RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Tourist Trap: The Truth About All Those Deaths in the Dominican Republic. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37753"><span class="small">Daniel Engber, Slate</span></a>   
Monday, 01 July 2019 08:32

Engber writes: "When U.S. tourist Khalid Adkins passed away in Santo Domingo last week, after getting sick and being pulled off his return flight, the 46-year-old's name was added to a growing list of Americans who have died this year while visiting the Dominican Republic."

The entrance to the Bahia Principe resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, where, according to family members, a tourist died unexpectedly after getting sick last year. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The entrance to the Bahia Principe resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, where, according to family members, a tourist died unexpectedly after getting sick last year. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


Tourist Trap: The Truth About All Those Deaths in the Dominican Republic.

By Daniel Engber, Slate

01 July 19


The media is selling a scary story about tourist deaths in the Dominican Republic. Don’t buy it.

hen U.S. tourist Khalid Adkins passed away in Santo Domingo last week, after getting sick and being pulled off his return flight , the 46-year-old’s name was added to a growing list of Americans who have died this year while visiting the Dominican Republic. Though most or all of these tragedies—which now number at least 12—could have been caused by heart attacks or other mundane causes, a stranger, bigger, dumber understanding of this story has taken hold throughout the media. According to the news, we’ve come across a “mystery” that hasn’t yet been solved, a string of autopsies with “eerily similar” results, and a “disturbing trend” that merits daily, panicked updates.

“When there’s 11 deaths in the past year, there’s an explanation in order,” claimed Fox News medical expert and occasional Slate contributor Marc Siegel the other day, before the news of Khalid Adkins’ death had broken. Many have been posited in recent weeks. Could the tourists have been drinking bootleg liquor laced with battery acid? Were they gassed with pesticides? What about Legionnaires’ disease? “How do we know it isn’t cyanide?” Siegel wondered.

Toxicology results for some of these deaths, due out in the middle of July, ought to answer some of those questions. But in the meantime, we’d do well to put this talk on hold—because there is no wave of tourist deaths that demands an explanation. The dozen deaths reported this month represent at most a tiny fraction—just a few percent—of all the ones that would be expected to occur in any year of U.S. travel to the Dominican Republic. They do not compose a “trend,” “spate,” “string,” “cluster,” or any “mystery” to speak of. They are, strictly speaking, from a news perspective, nothing.

How, exactly, did this bogus cloud of fear and speculation come to spread so far and wide? The bonfire of innumeracy was set in March, when a pair of U.S. tourists on the island disappeared. Two weeks later, they were found to have perished in an accident. (Their car went off the road during a late-night drive to the airport.) This wasn’t so unusual: An average of 12 American visitors to the DR die every year in road accidents, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. State Department. But two members of Congress, Reps. Eliot Engel and Adriano Espaillat, started calling for another, better set of answers. “The FBI must work quickly to conduct a thorough investigation regarding details of their reported deaths,” they wrote to the agency’s director, Christopher Wray, at the time.

Then, at the end of May, a woman named Tammy Lawrence-Daley posted a first-person account on Facebook—now shared several hundred thousand times—of having been beaten, and possibly raped, while visiting a Dominican beach resort earlier in the year. (Dominican authorities suggested there may be some inconsistencies in Lawrence-Daley’s story.)

These events would set the frame for everything that followed. One day after Lawrence-Daley’s posting, another couple were found dead in their hotel room; each was found to have had respiratory failure and fluid in the lungs. A day or two after that, news broke that another tourist, who had checked into a neighboring hotel on the same day as the couple with respiratory failure, had also died in her room.

Now the bigger story had a template: Tourists were dying unexpectedly, maybe in their rooms, from what seemed—but maybe only seemed—like natural causes. Sure enough, two more U.S. tourists died in just this way on June 10 and June 13. Another hotel guest death, by respiratory failure, occurred on June 17.

On June 19, Wray received a second letter from Congress, this time from Rep. Frank Pallone, demanding that he investigate all these “unexpected and highly suspicious deaths.”

A week later, Khalid Adkins died while trying to get home.

That already sounds like a lot of deaths, but there were more. As coverage of the “mystery” expanded, the families of other victims—more men and women who had passed away while staying at Dominican hotels—started to emerge. The rules for inclusion in the “spate of deaths” got somewhat looser as the story spread: What had started as a strange, time-limited coincidence—six dead tourists found within a stretch of several weeks in June—had turned into a larger, less discriminating catalog of misfortune. Deaths of hotel guests in prior months—including two from April—were added to the media’s list of “unexpected and highly suspicious deaths.” Then the press lumped in three more tourist deaths from heart attacks that each occurred in 2018. Two more, from 2016 and 2017, also made the list.

As the story moved into Week 4, the “disturbing trend” of tourist deaths was stretched until it could include a woman who’d felt completely fine throughout her honeymoon on the Dominican Republic in May and then passed away about a month after her return. She did not die or even sicken while visiting the island. Nevertheless, news reports would list her as “the latest American fatality.”

Are we talking about a spate of tourist deaths this year, or a passel in the past three years, or what? One problem with this story is that it doesn’t seem to matter: New cases may be found in any month or year, involving any cause of sudden death, and still get tossed onto the pyre.

What a morbid waste of everybody’s time. Whether we’re talking about 12 deaths, or 25, or even 50, it’s wrong to treat the mere proliferation of these tragedies as proof that U.S. tourists are in danger. If we want to know for sure that something is amiss—or even to make an educated guess about the same—we’ll need to have a baseline death rate for comparison.
How often do Americans usually die while drinking whiskey in their rooms in Punta Cana? Or, to be less specific: How many U.S. tourists die during a normal year of visits to the Dominican Republic?

No one keeps careful track of tourist deaths. The U.S. State Department does count up the number of Americans who die from “non-natural” causes in each foreign country—homicides, suicides, drowning, car crashes, and the like. But it has no records of the natural ones, and no other governing body does, either. The number of Americans who die of heart attacks or strokes or any other illness while overseas remains unknown.

There haven’t been many academic studies of this topic, either, with respect to U.S. tourists or those from any other country. Perhaps the topic is too grisly to think about—as the authors of one recent paper on tourist death rates put it, “Encountering mortality seems not normally associated with travel and leisure behavior and therefore remains understudied.” Still, the modest research that does exist provides some useful context.

For a paper out in 2010, a Finnish scholar studied death certificates for about 570 of his countrymen whose corpses were repatriated after they had died while abroad between 2005 and 2007. A Scottish study, out in 2011, did the same for 572 Scottish travelers whose bodies were sent home to be cremated between 2000 and 2004. Each study tallied up the overall mortality rate among travelers and the reasons they had died.

The numbers from these studies lined up very well. According to the Finnish work, out of the 3.2 million overnight trips taken by Finns during the study period, about 0.018 percent resulted in the death of a traveler. Among those who passed away, 69 percent died from natural causes and two-thirds of those natural deaths were blamed on “cardiocirculatory” causes. According to the Scots, roughly 0.012 percent of all Scottish travel had ended in death, and 76 percent of those deaths were deemed to be of natural causes. Three-quarters of the natural deaths were blamed on a cardiovascular event.

Meanwhile, a pair of studies from Australia, which examined all recorded deaths among visitors to that country between 1997 and 2003, concluded that 0.008 percent of these trips ended in death and that 73 percent of those deaths were of natural causes.

So, let’s see what happens when we extrapolate from those figures to the Americans who visit the Dominican Republic. Our average life span lies somewhere in between those of the Finns and Scots, so perhaps it’s reasonable to peg our average rate of death while traveling as somewhere in the middle of theirs, too. Let’s say it’s 0.015 percent. We might similarly estimate that roughly 73 percent of American deaths overseas occur from natural causes—and that about 70 percent of those deaths would be related to heart disease or stroke.

It’s been widely reported that 2.7 million Americans now visit the Dominican Republic every year. (That’s almost double what it was five years ago; the nation’s tourism industry has been booming.) Based on my assumptions above, that means we should expect that roughly 400 American tourists will die while visiting the country in any given year. To be more specific, about 295 American tourists will die of natural causes during their trips, with 207 of those deaths being the result of a cardiovascular event.

Now compare those projected numbers to recent deaths described in the media. The “disturbing trend” we’ve heard so much about consists of 12 reported cases in 2019 (or maybe 17 in the past three years, depending how you count). Most of these have been attributed to heart attacks. Taken all together, these represent at most 3 percent of the total number of American tourists that would be expected to die while visiting the Dominican Republic in any given year and at most 6 percent of the total number of American tourists that would be expected to die from circulatory problems in particular.

What about the remarkable spate of six tourist deaths that have occurred since the end of May? Even that amounts to almost nothing. Based on the numbers above, one would guess that an average of 25 American travelers to the Dominican Republic will die, just from heart attacks and related issues, in each month. That average is likely to be higher still in June, which is near the high season for tourists. In other words, if the six most recent deaths reported in the news are surprising, it’s because they’re so few in number!

I will concede that by comparing the 12 well-publicized deaths from 2019, or the six deaths since late-May, against the total number of expected deaths, I’ve more or less ignored the fact that the cases in the news have been labeled “highly suspicious.” But I remain highly suspicious of the suspiciousness of these deaths. Yes, it’s weird that a couple passed away together in their room. The official explanation for their deaths—that one died from natural causes and the other died from shock at seeing it happen—is hardly satisfying. But the rest? They don’t seem that unusual at all.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I’m wrong, and that all these deaths are suspicious. Let’s pretend we know that each of the deaths reported in the media really did result from some bizarre, non-natural cause. If that were true, then we’d have tallied 12 such deaths of U.S. tourists in the Dominican Republic by the end of June, or 14 if you count the two who died in the car accident from March. That’s disturbing, sure, but it’s more or less in line with what we’ve seen in recent years. State Department records indicate that since 2003, an average of 20 U.S. citizens have died from non-natural causes every year in the DR.

I’m not the only one to notice that this panic has been manufactured out of nothing. That point has been made at length—and with understandable frustration—by the Dominican authorities. (As much as 17 percent of the country’s economy has been threatened by this smoke-and-mirrors coverage.) But it’s far too late for them to make this crisis—or this “crisis”—go away. What started as a few reported anecdotes—tick-tocks of the victims’ final hours at their beach hotel—has turned into a full-blown media phenomenon. First there were the pieces on the tourists who had died, and then the tourists who had nearly died or gotten “sick enough to die,” and finally, the tourists who may (or may not) have gotten diarrhea. We’ve also had explosions of explainers and columns of advice for worried, would-be travelers and follow-ups on how this news is killing travel plans.

In the past few weeks, the panic over tourist deaths has even turned into a topic all its own, in isolated form, pulled apart from any details of the tourist deaths themselves. Savvy, second-order stories skip right past the people getting heart attacks to diagnose an “image problem” or an “image crisis.” Now experts can be called to ponder not the safety of U.S. travelers but “the perception of safety,” or to muse about “public relations dynamic” that is now in play. The story has begun to feed itself: We’re getting news about the news that wasn’t ever really news.

I don’t know how to stop the cycle now that it’s spiraled to this point. But if you want a cheap, and possibly less crowded, tropical destination this summer, I’d suggest the Dominican Republic.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
In My Country, a Third Dictator Will Fall - With Your Help Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51075"><span class="small">Reem Abbas, YES! Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 30 June 2019 13:23

Abbas writes: "Amid an internet blackout in my country, instituted by an oppressive regime, the people of Sudan have organized a mass global demonstration for June 30. This day marks the 30th year of the reign of dictator and former Sudan president Omar Al-Bashir."

Illuminated by mobile phones, a young man recites a poem about revolution before the opposition's direct dialog with people in Khartoum, Sudan on June 19. Around him, the crowd chanted slogans that included the words 'revolution' and 'civil.' (photo: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images)
Illuminated by mobile phones, a young man recites a poem about revolution before the opposition's direct dialog with people in Khartoum, Sudan on June 19. Around him, the crowd chanted slogans that included the words 'revolution' and 'civil.' (photo: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images)


In My Country, a Third Dictator Will Fall - With Your Help

By Reem Abbas, YES! Magazine

30 June 19


In Sudan, pro-democracy protestors brought down two violent regimes over the past three months. On June 30, they hope to bring down a third.

mid an internet blackout in my country, instituted by an oppressive regime, the people of Sudan have organized a mass global demonstration for June 30. This day marks the 30th year of the reign of dictator and former Sudan president Omar Al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir has fallen, but his legacy of terror and killings is still in place. The transitional military council (TMC) was installed on April 11, but the group of seven men is simply seen as an extension of Al-Bashir’s regime.

On April 6—five days before Al-Bashir was ousted—I got into a car with friends, and we drove to downtown Khartoum to join a march to the army headquarters. At some point, we gave up on taking part in the march as we found ourselves stuck in an office trying to dodge arrest and tear-gas. Armed with pieces of cloth dripping with vinegar stuck in our bras to fight off the tear-gas, my friends and I found a crowd of protestors and joined them. In a matter of hours, the protest grew into hundreds of thousands.

Pro-democracy protests in Sudan have been continual since December 13, when the people of Damazin, the capital of the Blue Nile state, organized over increases in food prices. In less than a week, the protests hit Atbara, a city in central Sudan, and the demands shifted from political change to regime-change.

The protests became highly organized. A body calling itself the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), a coalition of independent trade unions, issued a statement after the protests in Atbara and called for another in Khartoum on Christmas day. It then began issuing a weekly protest schedule that people followed by heart.

It came to be known as “the schedule” and we basically planned our life around it.

This was the beginning of the end for our former embattled president, who ruled as more of a dictator for 30 years. Al-Bashir was notorious for the conflicts he waged all over the country and as a result was indicted on counts of genocide and war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

On April 11, after months of protests, my mother woke me up with the news that Al-Bashir might be driven out. He came to power when I was 29 days old, and on that morning in April, I stood there, a 29 year-old woman and a mother, reflecting on how much Al-Bashir’s brutal governance had impacted my life. I was exiled to Egypt with my family when I was one year old. A few months earlier, one of my father's friends was tortured to death by Al-Bashir’s government.

My fight against him was nothing short of personal. I threw on a dress, woke my daughter and packed her bag. We were out of the door in a matter of minutes, headed to the sit-in in front of the army headquarters in Khartoum where other protestors had been camped for five days.

A few minutes after we arrived, the army and supporters fired rounds of live ammunition. Feeling like a terrible mother for having my 10-month-old child in that environment, I cried quietly, hugging my daughter as we huddled low to the ground for cover.

Live ammunition has been the norm since December. The clampdown on protests has been brutal. Hundreds of protestors have been arrested and tortured—beaten and even subjected to sexual assault. More than 100 have been killed.

Al-Bashir’s fall in April, unfortunately, was not the end of our subjection to terror and corruption. He was succeeded by one of his close associates Ahmed Awad Ibn Ouf, who—in announcing Al-Bashir’s ousting and arrest—named himself the new leader.

Protests continued. And within 24 hours, Ibn Ouf delivered a brief goodbye speech. With a look of disgust, he announced that Abdelfatah Al-Burhan, the chief of the ground forces, would take over.

Al-Burhan selected a cabinet. Together they formed the TMC and announced their readiness to hand over power to a civilian-led government. People were wary and mistrusted the TMC; the dominant perspective was to continue the sit-in until the demand for civil rule was clearly met.

The plan was for the TMC to hand over power to the Forces for Freedom and Change, a newly formed coalition composed of the SPA, political parties, and civil forces that in early January had signed a declaration on Freedom and Change.

But then the TMC stalled, and engaged in futile rounds of negotiations with attempts to monopolize and consolidate power. It showed its true colors and terrorized the people of Sudan the same way Al-Bashir had.

By June 3, the TMC sent forces to attack the sit-in where protesters still refused to leave.

The sit-in was a beautiful landscape. Artists painted murals in all of its corners. Tents had been set up for protestors to sleep and eat. There was a noted coffee tent where people sipped on spiced coffee for free. Counselors were on stand-by to provide free therapy sessions, and the free health clinic worked around the clock. A classroom was built to teach street children who were no longer part of the formal educational system. People read at the open library and watched documentaries on the main screen. Musicians performed and politicians debated for the first time in their lives without persecution and arrest. The sit-in was a vibrant, creative and free space. It represented what we want Sudan to be and the freedom we’re fighting for.

The attack earlier this month began before sunrise and lasted well into the late afternoon.

One of my friends was violently beaten, and when he collapsed on the floor, the officers debated whether or not to kill him. People went missing for hours.

We might never know what really happened that day. We do know that 160 young men and women were killed, and dozens remain missing. We do know that dozens of women were raped—some gang-raped, targeted at the clinic area were activist women had congregated.

Hours into the attack, the TMC shut down the internet.

We didn’t have time to grieve, and we refused to surrender to military men who killed our brothers and sisters and attacked the hospitals to stop the injured receiving treatment.

We took to the streets again that same day and have refused to leave the streets.

The army leaders have interrupted internet signals, calling the internet a national threat. But we don’t need internet to organize.

We organize through neighborhood resistance committees that mobilize people, create and print fliers, distribute them, and go door to door to spread information. This type of grassroots infrastructure has been instrumental in planning for the global mass protests on June 30, in which the Sudanese people will be joined by protestors worldwide. They have enlisted the help of activists in the international community to stand with them in solidarity. The hashtag, #SudanUprising, will be used for all tweets in support of the liberation of Sudanese people.

The protests will be dedicated to the Sudanese people who were killed on June 3. They will strengthen the demand for the TMC to hand over power to a civilian-led government.

In Sudan, the momentum has been sustained for the past six months because we believe in democracy. We deserve democracy. Too many lives have been lost for us to give up hope now.

We’re prevented from being online; we cannot connect to the world through social media. But we ask that the world be our voice.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
There's a New EPA Air Sheriff in Town, and She's Got a Shaky Grasp on Climate Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50776"><span class="small">Naveena Sadasivam, Grist </span></a>   
Sunday, 30 June 2019 13:17

Sadasivam writes: "Out with one EPA official with close ties to big polluters, in with Anne Idsal, a little-known, politically connected Texan with a shaky grasp on climate science."

Sadasivam writes:
Sadasivam writes: "Out with one EPA official with close ties to big polluters, in with Anne Idsal, a little-known, politically connected Texan with a shaky grasp on climate science." (photo: Grist/EPA)


There's a New EPA Air Sheriff in Town, and She's Got a Shaky Grasp on Climate

By Naveena Sadasivam, Grist

30 June 19

 

ut with one EPA official with close ties to big polluters, in with Anne Idsal, a little-known, politically connected Texan with a shaky grasp on climate science.

Bill Wehrum, the EPA’s top air quality official who helped roll back Obama-era rules, announced earlier this week that he would step down amid an ethics investigation into his ties to former clients the agency regulates. The move has opened up a spot for Idsal, who has been serving as principal deputy assistant administrator in the agency’s Office of Air and Radiation and reporting to Wehrum.

The office is a powerful part of the EPA, responsible for administering the Clean Air Act and overseeing regulations over air pollution. Historically, the office has been responsible for some of the country’s most ambitious efforts to clean up the air. But under the Trump administration, the department has taken a more business-friendly approach. Wehrum has led the charge on halting improvements to automobile efficiency standards and repealing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a policy to cut emissions from coal plants.

As interim director, Idsal will be responsible for continuing that work. The office recently replaced the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which loosens emissions regulations (and is sure to face legal challenges). California and 16 other states have also sued the agency over its rollback of fuel efficiency standards.

Idsal’s past statements suggest she’s likely to fall in line with Trump’s deregulatory agenda. When she was first appointed EPA Region 6 administrator in 2017, she told the Texas Observer that she wasn’t sure people had any effect on the climate. After all, the “climate has been changing since the dawn of time, well before humans ever inhabited the Earth.”

“I think it’s possible that humans have some type of impact on climate change,” she said. “I just don’t know the extent of that.”

Idsal hails from a politically well-connected family. Her grandmother, Anne Armstrong, served as an ambassador to the United Kingdom during the Ford administration, and her mother, Katharine Armstrong, was appointed by then-Governor George W. Bush to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. Her family owns the Armstrong ranch where Vice President Dick Cheney shot an acquaintance, Harry Whittington, during a “canned hunt” of ring-necked pheasants.

Those connections came in handy back in 2014 when George P. Bush, son of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, was elected to the General Land Office, a Texas agency that manages the state’s vast oil and gas resources. Bush cleared house a few months after he came into office, firing or forcing out 11 top staffers after claiming the agency faced “threat[s]…internally.”

According to the Houston Chronicle, Bush also hired 29 people who had either worked on his campaign or had political connections without posting many of the jobs publicly. Idsal was one of them. Just five years out of law school, Idsal took the job of general counsel for the Land Office, and was quickly promoted to Chief Clerk, the second-highest job in the office.

About three years later, she joined the Trump administration as head of EPA’s Region 6 office, which oversees Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and 66 tribal nations. During her time as administrator, Idsal frequently met with members of the oil and gas industry. Travel vouchers from last year show that Idsal flew to attend meetings and luncheons with the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Louisiana Chemical Association. She also toured an Exxon Mobil facility and spoke at a conference organized by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Association, the quasi-governmental organization that succeeded in securing an exemption for fracking from clean water rules.

As Region 6 administrator, Idsal signed recusal statements agreeing not to participate in her “family’s closely-held corporation,” Idsal Family Properties Management, from which she expects to receive “passive income.” She also recused herself from working on matters related to Texas’ regional haze program as well as its plan to manage sulfur dioxide levels in the air, because she previously worked on those issues on behalf of the state.

If Trump decides to appoint her permanently to the role, Idsal will have to get confirmed by the Senate. Unlike Wehrum, an industry lawyer and lobbyist who was narrowly confirmed after extensive grilling, Idsal’s government work likely means she’ll face less scrutiny.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: History Has Taught Us That Concentration Camps Should Be Liberated. We Can't Wait Until 2020. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48257"><span class="small">Shaun King, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 30 June 2019 12:03

King writes: "'Yes, we do have concentration camps,' began the stinging critique of the Trump administration's immigration detention facilities. It was written earlier this week by the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune, in the reliably conservative state of Utah."

A holding facility for children detained at the US-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona. (photo: Ross D. Franklin/Pool Photo)
A holding facility for children detained at the US-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona. (photo: Ross D. Franklin/Pool Photo)


History Has Taught Us That Concentration Camps Should Be Liberated. We Can't Wait Until 2020.

By Shaun King, The Intercept

30 June 19

 

es, we do have concentration camps,” began the stinging critique of the Trump administration’s immigration detention facilities. It was written earlier this week by the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune, in the reliably conservative state of Utah.

Andrea Pitzer, author of the definitive book on the global history of concentration camps, agrees. So do people who were once forced to live in another era’s concentration camps.

But amid the debate about what to call immigration detention facilities, few people have disputed the truly terrible conditions that exist within them. Migrants have long reported awful experiences in immigration custody, but in recent months, an increase in the number of people, especially families and children, crossing the border and being detained has led to severe overcrowding.

Dr. Dolly Lucio Sevier was granted access to a Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas, and wrote in her report about it that “the conditions within which they are held could be compared to torture facilities.” They “felt worse than jail.” The kids she examined were forced to endure “extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food.”

Over the past year, seven children have died in U.S. immigration custody or shortly after being released. These deaths occurred after 10 years during which not a single child died. Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told The Atlantic that the stench in some detention facilities is so horrible that it was hard for her to even have a focused conversation with the children. Babies didn’t have diapers. Young kids were forced to care for infants who they didn’t even know. Clothes were covered in snot and excrement. Baby bottles were used without being properly cleaned and sterilized. All of these conditions have created environments where sicknesses and diseases spread like wildfire. In one facility, lice spread from child to child, and when the children were forced to share “lice combs,” and one somehow got lost, dozens of kids were punished by having their bedding removed. They had to sleep on the cold concrete floor.

This is why we say that cruelty is the point. It’s not an accident. These systems are cruel by design. The idea is to make it miserable to deter people from coming to the U.S. These detention centers are reckless and dangerous.

As many have pointed out, we need to remember exactly how and why the teenage diarist Anne Frank actually died. She was not gassed to death in a Nazi death camp. Instead, she died of neglect, malnutrition, and disease. It’s believed that she and her sister Margot contracted and died from typhus. In December 1944, a minor miracle occurred when Nanette Blitz, a lifelong childhood friend and classmate of Anne’s, was transferred to the Bergen-Belsen camp where the Frank sisters were being held.

“She was no more than a skeleton by then,” Blitz recalled. “She was wrapped in a blanket; she couldn’t bear to wear her clothes anymore because they were crawling with lice.” Guess what? Lice are the primary carriers of typhus. That’s how the disease spread.

And right now, today, we have prison camps across the United States where the same thing is happening. Multiple reports state that emergency conditions are repeatedly ignored until they result in death. The adults and children in these camp aren’t accused of being a danger to society. They haven’t been charged with violent crimes. Yet they are clearly being punished in the most severe ways.

Here’s where I am. If we have doctors, historians, and leading congresspeople calling these facilities “torture facilities” and “concentration camps,” and we all see the deaths piling up, and the conditions growing perilous, the question becomes: What exactly are we going to do about it?

For all the years that we’ve read and heard about concentration camps in other countries under other regimes, I don’t think many of us fully considered what we would do if such camps were built and operated in our nation, by our government, on our watch, on our dime. But that’s exactly where we are right now.

I swear, I am not trying to be inflammatory. I don’t mean this as a threat of violence or physical force, but I thought that concentration camps were supposed to be liberated. I thought that kids being held against their will in such atrocious conditions were supposed to be rescued. I don’t know what that kind of rescue would look like in present-day terms, but I know this much: My soul is uncomfortable with where we are.

It seems like our game plan is to focus on defeating Trump, and in the meantime, sue the administration until it incrementally agrees to start allowing kids to brush their teeth or wash their hands with soap. It just doesn’t seem to be enough. What if Trump wins again? Is our game plan then to wait four more years to hope we end these monstrous camps? Even if a Democrat wins, pledging to improve conditions, how can we hold them to account and demand that migrants be freed?

I always wondered how concentration camps lasted for so many years during the Holocaust, but now that we have our own, I see how. It’s a mix of fear, indifference, and lack of political will. We see the consequences of doing nothing, but it seems as though we’ve put all of our eggs into the basket of a far-off election. And I just don’t feel good about it.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Will the Media Help Re-Elect Trump? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51074"><span class="small">Alexander Heffner, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Sunday, 30 June 2019 10:53

Heffner writes: "In scrutinizing the Democratic candidates for president, the debate moderators largely restrained themselves from Trumpian fictional frames and themes, whether they are 'walls,' 'caravans,' 'spying,' or even his fantasy about challenging the constitutional law of impeachment."

A Make America Great Again rally in Pennsylvania in August 2018. (photo: Rick Loomis/Getty)
A Make America Great Again rally in Pennsylvania in August 2018. (photo: Rick Loomis/Getty)


Will the Media Help Re-Elect Trump?

By Alexander Heffner, The Daily Beast

30 June 19


In 2016, all that free air time, and not calling a lie a lie, tilted the scales. Are we looking at a repeat performance?

n scrutinizing the Democratic candidates for president, the debate moderators largely restrained themselves from Trumpian fictional frames and themes, whether they are “walls,” “caravans,” “spying,” or even his fantasy about challenging the constitutional law of impeachment. The result was Drudge’s first post-debate headline: THEY IGNORE TRUMP!

Instead, the candidates expounded on reality—American economic immobility, the continued health care crisis, and the climate emergency. If journalists ask questions based on the truth, it will also expose the president’s exploitation of bigotry instead of helping to spread his lies.

This doesn’t come naturally to the media. Instead, they re-normalize a habitually deceitful president in return for the perception of access.

On last Sunday’s Meet the Press interview of President Trump, the first of his presidency, Chuck Todd replicated the approach of ABC’s 30 Hoursspecial, enabling Trump to volley back and forth disinformation, like “votes cast that I don’t believe,” and personal grievances—without any merit or real public policy discussion. “EXCLUSIVE: President Donald Trump tells @chucktodd that impeachment is ‘a very unfair thing,'” retweeted MSNBC. Erm... that’s not an exclusive.

In a climate in which he has bashed senselessly their hosts, ABC and NBC chose to invite Trump back to the mainstream and legitimize his hateful rhetoric. They seem intent on giving a platform to the only president to call journalists the enemy of the people (which alone makes Trump the most un-American, anti-constitutionalist president in U.S. history).

In Trump’s recent Time magazine cover interview, there was a revealing postscript: “There’s no question Trump has significant advantages as he looks ahead to the re-election fight, beginning with time and money and the biggest megaphone on the planet.” Yes, but the media makes the megaphone so. And it must not.

Some broadcasters are exhibiting more discretion, and the public shows signs of tuning Trump out. According to ratings, Celebrity Family Feudbested the recent ABC News interview special. But that won’t stop some programmers from trying to revive the circus of 2016 for new ratings heights, and Trump will continue to profit if the press amplifies rather than diminishes his pollution of the public square.

In seeking to reach beyond his base, Trump wants to expand anew his lies to a non-loyalist audience, entrap the press in false equivalencies, and replicate his incestuous mainstream coverage from 2016. As Lawrence O’Donnell commented recently about Trump surrogates on television, “I’ve never understood the value of putting someone on television to lie, knowing that they’re going to lie ahead of time, knowing that that is their deal: to lie ahead of time. That is their deal.”

Some in the press are easily sucked back into what we might call the presidential restraint narrative — the misguided idea that “Trump is coming to his senses.” First it was his decision to pause military engagement with Iran. Next, his decision to stop ICE raids to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman tweeted about Trump’s empowerment: “A source told me 30 minutes ago that [he] was pleased with his own performance last night, loved being in command by ordering the strikes and by then ordering the stand-down.” The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Bender added: “After 29 mos. in office, Trump repeatedly has shown that — contrary to his reputation in domestic politics — he’s much more cautious on military matters.”

“My message to the media: Be partisans for the truth.”

No, he confirmed his recklessness by making a public spectacle out a life-or-death decision. If this feels like déjà vu, it’s because it is. It wasn’t Fox News that was the sole Trump propaganda network in 2016 fueling inflammatory anti-immigrant bigotry. It was the chorus of news coverage, from network broadcasts to major newspapers, which parroted every faux Trump claim or outrage.

Yet again, the nation’s political journalists are gravitating to the stenography of Trump showmanship. The immediate headlines from the Florida re-election announcement mirrored this image: “POLITICO: Trump stages his greatest show yet: The president’s elaborate re-election rally in Florida featured thousands of adoring supporters. AP: Trump, in 2020 campaign mode, calls Democrats ‘radical.’"

Trump Suspends ICE Raids, Demands Swift Legislative Action

Now tell me how these headline chronicles differ from Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro’s takes: “This kind of enthusiasm has never been matched in American history... there is a chord that this man strikes in the American heart."

Political scientists observe how Trump “takes credit for resolving the crises he creates.” As University College London professor Brian Klass notes, it’s the case of “The Arsonist & the Firefighter. Step 1: Create a crisis. Step 2: ‘Solve’ it, by reverting to the status quo. Step 3: Claim victory. Step 4: Fox News & deluded sycophants claim he’s the greatest dealmaker ever.” Except it’s not just Fox News.

Even as Trump and his family bash them, some journalists will revert to a 2016 mentality of balancing lies and truth. My message to them: Don’t let Trump and his extremism drive your airwaves and molest us. Be partisans for the truth.

This isn’t a show; it’s our country. We must inform and protect it.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 Next > End >>

Page 843 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN