Category: US Politics

New Washington Post Investigation Uncovers Scope of Opioid Epidemic

Image: Unsplash

According to a new investigative report published by the Washington Post on 16 July 2019, more than 76 billion opioid pills (most commonly oxycodone and hydrocodone) were sold in only six years (between 2006 and 2012).

This information was received by the Post from a database run by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The hub contains information on every single pain pill sold in the United States, all the way down to small pharmacies in every town across America. Luckily, the Washington Post has also helped organize all of the data figures to be much more digestible.

Click here to see the data for your community.

With the information given, the team of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists — including Scott Higham, Sari Horowitz, and Steven Rich — was able to take a deeper dive into the spontaneous rise of legal pain pills which fed the opioid epidemic.

The role of prescription painkillers in the ongoing crisis is so prevalent that, in 2016, the American Society of Addiction Medicine found that four out of five new heroin users started out by abusing legally prescribed pain pills.

They found that just six companies were responsible for distributing 75% of the painkillers during the years studied: McKesson Corp., Walgreens, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, CVS, and Walmart.

arcos-distributors
Image: The Washington Post

Even more damning, only three were responsible for manufacturing the drugs: SpecGx (a subsidiary of Mallinckrodt), Actavis Pharma, and Par Pharmaceutical (a subsidiary of Endo Pharmaceuticals).

 

In the ongoing largest civil action in U.S. history, previously undisclosed company data became public — allowing the press, such as the Washington Post and WTP, to examine and interpret it. The plaintiffs allege that Purdue Pharma is the responsible for triggering the opioid epidemic as we know it today with the invention of OxyContin, their brand of oxycodone. Purdue Pharma was ranked fourth among manufacturers (with approximately 3% of the market share) at the time.

The database, full of information from the ongoing court case, reveals that each company knew exactly how many pills it was shipping and dispensing with ultra-refined specificity. Not only does the data show plain numbers, but it tells when they were aware of the volumes, year-by-year and town-by-town. In each and every case, the companies had no problem releasing the painkillers to the streets of communities big and small — despite frequent red-flags.

2300-promo-dea-pain-pill-database-v2.png
Image: The Washington Post

When the orders for prescription painkillers skyrocketed in states like West Virginia — where there was a 67:1 pill-to-human ratio — it was the responsibility of the distributors to file a report to the FDA which would have put an immediate block on suspicious orders. Seeing as companies would be disincentivized to stop sales of their own products, it never happened, and states like West Virginia and Kentucky suffered with the highest addiction rates (along with overdose rates).

arcos-states
Image: The Washington Post

Following the release of the information in the DEA database, some companies were receptive to comments.

Company spokeswoman for Cardinal Health said that the company has learned from its experience, increasing training and doing a better job to “spot, stop, and report suspicious orders.”

AmerisourceBergen ridiculed the information, saying that it “offers a very misleading picture” of the problem. The company said its internal “controls played an important role in enabling us to, as best we could, walk the right rope of creating appropriate access to FDA approved medications while combating prescription drug diversion.”

Walgreens still dispenses opioids, but the company claims that it has not distributed prescription-controlled substances to any of its stores or facilities since 2014. Spokesman Phil Caruso said, “Walgreens has been an industry leader in combatting this crisis in communities where our pharmacists live and work.”

Mike DeAngelis, a spokesman for CVS, said that the plaintiffs’ allegations about the company have no merit and CVS is aggressively defending against them.

A Mallinckrodt spokesman said in a statement that the company had produced opioids only within a government-controlled quota and sold only to DEA-approved distributors.

Actavis Pharma was acquired by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries in 2016, but a Teva spokeswoman said they were unable to “speak to any systems in place beforehand.”

A DEA spokeswoman, however, declined to comment Tuesday “due to ongoing litigation.”

Walmart, Purdue, and Endo also declined to release a statement on the matter.

For more details, visit The Washington Post to read their takeaway.

The Calm Before the Storm: Most Shocking Details from Stormy Daniel’s 60 Minutes Interview

Image: Wall Street Journal

Stephanie Clifford, better known by her stage name, ‘Stormy Daniels,’ is a 39-year-old adult film star who has recently become one of the most well-known names in politics, all because she is the center of an affair scandal with the most powerful man in the world. Just days before the 2016 election, Daniels signed a non-disclosure agreement which stated that she could not discuss any sexual relationship between her and Donald Trump, and she received $130,000 from then-candidate Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. Many watchdog groups and lawyers believe that, since this ‘donation’ from Cohen went unreported to the Federal Election Commission, President Trump may have committed a significant campaign violation that could land him in federal court.

However, Daniels believes that the agreement is invalid because Donald Trump failed to sign the document.

Now, she wants to talk openly about the affair. Despite facing threats from Trump’s legal team that includes over one-million dollars in fines, Daniels spoke publicly on one of America’s most viewed cable television shows, 60 Minutes, on Sunday with Anderson Cooper, in what has notoriously become known as “Stormy Daniels Day.” In her interview, Daniels did not discuss campaign violations or election law. Instead, she discussed, in shockingly great detail, her sexual encounters with Trump and her [non-sexual] encounters with his legal team. Below are the most shocking details from Daniels’s interview, and as a fair warning, they are not for the faint of heart.

1: She Had It Coming

Although Daniels insists that the sexual encounter with Trump was entirely consensual, she did state that she felt obligated to engage because she “had it coming for making a bad decision.” Daniels went on to say, “Well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.” Despite the sense of obligation, Daniels refuses to be seen as a victim and has asked people to stop praising her as a #MeToo movement hero because it damages the credibility of actual victims. 

2: Magazine Mayhem

One of the most detailed parts of Daniels encounter with Trump had long been rumored on the internet, and it is not a pretty thing to imagine. Daniels claims that during their first encounter Trump had taken out a magazine in which his face was the cover and began to brag about himself. Daniels then asked Trump if talking about himself normally works, and then she went on to tell him that “Someone should take that magazine and spank you with it,” by which he was taken back. Daniels then went into great detail about the interaction, stating, “He turned around and pulled his pants down a little—you know had underwear on and stuff and I just gave him a couple swats.”

3: Marriage Troubles

During the time of the alleged sexual encounter between Daniels and Trump, Trump’s third wife, Melania Trump, had just given birth to their son Barron. When Daniels asked Trump about their encounter interfering with his marriage, Daniels alleges that Trump stated, “Oh yeah, yeah, you know, don’t worry about that. We don’t even—we have separate rooms and stuff.” During the airing of Daniels segment on “60 Minutes,” Trump and Melania were in separate states, which only fueled the speculation of long-rumored marriage problems. 

4: Mirror Image

During their encounter Daniels alleges that Trump compared her to his daughter, presumably Ivanka, stating, “Yeah. He was like, ‘Wow, you—you are special. You remind me of my daughter.’ You know—he was like, ‘You’re smart and beautiful, and a woman to be reckoned with, and I like you. I like you.'” Many people have long accused Trump of having sexual feelings towards his daughter, especially after an interview was released which he stated that he would be dating his daughter if they weren’t related. Daniels and Ivanka were around the same age during the alleged encounter and images from that time show a resemblance between the two. 

5: Harassment and Harm 

In May 2011, Daniels agreed to tell her story to a sister publication of In Touch magazine for $15,000 dollars. Daniels says she was never paid after Trump threatened to sue the magazine, and says a few weeks later, she was threatened by a man who approached her in Las Vegas. In the interview, Daniels described the threat in detail, stating, “I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. T—taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin’ all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.’ And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.” Although Daniels has no idea who the person was, she claims that if she saw him again she would “100%” be able to identify him. In a press conference the morning after the interview aired, White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said that President Trump does not believe the claims made by Daniels, including that she was physically threatened. 

6: Threats and Denial

In January of 2018, Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, publicly released statements signed by Daniels in which she stated that there was never any hush money paid to her and that the encounter never happened. Daniels stated in the interview that she was pressured into signing it, not because of any physical harm, but because her legal team told her that “They can make your life hell in many different ways”. Daniels believes that “they” was referring to Cohen and Trump’s legal team.

Daniels’s 60 Minutes interview will most likely remain in the spotlight for the next 24 hours, but this is not the end of her story. Daniels’s lawyer has hinted at several key pieces of evidence in his possession and has stated that this is just the beginning. Even if Daniels had fabricated her story Trump’s lawyer did, in fact, pay her illegal campaign “funds,” and Trump failed to report them to the FEC, which could mean serious legal trouble. 

How to Organize a School Walkout

Image: Missoulian

Students across the United States are rising up to demand stricter gun control laws after the Parkland shooting took 17 lives. How can you take part in the movement? The Parkland students have some ideas. One powerful way you can join the movement is by organizing a walkout. Just because March 14th has come and gone, it doesn’t mean that you can’t still get in on the action. Ignore what Tucker Carlson says, we are citizens and we have a say! Try using this handy guide for organizing a walkout at your own school:

Step 1: Research

Create a document showcasing why we need gun control. Have your argument for the cause clearly laid out. There is lots of information out there, here are some articles to check out first,

Step 2: Get a Team

Get together a group of supporters. Supporters can be a teacher, your friends or other kids who are interested. Start working on an action plan; decide exactly what you’re doing, how you will spread the message, when will you hold the walkout (the official walkout days are March 14 and April 20) and try to gauge how open your school administration will be to this idea so you can prepare for the next step…

Step 3: Talk to the Administration

Email your principal or talk to teachers and other people who work in your school about whether they would be open to a walkout. In my school the administration was very supportive of students walking out, however not all schools have been so happy about students taking part in political action. If they are not supportive that doesn’t mean you can’t walk out, remember schools can’t suspend a whole grade and may not bother trying with the threat of legal challenges. Also, many prestigious colleges have said they will not count a suspension caused by political action against prospective students when they apply, so continue without fear!

Step 4: Get the rest of your school on board

Either the hardest or easiest step. It seems like it would be hard to get a big group of high schoolers to do anything; especially if you don’t have the administration’s blessing and it could lead to punishment, but there have been reports of random walkouts with very little organization working very well. If you do not have the administration‘s blessing, try spreading the word through friend groups and social media. Make sure everyone knows exactly when it will be to avoid confusion. If you have the administration’s blessing make announcements and hold an assembly if you can.

Step 5: Alert the media

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it or hears it, did it fall? Yes. But nobody cares. Your walkout doesn’t mean anything or make any effect if nobody sees it. Send an email to your local news channels and newspapers telling them when the walkout will be, who organized it and your reasons for walking out, also make sure you have a student documenting the experience. While you’re at it, register! Tell the movement you’re supporting that you’re having a walkout so they count you. You can register for the March 14 walkout here.

Step Six: Walk Out! (Try not to forget this part)

Bonus: Repeat

Now that you have some experience and a group of supporters, find a new cause you’re passionate about and do it all again!

WTP EXCLUSIVE—Life Isn’t Often as Black and White as it Appears: Hard Questions with Rachel Dolezal

Ty:For the record, please state your full name and any titles or affiliations that you would like to have listed.

Rachel: Publicly, I go by Rachel Dolezal and I am an artist, activist, and author.

Ty: Thank you for that information. Jumping straight into it, a few years ago you caught national attention for identifying as a Black woman. In November 2017, the Theta Iota chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Inc., the Harvard University Black Student’s Association, and I hosted an event at Harvard University that covered womanism. Womanism is a school of thought that was born out of the idea that traditional feminism was not fully inclusive of the interests of the Black woman and that nobody would ever advocate for those interests better than a Black woman herself. Opening from a place where you see yourself as a Black woman, what is the essence of Blackness to you? What are the defining characteristics and what life experiences have informed your idea of Blackness? On the flipside, what is the essence of Whiteness to you? What are those characteristics?

Rachel: I taught a course at Eastern Washington University titled, “The Black Woman’s Struggle,” and featured textbooks such as “Words of Fire,” “Assata,” “Joys of Motherhood,” and “Women, Race & Class,” and I would describe myself as a Womanist more than a Feminist because I agree that race/class/gender are intersectional. I see Blackness as consciousness and commitment in the struggle for equity and justice; Blackness is not always skin color but is a philosophy and a political stance on issues affecting justice, or as Dick Gregory said, “a state of mind” that is Afrocentric or Pan-African in emphasis. Blackness fights relentlessly against the oppressive forces of colonialism, racism and White supremacy, seeking to free all those who are oppressed historically or contemporaneously and build a more inclusive and equitable society. Blackness acknowledges that we all come from a Black Mother in Africa—aka we are all members of the [Black] human race, and Africa is not only the birthplace of the human family but also the birthplace of civilization, religion, and community. Conversely, Whiteness is a state of mind and a stance that is Eurocentric, with the view that western culture, ideas, and aesthetics are superior and should be dominant. I see Whiteness as oppressive, repressive, and suppressive of others, seeking domination and subjugating others to the goals of capitalism, patriarchy, and imperialism.

Ty: When you look at the world we live in, it can be argued that you would have been better situated as an ally to Black and brown communities by identifying as a White woman and using the privilege that comes with that designation to take your passion for community advocacy past the glass ceiling that many Black and brown women face every day on their fight for social justice. Discuss your approach to it all. Was there a point where you felt like you had to embed yourself within the African-American community in the way you did to affect the most change?

Rachel: There are White allies and Black leaders in the struggle for social justice. I was seen as each of these for a decade in the past twenty years of my life. I identified as a White ally before I read Audrey Smedley’s book, “Race in North America: Origin & Evolution of a Worldview” and went on to read other books by Black women about the fiction of race, such as “Fatal Invention,” “The Nature of Race,” and “Chosen Exile,” by Dorothy Roberts, Ann Morning, and Allyson Hobbs. During the time that I felt I was “fated” to being a White ally—or White in general—when I believed race to be a biological reality, I was constantly having people argue with me that I was “really part Black” and just “passing for White” due to the neighborhood I lived in, my dexterity with braiding and doing Black hairstyles for women, and my intense passion for championing social justice causes in ways that were specifically empowering to Black youth and families. Similarly, when I shed the myth of race and embraced that Blackness really described my state of mind more than Whiteness—and I had already essentially exiled myself from “the White community” at this point—I had some people arguing that because I looked mixed or was light-skinned, I wasn’t Black enough for diversity photo ops or to lead social justice causes. One thing always remained constant, to this day: White supremacists have always hated me no matter whether I was functioning as a White ally or a light-skinned Black leader. I definitely feel there were fewer barriers to accomplishing the work I intended to do for the community, for the ten years I was seen as Black. Although the hatred of racist groups soared, I was constantly harassed by cops, and I received 50% of the pay of my White male and White female predecessors in a job (aka there was definitely a cost in terms of social discrimination), there was a place of belonging for me, a space where I could relax and be myself in the Black community. I wasn’t looked at with suspicion or made to prove I was safe as an ally; people didn’t clean up their houses before I came over or go out of their way as if I was a stranger; I was family and that felt good to have a home. I was definitely able to affect much more change being true to my core essence and fitting into the community, being seen for who I am inside and not being kept on the fringe of the movement due to my White parents. Anyone looking at my resume and accomplishments can see that my leadership flourished from 2005 to 2015.

Ty:You have stated before that you felt inherently tied to the Black community from as early as childhood. There are critics who would say that this contradicts your lawsuit against Howard University on the basis of racial discrimination because the litigation was seemingly a very definitive statement in favor of declaring your Whiteness. How do you respond to those critics?

Rachel:Online critics clearly haven’t taken the time to read my book or give full consideration to the context of that singular situation. I went to Howard eighteen years ago and had not yet become conscious of the nature of the race worldview being a social construct, so at the time of my application I did not identify as “Black” but there actually was no “race” category on the application at the time I applied. I sued to regain my scholarship on the basis of pregnancy discrimination, gender discrimination, and race discrimination in the original claim only because the person who removed my scholarship (while I had a 4.0 and was 7 months pregnant) was retaliating against me for refusing his sexual advances, and he referenced pregnancy, gender, and race in his reasons for pulling my scholarship. I love Howard and always will; it was the only graduate school I applied for because it was my dream school. However, as I explain in my book, living in DC isn’t cheap and with my Black husband and almost-born child depending on my financial aid, I had no other option but to fight to keep my spot for my last year of graduate school. It was a justice issue, and I trusted the only attorney I could find who would do pro-bono to handle the case with his legal expertise. I am a proud alumnus of Howard and a donor and am grateful that the Howard University Magazine featured my memoir on the Bison Bookshelf.

Ty:Did any of the harsh criticisms voiced ever cause you to consider that any of what you had done was wrong or have you always believed that in your heart you were doing the right thing with the way you have chosen to live your life?

Rachel: Most of the “criticism” was fueled by what my biological parents said on tv (and what they said was based on their goal of shutting down my Black sister’s sexual harassment case against our older White brother (I was her key witness, and sadly the vitriol and hate of so many people resulted in her case getting shut down and she never got her day in court) and what people heard from other biased sources. The critics didn’t wait to hear my whole story or take time to try to understand how both things could be true—aka I was born categorized as White but identify as Black. A lot of the anger was based on either ignorance or bias against me that was connected to racial pain in America. I regret that this situation was used to poke the pain of Black women specifically because if it would have been presented in a fair and positive way I think it would have had the opposite effect. It could have been presented as my life being an extreme act of solidarity, or as “imitation is the most sincere form of flattery,” or to copy another is to compliment, etc. But in our very reactive culture online, people rushed to throw me under the bus—and back up the bus and throw me under it again—and again—and still. I don’t think most people even know how I actually live my life, still to this day, so their opinions matter less to me than the positive outcomes I work toward for my children.

Ty:Very briefly, describe your thoughts on the Trump presidency thus far.

Rachel:Disgust. Frustration. Anger. I don’t know where to begin. Time is up for sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. It’s time for equity and justice; it’s time for reparations; it’s time for inclusivity in all respects of identity; it’s time to build a brighter future for our children, and #45 is not contributing anything toward these goals. I hope #46 along with collective action of The People can overcome the damaging effects of this presidency and this becomes fuel to propel a lot of great political and social action.

Ty: With all of the controversy around you being taken into consideration, I don’t genuinely believe you to be a bad person. I never have. If anything, I may have felt that you were confused, misunderstood, or some combination of those two. Nonetheless, from an objective standpoint, it is very apparent that you have a passion for community advocacy and you seem to be very genuinely invested in promoting advances in social justice. In a world full of negativity, such an energy can be harnessed to yield exponential positivity if employed right. Rachel A. Dolezal, what can we expect from you in 2018? How will you continue to be an ally in the years to come?

Rachel: I will never quit and am no less committed to The Cause or the community than I was in May 2015. I’m the same person and will continue to fight for justice locally, nationally, and globally whenever and wherever I have an opportunity. My involvement has been hindered the past three years due to ongoing unemployment (amid weekly job applications) and the perpetuation of negativity online and in the media. I have been in survival mode trying to provide for my three sons and my sister. I am not a liar. I am not a fraud. Scientists say that by 2050 the majority of this country will be mixed, and we are not doing much to prepare for that future. I hope we can unite together to undo racism and push for equity and justice for future generations. I’m ready.

Ty: Thank you very much for your time. It was a pleasure to be able to hear your perspective and a privilege to be able to interview you.

A Problematic Religious Freedom Day

Image: Politicus USA

Freedom of religion has had roots in our history long before it was guaranteed by the constitution. We grow up with stories of William Penn dedicating Pennsylvania to people of all religions. Americans who opened their hearts and their land to welcome people of different faiths. It is utterly ingrained in our patriotic, opportunistic culture, the freedom to speak, write, express, and pray. Which may be why you either think this holiday is overkill, or you plain haven’t heard of it. To most,  it goes down as a holiday known only on the day of, fading in and out of fickle Twitter accounts like Squirrel Appreciation Day, Jan. 21National Organ Donor Day, Feb. 14, and… Panic Day, March 9. In fact, all Wikipedia has on religious freedom day is a meager 3 sentences:

National Religious Freedom Day commemorates the Virginia General Assembly‘s adoption of Thomas Jefferson‘s landmark Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. That statute became the basis for the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and led to the freedom of religion for all Americans. Religious Freedom Day is officially proclaimed on January 16 each year by an annual statement by the President of the United States.

You probably care about its principles, but I’m not going to pretend you care about the holiday itself, and for years that meant that we’ve been so attuned to the normalcy of religious freedom, that we haven’t had to worry about protecting it. We should hope to see it next year and not bat an eyelash as it passes over us. We shouldn’t have to worry about its sanctity today, but the Trump administration’s press release has more than a few concerned.

It starts off as many Presidential Declarations have, exulting religious freedom’s virtues and vowing to protect it. It ends nicely as well,

The free exercise of religion is a source of personal and national stability, and its preservation is essential to protecting human dignity.  Religious diversity strengthens our communities and promotes tolerance, respect, understanding, and equality.  Faith breathes life and hope into our world.  We must diligently guard, preserve, and cherish this unalienable right.

What’s the problem? Many point to this quote from the president:

Our Constitution and laws guarantee Americans the right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion.  Unfortunately, not all have recognized the importance of religious freedom, whether by threatening tax consequences for particular forms of religious speech or forcing people to comply with laws that violate their core religious beliefs without sufficient justification. These incursions, little by little, can destroy the fundamental freedom underlying our democracy.  Therefore, soon after taking office, I addressed these issues in an Executive Order that helps ensure Americans are able to follow their consciences without undue Government interference and the Department of Justice has issued guidance to Federal agencies regarding their compliance with laws that protect religious freedom.  No American—whether a nun, nurse, baker, or business owner—should be forced to choose between the tenets of faith or adherence to the law.

In the same speech proclaiming the ethics of respecting others, he subtly references the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The case is supported by the Trump administration and a group called Alliance Defending Freedom whom the Southern Poverty Law Center deems a hate group. The story can be summed up as a baker unwilling to create a cake for a gay couple, citing his religious beliefs as the reason why. It was brought up in the supreme court to debate a business’s right to pick and choose customers. This right isn’t immoral in itself, it’s actually exceptionally important. Afterall, who would disagree with a business owner’s decision to kick out an angry, unreasonable customer who generally causes mayhem? Whereas the customer is causing harm to the owner, in circumstances such as Newman vs. Piggie Park enterprises, it’s the other way around. In the 1960’s, a barbecue owner refused service to a man established solely on the fact he was African American. He argued it was because of his religious values too. The lawsuit was a landmark piece of litigation that established that civil rights are more important than religious views.

I want to point out something: if Trump and his followers get his way in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it could harm the people he’s trying to protect. If he believes that business owners should be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs, then he may unknowingly believe that the Christian bake shop proprietor can discriminate against someone of a different faith. The Buddhist refuses the Muslim, the Catholic refuses the Shintoist, and on and on and on. If he truly wants to protect “The right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion,” He should understand the full repercussions of his statement.

With that, let’s hope for a more boring Religous Freedom day next year—a day that actually represents religious freedom.

“This Is Not a Drill”: False Alarm Terrorizes​ Hawaii

Image: The Australian

Imagine enjoying the glowing beaches of paradise one moment and fearing total, nuclear annihilation the next. Well, that’s exactly what happened to residents of Hawaii and vacationers Saturday morning.

img_4546
Notification sent to all phones in Hawaii at 8:07am HST

BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.

That’s the message that was sent out to all of Hawaii via emergency alert notification. Many people began to panic, and wonder if North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un had finally reached his boiling point. As all activities came to a sudden halt, residents and tourists called loved ones, took shelter, and were preparing to die. Little did they know, in spite of what the message said, this was a drill, but it was also a colossal failure.

Moments after the alert was sent out the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency tweeted out that there was no missile threat to Hawaii, but it wasn’t until almost 40 minutes after the initial alert that a second one making the correction was sent. How could such a mistake be possible? A human error, according to officials.

“It was a mistake made during a standard procedure at the change over of a shift, and an employee pushed the wrong button,” stated Hawaiian Governor David Ige, while speaking to CNN on the alert broadcasted through television, radio, and emergency text message to all of Hawaii. Later, in a tweet, Ige has also promised to never let it happen again, but to many Hawaiians, his promise seemed empty and blame began to fall upon Ige, and his Twitter began to fill with angry responses like this one,

Responses like this are justified, considering that over a million people believed that today would be their last day on earth, all thanks to a careless mistake that could have been prevented.

To see the type of impact this alert had on Hawaii, this is a video from the Univeristy of Hawaii at Manoa showing people in a full sprint for safety after seeing the notification:

 

Official Army Twitter Account Likes Anti-Trump Post

On Saturday, the U.S. Army’s official Twitter account liked a tweet from actress Mindy Kaling, apparently mocking President Donald Trump’s claim that he’s “like, really smart.”

This tweet comes after Trump defended his mental fitness by claiming to be “Like, really smart” and “a stable genius.”

The Army later unliked the tweet and stated,

An operator of the Army’s official Twitter account inadvertently ‘liked’ a tweet whose content would not be endorsed by the Department of the Army. As soon as it was brought to our attention, it was immediately corrected.

This isn’t the first time a government social media page expressed anger over Trump. In early 2017, the National Park Service retweeted two photos of small crowds from Trump’s inauguration. Those retweets were later investigated.

Kaling later responded to the Army in a tweet using their signature slogan “Army strong.”

Now We Burn Art

Mansoor Adayfi, a freed prisoner from Guantanamo, said:

Everyone who could draw drew the sea(…) the sea means freedom no one can control or own, freedom for everyone.

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City has put up a controversial art exhibit called “Ode to the Sea” that features 36 paintings, drawings and sculptures, all stamped with the words “Approved by US Forces.” The art was made by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and the exhibition gained worldwide news coverage due to its artists. In November, the government stopped releasing any art from Guantanamo Bay, reportedly in response to the exhibit. Art from Guantanamo was already censored. No art that revealed anything about Guantanamo or that portrayed the United States negatively would be released, and the art was inspected by experts for secret messages. The US government gave no explanation for its change in policy. Apparently, it doesn’t have to, because, according to the Army, the government owns art created in Guantanamo, despite the fact the artists were held there without trial—against their will. Because of this policy, the government can do what it wants with the prisoner’s art. Prisoners cannot take their art with them when they are freed, so instead, the army burns it. A lawyer representing three Guantanamo Bay prisoners said, as quoted by the New York Times, said:

One of my clients was told that, even if he were ever to be released, that he would not be able to take his art with him, and that it would be incinerated.

Art in Guantanamo has never fared well. It has been forbidden, censored, and now it will be burnt.

The Third Reich hated modernism (what it called degenerate art). They deemed it insane and insulting to morality and society. The Nazis removed over 20,000 pieces of art from German museums and put them in a special museum created to mock the art. The “museum” showed the art as corrupt, evil, and nonsensical. Some of the art the Nazis sold, but much of itthey burned. Art made by Jewish artists faced the same fate. The Soviet Union also practiced strict censorship against art, it had a whole office dedicated to deciding what books and paintings the Soviet public could or could not see. Religious art and the books or paintings of people the government had killed or exiled were banned. More recently, ISIS has destroyed tons of art in order to destroy messages they don’t agree with. They burned books from libraries in Mosul that they believed promoted infidelity or disobeyed Allah and destroyed statues they believed promoted following false idols.

Governments destroy and censor art in order to get rid of its message. The Nazis hated modernism because it didn’t focus on an idealized image of Anglo-Saxon society. It blurred the lines between good and bad. It scorned the absolutes that the Third Reich was built upon. The Soviet Union censored any art that criticized the government or didn’t perfectly fit communist ideals. ISIS destroys art that promotes anything but following their beliefs. Governments also censor art because it connects and humanizes people, making it much harder to demonize an enemy. Nazis mocked and burned Jewish art, the Soviet Union banned the art of exiles and religious people, ISIS destroys the art of so-called sinners.

The United States government is censoring the art of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for the same reasons. First, the United States didn’t release any art they didn’t agree with. Now, no art can leave their island “dungeon.” Our government would rather burn art made by prisoners than let it leave Guantanamo because it proves that the prisoners are humans—not monsters. Because the art depicts the views of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners and humanizes them, it makes the public ask questions about Guantanamo thatthey couldn’t when the prisoners were just “the worst of the worst.” The government has no good answers. 779 people have been kept at Guantanamo—forty-one remain. The Trump administration has freed none. Eight have been convicted in illegal military commissions. Of these eight, these three were completely overturned, and one was partially overturned. Only one prisoner was found guilty in a legal court case. Lawrence Wilkerson, a former senior State Department official, declared:

There was no meaningful way to determine whether [the prisoners] were terrorists, Taliban, or simply innocent civilians picked up on a very confused battlefield or in the territory of another state such as Pakistan.

The government offered thousands of dollars to anyone who brought in a person they said was a member of ISIS, and some prisoners weren’t even vetted by any Americans before being sent to Guantanamo to be tortured. Wilkerson testifies children as young as twelve and thirteen years-old were shipped to Guantanamo alongwith men in their 90s.In Guantanamo, prisoners were beaten by guards, forced into ice baths, and waterboarded. No communication with families was allowed, even for prisoners who had been found innocent and were just being held—sometimes for years—until a country would take them. Even with extreme security measures and constant supervision, seven prisoners managed to commit suicide. Yasser Zahrini was taken to Guantanamo when he was sixteen. He committed suicide at twenty-one, becoming the youngest person to die at Guantanamo. Many other prisoners attempted suicide, Majid Khan reported trying to commit suicide by chewing through his own arteries because the conditions at Guantanamo were so bad. On top of that, according to a Senate committee investigation, torture was a completely ineffective means to gain truthful information, and the CIA lied about the about gaining helpful information from torture.

The United States committed war crimes, now it is demonizing its victims. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ art is their best way to connect with the public, but our government would rather burn their art than let it reach the eyes of American citizens.

The Fight for Net Neutrality

Image: CNBC

Do you have an idea that you want to develop? Do you fancy yourself an entrepreneur? Good for you! Your future is bright! Here in the Land of the Free, we are fortunate to be able to access information with ease. Just think of the treasure trove of help you can find with your budding business on the internet! But wait! Maybe not! Have you heard of Net Neutrality? Sounds boring? Well, stop snoring and take notice! The business you save may be your own!

The Facts

Net Neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs)—think of companies like Verizon, Spectrum, AT&T, and more—will provide the same access to an open internet, no matter the status of an individual. So when you question the almighty Google from your phone, you get the same results as some big shot company executive from her corner office. That sounds like a good idea for a variety of reasons. For example, if you really are trying to start your own business, the internet is a great place to advertise and sell your products or services. If you are a social activist, the internet gives you a platform to organize and communicate. These notions are dependent on a vital and open internet.

We currently have strong net neutrality protections here in the United States. In 2015, thanks to the strong support of millions of net neutrality activists, the Obama administration was able to draft net neutrality regulations, getting the ISPs classified as “common carriers” under Title II of the Communications Act. This allowed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to draft strong regulations protecting access to the internet. Now, however, these regulations are under attack, led by the current administrations FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. A vote by the FCC to rescind these regulations are currently scheduled for December 14. The Democrats have asked for a delay in the vote, but the FCC has denied that request.

What would happen if these protections are rescinded? Your internet access may begin to look more and more like your cable TV access. That means you may have different packages from which to choose, with each package providing you a different level of access to the internet. Additionally, an ISP may determine the speed at which the content is delivered. For example, the more you pay, the faster you play.

It is also critical to remember that in many areas of the US, ISP providers may not even exist. According to Dr. Brian Whitacre of Oklahoma State University, just over ½ (55%) of people living in rural areas of the United States can access internet speeds considered to be broadband! This percentage suggests there aren’t a heck of a lot of ISPs out there in rural America. If net neutrality goes out the window, and ISPs can dictate access, who is the competition in rural America? These folks will have to simply take what they are offered.

Proponents of rescinding the net neutrality regulations, AT&T being one of the most notable, indicate the current regulations hinders ISPs investments in innovation. Yet the evidence we see around us each day is that technology is improving. This argument seems to be lame when compared to the stifling effect rescinding can have on budding entrepreneurs, start-up businesses, activists, and others in dorm rooms and garages, dreaming big dreams and making great strides, thanks to our open internet.

What You Can Do

There is a wide variety of options for people like you—people who want to save net neutrality and save our internet—the first being signing this petition: Save the Internet. Save the Internet is an online petition with one simple goal: protecting our rights and providing every person that browses the internet equal access to every site that they browse. You can also even donate to their cause here.

You can call your senator by using this simple tool: Call My Congress. It will help you find all of the contact information of all of your elected officials. You must use it to urge your representatives and senators to vote net neutrality.

The truth is, we have almost no time left. The vote in the FCC is today, so we must act now. Now is our time to be heard before it’s too late.

The First Thanksgiving… and Diplomatic Empathy

Image: Faith and History

In late September or early October 1621, the Pilgrims hosted a celebration of their first harvest. The Native American tribe, Wampanoag, that had helped them through the spring came with twice as many people, making it an overwhelmingly Native American celebration. While there was turkey, deer was the main course, it was a multi-day affair and there was not enough tables nor chairs to seat everyone. This celebration has been heralded as the first Thanksgiving, despite the fact, Puritans defined a Thanksgiving as a period of prayer and devotion to God, not a meal or celebration. Every year, Thanksgiving is held throughout America with a turkey dinner on the fourth Thursday of November commemorating that celebration. Despite the historical fallaciousness, the sentiment shines through. In modern America, Thanksgiving is a time to be thankful for what you have, the first Thanksgiving was the Pilgrims celebrating their first harvest and possibly was their way of thanking the Wampanoags. The Pilgrims owed the Wampanoags not only for single-handedly saving the Pilgrims lives that wretched first year but also for the political connection to the Native American tribes that allowed the Pilgrims to be active diplomatic players in North America and would continue to help them for years to come. The political bond formed between the Wampanoags and Pilgrims was an incredible feat given the huge cultural difference between the groups and that the Wampanoag’s past experiences with white settlers had been overwhelmingly negative. In fact, the Wampanoags and other Native American tribes had at very least discussed killing the Pilgrims when they first arrived. In the end, the Wampanoags helped them out of their own necessity. They were a small tribe, weakened by diseases and increasingly threatened by the stronger more populous tribes surrounding them. They decided to become allies of these new settlers who brought technology the Native Americans were familiar with but didn’t have a source for. For the Wampanoags, it was a risky bet that they hoped would have a high political and financial payout.

The Pilgrim-Wampanoag alliance was an extremely beneficial one. They both benefited in trade and were much safer than they would have been alone. Amazingly this alliance lasted nearly 50 years, and so did peace between the Pilgrims and Wampanoags despite the fact that everything about the culture of Native Americans and Pilgrims was different, their languages, their traditions, their religions. The alliance was an incredible feat of diplomacy between the two groups, created primarily by mutual necessity and opportunism but also an incredible amount of empathy. The Pilgrims came from Europe in the 17th century, where people were seen as less for having a different religion or race, but in this new world, the Pilgrims couldn’t afford to be intolerant. The two peoples coexisted in a way future settlers wouldn’t even be able to imagine. The Pilgrims hired Native Americans, stayed in their Wigwams during diplomatic meetings and a few Native Americans even lived with the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims treated Native Americans and their ways with respect, they were even subdued in their Puritan evangelism. Possibly the best account of how much respect the Pilgrims had for the Native Americans was a trial. In 1638 four European settlers robbed and killed a Native American. The Pilgrim’s court found the settlers guilty and executed them. The Pilgrims saw a Native American life as equal to a European’s.

Leading up to King Philip’s war in 1675, the European settlers became less and less empathetic to the Native Americans. Missionaries began converting tribes to Christianity, a religion Philip, the new leader of the Wampanoags, was increasingly wary of. More Europeans poured over from Europe and they bullied the Wampanoags into giving up more land than the tribe could survive without. The Europeans provoked the Wampanoags more and more until one event finally sparked King Philip’s war. Three of Philip’s men were accused of killing a European educated Native American. The three were found guilty despite the fact only one witness had seen the alleged events and the law required two witnesses. The Pilgrims hung the three Native Americans, the last of the three hangings failed because the rope broke and the Pilgrims forced a confession from the third Native American after already hanging the other two, securing their second witness. It was a demolition of justice and started the war Philip had already been preparing for. A war that the Europeans had forced upon the Native Americans by trying to take over and bully them. The Pilgrims had treated their neighbors as subhuman. The result was a war. One that the Europeans won, but not without paying a heavy price. One in ten soldiers on both sides was killed and 1,200 homes of colonists were destroyed. The colonists lived in terror during the war and felt its financial effects long after.

That war might have been inevitable for America due too the number of Europeans coming in who needed to take land from someone and the natural clash between government and cultures, but if the Pilgrims had been more respectful, diplomatic and empathetic with their neighbors they could have left that war for another group of colonists. As it was, they put themselves in a similar situation to the one they had been in 55 years prior, months before the first Thanksgiving when they were low on supplies and terrified. That Thanksgiving was the Pilgrims reaping the benefits of a win-win alliance they created with the Wampanoags when they had been in that dark desperate situation. In the modern world, our countries need win-win solutions. Life is better in a peaceful world. Any conflict, whether physical, economic, or political, hurts civilians. Also, bullying may have worked for America’s forefathers but the world is different today, the United States can’t force Mexico to pay for a wall, or North Korea to give up its weaponry or China to stop building islands, we need diplomatic win-win solutions and we need people who have empathy, who can look at thing from other people’s point of view, to create those win-win solutions.

This Thanksgiving let’s be thankful for the leaders around the world working in governments, nonprofits, and privately to make the world safer. Let’s be thankful the UN exists, as an organization that is dedicated to creating diplomatic solutions. Let’s be thankful the United States and any other country that signed the UN charter into law must seek diplomatic solutions before starting a war. Let’s be thankful the world has come a long way in diplomacy since 1675.