and a conservative with strong moral backbone. We learn how his patriotism is tested by Orwellian government which, for example, uses internet cameras to watch people undress, or to frame them into some federal crimes. It seems so one-sided that Snowden’s whistleblowing act looks like an obvious necessity rather than a heroic act. I suppose the main flaw of Snowden is that the antagonism between the bad government and innocent people appears to be drawn very bluntly.
Music Death Grips @Coalition Jack Kelly
Open Road Films Yet, the biggest problem of Snowden is that its protagonist is no Alexander the Great or Jim Morrison (about whom Stone happened to make movies earlier). The whole story is superfluously spread over 2 hours and 20 minutes. A lot of attention is devoted to Snowden’s relationship with Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley) or his struggle with epilepsy. It seems both needless and disconnected with the main topic. Also, such multi-layered story struggles with pace, as we jump between different places, episodes and moments of Snowden’s story. From the sing along, stadium ready ‘whoa oh’s’ of the opening track ‘Waste A Moment’, to the Spanish groove of slower track ‘Muchacho’, WALLS provides a sight into the battle Kings of Leon have with the mainstream versus the experimental.
Daniel Parker Seasoned rockers Kings of Leon triumphantly return with their seventh studio album that experiments with the traditional and the unconventional as the Kings battle to shape themselves a career path, thirteen years on from their explosive debut. WALLS, an acronym for ‘We Are Like Love Songs’, keeping with the five syllable album names that have spanned the entirety of the King’s discography, is combination of the great and the new.
Stone’s latest picture feels at times very cheesy, especially while reaching its bombastic apex. In the final scene whole auditorium applauds the protagonist during TED-like conference, in case the actual viewer hasn’t found out yet that the whistleblower should be interpreted as a hero. And this perhaps sums up the whole impression that Snowden leaves the viewer with. If you seek for a thorough and balanced account about the whole phenomenon of Edward Snowden you should definitely look somewhere else, and start with Citizenfour for example.
kingsofleon Previous albums Come Around Sundown and Mechanical Bull had their moments of the pre ‘Sex on Fire’ Kings of Leon era, but ultimately fell into an LP ‘no man’s land’ as it fell short with
Even before they took to the stage, Death Grips were already testing the sonic withstanding of their audience’s ears. Upon entering Coalition, any likelihood of a support act was replaced with a noise that can only be described as the adolescent cries from the lovechild of a chainsaw and a smoke alarm. Of course this was the stripped down version of Death Grips certified club banger “Inanimate Sensation”. The song in its recorded form, is accompanied by a vocal escalation of the phonetic vowel: É, and when stage time approached this sound was mimicked and multiplied by a an excited crowd, sounding a bit like the eerie cries of the monolith from 2001 Space Odyssey. The space was small, dark and despite the monitor's club-night advertisements that reminded you those events actually exist, it was the perfect setting for the bands anticipated return. After a three year break from touring Europe, the Bay-area outfit have critics and fans alike. However, new producer Markus Dravs, who has also worked with Arcade Fire and Florence and the Machine, has certainly helped WALLS find its image with clean guitar riffs, catchy choruses and wellcrafted song structures. Highlights from the forty-two minute album come from the aforementioned ‘Muchacho’, a song commemorating the death of a close friend to the band. It is a slower track placed slap bang in the middle of WALLS. A slow but methodical track, it ends on a melancholic and reflective whistling solo from lead singer Caleb Followill. Unlike anything else in the King’s back catalogue, ‘Muchacho’ blends seamlessly in with the crisp and well crafted choruses of songs like ‘Wild’ and ‘Eyes On You’, songs that follow the traditional, and successful, Kings of Leon recipe.
come back with their fifth studio album ‘Bottomless Pit’. A superb blend of hip-hop, techno, punk, hard-core and any other genre angry enough to burst a vein, Death Grips music promises their gigs to be bodily affairs. This promise was met as the crowd burst into a tide of jumping heads and arms, practically hitting the ceiling, when the band opened with ‘Whatever I want (F&*k who’s watching)’. Zach Hill gave no time for rest, using his relentless drumming to link one hit to another. New noise anthems, like the incomprehensible ‘Hot Head’, were blended into old favorites, such as ‘No Love’. The crowd started to tire as expected, but front man MC Ride’s consistent momentum without pause was impressive to observe in of itself. The band brings with them an energy that I am yet to see matched, and does not drop it for a second. Speaking of dropping, let’s talk about crowd surfing. At a Mac DeMarco gig I would expect to see a kid jumping onto the crowd repeatedly as if he forgot the first ten times he did it (the deflated-cap-wearing gold fish), but Death Grips? Come now.
pre-gig, listened to their entire collection consecutively. And boy, did fans like him get their fix. However, looking at ‘set-list FM’, it can be seen that the band somewhat underweighed their product, cutting out five extra songs that they had played at their previous UK shows. Whether this was because the crowd's fatigue, or some back-room bureaucracy from the coalition management is yet to be known. However, in such an intimate space its best to look on the bright side and focus more on the quality than the quantity.
“No breaks. Non-stop. A surgical performance from one the biggest cult groups around, and it was brilliant” It’s hard to pick out specifics of the evening, as Death Grips gave exactly what was expected. No Talking. No breaks. Non-stop. A surgical performance from one the biggest cult groups around, and it was brilliant.
WRITE FOR US
deathgrips The event sold out in seconds online, proving the addictive qualities of DG, just ask my house mate who Whilst songs like ‘Conversation Piece’ and title track ‘WALLS’ take longer to warm to than most, it is hard not to appreciate the work that has gone into the tracks. From the piano melodies to the layered guitar solos, the slick drumming and the groovy baselines, listeners can really feel each member of the band at work. It is a relatively sharp move away from 2013’s Mechanical Bull, which at times felt like the band was going through the motions. Where the album shines the most however is in the lively tracks of ‘Reverend’ and ‘Around The World’. These songs provide real throwbacks to the works that came from the albums that launched Kings of Leon way back in the early 2000s like ‘Molly’s Chambers’ and ‘The Bucket’. Bassist Jared Followill shines especially as his groovy riffs guide these roaring
Seen a band or a film recently you loved or hated? Tell us about it! Email badger-arts@ sussexstudent.com for any reviews you want to pitch!
songs through their raucous choruses. All in all WALLS is a cleverly crafted blend of what Kings of Leon have been, and what they are now. The album flows seamlessly through hardhitting ‘southern Strokes’ songs that could easily be found on 2004’s Aha Shake Heartbreak and the experimental, curious Kings of Leon that is gracing 2016 today. Caleb ends the album with the title track and ballad ‘WALLS’ with the wistful line “When the walls comedown!” perhaps harking back to the Come Around Sundown tour in which the band nearly collapsed in on itself. WALLS certainly acts as an LP that rebuilds the metaphorical walls around Kings of Leon, with a few new, experimental bricks to show for it.
17
The Badger 31.10.2016
ARTS
Music
Is Kendrick leading a new wave of punk hip hop?
Alex Leissle On a searing Monday afternoon in July, students, adults and children turned out in Cincinnati to protest for the Black lives matter movement peacefully, and all was well until a white police officer decided to use pepper spray to keep the crowds back and arrest protesting teenagers. What lingers from this moment of seemingly unnecessary police brutality, all far too common in many US towns, is a video that circulated online of large crowds being cordoned off by police and chanting the single line: “We gon’ be alright”. This is the lead hook from Kendrick Lamar’s politically charged anthem ‘Alright’, a powerful song that took on a whole new life in this scenario, speaking for so many American people who feel victimised and unfairly treated. Just like the Sex Pistols in the UK used punk to protest against the monarchy in ‘God Save The Queen’, could we see Kendrick Lamar’s recent album ‘To Pimp A Butterfly’ as the score to a new era of protest? Is American hip hop, in it’s lyrical motivational essence, going through a punk phase? In hip hop it is clear there is a new or returning focus, lyrically, to discussing and challenging political and social constructs, often to do with race, social welfare and class, lead by Lamar, widely considered one of the best rappers of the era and dictating the field with his deeply political, often anti-establishment lyrics. Even if the sounds of the 70s punk
rock and hip hop couldn’t be further apart, in their core values they might be closer than it may seem. A lot of the topic matter in recent hip hop comes in response to the events in America related to the gun crime, police brutality and black rights that have been at the forefront of current affairs in the US, inspiring so many to stand up and say something. The 2014 Ferguson riots in response to police shooting of Michael.
“Could we see Kendrick Lamar’s new album as the score to a new era of protest?” Brown had a profound effect on many artists and sparked the biggest riots in a long time. Naturally, this is part of what prompted Lamar to begin work on ‘To Pimp A Butterfly’ as he said in an interview with MTV. These events also inspired the king of the west coast, Dr Dre, to bin him album he’d been working on for the best part of 10 years, and write a whole new album inspired by racial questions and addressing these issues as well as looking back on the riots at the time of NWA. Stepping aside from the semantics, musically, punk rock in the late 70s was a reaction to the perceived excess of mainstream rock, and the same idea can be seen in hip hop these records, particularly ‘To Pimp A Butterfly’, return to roots in funk
and soul that are almost fully acoustically instrumented rather than the processed beats that fill mainstream hip hop. Also in the same vein, the idea of writing, producing and releasing music ‘in house’ or DIY that was essential in 70s punk, and this is coherent across the label Top Dawg Entertainment. Top Dawg, based in sunny California state, unified in their artists’ style and vision from Lamar and Schoolboy Q, to Jay Rock and Isaiah Rashad.
lishment. Although, the further we stretch the overarching thematic ideas of punk to rap the more we lose the pure essence of the 70s punk era that was so unique in itself. Punk has struggled as a genre on a wider scale, which suggests it might have been something so unique in the New York City scene, and makes it harder to see it stretch to hip hop today. Yet, no matter, how we may choose to define this new approach we return to songwriting as a craft
Gigs this week Nov 1 Bear’s Den Brighton Dome £18.25 Nov 3 Corinne Bailey Rae Brighton Dome £24.75 Nov 3 Whitney The Haunt £11.00
Alex Leissle The more you dig into the groundwork, the more a certain scene or crowd of punk-like hip hop appears. We can even see these ideas originating in the classic works of NWA, where it seems a song entitled ‘F**c The Police’ must be considered punk in it’s anti-establishment, boisterous and disruptive nature. Furthermore, it could be argued that these ideas could even stretch to the height of the London grime scene recently as a punk-like epoch in rap music, that, like the Ramones and television, are self-produced, self-released and deeply anti-estab-
and tool for social and political commentary can only be a step in the best direction for the genre. Rap has spoken for the African American community for a long time and in this current state it can only help the community be as prominent in American society as it should be. The Black Lives Matter protest movement is a new generation of protest in a completely different way to that of the 70s, and in Kendrick Lamar with his fresh new direction for hip hop, they may have just found the sound to carry them forward. Xavier Clarke
Nov 4 Tom Odell Brighton Centre £26.45 Nov 4 The Wytches Concorde 2 £11.50 Nov 4 Trudy and the Romance Sticky Mike’s Frog Bar Free entry
To mosh or not to mosh? Lauren Wade Music Editor There’s no better feeling than being at the gig of your favourite band, but the experience has a dampener put on it when people begin to mosh to the music two songs in. This is something that most people can relate to, whether you’re a fan of getting thrown to the ground halfway through a particularly upbeat song or not. It’s downright dangerous and it’s time that action was taken. Avid gig-goers rarely confess to an ant-moshing stance, but more and more people are finally coming forward and revealing all. When you’re at a show, you don’t want the sweaty moron next to you bumping into you approximately every five seconds. Fans want to attend shows knowing that they will be able to enjoy hearing their favourite song without being violently injured.
Metal writer, Doug Moore spoke out on his blog, ‘Invisible Oragnes’, a few months ago to voice his opinion in regards to the ‘art’ of moshing. “Confession time: Moshing annoys me. [Slayer’s] Kerry King is thundering towards my apartment to confiscate my metal card even as I type this.”
“People can get sucked into those things, when they don’t really want to be.” Moore’s other grievances with moshing manifest in the form of it restricting views, taking up too much space and being a constant distraction from the music. It’s hard to appreciate a gig when you’re being knocked here, there and to the ground. Some people just want to
watch a gig whilst having a good time and not leaving the venue with multiple injuries, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not just gig-goers who are calling for the end of moshing. Foals’ frontman Yannis Philippakis warned fans in 2015 to respect other fans at live concerts. His public plea was made after witnessing a series of distressing incidents in the mosh pit while on his band’s tour in support of their album ‘What Went Down’. Philippakis spoke to DIY magazine and stated: “I used to love moshing, and there’s an inherent aggression and violence to that type of thing that goes on at a show, particularly if it’s like a circle-pit type thing. “But I also have seen, not necessairly at our own shows but just over the years, people can get sucked into those things when they don’t really want to be, and I think that just having an element of compassion for people that are in the set and you can see if someone’s not enjoying it or
feels threatened or feels like they’re getting hurt, then I think it’s a small thing to say, ‘look out for whoever’s there’.” Having musicians suppot the need for health and safety restrictions, or even a ban, when it comes to moshing is a hugely important feat. It’s a debate that we’re not alone in either. At The Drive-In also opened up and
contributed to the anti-moshing discussion onstage at a show in Detroit in the US. Frontman Cedric Bixler-Zavalar announced: “All the guys, if you wanna go beat the s**t out of each other please don’t do it at our show...when we write songs we don’t intend so that you guys can get out your male aggression. I like to dance.”
Marv Watson
18
LETTERS Reflections on 9/11
Dear Badger, When I was an undergraduate I spent four months studying at a college in New York State from September-December 2001. The first few weeks were relatively uneventful, but something happened in the second week of September that would change world politics. I remember being woken by someone shouting that classes had been cancelled. I wandered in to the common room to find out what was going on. At first I thought that everyone was watching a disaster movie, but realised very quickly that it wasn’t a movie at all. People sometimes credit a single event with making them want to find out about the world and get involved in politics. This was mine. During the following weeks, I tried to find out about what had happened. I also experienced the responses of my fellow students, which seemed to be one of two questions: ‘what can we do?’ or ‘who do we blame?’. Since then, I’ve found that political conversations always seem to come down to one or the other of these. When we ask what we can do, we find ourselves concerned with context, motivation and the possible responses to a situation. I was amazed, while in the US, at how many students who had previously either not cared about politics or considered America to (in the words of one girl) “have never done anything bad to anyone” suddenly asking questions about how the events of 9/11 could have been brought about. They were no longer content with the history that they had been taught and wanted to know more about the world. However, when our political views are based solely on who is to blame, we find ourselves less concerned with the details of a situation and more about who and how to punish. On that campus, alongside the students who became interested in learning about history and politics, there were many others who wanted a villain and who found it, either in Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda or in the Bush administration and American politicians in general. My desire not to take a side, and instead to try and investigate the background to the events, were often derided as ‘sitting on the fence’ (and on a couple of occasions I was lucky to escape a violent
response). At any one time, there are a number of difficult and complicated political issues. There is rarely a single simple way to explain them, but this doesn’t seem to stop us from trying. In the UK, there are debates about (among other things) personal and sexual identity, newleft versus progressive-left, and how to think about the decision that was made in this year’s EU referendum. Many of us are looking for someone to blame, whether it be men and ‘male culture’, Tony Blair and his political legacy or ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’ who voted to leave the EU. Meanwhile, we ignore the context in which these events have happened and, in doing so, are unable to work out the ways in which we can deal with them. I loved my time as a student in the US. I even tried to stay to finish my degree there, but wasn’t able to. One thing I experienced, while there, is that what we often call ‘patriotism’ can actually be a more general love of society, and of people. This love was expressed by those who wanted to learn about history, to learn about politics and to start thinking about themselves and their country of residence as responsible entities whose actions have consequences. They realised that looking for people to blame doesn’t solve problems. About two weeks after that day in September, the girl who had previously told me that - in her opinion - America had never wronged anyone, now said that she wanted to learn about American history because (in her words) “people don’t do things like this for no reason”. All too often, we’re caught up in trying to find heroes and villains. Consequently, these events happen again; sometimes in different forms, but always because we didn’t take the time to try and understand them. In the years that followed, friends of mine in the UK would dismiss America and Americans, using words like ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ and ‘prejudiced’. I couldn’t stay quiet when they said these things, because I’d met too many people in the US who wanted to learn and wanted to take an active part in political society. Yours Alastair Gray
The Badger 03.10.2016
Let’s Get Real About Abortion
Dear Badger, After watching the three presidential debates over the last month, it is evident that certain issues reside at the forefront of the campaign, notably Hillary Clinton’s emails, ISIS, immigration, and Donald Trump’s personal antics. Early on in the final debate, this shifted when moderator Chris Wallace asked the candidates about abortion. Prior to the debate, pro-choice groups like NARAL and Pro-Choice America, had been encouraging this dialogue through efforts on social media, such as the hashtag #askaboutabortion. A lack of discussion had persisted in the campaign, despite the proliferation of individual state restrictions on abortion in recent years. It is good that the candidates finally gave their candid and honest policy proposals in a debate setting because American women have the right to know whether or not our next president plans to protect or impede the ability to obtain safe and legal abortion. Unfortunately when abortion is discussed, conversation often does not center on the important narrative surrounding women who need these services. Candidates like Donald Trump continue to portray abortion as something that it is not, which unfairly demonizes the difficult yet vital choices millions of women have had to make. In the debate, Trump characterized abortion as something that women decide to do with little consideration, saying it often occurs
in the last days of a pregnancy. This is simply false information. In reality, most women who have an abortion do so much earlier on in their pregnancies. Further, women who do have late-term abortions often do so because of severe health concerns, either for themselves or their unborn child. Understandably, it is a very difficult and emotional choice for them to make, but not one that the government should make for them. Donald Trump’s characterizations of abortion were both inaccurate and unfair to the women who conclude that it is the right decision for them. We reached and important milestone when we heard the candidates spend a significant amount of time discussing abortion. Unfortunately, it would have been so much more beneficial if the dialogue had been true to the actual experiences of American women. Abortion has been around for a very long time, and it will continue to be no matter the state of American laws. Because of this, candidates on both sides of the aisle should commit themselves to discussing abortion, but doing it in an honest manner. If political discourse centers on the true experiences of the millions of American women who have had abortions, it may make for more honest, open, and accurate conversations and policy in the future. Yours, Catherine Machanic
North Carolina and Transphobia Dear Badger, Earlier this year North Carolina govenor Pat McCrory, signed House Bill 2 into law. HB2 requires everyone to use the public toilet that matches the gender on their birth certificate. The reason given to justify this is to prevent male predators going to the ladies and harassing women. This as far as I’m aware is not a common problem in North Carolina, or indeed anywhere for that matter. Clearly the real purpose of this bill, is to whip up fear against the trans community. Bruce Springsteen and other musicians have cancelled NC shows in protest, and huge companies like Google and PayPal
WRITE US A LETTER Read something in The Badger that you want to respond to? Have an opinion on a topical issue? Or just want to complain about something? Write us a letter! Feel free to email submissions to badger-letters@sussexstudent.com or join the Badger Letter Writers Facebook group.
are pulling investment out of the state. This thing is hurting the economy. Not to mention how much it would cost to enforce, you’d need to stick a cop outside every loo to check those going in are the “right” gender! This is obviously totally impossible to implement, which only further outlines the stupidity of this bill. I for one hope that they see sense next week and vote out McCrory as governor, and this ridiculous bill gets confined to the dustbin of history. Yours, A Reasonable Person
#TheBadger
The best tweets of the week @jaketapper: I’m trying to envision something more fitting than this election actually ending in a BidenTrump fist fight and i cannot @HillaryClinton: We believe that no matter what you look like or where your parents were born or who you love, you have the right to be treated equally. @realDonaldTrump: We are winning and the press is refusing to report it. Don’t let them fool you- get out and vote! #DrainTheSwamp on November 8th! @GovGaryJohnson: They’re in #Vegas so let me ask- are you really willing to gamble with our future on these two? #debate @DrJillStein: Our bloated military budget is designed to keep defense contractors in business. With #NoMoreWar, we could funnel money to creating jobs. @ThatMiriam: #thebadger Fraser stop putting my tweets in the newspaper ;)
Tweet us at #TheBadger and you could be published here next week!
The views and opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the Student’s Union, unless explicitly stated. University of Sussex Students’ Union Falmer, East Sussex, BN1 9QF
19
SCIENCE
The Badger 31.10.2016
Negative Emission: Panacea or Curse?
Eduard Campillo-Funollet Overconfidence in the new negative emission technologies could lead to a catastrophic increase in carbon emissions, according to a paper published in Science in October. In the paper, Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, and Glen Peters, a researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo, warn about the consequences that we may face if the negative emission technologies, still in early stages of development, fail to be as efficient as expected in the Paris Agreement. Negative emission is the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. These technologies focus on processes that consume more carbon than they emit. Some technologies go even further and seek to remove carbon from the atmosphere without any extra emission in the process. The aim of the Paris Agreement is to mitigate the human causes of climate changes. One of the goals is
to hold the increase of global average temperature below 2°C above the pre-industrial levels. To control the temperature increase, we should control the carbon levels in the atmosphere. Most of the climate models that were used to negotiate the Paris Agreement rely on new negative emission technologies to reduce the net carbon emission --the difference between carbon emission and carbon removed from the atmosphere. But negative emission technologies are still in development. Many of them are just theoretical studies and small scale demonstrations. Others, like afforestation and reforestation, are claimed to be mitigating measures, but there is not enough evidence about their efficiency. One of the most promising negative emission technologies is Bioenergy Combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). This technique, qualified by Anderson as a “political panacea”, is attractive because it not only removes carbon from the atmosphere, but also provides energy as a result of
the process. According to Anderson and Peters, the risk lies on the assumptions that the Paris Agreement makes based on the performance of negative emission technologies. If research to make these technologies efficient fails to provide results, carbon levels will keep increasing. Even a delay on the availability of negative emission technologies will jeopardise the predictions of th e Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the expectations for negative emission technologies can stop efforts to reduce carbon emissions by other methods - it is tempting to avoid the economic and political costs of carbon cut measures, and wait for the technology to solve the problem. A safer path would be to not only control the net emissions, but to reduce carbon emissions. In this way, even if negative emission technologies fail to deliver at the promised levels, the carbon emissions will keep decreasing. Researchers in negative emission technologies are afraid that these arguments could block their investigations. Klaus Lackner, director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emis-
A Trip to Space: an Unforgettable Experience? A recent study has warned that astronauts on missions to Mars could develop dementia as a result of cosmic radiation. Kate Dearling Science Sub-editor Scientists at the University of California found cognitive deficits and neuronal damage in rats up to 6 months after exposure to fully ionized oxygen and titanium - mimicking the radiation found in space. The study follows on from a shorter version, which unexpectedly found that mature neurons are highly sensitive to this radiation. Unfortunately it confirms fears that these effects are long-term and will continue to affect astronauts years after a mission has ended. Imaging of the rats’ neurons showed a reduction in the number and complexity of dendrites. This could be due to radiation-induced inflammation as inflammatory cells prune neuronal dendrites. Dendrites are important for forming connections between neurons and are linked with the formation of new memories. Reduced dendritic growth and excessive-pruning has been implicated in several mental illnesses including depression and schizophrenia. When they assessed the rats on behavioural tests of cognition and memory they showed impair-
ments in object recognition, spatial memory and short-term memory. Seeing as astronauts on missions to Mars will be faced with a range of complex tasks, it is worrying that their cognitive ability is likely to deteriorate throughout their trip. Perhaps one of the most concerning findings is that rats exposed to radiation had impaired “fear extinction” this is an adaptive process in which the brain suppresses prior unpleasant or stressful associations. For example a person who nearly drowns can learn to enjoy swimming again thanks to fear extinction. Astronauts will encounter traumatic experiences on a mission to Mars, a reduction in fear extinction could cause them to become more anxious
after these traumas, making the remainder of the trip very challenging. With a trip to Mars posing this much threat to a person’s mental health, some question whether it’s worth it; arguing that money would be better invested making Earth inhabitable for a longer period of time. Others have set their sights on the moon as a more realistic home. Despite this, Dr Parihar and his team remain optimistic about Mars, closing their paper with the statement that “our exploration of strange new worlds should not be hampered by the fear of cosmic radiation exposure”. They are now looking to develop a pharmaceutical intervention that will protect against the worst effects of cosmic radiation.
Wikimedia Commons
sions at Arizona State University, qualifies the approach of Anderson and Peters as a “moral hazard”. Other experts are of the opinion that the best strategy is to keep working on negative emission technologies, but without neglecting the need for reduction of the carbon emissions. “The real moral failure is restricting the ways scientist think about mitigating climate change”, says professor John DeCicco from University of Michigan.
University of Sussex has reduced its carbon footprint by more than 40\% in the last 10 years. Several projects are in place with the aim to improve this figure. The carbon emission predictions submitted by the countries as part of the Agreement differ from the model outcomes. Thus, there is a strong dependence on negative emission technologies to satisfy the terms of the Agreement.
Wikimedia Commons
Graphene-fed Silkworms Spin Conductive Fabric Researchers at Tsinghua University come up with environmentally friendly method to make conductive silk. Duncan Michie Science Editor Yingying Zhang and her colleagues have recently made a breakthrough in silk production. The new material can withstand 50% more stress without tearing and is twice as tough. Along with this the silks also conduct electricity meaning that electronically enhanced clothing may soon be on its way. The worms were treated as normally would be, however their food of mulberry leaves was sprayed with 0.2% by weight aqueous solution of either 1 to 2nm-wide carbon nanotubes or graphene. The silk was then taken after the worms spun their cocoons. If this silk was to be used the process would stop there, but to analyse the new material the team heated the samples to 1050°C to carbonize the material for examination. Raman spectroscopy and electron microscopy of the carbonized material revealed that the silk fibres had a more ordered crystal structure due to incorporated nanomaterials, this is what leads to the conductivity and strength of the material. To do this with unmodified silk would require dissolving nanomaterials in toxic chemical solvents and applying it to the silk, so luckily this new method
provides a more environmentally friendly method of getting the same results. This isn’t the first time that silk worms have been fed nanotubes. Research in 2014 by Qing Seng did exactly this with far wider nanotubes, their research saw the increase in structural strength but no change in the conductivity of the material. It is not known how the feeding of graphene and carbon nanotubes causes the changes in the structure of silk - Zhang said that was a question for biologists to answer. A few questions they need to answer are why the carbon material is not seen in cross sections of the material, how the worms use the carbon materials in their silk and what percentage of the materials absorbed is actually used in the silk. However these questions may not need be answered for the product to be mass produced and shipped out for a whole new industry to be created. The applications of this material leads a lot to the imagination. Obviously inventors and designers can’t wait to get their hands on the material, whether it lead to some kind of new fashion trend and some useful gizmos on your jumpers, or whether it can lead to some uses out of clothing is yet to be seen.
20
The Badger 24.10.2016
SPORT
NFL’s Triumphant Return To The UK Sophie Clark Since the New York Giants and the Miami Dolphins played the first NFL International Series game in London back in 2007, the UK following of American football has thrived - more UK games have been added to the schedule, more publicity surrounds the events, and tickets sell out quicker and quicker. On Sunday 23rd October, NFL fans descended on Twickenham in their masses to witness the return of the Giants as they played against the Los Angeles Rams, marking another successful year of British NFL and the first nonrugby game held at the stadium in its 107 year lifetime. The crowds were their usual swarm of various NFL team colours and jerseys, as the London games have become something of a general celebration of the game itself. However, despite the event being a Rams home game, it seemed that the crowd was overwhelmingly in support of the Giants, with rows and rows of bright blue filling the stands. The atmosphere was one of excitement and anticipation. Who would win: The fan favourites or the adopted hosts? The first quarter suggested the hosts. Despite the game starting with a contentious fumble, the Rams scored an early touch-
Polly Devereux
game was either team’s to be had. Unfortunately, the third quarter proved to be relatively tame and uneventful, aside from some more rousing displays of defence from the Rams. The final quarter was more fruitful, as the Giants pulled through with a glorious touchdown and successful kick within the last 10 minutes of play, bringing the score up to 17-10. The Giants were able to keep their 7-point advantage over the Rams, due to Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie carrying out two impressive interceptions in the final minutes, thereby preventing a Rams touchdown that would have evened the score once again. As the game drew to a close, it was clear that history was going to repeat itself, and the Giants were the winners. The game was a slow starter and had many a moment of adversity for both teams, but all in all, the hordes of fans that turned up to the sold out game were not disappointed, as there were plenty of exciting and stand-out moments of play. It was a struggle and by no means their best game, but the Giants managed to turn the game around and defeat the Ram’s rampage, 9 years after their first UK victory.
Flickr-ongchihang
Would you like to write a sports article for The Badger? If so get in contact with our badger-sport@ sussexstudent.om
Major League Baseball: 2016 Season Review
After six months and over two thousand games, the Major League Baseball regular season has finally drawn to a close. The MLB community has experienced tragic loss this year with the death of Miami
en.wikipedia.org
down, bringing them to 7 points within 15 minutes of play. If such speedy and slick successes were to continue, the Rams were sure to defeat the Giants. Indeed, the first quarter was not kind to the New Yorkers, as it was littered with downfalls such as pass interferences and yard push backs for the Giants, which mostly appeared to be a result of sloppy mistakes. However, the Giants improved over time, and their successful offence became apparent as the second quarter played out, with Victor Cruz’s splendid runs being a particular highlight. The second fifteen minutes also demonstrated the Rams’ merciless defence tactics, with shoves, pushes and penalised tackles aplenty. While the Giants achieved some notable and well-earned yards, the Rams’ brutal and impressive defence prevailed, resulting in the blues only gaining 3 points against the Rams’ 7. The tides turned when Landon Collins brilliantly intercepted the Rams’ offence: he struggled to the end zone but eventually defied the defence and achieved a touchdown, equalising the scores. From that point on, neither team gained any points, but they both carried out successful defence, resulting in the first half finishing at 10-10. As the second half opened, the
Marlin’s pitcher José Fernández, all teams paying their tributes to the young talent and community star who died at the age of just twenty-four. There is no doubt that this season has been one of extreme highs and lows and, as
fans wait for April to come back around, it’s time to look back at the winners and the losers of the 2016 season. After a dominating start in April, the Baltimore Orioles fell short of winning the American League East Division after a stunning comeback by the Boston Red Sox. The combination of powerful offense and determined defence led to an eleven match win streak, ensuring that the Red Sox clinched the title ahead of 2015 league champions, the Toronto Blue Jays. While Boston were unable to extend their dominance through the tournament style post-season competition, their season has been hailed as a revival of baseball for the Red Sox. Following their defeat in the post-season by the Cleveland Indians, the Red Sox bid an emotional farewell to long-time player and Major League superstar David Ortiz; there is no doubt that his career has ended on a high. Another surprise came in the form of victory for the Chicago
Cubs who won the National League Central, winning over one hundred games in the process. It seems they have finally lifted the ‘Chicago Cubs curse’ which goes all the way back to 1945 when a fan and his goat were asked to leave a game between the Cubs and Detroit Tigers. As he left, he proclaimed that the Cubs would never win and true to the curse, they have not made it to the World Series since, something that has changed as of the 2016 post-season. The World Series marks the end of the baseball season during which the top teams from both the American League and National League play off against each other in a series of seven games. History shows the odds are in the American League team’s favour, having won sixty-four of the 111 games played. Although nothing in baseball is ever set in stone, it is almost a certainty that the 2016 World Series will be played. There are only two instances in the history of baseball
where the World Series has been cancelled, the second instance caused by the players’ strike of 1994. Sportsmanship however seems to have improved greatly over time, with teams putting aside their rivalries for the sake of the game. While the World Series has not yet been played, by the time this is published there will be a new champion; this year the title will belong to either the Cleveland Indians or the Chicago Cubs. It has been a season of unexpected turns for many teams, and certainly the results could not have been predicted by even the most knowledgeable fan. Whoever your team, there will be something to celebrate and take away from the past six months of gripping Major League Baseball action.