POLITICS Regis Highlander POLITICS Regis Highlander

What You Need to Know About the Women in Biden’s Cabinet

By: Sarah Gomez, Staff Writer

Joe Biden’s recent win for the presidency did more than make Kamala Harris the first Black, south-Asian woman to be vice president. The cabinet Biden announced is set to increase diversity all around, by nominating what he claims to be the most diverse presidential cabinet in history. His cabinet includes people of various races and ethnicities, but also an impressive mix of women. The cabinet includes nine women, five of whom are women of color.

Without further ado, we have the women nominated for Biden’s cabinet.

illustration source// fivethirteight

illustration source// fivethirteight

By: Sarah Gomez, Staff Writer

Joe Biden’s recent win for the presidency did more than make Kamala Harris the first Black, south-Asian woman to be vice president. The cabinet Biden announced is set to increase diversity all around, by nominating what he claims to be the most diverse presidential cabinet in history. His cabinet includes people of various races and ethnicities, but also an impressive mix of women. The cabinet includes nine women, five of whom are women of color. 

Without further ado, we have the women nominated for Biden’s cabinet.

Marcia Fudge, nominee for secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Marcia Fudge is a Democratic African American woman from Ohio. Marcia Fudge’s notable political history includes being a U.S. representative for the state of Ohio and mayor of Warrensville Heights Ohio. Her beliefs are closely aligned with far-left Democratic views and she is to manage multiple programs in the housing division. In addition to this, Fudge aims to increase affordable housing and rent assistance.

Fudge’s confirmation hearing was held on January 28th, 2021.

 Jennifer Granholm, nominee for secretary of Energy

Jennifer Granholm is a member of the Democratic party, a former attorney general of Michigan, and former governor of Michigan. She is a strong believer in climate change and has spoken out on the need for clean energy jobs. However, in the past this position has been a front for nuclear weapons, so this new direction will hopefully focus on climate policy.

Granholm’s confirmation hearing was held on January 27th, 2021.

 Deb Haaland, nominee for secretary of the Interior

Deb Haaland is a Native American woman enrolled as a member of the Laguna Pueblo. Deb Haaland has served as New Mexico’s vote director for Native Americans and as the chair of New Mexico’s Democratic party. As a Native American, many are hoping she will undo previous wrongs done to the native populations. Haaland would be the first Native American cabinet secretary, where she will oversee natural resources and tribal land.

It is currently unclear as to when Haaland is to have her confirmation hearing.

 Gina Raimondo, nominee for secretary of Commerce

 Gina Raimondo is the governor of Rhode Island and was the previous treasurer of the state. She is a Democrat who is credited with helping to boost the economy in Rhode Island. Once confirmed, Raimondo will be tasked with reporting to Biden with information regarding businesses, universities, and the economy.

Raimondo’s confirmation hearing was held on January 26th, 2021.

 Janet Yellen, nominee for secretary of the Treasury

Janet Yellen was a member of the Federal Reserve Board of governor for a total of 11 years; she is also known for chairing the council of economic advisers during the Clinton administration. She is an economist who has worked with past presidents and even the Federal Reserve Bank. As secretary of the treasury, she will be tasked with advising on domestic and foreign finances and other economic issues.

Yellen was confirmed on January 26th, 2021.

Isabel Guzman, nominee for administrator of the Small Business Administration 

Isabel Guzman has served as a California office of small business advocate and deputy chief of staff to the administrator of the small business administration. The state of many small businesses are not well during the pandemic, however, many believe Guzman can help small business owners. As the administrator of the Small Business Administration, she will be responsible for overseeing programs to assist small businesses in various areas.

The confirmation hearing for Guzman has yet to be scheduled.

 Avril Haines, nominee for director of National Intelligence

Avril Haines served on the senate foreign relations committee and as deputy director of the CIA. With her previous history with the spy agency, it was no surprise that she was Biden’s pick for the position. As director of national intelligence, Haines will be tasked with overlooking the National Intelligence Program and reporting these matters to Biden.

Haines’ was confirmed by the Senate on January 27th, 2021.

Katherine Tai, nominee for U.S. trade representative 

Katherine Tai is a Chinese American with both her parents originating from mainland China. Katherine Tai has served as the chief for the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means and has also worked on trade cases at the World Trade Organization. Having been nominated for representative, she is to coordinate international trade and commodity. Tai is to be put in charge of trade agreements like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Though her confirmation has yet to be scheduled, we can expect it to occur in the coming weeks.

Neera Tanden, nominee for director of the Office of Budget Management

Neera Tanden is an Indian American woman, daughter of two Indian immigrants. Neera Tanden is known for working on several Democratic presidential campaigns and helping draft the Affordable Care Act. Biden will be the third president Tanden works under, having previously worked with Clinton and Obama. As the director of the Office of Budget Management, Tanden will be tasked with managing Biden’s budget.

Tanden’s confirmation hearing has not yet been scheduled. 

Read More
POLITICS Regis Highlander POLITICS Regis Highlander

Having Political Discussions

photo source:  Business Insider

photo source: Business Insider

By: Alaina Valdespino

We all know that this election has been as chaotic and anxiety provoking as this COVID-stricken year. We understand that there is a lot riding on this election: our values, our beliefs, and the potential of life-altering change. With all of these important issues on the line, it isn’t a surprise that this subject is in fact a sticky one, especially when talking to someone who has differing views from yourself. For that reason, I feel the need to share an important message with you all. 

First and foremost, this election is a big one; it affects everyone. Even if you’re not the type of person that likes to discuss your political views, this election isn’t giving you the chance to slide under the radar. America’s political scene is too polarizing and too deeply divided to allow for that. And yes, political discussions can be scary. They cause conflict, they can get argumentative, and they are something that many people choose to avoid all together. But avoidance isn’t the answer to solving this issue and it’s not the answer that’s going to cut it this year. In fact, avoiding these discussions leads to further conflict and doesn’t allow you to learn and understand your views as they relate to other people. This logic of avoidance is extremely ineffective and doesn’t get us anywhere. That’s why we need to understand the proactive stances we can take in order to have political discussions in a way that is beneficial to both parties and gives both people a chance to not just express their views, but to learn from the other person and allow for growth.

When approaching a political discussion, it is important to first understand whether or not the other person in the conversation has views similar to or different from you. Once you understand the stance of that person, it is important that you next decide whether or not the moment is right to have that discussion. If the moment isn’t right, simply extend an invitation to have that conversation another time, that way you don’t bombard this person with a conversation they may not wish to have. Clearly this is easier said than done, but by presenting the subject in a way that gives the other person a chance to decide to or not to talk about politics, it allows for a sense of reassurance that makes the subject a lot lighter and less stressful for all those involved. 

That being said, when the time comes and the conversation arises, there are a few common rules to follow in order to avoid this conversation turning into an unproductive and problem invoking debate. 

First and foremost, create a sense of trust and assurance. Let the person know that this conversation isn’t going to lead to a “friendship break-up” and that you can have differing views and still be friends. Once that is out in the air, make sure to avoid attacking their beliefs should they not be the same as yours because that is what makes these conversations so polarizing. It isn’t easy to do this, but by allowing the other person to express their views entirely before you express yours allows for both people to get their messages across in a way that feels inviting and productive. 

More than anything, just make sure that you do your absolute best to not insult or offend the other party's views. Our political views are deeply rooted in our beliefs and our core values and therefore are directly tied to our emotions. 

All in all, everyone has difficulty when it comes to having discussions with people that may not agree or that may not understand where you’re coming from. Everyone understands that politics are polarizing, that they are confusing and can cause a lot of conflict. That’s why, especially this election season, we have to rise above the anxiety and the fear of political discussions because they are going to be inevitable. This election is one for the books and the results of it will go down in history. The president of one of the most unprecedented times in American history is going to be elected and regardless of who wins, their policies will go on to affect everyone. For this reason, I believe that we should all take notice of our own views and do what we can to help educate our neighbors and to do our part in having these difficult  conversations in order to understand our own views and learn to understand others as well.



Read More
OPINION, POLITICS Regis Highlander OPINION, POLITICS Regis Highlander

The Diminishing Value of Your Vote

By: Jesse Stuart, Staff Writer

Just before his death, Osman Hamdi Bey painted a portrait of an old man attempting to train tortoises and succeeded in indirectly depicting the inherent deficiencies of a dying government. Bey was the preeminent artist during the Tanzimat, a time when the Ottoman Empire was struggling to adopt the technological innovations of Europe while preserving their sense of identity and culture. In his 1906 painting, The Tortoise Trainer, Bey displays the simple scene of an elder (who bears a resemblance to the painter himself) using a flute and vegetables to train the tortoises at his feet.

The image is a satirical one; regardless of who the man and the reptiles are meant to represent, he is an antiquated figure in antiquated garb and using antiquated techniques to coach creatures for a pointless purpose (tortoises were once used as living decorations but certainly no longer by 1906), rendering this entire moment an anachronism: there is no reform or action that the Ottoman government can take to salvage itself, as the political structures by which it operates are the very nooses slowly tightening around its neck.

You can look at The Tortoise Trainer and think of the Ottoman Empire, ‘destined’ to fall and fracture after World War One, but I see the United States in every brushstroke, a comparison quite evident not just by the candidates of the 2020 election but attitude of its voters.

By: Jesse Stewart, Staff Writer

Osman Hamdi Bey, "The Tortoise Trainer" (1906), oil on canvas

Osman Hamdi Bey, "The Tortoise Trainer" (1906), oil on canvas

Just before his death, Osman Hamdi Bey painted a portrait of an old man attempting to train tortoises and succeeded in indirectly depicting the inherent deficiencies of a dying government. Bey was the preeminent artist during the Tanzimat, a time when the Ottoman Empire was struggling to adopt the technological innovations of Europe while preserving their sense of identity and culture. In his 1906 painting, The Tortoise Trainer, Bey displays the simple scene of an elder (who bears a resemblance to the painter himself) using a flute and vegetables to train the tortoises at his feet.

The image is a satirical one; regardless of who the man and the reptiles are meant to represent, he is an antiquated figure in antiquated garb and using antiquated techniques to coach creatures for a pointless purpose (tortoises were once used as living decorations but certainly no longer by 1906), rendering this entire moment an anachronism: there is no reform or action that the Ottoman government can take to salvage itself, as the political structures by which it operates are the very nooses slowly tightening around its neck.

You can look at The Tortoise Trainer and think of the Ottoman Empire, ‘destined’ to fall and fracture after World War One, but I see the United States in every brushstroke, a comparison quite evident not just by the candidates of the 2020 election but attitude of its voters.

In November of 2016, citizens saw the election of Donald Trump as an event that signaled either a potential collapse of the American identity or a partial restoration of its virtues. The attitude and demeanor of the average person either plummeted or was driven to elation. Now they beat the drums again, for the ‘most important election in history’, as if such a thing were true and as if this mindset weren’t rooted in a mania brought on by impatience, ignorance, and some measure of ideological insanity.

Let’s look closer at the trainer and their turtles, shall we?

The average American voter is very intelligent, routinely consuming a diet of facts, figures, statistics, and historical precedents so that they can feel and appear superior to one another. The average American voter is woefully unwise, completely unable to divorce their ego from their conclusions and unable to accept a reality that may rob them of any autonomy they assume to possess. The average American voter is catastrophically insecure and more than willing to take this out on anyone around them in the form of angry ignorance, "Look, the candidate isn't my first choice but it's better than the alternative."

Wearing an ugly yellow sweater because it's the only warm top that goes well with my boots isn't my 'first choice' and 'better than the alternative' of wearing nothing at all, but this is a vote I make in my closet, that has an impact of one day at the most, and really only affects me. Stepping into a voting booth and punching the ballot for a specific party has an impact of four years at the very least, and at that point the concept of a 'lesser evil' is less of a call for pragmatism and more of a diffusion of responsibility.

America is very young in that it has only ever had one dominant political system. In fact, it's really the only current country in the world that has maintained the same general system of government for the last two centuries. This inexperience means that even its most politically-minded citizens don't quite understand the concept of a 'mandate.' For example, the Chinese dynasties operated under a 'mandate of heaven' for about three thousand years, justifying the emperor's rule over the people as an assertion that he was the 'son of heaven' and therefore entitled to lead them. Regardless of whether or not it was believed, this mandate was only as good as the happiness of the people. If infrastructure decayed or too many wars were lost, "How could this man be the son of heaven?" might be the reaction, giving another faction the opportunity to seize the people’s mandate and establish a new government. This has happened many times, in some form or another, in basically every country that exists...other than the United States.

Richard Nixon is not well-regarded today, but he is emblematic of Republican platform during his tenure in the same way that John F. Kennedy is viewed by most Democrats as being one of their best executive representatives at the time. They may have been in office a half-century ago, but the artificial discrepancies between their parties remain to this day.

Place yourself in the shoes of the member of a small fishing village in 1960s Indochina. A well-meaning American eight thousand miles away votes for Nixon (a man that will later wipe your community from the face of the earth) because of the candidate's proposal to give tax incentives to minority-owned businesses and housing; a noble idea but paid with your blood. Not even a decade before that, another well-meaning American eight thousand miles away votes for and then eulogizes Kennedy (a man that defied the Geneva Conventions by authorizing the use of the chemical weapon Agent Orange to begin a genocide of your people in name of self-defense) because of the candidate's calls for a peaceful and prosperous America for people of all colors; again a noble concept, with your scars as a receipt.

Given the trajectory of the last seventy-five years, the Republican and Democratic Party have long lost their mandate to govern and a vote for either party is willful ignorance as to how the machinery of government operates. This is not a statement of opinion. This is not some revolutionary or radical stance. This is the simple reality that exists outside the crumbling window that the trainer and their tortoises would rather not acknowledge.

When you vote, you’re granting legitimacy to the party and people you’re endorsing. In a democracy of any variation, there is no such thing as a ‘lesser of two evils.’ You can vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump out of protest to the other, and a ‘win’ might feel good for about a week or two, but the political reality is that you’re elevating a group of people to a level where they possess dominion over three hundred million citizens and there exists very little recourse in holding them accountable. A ‘vote’ is not a statement of support or agreement; it is a certificate of irrevocable trust, one that Americans are woefully opulent in giving.

Due to our population size and surface area, we require a government centralized to a degree that both betrays the ‘individualism’ of our foundation and cannot possibly be filled competently; the citizenry see themselves as possessing autonomy over the political decisions of the nation while accepting no culpability for its faults. Had we put it to a direct vote in 2003, the United States would still have found itself mired in Middle Eastern warfare. Had Hilary Clinton been elected in 2016, the United States would still have a six-figure death count from COVID-19. The United States is fundamentally at odds with itself in regards to accepting the responsibilities and consequences for its identity in a way that only the Ottomans can relate to.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and we Americans have a very warped view of what constitutes ‘history’. Our nation isn’t even three hundred years old, so most of us may see anything occurring before the mid-1700s as so long ago that it isn’t even relevant to what we’re experiencing today. Wrong.

The Ottoman Empire was arguably the first nation in history to be both definitively multicultural and revered for its strong economic vitality. Sound familiar? For six hundred years it presided as the center of trade between the empires of Europe and Asia, occupying a vast territory now belonging to most of the Middle East, Northern Africa, and stretching all the way up into Central Europe. Imagine telling one of its citizens that in less than three generations it’d go from ‘experiencing some minor governmental inefficiencies’ to ‘so non-existent that most of the world will have forgotten it ever was.’

As an American, imagine being visited by a tourist from the future. “Oh, the United States? I think that sounds familiar....” While they sifted through their history book, imagine asking them just how many centuries they had traveled to reach 2020. “Almost two.” Only two hundred years? How could that be possible? Your grandchildren could still be alive at that point! Imagine asking them what you could do today to prevent this fate from befalling your homeland, what political action you could take to not only improve the present but ensure a future. “You can’t just untangle…well, let’s just say that the US doesn’t have a knot, you are the knot.”

In industrial sociology (how people interact with their working environments) there exists a phenomenon called the System Accident (or Normal Accident), where the unanticipated connection of multiple failures in a complex system cannot be slowed or stopped by any further interaction. Think of the Chernobyl disaster or the 2008 financial crisis; an inherent need is attached to a system that is overwhelmingly complex due to the efficiency/profit it can generate, to the point where multiple operators are required for it to function. Each of these operators may be incredibly competent in regards to their specific field, but the mechanism itself is nothing more than a series of dominos, where an operator can be only realistically be responsible for their single domino. If a single one manages to fall in an unexpected way and causes another domino to pivot in a way that cannot be predicted, there isn’t an operator that could possibly be so all-seeing as to prevent the entire chain from tumbling.

The federal government of the United States is experiencing a System Accident; the complexity of its governance, inherent at the founding and exacerbated for centuries, has rendered not only its citizens politically illiterate but its leaders as well when facing the multitude of existential threats that the country faces. Issues of education, the environment, immigration, economic inequality, and healthcare (among a plethora of others) have all reached critical mass, to such a degree that no one candidate or even series of successful candidates could possibly ‘solve’ them before one, some, most, or all aspects of American life collapse. ‘American Exceptionalism’ is real in that we are on the precipice of an exceptionally-elaborate demise; a noose tied with a Gordian knot that no drone strike can cut.

One can argue as to when the dominoes began falling, but the fact remains that the alarms are buzzing, the lights are flashing, and our elected operators are staring at their manuals, dumb-founded, “Maybe if we shove more votes into it?” And any attempts to reform the machine itself become paradoxical: installing an elected official into an apparatus where they, their family, and all of their peers benefit from the status quo and yet expecting them to follow through on their campaign promises is literally an exercise in insanity. But still, the cries of empty madness echo between the ears of those pushing you to the polling place, "You just gotta vote."

At some point in the life of an American voter they are faced with a conundrum: either the president is directly responsible for the trajectory of the country during their time in office or that the position has far little authority when compared to the overall inertia of 'American interests' and the figure serves as nothing more than a ceremonial scapegoat. A rational individual might conclude that the truth lies in the middle, but this inconvenience is too complicated for the voter to consider, as their political consciousness has been reduced to not only a binary mindset but a race to find the most pedantic, politically-expedient, and laziest opinions possible.

There isn’t a single American who whole-heartedly approves of our two-party system, yet nearly all calls for reforming the structure are woefully ignorant of the complexity of the knot they seek to untangle. You can implement Ranked Choice voting, you can abolish the Electoral College, and you can promote the existence of third parties but none of these will rectify the situation as long as the Senate exists. The highest legislative body in the country will always favor the two largest parties so long as membership to its ranks is limited too so few seats per state. You could possibly amend the Constitution to dissolve the Senate into the House of Representatives and give us a unicameral legislature (which would make it easier for a fascist party to take over, by the way) but how could such a proposal ever pass? What legislative body is going to pass a measure that restricts its own powers? And to abolish the Senate would require such a comprehensive rewriting of the Constitution that it (the document that our entire government is based on) would bear no resemblance to its former self:

We don’t have a knot, we are the knot; each new major-party president that you vote into the Oval Office is nudging the stool from under our feet.

Every Republican and Democratic president of the modern era (1945 - now) has put this country three steps forward at most, and four steps backward at least. The idea that change can only be implemented incrementally and four years at a time as being integral to the fabric of governance has doomed the country that was handed the literal world at its feet in the 1950s only to regress to its former state: a swath of lawyers, sharecroppers, and slaves convincing themselves that they are so much more enlightened than the rest of the world simply because they raise their hands twice a decade for a war criminal and slap a crude 'I Voted!' decal on their chest. "Do the people of China get a sticker like me? I think not! Feast your eyes on me, an intellectual, as confirmed by my shiny sticker!"

I was in Hong Kong in 2019 when the people stood up and said, "Enough. We’ve been voting for pro-Hong Kong candidates for two decades, but they can only exist in a legislature ultimately beholden to Beijing. Time to burn down the banks and take back our mandate." I was back in America by June of 2020, when the people realized, "Enough. Look how big the politicians' eyes get when we actually do something instead of pretending like the ballot will fix a four-hundred-year-old problem. Time to burn down the banks and find a mandate." I was incredibly proud to be an American in June of 2020. But now it is the fall, just before an election, and I look to my compatriots who have defanged and declawed themselves, tying the leash of their hopes and dreams around the first-past-the-post, "Well, you see, voting is actually the MOST important thing you can do to alter the trajectory of this country, as evident by all those wars, bail-outs, and other catastrophes that they never put on the ballot."

At this time in history, it's incredibly spoiled, selfish, and maniacal to behave as if the platform and values that you vote for aren’t paid for with others’ blood. Every single president in the last seventy-five years has waged war against civilian men, women, and children in places 'unfortunate-enough' not to be inside American borders, and yet each of these leaders still maintain some small cult of personality to this day. Loyal Republicans and Democrats sing their praises in regards to the virtuous deeds they've done for the American people while dismissing any light shone on the grotesque exploits they've rendered unto those 'unfortunate-enough' to not be born American. Look at the war crimes of Obama and Bush and the benign image these two men been rehabilitated toward; were it to happen in any other nation we'd refer to it as 'grooming' of the people and idolatry of the State, as if we didn't all grow up pledging allegiance to the flag of a government that not-so-subtly implied that our actions were an extension of God's will.

The Declaration of Independence's most famous phrase is in its opening, "We hold these truths to be self-evident"; though it is not a legal document, this statement does imply a fundamental position that the value of human life is integral to the foundation of our government, meaning that this right extends to any person, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, and -especially- nationality. Imagine a perfect candidate that not only promises several wonderful improvements to the American way of life but can absolutely guarantee their implementation…though the only catch is that they will kill innocent civilians eight thousand miles away during their time in office. Considering that Donald Trump and Joe Biden have no such promises, with no avenue to actually pass anything through Congress, and are already both responsible for a multitude of deaths during their time in government, maybe take a moment to consider the ludicrous degree that one would have to abandon every form of ethics in order to punch the ballot for either of them and the audacity required to brow-beat others into accepting voting as an actual gesture of positive political change.

There is no Republican or Democratic platform that does not involve the unjustifiable deaths of citizens in countries too small to respond with a declaration of war, and there is no argument that an American life is worth more than another’s. You can vote for Donald Trump or Joe Biden, and claim that you're doing so "for human rights," but both candidates will respond to a softly-spoken briefing from Pentagon officials with the same answer: "Do it." And they won't think twice, because they've never lost votes over 'collateral damage'; Americans simply grab their self-righteous teddy bear named 'better than the other candidate' and doze off to sleep.

Osman Hamdi Bey painted The Tortoise Trainer not as a statement of pessimism or from a jaded outlook on the state of politics. The man was instrumental in helping the Ottoman Empire define itself through times of great change and strife, granting a sense of identity to a nation struggling to adapt to the global stage. But, by the end of his life, he saw the State of an empire for what it was: a machine which could weave strands of culture, economy, science, and diplomacy into a beautiful tapestry but instead chooses to fashion these threads into a noose which it is too arrogant to believe could ever be its own.

When filling out your ballot, in this or any year, begin at the very bottom. Your vote is most important for city, county, and state elections. But as you ascend the mostly-binary choices, understand that your actual voice diminishes with each new selection. And when that fateful day arrives and the winners are announced, understand that it is no great tragedy or triumph, as the sun will set no slower than it already is and that you have your specific tortoises to tend to before it gets dark. And, unlike those who promise to fix your crumbling walls yet can't seem to find the time between doomed wars, you can sleep at night knowing that you don’t whip your tortoises into submission ("Vote!") but educate them to perform by the art of the flute and nutrients of the vegetable; maybe someday an empire will rise which understands this, but it'd be the first. Vote, but don’t punch any holes large enough for your hopes and dreams to fit through, lest you once again hang yourself from the ballot.


Read More
POLITICS Regis Highlander POLITICS Regis Highlander

What you Need to Know About Who is on the Colorado Ballot

Though I’m sure as we approach election day everyone has heard about the presidential candidates, however, not everyone is sure of what else is on the ballot. When voting, there are federal and state positions looking to get filled that not everyone knows about. Out of state students who especially don’t know what views some candidates have can be inclined to only vote for the president. With that being said, here is a quick guide to individuals running for federal office on your Colorado ballot.

By: Sarah Gomez, Staff Writer

Though I’m sure as we approach election day everyone has heard about the presidential candidates, however, not everyone is sure of what else is on the ballot. When voting, there are federal and state positions looking to get filled that not everyone knows about. Out of state students who especially don’t know what views some candidates have can be inclined to only vote for the president. With that being said, here is a quick guide to individuals running for federal office on your Colorado ballot.

Running for senate there are 5 candidates, two of which do not have much of a presence in the media. Of the three well known candidates we have John Hickenlooper, Cory Gardner, and Stephan “Seku” Evans. John Hickenloper is the democratic candidate known for being former governor of Colorado, mayor of Denver and even running for president. Hickenlooper’s views include abolishing the death penalty, raising the federal minimum wage, and keeping the electoral college. Cory Gardner is the republican candidate known for having served in the Colorado House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives and is running for reelection into the Senate. Gardner believes in keeping the death penalty, supports the second amendment, and wants to invest in transportation. Stephan “Seku” Evans is the Unity candidate known for his previous affiliation with the black panther party. Evans is well known for his work against nonviolence and community service work.

Also, up for election is representative to congress with five candidates on the ballot and three with adequate representation of their ideologies. Shane Bolling is the republican candidate that lacks much representation in the media despite being affiliated with a major party. Diana DeGette is the democratic candidate known for serving in the Colorado House of Representatives and her representation in Congress. DeGette is against teenage vaping, supports the Colorado Wilderness Act, and wants to lower the price of insulin. Jan Kok is the candidate from the approval voting party best known for co-founding The Center of Election Science. Kok does not want further gun restrictions, believes the federal government is preventing economic recovery, and wants approval voting in federal elections. Paul Noel Fiorino is the candidate for the unity party, known for previously running for the U.S. Senate, governor of Colorado and mayor of Denver. Fiorino supports a strong military and tax paid public higher education.

There are several other items on the ballot, and I strongly encourage you to research further and form your own opinions on state offices and the candidate’s political views. This is a summary of what each of the well-known federal office candidates support and though it is not extensive, I hope this offers some help when filling out your ballot. 

Read More
OPINION, POLITICS, SOCIAL JUSTICE Regis Highlander OPINION, POLITICS, SOCIAL JUSTICE Regis Highlander

Amy Coney Barrett and Religious Conservatism

By: Hannah Ury, Staff Writer

Photo credit: Susan Walsh, AP Photo

Photo credit: Susan Walsh, AP Photo

In just four years, the Trump Presidency has selected two highly controversial Supreme Court nominations, and it is looking more and more like his second nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, will be confirmed and become a member of the Supreme Court. Thankfully, Barrett does not have any allegations of sexual assault, a rarity in today’s politics, but she does have her fair share of sources of controversy.

When taking a look at her past, it’s easy to like Barrett. She has seven children, two of whom are adopted from Haiti. She is a woman of faith, and she has done extensive work as a judge and a professor, and her students at Notre Dame say she is a great professor who never brought politics into the classroom. It is also refreshing to see a woman rise so easily to power in a career field dominated by men. However, do not expect the rights of women to advance at all should Barrett be confirmed.

Barrett would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance, and organizations like Planned Parenthood would be weakened even further than they already have been. Although Americans have little say in the process of picking Supreme Court Justices, the process certainly impacts the American people. To overturn Roe v. Wade would be a significant step backwards, and it would not accomplish the conservative goal of putting an end to abortions. Women would not stop having abortions, they would simply have illegal abortions, but conservatives don’t care. While their message is that they want to save lives, they disregard the millions of children in foster care, the women who will die from dangerous abortions, and so many other lives in the process. This disregard shows that their agenda is not truly about life at all, it is about controlling women’s bodies. If Barrett will not stand up against the control of women’s bodies by the government, what will she stand up for?

One thing Barrett certainly advocates is marriage between a man and a woman, and a man and a woman only. It is fair to assume that given the chance, she would undermine LGBTQ rights, and expand religious freedom to discriminate against LGBTQ people. In our legal system, it is perfectly fine to believe in one’s religion that marriage is between a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman, or whatever else your religious text may say. However, personal beliefs are just that, personal. It is fundamental to our Constitution that religion and state remain separate, and as an originalist interpreter of the Constitution, Barrett should be more than familiar with the concept. However, despite her familiarity, the rulings she has made as an appellate judge and will make on the Supreme Court reflect her religion nonetheless. 

The United States is not an anti-religious country, but we are, or at least claim to be, a country without an official religion. While it is okay for Supreme Court justices to have religious beliefs, it is unconstitutional for their religious views to leak into our legislature. Americans can expect to see a wave of religiously-driven decisions made by the Supreme Court in the future. Gay marriage, the right to choose, and many other landmark decisions could be impacted or even overturned under this new vehemently conservative Supreme Court. While Amy Coney Barrett might be a nice woman and an abundantly qualified candidate, she will leave a lasting impact on America, and it won’t be a good one.

Read More
POLITICS Regis Highlander POLITICS Regis Highlander

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Legacy That Will Live On

“My mother had two lessons that she repeated over and over ‘be a lady’ and ‘be independent.’ Be a lady meant don’t allow yourself to be overcome by useless emotions like anger, and by independent she meant ‘it would be fine if you met prince charming and lived happily ever after, but… be able to fend for yourself,’” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Nearly a month ago the Associate Justice for the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, unfortunately passed due to a decline in health. Although all of her supporters were in mourning, there was a collective response that all of her work needed to be spread. I find myself among these supporters and feel as though it is important to display a glimpse of how her drive pushed society into an era of women's rights.

By: Kira Oviedo, Staff Writer

“My mother had two lessons that she repeated over and over ‘be a lady’ and ‘be independent.’ Be a lady meant don’t allow yourself to be overcome by useless emotions like anger, and by independent she meant ‘it would be fine if you met prince charming and lived happily ever after, but… be able to fend for yourself,’” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Nearly a month ago the Associate Justice for the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, unfortunately passed due to a decline in health. Although all of her supporters were in mourning, there was a collective response that all of her work needed to be spread. I find myself among these supporters and feel as though it is important to display a glimpse of how her drive pushed society into an era of women's rights.

Since her graduation from Columbia Law School in 1959, the Notorious RBG (as fans would call her), spent the entirety of her legal career pushing in advocation of women empowerment. After being nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 and sworn in soon after, Ginsburg took the position seriously, making her opinions clearly known to fellow Justices. A key case Ginsburg argued for as a Justice was United States v. Virginia. In this, RBG swayed the Justices to form the majority opinion in allowing women to attend a primarily men-only military institute. She delivered the opinion on the side of the plaintiff, stating that women who were qualified could not be denied entry to the Virginia Military Institute.

Growing up in the 50s, Ginsburg understood that women were seen as less than that of a man, shown by her being one of nine women in a class of 500 students at her first year of law school. She made it a point to tell all who identify as female that she expects big action, starting with how she wants the Supreme Court to look like in the future.

“In my life, I expect to see two, three, four, perhaps even more women on the high court bench. Women not shaped from the same mold, but of different complexions,” said Ginsburg.

I think RBG has set an emphasis on what it means to truly stand up for justice. The idea does not simply mean that one should focus on issues that pertain to themselves. Justice is not subject to tunnel vision, but rather a means to aid those who feel minimized by society, and others who are afraid to have their voice heard.

What happens now? With a seat now open on the Supreme Court, thoughts and opinions have been circulating about if President Trump should or can nominate a new Justice so close to the election. Concerns of many have been brought to light that if someone is nominated, it is unlikely that the person would hold women to the same regard as Ginsburg did.

Nonetheless, with a pandemic ongoing and an election looming, one thing she enforced is for certain. That is, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, or what you believe in, you must speak up and act in the aid of others.

Read More

Search Posts

Featured Posts