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] => 939
    [post_author] => 13
    [post_date] => 2019-04-26 11:42:00
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-04-26 11:42:00
    [post_content] => Smart Cities are controversial because they are sponsored by Big Tech, which is offering 'free services' in exchange for detailed private information. But there is a way to overhaul the concept so that it serves ordinary citizens. The real issue is finding the political will to tackle those necessary changes

From Toronto to Singapore, and New York City to Malta, municipalities flying the “smart city” flag are on the rise across the globe, promising to improve the quality of life for urban residents. Using artificial intelligence to analyze data collected from Internet-connected cameras, sensors, license plate readers, drones, digital identification cards, personal electronic devices, and mobile crowd sourcing, smart cities can, advocates say, eliminate traffic jams, improve energy conservation, assist in crime detection, better respond to weather conditions, and provide faster and better citizen services.

But the massive amount of data needed for smart cities to work has given the concept a bad name among those concerned about personal privacy. Tech companies supplying software and hardware to smart cities are hungry for citizens’ data, which they want to monetize and share with partners. For law enforcement agencies and municipal governments, data collected for smart cities represent a treasure trove of information about people’s movements, preferences, associations, and habits. Suddenly smart cities are starting to sound more like surveillance cities with less traffic jams. And there are plenty of people who’d prefer the traffic jams to the loss of control over their privacy.

Smart cities for the people?

Whether smart cities can truly benefit people in a meaningful way without handing over their private information to AT&T, Google, Amazon, and other corporations is unclear. We need to rethink the smart city concept to offer smart services to people without allowing corporations to exploit and profit off their data in the process. At present, cities that want to become “smart” rely heavily on vendors that can supply the technical know-how about networking systems, AI algorithms, data optimization, cloud storage, infrastructure technologies, risk management, high-speed broadband, and security, just to name a few. City officials and municipal information technology departments don’t have the technical expertise to build and manage smart cities on their own. That’s where companies like Google come in. The city of Toronto contracted with Sidewalk Labs in October 2017 to design a neighborhood on the city’s waterfront “from the Internet up." Sidewalk Labs is owned by Alphabet, which is Google’s parent company. According to the plan for this smart city initiative, a network of sensors will collect real-time data about the environment, while it also gathers location-based information about buildings and infrastructure. Citizens would access services through a personalized portal. The project will be a “global testbed where people can use data about how the neighbourhood works to make it work better,” Sidewalk said. Almost immediately, Toronto's residents began asking questions about data collection and privacy. Who would own the data, and how would it be protected? A privacy expert hired by Sidewalk to assist with these issues resigned a year after project launch, telling the Global News newspaper that she couldn’t support the project after learning that third parties might have access to identifiable data collected. Another technologist resigned her post on the project’s digital strategy advisory panel, saying it had disregarded residents’ concern about data. Sidewalk CEO Dan Doctoroff said earlier this month that the company has no interest in monetizing personal information, just as a citizens’ group in Toronto launched #BlockSidewalk.

Citizens should be involved

There are more than a few lessons to be learned from Toronto. People are rightly concerned about their personal data being used without their knowledge and permission, and being tracked online. Recent privacy scandals at Facebook, numerous data breaches, and online misinformation campaigns have heightened those concerns.  Cities going “smart” should be prepared to respond with specifics about whether they or their technology partners, or those partners’ partners, will have access to identifiable data. And they should expect a public backlash if the answer is yes, or “we don’t know yet.” Citizens should be involved in the planning and development of data collection efforts from Day One. They should have a strong say in how and where they are being surveilled rather than be told that Vendor X’s cameras will be installed on every corner filming 24 hours a day, and the feed will go into a massive data base to be kept indefinitely. Cities need experts who can defend citizens’ privacy and challenge inadequate safeguards over private information. They must incoluate themselves before signing contracts or entering into agreements with vendors, by engaging with top-notch security and privacy experts who can match the tech smarts of Google engineers and demand a privacy and human rights framework for smart city projects. To accomplish this, cities would have to make big investments in their IT departments, hiring cryptography and experts in data anonymization. Smart city projects should start with the fewest privacy invasive methods of data collection, instead of using the most invasive and then winnowing that down. Vendors and developers would have to think creatively, in order to come up with ways to obtain data for smart city applications without defaulting to facial scans and license plate readers. Municipal governments need to get tough about rules regarding data privacy. The effective way to do this is as follows:
  • Pass ordinances or establish regulations that prohibit vendors from sharing citizens’ information
  • Place strict limitations on turning data over to law enforcement or ICE
  • Require vendors to anonymize personal data and purge it soon after use;
  • Allow citizens to opt out of the collection of their locations, images, biometric data, and other personal information;
  • Appoint executive level privacy and security czars to oversee data handling and storage and enforce data privacy practices.
We have become accustomed to “free” technology — email, social media accounts, instant messaging and photo sharing platform — but of course we are paying for it with our personal information. It's a high price to pay. Data collection for smart city implementation presents the same uneven exchange, but on a much larger scale. Your commute home becomes faster because cameras are capturing, analyzing, and storing scans of your license plates and the plates of the drivers around you, which are used to predict congestion and trigger modifications to traffic lights and lane closures to avoid jam ups. You get a seat on the bus because facial scans of you and your fellow riders are stored in the cloud indefinitely to help city transportation departments predict when to deploy more buses during periods of peak ridership. We have become convinced that a high quality of life is predicated on convenience. Perhaps it is time to question that assumption — to ask whether the price for all this convenience is just a bit too high. [post_title] => Who's benefitting from Smart Cities? [post_excerpt] => Smart city projects should start with the fewest privacy invasive methods of data collection, instead of using the most invasive and then winnowing that down. Vendors and developers would have to think creatively, in order to come up with ways to obtain data for smart city applications without defaulting to facial scans and license plate readers. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => how-to-have-smart-cities-and-privacy-too [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=939 [menu_order] => 336 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Who’s benefitting from Smart Cities?

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 897
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2019-04-25 16:50:36
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-04-25 16:50:36
    [post_content] => In honor of Earth Day this week, we’ve collected stories about environmental activists who are having an impact on policy. These individuals, companies, and organizations are refusing to succumb to inertia and fatalism 

Mass-produced cleaning solution tablets that consumers mix with water at home can drastically reduce the environmental damage caused by toxic chemicals. Several new companies are now producing those tablets, which consumers can use in reusable cleaning bottles instead of relying on disposable plastic. A little change can go a long way. Learn more here.

In London, climate activists showed that the act of disruption is a powerful tactic. After police arrested more than 1,000 protesters with the Extinction Rebellion movement, the movement leaders “paused” the protests, saying they have enough momentum and support to “enter into negotiations with those in power.” Read more.

The Guardian profiled nine of the “ordinary people” arrested for standing up for the climate. Read those here.

Disrupting business as usual doesn’t always take the form of marching in the streets. The increasing number of climate-change-related lawsuits suggests that the sheer volume of such cases could force corporations and governments to change their ways. Read more here.

Researchers are using mushrooms to clean up toxic messes, like oil spills. Check out this fun infographic to find out how it works.

Can science fiction help us envision better worlds? This article looks at what the world would look like after we’ve solved climate change. On a practical level, it could help policy-makers and politicians set appropriate goals and priorities. Read about the possible future here.

 
    [post_title] => Climate change disrupted
    [post_excerpt] => This week's roundup is about environmental activists whose disruptive tactics succeeded in changing policy
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => closed
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => climate-change-disrupted
    [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=897
    [menu_order] => 337
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Climate change disrupted

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 842
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2019-04-17 15:19:23
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-04-17 15:19:23
    [post_content] => Technology is a seemingly overwhelming force in our personal lives and society, but as these stories show, people are working to check Big Tech’s power at every turn, whether by resisting expansion to new American cities or by introducing legislation to force companies into implementing more user-friendly design.

[caption id="attachment_847" align="alignnone" width="4608"]Photo by Victoria Heath on Unsplash Photo by Victoria Heath on Unsplash[/caption]

America’s love affair with Big Tech is finally over, asserts Micah Sifry in his review of three books that look at surveillance of capitalism. But now that we are re-evaluating our relationship with Facebook, Amazon, and other social media apps that have traded convenience for our money and our attention, will we insist on real change? Perhaps. But only if we put some effort into understanding, describing, and analyzing the impact it has had on our lives. Read the review here.

Here is a fun, not entirely unrelated thought experiment: Could we blow up the internet? As we consider its ubiquitousness in our lives and how to mediate and improve the internet’s influence, perhaps it’s important to recognize that no, actually just blowing it up (probably) isn’t an option. Read more here.

Regulating Big Tech is a more likely scenario than blowing it up and starting over. Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) have introduced a bill that is meant to outlaw some of the most manipulative design tricks employed by technology companies to get users to hand over more of the data or personal information than they might otherwise choose to, if they understood that they had a choice. Learn more about the bill here.

The U.K. is also taking steps to limit the worst features of technology companies, particularly as it relates to users under the age of 18. The Information Commissioner's Office also wants internet companies to make privacy settings high by default, to turn location tracking off when the app is not in use and make it clear when it’s on, and explain how personal data is used, among other proposed changes. Learn more here.

Opposition to tech companies can actually have a unifying effect on groups that otherwise espouse ideologically opposed worldviews. That is what is happening in Nashville, where free-market libertarians and union-backed activists are both working to oppose a deal in which Nashville will give public money to Amazon in exchange for jobs. Activists are pressuring Amazon to prove to the public that they have followed through on their promises to the city. Read more here.
    [post_title] => The People v Big Tech
    [post_excerpt] => 				Blind love for Big Tech is over as people re-assess the high price they pay for convenience 		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => the-people-v-big-tech
    [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=842
    [menu_order] => 339
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)
Photo by Victoria Heath on Unsplash

The People v Big Tech

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 832
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2019-04-12 16:43:40
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-04-12 16:43:40
    [post_content] => Google is not known for self-sacrifice. That is why New York should be more skeptical of its latest 'free' offer

Earlier this week, Google opened their temporary "Grow with Google New York City Learning Center" on the first floor of the company's Chelsea offices. The "pop-up" space embodies techno-optimism: well-lit classrooms with nearly floor-to-ceiling windows, decorated in neutrals with occasional pops of primary colors, and well-stocked with Google Chromebooks. For five months, the technology company will provide free and open-to-the-public classes on topics like "Manage Projects More Effectively with Online Tools" and "Make Your Website Work For You."

The vast majority of classes are based on Google products: Learn to manage projects with Google Sheets; get your business online with Google My Business; discover new job opportunities with Google Search. In other words, Google is further entrenching their business monopoly under the pretence of helping entrepreneurs and job seekers. The company is  cynically deploying the American dream of hard work and the self-made success story for its own benefit, expecting New Yorkers to thank them for the opportunity to help make Google even richer and more powerful.

But, you say, knowing how to use Google products effectively is a great and marketable skill! Why shouldn’t we accept trickle-down education? Perhaps because to do so is to cede another facet of our society to a company that already has an outsized influence on our lives. The money spent on this glorified PR stunt could have been used to support the original programming of the initiative’s partner organizations, like the New York Public Library, which already offers free classes on subjects like basic computer skills, creating a resume, and social media marketing. Unlike the Google Learning Center, the NYPL won’t close up shop in five months.

Exploiting our fears

Enthusiasm for technology skills programs often stems from our collective anxieties about the future of work, or what will happen when the robots come for our jobs. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," goes this line of thinking. Google is subtly playing to these fears, to our desire to come out on top in a tech-dominated world. "Tech related skills are essential for people looking for jobs in the modern economy, and Grow with Google will go far toward helping New Yorkers gain the expertise they need to thrive," Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer said in a statement given to a local reporter. The cause-and-effect is made even more explicit in another article on a tech news website that covered the center's launch. "The Google NYC Learning Center is part of the "Grow with Google" initiative, first launched in 2017," AJ Dellinger writes for Engadget. "As part of that project, Google has pledged to spend $1 billion to help people adapt to an increasingly digital world and learn new skills that may place them in suitable jobs should their current career get wiped out by automation." Even if Google hasn’t made such a promise, the company has let the misconception stand. Google describes the material taught at the learning center as "digital skills.” The phrase is almost meaningless given that nearly every facet of our lives is mediated by digital devices, but it conveys the impression that the company is generously preparing New York workers for an automated future — the very future they're doing their best to bring about. The reality is not quite so cutting-edge: In addition to the Google product-based courses, there are classes like "Design an Effective Resume" and "Optimize Your Energy for High Performance" and "Coach Your Team to Success." These are important and valuable skills, to be sure — but they are not "digital skills." The marketing of this project is an ingenious and insidious bait and switch: offer glitzy and in-demand tech skills, but limit the actual courses to the walled garden of Google products, which has the additional benefit (for Google) of drumming up more customers for their services. The model is similar to Facebook's Free Basics program, whereby Facebook subsidizes free internet access, but only to an incomplete and partial internet that is mediated by Facebook. Thus neophyte users conflate Facebook with the internet, and become captive users of the social media platform. Google's spokespeople have been more careful about what they promise. Ruth Porat, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Google and Alphabet, characterizes the pop-up shop as part of their commitment to "STEM education, workforce development and access to technology." Porat describes Grow With Google as "our initiative to create economic opportunities for all Americans" — an ambitious goal that is so vague, it becomes meaningless. Torrence Boone, the NYC site lead, describes Grow with Google as "our program to help individuals and small businesses gain the skills that can set them up for success, today and in the future."

Digital robber barons

Even this seemingly innocuous statement is based on an outdated fantasy; it perpetuates the myth that it's easy to pull yourself up by the bootstraps in contemporary America. In the United States between 1978 and 2012, the number of startups (companies less than a year old) plummeted, their share of all businesses falling nearly 44 percent. While there are a number of factors at play, the most significant is that the largest players are crowding out the little guys. Google is among those big baddies. As Robert Levine reported for The Boston Globe, Google controls 90 percent of the search market. It operates the most popular online video site, mapping application, and internet browser. The company has used their market dominance to stifle the competition — by giving Google products preference in the Google search engine, for example. As Open Markets Institute outlines in this explainer on "Entrepreneurship and Monopoly," market concentration centralizes resources, talent, and money while squeezing out potential up-and-comers. This happens at the expense of the larger job market; nearly two-thirds of the nation's net jobs created over the past 15 years have been at smaller companies. In other words, we have a monopolistic company with a track record of self-promotion and stifling competition dispersing crumbs of knowledge to the unskilled masses, while creating more revenue opportunities for Google. And what Google is offering truly is just crumbs — not even a full loaf of bread. Students are limited to just three classes at the learning center, a fact that is not mentioned either in Google's promotional material or in any of the launch publicity. (Some partner organizations are using the space to hold their own private or public classes, which may run over three classes, but registration for those appears to be handled by the partners, not Google.) It's not clear from the class registration page if prospective students are limited to just three classes over the five weeks, or if one can only sign up for three classes at one time. Either way, three classes on any topic is hardly sufficient to prepare someone for a job they weren't already qualified to do. Judging by the registration page, nearly every class at the learning center — through April 27 — is entirely full. There is clearly a demand for this kind of programming. Google worked with local partners like the New York Public Library to design course offerings that would be worthwhile for New Yorkers, but one might be justified in seeing this as a case of a tech giant having rebranded programming suggestions from local experts and taking the credit. But only a grinch would deny kids the opportunity to learn to code, so what’s the problem?

Gifts with strings attached

The gap between what has been promised and is provided is a problem, especially if Google is getting more from the programming than the company is giving. There is a question of what goodwill or favors initiatives like this will buy the company as they expand their New York City footprint. A $5 million investment in workforce development and job training was part of the deal with Amazon that fell through; what will Google get when they point to their generous free programming and say "Look what we did for you, NYC"? The same could be said for any of the cities and towns where Google has disseminated their “Grow With” programming, albeit over the course of weeks, not months. Anxiety about the future of work is real. As local governments seek to prepare residents for potentially grim employment prospects, they will surely be tempted to cede responsibility to the tech giants. After all, local officials aren't usually known for being particularly tech-savvy, so why not let the experts handle it? But when those experts are monopolistic corporate giants upon which society is already reliant and beholden in so many ways, we cannot trust them to fix the problems that their business models exacerbate. Their track record proves they are unwilling to share information that will help anyone but themselves. If we've learned anything from the surveillance economy, it's that nothing is ever really free. Local government officials should follow Google’s example: look to public libraries to help create equitable paths to prosperity and ongoing education. Empower them and fund them. Don’t let the corporate monopolies stifling innovation and throttling the American dream determine the future of workforce development solely to their benefit and not ours. Jessica McKenzie is a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, NY. You can follow her on Twitter @jessimckenzi. [post_title] => Beware of Google bearing gifts [post_excerpt] => Google's offer of free courses in digital skills is packaged as a philanthropic initiative, but a closer look raises serious questions about its motives and the intangible but serious costs to the public. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => beware-of-google-bearing-gifts [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=832 [menu_order] => 340 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Beware of Google bearing gifts

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] => 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

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 405
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-01-22 14:45:38
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-01-22 14:45:38
    [post_content] => 

 

Why don’t Trump supporters care that their leader seems more sympathetic to the Kremlin than he does to, say, his own intelligence community? Take a look at the numbers.

Among Republican voters, Putin is literally more popular than Obama. This trend didn’t didn’t come out of the blue. Republican leaders have been actively promoting Putin for some time.

There are many reasons why Putin is attractive to conservative voters — both obvious and not-so-obvious.

As Terrell J. Starr has repeatedly pointed out on Twitter (if you’re on Twitter, you should really follow his account, btw), Putin is particularly beloved by Americans who have a lot of anxiety around race issues/nonwhite leaders (*cough* Obama *cough*)/the idea of whites becoming a minority, etc.

While some of them know that Russia is a diverse country, they also see it as a country where “minorities know their place” (they may have heard as much from notorious racist David Duke to various right wing websites).

That’s just one piece of the puzzle— but it’s important, and rarely discussed by cable news. There is a lot of discomfort around this issue.

As for Trump himself, even if you discard the wilder allegations against him, including the idea that the Kremlin is literally blackmailing him, his line of work and his personality can clue you in as to why he wants to cozy up to the Kremlin.

Trump is a good salesman. He tells people what they want to hear.

Instinctively, Trump understood that what millions of people wanted to hear is that there is a country — a big country with imperial ambitions and nuclear might— where white people are in charge and make no apologies for it.

There is no pesky “political correctness” in this alleged white paradise. This image of Russia and its leader was a product that Trump could sell to voters. It worked. It’s still working.

(The reality of life in Russia is different from the fantasy, but we at the Anti-Nihilist Institute will get to that in our subsequent articles on the topic)

Trump is also just a narcissist. There is no getting around it — this man feeds off of the spotlight, he needs to be adored, and he believes that now that he is president, it is everyone’s job to adore him. He’s going to respond favorably to a Kremlin that’s making overtures to his ego, national security be damned.

On cable news, we keep hearing the excuse that Trump merely wants to normalize relations with Russia. If you know anything about foreign policy, this should strike you as odd. Normalizing relations ≠ siding with foreign officials over your own officials (the Russians know it too, which is why I recently told Marco Werman that I bet Putin is laughing at us right now).

What can be done about this hot mess? It pays to be realistic and play the long game.

  1. Don’t think that facts will convince Trump or his most fervent supporters. If facts mattered to him or his base, he would have never become president. Facts don’t matter to the Kremlin at all, and it’s doing just great (for now).
  2. Remember that people who bought into Trump mania are just as feverishly excited (if not more so) as a different section of the electorate was excited for Obama. The pendulum swings both ways — first there is the euphoria, and then the inevitable letdown.
  3. When the letdown begins it’s important to remember that these excited people were, in many instances, motivated by rage. Many of them may be looking to turn to even more aggressive right-wingers as the result. A lot of right-wing leaders (particularly those who promote Russia as a white man’s paradise) who have flocked to Trump understand this.
  4. This is why it’s important to begin the process of reconciliation sooner rather than later. If you know anti-Trump conservatives or even Trump voters who are beginning to have doubts, check out the Anti-Nihilist guide to reaching out to them. Only do it if you are able & think it is safe. Fellow white people, it’s time to step up to the plate and reject white supremacy. Use your privilege for good.
  5. Remember that the majority of the American public did not vote for this man. How did the Bolsheviks win in Russia? They convinced everyone that they were the majority. “Bolshevik” comes from the Russian word “bolshinstvo,” or “majority”. (They did so, in part, by stealing isolationist, populist platforms to rouse the peasants and soldiers returning from WWI into a bloody civil war at home.) They were NOT even the majority of their own party, and if people never fell for their BS, Russia may have been a different country. The Trump White House is already using Kremlin-like tactics of distorting numbers in order to make support for Trump seem bigger than it is. Simple ideologies spread easily. Don’t fall for it.

As scholar Mark Galeotti explains, a Trump-Putin summit may torpedo the friendship between Trump and Putin faster than any intelligence dossier featuring kinky sex stuff.

It won’t be an issue of their differences, it will be an issue of their similarities. Putin depends on his image as a strongman. Trump depends on his image as an all-powerful corporate boss. They may never admit it in public, but in private the two are bound to clash.

Meanwhile, here is the main reason why Trump admires Putin — Putin does what he wants and is held accountable by no one inside his own country.

That kind of power comes at the cost of freedom for millions of people.

Watch out for anti-protest measures, for crackdowns on civic activity, for even more spying on Americans, for, well, classic authoritarian tactics.

Don’t expect the majority of Republicans in Congress to automatically revolt against this — they have proven themselves to be craven and self-serving.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act with no viable replacement is another measure that serves authoritarian interests. As any good authoritarian will tell you, when you have citizens who are literally struggling to survive, it’s much easier to do whatever the hell you want.

This is why it’s important to:

a) Keep up the pressure on your officials. Remember, they don’t like pressure — especially not when they have to face it publicly. Phone calls and e-mails will not be enough.

b) Hold the media to high standards. Access journalism is overrated when the people journalists are trying to access will only lie to their faces. Media sycophants will be used to advance Trump’s agenda.

c) Forge new alliances. Trump is impulsive and alienates people. He alienated his own intelligence community before he was sworn in (now he’s saying that he “loves” them — that just looks like more inconsistency to them). Meanwhile, your conservative neighbors down the street may not be as comfortable with the Trump-Putin bromance (not to mention Trump saying “grab them by the pussy”) as they pretend to be. You can use Trump’s impulsiveness against him.

d) Recall the lessons of self-isolating Russian liberals. The tactics of divide & conquer work. Don’t let them work on you.


This is not going to be an easy battle. But it will be slightly easier if we come prepared, with realistic goals on the agenda. Remember, a lot of the Democrats in Washington are not ready to hear any of this right now — and keeping pressure on them as a way of making them understand what’s happening is also important.

 

[post_title] => Russia as a “White Man’s Paradise” & Other Scary Reasons Why Trump Adores Putin (and what to do about it) [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => russia-as-a-white-mans-paradise-other-scary-reasons-why-trump-adores-putin-and-what-to-do-about-it [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=405 [menu_order] => 365 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Russia as a “White Man’s Paradise” & Other Scary Reasons Why Trump Adores Putin (and what to do about it)

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 398
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-01-22 14:38:04
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-01-22 14:38:04
    [post_content] => 

Donald Trump is a criminal, just not in the spy-game fever dream you’ve imagined.

The real trick to making sense of Trump lies in understanding the black market. You know who gets this dual mentality? Vladimir “Panama Papers” Putin. The chaotic narrative of Trump’s actions gains some coherence when you frame his dealings as either legitimate or on the side. It’s a kind of double-speak Russians are familiar with.

Once known primarily for fraud, including allegations of money laundering and labor trafficking, Trump has leveled upwards in the gangster world. As president, his social set now includes mercenary billionairesbanking oligarchs and oil tycoons. Men who considered him small fry just months ago are knocking down Mar-a-Lago’s door.

Some have likened this presidency to "House of Cards,” but Trump can’t hold a candle to Frank Underwood’s brilliant maneuvering. As has been noted before, Trump is a Batman villain rampaging through a Gotham with no Batman. He’s the Queens construction boss with a short fuse, mob ties, a penchant for stiffing workers and a predatory appetite for women. Bankrupt morally and financially, he becomes a reality star and ultimately President. Next step, attempted global domination.

Is it any wonder that Americans jumped at the mention of Trump Escorts being trademarked in China? Never mind the Trump lawyer’s reasonable statement that it was done to circumvent notorious Chinese piracy. On some level, however, we were hoping for a new twist in the drama, for some kind of evidence that our president is a glorified pimp.

After all, human trafficking, defined by the use of force or coercion to extract labor, including sex work, is the second-most lucrative transnational crime after drugs. Trafficking often occurs when migrants are forced from their homes in search of opportunities elsewhere, whether due to poverty, violence or increasing geopolitical and environmental instability. Long before he was president, Trump had a track record of intimidating vulnerable immigrants, his wives included.

Trump has previously capitalized on women through beauty pageants and his modeling agency, which is alleged to have trafficked women into the country on incorrect visas, subsequently taking their passports and withholding wages. Boasting about spying on underage women doesn’t help his case. Meanwhile, whether the sensational Steele dossier is true or not, one thing it did reveal is how comfortably Putin and Trump laugh when characterizing Russian prostitutes as one of Russia’s great natural resources.

Trump stinks of corruption. Even if we don’t know what he is up to exactly, we do know something about his scene. The tourism industry has come under increased scrutiny over its unique position with regard to human trafficking. Hotels, not pizza parlors, are known hot spots for many forms of trafficking. Victims range from the construction workers who build them and the house keepers who clean them to the sex workers who service men in them.

To use the earlier example of China, the 2016 Global Study on Sexual Exploitation of Children in Travel and Tourism says that increased business travel in East Asia has increased the likelihood of children being sexually exploited. “Corporate culture in these [East Asian] countries often calls for after-hours “meetings” characterized by alcohol and sex to cement social and business relations.” The study further notes that some Chinese men value sex with children because virginity brings youthfulness and good fortune in business.

More generally, the 2016 U.S. State Department Trafficking in Persons Reportnotes that like many countries, criminal syndicates and local gangs run trafficking networks in China. Meanwhile, the One Child Policy and cultural gender bias has created a lopsided number of male children. Women from poorer regions and neighboring countries have been trafficked in to make up the difference.

Some international hotel chains like Marriott International and Wyndham Hotels have taken note of the larger problem and partnered with anti-trafficking groups ECPAT-USA and Polaris to create the Code, a specific set of practices and guidelines for the tourism industry to combat the sexual exploitation of children. The new training guidelines were implemented by Marriott in Rio de Janeiro during the Olympics and has gained traction since.

As for Trump, there has been no sign of his hotels’ participation in these tourism initiatives. Trump may have left Atlantic City for the White House, but he’ll never be better than Trump Taj Mahal.

Take for instance Vice’s report from Dubai about Trump paying migrant workers poorly, keeping them in squalor while they build his new golf course. The New Yorker’s investigation into Trump Tower Baku opens up the possibilities that Trump was in bed with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard through a partnership with the Mammadov family, paid for in cash and personally supervised by his daughter Ivanka.

As president, Trump continues to exploit workers while paying lip service to human trafficking and sexual assault. His current reign of terror against undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is reminiscent of the time Trump threatened to deport the undocumented Polish workers who cleared the land for Trump Tower. Mexican and Central American construction workers are still victims of trafficking here in America.

Trump has preyed on vulnerable communities his whole life, as the repeated labor violations and discriminatory practices show. As President, he’s vowed to fight the epidemic of human trafficking though he openly promotes policies which exacerbate its root causes. Banning refugees, closing our borders, and stirring up global and environmental chaos benefits the criminal underground, as Trump well knows.

Time to face it — we’ve put a thug in the Oval Office because we’re racist snobs about crime and who constitutes a “criminal.” When Trump strikes, his tailored suit doesn’t in any way mean that he hurts people less; it just helps conceal who he actually is. If you don’t believe me, ask the Russians.

 

[post_title] => Trump Underground [post_excerpt] => The chaotic narrative of Trump’s actions gains some coherence when you frame his dealings as either legitimate or on the side. It’s a kind of double-speak Russians are familiar with. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => trump-underground-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=398 [menu_order] => 367 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Trump Underground