Thursday, December 3, 2020

While US media focuses on Trump's refusal to concede the election, the planet is experiencing its six warmest years in history


From The Week on 12/03/20

 U.N. chief: Report shows planet 'broken' by climate change

As the world's oceans heat up and long-frigid Siberia experiences triple-digit heat, 2020 is on track to be one of the three hottest years on record, according to the United Nations' State of the Climate report published Wednesday. "The state of the planet is broken," U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a speech at Columbia University. "Dear friends, humanity is waging war on nature. This is suicidal." The climate report, produced by the World Meteorological Organization and other U.N. agencies, concluded that 2020 and the five previous years will probably be the six warmest on record. This year could even beat out 2016 once December data is factored in and become the warmest on record. [The Washington Post]

Monday, November 30, 2020

The practice of touch in the days of telemedicine

The Practice of Touch

The pandemic has forced me to realize the value of touch and presence in my roles as a doctor and a father. Where I went to medical school, all students took a course called The Practice of Medicine. It wasn’t about anatomy or disease; instead it taught students how to approach patients and slowly introduce physical contact in order to perform a physical exam. Touch is an intimate contract between doctor and patient. It tells them what they feel in their bodies is real and can be examined, and it symbolizes their doctor’s commitment to helping them heal. When I was a resident on rotation in the intensive-care unit, I learned that even terminally ill patients felt reassured by daily examinations. Their families, too, found comfort in witnessing the ritual and the bond it created.

The Practice Of Touch by Timothy Gallagher, The Sun Magazine, December, 2020, pg. 21

As a psychotherapist when patients come to the office and I invite them into the consultation room, they want to shake my hand. I back up, bow, hands in a praying posture, and say quietly, “Namaste.” They then laugh, knowingly, and sometimes say “Namaste” back or also bow.

They then ask if they need to keep their mask on or if they can take it off. I say, “As long as we are six feet apart you can take it off. Would you like me to put one on?” They invariably take their mask off and say, “No, that’s okay.”

It is so good to see their full face and they are relieved to see mine even though we don’t touch by shaking hands. Psychotherapists usually don’t touch their clients anyway or if they do only with great circumspection and permission from the client.

I keep my window open a bit even when it’s cold out and run the electric heater. Ventilation gives me some sense of security..

Before COVID, when I came home from work, my two-year-old daughter would sometimes yell, “Papa!” and run and tackle me. These days I return home and go directly to the shower without hugging my eager daughter or touching anything. Physical touch is integral to her development: nestling into my side while drinking a bottle of milk or receiving kisses on her booboos. But now touch is also the feeling of my hands incessantly washing hers, and kissing with face masks on in public. There is a new absence of touch when I keep her six feet away from neighbors, when she has to play virtually with friends, and on video calls with Grammy. I wonder what touch will be like for her in a year, or when she is my age. How will this restraint from contact affect her sense of family and community? Ibid p .23

The big fear nowadays is what we might bring home from the outside or what might be brought home to us. Do these fears enhance our mindfulness and gratitude for the social connections we used to take for granted? Might these fears and precautions in the long run make us more appreciative and attentive? I value my time with my family and clients more. It seems more precious. Less like work, obligation, and responsibility and more like blessing.

I will never know if our physical contact helped Pamela heal. If I were her telemedicine doctor, I would have ordered the same tests: a CT scan of her head and face, to assess for internal bleeding, and an X-ray of her knee. The information I gathered would have been the same. Would the outcome have been any different? Ibid. p.23

I don’t know if the outcome would have been different but the experience is certainly different. The mirror neurons don’t fire the same with digital media as they do face to face. When prospective clients call for an appointment they always ask if I am seeing patients in the office. I say, “In the office, on the phone, and on Zoom whichever you prefer. So far 98 out of 100 want face to face. Many have told me they are “zoomed out.”

While the research is yet to be done, I am hypothesizing that there is a difference in outcome between telemedicine and the laying on of hands. The first is technical manipulation based on data accumulation, the second is healing. 

Healing, I am thinking, takes touch.

Sunday, November 29, 2020

New feature - Essays worth reading

 Essays worth reading.

Today there is a new feature on Markhams Slow News tagged “Essays worth reading.” A form of slow news is the essay which addresses a topic by contextualizing it and hopefully presenting ideas that are worth reflecting on and experimenting with.

Each description will contain a link to the original essay if available on line. Please comment as you are moved and share with others whom you believe might be interested.

Our Great Recognizing - Coming to terms with human supremacy on planet earth

Human supremacy

We are in the midst of the sixth extinction. It is estimated that we can lose 50 percent or more of the planet’s species in this century. Part of the reason for this rapid decline in the biodiversity on planet Earth is the overpopulation of homo sapiens who now number about 7.9 billion. The ideal number is about 2 billion according to Eileen Crist in the interview in the December, 2020 issue of the Sun Magazine entitled, “Our Great Reckoning.”

How does homo sapiens awaken from the trance of human supremacy? Human supremacy is enacted in two primary ways: the geographical takeover of the space on the planet and the disparagement of any species nonhuman and inert substances which make up the planet.

We need to recognize that homo sapiens is part of an interdependent web of existence of which we are just a tiny part. We must learn to respect this interdependent web and live in harmony with it, not dominate it and plunder it for our own selfish satisfaction.

Our Great Reckoning is an interview well worth reading and should be required of all literate people on the planet.

Seeing the forest instead of just the trees. Stop watching cable news and read a book.

The same is true of social media. What starts as a couple of bullies spewing hate speech at a distance gets pushed by algorithms to the top of our Facebook and Twitter feeds. It’s by tapping into our negativity bias that these digital platforms make their money, turning higher profits the worse people behave. Because bad behaviour grabs our attention, it’s what generates the most clicks, and where we click the advertising dollars follow.17 This has turned social media into systems that amplify our worst qualities.


Bregman, Rutger. Humankind (p. 392). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition. 


My rule of thumb? I have several: steer clear of television news and push notifications and instead read a more nuanced Sunday paper and in-depth feature writing, whether online or off. Disengage from your screen and meet real people in the flesh. Think as carefully about what information you feed your mind as you do about the food you feed your body.


Bregman, Rutger. Humankind (p. 392). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition. 


The old journalistic slogan is “If it bleeds. It leads.” Johnny Winter’s great song, “Bad news travels like wildfire. Good news travels slow.” We are like the audiences at WWE wrestling evens or the crowds in the gladiator shows in the Roman Colosseum. Who doesn’t rubber neck at the scene of a crash?


The amygdala gets fired up at the first whiff of a threat and it's as if we can’t help ourselves. The prefrontal cortex, reason, was a later development in brain functioning. It takes training to make it master instead of the amygdala. What runs your life: your amygdala or your prefrontal cortex?

To engage the prefrontal cortex, the person must back off, stand down, get the situation into perspective by taking emotional distance. This is what Slow News attempts to do - pull back from the immediate to see the forest instead of just the trees.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

Q & A What do you think about our criminal justice system?

Question: What do you think about our criminal justice system?

Answer: Retributive justice and restorative justice are two very different things. 

Retributive justice is about blame, guilt and punishment. 

Restorative justice is about acknowledgement, responsibility, and accountability.

We would have a much better society if we shifted from the adversarial, retributive criminal justice system we now have to a restorative justice system which is about responsibility and accountability.


Sunday, October 4, 2020

The Pernicious Contagion Of Misinformation


False statements — about Covid-19 and so much else — spread like a virus online. Scientists should study them like one.


You’ve heard the claims. Hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure for the Covid-19 virus. Wearing a mask is bad for you. Vaccines cause autism. Left-wing arsonists are responsible for the fires in California.

The Internet is full of misinformation — that is, inaccurate statements — including the sinister, intentionally misleading subset known as disinformation. Both are spreading, a contagion that imperils society just as surely as the coronavirus itself. Those who spread it run the gamut of society; a new study by Cornell University researchers concludes that President Trump has been the leading source of Covid-19 misinformation reported by news media, who often repeat the information “without question or correction.”

Scientists can approach the social disease of misinformation the same way they address real, biological diseases, say experimental psychologist Briony Swire-Thompson and political scientist David Lazer of Northeastern University. Writing in the 2020 Annual Review of Public Health, they explore questions of exposure, susceptibility and transmission of health-related misinformation.

Swire-Thompson spoke with Knowable Magazine about what we can learn from taking an epidemiological approach to misinformation. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What do you mean by an epidemiological approach to misinformation?

The epidemiological approach is really just looking at how and why information spreads between people in a network. That’s very different from the individual approach that I’m used to in the experimental world, where you manipulate various conditions and see what the outcome is. Ideally, you need both.

Where does most online misinformation spread?

Much of this research is yet to be done. At the moment, a lot of the academic research on misinformation and disinformation is done using Twitter. It’s easier, because there’s more data-sharing between Twitter and the academic community than for other platforms like Facebook or Instagram. It’s also easier because of issues around privacy. When you tweet, you put it out there in public. But social media like Facebook and WhatsApp are private, so access is more complicated, as it should be with privacy concerns. It means that less research has been done on a lot of these platforms.

What do you know so far about who spreads misinformation?

One study by other researchers found that older adults — people over the age of 65 — are seven times more likely to share fake news as people 18 to 29. So older adults could potentially be spreading misinformation more often. We found the same trend in our own studies of fake news during the 2016 US election. We did see, too, that people who are very politically engaged are more likely to view and share political fake news.

But it’s a big problem that a lot of these studies have been done exclusively with political misinformation. We don’t know if that generalizes to other subjects like health. Health misinformation is very understudied.

The really surprising finding with our study, though, was the concentration. We had a sample of 16,000 people, and found that there were 16 individuals sharing 80 percent of the fake news, which is extraordinary. They’re superspreaders, just like with Covid-19. They were tweeting 71 times per day as compared to the median person, who tweeted 0.1 times per day. We assume they had automation tools that helped them retweet or reshare content.

That suggests those people are very important in the misinformation ecosystem. What do we know about them?

Very little. Twelve of them were females, but that is something I don’t believe will replicate in a larger sample. This is the big problem: You can’t really say much from only 16 individuals. We’re hopefully going to look at this with a much larger sample, and then we can make some generalizations about basic demographics like their age and political orientation.

What about bots? Are they doing most of the spreading, or is it coming from real people?

In our study, we linked voter registration data to Twitter handles to be sure they are real people. But even if bots are tweeting some of the misinformation, the question is, what influence are they having on real people? It’s unlikely that they have as much impact on people’s beliefs as some think, because they’re not as embedded in human social networks. Also, the trustworthiness of the source is really important, and we’re more likely to believe information from friends and family than from unknown accounts. However, the true impact of bots is still under debate.

What does this tell us about the virality of misinformation?

We often think of virality as one person shares information to another who shares it to another, and so forth. That’s compared to a broadcast where one person or a media outlet with lots of followers shares the information, and it gets very, very popular due to just one broadcast. It still gets seen by many people, but how that happens is different.

One recent paper found it was more likely that information was being broadcast than spread through true virality. That’s an interesting study, because it shows that people who have large numbers of followers probably have more responsibility to be sure that what they share is accurate. But that study was done with information in general, not misinformation.

A different paper found that false information spread faster, further and deeper than true information — but this was observational, not experimental, so we still don’t know why. The authors proposed that it was due to the information being novel and inspiring fear, disgust, and surprise. It had this emotional component, they proposed, that was behind the higher spread.

But these are still early days. Surprisingly early days, in this field.

On the other side of the contagion, who is most likely to receive online misinformation?

We found there was a very similar pattern as for sharing. Again, it was older adults. I think that on both the sharing and the exposure end, they could be a group we want to check in on to see if they’re believing this information. They might be fine. People might be, like, “I know that’s false. It’s just funny.” So we should check.

People on the political right both share and view more. While conservatives and liberals share the same proportion of misinformation that they view, conservatives are sharing more because they are exposed to more misinformation in their social media ecosystem.

What can we do to reduce the spread of misinformation?

There is a lot that we all can do to reduce the spread of misinformation online. Simple measures like correcting misinformation if we see our friends and family sharing it can go a long way. Also, taking a bit more time to read an article and to consider whether it is true prior to sharing, and being more conscious about who we friend or follow online, can be considered good practice.

Does it help or hurt to correct misinformation?

Scientists used to be concerned about a phenomenon called the backfire effect, where you try and correct the information and it has the opposite effect: People increase their belief instead of reducing it. I think many people became quite afraid of correcting, and they preferred to just let the misinformation sit out there.

People thought the backfire effect was due to two things: One, if the information was connected to people’s sense of identity, when the correction occurred they were more likely to dig in their heels. Two, the effect of information repetition: I have to repeat the misinformation to correct it, and this familiarity makes people think the information is more true.

I’ve done research on both, and we have found there’s very little evidence for either. We haven’t been able to replicate the findings that showed these things, even using the exact same items. And it isn’t just my work. We came to the conclusion that the backfire effect is not widespread. I think it’s now safe to say corrections work.

Even for Covid-19-related misinformation?

It is a bit of a perfect storm these days in the pandemic. In the correction world, the best response we have is to tell people what the true information is. But for Covid-19 we can’t say what is true yet, in many areas, because it takes such a long time for science to establish the facts. It’s like we’re fighting with our hands tied behind our back.

Are there differences in how people respond when misinformation is corrected?

I’ve done only one study on this, looking at whether people in different cultures process information differently. And we found a big difference between people in the USA and Australia. We were looking at when misinformation from people’s favored politicians was corrected. In both the US and Australia, people did a great job of decreasing their belief in the misinformation. That was really positive, an encouraging finding.

But while people in the US reduced their belief in the misinformation itself, it didn’t change the way they were going to vote, on the left or the right. In Australia, we found that the correction greatly impacted people’s feelings and their voting intentions toward these political figures. That could be because Australia is less polarized. But the fact that we found a difference in something like that highlights the importance of doing misinformation studies in different locations and on different topics, because I don’t think we know where findings are going to be replicable and where they’re not.

What do we still have to learn?

A lot of these questions — who’s susceptible to misinformation, who’s spreading it and for what reasons, who’s predisposed — have very unsatisfying answers right now. My partner does vision science. I’m always super-jealous, because how people see has been studied for at least a hundred years. For misinformation, we’re still trying to establish the basics, in terms of who and when. But I think these are the exact kind of things we need to know to be able to build this model of epidemiology.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

Knowable Magazine | Annual Reviews

Michigan Attorney General, Dana Nestle, prosecutes Republican operatives who attempt to suppress minority vote in Michigan.

 Dana Nestle, Michigan Attorney General is interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show on 10/02/20 on MSNBC

Saturday, October 3, 2020

Republican voter suppression in Texas by Gov. Greg Abbot on 10/02/20


Are conspiracy theories like video games?

From Wired magazine October, 2020
 WHEN QANON EMERGED in 2017, the game designer Adrian Hon felt a shock of recognition.

QAnon, as you very likely know, is the right-wing conspiracy theory that revolves around a figure named Q. This supposedly high-ranking insider claims that the deep state—an alleged cabal led by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros and abetted by decadent celebrities—is running a global child-sex-trafficking ring and plotting a left-wing coup. Only Donald Trump heroically stands in the way.

It's nonsense, of course. But what intrigued Hon was the style of nonsense. It is addictively participatory. Whenever Q posts about the conspiracy, Q leaves cues - Q drops - on image boards like 8kun that are cryptic and open ended. 

MSN comments
Are conspiracy theories like video games and people are attracted to solving the crime/puzzle posed? Is it a case where virtual reality intersects with actual reality and game players have difficulty discriminating the difference? Are conspiracy theory game players delusional, i.e. insane when they no longer can tell the difference between reality and fiction? Remember the case of Edgar Maddison Welch who left his home  in Salisbury, North Carolina to go to Comet Ping Pong, a pizza restaurant in Washington, DC, which conspiracy theorists told him was the base of a pedophile ring organized and operated by Hillary Clinton in December of 2016?

Here is how the event was described in a Rolling Stone article about what happened.

Three days later, armed with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, a .38 handgun and a folding knife, he strolled into the restaurant and headed toward the back, where children were playing ping-pong. As waitstaff went table to table, whispering to customers to get out, Welch maneuvered into the restaurant’s kitchen. He shot open a lock and found cooking supplies. He whipped open another door and found an employee bringing in fresh pizza dough. Welch did not find any captive children – Comet Ping Pong does not even have a basement – but he did prove, if there were any lingering doubts after the election, that fake news has real consequences.

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Trump's strategy for re-election is fear mongering.

From The Conversations on 08/28/20 by Jennifer Mercieca:
Trump spoke in stark terms about the choice facing Americans in November. “This election will decide whether we will defend the American Way of Life, or whether we allow a radical movement to completely dismantle and destroy it,” he said.
And Trump promised to be the nation’s hero. He said that he would protect “the patriotic heroes who keep America safe,” while his opponents would “stand with anarchists, agitators, rioters, looters and flag-burners.”
He quoted one of his own memes, saying he is the only thing standing between vulnerable Americans and what he calls the nation’s dangerous enemies within. “Always remember,” he said, “they are coming after me, because I am fighting for you.”

Image posted on Donald Trump’s Twitter feed December 20, 2019.

Trump’s Republican nomination acceptance speech didn’t reach across the aisle to draw in the support of Democrats or Democrat-leaning Independents. It wasn’t a speech for all of America – it was a speech designed to appeal to Trump’s base and terrify them into voting for him. That’s authoritarian.

For more click here.

Monday, August 24, 2020

President Donald J. Trumps lies about the economy. What are the facts?

We all know by now that President Donald J. Trump is a pathological liar. The Washington Post as catalogued over 20,000 lies during his presidency. Currently, in the summer of 2020 Trump is lying about the economy. What are the facts?


Saturday, August 22, 2020

How to vote for candidates for governmental offices

This management tip of the day appeared yesterday, 08/21/20, on the Harvard Business Review's management tip of the day. It struck me as applying to candidates for governmental offices as much as for business leaders. Supposing voters took the same approach to selecting their candidates for their vote?
Today’s Tip 
Stop Promoting Incompetent Leaders
There are too many incompetent men in leadership positions — in large part because businesses tend to promote people on the basis of charisma, confidence, and even narcissism. Instead, companies should be putting people in charge who demonstrate competence, humility, and integrity. If you’re responsible for assessing leadership candidates, you should work on your ability to distinguish between confidence and competence. Remember that overconfidence is a natural result of privilege, which is often linked to gender. Fortunately, you can use scientifically valid assessments to measure the traits you want (or don’t want) in your leaders. You can ask company leaders, including emerging leaders, to take self-assessments, and then measure their responses against their leadership style, performance, and effectiveness. The resulting data will help identify patterns that characterize good and bad leaders at your company. Of course, this practice will take time and effort, and many organizations won’t want to invest those resources. But vetting candidates for leadership roles will pay dividends down the line.
This tip is adapted from How to Spot an Incompetent Leader,” by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Sunday, July 12, 2020

Profit for the few or the common good?

Tragedy of the Commons | Sustainable Environment Online

From "Meditations In An Emergency" by Asad Haider in the July, 2020 issue of The Baffler on page 6 :

THE WORLD, WE ARE TOLD, is in crisis. We hear of medical crisis, financial crisis, and crisis of leadership, suggesting that the scope of the term is almost unmanageably broad. Now these crises converge in the suspension of the everyday social order sparked by police violence and the uprisings against it. In these various converging crises, we are called upon to make decisions.

The thing to be understood is that these things are not "crises" in the sense of the unexpected or outside of human control. These crises have been human made right here in America. They are the result of deliberate and intentional policy crafted and implemented by and for the capitalistic ruling class for the purpose of financial profit. They are the consequence of the system which we all participate in most of us unconsciously.

Americans have be clear about their values. Do they prefer money and profit or the common welfare? As things are going, we can't have both.

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Corporate drive though coronavirus testing promised by President Trump is a failure

A federal COVID-19 drive-thru testing site in the parking lot of Walmart in North Lake, Ill., March 25 (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)
President Trump's plan to leave coronavirus testing to corporations with drive through testing didn't work out.
(CNN)As he was facing intense criticism for a lack of adequate testing, President Donald Trump announced in the Rose Garden in mid-March that the federal government would partner with private companies to set up drive-thru coronavirus testing sites.
He invited chief executives from Target, Walgreens, Walmart and CVS to the microphone and showered them with praise over the new effort. The President told attendees he envisioned consumers driving up, getting swabbed and having their samples sent off to the lab to be tested -- "without having to leave your car."
But the President's celebrated announcement hasn't come close to being fulfilled.
While these retailers have approximately 30,000 locations combined, the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that there are only five locations from these major retailers that are currently offering drive-thru testing -- and none are open to the general public.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Trumpism, Covid-19, and the failure of U.S. government to keep its citizens safe

The nation with the world’s highest Coronavirus death toll — where the first wave hasn’t even plateaued or slowed yet — reopening already. Seeing new spikes across half its states. What the?

America is about to show the world what a worst-case scenario for Coronavirus looks like.

The Trump administration has bungled Coronavirus unbelievably badly. Drinking bleach, it turns out, isn’t a cure. But it’s about to get so, so much worse.

For more click here.

Editor's note:

Michael Lewis wrote about "the fifth risk" in his book with the same name, The Fifth Risk, which was published in 2018. The five risks to national well being and safety are nuclear accident, nuclear war, failure of energy innovation, failure of electrical grid, and governmental incompetence and mismanagement. Americans have arrived at the point of failed government because of their inability to elect competent executives to management their government.

The cult of personality has taken precedence over competence in their selection criteria and the consequences are devastating for the quality of U.S. national well being.

Monday, June 15, 2020

Rebellion against Trumpism in the United States influenced by a perfect storm.

George Floyd death: Curfews and clashes in US as protests rage ...

On June 14, 2020 Chris Hedges interviewed Glen Ford about the protests in American streets since the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. When Chris asked Glen Ford about his understanding of why the American people are rising up with this particular killing of a black citizen Ford stated that four social conditions have come together at the same time in a perfect storm: the Covid-19 pandemic, economic melt down, the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign giving people hope in the realization of progressive ideas, and the authoritarian, white supremicist Trump presidency.

The police action and military action to quell the protests is the beginning of a fascist police state in the United States. Whether in Hong Kong, South America, North Korea, China, Russia, the 1% using police and military power to maintain power under the guise of "law and order" is a common governmental strategy. Whether the Trumpists can continue their take over and maintain control of the governmental apparatus remains to be seen.

Sunday, June 14, 2020

Health care companies and trade organizations spent $308 million on lobbying the federal government representatives in 2019

Health care interests spent hundreds of millions of dollars - Sep ...

According to The Week magazine issue on February 2, 2020, on page 36 referring to a report on, sixty health-care companies and trade organizations spent collectively $308 million on federal lobying in 2019 up 9% from 2018. The $308 million includes $120 million from the pharmaceuticals trade group PhRMA to pay 450 lobbyists.

Trump administtation attempted to disenroll over 700,000 Americans from Food Stamps on 04/01/20 but was blocked by Federal Court injunction

On Friday, March 13, 2020, Federal Judge Beryl Howell granted a preliminary injunction on new rules that would raise the bar for able-bodied adults' SNAP benefits. Under the Trump administration proposed regulations over 700,000 Americans would have lost their food stamps.


Saturday, June 13, 2020

The 1033 LEA program giving surplus military equipment to police leads to more police violence.

Click to enlarge

In 1996, under the National Defense Authorization Act, President Clinton signed into law the expanded 1033 Program, which gave surplus military equipment to police deparments across the United States.

After 24 years having this military equipment has contributed to more police violence against American citizens.

This 1033 program has been referred to as "the militarization of police." Increasingly, citizens are calling for an end to this program and demilitarization of police departments.

For more click here.

What do Americans think about abortion?

From the Washington Post on 01/22/20

A majority of Americans (59 percent) said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and about 7 in 10 said that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, according to the survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Those figures have remained relatively stable through decades of debates and protests. Likewise, the poll found the public overwhelmingly believes abortion should be legal if the patient’s life is endangered (82 percent) and in the case of rape or incest (80 percent). Seventy-nine percent believe the decision is best made by women themselves in consultation with their doctors, rather than by lawmakers.

Editor's note:

Attitudes and opinions vary between Blue and Red states. Republicans restirct abortion access while Democrats want the decision to be the pregnant woman's choice.

If Roe vs. Wade were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the legality of abortion would then revert to each state. In New York State abortion is legal under state law and a reversal of Roe vs. Wade at the Federal level would not change that.

A woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy would be a state's rights matter. Some states respect the women's rights to choose while some states deny her that right.

Friday, June 12, 2020

Does your state have a clean slate law? If not do you believe it should?

Clean Slate - Senator Sharif Street

Did you ever hear of the "clean slate law?"

About 1 out of 3 Americans has a criminal record which impacts many areas of their lives such as were they live, ability to get school loans, ability to get a job.

Pennsylvania enacted in 2018 that automatically seals any arrest record that does not lead to conviction if the person stays crime-free for ten years.

Should other states enact similar legislation? Before you vote this fall find out where your representatives stand on this issue.

For more click here.