Fall Magazine 2020

THE

ANTLERETTE VOLUME 95 // ISSUE 1

the antlerette // fall 2020

TA B L E O F

C ONTENTS 3

W H A T R E A L LY D I V I D E S O U R N AT I O N BENJA M IN C A R R I LLO / / C ONT E NT E DI TOR

5

TRUMP: IN PUBLIC VS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS CAL E B C A STL E B E RRY / / STA F F

7

C OV I D - 1 9 C AU S E S BORDER RESTRICTIONS EM ILY C OR R A L E S / / STA F F

9

TO MASK OR NOT TO MASK? JORDA N R ITC HIE / / E DI TOR- I N - C H I E F

11

H O W T H E PA N D E M I C AFFECTS THE LOWER CLASS VS THE UPPER CLASS JAYL IE G IA NATA S IO / / STA F F

13 PF RR OE ES HA NE ADLTC OH NC AS ROEF

17

RYAN O ’ S UL L IVA N / / C OPY E DI TOR

PRO-LIFERS SHOULD ST I L L S U P P ORT P L A N N E D PA R E N T H O O D SH AYNA H AW K / / STAFF

15 F E A R F O R T H E F U T U R E EM M A THO G M A RT I N / / STA F F

EDITORIAL ADVISOR // MICHELLE HAMILTON

19

R A P E C U LT U R E M AI YA LO PE Z / / STAFF

COVER PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // LAUREN WILLIAMS

PHOTO ADVISOR // KENT PICKERING DESIGN ADVISOR // MARGARET SOULIERE

GRAPHIC DESIGNERS // MIKAYLA BRYANT, KATE COSTA, MANDIE DOAN, NATHAN HUR, ALLISON KELEHER, JESSICA NGUYEN, SIMON ROGENMOSER,

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF // JORDAN RITCHIE CONTENT EDITOR // BENJAMIN CARRILLO COPY EDITOR // RYAN O’SULLIVAN FACT CHECKER // ETHAN MAIURO

JUSTINA SANGPANJUN, OWEN SCARAMASTRO, BETHANY XIONG

a nation divided < 2

JORDAN RITCHIE // EDITOR IN CHIEF

LETTER F R O M

T H E

EDITOR 2020...

21

A T R A G E D Y B E FA L L E N D A N IEL L E AD ER E M I // GU E S T WR I T E R

ES ARE 23 WD IHVYI DTEHDE I SNTAT STEAD OF UNITED

GR EG SAN T OS // S TA F F

How to describe it? It’s been far from the “best year of our life” we anticipated at the end of 2019. It seemed that in an instant, our lives were changed with no indication as to when they’d go back to normal – if they’d go back to normal. And although the situations we currently face, we should be facing together, we are more segregated than ever before. Not only have pre-existing divides widened, but new chasms have formed as well, considering our turbulent political climate and the chronic negativity that sprouted from the beginning of the year. However, despite these bleak times, there is always a silver lining.

Despite school closures and distance learning, we’ve worked hard in finding loopholes to maintaining our school spirit and sense of togetherness. The Antlerette staff has crafted this publication, fully aware of the persisting rift between us all, but remain hopeful that we can soon pave a path to unity.

3 > the antlerette // fall 2020

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // PAIGELYNNE QUESINBERRY

a nation divided < 4

W H AT R E A L LY D I V I D E S O U R N AT I O N BENJAM IN C ARRIL L O // CO NT E NT E DI T O R

I

n a world such as today with the constant media turmoil and bias, you have to look beyond the lens of a news source to truly grasp and understand what is going on in our country. The country itself, to put it bluntly, is falling apart in front of our eyes. Everyday, negativity arises as we grow in an evermore increasingly partisan U.S.A.. For this reason, amongst many more, I’ve become very involved in the current political state of our nation, and what seems to be the root of all our issues. The infamous red and blue.

Democrats versus Republicans.

Whether we like it or not, the influence of these two political parties is becoming an irreversible state that not only affects the people living in the country, but the general view of our country from a foreign view. Political parties cause the root of nearly all issues present in the nation we live in today.

From the beginning of our country’s history, there has been a divide between the people in charge regarding current issues with the American people. The ideals of parties would constantly change, but the conflict never did; it’s apparent there is an issue with the way opinions are handled and done in our current state. Starting out with today’s issues, it’s prevalent the people in charge do not see eye to eye. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement is something that has become a very divisive issue. When stating a phrase that has gained so much significance in a quick amount of time, it becomes a political statement that feels bold and controversial to state. But why are political parties to blame for this? Well, Black Lives Matter, at its core, is a movement in support of eradicating white supremacy and being outspoken about injustices towards the black community. From just reading the statement alone, it sounds like anyone should be for the movement. Honestly, there’s no red flags from a name where it’s empowering a minority that has specifically been given the short end of the stick throughout American history. But despite this, the face of the Republican Party at the moment has gone on record referring to the movement as a “Symbol of Hate”. There is a reason behind this opinion. The reason the president thinks this is because of the way that the movement has been portraying itself throughout the duration of 2020, sparking riots and looting due to the death of multiple black people all through this year, including some names like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. This caused a giant amount of division between the people who support Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. Obviously, Black Live Matter violence is not the only outcome that has come out for their movement throughout the year, but in a chaotic time like right now, it’s easy to fit this into the narrative portrayed that 2020 is cursed. And Donald Trump pinning the issues of riots on his opposition for incompetence builds an even bigger divide in a time where we should be more united than ever before.

Even in our own school, you can clearly see a prejudice when talking to friends about politics. As someone with friends on both sides of the political spectrum, I have heard many saying they refuse to be friends with others that hold an opposing viewpoint. This sparks an issue of the lack of tolerance present with most people currently. Refusal to work

with people because of a differing political opinion actively makes you ignorant to another side of an issue you may not see otherwise (unless the issue is human rights). There’s such a thing as a conservative that is not a white supremacist, or a leftist that is not a social justice warrior.

There’s no reason why a person should be ignorant to the other side of the political spectrum. No one is able to succeed in life by limiting their friend pools over something so petty. It’s normal to have a difference in opinion.

Another huge issue would be the stigma portrayed by both the red and blue attacking the other side is disgusting to watch unfold throughout the news outlets on television. By going on any biased news outlet like Fox News or CNN, they’re spewing out a hateful portrayal of the other side of our nation. Actively watching one almost feels like seeing propaganda at times, attempting to hurt and attack a portion of our nation. It’s disturbing to see how hateful we have become in a nation that is called the United States. For example, in the electoral debate that took place on the 29th of September 2020, the difference in how both CNN and Fox News was very different; both zoning in on the different insults done or received by the opposing presidential candidate. United is barely the word to describe a time where everything is so divided right now. Even younger and younger audiences become invested in an increasingly more complicated pool of politics that needs years of context, research, and maturity to really grasp. From Tucker Carlson to Chris Cuomo, you can see the constant attacking and criticizing of the opposing party that has its own agenda to push their own opinion to send out to their selected audience. This further emphasizes the importance of making an opinion using more than one reliable source for information and being unbiased throughout all opinions you give out.

There’s obviously an issue, but I think we can all agree there’s a way to improve. To start out, we should stop giving people who spew nothing but hate a platform. In a time filled with so much loathing towards yourself and others, there is no longer a reason why we should dwell on someone who has nothing smart or helpful to say to the other side of a discussion. Obviously, we must also be mindful together. Nothing gets done if there is no purpose to the debate or discussion being held.

Spewing an insult, a sarcastic comment using condescending emojis, or saying a common slogan like “ACAB” without laying any foundation adds nothing to the discussion. The purpose of any debate regarding politics is to be tolerant, open-minded, and a willingness to give a method to your madness and lay a ground rule on the opinion you have. There’s no reason why you should not have factual evidence for the beliefs you hold. And the conclusion here is that in order to stop a divide, one must acknowledge that there is a divide and change that needs to be established to begin with.

Overall, if there’s any takeaway to the article you just read, it’s that the United States is clearly not united, and how are we supposed to live in such a nation called the United States if we fail together to be a united nation? We instead are becoming a nation divided.

“THE IDEALS OF PARTIES WOULD CONSTANTLY CHANGE, BUT THE CONFLICT NEVER DID.”

5 > the antlerette // fall 2020 PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // JAYDEN ROESER

TRUM IN PUB VS

BEHIN CLOSE DOORS CA LEB CA STLEB ERRY Trump knew about the severity of the pandemic, he then went on to downplay the virus to the citizens of the U.S. claiming that he was trying to avoid causing panic. Trump made comments to Woodward behind closed doors, and then made entirely different claims when talking to the public, as reported by CBS and ABC News. Now, with over 6 million reported

W

ith the publications of Bob Woodward’s 18 interviews with the president, there has been confusion about Trump’s statements about the danger of the pandemic, and how his statements change depending on whether he said them publicly or behind closed doors. Bob Woodward is a best-selling author and associate editor of the Washington Post, that held 18 interviews with President Donald Trump for his new book Rage. While the interviews reveal that

cases and over 200,000 deaths, many are questioning if downplaying the virus was the right response.

Trump’s recorded interviews with Woodward began in December of 2019, and continued through July of 2020. During the time of one such interview on March 19, Trump acknowledges the fact that the virus can affect you regardless of age, saying, “It’s not just old – it’s plenty of young people.” Later, on August 5, Trump made claims that children are “almost immune from this disease.” He repeated this statement during the Presi-

a nation divided < 6 dential debate on 9/29/20. With Trump making contradictory statements when addressing different audiences, people have become divided over what he really means, and if he has good reason for telling the public different things than he told Woodward.

During a phone interview with Woodward on February 7, Trumps talks about the severity of the virus, saying, “It’s also more deadly than your… strenu-

ous flu. This is deadly stuff.” On February 26, Trump said, “ It’s a little like the regular flu that we have flu shots for. And we’ll essentially have a flu shot for this in a fairly quick manner.” On March 9, Trump took to Twitter making claims that the flu was worse than the virus.

These things were all said in addition to other claims that the virus would be gone by April and that we had it under control.

These statements show that Trump’s view and knowledge of the virus was very different from what he told the public. Trump claims that he did this to avoid

MP: BLIC

ND ED S // S TA FF

starting a panic, and others say that everything would be worse if we had panicked. While others argue that it is the president’s responsibility to be honest to U.S. citizens no matter the cost. With over 6 million reported cases and over 200,000 deaths in the U.S., do you think Trump was right to downplay the virus? Or was causing a panic the right response?

C O V C ID AU 1 SE 9 S

7 > the antlerette // fall 2020

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // ISELLA NEPOMUCENO

BORDE

a nation divided < 8

ER RESTRICTIONS E M I LY CORRA LES // STA FF

T

his year, the United States decided to limit the amount of people and imports coming to the U.S. in order to control the number of COVID-19 cases that are increasing in the U.S. According to CNN, the border restrictions started on March 16th of this year with the help of Mexico and Canada. But yet, even though President Trump implemented the restrictions, there are still people from all around the world coming and going.

However, with the help of the Department of Homeland

Security, the United States will continue to maintain the current restrictions on travelers crossing its borders for non-essential purposes for as long as is necessary.

While doing this, they will also be supporting cross-border activities that protect our economy, health, supply security, and lastly, critical industries. Not only is Homeland Security helping with slowing down the number of COVID cases, but Mexico, Canada, and the United States have come to an arrangement to try as much as possible to decrease the number of people coming through their

borders. For example, the Canadian Prime Minister suggested that the Canadian Border will remain closed for all non-essential travel. Due to these border restrictions, the U.S. economy and other global economies have decreased slightly for the reason that there have been a limited amount of imports and exports coming and going all throughout the world. This is causing shortages of supplies in the United States. This is what people were afraid when the restrictions started. They started buying toilet paper, bottled water, disinfec-

tants, etc., which caused there to be a mass shortage, resulting in businesses like Costco limiting the amount of supplies a person could buy until they could supply more of a product. Not only that, but the lack of tourism and hospitality has also taken a toll on the economy. Because of the lack of tourists, many businesses and companies have suffered financially, for example, hotels, casinos, amusement parks, etc....

Regardless, the restrictions that the United Borders have put have helped us keep the COVID cases from increasing.

9 > the antlerette // fall 2020

I

am in no way at all a medical professional. Yet I am a firm believer of masking-wearing as a means to slow the spread of the Coronavirus. Wearing a mask was never a choice for me – I just did it, no questions asked. Not because I was pressured by public opinion, or swayed by the CDC, or herded into the flock with the other “sheep”, but because of one simple thought: “If someone with the virus breathes on me, spits on me, coughs or sneezes on me, and my mouth isn’t covered, I could get sick.”

It never occurred to me that other people would think differently. Which is why I was left appalled at my discovery that there exists an entire demographic of people who are emphatically against masks. As I read more into the issue, I learned of the great divide between “maskers” and “non-maskers”, and the political strife that rooted from it.

Despite my new-found knowledge, I still couldn’t comprehend why the concept of mask-wearing was one of opinion, rather than fact. Then, I discovered that more so than a contrast of principles and political beliefs, there are some that claim to have fact-based and valid reasoning as to why they choose not to wear masks. That there was more to no-maskers than anti-mask protests and nomask Karens. It never occurred to me to read a single article, report, or research paper as to why masks are or are not effective. Until now. Though I always try to hold true to my beliefs, I’ve an open mind and gladly would have exchanged my piece of cloth for a protest sign if persuaded that I should ditch the mask. I found evidence for both sides of the argument and evaluated which claims hold water. Though my research has enlightened me, at the end of the day, there are two sides to this debate, and I must pick one. So in this article, I seek to answer the following question: should we really be wearing masks?

Though the Center for Disease Control (CDC) strongly recommends mask-wearing, it’s true that the practice isn’t fit for everybody. According to the CDC, children under the age of 2, those who have trouble breathing, and anyone unable to remove a mask without assistance shouldn’t be wearing one.

In addition to these groups are others who find difficulty in mask-wearing, such as those with autism, for whom masks can cause panic and extreme anxiety; those with PTSD and other extreme anxiety disorders who would also find wearing a mask a frightening experience; people with disabilities who would not be able to put on and take off a mask by themselves; and those with facial deformities that are incompatible with mask-wearing.

Now, we’ve all seen a couple videos of angry customers who refuse to wear a mask because of a breathing problem, but these viral videos often paint a bad picture of those who struggle with respiratory issues while wearing a mask. It’s people who fall into any of these categories that are at odds with the CDC’s guidelines concerning mask-wearing. And nowadays, many stores and other establishments will require a mask to be worn upon entry; some cities even mandate mask-wearing in public and have fees for disobeying. It comes to a point where a person might have to choose between risking their health, sanity, or comfortability, or breaking the rules and paying the price… literally. At a time when we are combatting a communicable disease that cannot be seen, we have to understand that there are people with valid reasons that are just as undetectable.

Now, while there are people who cannot receive the protection of wearing a mask, many believe that it provides none in the first place. Fox News host, Laura Ingraham, cited Clinical Professor May Chu who said that homemade cotton masks only stop 2% of incoming airflow, and due to them not sealing “against the face… about 70% of the outside air moves through the mask and about 30% travels around the sides.” Many non-maskers also claim that wearing a face mask reduces oxygen levels and causes hypercapnia – elevated carbon dioxide in the bloodstream – which can lead to dizziness, seizures, vertigo, and loss of consciousness.

Therefore, according to these claims, masks not only fail to help in slowing the spread of COVID-19, but succeed in harming those who wear them.

Contrary to this, however, another reason why people are refusing to wear masks is because they believe the virus is being drastically dramatized and is not as serious as we are being led on to believe. Earlier this year, a Facebook post spread, informing people that the survival rate for the virus is 98.54%. People also mention that the Spanish Flu of 1918 killed millions more than this virus. Therefore, the common belief is arising that lockdowns and mask mandates are unnecessary when going up against a virus that only kills a mere 1-2% of us.

However, more so than being unnecessary, there is reason to believe that mask mandates are unconstitutional. “My body, my choice.” This slogan was popularized by feminists who demand bodily autonomy, but now has become the mantra for non-maskers, claiming that forcing someone to wear a mask infringes on their right to freedom. In

TO M NOT

JORDAN RIT C H I

Palm Beach County, Florida, a commissioners meeting was held where the declaration of a mask mandate sparked outrage from the citizens, who took the opportunity to speak out against the order. One woman who spoke at the podium to the officials made a statement, asking, “Where do you derive the authority to regulate human breathing… where do you get the authority to reduce my oxygen?” With fear that the authorities may be decreeing an order that violates the very freedoms on which our nation was founded upon, it’s not hard to fathom why people are so angry.

However, that doesn’t mean that this anger isn’t misguided. Despite my desperate efforts to find truth and reason for being against masks, for most of the evidence I found in opposition to mask-wearing, I found equal proof in favor of the practice.

a nation divided < 10

MASK OR T TO MASK?

IE // E D I T O R-I N-CHIEF

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // LILY ANGELES & LUCCA SPANO

First things first, mask-mandating does not overrule the Constitution or violate our rights.

According to constitutional law scholar, John E. Finn, in regards to mask mandates, there is no infringement of fundamental rights and, “states can act if the restrictions advance a compelling state interest and do so in the least restrictive manner”, meaning that such orders are justified if for the greater good, and there are few greater goods than public safety.

As for the claim that masks are simply not effective, this is also false. At the University of Edinburgh, an experiment was conducted to test the effectiveness of several types of masks ranging from those used in the National Health Service to homemade cloth ones. In the experiment, the researchers discovered that all seven of the masks made a difference. As told

by Stanford Medicine, COVID-19 is spread in

respiratory droplets released into the air, evaporated into fine particles. Wearing a mask traps the larger droplets before they can evaporate.

However it will not guarantee that no viral particles will be spread, but the mask limits the travel distance of the particles. Without a mask, these particles can travel farther and stay alive in the air much longer. In addition to this, the myth that masks inhibit oxygen levels and cause hypercapnia has also been debunked by professionals. Indiana University Bloomington professor Bill Carroll, PhD says that “It [carbon dioxide] has to be a pretty high concentration to be capable of causing harm… it’s highly unlikely that you would pass out from a lack of oxygen with a cloth mask”.

In fact, medical doctors and other hospital workers have to wear much more than a simple cloth mask and for a long period of time, yet hold out because saving lives is worth temporary discomfort. However, this circles back to the issue of people with asthma or other breathing issues, for whom wearing a mask provides more than just discomfort.

Dr. David Stukus of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) assures that wearing a mask shouldn’t be an issue for “people with very mild or well-controlled asthma”. For those whose asthma is more severe, have other respiratory problems, or still find discomfort wearing a mask, it’s recommended to stay home when possible, keep trips outside the house quick, find more comfortable masks, and practice wearing a mask at home to adjust to the feeling.

And now, I address the final claim: masks aren’t necessary because the virus isn’t that serious. Yes, this virus mostly has severe effects on the elderly. Yes, more people have died from the 1918 Flu. And let’s say that 99% of those who contract the virus recover. But that does not dismiss the severity of this disease. Top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci clarifies what exactly this 99% means: “[A mortality rate of 1%] means it is 10-times more lethal than the seasonal flu”. The current United States population is roughly 330,000,000 people. If everyone in America contracted COVID-19, that would mean that 3,300,000 people would still die.

Some would argue that 3.3 million people is insignificant considering it’s a mere 1% of the nation, but maybe they’d feel differently if that unlucky 1% was their best friend, their husband, or their mother. So if the reason for not taking the Coronavirus seriously is that only a few will die, that mindset, I would say, is more dangerous than the virus itself.

Let me finally answer that question: should we really be wearing masks?

Hell yes!

This virus has brought more misery than just death. Unemployment is soaring, kids are missing out on a traditional education, and our mental health is greatly suffering. So if we can do something that will help bring a stop to this sickness, we should take it. We should wear masks. However, that doesn’t mean everyone can, nor does that mean we should discourage others from wearing them. As of right now, there aren’t many effective solutions for those who are incapable of wearing masks. One of the greatest problems today regarding Coronavirus guidelines are not the masks, but the ever-changing and sometimes flawed information regarding mask-wearing.

Issues non-maskers bring up in defense of their stance is that people constantly touch their face when wearing a facial covering, they don’t wear their mask correctly, and rules concerning if we should or shouldn’t be wearing masks or where we should and shouldn’t are always changing. The solution to this isn’t to eradicate masks completely, but for the professionals to emphasize and encourage proper mask-wearing etiquette, which clearly, they haven’t been doing enough. Though we can fault them for this, we cannot condemn them. We have never been in a situation like this before. Everyday, we are learning new ways to combat this virus. Science is not an exact… well, science.

Researchers making and changing their decisions as they observe new findings is proof that they’re doing right by us in doing their job.

This virus has taken so much from us and we can’t afford to lose more. What makes this disease even more terrifying is that we can’t see it. It’s called the invisible enemy for a reason. We don’t know who is sick, which provides us even more of a reason to use masks as a defense. But we must remember that we wear a mask not only to protect ourselves, but to protect each other. Many will outright refuse to even consider wearing a mask, and when encouraged to do so, claim that others are free to, but they will not be donning one.

People have expressed that not being able to see each other’s faces or touch or hug people makes them feel unsafe, distrusting of other people, and detached from each other. But I beg to differ. I think masks bring us together. More so than acting as a shield to protect ourselves, they are a weapon we use to fight this virus for others. It’s a symbol that says, “I am here to keep you safe.”

11 > the antlerette // fall 2020

JAYLI E GI ANATASI O / / STAFF

HOW T H E PA N DE M IC A F F V LOW E R C L A S S

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // AANYAH WHITE

a nation divided < 12

E CT T SHTEH EU P P E R C L A S S VSS

I

n January of 2020, the arrival of COVID-19, better known as the Coronavirus, shocked everyone around the world. Starting in Wuhan, China, it spread rapidly around the globe until finally on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic¹. The virus has catastrophically impacted everyone’s social life, and on top of that, their economic stability; but more significantly, it has exposed the financial divide that lives among the upper and lower class in the U.S. and deepened it.

In just 3 months of living through the pandemic, the U.S. unemployment rate rose over 10%, reaching a high of 14.4%².

There hasn’t been a high percentage like this since the Great Depression. During the same time that these 22 million Americans were filing for unemployment, billionaires’ profits skyrocketed. Their combined wealth increased by $282 billion in the United States³. How could that be? How is it that Jeff Bezos, the CEO of the Amazon company, is on track to become the world’s first trillionaire, while others are living paycheck to paycheck, scared of how they’re going to survive the next week?

The United Way of the National Capital Area unveiled that 45.2% of the

U.S. labor force is made up of essential workers; these essential workers include doctors, nurses, grocery store employees, transportation workers, janitorial staff, etc. Despite being labeled as essential workers, the United Way NCA reported in their 2018 Alice Report that these professions tend to be paid the least4.

These workers risk their health and lives everyday so they can just barely make their rent, buy groceries, and keep their employer-supplied insurance. They are taken for granted everyday by everyone.

The social distance that is required to mitigate the Coronavirus has caused an economic downfall that our society will most likely not be able to come back from. People are being put out of jobs and forced to live off the limited unemployment benefits and loans that will only get the lower class so far. A study by the Pew Research Center found that only about 29% of unemployed work ers received benefits in March 2020. Additionally, a great amount of that 29% received their benefits through the states’ regular unemployment insurance and other special programs5.

Meanwhile, as the bottom percent of earners stumble and stagger for help, the upper class simply sits and watches. The

top percent is still able to live a comfortable and unbothered life. They are able to buy what they need, but also what they want. And while to them this is just their way of life, it angers the lower class. It angers them because they are putting in the same amount of work, if not sometimes more, to provide a satisfactory life for their family. The pandemic has unleashed an uproar of hatred between the two classes that the government can’t seem to explain or contain. The separation between the classes is a necessary evil that society has become too accustomed to, but that we are realizing can’t be the only way of life.

The government has always been very frugal with the way they spend their resources, but it is showing now more than ever. It prioritizes these large hyper-capitalist conglomerates that exploit desperate employees and consumers, yet is reluctant to help out small businesses that are being forced to take a Hail-Mary loan in order to keep their businesses afloat.

Morally, we cannot continue to pay our most essential workers the bare minimum and expect them to maintain America’s economic welfare.

1

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/background.html

2

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/11/unemployment-rose-higher-in-three-months-of-covid-19-than-it-did-in-two-years-of-the-great-recession/

3

https://www.planetforward.org/idea/pandemic-failed-working-class

4

https://unitedwaynca.org/stories/us-states-essential-workers/

5

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/24/not-all-unemployed-people-get-unemployment-benefits-in-some-states-very-few-do/

13 > the antlerette // fall 2020

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // MACEE MASCIOVECCHIO

a nation divided < 14 RYAN O ’SUL L IVAN // CO P Y E DI T O R

PROS AND CONS OF F R E E H E A LT H C A R E “From the outside looking in, universal healthcare seems like a flawless structure of government. However, the main reason this may be an issue comes at the hit the economy would take if this system were put into place.”

T

he idea of free healthcare is seemingly an amazing and beneficial idea.

The thought and execution from the government that pays all medical bills is ever prominent in our country. However, like all seemingly good ideas, universal healthcare comes at an expensive cost. Although 43 countries have overseen institutionalization, America is not just any country.

We have been the world’s largest economy since 1871, and have a total GDP of 44.1 trillion. An additional reason that may exemplify the wealth of America is our per capita income, which in 2018 was just about 66,000; higher than any country with universal healthcare. It would appear that we should have plenty of money to pay for the healthcare of citizens, however, it’s just not that easy. There are plenty of pros and cons to the government paying our healthcare.

Cons: Obviously there is absolutely no problem with the idea of every citizen being able to rely on a government that takes care of every citizen individually. From the outside looking in, universal healthcare seems like a flawless structure of government.

However, the main reason this may be an issue comes at the hit the economy would take if this system were put into place. For instance, the country with one of the lowest GDPs globally has a free healthcare institution. A lot of the supporters do not actually understand how much a task like this would cost. For example, in Canada there is no specific healthcare cost, so to speak, but instead, what they are paying medically comes in at around 7,000 dollars a year in taxes. So technically, free healthcare actually is not free. Along with increased taxation due to expenses, most countries with free health-

care also do not cover the cost of expensive prescription drugs. Many leading the surge for universal healthcare are sadly unaware of these downsides. Also, when former President Barack Obama tried to introduce an affordable healthcare act, the rates skyrocketed almost instantly, leaving millions of U.S. citizens without easy access to healthcare systems. This led to a steady decline in enrollment in the system by almost 14%. Not only did this idea backfire, it left a momentous amount of citizens uninsured. However, I do not blame Obama for this because any person in charge would have a difficult time trying to put together a plan that checks out.

Pros: However difficult this task may seem, people from all stances can immediately see the upside of free healthcare. Free healthcare would be a reliable and painless way to get all the members of your family the healthcare they need. While America already provides healthcare benefits like paid maternity leave, we should be seeing more from our tax dollars, medically speaking. Also, we want to see a plan that works for all classes of wealth. Although rates may vary widely among insurance plans, on average, healthcare patients pay 32% of their hospital bill while the rest is covered by insurance. This may not seem like that much, but when you really look at the cost of hospital bills, you will come to realize that hospitals can leave you in debt or burn a hole in your pocket. Academic researchers have found that 66.5% of all bankruptcies were tied to m edical issues, either for high costs or time out of work.

They have estimated that 530,000 families a year file for bankruptcy due to medical costs for the inconvenience of treatment. Think of how many families would not have to turn

to bankruptcy had these medical costs been covered or minimized. Hospital managers are also not known to be the most financially responsible people. A study from The Journal of Healthcare Management showed that between 2000 and 2006, 42 hospitals filed for bankruptcy. The reason? Poor financial management from the higher ups on the hospital staff. Axios’ financial records stated that annually, the highest earning non-profit hospitals earn around 21 billion in income with most of this money coming from patient spending. This is way too much considering that hospitals almost exponentially increase their income yearly. Seeing these numbers, it is clear that patient care in the U.S. is way too costly and also that hospitals do not use the money responsibly and to its full effect.

Although both sides formulate a reasonable argument with multiple points of view that may sway you to either side, the argument will be everlasting in today’s society.

Many question the morals of lawmakers in our society who allow these healthcare costs to be what they are. We are not a third world country; we are too advanced for healthcare not to be a right at this point. This is not Ancient Rome. However, citizens may underestimate the difficulty of actually creating a healthcare plan that works for everyone.

These plans would affect hospitals as well and could not be executed without them having to cut costs. In America, the current system for covering healthcare costs does not work and although there are pros and cons, if we don’t resolve the system soon, more families will go bankrupt or suffer.

15 > the antlerette // fall 2020

O

n September 18, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, which was a tragic and devastating moment that left the country mourning.

However, her death has been overshadowed by the debate surrounding her replacement.

Ginsburg was a huge advocate and protector for the rights for people from all walks of life and her beliefs will continue to be espoused throughout history in her numerous Supreme Court cases. Following her passing, the country is split on whether or not the justice’s seat should be filled before or after the 2020 election.

Similarly during the 2016 election a situation such as this one occurred and President Obama was not allowed to appoint a new member to the Supreme Court.

However, this year, the same precedent was not followed and President Trump was allowed to appoint a new member to the Supreme Court just a little over a month before the election.

With the Senate majority currently being Republician, although only by three seats, the chance that they are going to decide to wait on having the President appoint a new Supreme Justice until the next election is very low. However, this is incredibly hypocritical of the Republican Senate members who made the opposite decision last election year when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February 2016.

Nine months before the election, the Senate did not allow for President Obama to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice member.

This was justified by Senator Mitch McConnell in this quote, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.

Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” However, the hypocrisy of this decision is further illustrated best by a quote from Senator Lindsey Graham, “I want you to use my words against me.

If there’s a Republican president

FEAR F U T URE FOR THE

E M M A TH O GM A R TI N / / STA FF

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // JAYDEN ROESER

in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ You could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.’” Senator Graham and many other Republican senators have since changed their opinions and support the president’s appointment of a new justice just 2 months before the election, while also denying Ginsburg one of her dying wishes relayed to us by her granddaughter, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Of course, there is no obligation to respect her wish; it is saddening to see it will most likely be denied when she has dedicated such a large portion of her life to her work.

This decision is especially troubling for many progressive

dering if overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to a path of undoing for much of the legislature that protects a woman’s rights over reproductive freedom and choices such as abortions or access to birth control.

With Amy Coney Barrett as the official nominee to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat comes concerns among Democrats, only beginning with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Barrett has a record of criticism for having a religious bias during many cases and has been accused of making decisions based on her beliefs countless times. She has also been very outspoken against the Affordable Care Act which could be a major hit against the act in the form of abolishment or a severe limitation of its benefits. If the Supreme Court were to grant a writ of certiorari, the decision could be a major blow to the Americans that rely on the Affordable Care Act. LGBT+ rights could also be in danger if she takes a seat in the Supreme Court as she has been very publicly opposed to them, especially when coupled with the fact that if she’s approved to take the seat, it would be a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Although, not guaranteed after a surprising 6-3 ruling this year protecting LGBT+ civil rights with the Court being split 5-4 conservative majority. If just one of the justices changed their opinion it could be very detrimental.

The future of many Americans lies in the hands of the Senate’s decision of allowing President Trump to appoint nominee Amy Coney Barrett following the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So many Americans fear for the future for themselves and others during this time. No matter what your beliefs may be, it truly is a tragedy to see the life of such an amazing woman come to an end, only to be overshadowed by the political implications of her passing. Seeing the fear of so many people on one side, while others proudly celebrate

her death is truly heart-wrenching to see. Hopefully whatever happens is what’s best for the American people and keeps Justice Ginsburg’s legacy in mind.

May her memory be a blessing.

2020

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // SOPHIA LIVINGSTON

a nation divided < 16

Americans as Ginsburg was very liberal with her rulings. The nominee President Trump has picked is Amy Coney Barrett, a very conservative judge that holds arguably regressive beliefs. One of the biggest issues surrounding the potentially conservative majority in the Supreme Court is the fear of overturning Roe v. Wade, which is the ruling that protects a women’s right to an abortion.

Judge Barrett has been very outspoken about Roe v. Wade, and has expressed her desire to overturn the controversial decision. The rights that a woman has over her body and choices she makes pertaining to it have been in debate for decades over various cases and legislature, and overturning Roe v. Wade would simply add to the controversy surrounding it. A lot of people are concerned about this, won-

17 > the antlerette // fall 2020

PRO-LIFERS SHOULD ST I L L S U P P ORT P L A N N E D PA R E N T H O O D SHAY N A HAW K / / S TA F F

T

he topic of abortion has been sensitive for many people around the world and even though abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973, there are still efforts going on to reverse Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that made abortion legal nationwide. Millions of Americans in 2020 consider themselves to be “pro-life”, a term used to describe people who are not for the act of an abortion. Planned Parenthood is an organization very well known in the U.S. for performing abortions on women, but it by no means is their only focus.

A large majority of pro-lifers aim to defund Planned Parenthood

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // EVELYN FERNANDEZ-BARRAGAN

and want to ban abortion nationwide. But in addition to performing abortions, Planned Parenthood also conducts cancer screenings, STD tests, fertility studies, provides inexpensive birth control, and other services. Plus, without accessible abortion services such as Planned Parenthood, many poor or young women could die from unsafe abortion and lack of proper healthcare.

I will make my stance very clear, I don’t like abortion, but as a person who has changed my political alignment a few times, I can often see where both “pro-lifers” and people who believe abortion should be legal and accessible, also known as

a nation divided < 18

PHOTO ILLUSTR ATION // REIGYNA MARTIN

“pro-choicers”, get their ideas from, and I agree with the idea that a person shouldn’t have to pay taxes for a service that does not align with their morals, which is why many pro-lifers want to defund Planned Parenthood. However, the idea of defunding Planned Parenthood to stop abortions paid for by taxpayers is flawed.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion services because of the Hyde Amendment except for cases of rape, incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger. So while Planned Parenthood is partially funded by federal taxes, their abortion patients usually pay out of pocket or through health insurance. So in actuality, when a person calls to defund Planned Parenthood, it won’t stop anything having to do with abortion, but it does stop underprivileged people from getting decent healthcare as 79% of Planned Parenthood patients have incomes at or below the federal poverty level.

As someone who doesn’t like abortion, I often have issues agreeing with pro-life people. It is my belief that those who are truly pro-life should care more about preventing abortion needs in the first place and care less about whether abortion is legal or whether abortion services are paid for using taxpayer dollars.

For example, more focus should be put on good sex education in school. Abstinence-only sex ed leads to many young people not knowing how to properly prevent pregnancy using birth control, it does not prevent teenagers from sexual activity at all.

Along with preventative measures such as sex education, pro-lifers should focus on the foster care system and adoption services. The foster system should be improved so good families want and are encouraged to foster and adopt. And it must be improved to keep abusive families from fostering. In addition to that, all foster systems and adoption services in the

U.S. should give pregnant women who don’t want to keep the child an abundance of free resources in areas she may need it, whether that be healthcare or housing in order to take care of her when she gives birth.

Many women who get abortions do so because they cannot afford a child; many are too young or in poverty. These women as well as many pro-choice citizens, some whom I know personally, do not think foster care is good and wouldn’t want to give a child a life just for that child to suffer from abuse, which is very prevalent in foster care. According to Psychology Today, statistics show that at least 28% of children who grew up in the foster care system have been abused. Abuse in foster care is overlooked because staff are often overwhelmed with responsibilities and are given too many children to monitor.

Finally, I believe many pro-lifers who think abortion is still immoral because it’s murder, fail to understand that there is very much a difference between a cold hearted killer and a woman who just can’t take care of a child. Abortion is a painful process, both physically and mentally, while murderers clearly have no regard for anyone’s life and are often angry or straight up psychopaths. To say the two are one in the same is disrespectful to often scared and underprivileged women.

With all of this being said, Planned Parenthood is a very good resource not only for abortion, but also their healthcare services; they can even prevent more abortions from being performed with proper sex education and birth control resources. Without services, such as Planned Parenthood, more women would die from having unsafe abortions performed by themselves or another untrained person. Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers must agree that no woman should die from an unsafe abortion.

19 > the antlerette // fall 2020

R A P E C U LT U M AI YA LO PE Z / / STA FF

“R

ape Culture” probably isn’t a term you’re familiar with.

Despite that, it is such a significant part of our presentday society that we tend to overlook it. Rape Culture is a culture where rape is ubiquitous and in which sexual violence is normalized and excused. It’s preserved through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence. Generally with things that are a part of rape culture, such as victim-blaming and slut-shaming, the purpose is to make the victim feel bad for what happened to them, and to protect and defend the accused party.

However, that’s not all there is to it. Things such as trivializing sexual assault by saying “Boys will be boys!” is extremely hurtful and ignorant to say. It makes serious transgressions like rape or sexual assault seem like a silly mistake and that it’s not the offender’s fault because he couldn’t help himself. Additionally, publicly scrutinizing a victim’s clothing, mental state, motives, and history is a way of belittling them, and making it appear like it’s their fault. But out of all of those things, clothing is by far the most over-analyzed. Some people think just because a victim was wearing something short, or was showing a lot of skin means that was an excuse to assault them. An example of this could be someone saying “She deserved it!” or “She was asking for it!”.

Lastly, tolerance of sexual harassment, sexually explicit jokes, gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television are all examples of rape culture.

Having said that, rape culture does not just affect women.

It affects all victims, regardless of gender. Furthermore, it can affect men negatively when society defines “manhood” as being dominant and aggressive. To give an idea of what this looks like, imagine someone telling a man expressing his feelings that “Real men don’t cry!” or to “Stop acting like a girl.” Ultimately, what I think the most harmful thing you can do in this situation is assume that men don’t get sexually assaulted or that only the “weak” do.

Having that type of mindset is especially detrimental to victims.

By doing so, you’re establishing heavy gender stereotypes that can hurt the people that don’t fit into them, and make them feel like they don’t belong.

After taking the previous into consideration you might be wondering “What can I do to help?” Luckily the answer to this question is simple. Speak out if you hear someone else making an offensive joke or trivializing rape. Think critically about the media’s messages about women, men, relationships, and violence.

Be respectful of others’ physical space even in casual situations.

Finally, define your own manhood or womanhood. Do not let stereotypes shape your actions!

It is important to be aware of how your words and actions can affect everyone around you. Don’t let society determine how you treat and see victims of rape and sexual assault. If a friend trusts you enough to tell you they have been raped, take them seriously and be supportive. Every voice matters, so make sure you listen.

Some people think just because victim was wearing something short, or was showing a lot of skin means that was an excuse to assault them.

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // PHOEBE FOLLETTE

a nation divided < 20

URE

ea

Speak out if you hear someone else making an offensive joke or trivializing rape. Think critically about the media’s messages about women, men, relationships, and violence. Be respectful of others’ physical space even in casual situations.

21 > the antlerette // fall 2020

a nation divided < 22

D AN IEL L E A DE R E M I // GU E S T W R I T E R

A T R AG E DY B E FA L L E N

A

hush rippled through the room as her entrance silenced the breath of all in her presence. The woman clad in all white. The woman of peace, the woman of justice. Her beauty was alluring, yet none bore the courage to look into her eyes. Instead, they cast theirs down, unspoken shame devouring them inside out. In her arms, she held a body, a life that was no more. Its head and limbs hung over her arms, a hideosity to look at, as a hideousity had been done to it. Her pupils were pools of fire, and not even the tears running down from them could extinguish her pain, her agony… her fury. With every step she took, flames erupted beneath her feet, leaving chaos to explode behind her.

All around, disaster struck as the people scrambled to save themselves, but their endeavors proved unavailing, as the fire grew instead, hungry and unquenched. She continued walking, she had no care to help them, her compassion for them had run thin, as the blood of the lost life in her arms was smeared all over their hands.

She kept to her path, her vengeance was not for them.

No, though their silence was as great a crime, her anguish was caused by another. Her destination lay at the end of the hallway. At the other side of it was a room, with its door wide open. Not much could be seen but the bright orange luminescence of the fireplace inside it. As she approached, the image before her grew clearer. Seated gallantly by the fireplace was a man; the man whom she sought.

His years had weighed down the skin on his face, and the composure with which he held himself was far larger than he appeared.

He gazed nonchalantly into the fireplace before him, as though unaware of the inferno consuming his residence. By his feet lay a large beast, a menacing and ugly creature. It playfully gnawed at a large bone, possessing the same lack of concern as its master. In the man’s left hand was a glass of water, and set on a platter beside him, a filled jug. With his head held high, he turned as she entered his quarters, and he looked her in the eye.

A harmless looking man, but the strong grip on his glass said otherwise. She set the body on the ground

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION // CLAIRE O’SULLIVAN

before him and took a seat across from him, facing the man who had caused her many losses. Silence prevailed, save the crackling of the flames around them.

Her vengeful fire crawled throughout the room with great famine, causing destruction to all that lay in its path. There was a lull between the two.

“Why have you set my home on fire?” He was an old man. His words formed slowly, but the vigor in his eyes spoke in profusion.

Silence.

Tears ran down her face shamelessly, yet she spoke with a firm voice of unwavering authority, “Because

you permitted your beast to kill. It has taken a life too many.”

“You have no right!” He bellowed, lurching forward in his seat. A frail man he was, but the walls rumbled with his rage.

“You have no right,” she thundered, “this life –” her voice broke, “was not yours to take.” Stillness settled again, as he leaned back into comfort.

“And so, what would you have me do?” He returned his gaze to the fireplace, lifting his cup to his mouth to take a long gulp.

“A life for a life… and your beast has taken several…”

His eyes met hers, an eyebrow raised in questioning.

“It’s far time you put it down,” she finished, glaring.

The beast reared its head, snarling. A smirk of amusement skittered across the old man’s face. Once again, he returned his attention to the fireplace.

“Now, you know I can’t do that –” The building began to collapse, the destruction of the insatiable flames around them.

“– But if I perish, then so shall you,” he added calmly.

“There’s still time.” She hesitated, the desperation in her voice betraying her. “It’s up to you…” The building all around blazed with ferocity. The smell of wood and smoke hovering over them. Across from each other they sat, face to face, eye to eye. And so he lifted his jug of water. And poured himself another glass.

23 > the antlerette // fall 2020

GR E G SANTO S / / STAFF

WHY THE STATES ARE DIVIDED INSTEAD OF UNITED

“T

here’s not a Liberal America and a Conservative America, there’s a United States of America.” - Barack Obama. I am not a fan of discussing politics and getting into pointless arguments with others about it. But one major problem I have come across that I feel strongly passionate about is the division of the states of America. Did you notice how I didn’t say the United States of America? That’s because our country has been so oblivious to our own egos and ignorant opinions that we forgot about the bigger picture and the true meaning of America and its morals.

Another vital reason why we are divided is because people aren’t open to listening to others opinions if they’re different than their own. For the most part, many people have their own viewpoint on politics. They can either be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or just not involved at all. It’s simple. But it seems as though people love to judge each other for having a certain opinion other than their own. George Washington saw this coming after he resigned from office. He warned us in his farewell letter when he stated that “political factions may seek to obstruct the execution of the laws created

a nation divided < 24

by the government or to prevent the branches of government from exercising the powers provided them by the constitution.” Like he predicted, it seems like we are now focused on bringing down the opposing party more than bettering this country. The sooner that we, as a country, can accept the fact that we’re all different and have different political viewpoints and opinions, the sooner we can become the country that is meant to be united.

We shouldn’t be judging people by their beliefs and instead, critique them by the content of their character. Some people are conservative, and some people are liberal. The way people were raised may affect the outcome of their opinion, and we need to accept it. Regardless of our own beliefs, we are all American and should respect each other’s opinions instead of criticizing them for not having the same one as you.

With that being said, I need to make one thing clear: although we have differences in opinion, some things are just not okay. Many opinions that people have sometimes appear to be their political beliefs, when they just lack human decency.

For example, discrimination against people whether it’s toward a certain ethnicity, religion, sexuality should be not accepted in this country. As said in the pledge of allegiance, America is a representation of freedom and justice for all. With that being said, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion should not be taken away from anyone. This failure of realization has caused this great country to be divided for so long. You might be wondering, when was the last time America was united? The answer is September 11, 2001. As you know, the tragedy of 9/11 occurred in New York City that day, when the Twin Towers were attacked and killed 2,753 people. This was a very frightening experience for everyone in America, and is an event in history that will never be forgotten. Regardless of how sad things may get, it is always great to look at a situation with a positive mindset. The positive thing that came out of 9/11 was that it was the last time America stood together as a country. On that day, it didn’t matter our race or religion or any other differences. We were all united. We were all American.

PH OTO I L L U STR AT I O N / / CL A I R E T H O M A S

Scan this code

and take The Antlerette survey so we can better connect with the student body and increase readership!