{ title: 'The herald. (Geneva, N.Y.) 1942-current, November 14, 2014, Page 8, Image 8', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00050001/2014-11-14/ed-1/seq-8/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00050001/2014-11-14/ed-1/seq-8.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00050001/2014-11-14/ed-1/seq-8/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00050001/2014-11-14/ed-1/seq-8/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: Hobart and William Smith Colleges
8 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014 Opinions Voter's Choice, People's Voice Americans are not happy with politicians in Congress. In fact, according to Gallup, Congressional approval sat at a whopping 14% as of September. This is the second lowest level of approval for Congress since 1974. This data might lead one to believe that Americans wo~ld arrive in droves at voting booths during these past midterm elevations, and in doing so, vote out incumbents and sound the horn of democracy. However, the data shows a different story. According to Aljazeera, overall turnout was roughly 33.9% of eligible voters, the lowest level in over 30 years. Historically, turnout in midterm elections is generally lower than that of Presidential elections, with most midterm turnout rates barely over 40%. However, the issue of such a low turnout is still disconcerting. If Americans are so dissatisfied with Congress, then why is voter turnout at such a historically low rate? Various explanations exist. For example, although Americans may be dissatisfied with other politicians, they may feel that their own representative was doing an excellent job in representing their interests. As a result, they may not have felt the need to voice their opinion this past election. However, considering incumbents generally bear the burden of an ineffective Congress, this is highly By ChrisJ)oak '18 ; r Web Editor unlikely. Another possible explanation is that the conclusion of his assertion .. votersmayhavefeltthatnoneofthecandidates Or perhaps Dr. Bowers is concluding running for. office properly represented their that in not voting, the politicians will hear beliefs. However, this conclusion would imply his discontent, and the discontent of others, that only a third of Americans were able to . and chahge their polarized ways. However, vote for candidates which represented their . the dearth of the American v<;>te will only beliefs. Surely,the candidate field had a greater allow the regime, which has amassed a 14% selection than .this conclusion would allow for. approval rating, to ·stay in Congress for . However,Dr.JamesBowers,apolitical longer, while the American people yearn for science professor from St. John Fisher College, a more representative legislative body. l:J. this has a different response. Dr. Bowers is quoted scenario, Dr. Bowers can only be assumed in the Democrat and Chronicle for not voting wrong. because \[given] the people who run, or how The only meaningful conclusion that they have to run, we've reached the point that can be surmised from Dr. Bowers' ill-advised government no longer works\. Dr. Bowers sees statement is that he refuses to vote because government as a polarized institution, one that politics· is too polarized. This logic is simply is incapable of passing meaningful legislation. misled and wrong. If Americans truly want a Granted, Dr. Bowers is not alone representative legislative body, then the only in his assertion. Too often, we hear people thing Americans can do is vote .. Democracy is throw around the phrase, \Politics is so a unique system, in that the most meap.ingful polarized nowadays\. Perhaps Dr. Bowers change has to come from within. Many and other apathetic Americans .fail to see the Americans agree 1:\tat the system has problems, ramifications o{their statement. If government but only a few choose.to vote, and do anything no longer works, then what does this mean · about it. · for the institution of democracy? Surely they' If we believe the system is past fixing, or that cannot be implying government is no longer we are too self-indulgent to enact change, we worth trying to fix. However, if voting is the are worse than the politicians who sit by and means to fix democracy - by casting your vote do nothing. · in opposition to the· incumbent - then this is Parallels Between Current Ebola Epidemic·. and \The )· Walking Dead\ \ While watching latest episode of \The Walking Dead\ last night, I couldn't helpbut notice the. peculiar parallels between the series and the current Ebola epidemic. We, as American society, are faced with several questions and we must be judicious about how we face them. To,quarantine or not to quarantine, to ban travel to West Africa or to not ban travel? Could it be that the popular TV series pervades America's collective thoughts and attitudes about disease control . and prevention? Is it providing a frame of mind · that, when employed parallel to the events in West Africa, is fatalistic when reacting to the crisis? · Regardless of whether or not you happen to like the show (I love it), it illustrates three basic paradigms about disease cOntrol that I don't think will result in any proactive thinking. Rather, it encourages the epidemic's role as a hobgoblin, or a source of unnecessary panic for the American public. \The Walking Dead's\ portrayal of the diseased paints a bleak picture in three ways. First, the idea that, once infected, a person is as good as dead and should be treated as such. \Quarantine\ is an ominous word, and recent talks of isolating victims in New Jersey and By Will Cost '18 Herald Contributor New York as well as imposing a travel ban to the infected areas of Africa have made it seem like there is no hope for survival. We just have to wait to see if you die, and hope you don't tum into one of the undead. This is simply not true. In Dallas, where the country saw its first Ebola casualty in Eric Duncan, 43 of the 48 testing positive for the disease were cleared. This goes to show that if monitored and · caught early, the disease can be brought under control very quickly in the United States. Yet people still want to freak out when someone tests positive in New York For !hose who watch \the Walking Dead,\ or who are simply prone to believe what comes out of every major news source, saving someone who has only tested positive is impossible. Second, the mass of zombies that constantly attacks Rick and his tribe appears rather hopeless and fit to be annihilated. For the average American viewing the show, the paradigm of \us and them\ creates some alienating attitudes about the sick and the futility of helping such a gruesome and infected people. The idea of \protecting yourself at all costs\ is displayed by Rick and his ever- growing apprehension towards strangers, as well as the cannibals he encounters· in Season 5 that would sacrifice one of their own to survive. Remember, the Walking Dead is not bad. But I urge viewers to not be misled into consuming a narrative about Ebola that is more sensational than practical. Such thinking will lead to this collective panic of the U.S. Lastly, the show doesn't do much to encourage the hope of mankind. In a very radical depiction of zombie apocalypse, Rick and company are portrayed ·as hopeless humans who are only surviving due t9 stroke after stroke ofluck. We see in the First Season how the CDC is incapable of handling crises, whose leader is cowardly and inept. In the end, \The Walking Dead,\ which represents quite a far-fetched situation, still can be misinterpreted by the general public and spread the idea of futility when it comes to helping an infected population. I'm sure we have all joked. about how we're going to get Eb~la and I'm sure we all were frazzled when we heard of the latest Northeastern victim. But we have to be pragmatic. In America at least, the situation is not life or death, and our focus as a nation should be on those who don't have the infrastructure to handle this. A Woman'S Courage to Die A 29 year-old chose to die on her own terms on November 1st. This young woman, diagnosed with brain cancer, weighed the options of treatment, which would involve full brain radiation, versus what the medical community calls \death with dignity.\ · In April, Brittany Maynard was told she had six months to live, due to a particularly aggressive tumor in her brain. This is when she started her research about the existing Death with Dignity Acts throughout the country. Oregon is one of the five states in the USA to have a form of the Death with Dignity Act, \allow[ing] terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary . self- administration ·of lethal administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by. a physician for that purpose,\ according to Oregon Health Authority. She and her husband moved from California to Oregon to take advantage of this opportunity, allowing her to die in the way she + By Clare Hammer} '15 Arts and Entertainment Editor . felt was right for her. Death is something that scares almost every person. No one wants to die a painful death; I think it would be everyone's wish to die peacefully and amongst loved ones. This nightmare is something nobody wants to have to think about; especially not an average 29 year-old, recently married, with her whole life ahead of her. She said in an interview with CNN that she did not want to die, but she could not change that she was dying. She believed this was her best option. \Who has the right to tell me that I don't deserve this choice?\ said Maynard. She was right. This was her life and she was a mentally stable woman, who made an incredibly difficult and personal choice. I do not think\.it is fair to judge Maynard for her decision. It is not fair to project religious or moral opinions upon her, because this was her life, she was suffering, and the action she took is legal. I am happy that Maynard had so much support from social media, but I am not surprised by the ensuing backlash from some who cannotfathom her choices. But, honestly, I do not think anyone can fathom her decision: some are just willing to stop criticizing, and to stop placing judgment on her. Maynard was a courageous wom~n and I ' am so glad she made this decision, rather than another. I do not believe she thought this was an easy decision: she left behind her husband, her friends, her family, and everything she loved because she fput herself first. In this situation, however, it is alright to be selfish. It is alright to put yourself first and know what is best for your body. Now that she is gone, only positive words should be spoken of this woman who can no ' longer defend herself. She did not necessarily believe that others should follow her path; she only spoke for herself, her pain, and her beliefs. S~e deserves all of our respect. + -.·-' ------~-------------u--••------~•w·~·------------------~·----------~~-- . .-------------------------------~--~----------------~
