Oklahoma Legislator Defends Pregnancy from Incest or Rape as “beauty from ashes”

Image: Inquisitr

On the 21st of March, defending his proposed anti-abortion bill, Oklahoma state Representative, George Faught (R-Muskogee), said that even in pregnancies that result from rape or incest, “God can bring beauty from ashes.”

Faught’s bill, which would outlaw abortions sought by women based solely on a diagnosis of Down syndrome or other genetic abnormalities, passed by a wide margin on Tuesday. Oklahoma State Representative, Cory Williams (D-Stillwater), heavily criticized the Republican from Muskogee for not including an exception for pregnancies that resulted from rape and incest. The debate over the bill lasted more than two hours, and in a heated exchange between the two representatives during that time, Rep. Cory Williams (D-Stillwater) asked Faught whether rape or incest is the “will of God.” Rep. George Faught’s response said that rape and incest had nothing to do with this legislation.

Well, you know, if you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple of circumstances where that happened. And the Lord uses all circumstances.

Williams said that, because Faught is “proffering divine intervention” as the reason he will not include exceptions for rape and incest, fellow lawmakers deserve to know whether he believes that such acts, rape and incest, are God’s will.

Obviously if it happens in someone’s life, it may not be the best thing that ever happened, but, you know, so you’re saying that God is not sovereign with every activity that happens in someone’s life and can’t use anything and everything in someone’s life, and I disagree with that.

Rep. George Faught’s statement has drawn harsh criticism on Twitter and Facebook.

The bill that would create the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2017, H.B. 1549, would penalize doctors for performing abortions sought because of Down syndrome or other physical abnormalities. Punishments for doctors who perform the illegal abortions include their medical licenses being suspended or revoked and facing incredible fines: $10,000 for the first violation, $50,000 for the second, and $100,000 for the third and succeeding violations. Women who sought abortions for these reasons would not be punished.

Faught during the heated argument with Rep. Cory Williams on Tuesday said he introduced the legislation because of his belief about “protecting life.”

For me, the pressure doesn’t come from the party—it comes from my heart, and what I believe about God, and what I believe about life.

Williams tried to make his point clear in his closing argument, adding that Oklahoma’s lawmakers have repeatedly failed to address other issues, such as services for people with disabilities.

Please start doing something that is more than a bumper sticker. Do something that makes an impact. Truly I tell you, how you treat the least among us is how you’ve treated the God that you profess to worship.

Rep. Emily Virgin (D-Norman) argued that challenges such as unemployment, discrimination, and lack of services that children with Down syndrome face after they are born were far more pressing and deserving of government action than H.B. 1549, but Faught said the private sector, including community groups and ministries, are already providing services to children with Down syndrome.

Read H.B. 1549 here.

What Goes Around Comes Around

We are living in turbulent times. Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear that we are a divided country. Hate crimes and antisemitism are on the rise and unfortunately, white nationalist and racist groups feel emboldened and supported to speak out publicly. This is only exacerbated with the ability to express these views through social media, in the comfort of your own home, without having to see the people you are harming face to face. This is a dangerous road to go down as it starts to normalize these thoughts, beliefs and actions. This can never be accepted or normalized. The only way to maintain our way of life and our democracy is through mutual respect, the free and open exchange of ideas based in fact and mutual respect. We need to acknowledge where we disagree and identify areas where we agree and can come together. Sadly, not all forums that promote themselves as a forum for free expression or open-mindedness have proven through their actions to fulfill this promise.

Living in the digital age, as we do today, you have to be careful about what you say, post, search and re-post on social media. When we are young, naive and/or impulsive, we have to remember that the things we write and post, on sites like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, that at times give us a false sense of anonymity, never go away. They reach real people, and when we least expect it, can come back to haunt you, at times with devastating consequences.

To help job-seekers better understand the role of social media in their job search, CareerBuilder.com conducted a survey in 2016 that asked hiring managers and human resource professionals how, and why they incorporate social media into their hiring process. Their survey found that 60% of employers use social networks to screen potential job candidates, up from 52% last year and 11% in 2006. With 49% of those hiring reporting that information found online  had a negative impact on their hiring decision.

Our online persona does not only have an effect on hiring decisions, but according to the same survey, more than a quarter of employers found information online that caused them to reprimand or fire an employee. As  one of the 89% of job-seekers on social media or, or one of those already employed, you will want to make sure that you are careful online. Rosemary Haefner, the vice president of human resources at Career Builder says:

Social media is a primary vehicle of communication today, and because much of that communication is public, it’s no surprise some recruiters and hiring managers are tuning in.

This, of course, does not only apply to those looking and applying for jobs. This could affect anybody. It has been widely reported that a review of social media is frequently completed by College admissions boards as part of the admissions process. We have heard countless news stories of the chaos created over the Presidents infamous tweets. Now, several days ago this hit much closer to home.

Just days ago, several insensitive tweets resurfaced from the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Affinity Magazine. These were tweets she had posted (+/-) 5 years ago. She had been my past employer, when I was a writer and Political Editor at Affinity Magazine. I previously parted ways with the magazine due to differing opinions and discrimination I suffered during my tenure. It was made clear that my articles would not be published as they were in opposition with the beliefs of the Editor-in-Chief, nor would she allow me to publish them anywhere else, despite this being part of the magazine policy. When I learned of her behavior and her tweets, I was saddened by the horrific comments, ashamed to have been connected to the impertinent things she said, but unfortunately was not surprised.

FullSizeRender 10FullSizeRender 7FullSizeRender 3FullSizeRender copy 3

I, personally, was disheartened to see these sort of awful things from a magazine that brands itself as “the first social justice platform that directly caters to teens, while also addressing many significant issues that are often overlooked.” It is devastating to read some of the offensive and hurtful old tweets that have resurfaced at a time when we are in great need of a social justice magazine that accepts all races, cultures, nationalities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and points of view.  The last thing we need is to perpetuate division and hatred. A place where all can be accepted, share information and exchange ideas based in fact and mutual respect is what we so desperately need.

Having friends who are going through issues of uncertainty related to gender identity, coupled with the recent policy changes making it more difficult for transgender people, and the fact that Affinity Magazine attempts to cater to this community, having an LGBT+ category on their website. The tweet defaming the LGBT+ community is particularly  repulsive and ironic.

FullSizeRender 6 copy

I was surprised to see how she went after just about every minority or group of people different from herself in these abhorrent tweets.

Using derogatory slurs and stereotypes, there were rude tweets about Asians.

IMG_3362IMG_3363

Amongst this mess, there were insulting tweets about Mexicans, calling them poor, illegal, and “durty,” and

FullSizeRender 5FullSizeRender 4 copyFullSizeRender 5 copyFullSizeRender copy

hurtful tweets about over weight people, body-shaming and using demeaning words to describe them with disdain.

FullSizeRenderIMG_3368IMG_3369

As one who was silenced when I tried to publish an article defending my Jewish identity, some of the most hurtful comments to me were the anti-Semitic tweets.

IMG_3370FullSizeRender 2 copy 2

I am not sharing these tweets to promote her horrific words, or with the goal of blaming the entire staff. I must state, that it does not appear that the views expressed in these tweets represent those of the writers as a whole, nor was it my personal experience while working there. These appear to be the thoughts and beliefs of the individual or individuals who wrote them. Unfortunately, the writer(s) of the tweets were the one(s) who were in control and yielded power over the publication. As one who worked at Affinity, these tweets never represented my views, and I feel sorry for those who were working for a magazine where there is now such scrutiny when they may have had no involvement in the horrible things that were said.

Late in the day, on the third of March, the editor-in-chief of Affinity Magazine, Evelyn A. Woodsen (AKA Evelyn Atieno & Evelyn V. Woodsen), released a public statement on Twitter concerning the crude tweets:

Many old tweets have come to light recently. I understand the outrage and I am very sorry and sickened by the tweets I made when I was around the age of 14. Age is no excuse at all. I was not educated at the time about many issues in the world, and that’s what inspired me to start Affinity. I turned my old personal Twitter to the Affinity Twitter. Since then, I have done community work advocating for both men and women. Those old tweets don’t reflect the person I am now, Affinity, or Affinity’s writers. They were disgusting and I am. They were from over 6 years ago. Life is about learning from the past and working to better yourself. I have bettered myself and that’s shown through all of the work I have done now. I hope you all forgive my immaturity that I displayed when I was younger. I am ashamed of the person I was, but I assure you that’s not who I am anymore. Affinity was started so I could better myself and learn about the word [sic] and not be as ignorant as I was before. Thank you.

Personally, I believe that this apology does not duly address the countless offensive things said. I believe that, though she claimed age was no excuse, there was no reason to mention her age unless it was to help vindicate her actions. While she may have evolved in some of her views, it is clear through her continued actions and behaviors that her disdain for those different from her or with opposing views remains firmly in place. I would love to believe that she is genuinely regretful and apologetic, but based on her behavior—such as laughing at her anti-Semitic comments only three hours after her public statement, her repetitive stifling of ideas with which she does not agree, and dismissing those writer from the magazine for made up reasons—it is impossible to believe that she feels badly about anything other than getting caught.

FullSizeRender 3 copy 2FullSizeRender copy 4

The day after the discriminatory tweets were exposed, two articles were published about the “tweets” published and Affinity Magazine in an attempt to save the publication and resurrect their reputation. One article was written by a new member of their staff. The second article was by Evelyn.

The article by the new staff member of the Affinity team, describes his first couple days at Affinity, and why he believes the writers at Affinity should not be judged for any of the tweets. I understand that sentiment: and for the most part agree that the writers are not responsible for what was said and therefore should not be blamed. I have sympathy for them, having to answer for things over which they had no control.

Evelyn Atieno does not represent us, and her tweets do not represent the values that we hold on the Affinity Team.

Moving on to Evelyn’s article, she began by describing her goals when she started Affinity magazine.

My goal for this magazine was for it to be a platform for other teens, not just myself.

She goes on to explain how being raised in a conservative town influenced the way she saw the world. She said she believes that her recognition of her past mistakes shows character development and how much she has changed. She discussed her activism and how much she gives back to her community.

The day after those two articles were published, one more article was published about the good things that Affinity Magazine has to offer.

Affinity is a new wave of journalism that has given a voice to teenagers.

This article talks about how Affinity is a group of writers with many different views, and therefore, they believe you should not generalize things written by one person to the views of another. She talks about how Affinity gives teens a place to be heard would not have one otherwise.

Sites like Affinity offer a voice to people who otherwise would not have one.

She talks about the need for a free press and other points of view. She says its okay to disagree, but not to insult or demean somebody because of it.

A democracy cannot exist without free press. The news needs to exist even if you disagree with the way it is presented. This is why we must stop demeaning our journalists, even amateur ones like on Affinity. It is okay to disagree, but it is not okay to insult or demean someone simply because you don’t like their opinions.

All of the quotes from this article make great points and in theory are true. We are in great need of  a free press and a place for teens to express their thoughts and views free from anger and judgment. This free exchange of thoughts and ideas needs to be based in fact and done with respect. This is how we learn, grow and come together as a society. This helps us educate ourselves on all aspects of an issue, find areas of agreement and ways we can work together for the betterment of society. This is democracy in action. Unfortunately, all of this is in direct contradiction to the culture and policy at Affinity Magazine and my experience while working there. In fact, these quotes—about the need for a free press and how Affinity is full of people with different points of view, and gives everybody a voice—directly contradict the explanations I was given on why I could not publish my article and why I had to leave the magazine.

It is disheartening to see this publication try and highlight an image of all the best qualities of their publication, yet, the image they are presenting is not based in reality and, to be frank, are utterly false. There is an old saying I have heard many times: when people show you who they are, believe them. This is the case here: when Evelyn thought no one was looking, she apparently felt free to be “herself.” She never gave it a second thought that she was doing this in the public forum of social media. Tweet after tweet, she showed us who she is. We must believe her. Affinity Magazine is sadly just an extension of the closed minded, prejudice that is so prevalent in our society. It is not the platform of social justice it claims and is so badly needed for teens today.

Please contact me if any of the facts are wrong. I simply presented the facts as they were laid out before me.

Reality President

Image: The Hill

Its official! The President-Elect of the United States until January 20th shall remain an executive producer on NBC’s “The Celebrity Apprentice.” In December, Variety reported that Donald Trump would appear in the credits of The Celebrity Apprentice as a producer in a slightly different order than previously aired episodes.

Any questions or doubts that he would not change his mind about remaining a producer and/or confidence that Mr. Trump would make the right choice and choose to not remain an executive producer causing conflicts of interests can be thrown away as of Monday night when his name was listed as an executive producer in the closing credits of the premier of “The New Celebrity Apprentice” albeit in a much smaller font than his fellow executive producers, Mark Burnett, Page Feldman, Eric Van Wagenen and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the latter of whom has taken over Trump’s role as host, after the credits turned to black. That said, CNBC social media editor Steve Kopack appeared to spot Trump’s name at another point in the show where his name was as large as his fellow producers, although it was unable to verify by The Huffington Post.

The role that Donald Trump will portray in the program’s production is unclear but has been argued since he became the President-Elect. Monday’s credits only confirm what MGM, the show’s production company, and Trump’s team had already said. MGM noted he would remain an executive producer, and Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in December that Trump would remain financially connected to the show. Variety estimates he will earn at least $10,000 per episode this season, but noted that he will be paid by MGM, not NBC.

Many have been questioning the time that Mr. Trump will be spending as the producer of the show, and whether it would divert his attention from his new position as the leader of the free world. In a recent Tweet, Trump said that he would have “NOTHING to do with The Apprentice.”

Whether or not Donald Trump spends time working on the show, being paid to be an executive producer of the show is a conflict of interest by possibly having a reason to want to create laws that are to MGM’s or NBC’s benefit.

Secret CIA Assessment Shows that Russia had Influenced our Election

Image: Inquisitr

For awhile now, before the eighth of November, we all heard the rumors about Russia attempting to influence our election. Do you remember that? Well, Intelligence Agencies have identified individuals connected to the Russian Government who provided WikiLeaks with the thousands of DNC emails, including those of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Officials have recognized these individuals as being part of a larger scheme to boost Trump’s chances and lower Hillary’s.

It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other: to help Trump get elected.

According to the Washington Post, Senators were briefed on these matters sometime around September, but Mitch McConnell had voiced doubts about the validity of the intelligence.The Trump transition team has declined to comment on this issue.

The Trump transition team has declined to comment on this issue, though since the rumor was first spread, Trump has repeatedly assured us that there was no Russian hacking in this election, even this week to TIME Magazine!

[The hacking] could be Russia, and it could be China, and it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.

Though the CIA has proven that these individuals were responsible for hacking the DNC emails, questions are still left unanswered. The intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence pointing to officials in the Kremlin directing these hackers to pass the emails to WikiLeaks. According to the officials that spoke with the Washington Post, rather than government employees,  the individuals were “one step” removed from the Russian government. The deniability is still plausible because Russia has used operative middlemen for intelligence operations in the past.

The Obama Administration has been debating for months on how they should respond to the alleged Russian hacking because many officials were concerned about creating tension in Moscow and/or being accused of attempting to help Hillary Clinton.

Play Video

Time Magazine’s Person of the Year

Image: Today

Donald Trump has finally been named TIME’s Person of the Year. “It is a great honor,” said the President-Elect on the Today Show this morning.

It means a lot, especially me growing up reading TIME magazine, and it’s a very important magazine, and I’ve been lucky enough to be on the cover many times this year — and last year. But I consider this a very, very great honor.

Since his announcement of candidacy, he has been on the cover of many, many magazines. He has always had an obsession with putting his face on the cover of magazines, and so this only makes him feel even better about himself. Actually, Trump keeps all of the said magazines in his office and frequently jokes about them saying that he does not have time to read them all because there are so many. He has even referred to himself as a “supermodel, except like, times ten.”

Last year, when TIME announced Angela Merkel as their Person of the Year, Trump was openly disturbed that he was not the winner. TIME Magazine responded by saying throughout their entire existence, they have never chosen a presidential candidate as their Person of the Year, and if he won (he did), he would have a much greater chance of becoming the Person of the Year.

I was on their cover four, five weeks ago. They should have picked me for the ‘Person of the Year,’ but they didn’t. No, they should have.

Trump, at a Rally in Arizona, his first rally since the announcement from TIME in 2015, could not help but go on a rant about the magazine and their choice. You could see in what he says that was affected by the result.

I said I’m never going to get it because I’m not establishment. But every panel that I saw on television when TIME was — because, you know, it’s sort of cool, even though the magazine’s going down the tubes. No, it’s a cool thing. Most magazines are going down, in all fairness to them. It’s great, isn’t it? To watch these guys go down the tubes? Isn’t it great? I love it.

Trump had used his ‘political revolution’ as a reason he deserved the title and related this bad decision to the one that he believes the Emmys made when they did not give the award to The Apprentice.

It’s just like ‘The Apprentice.’ For the first three seasons, I should have gotten the Emmy for the Apprentice. Got the No. 1, got tremendous ratings. It was the hottest thing, and they picked these shows that were establishment — ‘Amazing Race.’ You fall asleep watching it. Okay? It’s not a race; it’s a sleeping contest. Because I’m not establishment in Hollywood, I’m not establishment politically, so Time magazine picked a woman who is destroying Germany. She let the migration come right into Germany. She’s destroying Germany.

While he expressed much joy in receiving the recognition this year, he was not a big fan of some of the wording on their cover where it said, “President of the Divided States of America.”

Since then, becoming the Person of the Year was Trump’s personal Holy Grail.

I guess this is great because it gives him something new about which he can boast.

A New Journey: The Free and Open Exchange of Ideas

Image: Life Hacker

Now, more than ever, the importance of a free, fair, and open press is essential to a functioning democracy. We cannot provide ammunition to anyone’s goal that is to silence a critical or free press, especially when it comes from a publication promoting itself as a magazine that is “The first social justice platform that directly caters to teens, while also addressing many significant issues that are often overlooked” and “The new cool way for teens to not only read about important news but also have their own thoughts heard loud and clear.”

Imagine my excitement when I, at the age of fourteen, was offered a position as not only a writer but the political editor at Affinity Magazine. I, of course, accepted this offer and worked very hard to perform all tasks and responsibilities to the best of my ability. Of course, I may have made mistakes here and there, missing a grammatical error or a spelling error, but who hasn’t? Either way, to say that I was elated about to be a part of this affiliation would be an understatement. That was until I had a disturbing interaction with the editor-in-chief, Evelyn that deflated my idealization of their publication. Despite conversations with two other editors and a plan to publish my article, Why I Have Recently Chosen to Disavow the Black Lives Matter Movement, I was informed by Evelyn that she would not publish my article. She rejected the article herself, stating that it was not my place to disavow this movement.

Believing that this was possibly the result of being an editor, I initially respected her opinion and asked if there could be a compromise. I asked if I could change the title and “tweak” the article so as not to vehemently “insult” anyone, although to be clear, this was never my intention. My only goal was to express my view backed by facts and encourage introspection and discussion with my peers. Nevertheless, I was told that I could not publish it as the magazine’s official stance is “anti-Zionist.” Immediately, this made me uncomfortable. Not only do I consider myself a proud Jew, but living in a region of the country where I am in a significant minority, I believe it is essential that I stand up for my beliefs. As John Milton said:

Truth will rise to the top through a free and open exchange in the marketplace of ideas.

At first, I attempted to rationalize the decision and tried to move on, but I just could not get this uncomfortable feeling to go away. As a result of the way I was raised by my parents, and in part from the underpinnings of the tenants of my religion which promotes questioning, argument, and discussion in the context of the learning process, I attempted to find a resolution. I asked if I could submit the article under the Op-ed category, thereby, presenting the article as an editorial in opposition to the magazine’s official stance, in hopes of facilitating education and discussion. Unfortunately, this suggestion did not go anywhere. Again, it was rejected, stating that it would just not “fit the magazine.” I continued to try and make sense of this response but struggled with the internal and ethical conflict I now felt about the affiliation. I didn’t understand why it wouldn’t be published if their very own website said, “We accept all ideas!” I found this to conflict with not only many ethical standards that I hold for myself but even their own handbook.

My views are different from the other writers I don’t know if I can write mine [sic]

Okay, still write it [sic]

Even their Write For Us page had been contradicted in the most blatant way imaginable:

You can write about anything you want!

I was now faced with an ethical struggle. I wanted to keep writing and editing, but I felt conflicted about working for a publication that did not allow for expression of all points of view. This became even more challenging as I continued to edit and publish anti-Zionist articles. I knew that I would not be able to do this for long without another outlet where I could express my thoughts and views that differed from those of the magazine. I had been unfair to myself by putting myself in an environment where I was targeted. I wanted to stay, but I felt like I had disavowed the Black Lives Matter Movement for being anti-Zionist, though I was not holding my place of work to the same standard.

At first, I was devastated but quickly realized this conflict provided me a great opportunity. In the rejection of my article, they had actually provided me with an excellent gift. As a result, I was able to reflect on the situation and realize that there was a need for space for young adults to have an open, free, and respectful exchange of ideas. I reached out to members of my temple’s youth group to discuss the idea. We felt there was a great need for a publication where different ideas and views could be published, a space where all points of view on any issue could be expressed and debated.

This lead to the birth of WTP Magazine. At WTP Magazine, we do not have specific stances on issues. It is a format for the open discussion and exchange of ideas for politically active, socially minded millennials. The opportunity to have an open debate and opposing views backed by facts is essential to healing the political divide and educating ourselves on issues.

As Max Andrews says:

We need to have substantive dialogue and allow reasonable room for dissent. There is no room for monologue in a genuine pursuit for the truth. We need to have our beliefs be accounted for by others. We need to have a desire for the truth and not be so dogmatic that what we currently believe is all there is. In the words of Augustine, we must “hear the other side.”

Unfortunately, not even twenty-four hours passed before I was contacted and told that this was a conflict of interest. I explained that I did not believe that there was a conflict of interest as the goal of WTP is to present and be open to hearing a point of view that is different from their own. They just did not see what I saw in WTP.

As a result of my experience, I have been able to identify a significant need for teens and young adults who are often overlooked when it comes to expressing their political, social, or cultural views. Free expression and open debate are methods that we can and should use to pursue the truth. Academic freedom and discussion are of the utmost importance in our education as well as social media, and they are the means by which we will achieve social justice and find common ground with others.

Our goal is to develop a space for public discourse, dialogue, and debate, based on a foundation of mutual respect leading towards civic knowledge, responsibility, and the common good. Unfortunately, the structures of contemporary society frequently limit and even prevent discourse of this nature. The “sound-bite” world of the media, the need for immediate gratification and the rapid flow of information on the Internet, are calibrated for immediacy, not sustained conversation. The emergence of Google, Twitter, Facebook, and the “blogosphere” have sadly lead to intellectual cocooning or narrowcasting that tailors much of the information we receive from our own interests. Our individualist tendencies to turn inward, while comfortable at times, prevent us from engaging different perspectives, learning and connecting with others. Wael Ghonim, one of the fathers of the Arab spring, dubbed the social media revolution, now says:

The same medium that so effectively transmits a howling message of change also appears to undermine the ability to make it. Social media amplifies the human tendency to bind with one’s own kind. It tends to reduce complex social challenges to mobilizing slogans that reverberate in echo chambers of the like-minded rather than engage in persuasion, dialogue, and the reach for consensus. Hate speech and untruths appear alongside good intentions and truths.

Democracy demands active and thoughtful participation and a willingness to engage with each other. Meaningful social relationships built on trust that results from this kind of discourse are essential to education, personal growth, and developing and sustaining a healthy society, economy, and democratic polarity.

As we move forward with dignity and respect, we will find ways to discuss with and actually hear each other. We can respectfully disagree, presenting differences without killing each other. We will engage in the free and open exchange of ideas in search of social justice and common ground. I am genuinely excited about this new journey and welcome all who want to come along.

[What Goes Around Comes Around]

François Fillon Wins Nomination for French Presidency

Image: Sud Ouest

Former Prime Minister François Fillon has won the conservative primaries, beating a more centrist candidate, Alain Juppé, for next year’s presidential election in France. Fillon, 62, a man who has been involved in French politics for a long time, called for economic sacrifice, major crackdowns on immigration and Islam, has won 68.6% of the vote in the second round of his primaries on Sunday, defeating his opponent, Juppé, 71, with 31.4% of the vote.

Both Fillon and Juppé campaigned for cuts in federal spending and raising the retirement age, but Fillon’s proposals were more drastic and simply faster. These results from the first round were another large upset for pollsters (*cough* Donald Trump *cough*) when Fillon emerged with an unexpected victory on November 20th. Last Thursday, a televised debate between Fillon and Juppé was held, and it definitely did assist Fillon towards his victory.

French presidential elections are decided in two rounds. The first round winnows the race to two candidates who then face-off in the second round. The winner, Fillon, then is expected to be one of the two competitors in the general election.

It is now showing to be unlikely that the current governing party will present Fillon’s opponent due to disarray after five years of high unemployment rates and slow economic growth. The current president, François Hollande has not yet announced his candidacy, and many members of his party hope that he chooses not to run again. Instead, Fillon’s competition will be the leader of the far-right National Front, Marine Le Pen. Historically, her party has never been able to attract more than one-third of the electorate, but at least for the time being, few analysts predict that she could win the presidency. Their xenophobic, anti-immigration, far— almost “alt-right” party has been given a boost by the outcome of our election.

Fillon’s campaign promises of cutting 500,000 government jobs and cutting the national budget by 100 billion Euros could create vulnerability against his opponent, Le Pen, who has pledged to safeguard France’s substantial government protections and spending.

In Fillon’s victory speech, he emphasized the standard French conservative themes of restoring “authority” and “French values” as he did throughout his entire campaign. Juppé, on the other hand, fought for “unity” which led many conspiracy theorists to believe that he was a leftist in disguise.

With many citizens uneasy over immigration and Islam due to recent terror attacks, Fillon vowed to bring back a more traditional society by strictly regulating Islam and immigration. He also said that he would form an alliance with Russia to stomp out what he called “totalitarian” Muslims. Reporters have been showing Fillon’s close relations with Vladimir Putin as well.

Castro Dead at Age Ninety

Image: Ottowa Citizen

Fidel Castro, before handing his powers to his brother Raúl in 2008 ruled Cuba as a communist nation for almost half of a century. As a leader, he received extremely mixed reviews from calling him the leader that had given Cuba back to the people to the leader who starved and oppressed his people. Early Saturday, an announcement on the state-wide television was given by Raúl Castro stating that his brother had died on November twenty-fifth at 10:29pm. The impoverished citizens of Cuba had been riled up by Castro’s message after being oppressed by their previous dictator, Fulgencio Batista.

To his fans, he was a hero who educated, fed, provided health care to his citizens, and demanded, sometimes harshly, that the poor people of the world receive a fair deal. To his critics, he was in the list of the world’s most suppressive [self-appointed] leaders that banned the freedom of the press, banned freedom of assembly, and executed or jailed thousands of his political opponents. He rid Cuba of Christmas as an official holiday for thirty consecutive years. On the bright side, he sent Cuban vaccines and Cuban doctors to some of the poorest countries in South America… Then again, his own citizens were dry of basic medicine and were even forced to use buckets as toilets.

In the height of the Cold War, Castro had allowed the Soviets to create a base in Cuba that could carry nuclear missiles to the United States in no time which went down in history as the notorious Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Towards the end of his presidency, he became more popular because of rising anti-American views in countries in South America such as Venezuela.

Sadly or gladly, his reign over Cuba began to decline in 2006 when he temporarily gave his powers to his brother while he supposedly was undergoing intestinal surgery. His permanent transfer of power came on the nineteenth of February in 2008 which ended his 49-year reign. That is when the National Assembly unanimously chose Raúl Castro to be his replacement. Some might call the transition of power very anti-climactic because it had been in the process for two years.

As the Washington Post said, “With almost theatrical relish, Mr. Castro taunted ten successive U.S. presidents, who viewed the Cuban leader variously as a potential courier of Armageddon.” All of the ten presidents had enforced a strict trade embargo against Cuba, which George H.W. Bush had tightened, until Barack Obama announced had announced his efforts to re-establish diplomatic relations with them.

Today, for half of the world will be a day of mourning and remembering a great man while the other half rallies around the death of a dictator.

If It Isn’t a Third World Country, What Is It?

Image: Nations Online

In modern times, the term, ‘third world country’ is becoming less, and less acceptable. This is coming from the progression of racial and economic awareness. To understand this debate, it is necessary to know the history of the topic.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the terms, ‘first, second, and third world’ (The Three Worlds Theory) were invented by the French demographer, Alfred Sauvy. The Cold War was fought between Capitalism and Communism. He declared the ‘first world’ to be countries fighting for Capitalism. The ‘second world’ was considered countries related to Communism (Soviet Union). The ‘third world’ was given to any country abstaining from fighting for either side. In 1952, Sauvy stated, “Three worlds, one planet”, saying that these three separate worlds could exist in one world in his article published in L’Observateur.

Now, the Cold War has ended leaving these words supposedly meaningless as Communism was conquered more than half of a century ago. Without the Cold War, what do these terms mean? Now, these terms have new meanings. These are terms no longer related to Communism or Capitalism, but economic development.

An example of a first world country is America. America has a stable economy, a democratic society, and primarily happy citizens. America has allies and enemies, like any other superpower.

An example of a modern-day second world country is India. India has a stable, but smaller economy than America’s. India is not a very ‘influential’ nation, but it is definitely a recognized nation.

A third world country is a country with little power and a small economy. One example of a third world country is The Democratic Republic of Congo. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DROC) has an unstable economy and a large amount of poverty. The DROC has little or no name recognition, a factor of a third world country.

If we know where to separate these countries, what is the problem to call them a ‘first, second or third world country’? Is it a derogatory term? What is an appropriate name for these groups of countries? Some say terms dividing these countries into separate worlds is discriminatory, but others say that these are only terms used to understand a country’s economy and representation. If it was proven that these terms are derogatory, then we must use a different name to understand this. The ones who claim that the Three World Theory is offensive to say that we should be saying something along the lines of a ‘developing nation’ instead of a ‘third world country’.

Some people in the impoverished countries claim that using the Three World Theory is offensive; people like Vaibhav Bojh who says, “Being called a developing country gives me a chance to improve.” He hopes that one day India will go “a few steps beyond what developed countries have achieved.”

This shows that the term, ‘developing nation’ is a better phrase. ‘Developing nations’ seems a more agreeable phrase, until you hear the other side.

As Shose Kessi, a social psychologist at the University of Cape Town puts it, “I dislike the term ‘developing world’ because it assumes a hierarchy between countries. It paints a picture of Western societies as ideal, but there are many social problems in these societies as well. It also perpetuates stereotypes about people who come from the so-called developing world as backward, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible.”She does make a good point, showing how this term is separating two countries that both have problems. This term, in a sense, could give an idea of the citizens in these ‘developing nations’ as too lazy to fully develop their economy. In short, she strongly dislikes the term.

Everybody knows that the First World isn’t better in every way. There are pockets of rural poverty and unemployment. They can have crime, sick citizens, and problems that could fall under the category of a Third World Country, but the difference still has to do with the country’s name recognition, exports, and imports.

If you look at developing nations more carefully, they are fully developed in some aspects. Many of the countries that we could refer to as ‘developing nation’ do not even have government safety nets because it is unnecessary. In those nations, people step forward to help each other when they need it. Mead Over, who studies the economics of health interventions at the Center for Global Development says, “People donate money at a funeral to help the bereaved family or people receive gifts from a neighbor to pay the doctor in a time of family emergency.” In First World Countries, we often neglect this kind of hospitality. If so, how can we say that we have no faults and no problems? We must accept the fact that we have problems with hospitality and our sacrifice for others.

What could we call these countries? There will always be a name to classify these nations.

In Kenya, the Masai tribesmen say that the term, ‘developing country’ is a lovely phrase, but in their language, it would translate to, ‘countries that are growing’, which they said, apologetically, that it was a bit long.

It is possible to form a term based on data. The World Health Organization categorizes countries as ‘low- and lower-middle-income countries’, though at a first glance, numbers is an objective way to group countries, though it should not be offensive because it is based solely on data. This way to categorize countries is abbreviated as ‘LMIC’. They are sometimes split into two forms, ‘LICs and MICs’, pronounced, ‘licks and micks’.

Politically incorrect, some use the term, ‘majority world’. This term is proven invalid because 80% of the world lives on a salary of $10/day or less according to World Bank statistics.

Days Olopade, a Nigerian-American reporter likes the terms ‘fat’ and ‘lean’. The term ‘lean’ is referring to the little resources a start-up business has. She mentions that thinking of America’s economy as ‘fat’ is not too difficult. She calls it her way to be provocative. An op-ed in the New York Times written by Olopade read “lean economies have a distinct advantage.”

Everybody mentioned agrees that each term has problems. Luckily, everybody agrees on one thing: it is best to be as specific as possible.

If You Are Transgender, This Might Make Your Life A Little Bit Easier

Illustration: Lars Leetaru

Scrolling through Twitter like usual, I found something that has to be one of the most charitable causes of which I know.

From what I learned from speaking with the group, the Trans Relief Project is a grassroots group started by four United States citizens, one of whom is transgender, and two of whom identify as queer. They started this project to help transgender individuals that are facing the difficulties of officially changing their name, updating their passport, birth certificates, and other forms of identification. They are giving this money to people in need of monetary help to afford updated identification and legal help.

Their small idea of helping raise funds for a few transgender people to get passports quickly escalated into helping as many transgender people as possible raise money to afford passports. Since they started their project after the election, they have already found hundreds of people who need help raising money or even just advice to get their passport. As they said, “This project was never intended to be this big, and it’s been tricky to figure it out, but we are determined to do as much as we can while we can to directly help people who need it.”

To prove that the organization was not a hoax and would honestly give the money to those who needed it, they tweeted a photo of their PayPal transactions (obviously edited for the individuals’ security).

You may be wondering how you could receive money from the Trans Relief Project to get help with changing your name. They are temporarily keeping a hold on incoming emails due to an overwhelming response, and are hoping to improve their infrastructure to increase efficiency. If you want to contact them and ask a question, you can just contact them through Twitter @transrelief.

Just like I was, you are probably asking where they are getting the money to pay people’s fees. It started from their own pockets and a handful of other people that the founders personally knew that we’re interested in helping in the beginning. Eventually, enough people heard about what they were doing and wanted to help. The majority of what they received were small donations (as little as five dollars).

Currently, they are closed for applications for assistance while they finalize some logistical and legal issues like partnering with a registered non-profit. In the meantime, they are focused on helping to disseminate information on passports and their importance for the transgender community. They advise people looking for help to take the opportunity to research the documents they need, passports especially. The sooner people start getting their paperwork in order the better. Check to make sure you have all the ID you need to submit. Take your photo. Make copies if necessary.

The Trans Relief Project is encouraging all of the transgender community to apply before Donald Trump is inaugurated in fear that the laws might change.