America – Page 2 – We The People

Have Your Dentures Been Missing for the Last Week? Did You Vote in Portland, Maine? We May Have Found Your Teeth.

First reported seven days ago by the Portland Press Herald, a local paper, and eventually reported 4,000 miles and an ocean away in Malta, if you haven’t heard about your own teeth by now, all of us here at WTP Magazine are sure hoping this works.

So you didn’t realize by breakfast time that you can’t chew? It’s fine. We all skip breakfast some days. We just want to make sure you get your dentures back safe and sound.

The teeth were found by an election clerk at Merill Auditorium. They have been placed in a plastic bag and can be found at the City Clerk’s office in City Hall.

Reportedly, somebody had called the City Clerk’s office yesterday concerning the dentures, but the City Clerk, Katherine Jones, told The Rachel Maddow Show:

[T]he questions he asked did not match the dentures we have.

This statement obviously prompts one interesting question in particular: Did more than one person remove and misplace their dentures while voting in the same place in Portland, Maine?

We don’t know.

What we do know is that if you happen to have misplaced your teeth at Merill Auditorium while voting, then you should call the City Clerk’s office at (207) 874-8610 or (207) 874-8300.

If calling is somewhat of a problem because—well—you don’t have any teeth, emailing is also an option. You can email the City Clerk at klj@portlandmaine.com.

Whether it was something that was just so jaw-dropping on the ballot or whether the decision was just so hard that you had to pull out your teeth to think clearly, we sure hope that you find your teeth just fine.

Terror in Barcelona

Image: Gone Fishing

Fifteen people have been killed in a terror attack on Las Ramblas avenue in Barcelona on the 17th of August. Over 80 others were injured. An attacker drove a large white van down Las Ramblas Avenue, a pedestrian street packed with tourists and Barcelonians, plowing through crowds of people, killing and injuring many while causing mass chaos and a mini stampede. The attack happened before 5 pm Central European Time (11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and the Police acted quickly, evacuating the area and closing nearby Metro and train stations while getting aid to the victims.

The attackers reportedly had fled on foot. Four men were arrested for their alleged involvement in the attack. Also, police found another van they believe was going to be used as a getaway vehicle and found Moroccan passports. Driss Oukabir, one of the arrested suspects, claims his documents were stolen to rent the vans. Adding to the confusion, a hostage situation was reported by the media, but it is unclear whether it actually happened. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack, but this does not mean that the attackers have any direct ties with ISIS. Furthermore, an explosion the day before that killed one person and injured 6 has been linked to the attack. Our hearts are with Barcelona, the victims of this callous and unwarranted attack, and the law enforcement and medical staff dealing with its fallout.

Many politicians and famous people tweeted their support. President Macron of France, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada, President Vladimir Putin of Russia and many other world leaders also issued statements or tweets expressing their solidarity with Barcelona, including our own President, Trump. Trump originally told Barcelona to “be tough & strong, we love you” in a kind, heartfelt tweet of solidarity, but then proceeded to tweet a bizarre statement mentioning a claim he made on the campaign trail about an American General in the Philippines during the early 1900’s dipping bullets in Pig’s blood before shooting 49 captured terrorists and sending the 50th back to report what had happened. Trump said it stopped terrorism for 35 years in his tweet. First of all, this piece of made up “history” has been debunked, and second of all, let me recount a bit of history to explain how truly atrocious and dehumanizing this urban legend is. When America invaded the Philippines, there were protests against it in America with supporters saying the invasion was cruel and unfair and supporters saying that we had to bring order and civilization to a “barbaric race,” in the words of a United States Senator at the time. The Muslims we were fighting against were the native Filipinos who were trying to protect their country. We were the terrorists. We put people into “reconcentration camps” and killed somewhere between 200,000 and a million civilians in a war that only killed 16000 Filipino soldiers. It is possible Trump’s story is true, except we weren’t killing terrorists, we were committing an atrocity against a country and race based on racist stereotypes. The answer to Islamic extremism is not to make the West seem barbaric or aggressive towards Islamism or people in general. Trump has been inadvertently helping ISIS recruit with his aggression and insulting speeches towards all Islam (and humanity) instead of violent Islam, even having been featured in ISIS recruitment video.

Refocusing on the attack, this is the ninth vehicle attack in Europe. Seven previous vehicle attacks were committed by ISIS affiliated attackers and one was committed by an extremist who drove into a group of people outside of mosque saying “I want to kill all Muslims.” There was also a vehicle attack on the home front in Charlottesville just this Saturday. White Supremacists had gathered for a rally protesting the taking down of a Robert E. Lee statue, their chants and messages couldn’t possibly be misconstrued as not hateful, with chants like “Jews will not replace us” as they held Hitler signs. Counter-protesters formed a line in front of them, refusing to let them pass. The protesters violently charged through them, and the two groups broke out into fighting. Luckily, police were there to disperse the two groups. While the governor of Charlottesville called it a state of emergency. Nobody had yet gotten killed or seriously injured and both groups were leaving. Then, a white nationalist drove a car into a group of counter-demonstrators, killing one and injuring nineteen. When the attack happened, the groups of protesters and counter-protesters had already split up, there was no violence or skirmishes going on between those groups at the time of the attack. In a statement after the attacks, our President refused to condemn the White Supremacists, even when asked direct questions about his view of them, instead, he blamed violence on “many sides.” Two days later, Trump claimed that he didn’t support the KKK or White Supremacist groups in a scripted speach, however, on Tuesday, he had undone the comments that he had made on Monday by going as far as defending the white supremacists. By any account, his statement of condemnation came too late and was too ambiguous. White Supremacists took his failure to condemn them as support, and it seemed a lot like support to everyone else as well.

As a nation, and as a world we are left with these facts; vehicles are easy to get and large groups of innocent people are easy to find. Having one group of crazy extremists inspired by ISIS to attack people was scary enough, but now because of the amount of xenophobia, fear and hate that has been caused by ISIS and how our countries have handled ISIS, anti-Muslim extremists and white supremacists are also attacking innocent people in their twisted war on people who are different.

There is no sign this is going to get any better. The leader of the KKK said of the attack in Charlottesville “we’re going to see more stuff like this happening at white-nationalist events.” He could absolutely be right. As more terrorist attacks happen, charged by different groups all of whom are growing and possibly becoming more violent, we need a leader who’s going to condemn all people who kill innocent civilians or attempt to whether they are White Supremacists, Muslim extremists or anti-Muslim extremists, without insulting any groups who did not kill innocent civilians. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has demonstrated how he is completely incapable of confronting many of his base supporters.

Illegal Immigration- 11.1 Million Lives in Limbo

Image: The New Yorker

There were 11.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States in 2014 according to the Pew Research Center. They made up 3.5% of the U.S. population and one-fourth of the US immigrant population. Since 2009, the population of undocumented immigrants has stabilized, meaning that the percentage of the US population that are undocumented immigrants has stayed the same (or very close to it). Therefore, the most important question in immigration policy today is what should the United States do with the undocumented immigrants already here.

Undocumented immigrants are problematic for various reasons. They often have to commit crimes like using a counterfeit driver’s license because they have no social security number. They also haven’t gone through the screenings that legal immigrants in our country have. Another problem is that employers could potentially take advantage of their vulnerability—they may be put in unsafe conditions and paid less than minimum wage, but they can’t report their employer to the authorities because they risk deportation. This is obviously a problem for the immigrants, but it also means documented immigrants and American citizens can’t compete for these jobs. Undocumented immigrants live in fear they will be deported which means they are less likely to work with the police and other authorities.

There are two solutions to this issue: deport all of these undocumented immigrants or give them a path to citizenship. Recently, the Trump administration has endorsed the idea of mass deportation. Marielena Hincapie, an immigration advocate, told NPR:

In my many years of practicing immigration law, I have not seen a mass deportation blueprint like this one. Trump is saying that everyone is now a priority. He is governing by fear, not by what’s best for the American people or for aspiring Americans.

As she points out, Trump’s new plan targets basically all undocumented immigrants, not just criminals. He has already looked at adding 15,000 officers to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and blocking federal funding from sanctuary cities.

Sixty percent of undocumented immigrants have been in the US for more than ten years, which gives reason to assume that they have become integrated into their community. In fact, one-third of illegal immigrants over age 15 live with a child who is a US citizen. CNN reported the story of Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant with two American children, who was deported February 8, 2017. Her deportation sparked protests as her children spoke against it. She was checking in with ICE when she got deported. A few years before, she had been caught using a fake Social Security number and lost her case. Since she was not a priority to be deported, instead of deporting her, ICE just did check-ins. She went to seven meetings with ICE and followed all the instructions they gave her. There did not seem to be any reason to deport her but, as the lawyer of another woman in the same situation stated, “When you have a blanket deportation policy you don’t need to have specific reasons, you just say no.” Garcia De Rayos’s situation is a common one, and now that Trump is in charge, all of these people who weren’t in danger of being deported because they were not a priority are now in danger of being deported. Critics say this policy does more to rip families apart than to keep America safe. The government is supposed to work to make American’s lives better, but deporting parents of US citizens is working against that goal. These children, who are US citizens, may be put in the care of an older sibling, sent to an unsafe or impoverished country, or landed in foster care.

Some children were not born in the United States, but were brought here at a young age as undocumented immigrants by their parents. Obviously, they had not been the ones to decide that their family would move to the US, but they have grown up knowing the United States as their only home. DACA stands for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It is an executive order signed by President Obama to grant undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children (dubbed “dreamers”) amnesty and work permits. Roughly 750,000 undocumented immigrants are protected under the program. These are people who were taken to the US before they turned 16. Some don’t even remember their native country. Even Trump has sympathy for their case; he has promised to keep DACA in place and says “it’s a very, very tough subject” because “you have some absolutely, incredible kids.” However, his word can’t be trusted. While he may be hesitant to undo the order due to fear of political backlash, he could just stop issuing work permits or deport people based on misdemeanors or find another way around the order. Kamal Essaheb from the National Immigration Law Center told CNN:

We cannot at this time offer a confident assessment of whether anyone—including those with DACA—are protected from enforcement.

Sadly, Trump definitely holds the power to deport the “dreamers” if he really desired to do so. This just seems cruel, especially since DACA only applies to law-abiding undocumented immigrants brought to America as children.

Logistically, a mass deportation just doesn’t make sense. The American Action Forum found removing all the undocumented immigrants in America would cost between $100 billion and $300 billion dollars, take 20 years, and shrink the GDP by $1.6 trillion. According to National Farm Workers Ministry, six out of ten farm workers are undocumented immigrants. If all those workers are deported, food prices in America might skyrocket as employers struggle to fill those positions and have to pay workers more. A shrinking GDP and higher food prices create difficulties for all Americans, and, remember, this is all to deport people who aren’t dangerous or causing problems.

Deportation is not as easy [or cheap] as it may sound. Some people are hard to deport. Only about half of the undocumented immigrants in America are from Mexico. 268,000 are from China, one of the twenty-three countries that do not cooperate with deportations, which means there is literally nowhere to deport these people. Deporting people from other countries like India, Korea or even El Salvador can be costly because they would have to be flown back to their countries of origin.

Now let’s consider the other solution, giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. This plan would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship and would probably include temporary amnesty as they go through the process. It would mean safety for the families currently in danger of being ripped apart and the “dreamers” and every other undocumented immigrant who now has their life here and hasn’t broken any major laws. A change in administration would no longer decide whether parents can stay with their children or whether someone is shipped off to a country they haven’t seen since they were five, and if there are fewer people too afraid of deportation to report their bosses, employers in America would have to comply with American safety and minimum wage laws. Money would still have to be spent on border control and removing dangerous criminals, but less would be spent on deporting people. Some people claim giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship would encourage more people to come to America illegally. There is no data to back up this claim and logically the possibility, after living in America illegally for years, that you might get amnesty and begin the process to become a citizen is a weak pull factor when compared to the other push and pull factors involved with illegal immigration. These people are leaving their countries to escape extreme poverty, violence and in some cases oppressive governments. They come to America to get a steady income to support their families and a safe place to live. Simply giving these people a path to citizenship seems to be the best option regarding most of the undocumented immigrant population in America. For now 11.1 million people’s lives hang in the balance while the Trump administration tries to decide what to do with them.

Another Atrocity In Syria

Image: VOA News via AP Images

On the fourth of April, the Assad regime attacked civilian targets in Syria. A doctor in a hospital near the attack told CNN, “Today around 7:30 a.m., about 125 … arrived to our hospital. Twenty-five of them were already dead, 70% to 80% of the wounded people were kids and women.” He went on to describe symptoms indicative of a sarin gas attack. More than eighty-six people died in the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, a small town in Syria. The main hospital in Khan Sheikhoun was bombed as well. Neither of the attacks seemed to have any counter-terrorism purpose. In response, Trump fired fifty-nine missiles at the air base responsible for much of Assad’s bombing in Syria.

In 2013, a similar attack by Assad happened with very different results. Over a thousand people were killed in a sarin attack by the Assad regime in 2013. The attack was investigated by the United Nations and was a human rights scandal even though Assad had attacked his citizens with chemical agents before in much smaller attacks. In Syria’s six-year civil war, Assad’s regime has been accused of torture, sieging cities and starving innocent citizens, chemical warfare and other war crimes. Assad’s government is in a fight against rebel groups that include ISIS but is also an oppressive regime that has repeatedly targeted civilians instead of rebel groups and terrorists. Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, even conceded that Assad’s regime used chemical warfare. America’s previous policy did include removing Assad from office, but Trump’s air strike was the first American attack on the Assad regime.

Because it is backed by Russia and stands between ISIS and complete control of Syria, attacking the Assad regime could lead to a disastrous international fallout. This is why Assad has been able to use chemical warfare on civilians without fear of being attacked by a superpower. By attacking Assad, Trump attacked an ally in the fight against ISIS. America has supported rebel troops trying to overthrow Assad while Russia has supported Assad claiming that ISIS will take over Syria without his leadership. Opponents of Russia’s viewpoint claim ISIS has taken over much of Syria because the Assad regime was not stable enough to fight back well. If America continues to attack and possibly overthrow Assad, it would be up to the rest of the world to create a stable government fast enough to stop ISIS from taking over. It is also worth noting that citizens may be less likely to join ISIS or Al-Qaeda if they feel the West is doing something to stop the bombing and terror that comes with daily life in Syria.

Russia has already responded to the attack on its ally in a joint statement with Iran that says, “What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.” This means if America attacks the Assad Regime again it might start a war with Russia and Iran. Once again the world may be teetering on the edge of a world war. But at the same time, how can America and the rest of the free world continue to allow a brutal and repressive government to abuse its people?

Trump added more frightening dimensions to the story by not getting congress’s approval before issuing the air strikes. This could be illegal and shows he is willing to attack countries without going through the necessary diplomatic steps. When Obama considered bombing Assad in 2013, he got congress’s approval, yet Trump neglected to go through the fundamental procedure. Trump has been criticized for his flippant statement on nuclear weapons while on the campaign trail; he even asked why we were making nukes if we weren’t going to use them, demonstrated minimal to no knowledge of the nuclear triad, and refused to promise not to nuke Europe. He also said we had to be unpredictable with nuclear power and said he was okay with countries such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia getting nuclear power. In some cases, he even encouraged it. He has also been criticized for suggesting that America should torture the families of terrorists and commit other war crimes. Because of these statements, it is especially worrying to see him bomb Assad without going through congress, in a move that can be seen as having little foresight. Next time, he may decide to drop a bomb on a city instead of an air base. Also, the decision has been criticized because it makes little sense strategically in that it did little more than anger Assad. Planes started taking off from the airbase America bombed less than 24 hours after it was bombed. Comedian John Oliver had made a joke, saying, “Delta passengers experience more significant delays on a daily basis.”
Thomas Friedman had said, speaking of the Syrian crisis, “If there were a good, easy solution it would have been found already.” The decision to fight Assad or let him do as he pleases without fear of retaliation is foreign policy at its most treacherous. Both choices have a very real human cost and a million repercussions, but to some extent, they also come down to how much Americans care about Syrians being slaughtered and living in terror. Enough to risk the lives of Americans? Enough to let them into our country? Enough to send money and aid?

As for the air strikes, many human rights advocates are just thankful a foreign power is finally standing up for the civilians of Syria. These people are being attacked by ISIS, other rebel groups and their own government in a brutal civil war. They face a perilous and often deadly journey to a refugee camp if they decide to leave. Whether you agree with Trump’s retaliation or not, keep the people of battle torn Syria in your thoughts.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.