The Inside Press

Magazines serving the communities of Northern Westchester

Democracy

Heart to Heart with County Executive George Latimer

by

Successes to Applaud… but also: ‘What Keeps Him Up at Night’

Latimer at one of his many summer press briefings which have been both livestreamed on Facebook and available for viewing on YouTube. Visit WestchesterGov.com to keep up with County updates and initiatives.

There’s something reassuring about talking to George Latimer. When we spoke on the phone in late July, the Westchester County Executive’s responses to my questions about Covid-19 were intelligent and thoughtful, qualities that the federal response has been sorely lacking.

Latimer doesn’t wear rose-colored glasses, but he is encouraged by the county’s response to date. “You hate to use that phrase cautiously optimistic, but we are in fact cautiously optimistic because the basic sense we have is that we’re doing ok with the strategies we’re using.”

Those strategies were tested in June with the Chappaqua outbreak during high school graduation season. The Westchester County Executive says Chappaqua was a cautionary tale, but overall, the system worked. “We’re not cocky about it, but the Chappaqua situation appeared to be handled well and while there were bumps along the road, nobody died, nobody was hospitalized, and we did not have an outbreak that reached triple digits.”

The rallies and marches following the murder of George Floyd were also a success story–over 30 of them in the county–all peaceful. And Latimer says most people wore masks at those events. The upshot? “We saw no spike that we could trace back to the rallies.”

Latimer finds hope in statistics as the county’s positive Covid-19 numbers flatten out, and in the behavior of his constituents. “I know mask wearing is not universal, but it’s more the norm than not. And I know that social distancing depends on the group and the circumstances, but we’re seeing better implementation of that.”

What keeps the man who oversees a county of close to one million residents up at night? Knowing that we can’t conquer the virus until we have a vaccine and anti-viral treatments. Until then, it’s going to be a challenge.

“We’re managing it as best as you can, but it can morph out of control at the snap of our fingers.”

George Latimer with Westchester County Health Commissioner Sherlita Amler, MD   Photo by Grace Bennett/Inside Press

Failure from the Top

And he has little faith in the White House, which he says never took control of the pandemic.

Latimer says there are thousands of things President Trump could have done but didn’t. He says sure, he’s a Democrat and the president is Republican, so there will be differences in approaches. But he says it’s a matter of practical government.

He points out that the governors of Vermont, Massachusetts and Maryland–all Republicans–have done the right thing. But he says now, because President Trump didn’t lay out a comprehensive national plan, “we’re fighting a rearguard action, each state doing their own thing, and we’re trying to do our best. We’re trying to put this thing in our rearview mirror.”

That’s going to be difficult as long as some states are doing as poorly as they have been this summer, Latimer is concerned about how the divide in attitudes in the U.S., a divide that is often along political lines, is impacting the country, and could send Westchester moving in the wrong direction.

“You know that there’s a certain mindset in parts of the country that says, I’m not wearing a mask. I don’t want to do it, it’s restrictive, I don’t believe in it philosophically.” He adds, “When you start listening to that kind of rhetoric, I do get concerned because it flies in the face of our experience.”

School Concerns

And then of course, there are the concerns about school. As of this interview, the county’s schools were beginning to unveil their plans for the fall, but as every parent knows, it’s a frustratingly fluid situation and nothing is certain. Although the decision on whether schools can open rests with Governor Cuomo, the county is helping superintendents prepare for the fall and devising protocols for reopening. Latimer says the schools are counting on county government to provide certain services such as contact tracing, when needed.

I asked him what he’s been hearing from parents and teachers on the subject. He says there are two distinct lines of thinking.

“I think you’ve got a number of people who want to see the schools resume, kids back in class. They see the problems of kids who aren’t in structured learning situations, the disadvantages which that creates for poor kids or disabled children.”

On the other hand, he says, “We’re very concerned, the virus is not in control. It can spread through children and of course it could spread through every household or many households in Westchester because of the universality of K-12 education. Both of those things work against each other, and I don’t know if it’s 50-50 in the community, but those two points of view are expressed by different people all the time.”

Small Business Outlook

I asked the County Executive what he thinks the retail, restaurant and overall economic situation in Westchester will look like in the near future. He says we’ve lost businesses, and we will lose more. The county has put together a small grant loan program–$10,000 grants, $25,000 loans–as they understand that restaurants and other small businesses run on a very small profit margin and can’t afford to lose business for even a few months. And they have been giving out free PPE to businesses in the county. Latimer hopes that as more commerce can reopen, they will be able to save more restaurants, stores and other businesses from going under. That is a process that is not only going to affect businesses, but the county as well.

“We’re not going to fully reopen until we’re comfortable. And we’re going to suffer. We lose sales tax revenue, we lose hotel occupancy tax revenue, we don’t maximize the kind of parks revenue that we would normally get. So as a government, we have a big budget hole as many local towns and villages do, and the state does.”

One of the bigger challenges the country faces in light of Covid-19 is the upcoming election in November, and Latimer looks at it from two angles: what he and his staff have to do to make it all work in the county, and his concerns about what happens on the national level.

“In the county, we have our work cut out for us,” he says.

The county is working with the Board of Elections to make sure there is additional staff to mail out absentee ballots and increase the number of polling inspectors. He also says county workers will have off Election Day so they can increase staffing to open as many polls as possible.

“The number of people coming out for this election is going to be phenomenal. This is one of the most compelling elections of my lifetime. It may be the most compelling one.”

And this is where his concerns come into play about the national election. “I take for granted that the strategy should be that the greatest number of people vote in order to get the greatest inclusion in the final decision. But there are people who believe, for their political gain, that they don’t want the greatest number people to vote. They want to suppress the vote.”

Latimer says there are a thousand ways to make it hard for people to vote. He says the deployment of troops to Portland could be a tactic used in November across the country.

“Are they going to be deployed on Election Day? Are they going to show up in front of the polls in areas where the president’s opposition might be strong and their presence there is meant to dissuade people from voting?”

Never one to mince words, Latimer had a great deal to say on this subject. He insists that this is not an election anyone can afford to miss, and he encourages Westchester residents to vote early, in October.

“I don’t want to write a Stephen King novel, but the bottom line is I think that Americans are concerned that we don’t get a fair, free opportunity to express our opinion.” As for the result, he says every president in U.S. history has accepted election results. But now President Trump says he doesn’t know if he’ll accept the country’s decision.

“I don’t want to hear anybody, certainly not this guy, say I don’t know if I’ll accept it. That is an anti-American dictatorship-type of response and there is no place for it in a democracy.”

Does George Latimer think democracy will survive this period of our history? “What happens in the next six months,” he says, “will tell the tale.”

Chappaqua’s David Shimer Explains Why he Wrote “Rigged” and the Potential for Election Interference

by

David Shimer discussing “Rigged” on CNN with Michael Smerconish.

This month, I had the pleasure of catching up with Chappaqua’s David Shimer, the author of the new and much heralded book Rigged: America, Russia, and One Hundred Years of Covert Electoral Interference (Knopf; June 30, 2020), which examines the century-long history of election interference. In glowing reviews, the Washington Post  called Rigged “newsworthy,” “absorbing,” and “damning,” and NPR described Rigged as an “authoritative book” and “fascinating reading.” General David Petraeus, a former CIA director, labeled Rigged “a clear-eyed, highly readable, meticulous history of foreign electoral interference, in which revelations abound.” And Timothy Snyder, the author of On Tyranny, has said that Rigged “should be read by everyone who wants to defend democracy now.” 

Shimer is also a member of the Chappaqua community. He was the valedictorian of his class at Horace Greeley High School (class of 2014), received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in history from Yale, and is currently pursuing his doctorate in international relations at the University of Oxford as a Marshall Scholar. Shimer has reported for the New York Times from five countries, and his foreign policy analysis has appeared in the Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, and the New Yorker. With so much at stake ahead of November, Rigged strikes me as an essential and timely book, so I thought I would pick Shimer’s brain about Rigged and the threat of Russian meddling in the 2020 election.  (The link to purchase is here.) – Grace Bennett

What precipitated the writing of Rigged?

The idea for Rigged first emerged in my mind in the summer of 2017. At the time, I was reporting for the New York Times from Berlin, and Russia had just interfered in America’s presidential election. While in Germany, I spent several hours interviewing a former Stasi officer named Horst Kopp. He told me about a covert operation he helped execute in 1972, to interfere in a vote of no confidence in West German Chancellor Willy Brandt. Because of the Stasi’s intervention, the vote failed, and Brandt remained in power. This story fascinated me: A foreign intelligence service had changed the outcome of a democratic vote of succession. I spent the next year researching the Stasi’s operation under the supervision of Timothy Snyder, a professor at Yale.

I then went to Oxford to pursue my doctorate, by which point I was set on studying the evolution of foreign operations to interfere in electoral processes. My research took on a life of its own. I became obsessed with this topic, because I was and remain convinced that studying the past is essential to understanding Russia’s attack in 2016 and to defending our elections moving forward. I ended up traveling across six countries examining KGB, CIA, and Stasi archives and interviewing more than 130 people, including eight former CIA directors and a former KGB general. The result is Rigged, which restores history to the subject of covert electoral interference, examines Barack Obama’s struggle to defend against Russian interference and Donald Trump’s refusal to recognize this threat, and explains what our country should be doing to secure its elections today.

If you could choose three takeaway messages you’d like readers to remember from your book, what would they be?

The first is that Russia’s 2016 operation marked the evolution rather than the creation of a practice. For about a century, with brief interruptions, Moscow has been targeting elections all over the world, including in the United States. The KGB sought to interfere in America’s 1960, 1968, 1976, and 1984 elections, as I detail in my book, with tactics eerily reminiscent of Putin’s. Across these operations are patterns that can and should instruct our response to the Russia threat. The most basic one is that covert electoral interference always involves efforts to manipulate voters or to alter actual ballots. To defend an election is to defend against both forms of attack.

Second, the United States was more exposed in 2016 than is publicly understood. I interviewed 26 former advisors to Barack Obama, including John Brennan, Susan Rice, Jim Clapper, Leon Panetta, and David Petraeus. From those conversations I learned that in the summer and fall of 2016, the Obama administration’s foremost concern was that Russian hackers would alter the voter data and even the vote tallies of American citizens. On Election Day itself, a secret crisis team in the White House was bracing for Russian intelligence to manipulate our voting systems. All the while, Russian actors were manipulating American voters across social media and with hacked emails, and Putin suffered no consequences for doing so until after the election.

And finally, it is essential for readers to recognize the purpose behind Russia’s electoral operations: to undermine our democracy and the democracies of the world. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union interfered in elections in order to advance communism, an ideology. Putin has adopted a subtler strategy. He is interfering in elections here and abroad in order to promote divisive and authoritarian-minded candidates, sow chaos, and delegitimize the democratic process of succession. Putin likes candidates like Trump because they degrade their democracies from within.

Can you tell us about the special relevance of your book to the upcoming election?

Reports have already emerged that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election. The sovereignty of our democracy is on the line. What I do in my book is provide a basis to understand operations like Russia’s, to reanalyze 2016 with an eye toward the future, and to elucidate how Americans can help to safeguard their democracy this November and beyond.

What can Russia do to interfere in the 2020 election?

The first question on my mind is how Russia will seek to manipulate public opinion between now and November. In 2016, to sow division and advantage Trump, Russian actors stole and released Democratic Party emails and spread propaganda across social media. Something history reveals is that these types of tactics, to influence voters, are constantly evolving. It remains to be seen what’s next.

The second question is whether Russia will escalate from influencing voters to altering actual votes. In 2016, Russian hackers penetrated election systems across the United States. The day of the election, Obama’s security chiefs believed that Russia could manipulate the ballot box in Trump’s favor. There is no guarantee that Putin will refrain from authorizing such an attack this time around. In fact, he may feel emboldened to act more aggressively, because Barack Obama, who at least tried to defend our elections, is no longer president. In his place is a president who has openly invited Russia and China to take steps that would help him electorally. Some of the Trump administration officials I interviewed acknowledged that Putin must realize that Trump will not punish him for manipulating the 2020 election, so long as he benefits. Putin is the type of leader who pushes as far as he can without provoking much pushback. And with Trump, there is never any pushback when it comes to Russia.

What can we do to protect our elections?

Joseph Stalin and his successors spent decades trying to spread communism, so we contained communism. Today, Putin is working to tear apart democracies from within, so we need to renew our democracy and help our allies do the same. This process starts at home. The United States should be fortifying its electoral infrastructure, to ensure that Russia cannot alter the votes of American citizens, while also reducing the effectiveness of operations to manipulate voters. And abroad, the next president should lead a coalition of democracies against the threat of covert electoral interference. I explain how to achieve both of these aims in Rigged, which I hope my fellow community members will read!

 

Amy Siskind’s Book ‘The List’ Documents a ‘Chipping Away of our Democracy’

by

Standing room only at Amy Siskind’s packed visit to the Mamaroneck Public Library when over 100 visitors arrived to learn more about The List.

By Renee Coscia

“Experts in authoritarianism advise to keep a list of things suddenly changing around you, so you remember.”

Author Amy Siskind holding her book, The List, with Westchester County Executive George Latimer (first on left). To the left of Amy is Catherine Parker, bookseller. and to her right is New York State Assemblyman Steve Otis. Photo by and courtesy of Lori Friedli, Mamaroneck Public Library

 The first time I heard this quote from Amy Siskind, author of The List: A Week by Week Reckoning of Trump’s First Year in November of 2016 we were already experiencing ‘not normal’ things in our democracy.

I clearly remember then President-elect Trump’s attempts to erode our freedom of speech by criticizing The New York Times, Saturday Night Live and the cast of Hamilton.  

Since that time, the chipping away of our democracy has been not so subtle and things that outraged us back then have been normalized. Amy’s quote about authoritarianism echoes in my mind each and every day since that time.  

I’ve been fortunate to have shared conversations with Amy around the changes in our great nation and it was an honor to see her come home to Westchester last evening to host an event at the Mamaroneck Public Library.

The lively 90-minute discussion ranged from the mainstream media not covering all too important topics to how we, the people, can take action to the importance of the 2018 upcoming election to the growing racism and erosion of basic rights to large groups of people.

Amy has a way of inspiring people and the standing room only crowd was invigorated and left last evening ready to take action.

Amy has been and still is my reliable source for the erosion of the America we once knew. Her personal charge to record a week by week decimation of our democracy is truly an act of patriotism.  If you are not following Amy on Twitter or Facebook I encourage you to do so. Get your hands on a copy of her book, so that together we will be able to find our way back to the great nation we know can be.  

‘You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, ‘I lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along.’ Eleanor Roosevelt

Renee Coscia is a life-long Westchester resident living in White Plains with her husband John and Three children, Emily, Jake and Rebecca. Renee has been a teacher in a suburban Westchester public school district for 29 years.  

 

Why Mandatory Voting Would Work in Democratic Nations

by

Voters would be more adequately informed about the decisions they are asked to make.

BY ARI BENNETT

The United States and other democratic countries should implement mandatory voting. 

Perhaps the strongest argument against mandatory voting is that every individual has a right to simply not express his or her opinion.  If a person does not want to contribute to the political process and is okay with others doing that for him or her, then why should the government interfere?  But people should not be shocked by the suggestion to impose requirements on our citizens.  There is some precedent for this, with the ultimate good of a working society. 

usa-mapIt seems ironic that many people who do not vote still feel they have a right to complain about policies undertaken by the government.  I see nothing wrong with requiring this slight but very meaningful investment into the political process.  Mandatory voting, having the whole of the public’s voice heard, would be good for the health and progress of a nation.

Mandatory voting is a rather liberal idea that many Republicans and Democrats in America might reject.  However, we should not be offended to be required to do something when it will improve our society.  It is often forgotten that the United States government already requires its citizens to contribute to America in various ways.  From filling out the census to paying taxes to registering for the draft to mandatory education, the United States has in many ways forced citizens to be active participants in the betterment of America.

In the United States, citizens are legally required to fill out the census form every ten years.  Someone not filling out the census is subject to a fine of $5,000.  The primary purpose of the census, written in the Constitution, is so that every ten years we can adjust how many members of Congress each state receives so that each state is properly represented.  Knowing the population of each state helps maintain our democracy, and lets us know how the government should allocate its funding.

In addition, every state requires that all people are in school until at least the age of 16.  While perhaps parents might want to raise their children differently, without a formal education, the government requires one to learn certain material so that he or she can become an educated citizen who can be more capable of contributing to society.

While these comparisons are not perfectly analogous, each asks citizens to do something in exchange for what the government provides them.  Ideally, we would like universal voting among citizens, but we would also like to see those voters to be adequately informed about the decisions they are asked to make. 

I would suggest that the requirement to vote be coupled with programs that increase the knowledge of all voters, particularly new voters who may have felt ill-informed in the past.  This can be accomplished by widespread informational sessions held at public places such as libraries prior to major elections.  Further, candidates could be required to send out mass mailings with a set of bullet points outlining their stance on important issues of the day.

I have heard, from many people my age, that they do not vote because they do not feel educated or informed enough to make such decisions.  Certain groups are less likely to vote than others, and two of those groups include the less educated and younger people.  It is true that the government can still function without a large voter turnout, but it creates an environment in which the government does not work for all people in mind.  The groups who tend to have lower voter turnout will lose out in influencing the adoption of policies that might help them.  I believe all citizens should have a moral obligation to actively inform themselves. 

Additionally, campaigns spend a lot of money on issues directed towards people who intend to vote, and this has created a polarized political atmosphere that is unhealthy for democracy in America.  The benefits include a higher level of discourse and understanding. 

By requiring Americans to vote and educate themselves, we foster a more informed electorate.

Ari Bennett is a junior at Union College studying Studio Arts and Statistics.

“If Our Neighbor Becomes President” Girls from the Chappaqua Summer Writing Program Weigh In!

by

chappaqua-summer-writing-program-for-girls-photo-three

Editor’s Note: For our cover story, we asked Keri Walsh, Ph.D., director of the Chappaqua Summer Writing Program for Girls, to ask her participants in a summer workshop inside the Greeley House to ponder the Election, and specifically for their thoughts on the impact of the possibility of their neighbor Hillary Clinton becoming a first Woman President. Most of the girls and their families preferred a first name only attached to their submissions. Special thanks to contributing editor Beth Besen in Chappaqua for editing assistance, too. Here’s what the girls wrote and shared!

All of Us Should Vote

By Alina

According to The American Presidency Project, only 54.87% of eligible voters placed a vote in the 2012 presidential campaign. Many Americans today are not voting, but here’s why each of us should.

The United States is a democracy, which means that each and every citizen who is age 18 or older has the right to vote for the candidate they want as their President. However, if enough of us aren’t voting, then can this truly be called a democracy?

As an American citizen, it is your duty to vote for the leader you want to represent your views and goals. By not voting, you are throwing away your right as a citizen. Because many are under the impression that “their vote doesn’t matter so what’s the point,” plenty of Americans tend to lay back and let others do the voting.

However, if every person who believed that their vote didn’t matter stood up and decided to vote after all, we’d have close to 100% participation in the upcoming election, which is much more than having “no impact” as many tend to believe.

Voting is especially vital to us here in Chappaqua because one of the presidential candidates happens to live in our town.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is our neighbor, and, as Chappaqua is primarily a Democratic town, it is important for us to vote for her, the Democratic candidate, in this election. Many people in Chappaqua support Hillary’s ideals, and what better way to show our support for our neighbor than to place a vote in the elections? It is really unwise to rely on everyone else to vote for Hillary because, as much as it may seem so, she will not simply become president “no matter what.”

If each individual person does not get out and vote, no one will make any progress, and this country would certainly no longer be called a “democracy.” Addressing the situation of getting more people to vote can be simple: Explain to others that their vote matters and that casting their vote helps benefit Hillary greatly. She, in turn, helps us by supporting our views and making them a reality. Help support our next door neighbor by voting in the next election.

Alina is a junior at Horace Greeley High School whose political knowledge extends to conversations (which sometimes turn to heated debates) with her friends. She moved to Chappaqua fairly recently, but has already seen Hillary.

Clinton vs. Trump

By Amber Mildenhall

Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, it’s a race to the White House. Both are leading the course by becoming their parties’ representatives. In addition to the obvious difference, namely the political parties they support (Hillary Clinton being Democratic and Donald Trump Republican), the two candidates have opposite opinions on so many matters.

I moved to the United States at the age of eight. I didn’t even think about politics until I was in second grade, the same year Barack Obama became President.

My elementary school simulated the election of 2008; each student was given a chance to enter a booth where we could either circle a picture of Barack Obama or his republican opponent John McCain, and therefore “vote” for each candidate.

Unaware that an election was even going on, I chose Barack Obama (whom I didn’t even realize was Barack Obama) based on whatever preference I had as an eight-year old (although I still do support my decision now, eight years later). I went home that day and asked my parents what this alien booth-circling activity even meant. They gave me facts and pointers comparing Obama and McCain, which all seemed quite complicated to my eight-year-old self. So, without further ado, here are the facts of this year’s candidates for all those as confused as I was eight years ago.

Gun control has been a major debate between many politicians. The Second Amendment to the Constitution allowing the right to bear arms is viewed by many as no longer relevant. The United Kingdom has already instituted many laws to prohibit firearms. Hours of paperwork, applying for a license, and proving that you are not a threat to society has limited the violence that results from firearms. The United Kingdom’s firearm-related death rate per 100,000 per year in 2011 was 0.23, and the United States’ rate in 2014 was 10.54. Hillary Clinton wishes to abolish the Second Amendment and have gun control more similar to the UK’s.

Hillary Clinton said, “More than 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. It’s time to act. As President, I’ll take on the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals—including comprehensive background checks and closing loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands.” Donald Trump has an opposite opinion, and wishes to keep the right to bear arms. Donald Trump wrote, “Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed.” Donald Trump believes that it is every US Citizen’s right to bear arms, whereas Hillary Clinton views the existence of the second amendment as dangerous.

Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s postions on immigrants, like gun control, are also opposite. Donald Trump wants to build a wall on the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it. Hillary Clinton stands for the less extreme measure of a fence along the Mexican border. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists,” Trump said of undocumented Mexican immigrants while announcing his candidacy last June. Donald Trump wishes to allow legal immigration, triple the number of ICE officers (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers), and end birthright citizenship.

Hillary Clinton supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants whereas Donald Trump believes they should be deported effective immediately. Clinton also wishes to toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, and supports Obama’s executive decision which would have allowed for illegal immigrants who are parents to legal citizens to remain in the USA for a certain amount of time.

Terrorist threats are a major factor in the immigration issue the USA is currently facing, but Clinton continues to believe that, “First, we rely on partners in Muslim countries to fight terrorists. The immigration ban would make it harder.” 

Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s views on gun control and immigration are opposite. Healthcare is yet another subject in which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton must agree to disagree. Donald Trump wishes to get rid of Obamacare, the unofficial name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, whereas as Clinton wishes to expand it. When one of these two candidates becomes President, completely different policies will be instituted.

Amber is a legal alien, a citizen of the United Kingdom, and a sophomore at Horace Greeley High School who is currently obsessed with Pokemon Go.

 The Impact on the Earth

By Reilly

I’ve never been one for politics. I don’t like the divisions it instills, the animosity it provokes, or the assertive natures of the politically-savvy. However, I find myself wanting to care more and more about politicians’ stances as the years pass by, if only for my deep concern for the deteriorating state of the environment.

Humankind has been steadily destroying the earth for hundreds of years, and I’ve been realizing just how influential politicians are in determining the future of the natural world (which seems to be growing less and less natural by the day) that surrounds us. For example, the economy can only thrive and the government can only operate so much in a languishing environment such as the one we inhabit today.

According to nasa.gov, arctic sea ice now has a 13.4% rate of depreciation, due to the ever-rising global temperatures (an average of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in 1880). A major cause of climate change is deforestation, which has a rate that is equal to losing 20 football fields every minute.

The United States’ rate of deforestation is one that, if continued, will ensure that only a quarter of the forests standing today will be there in 70 years. So, someone arguing that climate change is a myth is quite possibly the most severe form of ignorance one could claim.

Donald Trump has seemed to make it his goal to hasten the downfall of the natural world. Trump has been quoted saying climate change (commonly referred to as “global warming”) is “nonsense” and an “expensive hoax”, and said that the EPA’s attempt to preserve the earth “is a disgrace”. His total disregard for the environment and his pledge to defund the EPA’s role in government is blasphemous, and unacceptable. Therefore, if a reader is even in the slightest bit leaning towards Trump, remember the environment, and think of the Earth that your children will be struggling to survive in and will be scrambling to save as it approaches the brink.

Our neighbor, Hillary Clinton, has vowed to keep the environment as one of her primary concerns: “As President, I’ll say no to drilling in the Arctic. I’ll stop the tax giveaways to big oil and gas companies. And I’ll make significant investments in clean energy. Our children’s health and future depend on it.” Could she have said it better? Hillary, unlike Mr. Trump, is the only hope for the preservation of the environment, and for us.

If my age didn’t inhibit me from voting in the 2016 election, I would vote Hillary if only for my concern about the environment. After acquainting myself more with the political scene for the past year, I’ve learned that Hillary has much more to offer than her pledges for the natural world. But we all know about healthcare, and immigration, and abortion rights. We, as citizens not of the United States but of the world, need to start educating ourselves about the current state of the natural world- need to step up, face the problems, and conquer them- and I believe that voting Hillary is one of the first steps in that equation.

Reilly is a junior at John Jay High School, who hates discussing politics and loves the environment and crossword puzzles.

Working Towards Ending Prejudice in Politics

By Katie

When I was less than a year old, my mom thrust me into Hillary Clinton’s arms so that if she ever became president, I would have been held by the first woman president of the United States. Compared to other countries, we are far behind in getting women into top political positions.

Consider Angela Merkel, who was ranked number one by Forbes as the most powerful woman in politics and has been elected to a third term as Germany’s chancellor. Germany has taken a strong stance on refugees, and she has been considered a pragmatic leader. Many consider Merkel’s success a huge step for women everywhere, as she has prevailed throughout the doubt many women leaders receive.

However, Merkel has been hesitant to promote women’s rights. She even denied being a feminist, saying, “A feminist, no. Perhaps an interesting case of a woman in power, but no feminist. Real feminists would be offended if I described myself as one.” It is sad that often women in politics have to play down their feminism in order to be taken seriously. Now, in Angela Merkel’s third term, she is starting to come around and support women’s rights, and is going to focus on improving gender equality in the workplace.

Other countries have prominent women leaders, including Taiwan, Myanmar, Nepal, and Croatia. And Sri Lanka turned heads when they elected Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1960. Since then, there have been over 70 female prime ministers and presidents. However, for a world where women make up roughly half of the population, the representation is strongly lacking. But, there is hope for the future…

More recently, a woman, Theresa May, came into power in the U.K., as David Cameron stepped down. The more women politicians there are, the more accepted women will be in other positions of power. In Forbes’ List of Powerful Women, four out of the top five women from 2016 were American, showing that, in America, women are able to rise to power. Yet, the United States is one of the few progressive countries that has not had a woman leader. While the epitome of gender equality would be choosing a candidate based solely on qualifications instead of gender, the lack of a female President in the United States is telling of the prejudice women in politics (and other high-power positions) face. Let’s end the streak of over 200 years of men in power in the United States, and give young girls a role model to show them that they can dream big; living-in-the-White-House-one-day big.

Katie is a seventeen year old high school student who attends Horace Greeley. She was born and raised in Westchester County, and has seen Hillary in town on multiple occasions.

Why Her Gender Matters (And Why It Doesn’t)

By Anabelle

We are fortunate to live in a time when young girls are taught to be more than wives. Slowly, because it is a big undertaking to completely overturn the idea that women are inherently less valuable than their male counterparts, women are being appreciated for more than their relation to men. The change is gradually being made, pioneered by strong confident women all across the globe.

As a teenage girl myself, having strong female role models has completely changed my point of view. My views on what women can and can’t do differ from those of my grandparents, and that is a shift that isn’t unique to my family. Women everywhere are finally gaining representation in government, and women are even the leaders of nations such as Chile, South Korea and Germany. And while the cores of their policies often aren’t inherently different from those of the men in their respective political parties, having a woman leader can have a longstanding impact on the youth growing up under her rule.

Young girls are likely to emulate the behavior of the older women in their lives. They are a reflection of the people who raised them, and having role models such as Hillary Clinton can help raise a generation of girls who want to take action and make a difference in the world.

To a traditionally underrepresented group of people, having a woman president would be an act of validation and a crucial step in the long, meticulous process towards achieving gender equality. Clinton, in particular, supports the right to choose to have an abortion, something her rival Trump does not respect. Many working women see Clinton as the representation they’ve been denied for so long.

But objectively, electing a government official simply because of their gender is never a smart choice regardless of which way that sways you. Clinton and Obama, while both minorities in their own way, do not differ in opinions simply because of gender. Clinton is no more or less qualified than any man with a similar education and the same job experience. Countries with female presidents have not seen more success than those with male presidents. Some people may be put off by Clinton’s email scandal and see it as another example of the stereotype that women are fickle or coy and unable to handle difficult situations and assess the best solution. But as any member of a minority can attest, there is never an umbrella stereotype that fits all people, and it is unfair to pass judgments or make blanket statements.

To many, a woman president represents another step towards equality. But it is important to look at the candidates as people and not as a representation of an ideology; Clinton doesn’t represent feminism, but, as a stand-alone candidate, she can make a positive impact in the lives of many.

Anabelle is a sophomore at Horace Greeley High School. Most of her political knowledge comes from conversations with her dad in the car, but all her knowledge about being a young woman comes from real life experience.

Will She Have Support?

By Lucy Kaminsky

Chappaqua residents see her shopping on King Street, taking a walk with her husband by the First Congregational Church, and eating at Le Jardin Du Roi. She’s marched in the Memorial Day parade for years, and she’s a neighbor to dozens of Chappaqua families. On top of all that, she is the Democratic Nominee for president of the United States. Hillary Clinton has been a resident of Chappaqua for almost two decades, and, this month, Chappaqua can choose to support her in her biggest political endeavor yet.

She has an unwavering group of supporters, lovingly named “Chappaqua Friends of Hillary,” and an even larger group of supporters with Hillary for America shirts, bumper stickers, lawn signs and of course, votes in the New York primary.

Despite her pronounced following, she also faces a small but vocal opposition.That her popularity is questionable is especially when driving by a, for lack of a better word, monstrous, Trump sign on the way into downtown Chappaqua.

Kathy Thorsberg, a local mother, discussed that she sees a group of Republican women who, no matter the candidate, won’t go blue on election day, and she “thought more women would be on the [Hillary] bandwagon.”

When asked about the Trump sign, Thorsberg stated that she “wishes it were gone” and she “can’t believe” the local support for Trump.Thorsberg is a longtime Clinton supporter who once had the former secretary of state hold her then-infant, now nearly seventeen-year-old daughter, Katie, at her church.

What Thorsberg feels most Chappaqua residents who are voting for Trump criticize Clinton for her is her infamous email scandal, though she thinks it was “not that issue” that swayed them to vote Republican. Thorsberg estimates that around 60 percent of Chappaqua will vote for Clinton, and further says she doesn’t feel that is unique to Chappaqua, but that surrounding towns like Armonk and Briarcliff will have a similar turnout.

Rob Shepardson, local father and businessman, who was also named by Barack Obama to the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition, spoke about how he feels Clinton is perceived in Chappaqua. Shepardson explained that he thinks “that people really, really like Hillary, and really, really like Bill.” He also thinks that people in Chappaqua see Hillary as their neighbor, and even with the Trump Golf Course a few miles away, feel little allegiance to Trump.

An enthusiastic supporter of Hillary, Shepardson says there’s an “enormous pride”, towards Hillary in Chappaqua residents and particularly women residents. He estimates that eighty-five percent of Chappaqua will vote for her.

Shepardson and Thorsberg are not alone- Hillary may have a few loud opposers, but she seems to have the majority of her neighbors’ votes.

Lucy is a senior at Briarcliff High School, where she is co-editor of the Briarcliff Bulletin. She is passionate about various issues, including environmentalism, feminism, and political awareness in teens.

Shouldn’t Local Businesses Contribute Too?

By Letitia

With Hillary Clinton in the upcoming presidential election, Chappaqua has gained a lot of attention. Local residents are excited to have a political icon in their town, and many have been eager to share their support for Hillary.

On the other hand, local businesses were less than willing to speak about this subject. I called a few stores to find out their opinion of Hillary Clinton as well as the influence she has on the daily activities of the village. After I stated my agenda, many employees refused to say anything else besides telling me I needed to speak to the owner or manager of the store. As luck would have had it, the person in charge was unavailable for the next few days at each of these stores.  

As a 15-year-old new to journalism, receiving this type of reaction was disheartening. But the common reaction from each business sparked a question: Why were workers so hesitant to share their opinion on Hillary Clinton? When they picked up the phone, they were cheerful and welcoming. As soon as I stated my business, their demeanor completely changed and they became extremely guarded.

This type of response, of course, isn’t unusual. It’s basic etiquette: When making small talk, you shouldn’t discuss income, religion, and politics. Evidently, it becomes even more complicated within a company, as the opinions of employees may not accurately represent the business. It would be more fitting for the employer, manager, or owner to define the views of the company.

But the fact that Hillary Clinton is a resident of Chappaqua should change some of these policies. The majority of Chappaqua residents support Hillary, so why can’t local businesses? Having local businesses openly support Hillary would show pride for their village as well as honor the presence of a well-known political figure. Besides running in the upcoming election, Hillary has been the First Lady, a senator, and the Secretary of State. Since her husband’s presidency ended, she has been living in Chappaqua and has been accomplishing great things. Hillary has become a source of pride for Chappaqua, so local businesses should be displaying their pride for her.

There are also selfish motives for why local Chappaqua businesses should support Hillary. Considering how many residents are Democrats, supporting Hillary would attract her followers. If a business’s support for Hillary is strong, they may be able to secure a dedicated following of regular customers for themselves. Furthermore, Hillary’s fame can be extrapolated and used to advertise to the rest of America as well. Theoretically, local restaurants could claim that Hillary ate there and complimented them. With today’s age of social media, the publicity would spread quickly and attract curious tourists or fervent Hillary supporters. And then there’s the possibility that she wins the presidency. Supporting Hillary would also mean allying with a potential record-breaker; if she’s elected, she’ll be the first woman president of America.

It’s a rare opportunity to have a resident of Chappaqua run for president, and local businesses have no reason to hide their pride for Hillary. Chappaqua’s businesses and residents can be united in their support for their neighbor.

Letitia is not an American citizen so she can’t contribute to the presidential election in any way other than by writing articles. She has never done anything journalistic or political before, but she thinks that fifteen isn’t too late to start.

The Chappaqua Summer Writing Program for Girls

Directed by Dr. Keri Walsh (M.Phil Oxford, PhD. Princeton)

keri-walsh-photoDr. Walsh has taught at Princeton University and Claremont McKenna College, and is now a professor of English Literature at Fordham University in New York. She is the editor of James Joyce’s Dubliners (Broadview Press, 2016) and The Letters of Sylvia Beach (Columbia University Press, 2010). Next year’s Chappaqua Summer Writing Program for Girls will take place at the Horace Greeley House in July. Please contact chappaquasummerprogram@gmail.com or (914) 314-7009 for further details, and follow the program on Twitter at @chappaqua girls.