WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 1094
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-06-07 14:32:51
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-06-07 14:32:51
    [post_content] => Celebrity chefs and food manufacturers are setting an example for us all in reimagining and repurposing discarded food

When I first began to cook, learning to discriminate between what I could and could not eat was essential to understanding my way around the kitchen. Dark green tops of leeks, for instance, are considered waste. Radish roots are for salad, but the greens are usually discarded. As a cook and an avid eater, I generated a significant amount of unused vegetable matter. Eventually, I began composting those food scraps. But what if those radish greens and leek tops had value? What if they were not considered waste?

Unused food product has become a major environmental issue. One third of the food produced globally goes to waste every year, along with all the resources spent on its production, even as 1 billion people around the world starve. Meanwhile, the methane produced by food discarded in landfills contributes 8% of greenhouse gases that are rapidly warming our planet to dangerous levels.

When restaurants, food manufacturers, and caterers break down raw ingredients, peel vegetables, and trim cuts of meat, they generate enormous quantities of scraps. Supermarkets, meanwhile, throw away produce just slightly past its aesthetic prime, sending wilted lettuce and imperfect-looking bananas to the landfills.

In 2016 ReFED, a U.S. non-profit consortium that is committed to reducing food waste, produced a report called “Rethinking Food Waste through Economics and Data: A Roadmap to Reduce Food Waste." Among their findings: in the United States, $218 billion is spent each year just to grow, process, distribute, and then dispose of food that nobody ate. Landfills receive 52.4 million tons of food in a year. Restaurants in the United States alone produce 11.4 million tons of food waste annually, worth about $25 billion. The quantity of waste is mind-bending.

Problem of perception

Now some celebrity chefs are setting an example for us all in reducing waste with creative methods. Massimo Bottura, owner of the Michelin three-star Osteria Francescana in Modena, Italy, is a famous advocate of using discarded food scraps rather than throwing them away. In his cookbook Bread Is Gold, published in 2015, he provides recipes that reclaim unused food items, including one for chutney made from banana peels. Plenty of foods considered inedible in some cultures are part of the diet in others. Koreans, for example, make a tea from corn silk. Many chefs today appreciate the woody flavor corn husks add to broths. The green tops of leeks can be used for soups, and radish greens add a peppery bite to salads. “Waste,” says Chef Douglas McMaster of Silo, the U.K.’s first zero waste restaurant, “is a failure of the imagination.” Waste is also a byproduct of affluence and privilege. I often think about the disconnect between my grandmother’s kitchen sense and my mother’s: My grandmother survived the Second World War with her family in Siberia, where food was scarce and hunger widespread. When she speaks of that period, she often recounts digging in the ground to find discarded potato peels, which for her were a nutrient-rich food. When I was growing up in suburban New Jersey during the 1980s and ‘90s, we never thought twice about discarding our potato peels — or most food, for that matter.

Converting organic waste into soil

Composting — the process of converting organic materials into densely nutrient-rich topsoil — is a commonly practiced solution to food waste. San Francisco is one of several American cities that has established a municipal program to collect and treat organic waste. New York City currently requires commercial kitchens to dispose of organic matter in separate bins. Huge digesters, essentially in-house machine-operated composters that convert food scraps into soil using special enzymes, help offset the volume of waste generated by large food establishments that would otherwise be hauled away and processed off premises. To be sure, alleviating the burden on landfills and turning organic matter into soil is an incredibly important solution for cities and companies to pursue. But, as many food waste entrepreneurs are realizing, a better solution is to limit the creation of waste in the first place and compost only what is truly inedible. In the case of commercial composting, hauling tons of food scraps in tractor-trailers across state lines to commercial facilities (sometimes great distances) and operating fossil fuel-powered machinery to process waste expends energy and places carbon in the atmosphere. Profit is another incentive: according to a recent report, restaurants save seven dollars for every dollar invested in methods to limit food waste.

Turning liabilities into assets

By rethinking how we cook and what we consume, we can create innovative solutions that bring huge ecological and social benefits. Some new food companies have already implemented systems to prevent nutrient-rich foods from being thrown away. Take, for example, the case of acidic whey. A byproduct of Greek-style strained yogurt, it cannot legally be disposed of by throwing it down the drain or into natural waterways, because it sucks up the oxygen in water and destroys aquatic life. The whey is, however, tangy, probiotic, and nutrient-rich. And so large yogurt-manufacturing companies like Chobani pay to have it transported in bulk to farmers, who feed it to their animals. Homa Dashtaki, the owner of White Moustache, a Brooklyn-based artisanal yogurt brand, calls whey, which is full of vitamins but contains no calories or fat, a “golden elixir.” She has begun supplying restaurants with whey for their own experiments, like specialty cocktails, but still has a significant quantity left over. Rather than pay someone to haul it away, Dashtaki created innovative products, like a probiotic tonic made of flavored whey, and a probiotic popsicle infused with fresh fruit. On a much larger scale, the New York-based specialty foods distributor Baldor has pursued a zero waste strategy by creating an entirely new business ecosystem. Thomas McQuillan, the company’s vice president of strategy, culture, and sustainability, understands the value of carrot peels. “Food product has to be consumed by human beings, it has to be consumed by animals or it has to be turned into energy or compost,” he said recently, while giving a lecture at New York’s Food Waste Fair. He added that food “should never go to landfills.” In 2016, Baldor set into a motion a program called SparCs (scraps spelled backwards) to eliminate food waste from their fresh produce processing facility. It takes the150,000 pounds of fruit and vegetable by-product it generates each week and turns it over to animal or human consumption. Baldor partners with chefs to create baked goods, broths, juices, and sauces with these scraps, and with farmers who use them for feed. Since its inception, the program has diverted 6,000 tons of produce from landfill. Baldor has thus not only generated new revenue streams, but also reduced its waste haul by 73%. It is now a zero organic waste company.

A new consciousness

While not every food service company can afford to rethink its business model, companies with the resources to do so must take the lead. This is the only way to create a cultural shift that will set the standard for small food businesses. When companies like Baldor and White Moustache notice inefficiencies in the existing structures and begin looking for creative and environmentally sustainable solutions, they change how we as a culture understand the value of food. By strategically intervening and reframing the idea of waste while reasserting the value of the whole vegetable, for instance, we not only limit food waste, but we also ease the burden on our environment and maximize the nutrition of food to reach more people. These ideas and policies can affect how we all cook and eat in our own homes, so that we create a more sustainable and innovative food culture.  We already have the capacity to feed the entire world. Reframing waste as food is the first step toward ensuring a more just and sustainable food system. [post_title] => We would have enough food to feed the planet if we stopped wasting so much of it [post_excerpt] => One third of the food produced globally every year goes to waste, even as 1 billion people starve. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => we-would-have-enough-food-to-feed-the-planet-if-we-stopped-wasting-so-much-of-it [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:30 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=1094 [menu_order] => 324 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

We would have enough food to feed the planet if we stopped wasting so much of it

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 1083
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-06-06 14:36:45
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-06-06 14:36:45
    [post_content] => Expressing dissent in China is difficult and dangerous, but a brave few persist in telling their story. 

This week the world remembers the events that took place on June 4, 1989, in Tiananmen Square — although remembering is easier to do in some countries than in others. China’s digital great wall blocks access to information about the massacre, often with the help of American technology companies. Demonstrators who were in Tiananmen and lived through the crackdown that followed don’t even tell their children about it, lest they ask questions of the wrong people. Even more disturbing, young Chinese students raised in a post-Tiananmen world question the value of knowing what really happened that day, as Louisa Lim, the author of The People’s Republic of Amnesia, writes in the New York Times. 

But while the Communist party has succeeded in crushing dissent, it has not figured out a way to make people forget. Today some survivors of those horrific events that took place in Beijing 30 years ago still make tiny, subversive gestures to show they have not forgotten, thus proving that people can uphold the historical record even under the most repressive governments.

In a moving reported op-ed for the New York Times, China expert Ian Johnson describes this quiet dissent expressed by brave writers, artists, musicians, and intellectuals as “unofficial history.” They “have taken it upon themselves to preserve the memories of the country’s many killings, famines, uprisings and government crackdowns,” he writes. This history is smuggled in and out of China, accessed through VPN software to avoid censorship, or conveyed in symbolic code. This unofficial history is a testament to the resilience of people and of storytellers.

In addition to the vibrant unofficial history kept alive by a community of people, Johnson writes for the New York Review of Books that the official history of Tiananmen Square continues to expand, most recently with a book about how the Communist Party rewrote history the week following the crackdown, including backdating political endorsements of the decision to use military force on the protestors. The “truth stubbornly endures,” Johnson writes.

In other news:

Can the social cost of carbon — a figure that estimates the economic burden of climate change per metric ton of carbon dioxide — help incentive climate change solutions? Read more. What is “economic patriotism”? Read about Elizabeth Warren’s plan to reinvigorate American industry. At this New York bakery, it’s not your past (whatever it may hold) that matters, but your future. What does employment based on the  Buddhist principle of “non-judgment” look like? [post_title] => This is how China's political dissidents keep historical memory alive [post_excerpt] => In China, brave writers, artists, musicians, and intellectuals have taken it upon themselves to preserve the memories of events their government works hard to repress with digital censorship and police harassment. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => chinas-digital-great-wall-censors-facts-but-memory-persists [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:30 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=1083 [menu_order] => 325 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

This is how China’s political dissidents keep historical memory alive

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 1076
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-05-31 16:43:38
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-31 16:43:38
    [post_content] => The decline in international news coverage over the past two years has worrying implications

My friend used to chain smoke cigarettes as he reported from the front lines of Libya’s civil war and from Cairo’s Tahrir Square during the tumultuous 2011 Arab Spring. Today, he lives in Washington, D.C., where he has an exciting job covering U.S. news as well as a dog, and a new baby. My friend belongs to a wave of American journalists who were once foreign correspondents but have over the past couple of years shifted back to the United States. Now he reports from a different front line — the Trump White House. This shift of reporters from foreign beats to the domestic one reflects a worrying decline in rigorous international news coverage.

In 2018, six out of 10 of the top stories published by the Washington Post were Trump-related. This could be because readers are looking for Trump news; or it could be that most of the stories their favorite media outlets publish are about the president.

Foreign news coverage has, to be sure, been on the decline for quite some time. According to a 2014 Pew report 20 media companies eliminated their foreign bureaus over the past two decades. Furthermore, 64% of 250 newspapers surveyed said that over the past three years they decreased the space allotted to international news.

Declining interest

Rick Edmonds, a media analyst at the Poynter Institute, says that coverage of foreign news, especially among the big three American networks, has been declining “for a long time.” Those who seek international news coverage now rely on the New York Times and the BBC, or specialist publications and sites. Trump's attempts to monopolize the news cycle, Edmonds observes, has accelerated and exacerbated the decline in international news coverage. Freelancers are feeling the pinch. Rebecca Collard, who freelances for various Canadian media outlets, confirms that since Trump was elected, she has found it increasingly difficult to find a home for stories that are not about the U.S. president or about the so-called Islamic State. A couple of years ago, Collard said, “there was constant demand” for reporting across print, radio, and television. She was filing four stories per day from northern Iraq, plus television and radio reports. Today she finds it difficult to pitch stories that lack an American angle. The appetite for foreign news had dried up, she said. Elisa Lees Munoz heads the International Women’s Media Fund (IWMF), which disburses grants to female journalists for investigative and underreported international stories. She confirms that the organization’s grantees are having a hard time pitching and placing foreign stories that had nothing to do with Trump or the elections. Media outlets will publish foreign news pieces “grudgingly” if a media non-profit like the IWMF pays the reporter’s expenses, she said, but they will rarely commission international stories with money from their own budget. Shaheen Pasha, a professor of international news at Amherst College, sees the freelancers she teaches struggle to pitch their foreign stories to American editors. “These reporters make no money, risk their lives to do stories about people being brutalized around the world and an editor will say, what is the interest, where is Trump?” Pasha said. The lack of appetite for foreign news has, according to Pasha, created a generation of college students who are poorly informed about international affairs, because the media outlets they read have shifted away from foreign coverage. Pasha believes that the absence of rigorous reporting on important issues like the global refugee crisis and climate change narrows the breadth of voices we hear in journalism and contributes to “othering,” or a decrease in identification with and compassion for people who speak different languages and observe different religions.

The cost of not knowing

Another consequence of the vacuum in international news coverage is that it distorts the lens through which we view the world, depicting it in simplistic, binary terms and as a place full of violence and chaos. Elisa Lees Munoz of the IWMF gave the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as an example of distorted coverage.  The few media reports one reads about the DRC, she pointed out, were about “war and rape and rape survivors.” So the average American news consumer has no idea that “there are really interesting stories about entrepreneurship and environmental issues” in the DRC. Editors don’t commission those stories, so reporters don’t pitch them. There are serious consequences to being uninformed about international events. Not understanding how ordinary Iranians experience sanctions for example, makes it harder for Americans to empathize with their situation or to understand the implications of the U.S. government’s foreign policy not only for Iranians – but for Americans, too. So they continue to vote for hawkish lawmakers who make often misleading, saber-rattling statements about Iran, instead of advocating diplomatic solutions. A lack of rigorous reporting about the effects of climate change has also had catastrophic consequences, with poorly informed voters choosing representatives who ignore environmental issues — or, worse, support policies that further contribute to the depleting of natural resources and the dangerous warming of the planet. The cost of being uninformed about the world is too high to ignore. There are remedies, but they require a commitment to journalism as a crucial pillar of democracy, rather than as a type of money-making entertainment. Journalism schools, said Pasha, must create courses like the one on media literacy and international reporting that she teaches at Amherst, which is available as an elective to students not majoring in journalism. Lee Keath, a Middle East editor at the Associated Press, said that because the media was so Trump-obsessed, Americans had the impression that the war in Syria was over. The fighting is in fact still raging, but the media’s spotlight has turned away. Afghanistan, too, has slipped off the news cycle despite ongoing flareups in fighting. Keath said that while plenty of editors are looking for a Trump angle to nearly every story, he also knows many journalists who are determined to cover stories rigorously, without reference to the person currently occupying the White House.

How to change

“For me, the question to editors is, why are you passing up on these stories,” said Lees Munoz. She wants to know what evidence or criteria are being used to publish more stories that are only about Trump and the election – if the editorial decisions are based on real data or just on perceptions. One systemic problem is that the vast majority of senior media jobs are still held by straight, white, men who make editorial decisions based on their own interests and worldview. But there is no single institution or factor that bears all the responsibility for this state of affairs.  Media outlets are obsessed with making a profit and editors are obsessed with the page views upon which their jobs depend. Publishers struggle to keep their newspapers afloat as the revenue from advertising continues to decline. Readers, meanwhile, increasingly fail to engage with anything longer than a 280-character tweet or a 30-second video. Miriam Elder, World News editor at BuzzFeed, cautions against blaming readers. The news cycle has accelerated to an unprecedented pace, she said, with so much happening all at once that readers are overwhelmed. It’s up to journalists, she says, to do their jobs by reporting and explaining the news clearly, engaging their target audience so that they want to read about what’s going on in the world. “And that,” she said, “Means making it more relatable to their lives.” Perhaps we all need to remind the editors who commission stories that making the news relatable is a crucial part of their jobs. While Trump and the U.S. elections must and should be covered rigorously, so should stories about what it means for a woman to be pregnant in El Salvador, or why infanticide is a problem in Senegal, or how Indians who oppose the authoritarianism of Narendra Modi are fighting for their democracy, or the real experiences and struggles of queer refugees in Europe and Canada. These are the stories that connect us on an emotional level. When they are told well and reported sensitively, we feel connected to the rest of the world — instead of isolated in a fear-filled fortress of our own making. [post_title] => The corrosive effect of the 'Trump bump' [post_excerpt] => The lack of rigorous reporting on important issues like the global refugee crisis and climate change contributes to “othering,” or a decrease in identification with and compassion for people who speak different languages and observe different religions. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => trump-obsessed-media-is-increasingly-neglecting-foreign-news [to_ping] => [pinged] => https://conversationalist.org/2019/02/22/media-outlets-are-still-not-amplifying-female-experts-and-this-means-we-really-dont-know-whats-going-on-in-the-world/ [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=1076 [menu_order] => 326 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

The corrosive effect of the ‘Trump bump’

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 1064
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-05-30 14:56:40
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-30 14:56:40
    [post_content] => In the age of increasing government surveillance and declining privacy, can citizens take back their right to live an unwatched life?

This weekend I had the dubious honor of coming face-to-face with one of the robots being rolled out by the supermarket chain Stop & Shop. The purpose of the tower of cameras and lasers is purportedly to keep an eye on spills and litter in the aisles, as the Boston Globe credulously reported, but presumably it could also watch customers and employees. The encounter got me thinking about the many forms of surveillance takes in this day and age, and how individuals and governments can push back.

One of the most extreme examples of a surveillance state is the province of Kashgar in northwest China. New York Times reporters created this audio-visual essay in an attempt to convey the extent of perpetual, all-consuming surveillance and its restrictive effect on residents. There are cameras, everywhere; and checkpoints, everywhere. Residents are required to install software on devices so the state can monitor their calls and other movements; and they are subject to random, unannounced visits by police and other monitors at any hour of the day or night. As the Times points out, the effect is as much about “intimidation as monitoring.”

Should you worry about facial recognition technology? Technologist Shelly Palmer says we should not be, arguing that “we live in a post-privacy world of our own creation, and there’s no going back.” Essentially, he says, things are already bad, so there’s no reason to try to fix it.

But people aren’t buying what Palmer and others are selling. As the New York Times recently reported, shareholders have taken an activist role in pressuring Amazon to stop selling its facial recognition technology to government agencies, and to conduct an independent investigation into potential violations of civil, human and privacy rights. In many ways, the perpetual surveillance Palmer describes as normal and everyday has raised awareness of how the technology can be abused. Since facial recognition is not-yet-ubiquitous, now is the time for individuals, governments and organizations to take a stand against it.

In another example of this anti-surveillance trend, CNET reports that cities across the United States are passing or considering legislation that would require public approval for new surveillance technologies that police departments are considering purchasing. Voters are asserting their right to decide whether surveillance systems are reasonable and acceptable.

In other news:

Infant mortality rates have dropped in states that expanded Medicaid access, according to a new study from the Georgetown University Center of Health Policy. Read more. Fully one-half of retirement-age Americans can’t afford to stop working, but there are bills and other proposals on deck that could alleviate the crisis. Learn more. The daughter of the man who coined the term “regenerative agriculture” wants to rethink the way we treat poop (specifically animal poop) in agriculture. Our food systems and health may depend on it. Read more. [post_title] => Reclaiming their privacy [post_excerpt] => While some shrug off perpetual surveillance as the new normal, others are taking action to prevent government abuse [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => ordinary-citizens-are-challenging-big-brother [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=1064 [menu_order] => 327 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Reclaiming their privacy

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 1041
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-05-24 16:42:49
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-24 16:42:49
    [post_content] => "The past is never dead. It is not even past."
—William Faulkner

Did you ever wonder why the American education system only gets serious about foreign languages in high school, while the rest of the world seems to start sometime before kindergarten? It’s not by accident, of course. In America, the attitude toward bilingualism has historically been uneasy at best. The tremendous cultural pressure on immigrants to assimilate and to speak English, presents a problem for ethnic and national groups committed to maintaining their own languages and cultural identity beyond the first and second generations.

When a growing Yiddish after school program asked the Milwaukee public school system for use of one of its buildings, it was a local rabbi who went on the record to protest the Yiddish program. “There is altogether too much hyphenism in our present Americanism…” said Rabbi Samuel Hirschberg. He added that foreign language education was wrong because “A foreign language as a household language tends to perpetuate foreignism…” Hirschberg insisted that foreign languages were so corrosive to the American national spirit that no foreign language should be taught before high school.

That was in 1916. Rabbi Hirschberg’s curious campaign to discourage Jewish literacy points to two important facts that tend to be in tension. First, bi- and even tri-lingualism has always been tied to American Jewish identity, both as an immigrant group and a diasporic people. Second, the discourse around bilingualism in America is in large part a function of attitudes toward immigrants. Between 1881 and 1924 some 2.5 million Jews immigrated from Eastern and Central Europe. By the time Rabbi Hirschberg went on the record, the popular conversation around immigrants, especially Jews, had reached unprecedented heights of ugly xenophobia. Less than a decade later, in 1924, Congress passed legislation that would essentially cut off all immigration from Europe, including Jewish immigration.

The persistence of bilingual culture

The case of Rabbi Hirschberg shows that the question of bilingualism was a complicated one, and that the conversations happening in the mainstream were also happening within the Jewish community. But bilingual (Yiddish-English) Jewish communal life did persist in the United States, and well past its expected life span. In 1933, on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday, Hillel Rogoff, the managing editor of the most widely-read Yiddish newspaper in the United States, the Jewish Daily Forward, was asked about the future of the Yiddish press in America. Despite widely-held views that Yiddish was a dying language, Rogoff was optimistic. “There is no reason,” he said, “why the Yiddish press in America should not go on for many, many years…” Today, at 122 years of continuous publishing, the Yiddish language Forverts newspaper has already outlived the traditional Yiddish blessing, “may you live until 120.” The history of Forverts reflects a mixture of enormous communal investment, dumb luck and, in the end, the overwhelming power of monolingualism. In that sense, for newer diasporic groups hoping to maintain an identity tied to a heritage language, the Forverts provides an important case study. In the United States, maintaining an immigrant language and cultural tradition requires an act of tremendous will and coordinated community action. What’s so unique about the persistence of Forverts — which is still published to this day, albeit in a very diminished format — is not just that it defied the two-generation life span for immigrant media, but that it did so in spite of itself. The Forverts was itself a force for Americanization. Established in 1897 at the peak of mass Jewish migration from Eastern Europe, Forverts’s most famous sections were aimed at helping new immigrants assimilate. A Bintl Brif (A Bundle of Letters) was one of the first American newspaper advice columns. It provided guidance on many of the dilemmas of Americanization, including, most poignantly, the cultural gap that inevitably arose between Yiddish speaking parents and bilingual American children, many of whom were ashamed of their foreign parents. The Yiddish of Forverts was also highly ‘Americanized,’ employing many transliterated English words. Perhaps most importantly, given American political attitudes, while The Forverts was a proudly socialist publication, it was vigorously anti-Communist. The Yiddish paper of record managed to thread the needle of politically acceptable cultural autonomy. The Forverts was always more than a newspaper. It was part of a wide-ranging, interconnected network of Yiddish flavored, socialist and labor oriented institutions that included WEVD radio, Amalgamated Bank, the Amalgamated Housing Cooperative in the Bronx, a mutual aid society called the Workmen’s Circle, and a summer camp and after school education system that still exist today. At its height, the Forverts parent entity, the Forward Association, was a political machine, an organization with a constitution that spelled out expectations for members to vote along party lines, or risk disciplinary action that included expulsion. Taken together, the Forverts was a symbol of an urban, all-encompassing model of Jewish life in America. It was explicitly built by and for its members and readers, and that sense of ownership continued to reverberate through later generations, even if in a diminished, distanced way.  

Xenophobia redux

Coordinated anti-immigrant hysteria brought an end to the great era of Jewish mass migration, with the passing of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act. Unfortunately, we are now seeing a resurgence of the ugly xenophobia that was such a salient feature of American life during the 1920s and 1930s. According to a recent Pew Foundation survey, almost one third of Americans feel uncomfortable merely hearing a language other than English in public. The irony is, for all the outrage about immigrants and their supposed resistance to assimilation, the process of Americanization is absolutely relentless and no group is immune to the inevitability of language loss.   First generation immigrants to the United States generally learn English slowly. They depend on media in their native language, which they continue to speak at home. Second generation Americans are bilingual and may or may not be attached to the immigrant language and its institutions. Third generation Americans are, almost without exception, monolingual. Many of the institutions created by the first generation of Yiddish-speaking immigrants still exist. While the WEVD radio station was sold to Disney, Amalgamated Bank and the Amalgamated Houses still stand. The Workmen’s Circle has created a new identity for itself in the twenty-first century, one that is different from its origins as a mutual aid society, but still centered on an understanding of American Jews as immigrants and descendants of immigrants. But those institutions, for all their longevity, did not create a legacy of contemporary Yiddish speakers. While the Workmen’s Circle offers superb and innovative Yiddish language classes for adults, it faces nearly insurmountable challenges in monolingual America. Providing systematic Yiddish language education for children was an exceedingly difficult proposition, given both the financial cost and the pull of assimilation. The Holocaust decimated Yiddish culture in Europe, reducing its native-speaking population by 85%. Today, outside of the Hasidic communities, Yiddish is spoken by only a small number of Jewish Americans. Many of them are people like me and my friends, residents of what we affectionately call Yiddishland.

The will to preserve a culture

So what are the twenty-first century strategies for creating fluent second and third generation heritage language speakers? According to my Yiddishland friends who are now parents, supplementary and all-day schools (which also exist for Russian, Chinese and Hungarian) have proven highly effective — if extremely expensive — for language transmission, especially where a first generation parent speaks the language at home. But it remains to be seen whether those schools alone can inspire the second generation to transmit to the third, the true challenge in monolingual America. On this question of the third generation I turned to a young friend of mine, Shifra Whiteman. As a child in the 1990s, Whiteman was part of a small Yiddish-language playgroup called Pripetshik.  The group was created by a dedicated group of second-generation parents invested in Yiddish continuity. Pripetshik met in the Workmen’s Circle building in New York and lasted for years, morphing into a Yiddish chorus and producing lifelong friendships. As adults Whiteman, and the other members of the playgroup, have gone on to become activists and leaders in the Yiddish world. The playgroup wasn’t just about teaching a language. It included cooking sessions, movies and history lessons. Pripetshik was about transmitting a very specific diasporic Jewish identity. Its location in the Workmen’s Circle building, a few floors down from the Forverts, was an important part of the lesson, showing the kids that they existed within an ongoing cultural project.   In addition to her Yiddish playgroup, Whiteman also received a conventional Jewish day school education as well as many summers at Zionist summer camp. She recently started teaching Yiddish classes in cooperation with her city’s YIVO and Workmen’s Circle branches. Her students are almost entirely young people hungry for connection to an alternative kind of Jewish identity, one that is not rooted in nationalism or political ideology. At 30, she is ready to start thinking about children of her own, and plans to speak Yiddish with them, just as her parents spoke to her. As she put it to me, among the many Jewish worlds she inhabited as a young person, “the Yiddish stuck.”   There are no easy answers to the question of how to preserve immigrant cultures and languages in the face of America’s fierce devotion to monolingualism. However, it’s clear that the success of multi-generational cultural transmission will depend on the durability of institutions, and whether the language and culture express values that the following generations find useful, and essential, to their sense of self. The Forverts was a newspaper for immigrants who wanted to become American. Today, many of its readers are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of immigrants, people who want to expand the definition of American and once again redefine Jewish life in the diaspora. [post_title] => Make bilingualism great [post_excerpt] => What are the twenty-first century strategies for creating fluent second and third generation heritage language speakers in a pervasively unilingual and often xenophobic culture? [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => make-bilingualism-great [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=1041 [menu_order] => 328 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Make bilingualism great

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 1019
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-05-17 16:53:51
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-17 16:53:51
    [post_content] => Gaza is often described as a humanitarian catastrophe, but its crisis is the result of self-serving policy implementation that could be reversed

Exactly a week after the most recent military escalation between Gaza and Israel, Haaretz, a left-leaning Israeli newspaper, placed on the front page of its Hebrew print edition a photograph depicting a crowd of Palestinians in Gaza gathered around a steaming cauldron of soup. Mostly men and boys, they are clamoring to get closer to the cauldron, clutching pots, bowls and even plastic storage containers to be filled. It is an aerial shot and you can almost hear the commotion through the image.

Over just three days during the first week of May, 25 Palestinian residents of Gaza and four Israeli citizens were killed while hundreds were injured. This was just the latest of eight military escalations since Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Israeli missiles and artillery fire damaged homes and businesses in Gaza, while barrages of rockets fired from the Strip hit dozens of homes in Israel in a tactic that seemed meant to overwhelm the Iron Dome defense system, which has until now prevented heavy damage and loss of life in Israeli cities and towns.

For most Israelis, Gaza exists only as a place of violence and misery. The images in the mainstream media depict its residents as either shooting rockets or clamoring for food. Israeli citizens can’t enter the Strip, and residents of Gaza are very rarely granted permission to enter Israel.

The misery-violence connection

While Israelis have little insight into the complex, nuanced realities of Palestinian society, many do see the link between violence and misery. In a poll conducted in early 2017, more than two-thirds of Israelis acknowledged that Israel would be serving its own interests by working to improve living conditions in Gaza. Israeli security experts — current and former military officials, analysts, and politicians — frequently warn that the misery in Gaza is a threat to Israel’s security. The terms of each ceasefire agreement have been variations on the same theme: Expanding the fishing zone, allowing more goods into Gaza, and granting exit permits to more people. But Israel regularly fails to implement the terms of the agreements, and Gaza’s desperate situation continues to deteriorate. If misery drives conflict, and everyone acknowledges this, why isn’t Israel doing more to prevent the next round of violence?

A crisis rooted in policy

Neither increased aid nor improved infrastructure can resolve the crisis in Gaza. The endless cycle of escalations, ceasefires, and unfulfilled concessions are symptomatic of a broader problem. The international community has allowed Israel to “manage the conflict” with the Palestinians, rather than take meaningful steps to end it. From Israel’s perspective, keeping Gaza in perpetual crisis is the point —not the problem. The two parties will remain stuck in this holding pattern, with escalations becoming increasingly frequent and their magnitude stronger, until external players who have an interest in ending the conflict compel Israel to shift course radically and take responsibility for the well-being of civilians in both Israel and Gaza. The crisis in Gaza today is rooted in policies implemented over the course of decades, particularly in Israel’s June 2007 decision, soon after Hamas took over, to declare Gaza a “hostile territory” and impose a closure. After 2007, Israel allowed only one crossing for the transport of humanitarian aid to remain open. The message was that Gaza could have aid but not an economy, subsistence but not prosperity. An Israeli official at the time said that the government’s policy was “no development, no prosperity, no humanitarian crisis” and in court proceedings the state articulated that its intention was to wage economic warfare against Gaza.  The justification for the closure, which Egypt joined by closing its own crossing point at Gaza’s southernmost point, was that it would squeeze Hamas into compliance — or place so much economic pressure on the general population, that it would rise up and overthrow Hamas. Over the ensuing 12 years, there have been three major military operations, more than a dozen interim escalations that felt very much like war to those experiencing them, and more than a year of protests at the perimeter fence where Israeli snipers have killed hundreds of unarmed protesters. Millions of Palestinians and Israelis have been affected by violence. Palestinians in Gaza have borne the vast brunt of the conflict, with Israel using its formidable military force on the small territory, which lacks bomb shelters and has an underfunded and overwhelmed medical system. Israelis — mostly in southern Israel but not only — have also experienced the violence of Palestinian factions, whose use of sniper, mortar and rocket fire, and incendiary devices, has caused death, injury, property damage and trauma. Prime Minister Netanyahu, realizing that Israeli policy created a situation in Gaza that was a liability as well as an image problem, has sought to manage the situation by keeping the pot simmering, believing he can prevent it from boiling over. But it keeps boiling over. Israel has reversed some of its most egregious restrictions, like the one that forbade certain foods, books and children’s toys they described as ‘luxuries’ from entering Gaza. Nonetheless, 12 years after the Hamas takeover, there are dozens of policies that have nothing to do with security and everything to do with the logic of applying pressure or sanctions — i.e., creating more misery, which keeps all parties to the conflict locked in a loop of escalations and ceasefires. For example, Israel frequently closes Erez Crossing — the only pedestrian crossing for Palestinians who have permission to leave Gaza — and Kerem Shalom, its only commercial crossing. In 2018, Israel closed both crossings on seven occasions, sometimes for weeks at a time.

Human bargaining chips

Israel only issues permits to leave Gaza for what it calls “exceptional humanitarian” reasons, with some exceptions for merchants. The list of criteria determining who is eligible to request a permit for travel reveals the arbitrary nature of Israel’s access policy and a kind of violent and dystopian bureaucracy. Even after passing a security screening, Palestinians must meet additional criteria in order to be granted an exit permit. Permission to visit a family member, for example, is only granted in the case of a first-degree relative who is dead, mortally ill, or getting married. The processing time for permit applications can run up to 70 business days, and many applications go unanswered. Israel often disputes the request, asking whether the relative is still sick enough to warrant a visit or whether their death occurred so long ago that there is no longer justification for issuing a permit to participate in the mourning rituals. Israel routinely blocks travel that could allow residents of the Strip to establish trade ties or travel for professional development — including for women, who rarely meet Israel’s bar for what is considered legitimate business needs. If Israel wanted to stave off misery in Gaza, it would take its boot off the necks of Gaza residents and stop using their lives as currency in its negotiations vis-à-vis Hamas. But Israel has no incentive to make compromises that would move the region out of conflict. It conveys the perception that it is “managing” an insoluble problem and that it is a victim of Palestinian violence, with neither responsibility for Palestinian misery nor the ability to alleviate it. But the truth is that the status quo serves Israel well. As long as a weakened Hamas has control over Gaza while Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah heads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Israel can use divide and conquer tactics to manipulate the rift between the two parties and maintain its hold on the West Bank, where more than half a million Israeli settlers live and which Netanyahu recently said he plans to annex. A deeper look at the situation in Gaza, and its connection to the bigger picture, reveals these truths. If the political leadership of Israel, Palestine and the international community were willing, collectively, to prioritize the needs and rights of civilians, in Israel and Palestine, there would be a clear path to negotiating a way out of the crisis. Israel’s control over freedom of movement provides it with ample opportunities to take meaningful steps in this direction. [post_title] => Policy, not aid: how to avert catastrophe in Gaza [post_excerpt] => Neither increased aid nor improved infrastructure can resolve the crisis in Gaza. The endless cycle of escalations, ceasefires, and unfulfilled concessions are symptomatic of a broader problem. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => policy-not-aid-how-to-avert-catastrophe-in-gaza [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:30 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=1019 [menu_order] => 330 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Policy, not aid: how to avert catastrophe in Gaza

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 989
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-05-10 16:15:45
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-10 16:15:45
    [post_content] => Americans tend to associate centralized government power with Democrats and the pursuit of states' rights with Republican ideology, but the truth is far more complex

“Litigation can’t solve our problems but it can illuminate them,” Stacey Abrams said at a fundraiser held this week in New York City for her voting rights’ organization, Fair Fight Action. Abrams became one of the country’s most famous Democratic politicians when she lost her 2018 bid for governor of Georgia, in a closely watched campaign that was marred by allegations of widespread voter suppression. She has refused to concede and is currently suing Governor Brian Kemp for targeted suppression of minority voters.

Abrams understands that the courts are only as principled as the judges that preside over  them. President Trump has, over the two years since he took office, appointed so many judges to lifetime tenure on the federal bench that one in six circuit court judges is now a Trump appointee. Given the long and substantial historical precedents, we can expect those newly appointed judges to cite states’ rights when upholding discriminatory policies enacted by red state legislatures. 

Americans have good reason to believe the phrase “states’ rights” is code for white supremacy. When he was employed by the Reagan White House, Republican strategist Lee Atwater notoriously revealed in an interview that the party deliberately employed abstractions like states’ rights and tax cuts as racist dog whistles. Just 13 years after the sheriff of Neshoba County, Mississippi, was tried — together with 17 co-conspirators — for the notorious 1964 abduction and murder of civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman, Ronald Reagan chose to launch his presidential campaign there with the phrase, “I believe in states’ rights.”

A pragmatic agenda

But enthusiasm for states’ rights tends to be based on political pragmatism rather than ideology. As historian Caleb McDaniel writes in The Atlantic, southern slaveholders were perfectly content with federal overreach so long as it benefited them. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which coerced residents of free states into returning escaped slaves to their masters, and the 1857 Supreme Court ruling against Dred Scott, which denied citizenship to black people, are two of the most infamous examples of conservatives approving of federal intervention to preserve slavery during the antebellum period. Like their conservative counterparts, progressive state courts and legislatures have historically pursued an active role as “laboratories for democracy.” When out of power nationally, progressives and conservatives alike invoke federalism and the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.” The New York Court of Appeals cited state sovereignty when it ruled in the 1860 Lemmon Slave case that eight enslaved people brought into New York in 1852 by a Virginia couple en route to Texas (both slave states),were subject to New York state law, which had abolished slavery, and were thus free. In our current era, red and blue states are taking similar steps to enact opposing agendas when challenging the federal government. On the issues of reproductive and LGBTQ rights, some states are choosing to amend their constitutions or are passing legislation that defines terms to their liking, thus solidifying rights they view as under threat. New York recently passed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), which codifies Roe v. Wade into state law, and the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), which adds gender identity and expression to the New York Human Rights Law. Although New York already protected these rights in practice, explicit codification leaves less room for judicial interpretation. Compare this to the 16  states seeking to impose heavy restrictions on abortion access: Georgia, for example, just passed a “heartbeat bill” that outlaws abortion after six weeks; while Alabama is this week considering legislation that would make women who choose to terminate their pregnancies guilty of committing a felony.

Selective federalism

States can also exercise power by suing the federal government. In the Obama era, Republican-led states consistently challenged the president’s legislative agenda, particularly over implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  But while the challenges were consistent, the logic was not. Conservative challengers to Obamacare made conflicting arguments in separate court cases, leading Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor, to call them “fairweather federalists.” In 2012, in a partial win for Republicans, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate provisions of Obamacare while striking down Medicaid expansion as an undue burden on states, making it optional. In 2015 Republicans turned around and argued that the optional state insurance exchange programs were overly punitive. Abbe Gluck describes the legislative model of the insurance exchanges as similar to the Clean Air Act — a national program that gives states the right of first refusal before the federal government intervenes. But this model is predicated on the assumption that the federal government will enforce pre-existing laws, rather than deliberately undermine them by hollowing out administrative agencies — which is precisely what the Trump administration is doing. In January 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of six states in filing suit to force Trump’s EPA into compliance with the Clean Air Act in order to protect the health of New Yorkers, whose state air quality regulations are among the most stringent in the country. Attorney General James’ predecessor, Barbara Underwood, led a different coalition of states in a lawsuit to prevent new off-shore drilling.

Battle of the blue states

States have also chosen to assert their power by refusing to enforce or implement policies and procedures handed down by the Trump administration, leading the federal government to sue them. The most salutary example of this struggle is over the issue of immigration. California has been leading the fight to protect undocumented residents from ICE detention and deportation in so-called sanctuary cities, which are jurisdictions where local law enforcement refuse to cooperate or assist in enforcing federal immigration laws.   Politico, in an article titled “Trump endorses states’ rights — but only when he agrees with the state,” noted that Trump’s lawsuit against California over its non-enforcement of immigration laws followed the blueprint of an Obama-era lawsuit against Arizona, which sought to block a bill requiring immigrants to carry proof of status and requiring law enforcement to determine a person’s status during a legal stop. Blue states have won some significant battles. The federal courts have repeatedly struck down Trump’s attempts to block federal funding for states with sanctuary cities, and experts say the courts will also shut down his latest threats to bus migrants into sanctuary cities. Meanwhile, New York state courts recently issued a directive that bars federal immigration authorities from arresting people in courthouses without a judicial warrant, curtailing ICE’s ability to arrest people who show up for hearings. These rules establish a precedent for other progressive state legislatures and courts to follow. The one major difference between the Obama and Trump eras is that the current president is widely known for his dubious financial dealings in New York City where, crucially, he still maintains significant family business interests. The consequence is that New York’s Attorney General has the unprecedented power to launch a criminal  investigation of a sitting president — and his children — for state crimes. Trump has no power to issue pardons for criminal convictions at the state level. Just to make sure, Attorney General James is seeking to amend the state’s double jeopardy laws, so that any associates pardoned on a federal level can be recharged for state crimes. In the meantime the state has forced the dissolution of Trump’s charitable foundation, and the AG’s office has sent subpoenas to Deutsche Bank regarding its business dealings with the president. In this respect litigation might, in fact, solve some of our problems. [post_title] => Why Democrats are battling Trump at the state level [post_excerpt] => Americans have good reason to believe the phrase “states’ rights” is code for white supremacy. When he was employed by the Reagan White House, Republican strategist Lee Atwater notoriously revealed in an interview that the party deliberately employed abstractions like states’ rights and tax cuts as racist dog whistles. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => why-democrats-are-turning-to-state-courts-in-the-battle-against-trump [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:31 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=989 [menu_order] => 332 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Why Democrats are battling Trump at the state level

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 974
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-05-03 16:55:51
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-03 16:55:51
    [post_content] => Healthcare professionals have found a treatment that could help end the opioid crisis, but their efforts to treat addicts are severely hampered by an arcane government regulation

Over the past two years, a team of medical scientists have been working on a project that could play a role in ending the opioid crisis. We are investigators on a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) project that seeks to revolutionize the treatment for opioid addiction available at hospital emergency departments by providing medical care providers with effective new tools. One of us is a health economist and health services researcher at the Mayo Clinic; the other is a health IT physician-scientist at Yale. The tools we have helped create work within hospital computer systems to help healthcare practitioners provide immediate treatment and link patients up with longer term follow-up to treat their addiction. In the next phase of the work, we will test these tools in five large healthcare systems across the country. We believe they will change the way hospitals treat opioid-addicted patients.

But these tools, combined with short-term treatment in the emergency department, are an incomplete solution to a national crisis. Throughout this year of work, we have been surprised and, frankly, baffled by the regulatory barriers around treatment of opioid addiction. Perhaps the most shocking (and heartbreaking) thing we’ve learned is that people addicted to opioids are resorting to the black market to treat themselves, because they are facing so many obstacles in obtaining treatment from their doctors and clinics in their communities.

Bureaucratic obstacles

There is a little known but extremely powerful regulatory deterrent to treating patients with opioid use disorder. It’s called the X-Waiver — it’s a legal requirement imposed on physicians to apply for a waiver in order to prescribe medicine that has been shown to be an effective treatment for opioid addiction. Following recent media coverage of this issue in several prominent professional publications (JAMA, STAT, NAM) and in the New York Times, the medical community is pushing to end the X-waiver. On April 8, the Departments of Health in 22 states signed a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposing that it be discontinued, asserting that the law is severely hampering the ability of physicians to fight the opioid crisis. We’d like to share with you details on this movement, in order to raise public awareness as part of the campaign to have the law changed. The X-Waiver is a remnant of an earlier opioid epidemic in the United States. Just like today, headlines from the popular press 100 years ago lamented the high rates of opioid use in the U.S. — higher than any other country in the world — and the large number of people addicted to narcotic drugs. Many blamed physicians, pharmacists, and patent medication manufacturers, for getting and keeping patients hooked on these drugs. In response, and as part of the same temperance movement that supported alcohol Prohibition during the 1920s, laws were passed to criminalize manufacture, sales, and use of opioids except as part of “legitimate” medical practice. Policy makers were certain that prohibiting the use of opioids (and alcohol) would cause addiction to disappear. They were so certain of this, that they started closing treatment programs in anticipation. Their mistaken belief was that addiction was a moral disorder — a failure of self-control that could be cured by taking away access to drugs and alcohol. Today, we know better. We understand that, just as diabetics cannot will their pancreas to start working and people with depression cannot will their brain to produce more serotonin, people who struggle with addiction cannot will themselves better. Fortunately, we have very effective treatments for opioid use disorder that help people to live normal lives, free of disabling withdrawal symptoms. Medications to treat opioid use disorder include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Naltrexone blocks the feeling of being high, reducing the incentive to take opioids. However, it requires that a person abstain from opioids for seven to 10 days, making it more difficult to start treatment. By contrast, methadone and buprenorphine — when properly dosed — prevent the symptoms of withdrawal and allow people to feel normal, without experiencing either the feeling of being high or the distress of withdrawing. Unfortunately, the laws and stigmas held over from the last opioid epidemic more than 100 years ago are still preventing people from accessing these lifesaving treatments. Though the original law — the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914— is no longer in force, today’s laws regulating the use of methadone and buprenorphine for the long-term treatment of opioid use disorder are its direct descendants. They focus on punishment, distrust of physicians’ motives, and bureaucratic intrusion into the physician-patient relationship. Today, any physician with a DEA license (i.e., pretty much all of them) can prescribe buprenorphine or methadone to any of their patients in any amount, for dispensing in any pharmacy — as long as that medication is intended to treat pain. But in order to use buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, clinicians must obtain a special DATA 2000 Waiver. That means they must take a special training course, apply to the federal government for a waiver, and agree to open their practice and records to unscheduled in-person audits during the working day by DEA agents. We have never cheated on our taxes, but we still don’t want to be audited by the IRS. After meeting all these requirements a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant applies for a DATA 2000 waiver, and gets a new DEA number that starts with an X — which is why these waivers are often called X-waivers. With an X-waiver in hand, the healthcare professional now has the right to prescribe any schedule III through V controlled substance (for now, only buprenorphine meets the criteria) for treating opioid use disorder, but only to 30 patients at a time. If a thirty-first patient shows up needing treatment, he or she must be turned away or another patient has to be discontinued. After a year, the medical care provider can apply for an increase to treat 100 patients at a time. And a year after increasing to 100 patients, the clinician can apply for an increase to treat 275 patients at a time as long as he or she either 1) has additional certification in addiction medicine or 2) practices in a “qualified practice setting”, which means, among other requirements, accepting insurance for some services—not necessarily addiction treatment, just some services.

A need for urgency

These are all worthy, wonderful things, and we agree that they are ideal, but we are in the grips of a national crisis. A person born in 2017 faces a greater risk of death from opioid overdose than car crash, for the first time in history. There aren’t enough X-waivered providers available to treat everyone who wants medical help in overcoming opioid addiction. There is no evidence to suggest that clinicians who accept insurance are safer or better at the practice of addiction medicine. Nor is there any evidence to support the claim that limiting physicians to 30, 100, or 275 patients improves safety or outcomes. In fact, quite the opposite. And we have ample evidence that buprenorphine saves lives. Of the estimated 2 million Americans with opioid use disorder, only 11% are receiving any treatment: that’s 1.8 million people who might be helped if treatment were easier to access. It’s time to end these bureaucratic barriers that are discouraging physicians from providing safe, effective treatment to people who need it. That’s why healthcare professionals across the country are pushing to “X the X-waiver”: drop the restrictions on providing buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. We need to increase treatment availability so that everyone who wants help can get it in a timely way. This will require clinicians from many specialties to work together: in the ED, clinicians can help people start on buprenorphine treatment, then refer them to a local community provider of medication for opioid use disorder who can provide long-term follow-up care. Our project is designed to help facilitate that process. And follow-up care doesn’t have to be with a specialist in addiction medicine--there aren’t enough of them to treat everyone who needs treatment. But just as primary care physicians provide long-term medication for diabetes or depression, they can also provide long-term buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. Proponents of the current system argue that buprenorphine prescribed for opioid use disorder can be diverted for abuse. But the evidence shows that when buprenorphine is diverted –that is, when it is sold or given away by the person for whom it was prescribed—the most common use is for self-treatment for opioid use disorder or withdrawal. How heartbreaking is that? People are having so much trouble getting treatment that they go to the black market to treat themselves. Improving access to care should help to prevent this kind of diversion. But from a harm reduction perspective, buprenorphine is less likely to cause an overdose (it’s almost impossible for an experienced user of opioids to overdose on buprenorphine unless it is combined with other depressants, like alcohol or benzodiazepines), less attractive for recreational use (it’s harder to get high on), and it can’t be misused by injection because it’s formulated with a drug that will precipitate withdrawal when not taken orally. We have to do better with this opioid epidemic than we did the last time. The bureaucracy surrounding provision of the safe, effective treatment for opioid addiction has the effect of pointlessly rationing care for people who need and want it. Get rid of it: X the X-waiver. [post_title] => Doctors could alleviate the opioid crisis — if the government would let them [post_excerpt] => The X-waiver is a little known but extremely powerful regulatory deterrent imposed on physicians. It requires them to apply for a waiver in order to prescribe medicine that has been shown to be an effective treatment for opioid addiction. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => doctors-could-alleviate-the-opioid-crisis-if-the-government-would-let-them [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=974 [menu_order] => 334 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Doctors could alleviate the opioid crisis — if the government would let them

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 730
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-03-15 16:32:04
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-03-15 16:32:04
    [post_content] => Thousands of Pakistani women took to the streets of cities across the country to demand gender equality. 

On March 8 thousands of women took to the streets of Pakistan's cities to join the Aurat March, or Women’s March, and demand their rights. The atmosphere was exuberant and hopeful, and the march felt as though it were an announcement: a new generation of homegrown feminists had come of age. In their battle for gender equality, however, Pakistani women face some heavy and unique socio-political challenges. 

The demands voiced by the women who assembled in urban areas across Pakistan might sound anachronistic or quaint to Western feminists. In addition to calling for an end to violence toward women, they chanted and carried signs for a living wage for female workers, for increased political participation — and the right to move freely in public spaces. 

In Pakistan, the march’s detractors claimed that it was copied from the Women’s March that took place in the United States in January 2017. Given the very tangible risks Pakistani feminists face, this dismissive attitude is at best ignorant. The women who marched in the United States did not fear physical violence or social condemnation. And the women who marched in Pakistan were inspired not by foreign activists, but by homegrown feminist icons.

The Aurat March is only the latest iteration of a complex feminist movement Pakistan, which was recently declared the sixth most dangerous country in the world for women.

The power of the patriarchy

Pakistani feminists seek to raise awareness among their female peers about their basic rights. Women have the right, for example, to safety and security; to freedom from gender-based discrimination and from sexual harassment. They have the right to equal career opportunities, to schooling and healthcare. Women in Pakistan are struggling against decades, if not centuries, of strict gender roles defined by one of the harshest patriarchies in the world. That patriarchy implements strict control over all areas of girls’ and women’s lives. It enacts violence on women’s bodies, using a strict interpretation of Islam as justification for this misogyny. Pakistan’s legal system perpetuates this. While pro-women laws have been passed by the government,  the police do not enforce them and the legal system rarely prosecutes them. Pakistani feminists also face accusations that feminism is a movement of the privileged, or the Western-educated; that by fighting for women’s rights they are undermining Islam, which they claim already gives women their rights in the context of religious law. In conservative Pakistan, all revolutionaries are accused of immorality and obscenity, and of causing social upheaval and corruption. But the backlash against the feminist movement is even more vindictive than usual. It is colored by misogynist abuse and condescending dismissal that comes from even the most educated men and women — because they are heavily invested in the patriarchal structure of the country, which is the source of their privilege.

Accusations of foreign influence

Some of the suspicions toward the Pakistani feminist movement comes from the fact that Western feminists have, particularly since 9/11, attempted to impose their particular expression of feminism in non-Western parts of the world, such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, often in conjunction with foreign military interventions. Now, with the rise of global and intersectional feminism, “white feminism” is under strong criticism for its inability to place the voices of those non-Western women above its own agenda. But this criticism ignores the fact that there is a genuine home-grown feminism in all these non-western countries. It is led by local women who express their own needs and desires, form their own agendas, and fight their own battles.   Pakistani feminists have refuted accusations that feminism is a Western-imposed movement, or that it is secular (i.e., un-Islamic), by placing the struggle in the context of Pakistan’s social and political issues, and by addressing the immediate needs and concerns of Pakistani women. Feminists in Pakistan have coined the Urdu word behenchara, or sisterhood, to enact a feminist takeover of the word bhaichara, or fraternity.  They have also placed an inclusive, intersectional ethos at the center of the movement to bring together Pakistan’s diverse groups under the banner of yakhjeti, or unity.

Raising a grassroots movement

On March 8 Pakistani women gathered in Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad, just as they did in 2018. Following weeks of project-building, intense campaigning, door-to-door awareness-raising, and clear and urgent communication of their goals, they marched through public spaces. They made sure to express their message in a host of local languages, in order to make it accessible to as broad as possible a swathe of Pakistani society. They framed the struggle for women’s liberation as one that is inherently linked with the liberation of all oppressed groups and minorities. Last year, 5,000 women from all sections of society marched. They attracted attention from the media, both local and international, and starting a dynamic conversation on social media, in classrooms, and on television, about what feminism is and why it is necessary in Pakistan. This year the turnout was even bigger, as women across ethnic groups and religious sects, socioeconomic groups and gender identities, turned out to hear inspirational speeches from women leaders and representatives, to sing and dance and to take over the streets. In Pakistan, both dancing and taking control of public space are considered immoral behavior for women.

Pakistani feminists don’t need white saviors

The march was not limited to the educated, urban elite. The women of Sindhiani Tehreek, the rural Sindhi Women’s Movement, came to Karachi from Hyderabad and the village Jungshahi on the coast of Sindh. Women from the Hindu and Christian minority communities attended in Lahore and Karachi. Female health workers and midwives, who provide medical care in the most intimate of women’s spaces and have been identified as a major part of the grassroots feminist movement in Pakistan, took center stage at the march. Women marched in Peshawar, Quetta, Faislabad, Hyderabad, and Chitral too, bringing the numbers to nearly 8,000 across the country.  Pakistani feminists have never waited for Western feminists to instruct them in how to fight for their rights. Today a younger generation of feminists is building on the work of female activists who struggled against dictatorship in the 1970s. The Women’s Action Forum was at the forefront of that struggle against Islamist General Mohammed Zia ul Haq, who controlled Pakistan for a decade beginning in 1978. During that time of dictatorship and martial law, the regime stole many of the rights for which women had long struggled; trying to confine them behind the veil and in the home. The brave young women of WAF endured political oppression, social condemnation, and physical violence. In one infamous incident, during their protest on the Lahore Mall against the 1979 Hudood Ordinances — newly introduced laws that criminalized adultery and non-marital sex — police beat them and tried to disperse them with tear gas. The Pakistani feminists of 2019 are inspired by those women, who are now feminist icons, and their groundbreaking activism. Metaphorically taking the torch passed on from the previous generation, contemporary feminists formed a new collective last year; it is called Hum Aurtain (We Women —  the title comes from Pakistani poet Kishwar Naheed’s famous poem “We Sinful Women), and it was instrumental in organizing Karachi's Aurat March in 2018.

A second generation of homegrown feminists

Aurat March organizers made it clear that the march was not foreign-funded, nor funded by NGOs or corporations, and that there were no alliances with any political party. The Pakistani feminist movement is homegrown, inclusive, and intersectional.  They urged men to become allies and join the movement; standing against patriarchal structures, they said, was open to all. But the Aurat March of 2018 and 2019 did not happen overnight. Feminist groups and collectives like Girls at Dhabas, Aurat Raj, Women on Wheels, Girls on Bikes, and the Lyari Girls Café have been chipping away at those societal strictures for several years now. Thanks to their work, people are starting to challenge restrictive attitudes toward women. The work of Pakistani feminists will continue even after the high of the Aurat March 2019 fades away. Pakistani women are exploring female-led initiatives in technology and finance, women’s leadership in sports, academics, media, and the military. They have formed organizations that seek to put women on company boards, on panels, position them as experts in every field. Women in the rural areas area agitating for a living wage, for their work to be recognized as formal labor. Most excitingly, all of these components form a feminist discourse that is gaining momentum among young people, women, men, trans, straight, queer. Feminism is rapidly becoming part of the everyday conversation shaping a more progressive Pakistan. [post_title] => Pakistan’s feminist revolution: the second generation [post_excerpt] => Pakistani feminists have never waited for Western feminists to instruct them in how to fight for their rights. Today a younger generation of feminists is building on the work of female activists who struggled against dictatorship in the 1970s. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => pakistans-feminist-revolution-the-second-generation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:14:03 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:14:03 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=730 [menu_order] => 348 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Poster for Aurat March 2018

Pakistan’s feminist revolution: the second generation

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 555
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-02-08 18:02:05
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-02-08 18:02:05
    [post_content] => 

 

Today we’re introducing a weekly feature: a blog post composed of curated links to articles and podcasts from around the web, which elide with our mission — i.e., to present stories that identify a problem that is usually regarded as intractable, and suggest a solution or a way forward.

  • The Guardian reports on a small company in northern England that has resolved the persistent problem of gender pay-gaps. It decided to skip the traditional corporate hierarchy, establishing itself instead as a cooperative that pays all of its employee-members the exact same wage, regardless of race, gender, age, or experience.
  • Genocide is potentially preventable. According to researchers at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., the conditions that lead up to genocide are consistent. The conclusion: that if genocide can be predicted, it can also be pre-empted. NPR reported the story.
  • In their search for a compassionate solution to the problem of homeless people using libraries to bathe or sleep, libraries in San Francisco and Denver have hired social workers who work at the libraries, where their job is to direct homeless people to the services they need. The municipalities have also hired peer navigators with lived experiences of homelessness to help guide their work. Next City reports the story.
  • In order to fight the political polarization that is tearing Poland apart, five news outlets representing editorial positions across the political spectrum came to an agreement to publish one another’s stories, in order to present their readers with diverse opinions. Read the New York Times op-ed.
  • Helsinki has figured out a remarkable solution to the problem of homelessness. By implementing its Housing First program, which provides a stable and permanent home to indigent people for as long as they might need it, the city reduced the number of people living on the street from a high of 18,000 in 1987, to 6,600 today. The BBC reported the story.
  • How to reduce the social tension in university towns between local residents and the students and staff? The Institute on Inequality and Democracy at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs is working with social justice activists and community organizers, and asking how their research can help advance and sustain movements on the ground. Read the Next City story. 
  • Newspapers around the world have for years been shutting down, reducing staff, or operating at a loss as advertising revenue continues to slide downward, but The Seattle Times might have found a solution. The paper is working with reporters to understand which stories and products drive subscriptions, rather than clicks. One Seattle Times reporter noted on Twitter that the result so far has been: No layoffs. Read the story at Digiday.
  • A grassroots movement in Louisville, Kentucky, has tackled the unaffordable housing issue. Black Lives Matter raised the funds to purchase inexpensive houses, which they then gifted to transient families and single mothers with low incomes. Read about it at Yes! Magazine.
  • An insurance company, noting that its employees had an average student loan debt of $32,000, came up with a solution: It would allow its workers to trade up to five of their 28 paid vacation days for assistance with that debt. Read the Bloomberg Business report.

 

[post_title] => Solutions to intractable problems: homelessness, debt, political polarization, and more [post_excerpt] => Successful efforts to resolve homelessness, prevent political polarization, and pre-empt genocide are just some of the solutions-oriented stories we curated from around the web. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => solutions-to-intractable-problems-homelessness-debt-political-polarization-and-more [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=555 [menu_order] => 358 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Solutions to intractable problems: homelessness, debt, political polarization, and more

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 422
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-01-22 14:56:03
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-01-22 14:56:03
    [post_content] => 

Journalist and author Peter Pomerantsev is an expert in propaganda and media development. He has testified on the challenges of the information war to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the U.K. Parliament Defence Select Committee. 

Natalia: People are wondering what to do now that Trump has won. I’ve noticed that for those of us who have covered Russia, the answers come more easily. In light of that, what is your advice? What should people be doing now that Trump is the president-elect?

Peter: Since we’re speaking about Russia — learn from the mistakes of Russian liberals. A lot of liberal America is inspired right now, and I can just see it falling into the same trap that the Russian liberals fell into. Russian liberals are in an echo chamber. They’re not reaching the people they’re supposed to reach. So the Kremlin gets to define them. Remember — your echo chamber is a trap. You need to be going out of your comfort zone to at least reach the people who are sitting on the fence.

Natalia: That’s very hard to do, for journalists especially. We have our target audience, and that’s it.

Peter: This is why it’s time to reinvent the profession. If you’re writing your Atlantic long-read, you’re targeting the Atlantic readership. Now you must do the thing that’s much harder. You must go beyond that. We need to reinvent journalism so that it doesn’t just involve us talking to ourselves. Let’s face it, the bad guys have been more effective.

Natalia: Can we talk about how they are more effective?

Peter: Take a look at [conservative radio and TV host Sean] Hannity. Remember Trump’s “pussy grabbing” fiasco? When that came to light, you couldn’t just lavish Trump with praise. So Hannity discussed Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal and WikiLeaks every day, hammering and hammering away on that. Saying that e-mails and WikiLeaks didn’t play a role in the election is wrong. If Hannity thought they were useful — they played a role. Look at how someone like Milo [Yiannopoulos, British journalist and technology editor for the far right Breitbart News] uses humor to legitimize far right ideas. Watch people like Hannity, like Milo, see how they work, study the propaganda, so you can be effective in countering it.

Natalia: Let’s discuss the allegations that state-sponsored Russian hackers interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump win. A lot of people are mad at Obama for not taking a bolder stand against that at his last presser as president. But did he have a choice? On the one hand, a lot of people feel violated, and they want him to do more. On the other hand, he’s being cool and calm and presidential about it, and maybe the point is to play the long game — give Trump enough rope to hang himself with.

Peter: I love Obama, but he was played. Where is the strategy? How long is this long game? Cool and calm is a good approach, especially when everyone else is hysterical, but there is a vast difference between “ignore strategically” and “let the Russians do whatever they want.”

Natalia: How do you handle a guy like Trump, who simply doesn’t care about Russian interference?

Peter: You can’t do what the Democrats have done. They’re pushing Trump and Putin together now. Instead you should be smart and do everything to push Putin and Trump apart. Saying nothing and then going into overdrive once the truth is out is the wrong approach. What is needed now is a thorough investigation, of course. Also, let’s not go overboard with our definitions of Trump. There are similarities between his approach and Putin’s approach, but Trump is more of a [populist former leader of Italy Silvio] Berlusconi figure.

Natalia: What should the American public prepare for now?

Peter: That Trump will be an 8-year president? If some of his populist economic measures succeed, we could be looking at that.

Natalia: Unless he starts a trade war with China and everything goes to hell. Based on his Twitter feed, I feel like this is a likely outcome.

Peter: It all depends on whether or not he’s a complete moron.

Natalia: Not very reassuring.

Peter: Look — Trump has the power of reality TV on his side. What’s more powerful than that? How about President George Clooney? All those women who voted for Trump will forget him in an instant. Maybe I’m joking, or halfway joking, but the truth is, it’s time for the media and for liberals to reinvent themselves. It’s doable and has been done before. Just don’t stay in your bubble. So many Democratic leaders are in a bubble, so they cocked it it up, when they should have been calling on those who would tell them what they needed to hear, as opposed to what they wanted to hear. They didn’t plan for bad outcomes. You can learn a lot from others, but you have to actually be willing.

Peter Pomerantsev is the author of “Nothing is True and Everything is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia,” winner of the 2016 Ondaatje Prize.

Originally published December 19, 2016.

 

[post_title] => 'Your echo chamber is a trap': on Trump and the media [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => your-echo-chamber-is-a-trap-peter-pomerantsev-on-trump-and-the-media-2 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:15 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:15 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=422 [menu_order] => 360 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

‘Your echo chamber is a trap’: on Trump and the media

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 419
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-01-22 14:55:09
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-01-22 14:55:09
    [post_content] => 

How did we overlook billionaire Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s overt financial ties with the Russian oligarchy?

Though Wilbur Ross's 2014 buyout of the Bank of Cyprus, a tax haven for Russian billionaires, has been documented in the press, it only made headlines in 2017. Spy games may capture our cultural imagination, but dirty money is what greases the machinery.

On February 16, six Democratic senators sent a letter to Wilbur Ross with questions about his Russia ties but the White House sat on his response. Cory Booker was the only senator to keep pushing into last week with follow-up questions. Ross sailed through his confirmation yesterday without answering them. We didn’t follow the money and now it’s in the White House.

In a way, the Bank of Cyprus, where Ross is the primary stakeholder and vice-chairman, symbolizes the failure of Western efforts to diminish Russian financial influence.

Cyprus was a notorious tax haven for Russian businessmen until the European debt crisis in 2013 led the bank to collapse. Russian businessmen lost billions fast. Putin refused to help and Germany was reluctant to bail out the Russian deposits. It wanted to force Russians out of the European bank and so during restructuring, deposits were converted into shares. Ironically, this gave majority ownership of the bank over to Russian plutocrats. As the Cypriot president, Nicos Anastasiades, said in June 2013, “They wanted to throw out the Russians but in the end, they delivered our main bank to the Russians.”

This is where Wilbur Ross comes in. Having already made money during the European debt crisis through a takeover of the Bank of Ireland, Ross led a 1 billion euro takeover of the Cypriot bank during the summer of 2014, including a buyout of most, but not all of the Russian plutocrats. Viktor Vekselberg, one of Russia’s richest men, became the second-largest shareholder in the bank through his Bahama-based conglomerate, Renova Group.

Ross recruited Josef Ackermann, former CEO of Deutsche Bank, Putin associate and a director at Renova Group, to join Bank of Cyprus’s board. Deutsche Bank is Trump’s largest creditor and was recently found guilty of enabling a $10 billion Russian money laundering scheme, funnelling money from Moscow to offshore accounts in Cyprus (!), among other places.

Besides Ackermann, Bank of Cyprus’s board includes Ross as vice-chairman, a position he shared until 2015 with former KGB agent and businessman Vladimir Strzhalkovsky. After Strzhalkovsky’s resignation, Renova Group executive Maksim Goldman stepped up as vice-chairman. These relationships are more than a little bit incestuous.

In his rage against Obama and Clinton over the Panama Papers and Crimean sanctions, Putin could never have planned a revenge fantasy which played out as well as it has for him — it’s too perfect. But Putin did set himself up for success.

Oil men, offshore accounts and corrupt businessmen are Putin’s bread and butter, and now he has Trump, Tillerson and Ross in the White House.

It’s unfortunate considering that the sanctions seemingly limited Russia’s financial bad behavior. In March 2016, just a week before the Panama Paper leaks revealed Putin’s off-shore investments in the Caribbean, Reuters reported on Moscow’s tighter regulation of off-shore business, citing Vekselberg’s choice to bring assets home to Russia as evidence of the Kremlin’s new muscle.

Imagine the field day these thieves will have when sanctions are lifted and secrecy is protected. Of all of the Trump team’s connections to Russia, Ross’s are explicit and well-documented and yet nothing has been done about them.

Trump’s campaign knew about Vekselberg even before he won. As Trump’s own ties to Russia were being questioned in the weeks before the election, his campaign issued a press release accusing the Clinton Foundation of being on Vekselberg’s dole. Trump regularly accuses Clinton of crimes that he has in fact committed.

Additionally, though it predates Ross’s involvement in the Bank of Cyprus, Senator Booker’s follow up letter asks Ross if he has any knowledge about the 2008 purchase of Trump’s Palm Beach home by Dmitry Rybolovlev, another Russian billionaire and investor in the Bank of Cyprus. Good luck getting an official answer now.

America’s obsession with Flynn’s phone calls should not come at the expense of investigation into Ross’s relationship with notorious money launderers. Ross has yet to resign from the Bank of Cyprus. He has said he intends to divest, but talk is especially cheap with the Trump administration. Such overt corruption in the highest echelons of our government is corrosive, and, unlike the rest of the GOPs policies, is sure to trickle down.

 

[post_title] => Wilbur Ross, Trump and Russia: dirty money in the White House [post_excerpt] => Oil men, offshore accounts and corrupt businessmen are Putin’s bread and butter, and now he has Trump, Tillerson and Ross in the White House. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => wilbur-ross-trump-and-russia-dirty-money-in-the-white-house-2 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:31 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=419 [menu_order] => 361 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Wilbur Ross, Trump and Russia: dirty money in the White House