Human rights considerations in presidential election

Donald Trump recited “The Snake” at a campaign rally while explaining his stance on Syrian Refugees. The song tells the story of a woman nursing an injured snake to health. When the snake turns healthy, he bites the woman:

“I saved you,” cried that woman, “And you’ve bit me even, why? You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die.”

“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin, “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.”

Alex Mazzarisi, 22, was disturbed when she saw the video of Mr. Trump comparing the ‘vicious snake’ to Syrian refugees, as he claimed allowing refugees into the country was a dangerous risk in fear of being betrayed by them.

“Donald Trump has disturbing views on people in need, he doesn’t care about human rights outside of the United States, or inside for that matter,” Mazzarisi, 22, said.

Mazzarisi, along with many other people interviewed on the American University campus on Wednesday, said that whether or not candidates support helping human rights violations abroad, such as allowing refugees to enter the country, is an important consideration in her decision for who she will vote for in the 2016 presidential election.

Still, some people interviewed felt issues like the economy, national security and education were more prevalent than human rights violations overseas. Most agreed that human rights were important though weren’t as urgent as others.

Those who prioritized human rights as a reason to vote for a particular candidate were educated on the topic, and many cited specific injustices that they felt should be addressed by the United States government. In their eyes, this Presidential Election has lacked debate on such issues.

“Human rights are typically not focused on enough during elections. The sad fact is that human rights aren’t considered by most Americans because they don’t impact most Americans, instead Americans are preoccupied about jobs that affect them,” Benjamin Ketchum, 32, said.

Ketchum, who studies and works at the School of International Service at American University, said that a strong human rights policy is among his criteria for a presidential candidate.

Along with Ketchum’s assertion that many Americans don’t view human rights as a critical issue, many others interviewed agreed that the presumptive nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have not spoken very much on the topic.

In fact, neither candidate has human rights in foreign countries listed as an issue they advocate for on their campaign’s website. The economy, education, health care, prison reform and immigration are all present.

While thinking of which candidate would best fit their criteria for human rights, many people recalled specific actions the candidates have taken or characteristics they bear that would reveal their treatment of human rights.

“Trump’s views scare me on how he will affect human rights issues like immigration and refugees coming into the U.S. I view refugees as a population everyone should seek to protect and assist,” Becca Puth, 25, said referring to Trump’s strict immigration policy.

Many of those interviewed agreed with Puth’s remarks on Trump’s actions, but also criticized Clinton for decisions she made as Secretary of State. Recalling her actions on the Honduran Coup and her support for the involvement in Iraq, were among her decisions that people said evolved into abuses on human rights.

Still, the majority of people agreed that whether or not they supported Clinton, she would be more fit to deal with human rights.

Jim Sheehan, 55, explained his priorities for president and human rights was a concern but not a priority.

“Well yes, human rights comes into play and it deserves to be addressed though the economy, national security and education are still my top three priorities,” Sheehan said.

Sheehan’s reaction to human rights aligned with findings from a study on America’s support for human rights conducted by Sam McFarland and Melissa Mathews for the Journal of Human Rights.

“Human rights as a foreign policy concern has low salience for many Americans; many consider human rights in weighing policy options only when reminded of its relevance,” McFarland and Mathews said.

The Pew Research Center found similar data showing that only 33 percent of the American public said promoting and defending human rights in other countries was important when listed among other foreign policy goals. Only 19 percent of the Council on Foreign Relations members voted to support human rights as a foreign policy goal.  

Terry Grandchamp, 61, showed that although the data found low numbers of support of human rights, those who did support the issue, did so quite enthusiastically. Grandchamp was ambiguous on who to vote for, affirming that both candidates lacked qualities he looked for. Yet regardless of the candidate’s faults, he said the next president must address human rights violations abroad with relentless vigor to help those who have been disregarded by their governments.

“It doesn’t matter race, color or creed, humans are humans and we must help them,” Grandchamp said.

Professional eating champion defends title at annual competition

Z-Burger hosted its seventh annual Independence Burger Eating Championship on Friday in Tenleytown where more than a dozen local and national competitive eaters participated.

Defending her title, Molly Schuyler, 36, scarfed down 28 burgers in 12 minutes, averaging one burger every 26 seconds. She was awarded with an oversized check for $1,500, and a trophy to by displayed at the front of Z-Burger.

The competition attracts professional eaters as well as local contestants to chomp quarter-pound patties and buns. Peter Tabibian, the found of Z-Burger, said there are usually seven or eight professional eaters that come from across the country, and around six locals.

Along with the contestants, crowds gathered in front of the sidewalk where the eaters competed, watching intensely as they soaked their burgers with water to soften the bun to make it easier to consume. Simultaneously, television reporters from local channels, as well as international stations, covered the event.

Ranked as the top “Food Warrior” by All Pro Eating, Schuyler, of Sacramento, has been eating professionally for three years. She explained her career snowballed from a challenge that she couldn’t eat a sandwich in a certain amount of time. After having seen her ability to do so, she quit her job at Applebee’s, and has since been traveling as a competitive eater.

During her professional season from late Spring through the Fall, Schuyler typically eats competitively once a week. While on her off-season, only once a month. She stands 5’7″ and weights 120 pounds. She credits her fitness to looking after her four kids.

She was asked what her biggest challenge is when eating and explained the daunting danger of choking while eating at such a fast rate.

“Probably not to choke- though you can control your body more than amateur eaters can,” Schuyler said.

According to Tabibian, the company took preventative measures to ensure the safety of all the eaters participating. Along with signing a waiver that Z-Burger is not liable for injuries, Tabibian said the company provides medical assistance in case it is needed.

“A lot of gross stuff happens out there, my biggest fear is someone choking, but we have EMS here,” Tabibian said.

Tabibian, originally from Iran, began his career working for Burger King. Though after accumulating enough experience, he felt confident with beginning his own burger joint. After opening his first front in 2000, he spread his chain to three restaurants throughout D.C.

He began the competition in 2009, and said that although the event is not particularly “appetizing to watch”, it is good for his brand name. Reflecting on his accomplishments of expanding the company that began small, he’s ambitious on his vision for Z-Burger’s success.

“I want to grow this company and make it a big chain someday,” Tabibian said. “But you have to go slow because I want to satisfy everyone that walks through our doors.”

Kenny Fried, 57, works with Z-Burger’s Public Relations and  has known Tabibian for most of his career at Z-Burger. The large man in his bright yellow Z-Burger t-shirt, didn’t stop smiling once while he explained his enjoyment of the event.

“I love talking to people who come from all over the country, they’re all so nice. Gentleman Joe is the nicest guy in the world,” Fried said about one contestant who comes every year as a professional eater.

 

 

 

 

 

Reactions to Supreme Court ruling on Texas abortion law

People on the American University campus offered mixed reactions on Tuesday to the Supreme Court’s historic ruling this week that overturned a Texas law regulating abortion clinics.

Paul Scearce, 52, said he had mixed reactions to the Supreme Court's abortion ruling. Photo by Sabrina Martin.
Paul Scearce, 52, said he had mixed reactions to the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling. Photo by Sabrina Martin.

Those who supported the Court’s ruling, did so for varying reasons. Some advocated for nationwide legislation that would ultimately settle the matter, whereas others denounced the Texas law specifically for its injustice towards women. 

“It’s a good thing because women should have the right to decide what they want to do with their body,” Lisa Freeman, 45, said in reference to the Court’s ruling.

Various people responded with similar remarks, expressing their support for women’s privacy and what they say are basic freedoms relating to her body. This argument has been a common theme among pro-choice advocates, as many cite the landmark case in 1973 of Roe v. Wade where a woman’s privacy was the basis for the Court’s ruling to support abortions.

Those interviewed also supported the decision because they thought women shouldn’t be left without a choice in what they described as a vulnerable situation. Whether conception was consensual or not, people agreed women must have options.

Simultaneously, many people were unsure of their stance, and felt both sides had viable arguments.

Jackie Palumbo, 43, was hesitant to fully comply with pro-choice advocates even though she believed Texas’ law was intentionally restricting abortions rather than trying to benefit women’s health.

“I’m hesitant because I am a parent of adopted kids, and I think there is always a home for kids,” Palumbo said. Palumbo understood the importance of giving women an option, but also knew from her personal experience that society could conform to help children that needed homes.

Others on campus viewed the decision sourly for reasons ranging from religion to legitimate health reasons.

“I don’t think it’s a good thing because that’s pretty much a human,” said 27-year-old Mark Cullins, who identified as Christian though said he was not particularly religious.

In short, the law’s provisions claimed to promote women’s health by restricting abortions clinics in Texas. The Court found that such regulations violated the standard  of “undue burden” formed by the decision in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Monday’s Supreme Court ruling declared that legislation couldn’t be too burdensome on an individual’s fundamental rights.

Following the ruling, the Supreme Court denied reviewing cases pertaining to abortion clinics in Mississippi, Wisconsin and Alabama enforcing its decision to overturn similar laws seen in Texas.