Indiana Daily Student
4
OPINION
Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016 idsnews.com
Editors Jessica Karl & Daniel Kilcullen opinion@idsnews.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
STEVE’S CONSERVATIVE CORNER
Restore civility to politics STEVEN ARANYI is a senior in history.
ILLUSTRATION BY MERCER T. SUPPIGER | IDS
How do we handle Russia? Neither candidate is approaching relations with Russia appropriately Sergei Lavrov, the often well-spoken foreign minister of Russia, sat down with CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour to talk about our two countries. Amanpour asked Lavrov what he thought of Donald Trump’s recent “grab them by the pussy” scandal, to which he responded, “there are so many pussies in your presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment.” Wow. We may not be surprised to hear such harsh words from a Russian government official. However, Lavrov served as the Russian correspondent to the United Nations for ten years, and he’s gener-
ally seen as a diplomat who serves as a foil to Vladimir Putin’s egomania. To hear him insult the entire presidential race is definitely unnerving. The worst part is that he is absolutely correct. We are facing a decision between two candidates who have very few satisfied supporters compared to years past. Our presidential race is catty, hate-driven and ultimately a poor reflection of America to the rest of the world. Hillary Clinton’s hate speech toward Russia is more ridiculous than proactive. Her campaign chairman John Podesta has blamed the Kremlin for leaking transcripts of speeches she gave and hack-
ing the Democratic National Committee. He even went as far as to insinuate that the Trump campaign may have been in cahoots with Russia. None of these allegations have any basis in reality, and the Clinton campaign is looking eerily similar to the War-Hawk Republicans of yore. Starting a fight with Russia over a conspiracy seems like a recipe for disaster to us. She is using antiRussian sentiment that has existed in America since before the Cold War to try and sway voters. It’s way too risky, and it may lead to some serious problems for us moving forward. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is much too ea-
ger to get in bed with Putin. Trump has, on numerous occasions, remarked on Putin’s supposed strength as a leader. This is the same Putin who routinely oppresses his people and fuels wars in the Middle East to no end. We aren’t sure that’s a great stance to take, Donald. Even if Putin is a powerful world leader, he’s using his powers for evil. We can’t stand behind that in any way, shape,or form. The world has been turned upside down. We have a Democratic presidential candidate warmongering with a foreign power and a Republican candidate supporting Russia. This election cycle is anything but boring.
Overall, both candidates are handling the situation with Russia terribly. Clinton is only using Russia as a platform piece. She has to understand that being so tough with them would never work in reality. Trump makes it seem like he and Putin go out and play golf once a week like old business partners. Though Lavrov’s comment on our presidential campaign is jarring to hear, it is far more jarring to think how unfit our candidates really are for office. The Editorial Board believes America will have to strap in and hold on tight for the next four years because it’s going to be a bumpy ride, no matter what.
FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH
For Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the clock may be ticking In the age of social media, few individuals have caused such disruption in global politics as Julian Assange, the Australian national who launched the controversial media organization WikiLeaks in 2007. WikiLeaks, a champion of transparency and openness of information, has drawn the ire of the political establishment — as well as a sizable contingent of everyday citizens — by publicizing secret and, at times, sensitive information. Early Monday morning, a WikiLeaks tweet accused an unidentified state actor of eliminating Assange’s internet access in London’s Ecuadorean embassy, where he was granted asylum in 2012. The events could spell trouble for Assange — and potentially WikiLeaks — in the future.
I find it difficult to convince myself that the fact that this occurred the same weekend that WikiLeaks divulged transcripts of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s enigmatic speeches to Goldman Sachs executives is merely serendipitous. Roughly two days earlier, on Saturday, WikiLeaks released the transcripts, which former challenger Bernie Sanders used to rally his supporters and Clinton’s campaign staunchly refused to make public. WikiLeaks has since accused Ecuador of cutting Assange’s access, but details remain scant. It’s not unreasonable to consider the possibility that this was the result of strong-arming. After all, Ecuador has provided him sanctuary for more than four years, and its motivation for severing his inter-
net access remains to be seen. For months following WikiLeaks’ disclosures of nearly 20,000 emails between high-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee, media outlets and political players, including President Obama and Clinton’s campaign manager Robbie Mook, insinuated Russia was behind the attacks. Today’s editorial piece references the Clinton campaign’s propensity to blame the world’s ills on Russia, and this is the most prominent example. There’s no concrete evidence to reinforce these claims, but screaming “Putin!” is one way to divert attention. Regardless of the true hacker’s identity, Monday’s news shows the precariousness of Assange’s position and could conceivably
signal greater problems for WikiLeaks. Should he leave or be evicted from the embassy, he faces near-certain extradition to Sweden to be questioned about an alleged rape that occurred in 2010. From there, it’s likely he’d be extradited to the U.S., where he would face questioning and potential charges regarding WikiLeaks. With this news, it becomes more plausible that Assange will ultimately be extradited. If it is determined Assange did commit the crimes of which he’s been accused in Sweden, he should receive an appropriate punishment. But for his so-called offenses related to WikiLeaks? For whatever reason, the Clinton campaign refused to release the Goldman Sachs transcripts. By publishing them, WikiLeaks did not alter the
DANIEL KILCULLEN is a junior in information systems.
course of the election or expose Clinton’s identity as the Antichrist. But it did make information public the electorate had every right to see, especially in a pivotal election year. Even though the revelations weren’t groundbreaking, they deserved to be seen, and they were. In reality, it’s probably a matter of time before Assange is forced to face the music. Regardless of his fate, the entire field of journalism has grown thanks to WikiLeaks and its commitment to transparency and openness. @daniel_kilc_ dkilcull@indiana.edu
GUEST COLUMN
Consider the consequences of family reunification The child welfare system identifies its primary goal as family reunification: the process of returning or uniting children in the foster care system with biological family members. Although statistics illustrate that family reunification is successful 53 percent of the time, we believe family reunification should not always be the primary goal. The Department of Children & Family Services prioritizes foster care youth placement with direct family members with little regard to the caregiver’s qualifications to attend to the child’s needs. Children are often removed from the care of their biological family members multiple times, enabling environmental instability. As a result of this environmental instability, children in the child welfare system are often exposed to an excessive degree of physical and emotional high risk and long-
term trauma. This concern is based on the premise that many of these children who have been removed from the care of biological family members have often been exposed to adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs. Abuse, neglect and household dysfunction are the three main categories of ACE and can likely result in severe cognitive and developmental delays. In order to best accommodate for these circumstances, caregivers should be subjected to standardized, routine evaluations in efforts to determine the quality of care they can provide for the children, despite the status of a biological or non-biological relationship. In addition, DCFS should require thorough evaluations of children to determine the level of influence of the potentially adverse childhood experiences. Statistics reveal that 1 out
of 184 children are in foster care and every 36 seconds a child is abused or neglected in the United States. In continuation, infants and toddlers represent the largest age group placed in the foster care system. This population is also at highest risk for long-term developmental effects. During the first three years of a child’s life, the myelin sheath, which insulates neuron messages, is at a pivotal stage of development. As a result, the neuro messages may be significantly affected, impaired or delayed. These early neurological messages are encoded in the child’s implicit memory and have the ability to affect learned long-term behaviors, emotion regulation and coping techniques. Infants and toddlers learn emotion regulation through secure attachments with their primary caregiver. Speech and language development
rely heavily on face-to-face interactions in which the mirroring neurons imitate the movement of the caregiver. A consistent caregiver allows the child to form a secure attachment by fostering a nurturing environment. It is imperative that children, ages zero to three, with ACEs are placed in a home environment with foster parents that are able to expose them to the normal developmental processes they may have missed prior to the new placement. Although some may argue for the importance of family reunification, citing the child’s early attachment to family members, without a proper evaluation, it is unknown whether the child will receive the necessary quality of care. Children in an abusive home are at a higher risk for significant impairments to their typical neurological development; they require a heightened level of early
ANNABELLE WIVIOTT is an IU alumna. DEVYN THARNSTROM is with the University of Southern California Susan Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.
intervention to combat these negative experiences. Foster care parents must be available to meet the needs of severely affected children in order to prevent long term cognitive and developmental effects. Automatically assuming that the child is better off with biological family members devalues the need for necessary qualifications for combating the child’s exposure to early adverse experiences. By requiring all potential caregivers to complete a standardized evaluation, we aim to abolish the current developmental risk posed by the process of reunification to infant and toddler foster children.
In light of some recent events on campus, and the election in general, there was something I felt needed to be addressed. This really got me thinking that we need more civility and common sense in American politics. Everyone knows about the partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, everyone is tired of it. I wish Congress would be more productive. After all, that’s what we are electing them to do. In my opinion, one of the main reasons that they can’t be more productive is due to the lack of civility in Washington. In general, people have to restore civility to political discourse, as well. The presidential election this year does us no favors in terms of civility. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 were far more civil than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, who have made name-calling a normal occurrence in the 2016 election. I believe the damage being done during this cycle is worse than usual as far as encouraging positive discourse in politics. All I’m getting at is that there is no need to demonize the other side when attempting to engage in productive discourse. Of course people may disagree with your personal viewpoints, but that is the point, right? The beauty of this country is that you can and will disagree with others. Polls that came out on Monday regarding the direction of the country were rather telling. At -37 points and -32 points, they showed Americans, by and large, do not agree with the country’s current path. In the heat of this current election, with the election approaching quickly, I use this opportunity as a plea for individuals on both sides of the aisle to hold themselves to a higher standard and restore civility to politics. The politics of Washington are on display for all to see. It is time for us to begin demanding more from our elected officials. Our country is at crossroads, and we must choose the right path. If elected officials are civil to one another, who knows what will happen? I can tell you it’d be better than what we have right now. I feel both candidates on the top of the ticket are the wrong choice for America and will not be good for encouraging civility in American politics. However, I believe there are principled candidates, many of whom I respect very much, who can put their differences aside once they’re elected to Congress. Let’s be honest: the deterioration of civility and discourse benefits nobody. At this crucial moment in our history, it is of utmost importance that people come together to discuss solutions for problems that must be solved. This requires a change in culture. Not just in Washington but also on college campuses and everywhere in between. As a conservative, I doubt I will agree with much a liberal has to say. But it’s key that we discuss our views and find some sort of middle ground and try to find solutions to problems that plague Americans every day. My hope is that the people and elected officials of this great country will wake up on the morning of Nov. 9 and realize that the lack of civility cannot proceed any longer. I beg the American people to help this change. We certainly are capable. staranyi@indiana.edu