Animal Agriculture and Its Effects on The Planet

BY LAUREN BREUER

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of all of our problems on Earth. It takes up so much land that it impacts every single industry. And, it is often not brought up enough in our daily lives. Most of the time, change happens when people witness bad circumstances firsthand. first handedly. But when it is just through a picture or a document it is not as impressive impressionable. This issue is linked to global warming and thought to be a political topic; however, it is simply an event that is occurring and needs to be stopped. Political action definitely wouldn’t harm it, but people are the ones that inflict effect change anywhere in the world; we do not need a leader to implement the change we all see as necessary.

Examples of the impacts of animal agriculture are: deforestation, water consumption and pollution, all of which are responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry. It is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones” and everything else. Seems a little broad. The fact that it is affecting every part of the world, still it is thought to be a political event in every state is odd. It, unfortunately, is a part of life. People just often choose to do nothing about it.

The documentary Cowspiracy, on Netflix, completely outlines the problems we are blindly facing do you mean ignoring? as a society. It truly amazed me to see that people who work for a specified area in the government (environmental-related areas), “couldn’t answer,” or felt “uncomfortable” answering questions when asked about the animal agriculture industry. They made it so blatantly obvious that they totally knew the answer, they just didn’t want to share. Maybe they have been sworn to secrecy, maybe they are being paid a truckload of money to keep their mouths shut? I don’t know, but their hesitation is suspicious. There is a part in the documentary where the main film actor is warned to throw his camera away if he doesn’t want to “have his neck on the chopping block.” Originally, he had a production company agree to produce his film, but as he got further into the process, they backed away which clearly showed their hesitation/connection to the exploration.

Another thing that strikes me is that the man who made this documentary says he has supported all of the environmental organizations he visited, yet none of them could answer his question about animal agriculture. They all say the same thing, how fossil fuels were the leading cause of it all. Some claim that they couldn’t answer that question because they’re not well versed on that topic, or it’s not “their area” of expertise. Yet, their position entails the knowledge of the environment and they are getting paid to do so.

The Beef Industry can claim that it takes only 441 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef compared to organizations like National Geographic which claims it takes 1,799 gallons because of the money and corruption involved. There is no other reason. People revolve around money and are willing to go to extremes to keep it. Even if it means depleting resources from the Earth and its living creatures who inhabit it.

Industrial agriculture affects the carbon cycle in multiple ways. One example is deforestation. Due to this action, immense amounts of carbon dioxide are produced, depleting the ozone layer. Trees and plants balance the carbon in the atmosphere, however, when too much is cleared, and not replaced, it starts to affect the world. An excess amount of gas in the atmosphere gets trapped, by the “blanket” that keeps us warm, which causes global warming. When the heat is trapped, it starts to melt things, also known as global warming.

As for the nitrogen cycle, nitrogen can be transported from the ground surface to the groundwater we drink. If it rains an excessive amount one day on an irrigation system, and that irrigation system exceeds its water holding capacity, the water will runoff. But, since the water reached the irrigation system first, it now contains fertilizer/chemicals “needed” to grow crops. That water then reaches streams, ponds, lakes, etc., and eventually leaches through the soil and can make its way into groundwater along with the nitrate fertilizers. The water we drink is groundwater, and to have nitrate in your drink is very bad. And when this cycle repeats itself, it then contains fertilizers/chemicals.

To reduce the pressure of food production on planetary boundaries is to boycott the meat and dairy industries. Both of these industries take up an enormous amount of land, and are the leading reason for climate change, pollution, and all of the problems on earth. They contribute a large carbon footprint and use so many resources that in the future, the Earth will no longer be able to give. Being Vegan cuts down a lot of the expenses discussed in this documentary. Making laws to reduce emissions, such as cutting down on meat production would greatly reduce the pressure of food production on the planetary boundaries as well. I hope that people will soon realize that it can be an easy fix, if they are just willing to change their lifestyle.

ILLUSTRATION BY DEREK BUFFINGTON

Animal agriculture is a vicious cycle of never-ending cruelty. When you consume a steak, are you thinking about the process of how it got there? The cows are brutally abused, impregnated and shot with hormones. They are confined to a box no bigger than their body so all they are able to do is lay down and sit in their own feces. They don’t graze the land and eat grass. They are fed hormones to increase their size to create more meat. They are bred to be fatter now so the industry can get more bang for their buck without doing as much labor per cow.

After the killing process, think about all of the blood that runs off the body. Companies would never think of selling bloody steak, therefore, they use water to hose it off. Do you know how much water is used per day to complete such a task in this industry? 1,799 gallons of water to create one pound of beef. As our climate proceeds on a downhill spiral, we continue to contribute to the problem.

The phrase “survival of the fittest” is thrown around to combat the plant-based dieters and the ones that don’t eat meat to make the meat lovers feel better about their reasoning. I am not preaching for anyone to become Vegan or Vegetarian for that matter, but we do not need to eat meat to survive. We have so many, sometimes too many, options. We have substitutes for the ones who love meat and still crave the tastes, everyone has the option of produce, pasta, beans, soup, pizza, chocolate and sweets. Meat is not the main source of protein in the world.

A vegan or vegetarian lifestyle decreases the effects you have on the earth a tremendous amount. If everyone went vegan/vegetarian, we could hinder the effects of animal agriculture that have been brought upon us and get close enough to reverse the effects and save the planet. But some people still are not convinced that in doing so, it would benefit anyone. You have the opportunity to change this. What is your plan? ■

PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE: A STUNNING PORTRAYAL OF FEMALE DYNAMISM AND LOVE IN 18TH CENTURY FRANCE

BY LOLA CORNILLON

The first time I saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I walked down the steps of the Ange- lika theater feeling an intense bout of unex- plainable emotion, staring into faces lit by fluorescent hues from the neon blue light- ing that surrounds the building – making it easy to forget what time of day it is and where you are. Immediately thrust into the 5 p.m. eerie darkness of early December, three of us walked in silence through Astor Place. Ultimately overwhelmed by feeling and thought, I played St. Vincent’s “New York,” in my head; specifically, the line “too few of our old crew left on Astor,” and thought of the time my friend Eric said after a screening of Parasite, “you remember that you can be affected.” Cognizant of steps and time, the effect that Portrait of a Lady on Fire leaves for moments/days afterward vastly mimics the flow of the entire film, a remarkable portrayal of the fragile intimacy between memory and time.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a stunning depiction of the relationship between two women in 18th century France, in the rocky sea-side of Brittany, written and directed by Céline Sciamma. Noémie Merlant plays an artist named Marianne, who has been hired to paint a portrait of Héloïse, played by Adèle Haenel. Héloïse’s mother (Valeria Golino) has arranged for Marianne to stay at the house, and secretly paint the portrait of Héloïse, who has previously refused to pose for other artists. The portrait is a signifier of Héloïse’s future marriage to a Milanese nobleman and once it is finished, her and her mother will leave the estate for Milan.

In many ways, the passing of time is unclear. Initially, days are marked by the walks that Marianne and Héloïse take, and then in many ways, time becomes a blending of moments – fleeting exchanges that both animate the narrative, and act like the haze of exploring a new person. Marianne is meant to study Héloïse for the portrait, and through doing so, the act of gaze becomes a pivotal form of action in the film. The initial first half is a “slow burn,” as said by Sciamma herself. Marianne and Héloïse do not smile at one another for an hour and twen- ty minutes – and as described by Sciamma, this time is dedicated towards illustrating the impatient/patient internal conflict that is being in love.

As the film progresses, we are introduced to the mythological tale of Orpheus and Eurydices. In this tragic love story, Orpheus is able to reunite with his deceased love Eu- rydices, under the condition that he does not look at her until they reach the Upper World (Earth). As the story goes, Orpheus, burdened by his love and curiosity, could not resist and turns back to catch the gaze of Eurydice, who then immediately vanishes. As Marianne and Heloise unravel the story, it is suggested that Eurydice asked Orpheus to “turn around,” and that he did willingly, because the memory of her has the power to last longer than the potential of losing her forever. Fleeting moments become the crux of the relationship between the artist and the model, Marianne and Héloïse, and their relationship becomes memorized through gaze and “turn around” moments.

PHOTO COURTESY IMDB.COM

Héloïse as their relationship progresses, the emotional weight of an abortion, an eerie yet remedial choir of ladies that sing around the fire, all work to illustrate the remarkable dynamism of women. Quite often, period pieces are painted as flavorless (have to be told) renditions of the past – equally implying that the past lacked flavor. When asked about the modernization within this 18th century story, Sciamma replied, “I didn’t want it to be modern, I wanted to make them alive…I wanted to give back their bodies, the rush of blood – give back their presence - women of the past.” Portrait of a Lady on Fire is the art of portrayal in a time period where women were limited to select narratives, and like a good film has the power to do, the film events new images, and it surprises.

The masking of the lady stems from the historical placement of roles that are es- tablished through their clothing, social roles, and ultimately, “made up” personas. In Efrat Tseëlon’s series of essays: Mas- querade and Identity, she uses the phrase, “the lady is a fake.” The lady is a fake demonstrates the history of women playing characters in society – this idea existing as a voice for the historical stripping of a women’s ability to portray herself as an individual with dimension – because systematically we paint women like poetry, (soft and misunderstood) – until there is a shift, in films such as Portrait, and we begin to recognize the strength of dynamism and desire. Women who are portrayed as dynamic; as equally ethereal as witchy are ultimately the greatest threat, and therefore scripts and narratives are dominated by characters that are less disruptive to the painting of women’s essence as non-essence.

The second time I saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I left the Cobble Hill theater and wrote in my little pocket notebook: films that make you feel something, WHAT IS THE POINT OTHERWISE. And perhaps, that is the lin- gering realization that many of us are hav- ing with this film. How brilliant that a film can event new images, be haunting and be giving, and at the most fundamental level of dissection, make you “feel affected.” ■

What Does Parasite Really Mean for the Future of Film?

BY HANNAH KREBS

Hopefully many reading this have seen Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite, and have likely left the theater with conflicting emotions. Parasite is the story of a poor family who cons their way into becoming the servants of a rich family. Over the course of the film, the audience sees just how fantastic and equally out of touch the upper class can be. It became the first foreign-language film to win Best Picture and how it will affect the Academy and the future of film will remain to be seen. Whether or not Parasite will change the industry for the better has been a big topic of discussion lately. Consequently, these conversations have allowed people all over the country to connect with one another and influence their opinions on what an Oscar winner can be.

I saw Parasite in October, shortly after it was released, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Bong Joon Ho is my friend’s favorite director and she attended the screening of the film at the New York Film Festival, so I knew a little bit about the film before going in. However, she only gave me a brief summary of the plot because she agreed with many critics who advised that it is better to watch the film without knowing any of the details. The only information she was willing to share was that it was “a dark comedy about capitalism.” I immediately became a fan.

Living in New York, we see the most extravagant things imaginable, buildings with over a hundred floors, clothing stores selling designer dresses for thousands of dollars, restaurants with fixed menus starting at $200 a person. To the majority of the population, this opulence is daunting. When I moved to Harlem last spring, I became more aware of the true divide of wealth in Manhattan. Even riding the subway, the tell-tale signs of wealth seem to stop after 96th St. As a matter of fact, most obviously wealthy people rarely venture into neighborhoods north of the Upper West Side. This occurrence is something I have often spoken about with my friend because the transition from luxury to pre-gentrification New York arouses confusion and frustration within me. It is this feeling that resonates with people who have watched Parasite as well as a reason for it being so successful at the box office. We are all aware that the divide in economic classes is not only a problem in New York, or restricted to cities, for that matter. The wealth gap is plaguing the entire nation. We are all very fortunate, not all families can help send their children to college and, according to patch.com, nearly 1 in 5 New Yorkers is poor. Although movie tickets are expensive in New York, friends, families and couples come together to be entertained and step into another reality for a couple of hours. Film draws audiences of all backgrounds, and although Parasite was an obvious criticism of the upper class, Vice writes that wealthy celebrities like Chrissy Teigen and Elon Musk loved the film.

I read what New York Times film critics had to say about Parasite’s impact on the future of Hollywood and the Academy, and they were very eye opening. Many critics explained that while the film is a great accomplishment and will go down in history for being the first foreign language film to win best picture, it also meets all the classic criteria of an Oscar winner. A.O. Scott states that the film is “Admired by critics and adored by audiences. A box office hit all over the world. A wonderfully entertaining movie that tackles serious issues.” Like major directors Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese, and Quentin Tarantino, Bong Joon Ho is witty and charismatic and has developed his own fan following as a result.

Parasite is not Bong’s first film to gain acceptance among American audiences. Snowpiercer, a 2013 English-language film focusing on climate change, capitalism, and human nature, which received about half the amount of money at the box office as Parasite, was a critical favorite but did not receive any Oscar nominations. Okja, a 2017 Netflix film about the horrors of slaughterhouses and the horrific extent science will go to save humanity was nominated for a Palm d’Or at Cannes Film Festival. These two films were fairly successful but neither were as quirky, urgent and unsettling as Parasite.

The term “Bongslide” has been used to describe how Bong Joon Ho captured wins for Best Picture, Directing, International Feature Film and Writing (Original Screenplay). It

PHOTO COURTESY STYLE CASTER

is also the first film from South Korea to be nominated for International Feature Film, previously known as Foreign Language Film, according to oscar.go.com. In recent years, foreign language films have been nominated and/or won Oscars, such as Cold War and Roma and directors of color like Barry Jenkins, Guillermo del Toro, and Alejandro G. Iñárritu have been successful and made names for themselves in the industry. In terms of diversity, these are amazing achievements and should not go without acknowledgement, but there is still much progress to be made. There are many other great foreign films like these that unfortunately go unnoticed. These films may be screened at festivals in the United States, but they do not capture the attention of the mass public. One reason for this is because many of the films are experimental or art films that do not relate to the average American.

Women are also just beginning to receive their long overdue recognition. At this year’s Academy Awards, some women won in their respective categories, with Renée Zellweger winning Best Lead Actress and Laura Dern winning Best Supporting Actress, but female directors are still struggling to secure a spot among the men. Perhaps there would be more diverse films nominated in all categories if there was greater representation of women and minorities on the board. After ninety-two years, white men still make up the majority of the Academy. LA Times reported that “By the Academy’s count, about 50 percent of the 842 film industry professionals invited to become members this year are women... About 29 percent are minorities.” But with these changes, female membership will only be 32% and the percentage of minorities, constituting 16% of the group, will not change.

Discussions regarding the significance of Parasite and its impact on the future of film may not change the Academy’s views on international films completely, but they have the possibility to influence the stories filmmakers tell. While one foreign film’s Best Picture win may not change the course of American cinema forever, it is a step in the right direction. ■

THE SEARCH BAR LIES ALONE: How Microtargeting and Pro aganda Influence t e World

BY ETHAN SAWYER

My Youtube recommendations have been flooded with flat earth conspiracy videos for about a month. Just one click created thousands of windows promising glimpses at this new picture taking shape. The solution to this situation is quite simple; I need to click on the search bar and look for something new...but I don’t want to. The thoughts of a hidden truth have lingered within my mind for years, but now I see validation. I’ve grown to like the people in these poorly produced videos, they feel like friends popping into my recommendations to say hello, they make me feel appreciated and loved, they opened my eyes to the wondrous flat world those silly government dummies tried to cover up. Youtube keeps recommending. I keep accepting. The search bar lies alone.

Most people reading the above snippet will jump into this paragraph thinking “That situation could never happen to me. I’m a smart person,” but in truth, if you’re on the internet, a similar situation has already happened to you. It happened the second you agreed with an idea. An algorithm took that idea and used it to generate links to supportive opinions, which you clicked on because human nature dictates we do everything in our power to feel good and be right. The algorithm funneled you into a one-way tunnel of love towards feel-right-be-good-town where the citizens all agree and everything is awesome. In 1948, sociologists Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton outlined this process of Monopolization (Algorithm generating only supportive links), Canalization (Being funneled), and Supplementation (Feel-right-be-good town’s citizens agreeing with you) as the perfect environment for mass persuasion. They then proceeded to explain how it was all conceptual and would never realistically happen. In our 2020 reality, social media has allowed for sustainable bubbles of feedback loops that segment the USA, along with the rest of the world.

Social Media Feedback loops aren’t all a danger to society. Some loops create cat video fanatics. The danger comes when an outside force injects its propaganda into our bubbles. But they can’t use generic propaganda, they have to adapt to each individual loop. This is where Microtargeting comes into play. Microtargeting is a lot to swallow at once, let’s start with some bite size pieces. In 2019, 72% of Trump’s campaign ads were seen by 0 to 999 Facebook users, meaning each individual ad was seen by only a couple hundred people on average. Seems like a waste of time at first glance, but in reality those thousands of ads are riffing on the same theme, with slight tweaks for a select group of behavioral, geographic, psychographic, and demographic data points. These specialized data points hold power because they don’t just look at your current interests, they predict your future interests as well, to a scarily accurate degree. Microtargeting has allowed political campaigns to stare into your soul and target your very being.

To truly understand the power of Microtargeting, follow me on a quick detour to retail giant Target. In 2012, Forbes released an article on Target’s innovative new data-mining methods that could predict pregnancy before the child-bearer was even aware themselves. Target had perfected their algorithm to a point where they could closely predict someone’s pregnancy and delivery date after a single sale of just 4 items. The process was so perfect it had to be manually modified to dissuade people from asking too many questions. As explained by Target’s senior group manager for marketing Andrew Pole, “If we send someone a catalog and say, ‘Congratulations on your first child!’ and they’ve never told us they’re pregnant, that’s going to make some people uncomfortable...then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy...we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons.”

When it comes to Microtargeting, the question is not will you be targeted, but where are you being targeted. Of all the soul-staring overlords looming over the American people, Russia has come out as the most well known, while also being such a vast entity that their influence will likely never be fully understood. In 2017, Facebook shutdown 470 pages and accounts linked to Russia-backed political propaganda. In 2019, Facebook was still discovering pages that have existed from the very start of Russia’s 2016 attack on national unity, or were created to fill the gap left by Facebook’s initial culling. Newsweek reports these pages “had a bigger reach than The New York Times and The Washington Post combined,” while being curated by three people who barely spoke english. One among those three was a 13-year-old girl, while another was a disabled elderly woman who had to be taught to use a computer.

As reported by Judd Legum of Popular Information, these Facebook pages directly derive their power from Canalization. Pages grow an audience around topics that have been proven to appeal to Trump supporters, like “patriotism, Jesus, and cute dogs.” Over time, Trump propaganda starts to slip between the dachshunds, eventually blending seamlessly into a solid red smoothie held together by an echo chamber of like-minded individuals.

To imply America is the only country being targeted by foreign disinformation campaigns would be a mistake, so expand your horizons with me and mentaly travel to Europe, because Russia is manipulating things over there as well. Beyond social media, traces of Russian interference, like server data and electronic signatures, have been seen on political sites in Italy and Germany, highlighting the Kremlin’s apparent dismissal of the western world’s requests for stoppage. To complicate things further, far-right European natives have been regurgitating Russia’s messaging on social media, blurring the digital line between foreign and local propaganda sources. Beyond Russia and the West, a symbiotic relationship between fake news and WhatsApp has begun to unfold within India. A mass decrease in data rates alongside a mass increase in smartphone sales has created the largest WhatsApp user base in the world at 400 million, dwarfing Brazil’s number 2 selection of 120 million users.

While it may seem like just another messaging app to most Americans, WhatsApp is closer to a personally-managed internet forum in the eyes of the rest of the world. In the 2017 election season, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) created 10,344 WhatsApp groups, all coordinated to spread information within the political party. Due to the closed and communal nature of WhatsApp, monopolization, canalization, and supplementation thrive, paving a path for fake news to spread. Ahead of the 2017 election, disinformation dispersed on WhatsApp triggered a slew of riots in Uttar Pradesh, killing 62 people.

In one of the most extreme cases of social media propaganda, Myanmar’s citizens have grown to use the words “Facebook” and “Internet” interchangeably, because Facebook is the internet and main news source for a majority of the country. Seeing a golden opportunity, the country’s historically oppressive military developed Facebook pages aimed at fans of national celebrities, then used the newfound influence to spread anti-muslim messages. Camouflaged military accounts were deployed to dismiss detractors and incite violence within the fan pages, creating an online environment of fiery hostility, continually stoked by what appeared to be normal citizens. When Facebook finally stepped in to quell the storm, thousands of muslims were dead, and over 700,000 had fled the country. If Lazarsfeld and Merton were alive today, I have no doubt they would point to the Myanmar situation as a perfect example of what they feared possible when first proposing the outline for perfect propaganda.

With all this info stored in your brain, I’m gonna present you with a headline. Please take a second to imagine what it could mean before continuing: “Facebook creates new ad rules ahead of 2020 elections to give users more control.” If you were expecting anything reasonable, like a ban on false ads, I am immensely sorry. In reality, Facebook’s new policies won’t stop political microtargeting or paid false ads, but they will let you choose what ads you see. Senator Ron Wyden has a quote that sums up my frustration perfectly, saying Facebook is “[fooling] people with fig leaves instead of taking real action.” I’ll go a step further than Senator Wyden and propose that Facebook isn’t just fooling people with nothing-action, they are making it much easier for propaganda to spread. Monopolization is the most influential section of Lazarsfeld and Merton’s propaganda outline, because without counter messaging there’s nothing to pull you away from the inevitable drain you’re going to stumble into, and there won’t be a ladder waiting for you if an attempt to leave ever occurs. With these new rules, Facebook isn’t trying to help you. They’re just putting oil in the sink and dismantling the ladder. ■

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH SOCIAL MEDIA

BY CHARLOTTE SPAID

As we enter into 2020, here are a few things to consider about social media:

The average person spends more than two hours on social media everyday. Twitter is turning 14-years-old, Instagram 10-yearsold and Facebook 16-years-old. Most of us have grown up with social media being new in our lives. I remember getting Facebook when I was 11, in elementary school, and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. I would get on Facebook through our old desktop, post weird things about my day and play those old Facebook games like FarmVille. Now Facebook lives on my phone, in my pocket. I’m sure many of you recall what it was like not being connected to a computer growing up, and then discovering the wonders of social media. Now, through the years, I can’t help but wonder and speak about what social media has meant to us, how it’s changed us, our relationship with it and what it looks like for our future selves.

It seems as though social media has become a big part of our identities in the 21st century, practically attached to the hip of many. Social media and technology are a wonderful thing, but the way it affects our mental health has increasingly become a concern today. From not only how we interact with others, but the way we interpret with ourselves. Lately, I’ve noticed many people taking a break from social media, to better their mental health. People I know are deleting an app, such as Instagram, to disconnect from something that seems so real but is not, to get in touch with the people and life around them, to focus on their headspace; ridding it of the pride, jealousy, anxiety and depression that’s so often connected to their screen time. But why has something that has seemed so great become so daunting to us?

In the past year, I have tried to be on social media less. I noticed that my headspace wasn’t that clear when I was on it, I noticed that I didn’t feel as in touch with myself or what was going on around me. I felt as though the time I had spent on it was wasted, and it didn’t feel very fulfilling. It feels like the moment we want to distract ourselves, we grab our phones. It’s filling a void that’s hard to come to terms with.

Here are some negative aspects of social media that affect, or even control, many of us today. Most people struggle with comparing their lives to other people, being sucked into what their ideal life “should” look like, and ultimately, lowering our self-esteem. Following that can be jealousy or the feeling of being left out from seeing what other people are doing. Social media was found to actually link to social isolation and sadness. Some people have been found to be addicted to social media and the need to always want to “connect.” There’s this delusion that social media can help our brains, but sometimes it just makes it worse. Many studies show that long usage of social media can cause depression, anxiety and many more damaging things to ourselves. And social media has sadly been a massive place for bullying. Social media is a tough thing to break down; it has its benefits, such as connecting with people all around the world, but most definitely has its hindrances. It comes down to the question, are we willing to see these negative aspects of social media, and to consider if they are declining our mental health, and what exactly should we do about it?

When we make a post, “likes” are supposed to determine how good our post is. How diminishing is that, if we don’t get a lot of likes? There’s such a rush of the feeling of gratification from social media, but it can worsen our image of ourselves if these needs and likes aren’t met. Instagram is testing out the aspect of taking away likes on some people’s accounts. Instagram wants to better the well being of the space and make it less toxic. You can’t see likes on other people’s posts, and they can’t see yours, but apparently you can still see your own likes. Some users feel better about this but can still see if their post doesn’t perform well. But this still doesn’t help the content of Instagram and the need to feel better about oneself, or the toxic attachments to it.

My friends and I talk about the concept of a “follower” on Instagram. How frightening it is, how so many people care to look at it, how it’s of such high importance. A true definition of a follower means that you’re devoted to someone, that you possibly follow their beliefs and ideas. But now what does that mean to us? Who and what are we choosing to surround ourselves with?

We are choosing to follow the things we want to see, or even want to be. Choosing to follow friends, inspirations or idols. Creating our own reality, living it in our heads. But then taking a step back from it all, looking at the people and the true reality of life we have, and being unsatisfied that it doesn’t look that way. It’s a vicious cycle many of us fall under, choosing what we see, choosing the perfect thing for people to see about us. But what of it’s all real? It’s hard to break that cycle, it’s so easy to just grab your phone and go back to the reality we created. But breaking it can possibly make us feel whole again. Accepting ourselves and the life we have can be really difficult.

These are a few things that I’ve been practicing that have been working for me, and maybe they’ll help you. My phone used to be the first thing I grabbed and consumed my brain with when I woke up in the morning. Now, I fill that time with things that I think fulfill my inner self. I carry a book with me everywhere I go and in the times I am waiting I read instead of being on my phone. Yes, I am even that person who reads on a packed subway train. I spend a lot of free time doing things that help me connect with myself and my emotions, ultimately things that grow me. Some of those things, for me, are keeping a journal, going outside, to the park, or a museum. And I choose to surround myself with people who also aid in my growth, people who will spend genuine time with me, not feeling like we need to be on our phones. At the end of the day, at the end of my life, I’m not going to remember what I saw on social media, and I don’t want to regret the hours I spent on it when I could’ve been making memories elsewhere. I hate the idea of the hours that my phone has sucked away from me, I have chosen to limit the amount I am on social media. I have chosen to detach myself from the weight of the number of followers and likes that my social media carries. I have chosen to find inspiration in the life around me, and I have chosen to do what’s best for my personal mental health and growth by trying to connect with myself every day. What will you choose? ■

BY PRERNA CHAUDHARY 2020 WILL HAVE LESS IMMIGRANTS,

LESS FUNDS, AND MORE PARTISANSHIP

As we enter the new decade, it is a good time to reflect on what is in the past and what is about to come – the changes, as well as the continuing trends.

The Census Bureau states that in 2020, children under 18 years old belonging to racial minority groups became the majority of children in the United States by a slight majority. Non-white Hispanics will become the largest minority group in the electorate in 2020, which is perhaps the reason Democratic presidential candidates, like Bernie Sanders, are heavily campaigning towards them and relying on their votes in populated states, like California. With non-white Hispanics becoming an even greater part of the voting electorate, candidates will have to take their views into account for policies, perhaps regarding immigration.

Currently, immigration policies are rather restrictive, and the Department of Homeland Security released data stating that legal immigration under President Donal Trump has decreased 7%. Countries that were affected the most included Mexico, China, Vietnam, and South Korea. Likewise, at the United States’ southern border, “851,000 were apprehended and taken into custody by border patrol agents in the fiscal year 2019,” according to Business Insider. This number is a 300,000 increase from the number of migrants facing the same consequence during the Barack Obama era. If Trump wins reelection in 2020, then it is likely that this number could increase further and at a faster rate than it did in 2019.

Forbes noted the 10% decrease of international students in the United States from the 2015 school year to the 2018 school year. Following this trend, the Trump administration is attempting to limit the “authorized stay” period for students that it is aiming to complete by September 2020. This will lead to a lower number of working-age immigrants in the near future, which is another goal of the current administration.

As of October 2019, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was already being used to prevent new immigrants from coming into the country, “without health insurance, potentially reducing legal immigration by hundreds of thousands of people per year,” says Forbes and the Migration Policy Institute. It is possible that this would lead to the implementation of the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, which would prevent immigrants that need government benefits, like Supplemental Security Income, from staying in and coming to the country.

Although this attempt to reduce the influx of immigrants has been stopped by the courts for the time being, if the administration is able to put it through the courts, then the number of immigrants coming into the country will significantly decrease in years to come. The fact that the American birth rate has already been decreasing steadily for four years foreshadows that the birth rate in 2020 will continue to decline, making it the lowest birth rate in 32 years. This dangerous trend coupled with fewer immigrants can further lead to a shortage of working-age adults soon as immigrants have children at higher rates than native-born Americans. In June 2019 Pew Research Center predicted that immigrants and their American born children were supposed to “play the primary role in the future growth of the working-age population” until 2035, but now that future may be changing due to unexpected policies.

The problem with having a smaller workforce also has to do with the increasing number of elderly people. The population of elderly people, people 65 years old and above, a great majority of who will remain white, is rapidly increasing. In 2030, the number of elderly people will be greater than the number of children, especially if there are fewer immigrants in the country. Although an increasing population of elderly people is a positive because of extended life expectancy and better medicine, this can have long-lasting consequences on the working force paying for government benefits, like Social Security. In 2020, larger sums of Social Security will be given out than be contributed, which means that there will not be enough funds in the next twenty years to use for the younger population.

Similarly, the funds of New York City will likely be changing in 2020. The Census Bureau reported in 2019 that the New York City population decreased from the year prior. The New York Times stated that the “city is projected to lose two seats in the House of Representatives after the 2020 [census] count,” leading to a decrease in the overall number of seats in the state would decrease, as well.

This decrease of representation in Congress would lead to a decrease in the allocation of funds to the state from the federal government. The New York State website states that the Division of the Budget estimates a decrease of $1 billion for the General Fund of New York state, potentially causing “economic uncertainties” that may pose

PHOTO COURTESY THE NEW YORK TIMES

a “heightened risk to State finances.” This would most likely lead to a decrease in funds for Medicaid, transportation, social services, and higher education. Low-income New Yorkers would be hurt the most. While the number of seats New York has in the House of Representatives will likely decrease, Texas and Florida are likely to gain more seats due to their growing populations, according to CBS. Texas is predicted to end up with three more seats than it had in 2019, which means that it would have the second most amount of electoral votes among all of the states. This increase in electoral votes gives the state more leverage in a national presidential election, encouraging future candidates to focus their campaigning efforts in the state even more than they already do. A University of Texas poll shows that Texas is becoming a battleground for both Republican and Democratic candidates as it becomes a more of a swing state. This shift in political ideology is partly due to the diverse communities in Texas’ metropolitan areas and partly due to the election of President Donald Trump, according to Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University.

As some states are becoming purple, others are becoming increasingly red or blue. One looming issue that is heavily based on partisan lines is climate change. Pew Research Center found that 52% of Americans believe that global “climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress.” 64% of respondents state that the protecting environment should be a top priority, only 3 points behind strengthening the economy. What is even more surprising is the disparity between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. There is a 50 point difference between the percentages of Democrats, at 75%, who would like to prioritize climate change and environmental protection over Republicans, at nearly 25%.

This is an indication of the increased partisanship in our country and Congress in the upcoming year. From the ending 2019 on a politically heated moment of the presidential impeachment to starting 2020 with a partisan delivery of the State of the Union, we can expect more of this in 2020.

FINDING A VOICE AMIDST POLITICAL CHAOS: THE IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL POLITICS

BY AILEEN LAURILA

While the current state of American politics feels daunting and nightmarish, it has drawn the attention of the American public - becoming a central point of discussion around the globe. Focus on our federal government and President Trump often takes the spotlight, shying away from the conversation around localized political fronts. While discussion is important to the flow of information and education within our country; real change is enacted by citizen involvement in local politics. Discussing politics holds importance - traction is vital during this heavily anticipated and historic presidential election. But traction alone cannot suffice, and many socially-charged conversations fail to reach beyond the topics of presidential primaries and Washington-based scandals. Outrage is necessary, but without action, we are left emptyhanded. By focusing only on the constant chaos in the capital, our real power as voters is lost. Local politics are an integral part of upholding our constitutional rights and creating change within the places we reside. In a time where presidential and federallevel politics seem all-consuming, local politics are often overlooked by the average American voter. Local-level politics require the greatest amount of community involvement considering they do not get national attention or coverage.

I too, am guilty of doubting the real effects of local politics, and the true impact of my voice as a voter. In a system so dated and flawed, helplessness is not a foreign feeling - but we must learn to exercise our voices and stand our ground to witness the change we wish to see. I believe it is important to engage, to strive for the idealistic democracy we all long for, something fair, just and sustainable. Balancing the game of politics with care for human rights can feel near-impossible. Perhaps our heavy focus on bigpicture politics has caused us to be dismissive towards the needs of our communities, and how great of an asset it can be to organize as one. Change happens through action, through organization, through volunteering. By finding and supporting those who are fighting for human rights and decency, the corrupt political landscape feels less intangible and more personal. Getting a grasp on local issues and learning to use your voice as a voter and citizen

“Focusing on local politics has offered me a sense of hope in this broken democracy and changed the way I approach political involvement.

”

at that level provides a sense of proficiency and confidence when engaging in higher-level politics.

Focusing on local politics has offered me a sense of hope in this broken democracy and changed the way I approach political involvement. Mayoral candidate Sarah Iannarone, from my home city of Portland, Oregon is running a campaign that refuses large donations from corporations and is entirely staffed and backed by community members. Grassroots campaigns and community organized canvassing remind me of what democracy and exercising your right to vote should really look like. Organizations like Grassroots Campaigns offer employment to those looking for a start in politics but fear they do not have the connections they need. As stated on their website; “Grassroots Campaigns is a progressive organization that specializes in running faceto-face campaigns for political parties, candidates, and advocacy groups.” Through canvassing and other outreach positions, Grassroots allows everyday people to find their political niche and educate on issues they feel most passionate about.

ILLUSTRATION COURTESY CONNECT TRAVEL

our everyday lives, much of it is in the hands of officials people often wouldn’t know; public transportation, police reform, public health, sanitation. What is often overlooked or not frequently taken advantage of is the ability to contact, voice concerns to, endorse or directly support these officials, who are not as out-ofreach as one would think. With big names in politics, I see many voters taking an all-or-nothing stance, often failing to see flaws within the person they support, placing them on a pedestal. This behavior can be dangerous, as it is our duty to correct and critique policies and ideas to create a power-balance that is healthy among voters and government officials. This attitude of call-outs and suggestions is more than tangible when it comes to local issues, creating a gateway for people to take similar action at a higher caliber. Through building conversation around regional policies, showing up for local elections, organizing communitybased fronts, and taking action on a more personal level, we can form a better system and enact real change from localized action. ■

Electability Paradox Prevents Minorities From Winning the Primaries

BY PRERNA CHAUDHARY

Democratic candidates have been campaigning across the country in hopes to be elected as the frontrunner for their party in the 2020 presidential election. According to an Ipsos poll, a Monmouth University poll, and research firm Avalanche study, Democratic voters’ top priority in choosing a presidential candidate in the primary is electability. This term has ambiguity, various meanings, and several connotations and implications.

Collins Dictionary defines electability as “the quality of being electable,” but what qualifies as electable is truly unknown. The New York Times reported in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Caucus by “the smallest margin in caucus history, 49.8 to 49.6.” One Iowa Caucus voter, city councilwoman Casey Dehoedt, chose Clinton over Sanders because she believed that Clinton was more electable. Dehoedt’s theory proved to be wrong in the general election.

If Dehoedt and a few other like minded voters had chosen the candidate their beliefs aligned with more, then it is possible that a different candidate could have been the winner of the Iowa Democratic Caucus. The Iowa Caucus does not guarantee that the winner will be the eventual Democratic nominee for the general election, but the Caucus is certainly persuasive to later primary election voters.

On a similar note, Democratic voters in 2019 polled by Avalanche strongly suggested that many people would vote for who they deem as electable over the candidate they actually prefer. The study stated that 24% of the respondents who chose a male candidate when electability was a factor said they would vote for a female candidate if electability was not a factor. Although predictive polls of the Democratic primary are extremely volatile, this study makes a strong case for voting who you wish for, not who you believe can win the election. If even a fraction of the 24% of voters who changed their mind when electability was not a factor voted for the candidate they actually

liked, the results of the primary – and potentially general election – could be altered.

Among other factors, gender plays a significant role in who is considered electable. Of the Democrats and Independents polled in a 2019 Ipsos study, 74% said that they were “comfortable with a female president,” but only 33% said that they believed that their neighbors were comfortable with a female president. The gap between who is electable and who is not is based on assumptions like the one about gender in this study. Voters, however, do not actually know who other people will choose.

The problem with electability is that it implies that the United States voters are not ready for a change from most of the recent presidents: white, male, and heterosexual. Choosing a candidate based on their supposed electability limits the voter’s options and eliminates diversity from the pool. If voters want someone electable by the entire nation, they are primarily saying that the country is not ready for candidates that are women, people of color, or LGBTQ community members. Other electable qualities that appeal to American voters, like being charismatic, likable, and relatable are more difficult to achieve for minority candidates, especially women, according to the Barbara Lee Foundation.

Women face a particularly challenging obstacle in politics because they have to appear strong for issues like national security and the economy, but not too strong or they are seen as aggressive. They have to be understanding for the topic of health care, but not so weak that they won’t be able to assert their authority to get bills passed.

A study showed people associate the characteristics of “competence, ambition, aggressiveness, confidence, [and] toughness” with politicians, and those are stereotypically masculine traits. As proven by the Avalanche study, men are often seen as more electable because the characteristics of a politician are so-called masculine. Elizabeth Warren, in many cases,

ILLUSTRATIONS BY BETH SACCA

is more electable than Bernie Sanders because she does not use the title “socialist” that many voters find unattractive, is less outlandish than him, and has proven to be competent, especially in regards to the inner workings of the economy. She remains unelectable, however, because she is a woman, despite her ideology greatly overlapping with Sanders’. Their verbal delivery and gender are some of their most prominent differences.

After the 2016 presidential election, Democrats are wary of nominating another female candidate against the incumbent that still expected to win by 65% of registered voters polled by CBS recently. The disillusionment is understandable, but there is a chance that Democrats could be overlearning from the mistakes made in 2016. It is virtually impossible to know who other people will vote for, and oftentimes people do not vote for the easily electable candidate. Currently, Sanders is in the lead in the Democratic primaries, significantly ahead of previously electable candidate Joe Biden.

These results of who is leading and who is lacking are unstable, and candidates that are both electable and unelectable have changed their position many times in the polls. The states that had the earliest primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, are not racially representative of the entire nation at 90% white when the nation is 60% white. Primary Caucus voters that look to the earlier primaries as indications of who they should vote for have a flawed voting strategy because the early Caucus states’ choice does not always end up being the Democratic or Republican nominee.

Voters cannot predict how neighbors, other states, or the entire nation will vote. It is best to just vote for who your ideologies align with and who you believe in. That way, the candidate you are rooting for actually has a chance of winning, and you are not left only slightly disillusioned if your second or third choice loses. It may be a greater risk, but that can often lead to a greater reward. ■