Sex and politics

Does skin color or sex really matter in politics? Would you consider (or not consider) voting for a candidate based on their ethnicity or anatomy?

The 2008 presidential election promises to be like none other in US history. Already, the candidate pool is like a can of mixed nuts (pun intended).

What makes this race unique is not the candidates' political views - many of which appear to be very similar - but instead, the ongoing discussion over the visible features of the frontrunners.

Media coverage has brought to light that some Americans believe, among other things, that Democratic Senator Barack Obama isn't "black enough" to call himself a black presidential candidate, citing his parents' mixed ethnicity. Others insist that they will endorse New York's very own Hillary Rodham Clinton simply because "America needs a woman president."

Why does America need a woman president? What difference does it make if Senator Obama is "black" or not? Has the concept of equality flown out the window?

Yes, it's true that America is not blanketed with equality, but why must we exacerbate the situation by placing one's physical characteristics before their qualifications or intentions.

Should we base our impressions on stereotypes related to ethnicity or sex? It seems apparent that many Americans have already chosen this route.

Buffalo Mayor Byron W. Brown's record speaks for itself, but should the fact that he is Buffalo's first black mayor precede his reputation as a leader? Being black does not make Brown an excellent mayor - commitment, dedication, and his forthright attitude do.

It's certainly clear that being white doesn't necessarily make you a great leader - take Brown's Erie County counterpart Joel A. Giambra, for example.

Especially after all this country has been through, before we put stock in image, it's time that we look at people for who they are on the inside.

Public health trumps private belief

NYC Health Dept.'s actions in community's best interest

When religious officials chastised the New York City Health Department for expanding their sexually transmitted disease prevention initiative through a significant increase in gratis condom distribution, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was left to explain the separation of church and state.

The debate is over whether or not the city should endorse abstinence or promote safe sexual practices, and to that Bloomberg claimed that the condom campaign is not a faith-based matter, but is instead related to the health and well being of city residents.

Where do you draw the line?

Take, for instance, underage drinking. In schools across America, the D.A.R.E. program (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is meant to teach grade-school students about the dangers of drug and alcohol use. Children are taught to avoid alcohol until the legal drinking age of 21, and yet underage alcohol usage is a rampant problem in the US.

Here at UB, the Department of Public Safety recognizes that there exists little that can stop underage drinking, and while they don't condone this illegal act, they do encourage students to react intelligently when alcohol consumption leads to health-related complications.

Similarly, regardless of education initiatives meant to encourage abstinence, people will continue to have sex, even if it's deemed inappropriate by church officials - and it's not the job of the City of New York to enforce faith, but rather to promote health. Opinion and faith aside, the health department should offer everything they can to make their communities safer in the war against disease, even if it takes a Trojan horse.